4 ms·

Is anyone qualified to weigh in on the academic robustness of this? I only scanned a few bits but I was surprised to see statements like "the male skeleton had

Is anyone qualified to weigh in on the academic robustness of this? 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? 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"...) Is this legit research?

PaulRobinson 2y ago
Not an academic, not an expert, but... The history of the elites in this period is quite well documented from multiple sources. There are some minor royals - third and fourth sons - where little is known other than some titles and lands granted, but the historical record is both comprehensive and considered accurate, particularly for those whose stories were quite shocking like the 7th wife of Philip II (Cleopatra Eurydice, the young woman whose remains are being discussed), whose death may have been suicide, or a murder made to look like suicide... The thread they're pulling on seems to start here, from the paper: > There is a unanimous agreement that Tomb III belongs to King Alexander IV, the son of the Great Alexander. This is important because it shows that the Great Tumulus belongs mainly to the Kings of the Argead dynasty, and this contributes significantly to the identification of Tombs I and II as belonging to either Philip II or Arrhidaeus If accept that unanimous agreement is well-founded, and it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Tomb III belongs to the son of the Great Alexander, then it seems very likely that Tombs I and II must belong to Philip II or Arrhidaeus. The paper seems to then try and work out which one belongs to who. Now you look through the historical record of each, and you identify that there are multiple sources indicating that Philip had a young wife (Cleopatra Eurydice), who had a young son who was murdered [1]. Then you find a tomb that along with a male, has a younger female with an infant son interred. There is no other known tomb that contains similar remains. That matches Philip II, but does not match Arrhidaeus. You then look at the other tomb, and realise those remains better matches Arrhidaeus. This is not proof in a scientific sense, it's not irrefutable, but you have to ask if the young woman and infant are not Cleopatra Eurydice and her son Caranus, who exactly are they? Which other persons match the known historical records? If they're people from outside of the known record, just how likely is it that they would be buried in this specific context of a tomb neighboring Alexander IV? Unless you then want to unpick that assumption of Alexander IV of course, which you're entitled to do, but you're now pushing back against a collective assumption with some significant weight (and I presume, evidence), behind it. The rest of the paper starts to pull at the logic of other papers published over the last 60 years or so to help develop the case further, but in reality without some better science that seems absent (radio carbon dating, DNA analysis to show familial relationships of remains, and so on), it might be hard to get it over the line from "seems very likely to be the best explanation given what we know today" into "almost impossible to be explained any other way". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Eurydice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Eurydice
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  And if someone thinks this guy is wrong, then they can write an article with their opposing evidence and interpretations. And that’s how we do science.
  - toyg 2y ago
    Among humanist sciences, history is probably the most satisfying one for geeks, because there is a concept of truth that, once established, is almost as indisputable as a law of nature. We know Julius Caesar was publicly stabbed by multiple people - that is a fact. You can argue about killers' identities, location, motives, repercussions, etc etc, but nobody can realistically deny that it happened without an even stronger theory of how to make all sources consistent.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I think you mean "mathematical sense" as proofs are deductive implications (apriori). Science, an abductive and empirical practice (posteriori) does not have proofs either.
sgc 2y ago
Apologies for the long response. I am only partially qualified in that I am not a professional archeologist, but I have done post-doctoral archeological studies and have read enough archeological studies to understand the larger academic context. It is not possible to present all the data informing a judgment in such a short work. Even in a book, it would not be possible. Thus it is common in archeology for papers to be written as part of an ongoing conversation / debate with the community - which would be defined as the small handful of other archeologists doing serious research on the same specific subject matter. Part of that context here is that these tombs are well-established to be the royal tombs of Alexander's family, spanning a few generations including his father and his son. This is one of the most heavily studied sites in Greece for obvious reasons, and that is not something anybody is trying to prove. In that context, his arguments are trying to identify any body as one among millions, but as one among a small handful of under ten possibilities. At the same time, the fact that he is not a native English speaker and general archeological style come into play. For example: "the painter must have watched a Persian gazelle in Persia, since he painted it so naturalistically (contra Brecoulaki Citation2006). So the painter of Tomb II has to be Philoxenus of Eretria" sounds like a massive leap, and it