New website on Alexander's Tomb

[Taphoi]

Pothos members might like to know that my new website is now online at http://www.alexanderstomb.comAlthough the site is still under development, I hope you will find there is already much there which is of interest. In particular, there is a large gallery of images from my collection of antique engravings, maps and ancient coins. There is also a new article on the story of Alexander's tomb and information on and links to my other writings on the subject, including my book, "The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great".Hope you like it.Best wishes,Andrew Chugg

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,Superb! A very nice site indeed, and just the sort of design I like. The images come out really nicely, too. Haven't had a chance to read any of the text yet, but I assume it's of the same quality as the book :-)All the bestMarcus

[ruthaki]

Super, Andrew! I have only had time to scan the text but will definitely spend some time reading through it and checking links etc. Thanks.

[jan]

This is a great design. I like the links page very much. The format is one of the best I have seen. Jan

[Taphoi]

Many thanks for the nice comments.It is planned that there will be many improvements over the coming weeks and months, such as an unpublished paper on the first tomb at Memphis and more images.Best wishes,Andrew

[heinrich]

Congratulations!HM

[kate]

Hi Andrew,Just had a look at your site. It is very impressive. Will keep an eye out for your improvements.Cheers,Kate

[karen]

Dear Andrew:I haven't read your book, but I must say the website got me intrigued! (I agree heartily with those who praise the design, etc., as well.)So here's the question... has anyone asked the authorities of St Mark's whether the corpse can be carbon dated, x-rayed, etc.? How amenable do they seem to the idea?Regards,
Karen

[Taphoi]

Hi Karen,Thanks for your nice comments.I haven't managed to make direct contact with the Italian church authorities, so the only information available on this point is from an Italian news website called Zoomata. The URL link is http://www.zoomata.com/modules.php?name ... e&sid=1093
(if link doesn't work directly out of Pothos page, try copying it into your browser's Address box or do a Google search on Zoomata tomb Chugg)Zoomata says: "If a British historian is right, Italians in Venice have spent the last 400 years or so praying to conqueror Alexander the Great instead of city patron St. Mark. Both historical figures were mummified and hidden in Alexandria.
Legend has it that remains of the Macedonian king were disguised as those of Mark the Evangelist to keep them from harm during a religious uprising, while the remains of the saint were smuggled out in a basket to become the centerpiece and namesake of the most elegant drawing room in Europe, St. Mark's Basilica. Historian Andrew Chugg, author of 'The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great', wants the remains dug up and examined to prove his theory. Chugg may meet with less resistance from Church officals than expected. Ettore Vio, architect and procurator of the Venetian basilica, says the foreign historian is but another voice in the chorus of local authorities who have long debated about whether the bones at the crypt in the heart of La Serenissima belong to St. Mark. And that it may be time to discover once and for all whether a skeleton switcheroo took place."It may need financial backing (e.g. TV documentary) to get testing done. Although several companies have expressed interest, none has yet committed.Best wishes,Andrew

[karen]

Hi Andrew:Wow! It doesn't seem like that remote a possibility, if the story is accurate.It would be quite the gamble for the documentarist. If the skeleton turns out to be someone elses... no show.But if it does seem to be Alexander's... what a payoff!I will be watching your website for developments.Thanks,
Karen

[Taphoi]

Hi Karen,Actually, I would argue that it would be win-win for the documentary maker. The possibilities are:A) It really is St Mark (which most people have doubted) - i.e. 1st century ADB) It is someone else altogether - probably 4th century AD in this caseC) It is Alexander - i.e. late 4th century BCAny of the three would be dramatic and headline-grabbing. There is little chance of not being able to reach a conclusion, because even a simple radiocarbon dating would probably decide whether it is A, B or C.Best wishes,Andrew