Recently, Expedition Unknown sent Josh Gates to follow radiation expert Andrew Chugg as he retraced his research into the lost tomb of Alexander the Great. Chugg has published many articles and books over the past twenty years arguing that Alexander’s corpse is current in St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. His speculative conclusions are intriguing, and possible, but I keep getting hung up on the details. Chugg’s argument is rooted in ancient texts, archaeology, and the absence of clear evidence. The Ptolemies set up a tomb for Alexander, called the Soma, in Alexandria the late fourth century BCE. It’s exact location is unknown, and various ancient authors differ on the contents of the tomb, writing variously that Alexander’s body lay in a sarcophagus of marble, gold, or crystal. The last clear report of the intact tomb occurs around 390 CE. An earthquake had likely damaged the Soma in 375 CE, and by 391 CE rampaging Christian extremists had ransacked most of what was left of pagan Alexandria, including the Serapeum. But Libanius, writing in 390, says the body itself was on display. It is at this time that a new monument appears, the tomb of the Gospel writer St. Mark the Evangelist in which his body was displayed. On the one hand, this was logical since Mark founded the Alexandrian church, but on the other, this was quite strange since Mark was believed to have been cremated after his martyrdom in Alexandria in 68 CE, though an Egyptian tradition claimed his body had been rescued from the flames. Theodosius I, who ordered the destruction of all pagan monuments in 391, reportedly discovered Alexander’s treasure in the chaos, suggesting the Soma was looted and destroyed at that time. Chugg hypothesizes that fans of Alexander disguised the body as that of St. Mark and installed it in the new tomb in 391 CE to keep it safe from rampaging Christians, and there it sat in plain sight until two Venetians stole it in the ninth century and took it to Venice, where it now sits in St. Mark’s Basilica. Proof, he says, comes in the form of a segment of marble found near “St. Mark’s” relics in Venice which is the exact size to have covered part of the granite sarcophagus of Nectanebo II, the last native pharaoh, which Islamic tradition holds had once held Alexander’s remains. This, though, is where things start to get squirrely. Chugg argues that Alexandrian Christian moderates were able to remove Alexander’s elaborate marble sarcophagus casing from the Soma along with his body, while leaving the granite inner sarcophagus behind, and move both to the tomb of St. Mark, where they were able to re-erect them as “Mark’s” tomb—all without the Alexandrians noticing, having completely forgotten about Alexander’s tomb. The evidence for this is St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 26 on 2 Corinthians of c. 400 CE, in which he asks after Alexander’s lost tomb: For, tell me, where is the tomb of Alexander? Show it me and tell me the day on which he died. But of the servants of Christ the very tombs are glorious, seeing they have taken possession of the most loyal city; and their days are well known, making festivals for the world. And his tomb even his own people know not, but this man's the very barbarians know. Chugg takes this as proof that Alexander’s tomb had been forgotten between 391 and 400, utterly erased from the popular mind. But that simply isn’t what Chrysostom meant. He is very clearly implying that Alexander’s own people, i.e. the Greco-Roman pagans of the Roman Empire, not citizens of Alexandria, did not treat his tomb with the same reverence that Christians worldwide afforded to the tomb of Christ and the tombs of the saints. Chrysostom lived in Constantinople, not Alexandria, and was writing in that context. His claim is parallel to Theodoret of Cyrus’s which made the same comparison to the tombs of Persian emperors in the 420s, though the tombs he cited, belonging to Xerxes and Darius, were on full display carved into the rocks near Persepolis, and those of the Roman emperors, which still may be seen in Rome today (A Cure for Pagan Maladies, 8.60-61). At any rate, we know Chrysostom didn’t really believe Alexander had been forgotten among his people, for he also warned against the cult of Alexander and the magical enchantments pagans performed in his name (Ad illuminados cat.). In short, Chrysostom and Theodoret are not proof of the loss of Alexander’s tomb and body, though it’s likely the original edifice had been desecrated when they wrote. A bigger problem for Chugg is a logical inconsistency in his ideas. To my mind, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Christians simply moved Alexander’s body and sarcophagus casing, which everyone had seen for centuries, and set it up with a new name and everyone just accepted it as Mark’s. But Chugg argues that Alexander’s tomb had been utterly forgotten so that he can have “Mark” take over. But he also told me via X that the Venetians (known only, by the way, from an eleventh-century account of their ninth-century exploits) needed to bring Alexander’s sarcophagus casing to prove the body they brought back was Mark’s. But he compounds the incredulity by asking us