To me it's also just incredible how short his life was, and I imagine that contributes to how scarce first-hand accounts are. He started taking part in military campaigns at 16, became king at 20, and was dead by 32. The Wikipedia article about him mentions he had a historian (or more than one); it's a shame none of those accounts survived to today.

Sure, life expectancy back then was not what it was today, but he was still fairly young, and did a remarkable amount of conquering and expansion in a decade.

Did you forget the guy who's texts were the foundation of our civilization? Most of Aristotle's works are lost, but there is still much to read from Alexander's tutor.

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

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.

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

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

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.

I read through the original article though not very closely, and the authors wrote that the construction of the sarapis was unique in that nobody would have been allowed to construct one, and that the physical construction of the sarapis would have been profoundly expensive.

It could be the case that another rich guy went and had one made, sure, but given the above two priors you'd have to answer:

  Who else at the time could afford to have such a sarapis constructed?
  Is there a record of anyone with a similarly designed and constructed sarapis? Historians seem to have a good idea of who was rich and/or noble in the area at the time.
  If someone at the time constructed a similarly designed sarapis in the region, who would have built it and why wouldn't have someone basically told on them for trying to copy the God King? 

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/sac...

In the US, anyone who remembers any ancient history will remember Alexander the Great. He's a part of every single world history curriculum, and for good reason. Whether by his own skill or luck, he reshaped most of Eurasia in his lifetime.

https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/47/1/zsad253/7280269

When Alexander conquered Egypt, he took on the role of Pharaoh, and claimed to be the son of Ra. He also began calling himself the son of Zeus.

Abraham Lincoln isn't considered a deity, but American political culture is very different from 4th-Century BC Hellenistic political culture.

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-wa...

Some would have believed him. Others, wouldn't.

The mere fact that he used to fight in the frontline of every battle, and still walked away (the only other military leader who can match him in this was Khalid bin Walid) - that would tend to sway opinion on the "wow, he's indestructible" debate.

When news of his death reached Greece, people stalled celebrating, as he was not really considered "merely human".

(Remember, Alexander was still recognized as Macedonian, not Greek - and in fact 50,000 Greek hoplites went with Memnon of Rhodes to fight for Iran against Alexander - which they did till the end. It's only much much later that Greek society appropriated him as one of their own. In fact, historical accounts showed that Alexander himself tired of aspiring to be Greek, and took on many trappings of the Iranian court & system, till his end)