is. He continues: "... Tomb I (Tomb of Persephone) must have been painted hastily by Nicomachus of Thebes (Andronikos Citation1984; Borza Citation1987; Brecoulaki et al. Citation2023, 100), who was a very fast painter (Saatsoglou-Paliadeli Citation2011, 286) and was famous for painting the Rape of Persephone (Pliny, N. H. 35.108–109), perhaps that of Tomb I." Another huge leap, both 'presented as conclusions'. However he then continues to indicate these are just hypotheses: "These hypotheses are consistent with the dates of the tombs..." So his English language use of presenting things factually does not indicate certainty in the way the words would be used in everyday speech. He seems to perhaps misunderstand the force of the terms, but also appears to be working within the context of the conversation with other archeologists I mentioned to start: They all know every affirmation is as "probably", rarely anything more. So it is relatively common shorthand of the craft in that sense. I believe you are overthinking his responses to other authors, although I understand the culture shock. It is an ongoing conversation and archeologists tend to be blunt in their assessments. Add Greek bluntness on top of this, and it does not seem to matter to the material. As to your last question, is this legitimate research? The answer overall appears to be yes, although I could see several points (such as the identification of artists I quoted above, and various items I noticed), which I would never have put into ink the way he did. Still, most of his arguments are compelling. It is a shame that the aggressiveness of a few affirmations detract from the overall value of his work. Archeology is not code nor is it physics. It does not pursue universal truths that are more easy to verify through repeated experiments, but unique historical ones which necessarily attempt to interweave physical details and ancient historical records. Each field has its own level of certainty, and the fact that we cannot establish these details with the same certainty as we can establish the chemical formula for water does not make them useless, or pure inventions. Far from it.
hammock 2y ago
Honestly seems about as robust as any other ancient history (not including pre-history). Herculaneum. Or great civilizations of the Americas. Or art “restoration.” Or “early music” performance There is what we know, what we think we know, what we think and don’t know, and what we don’t know. And the size of those is in exponential ascending order None of this is to denigrate the robust and important work of historians and adjacent fields. It’s just the reality
verisimi 2y ago
> Put 2 and 2 together and come up with Cleopatra? This is exactly the problem. History is built on stories, it's just story upon story. Licensed historians are able to augment the existing history. The stories need have nothing to do with the truth of whatever might (or might not) have happened. Whenever you try to find the sources for this or that claim, it is impossible to do so, especially with anything ancient. When I have tried to do so, I come away feeling extremely dissatisfied, and in disagreement with whatever conclusions are being presented as fact. In every single case. To see what I mean, here is a link to some previous research I undertook on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37927639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37927639
- olddustytrail 2y ago
  > So we only have 9 fragments from before 1900 What exactly did you mean by this? Because it surely can't be what it sounds like...
  - marc_abonce 2y ago
    Based on the Wikipedia article linked in that comment, it refers to papyrus fragments specifically, the most recent one being from aprox. the IXth century. [1] More recent texts were copied into more durable materials: > By the beginning of the fourth century A.D., the most important books began to be manufactured in parchment, and works worth preserving were transferred from papyrus to parchment. [2] By the way, I don't know enough about history or archaeology to agree or disagree with the comment, I just looked up the sources because I was also confused by the phrasing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History
Mistletoe 2y ago
Didn’t Cleopatra die at 39 years old? Your comment confuses me.
- arketyp 2y ago
  Different Cleopatra
- gavindean90 2y ago
  There were a lot of Cleopatras so this may be a different, less famous one.
- sophacles 2y ago
  Didn't John die in infancy? How can this gravestone say John died at 73?
- verisimi 2y ago
  This is the Cleopatra that was also known as 'Clee'. Different to 'Patty', 'Cleo' or 'Trish'. All of whom were the most beautiful woman in the world in their time :)
- fsckboy 2y ago
  according to wikip, the famous one was Cleopatra VII
pm3003 2y ago
Yes, in particular the points you cite have been widely discussed since the late 70s. The 'proofs' in question are not absolute mathematical proofs but strong hints around which cases have been made including a lot of elements. The cases are not that clearly cut,and there is not a lot of positive evidence for one thesis or the other but the phrasing here is good approximation. The research appears serious, but at first sight it doesn't seem to disprove any of the dominant thesis around Vergina. The question "who is in tomb II?" is still open. Though recent research has provided evidence against the occupant being Philip II (and being rather Philip III) there is still a good deal of evidence "for" Philip II. The case (for Philip II) made at the (very impressive) exhibition at the Vergina museum is well explained. The case for Cleopatra is even more tenuous but also very well explained.