to believe that while Alexander’s tomb had been forgotten and destroyed and the inner sarcophagus abandoned, the Arab conquerors of Egypt correctly identified the inner sarcophagus and set it up in a mosque built on the ruins of the church of St. Athanasius as Alexander’s grave. Early Muslim historians, such as Al-Mas’udi, writing in Meadows of Gold (1.253) in the early 900s, speak of a still-extant marble burial place—which must have been sealed, by the way, since it was not described as empty—and said it was Alexander’s. Leo Africanus, who visited five hundred years later also saw it and affirmed that the locals believed it held the body of Alexander—which means it had to have been sealed. He writes in his Description of Africa in the section on Alexandria: Neither ought it to be omitted, that in the midst of the ruins of Alexandria, there still remains a small edifice, built like a chapel, worthy of notice on account of a remarkable tomb, held in high honour by the mahometans; in which sepulchre, they assert, is preserved the body of Alexander the Great, an eminent prophet and king, as they read in their koran. An immense crowd of strangers comes thither, even from distant countries, for the sake of worshipping and doing homage to the tomb; on which, like wise, they frequently bestow considerable donations. This was the Attarine Mosque, built in the eleventh century atop the ruins of the Church of St. Athanasius. Within an octagonal chapel stood the cenotaph, which Chugg, following French and British scholars of the colonial period, assumed to be Nectanebo’s sarcophagus. (The hypothesis was first propoed by Edward Clarke in 1805, and heavily criticized shortly thereafter for inconsistencies and lack of evidence.) The French found it in the crumbling mosque in 1798, and the British took it to London in 1802. But there is a problem with that because Nectanebo’s sarcophagus was being used as a ritual bathtub in the mosque when the French found it (it had drainage holes drilled into the base) and was not the venerated cenotaph of Alexander described as late as the 1600s by George Sandys (likely copying from Leo). At any rate, Nectanebo’s sarcophagus is not made of marble, the material both ancient authors (beginning with Plutarch) and Muslim observers said Alexander’s sarcophagus had been made from.
Chugg gets around this by positing a limestone casing for Nectanebo’s sarcophagus, though this casing could not be what al-Mas’udi referred to if the Venetians had carried off the casing that had been already been moved to Mark’s tomb. He also believes Nectanebo’s box was Alexander’s first coffin in Memphis before he was moved to Alexandria, though this raises more questions than answers about why the Ptolemies, so rich and powerful, would have kept Alexander in a recycled box each time they moved his tomb. One might more parsimoniously assume that the locals remembered the former shrine to Alexander and attributed his name to the grandest piece of rock in there. The piece of limestone in St. Mark’s, bearing a shield with “Macedonian” symbols, is, perhaps Chugg’s best piece of evidence, though the art is not the kind of quality you would expect the grandest empire in the Hellenistic world to apply to the tomb of the ruling dynasty’s divine hero. The piece of limestone features a shield with a Macedonian-style sunburst shield emblem. I’m no expert in Ptolemaic armaments, but it is my understanding that the same shield was used by the Ptolemies. At any rate, Chugg claims an exact match between limestone and sarcophagus. Nectanebo’s sarcophagus has a maximum height is 118.50 cm, while the casing stone is 118 cm tall. This is interesting but not conclusive; the Rosetta stone and some Ptolemaic orthostats are also the same height, and at any rate, if the casing and the sarcophagus were of the same height, then it does not account for either box’s lids. The casing wouldn’t hide the sarcophagus lid, and the casing’s lid wouldn’t fit. Of course, the ancient sources say the body was on display, so perhaps there were no lids, but why then were the sarcophaguses necessary to hide the crystal coffin that was on open display? (An alternative hypothesis, put forward with reservations by Vassilios Christides in 1999—years before Chugg—in an academic volume too rare and expensive for me to consult on short notice, suggested that Nectanebo’s sarcophagus wasn’t Alexander’s first resting place but his last, in which the marble coffin rested, either for Ptolemaic propaganda or to hide it in Late Antiquity.) At the end of the day, I can’t quite get over the idea that the body and outer casing were spirited off to St. Mark’s Tomb unnoticed, while Alexander’s tomb was forgotten yet simultaneously remembered only for the previously unsee inner sarcophagus, which went unmentioned for five or six hundred years. Does that mean Chugg is wrong? No. He might be right. His train of logic is intriguing, but too many little details don’t quite add up to say Chugg has proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
32 Comments
Crash55
7/1/2024 01:37:56 pm
Radiocarbon dating should settle the debate quickly. Though of course it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen.
