Archaiological evidence

[Efstathios]

Fellow pothosians hail I would like your oppinions about a matter that intrigues me.Some people say after archaiological research that someone or something doesnt exist,or is not historical,it is mythical.How can we say that something or someone does not exist?Is it safe to say something absolute like this?What is this that can be considered as evidence?Can a written source be considered as one? For example archaiologists have found the tomb of Agamemnon.So is Agamemnon a historical figure or a mythical?What about Achilles,Paris,Helen,Hector e.t.c? My point is that since we cannot dig up the entire earth (or an entire area or country) we can never be sure.Can we?And in what extent we can rely on written sources?Especially when we are talking about people and things 1500 and 2000 years b.c it's difficult to find proof.Does this mean that they were mythical?

[alejandro]

Hi Efstathios,Excellent question.First of all, I will agree with you about archaeologists been unable to say that someone did not exist, for the obvious reason that GÇ£not findingGÇ¥ something is not equivalent to that somethingGÇÖs non-existence (As my mum told me every time she sent me to find, say, a book somewhere and I returned saying it was not there. Of course she then looked for it herself and inexorably found it!).The problem is that they cannot categorically say that some PARTICULAR individual lived many years ago either. They can say that SOMEONE lived in, say, a castle dated to the Mycenean period, but they cannot undoubtedly confirm that that someone was Agamemnon. The best they can do is trying to match documents they get from the period and the hard evidence they discover (pottery, coins, ruins, etc.) and try to characterize the lives of those who lived there and then. The more evidence in support of a given event is found, the stronger the belief about the probability of such event taking place, as can be expected. And thus the more hard evidence is found in support of a given document, the more reliable is considered the latter by the scientific community. But the names of the characters are usually difficult to confirm, and that is why the finding of Troy makes the war narrated in the Iliad plausible, even though we cannot be sure whether it was started by the rapt of Helen or not.When several documents (not derived from one another) narrate the same story, we have the same result of an increase in the perceived veracity of the story. However, it is important to mention that just one piece of hard evidence that contradicts the documents (no matter how many they are) is enough to cast serious doubts about them.What I want to say is that, unless some evidence is found (coins, inscriptions), the likes of Achilles, Hector and the rest cannot be confirmed to have existed, even less to have fought hand-to-hand outside the walls of Troy. But even if that evidence is never found, we cannot say they didnGÇÖt exist. In the case of Alexander, for example, the coins, the sarcophagus, the Egyptian inscriptions and the Vergina tombs certify his existence, and the consistency of the extant sources about some basic facts of his life make the latter very likely of effectively having happened (even though regarding some others, like the taming of Bukephalas or the colour of his hair, we may have to live with the related uncertainty).Alejand

[marcus]

I know what you're saying, and I agree in principle. One needs to be very careful about some of the labels that have been given to some archaeological sites. The tholos tombs at Mycenae, for example, were given their names by Schliemann and his enthusiastic, but over-romantic and non-academic cronies. I doubt there are many people who would assert that the Treasury of Atreus, for example, is *actually* the tomb of Agamemnon's father - although, of course, it might be ...ATBMarcus

[ruthaki]

This is an intriguing subject and I've run across examples of this during my research trips around Greece. For instance, on Thassos, at Aliki, there was a temple built right overlooking the sea and one theory I heard was that the 'sirens' that lured Odysseus to their island might have actually been the voices of the temple maidens singing. Interesting logic. At the same time, I've been to Ithaka, taken by the mayor of Vathi to view the digs at the Cave of the Nymphs, talked to the archaeologist in charge of the Odysseus Project.
The classical scholar friend I was traveling with insisted you couldn't put 'logic' to explain the myths about Odysseus. Why then, if he didn't really 'exist' would they spend so much money digging and excavating to 'prove' that he did? And in fact find all sorts of evidence that co-incides with Homer's "Odyssey." I find it fascinating and just like in some of the Old Testement stories (such as the parting of the Red Sea allowing the Israelites to cross out of Egypt) there has to be some 'logical' explanation. It isn't just myth or magic.An archaeologist at the site of the Vergina tombs also explained their point of view that unless something is labeled "This is the tomb of Philip" for instance, they can only speculate. They knew they had the tomb of Philip's mother Eurydike because her name is evidently on the statue found there.

