pothos.org

Dear all,

Hot off the pages of RogueClassicism ...

ATB

HI Marcus,

The date of the finding of the statue has significance! Thanks for this post. Jan

It's Alexander?! Really? In Alexandria? Someone's suggested so?

The burial place of Alexander - or the discovery of his putative remains - is of minimal consequence. I'd give several of any years left to me to unearth a copy of Hieronynus' history; the lost books of Polybius or those of Diodorus. There is history.

The final resting place of the great conqueror (or his remains) does not so enthuse me....

Paralus wrote:The final resting place of the great conqueror (or his remains) does not so enthuse me....

Why is that? Few things excite me more than the thought of finding him.

The post tells you fingy: I'd much prefer to locate the histories. That the great conqueror 'rests' in Siwah, Alexandria or elsewhere means little to me. The discovery of papyrus rolls attributed to Hieromymus of Cardia, Ephorus or Theopomus certainly would mean more to me than the supposed remains of the "Great".

Hey guys,

We've now got pretty good techniques to extract DNA from ancient remains. The data from this can tell you a fair amount about the histories of populations. Although, not necessarily much about the history of one individual. In one of the other threads I linked to a study that uses the DNA data from the corpse of a Phoenician king. The authors compare it to the modern populations of Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia and Malta to reveal an impressive amount about the Mediterranean region.

If Alexander's corpse were discovered, I imagine there would be some geneticists quite keen doing DNA analysis. However, current techniques are destructive to the sample. So, whatever part one takes - ideally teeth - would not be returned to the corpse. I wonder if this will pose a problem, seeing that the man and his corpse seem to have been elevated to sacrosanct status in some quarters.

Anyway, this is all pure speculation as I'm not holding my breath for the remains to be discovered any time soon.

If Alexander's remains where found (I won't hold my breath) couldn't they be tested against Phillips from Aigai and with the teenage remains found recently?

Hi Fingy,

Alexander's remains could be tested against the others you mention. But the question is - for what? Paternity or other forms of relatedness between these three individuals perhaps? That in itself doesn't seem that interesting. Any study has to define a clear set of questions it is trying to answer.

For example, the other study I mentioned used the DNA of an ancient Phoenician king and that of modern day populations. This was done because the scientists wanted to find the answers to a lot of interesting questions - what happened to the Phoenicians? Are modern day Mediterranean people descendants of the Phoenicians? Is it only the people in the Phoenician heartland (Lebanon, Palestine) or the colonies as well (Tunisia, Malta)? Are modern people more or less related to the Phoenicians depending on their religion? All these questions were answered clearly thanks to the comparison between ancient and modern DNA.

Can we formulate anything like that for Alexander's DNA?

Semiramis wrote:Hi Fingy,

Alexander's remains could be tested against the others you mention. But the question is - for what? Paternity or other forms of relatedness between these three individuals perhaps? That in itself doesn't seem that interesting. Any study has to define a clear set of questions it is trying to answer.

For example, the other study I mentioned used the DNA of an ancient Phoenician king and that of modern day populations. This was done because the scientists wanted to find the answers to a lot of interesting questions - what happened to the Phoenicians? Are modern day Mediterranean people descendants of the Phoenicians? Is it only the people in the Phoenician heartland (Lebanon, Palestine) or the colonies as well (Tunisia, Malta)? Are modern people more or less related to the Phoenicians depending on their religion? All these questions were answered clearly thanks to the comparison between ancient and modern DNA.

Can we formulate anything like that for Alexander's DNA?

I was thinking about this as well. Though it would settle, possibly, who isn't or is in what tomb. My thought was if a successful DNA sample could be extracted, the genetics might give us a better understanding of at least the Macedonian Royal family''s genetic.

On second thought, that could open a can of worms for a certain modern dust up....


I do agree with Paralus that finding new original sources would be fantastic!

Semiramis wrote:Hi Fingy,

Alexander's remains could be tested against the others you mention. But the question is - for what? Paternity or other forms of relatedness between these three individuals perhaps? That in itself doesn't seem that interesting. Any study has to define a clear set of questions it is trying to answer.

I disagree. Clarifying with DNA evidence the fact that we have recovered the remains of 3 generations of the Argead dynasty is of great interest to me and I hope to many others. Plus it might give some insight into the ancient Macedonian genome. That would be interesting.