PaulRobinson 2y ago

Not an academic, not an expert, but... The history of the elites in this period is quite well documented from multiple sources. There are some minor royals - third and fourth sons - where little is known other than some titles and lands granted, but the historical record is both comprehensive and considered accurate, particularly for those whose stories were quite shocking like the 7th wife of Philip II (Cleopatra Eurydice, the young woman whose remains are being discussed), whose death may have been suicide, or a murder made to look like suicide... The thread they're pulling on seems to start here, from the paper: > There is a unanimous agreement that Tomb III belongs to King Alexander IV, the son of the Great Alexander. This is important because it shows that the Great Tumulus belongs mainly to the Kings of the Argead dynasty, and this contributes significantly to the identification of Tombs I and II as belonging to either Philip II or Arrhidaeus If accept that unanimous agreement is well-founded, and it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Tomb III belongs to the son of the Great Alexander, then it seems very likely that Tombs I and II must belong to Philip II or Arrhidaeus. The paper seems to then try and work out which one belongs to who. Now you look through the historical record of each, and you identify that there are multiple sources indicating that Philip had a young wife (Cleopatra Eurydice), who had a young son who was murdered [1]. Then you find a tomb that along with a male, has a younger female with an infant son interred. There is no other known tomb that contains similar remains. That matches Philip II, but does not match Arrhidaeus. You then look at the other tomb, and realise those remains better matches Arrhidaeus. This is not proof in a scientific sense, it's not irrefutable, but you have to ask if the young woman and infant are not Cleopatra Eurydice and her son Caranus, who exactly are they? Which other persons match the known historical records? If they're people from outside of the known record, just how likely is it that they would be buried in this specific context of a tomb neighboring Alexander IV? Unless you then want to unpick that assumption of Alexander IV of course, which you're entitled to do, but you're now pushing back against a collective assumption with some significant weight (and I presume, evidence), behind it. The rest of the paper starts to pull at the logic of other papers published over the last 60 years or so to help develop the case further, but in reality without some better science that seems absent (radio carbon dating, DNA analysis to show familial relationships of remains, and so on), it might be hard to get it over the line from "seems very likely to be the best explanation given what we know today" into "almost impossible to be explained any other way". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Eurydice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Eurydice

dr_dshiv 2y ago
And if someone thinks this guy is wrong, then they can write an article with their opposing evidence and interpretations. And that’s how we do science.
- toyg 2y ago
  Among humanist sciences, history is probably the most satisfying one for geeks, because there is a concept of truth that, once established, is almost as indisputable as a law of nature. We know Julius Caesar was publicly stabbed by multiple people - that is a fact. You can argue about killers' identities, location, motives, repercussions, etc etc, but nobody can realistically deny that it happened without an even stronger theory of how to make all sources consistent.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
I think you mean "mathematical sense" as proofs are deductive implications (apriori). Science, an abductive and empirical practice (posteriori) does not have proofs either.