[smittysmitty]

Interestingly enough, it would appear archaeologists are finally comming to the fore with their opinions on history and unsuprisingly are in many respects at odds with classicists who have dominated the field for many years. I think it's about time that classicists and historians take a long hard look at some of the crap they've been dishing out for years and get a reality check.

[Paralus]

"An archaeologist at the site of the Vergina tombs also explained their point of view that unless something is labeled "This is the tomb of Philip" for instance, they can only speculate."Yes indeed Ruthaki. It now appears that there is strong evidence to suggest that tomb two is indeed Philip's -- Philip Arrhidaeus that is. The evidence would seem to centre 'round the amount (and type) of precious metals and stones found in the tomb. Seemingly -- the argument goes -- this hoard was not likely to have been available untill Alexander's conquests.As well, recent forensic medical testing on "Philip's bones" show these not to be those of Philip II [http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/macedon/] but more likely those of Arrhidaeus.There also is now a line of argument the hunting fresco depicts events after the time of Philip and indeed, may show a hunt in a Persian game park. I don't have the material to hand (being at the office) but will have a look when I get home. Suffice to say the archaeologist you quote is on the money. It seems that Professor Andronikos found what he was looking for rather than what was actually there?Paralus.

[amyntoros]

**** It seems that Professor Andronikos found what he was looking for rather than what was actually there?****In all fairness, donGÇÖt we all do that sometimes GÇô classicists, archaeologists, and students alike? We come up with a theory and search through the sources for evidence to support it, while archaeologists investigate a particular area because they believe something specific be buried there. In AndronikosGÇÖ case, he had every reason to believe that it was the tomb of Philip when he first found it. The problem lies in the enormity of the Greek governmentGÇÖs role because of the cultural and historical importance of such a discovery. I donGÇÖt want to go into the politics of the situation because we know them all too well, but you canGÇÖt really blame the government, can you, for not wanting to admit the tomb belongs to anyone but Philip? Andronikos is certainly not the first archaeologist to have his findings questioned or disproved, but the others werenGÇÖt catapulted into public awareness in this manner. His conclusion was off by only a single generation, yet the controversy that has followed must be hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles! In fact, we will never know if Andronikos, himself, has changed his mind - I doubt he would ever be allowed to admit it. I know you werenGÇÖt intending a personal attack on Andronikos, btw. Obviously I agree with you that the tomb isnGÇÖt PhilipGÇÖs. I think IGÇÖm just feeling sorry for someone who will be unable to extricate himself from controversy as long as he lives. Of course, being known throughout the world as the man who found PhilipGÇÖs tomb is probably not so bad. But what if they eventually discover the real one?!! :-)Hmm, Andronikos is still alive, is he not?Best regards,Amyntoros.

[Paralus]

GGÇÖday Amyntoros.Yes, your critique is correct: it may well have appeared that I was having GÇ£a shotGÇ¥ at the good professor. That wasnGÇÖt the intention. And yes, I think we are well aware of the atmosphere in which these discoveries were announced: post the GÇ£ColonelsGÇ¥ and the surge of Greek nationalism. All too easy to see both the discovery and the discoverer being swept along with the avalanche.Peter Green (yes I do like the fellows missives) in a book published in 1989 (Classical Bearings Cal. Uni. Press) has an essay entitled GÇ£The Macedonian ConnectionGÇ¥ which probably describes my view much better than myself. He describes the GÇ£four starGÇ¥ travelling show the Greek government put on (GÇ£The Search for AlexanderGÇ¥) as a great publicity show GÇô one to rival the just travelled GÇ£King TutGÇ¥ road show. Great reading. A line:GÇ£Fitting, because all the major exhibits of the display, and a fortiori, the claims made about them, all depended on a concatenation of tenuous hypotheses and obstinately ambivalent evidence, remorselessly touted as proven fact in the interests of national pride and publicity.GÇ¥A good read. Green does defend Andronikos in stating that the professor refused to corroborate the claims until he had finished his work and produced his final analyses and reports.Tough milieu in which to do that though. And yes, I believe he is still alive.Paralus

[amyntoros]

So far I've only read a couple of the articles in Green's Classical Bearings and neither of them were about Philip's tomb. I shall have to pull the book off my shelf and take another look at it - thanks for the reminder. And, although a little off-topic, I recommend the chapter called "Caesar and Alexander: Aemulatio, Imitatio, Comparatio" to anyone who is interested in Roman emulation of Alexander.Best regards,Amyntoros