St Marks Square

[jasonxx]

Upon watching Casino Royale. We get a secene in and arount St Marks Square in Venice.

Im sure the corpse one day will be examined, If it were to be found as Alexander. Will St Marks Square be renamed Alexanders Square. Its for all these reasons and others I am sure why the opposition and bars would hold back any investigation.

\Apart from Tyre Alexandria we would have another concrete monument and of coarse mortal remains.

[marcus]

I'm sure the corpse one day will be examined. If it were to be found as Alexander, will St Mark's Square be renamed Alexander's Square.

I doubt they'd re-name the square, even if the body were found to be Alexander's. The cathedral is still dedicated to St Mark, and the square is, therefore, named for that. They wouldn't go changing just because St Mark turned out not to be St Mark ...

ATB

[Lisa]

How would you determine the body to be Alexander? Would there be DNA in 2000 year old teeth? Would you try to match that DNA up with modern day northern Greeks? I think that if it were ever proven that "St. Mark" were, in fact, Alexander the Great, it would prove a huge embarrasment to the Catholic Church. Personally, I'd find it very, very amusing that a man who fervently worshiped Zues and Apollo, i.e., a pagan, would be mistaken for a saint. Don't get me wrong, I was raised Catholic and I try hard to live my life as a Christian, whatever that really means, I guess I'm just cursed with a bit of a strange sense of humor. As for ATG, I think that part of his success, a large part, actually, was that he got up every morning and worshipped THE GOD OF HIS UNDERSTANDING. He gave thanks, probably asked for advice, etc.

But, um...yeah, I think the Catholic church would basically have a cow if Saint Mark turned out to be ATG. Meanwhile, I'd be rolling on the floor, giggling.

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[Lisa]

God is love, Andrew. Have a peaceful and blessed day.

Regards,
Lisa

[keroro]

To Hades with all deities.

I'm not that knowledgable about the technique, but I think that one can Carbon date bodies accurate to the 500 years or so difference between Alex and Mark.

[Taphoi]

How would you determine the body to be Alexander? Would there be DNA in 2000 year old teeth? Would you try to match that DNA up with modern day northern Greeks?

Hi Lisa,

There is a pdf file giving details of the tests that would be feasible on my website at www.alexanderstomb.com under "St Mark Testing".

The first thing would be to inspect the bones for signs of healed wounds. Alexander received wounds to his chest and lower leg that are said to have damaged his bones.

Of the 2600 visitors to my site last month, 138 people downloaded this pdf, which I updated extensively a couple of months ago.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[jasonxx]

Andrew

Also carbon dating would give more idea of who it is. We know carbon dating is pretty accurate. So if it got to within a hundred years of Alexander it would be pretty conclusive that it would be more likely Alexander than St Mark.

I would hope some hair remnants would have dna etc.

Kenny

[Lisa]

I think you're right, Andrew. I think the healed injuries would be the best identification, sort of like modern dental records. Without having done any research on it, I'm sitting here idly wondering if anyone has successfully extracted DNA from the roots of Egyptian mummy teeth. Perhaps I'll look that up...

Much thanks,
Lisa

[keroro]

So we can use carbon dating to work out his age to within a few centuries, and evidence of injuries to give a better idea. The question then becomes: Will anyone be allowed to do the tests? And: If we can get DNA from his body then can we clone him? Would we want to?

Hmm, more questions than answers.

[Lisa]

I remember learning in undergrad that the Catholic religion had usurped a whole lot of pagan stuff, but particularly the holidays. It was a matter of convenience and it smoothed the conversion process. I think that most well educated Catholics realize that occurred. However, I think that the vast majority of Catholics expect St. Mark to be in St. Marks Square, you know? Probably, the vast majority of Catholics would be bummed out and shocked to learn that it was ATG in St. Mark's Square rather than St. Mark. But then again, the implicit assumption is that these Catholics would have access to the news and paying attention, etc. If the corpse of St. Mark turned out to have some interesting, characteristic battle wounds, well then the Catholic Church could release a teeny tiny little news blurb, say something like, "Wow, how interesting!" and let the thing go at that, you know?

[alejandro]

Hi all,

I just read that the bones that were supposed to be Joan of Arc's weere tested by some scientists (and some perfume people! but that's another story), the result being that they didn't belong to the the French heroine but to an old Egyptian mummy. The article is in every newspaper and was published in Nature (or Science? one of the two!).
Anyway, this may further the possibiilities of testing the tomb in Venice?

Best,
Alejandro

[jasonxx]

alejandro

I think the idea pretty obsurd there was anything to claim to be tested on Joan Of Arc.Or maybe im naive. Joan was suppossed to have been incinerated at the stake. So I doubt there would be anything at all left anyway. Maybe a feb bits and peaces etc. No where near a mummified corpse.

The Same with Saint Mark who was also supposed to have been burned. If he was burned then how can we have a muumified corpse. If that angle can be clariefied one way or another would give further call for examination.

Indeed if Joan of Arcs so called remains can be tested why not St Marks. If saint Mark did turn out similar as an Egyptian mummy thats closer to Alexander as well as we may assume he may have been mummified in the Egyptian manner. As Alexanders burriel etc was nothing akin to Macedonian ways who were also cremated.

Im telling you guys this is in my mind as close as we will get to Alexanders body.

Kenny

[marcus]

I think the idea pretty obsurd there was anything to claim to be tested on Joan Of Arc.Or maybe im naive. Joan was suppossed to have been incinerated at the stake. So I doubt there would be anything at all left anyway. Maybe a feb bits and peaces etc. No where near a mummified corpse.

Ha! Good point! Isn't it typical - I read Alejandro's post and not for a moment did I think "but there wouldn't have been any bones, cos she was burned" - and yet, as you say, it's pretty absurd! Well spotted, sir.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I looked up the news stories which Alejandro mentioned (use Google News search and enter Joan of Arc) and apparently the remains consisted of a burnt rib bone, piece of cloth, and a cat femur! Goodness knows why anyone would think a piece of cloth survived, or whether or not they originally knew one of the bones was from a cat, but I think it would have been reasonable at the time of "discovery" to believe that a rib bone had survived. It takes a tremendous amount of heat to reduce every bone in the body to ash and, in my unprofessional opinion, it is very doubtful that a burning at the stake would have produced such results. We know, for instance, that the bones at Vergina came from bodies which had been "cremated" in the ancient fashion.

The fake Joan of Arc bones, both human and cat, came from a mummy dated between the 7th and 3rd centuries B.C. - a fairly wide span - and they have been unable to extract DNA from the remains. So if the reason for the failure to extract DNA is the mummification process, and Alexander was mummified ... well, you can see where I'm going with this.

Best regards,