sgc 2y ago

Apologies for the long response. I am only partially qualified in that I am not a professional archeologist, but I have done post-doctoral archeological studies and have read enough archeological studies to understand the larger academic context. It is not possible to present all the data informing a judgment in such a short work. Even in a book, it would not be possible. Thus it is common in archeology for papers to be written as part of an ongoing conversation / debate with the community - which would be defined as the small handful of other archeologists doing serious research on the same specific subject matter. Part of that context here is that these tombs are well-established to be the royal tombs of Alexander's family, spanning a few generations including his father and his son. This is one of the most heavily studied sites in Greece for obvious reasons, and that is not something anybody is trying to prove. In that context, his arguments are trying to identify any body as one among millions, but as one among a small handful of under ten possibilities. At the same time, the fact that he is not a native English speaker and general archeological style come into play. For example: "the painter must have watched a Persian gazelle in Persia, since he painted it so naturalistically (contra Brecoulaki Citation2006). So the painter of Tomb II has to be Philoxenus of Eretria" sounds like a massive leap, and it is. He continues: "... Tomb I (Tomb of Persephone) must have been painted hastily by Nicomachus of Thebes (Andronikos Citation1984; Borza Citation1987; Brecoulaki et al. Citation2023, 100), who was a very fast painter (Saatsoglou-Paliadeli Citation2011, 286) and was famous for painting the Rape of Persephone (Pliny, N. H. 35.108–109), perhaps that of Tomb I." Another huge leap, both 'presented as conclusions'. However he then continues to indicate these are just hypotheses: "These hypotheses are consistent with the dates of the tombs..." So his English language use of presenting things factually does not indicate certainty in the way the words would be used in everyday speech. He seems to perhaps misunderstand the force of the terms, but also appears to be working within the context of the conversation with other archeologists I mentioned to start: They all know every affirmation is as "probably", rarely anything more. So it is relatively common shorthand of the craft in that sense. I believe you are overthinking his responses to other authors, although I understand the culture shock. It is an ongoing conversation and archeologists tend to be blunt in their assessments. Add Greek bluntness on top of this, and it does not seem to matter to the material. As to your last question, is this legitimate research? The answer overall appears to be yes, although I could see several points (such as the identification of artists I quoted above, and various items I noticed), which I would never have put into ink the way he did. Still, most of his arguments are compelling. It is a shame that the aggressiveness of a few affirmations detract from the overall value of his work. Archeology is not code nor is it physics. It does not pursue universal truths that are more easy to verify through repeated experiments, but unique historical ones which necessarily attempt to interweave physical details and ancient historical records. Each field has its own level of certainty, and the fact that we cannot establish these details with the same certainty as we can establish the chemical formula for water does not make them useless, or pure inventions. Far from it.

hammock 2y ago

Honestly seems about as robust as any other ancient history (not including pre-history). Herculaneum. Or great civilizations of the Americas. Or art “restoration.” Or “early music” performance There is what we know, what we think we know, what we think and don’t know, and what we don’t know. And the size of those is in exponential ascending order None of this is to denigrate the robust and important work of historians and adjacent fields. It’s just the reality

verisimi 2y ago

> Put 2 and 2 together and come up with Cleopatra? This is exactly the problem. History is built on stories, it's just story upon story. Licensed historians are able to augment the existing history. The stories need have nothing to do with the truth of whatever might (or might not) have happened. Whenever you try to find the sources for this or that claim, it is impossible to do so, especially with anything ancient. When I have tried to do so, I come away feeling extremely dissatisfied, and in disagreement with whatever conclusions are being presented as fact. In every single case. To see what I mean, here is a link to some previous research I undertook on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37927639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37927639

olddustytrail 2y ago
> So we only have 9 fragments from before 1900 What exactly did you mean by this? Because it surely can't be what it sounds like...
- marc_abonce 2y ago
  Based on the Wikipedia article linked in that comment, it refers to papyrus fragments specifically, the most recent one being from aprox. the IXth century. [1] More recent texts were copied into more durable materials: > By the beginning of the fourth century A.D., the most important books began to be manufactured in parchment, and works worth preserving were transferred from papyrus to parchment. [2] By the way, I don't know enough about history or archaeology to agree or disagree with the comment, I just looked up the sources because I was also confused by the phrasing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus#History

Mistletoe 2y ago

Didn’t Cleopatra die at 39 years old? Your comment confuses me.

arketyp 2y ago
Different Cleopatra
gavindean90 2y ago
There were a lot of Cleopatras so this may be a different, less famous one.
sophacles 2y ago
Didn't John die in infancy? How can this gravestone say John died at 73?
verisimi 2y ago
This is the Cleopatra that was also known as 'Clee'. Different to 'Patty', 'Cleo' or 'Trish'. All of whom were the most beautiful woman in the world in their time :)
fsckboy 2y ago
according to wikip, the famous one was Cleopatra VII

pm3003 2y ago

Yes, in particular the points you cite have been widely discussed since the late 70s. The 'proofs' in question are not absolute mathematical proofs but strong hints around which cases have been made including a lot of elements. The cases are not that clearly cut,and there is not a lot of positive evidence for one thesis or the other but the phrasing here is good approximation. The research appears serious, but at first sight it doesn't seem to disprove any of the dominant thesis around Vergina. The question "who is in tomb II?" is still open. Though recent research has provided evidence against the occupant being Philip II (and being rather Philip III) there is still a good deal of evidence "for" Philip II. The case (for Philip II) made at the (very impressive) exhibition at the Vergina museum is well explained. The case for Cleopatra is even more tenuous but also very well explained.