Reply
Clete
7/1/2024 03:33:46 pm
I am unsure if you know that radiocarbon dating can be used. It can only be used to date organic material. It cannot be used to date stone. In order to date Alexander's body you would need parts of the body or artifacts found in the tomb that could be associated with his burial.
Reply
Crash55
7/1/2024 06:31:06 pm
I am afraid you missed a major part of the argument.
An Over-Educated Grunt
7/1/2024 06:48:44 pm
How convenient that they also hold the remains of St. Mark; it's unlikely they'd be available but they'd either show a 300 BCE date, or a 100 CE date. Even with confidence intervals that's a pretty obvious delta.
Kent
7/1/2024 10:40:43 pm
"CRASH55
Crash55
7/2/2024 11:21:26 am
Kent - good to see you haven’t changed. Your other post was almost logical.
Kent
7/2/2024 06:45:11 pm
Yup, still spotting idiocy, DROSS (Doctor of Real Orc Science 'n' Stuff). Are you still authoritatively pronouncing on the materials list of interstellar spacecraft which don't exist?
Crash55
7/3/2024 10:21:16 am
Still authoritatively stating that aluminum is not an advanced material. For some reason I am still responding to your comments.
Kent
7/1/2024 03:48:12 pm
I've seen parts of this one, next time it's on I'll follow along using this excellent article as a reference.
Reply
Larry
7/1/2024 05:18:50 pm
Forget the body, did Gates find Alexander's ghost?
Reply
Crash55
7/1/2024 06:33:56 pm
That will be the subject of a future Expedition X episode.
Reply
Michael Redmond
7/1/2024 08:25:35 pm
A fascinating read. Thank you. And I think you're logic is impeccable.
Reply
John
7/2/2024 02:59:43 am
118.5 cm is pretty much exactly 4 Roman feet: 29.6 * 4 = 118.4. Other cultures like the Egyptians used roughly the same.
Reply
Ken T.
7/2/2024 05:53:20 pm
You can add to the coincidences that the size of my manhood is pretty much 118.5 cm.
Reply
Mark's Body??
7/2/2024 05:19:31 am
Haven't people got to be ignorant to believe that "Mark" existed at all? Ditto Matthew, Luke & John.
Reply
Crash55
7/2/2024 11:19:22 am
I believe current scholarly consensus is that they did exist. They are writing down what was being told orally before them and are writing 50+ years after the events. The oldest texts show distinct authors through there is some crossover.
Reply
MARK'S BODY??
7/2/2024 03:55:15 pm
I know the issue. But Alexander The Great existed while Mark is not known to have existed outside of Christian tradition. You really have to discipline yourself into understanding the difference between history and tradition. Or people may call you a dogmatic fundamentalist.
Crash55
7/2/2024 07:01:46 pm
History says there is a body in Venice that was supposedly stolen from Alexandria. Tradition says it is St Mark.
Kent
7/2/2024 11:57:04 pm
If there are indeed hyoo mon remains in el box, and no one seems to know if there are, if someone threw in a mummy of a certain age it would at most test positive as "someone from the time of" AtG. And I mos' def want to check out that pelvis which could be done noninvasively these days. It's positively raining opinions, don't forget your brolly.
MARK'S BODY??
7/3/2024 10:00:02 am
The first Christian to recognise the authorship of the Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke & John by name was Irenaeus of Lyons in "Five Books Against Heresies", in circa 180. Nothing exists before then.
Kent
7/3/2024 02:11:43 pm
"History says there is a body in Venice that was supposedly stolen from Alexandria." I fear that here you are mistaking tradition for history given the centuries-long game of Telephone and the thieves and liars both priestly and political involved. Et in Arcadia Hugo.
Crash55
7/3/2024 07:40:36 pm
According to the Fitzwiliam Museum of Cambridge the relics are his bones. Also according to them the Vatican had some of the returned to Alexandria in 1968. So we know for certain that there were at least bones in Venice in 1968 that tradition says are St Mark’s. Took a whole 30 seconds to find this info.
MARK'S BODY??
7/5/2024 01:59:01 pm
Awful lot of "According to" in this. It's commonly called special pleading. Especially in material relating to religion. And according to a religion that had many different sects and different contradictory beliefs that no-one is able to sort out.
Kent
7/5/2024 04:29:33 pm
"According to the Fitzwiliam Museum of Cambridge the relics are his bones. Also according to them the Vatican had some of the returned to Alexandria in 1968. So we know for certain that there were at least bones in Venice in 1968 that tradition says are St Mark’s. Took a whole 30 seconds to find this info."
An Over-Educated Grunt
7/6/2024 09:35:06 pm
Multiple witness statements over several hundred years are not special pleading. They're evidence that SOMETHING was attributed to be the remains of St. Mark, including specific details. It is possible all odd those witnesses are lying or mistaken, but that is, again, not special pleading; special pleading would be that there is something in this case that makes it different from all other cases, and since it is possible to find witness statements of carrots quality for all sorts of phenomena, there's nothing special about including them.
Kent
7/7/2024 09:59:57 am
Not "multiple witness statements" Shirley? "Multiple claims to be witnesses" perhaps. See above about travel writers and consider the phrase "multiple Gryphon witness statements". In anything so fraught with religionpoliticsandcrime statements are to be noted but acceptance is another black pot of fish.
An Over-Educated Grunt
7/7/2024 11:22:38 am
Oh for crying out loud. I haste pudding from phones.
Jerry A Taylor
7/2/2024 06:46:01 pm
Thermoluminescence could potentially date the stone and determine the approximate age. And there are other methods used to date stone.
Reply
Michael Redmond
7/3/2024 07:57:33 pm
1. Re the body, if there is one: IF DNA is present, haplogroup could indicate whether Hellenic or Semitic. 2. Re dating of New Testament texts: It's known that Romans confiscated and destroyed church mss during persecutions. Not surprising there's nothing from 1st and 2nd centuries, when the church was small potatoes, anyway. Maybe 1-2% of Roman population, tops.
Reply
Darold Knowles
7/4/2024 04:07:39 pm
Does this mean that Hamlet was wrong when he proclaimed that one could trace the noble dust of Alexander till he find it stopping a bunghole?
Reply
It may be added that the island monastery of Reichenau in Southern Germany also claims to have significant relics of St. Mark. They were allegedly transferred from Venice to Reichenau in 830, i.e. shortly after Venice received the relics, by Veronese bishop Ratoldus who came from this monastery and went back to it in retirement.
Reply
Kent
7/8/2024 09:59:10 pm
Did Pope Innofitzinhim recognize his old friend St. Mark or did he use alien mass spectrometry technology? Popes say a lot of kooky stuff up to the present day.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|