World Ancient tomb really does hold Alexander the Great's father, controversial study claims

[Old School]

Researchers used X-ray analyses to determine the occupants inside a trio of royal tombs in Greece.
Archaeologists may have finally identified the remains of Alexander the Great's father, half-brother, and son in a trio of tombs at a necropolis in Greece.
Researchers have long debated which members of the Macedonian royal family were buried in each tomb. Now, a controversial new review suggests that researchers previously got the tombs mixed up and claimed they had identified the actual occupants of each tomb.
Known as the "Great Tumulus," the burial site in Aegae, the original Macedonian capital (modern-day Vergina, a town in northern Greece), contains three tombs that were built during the fourth century B.C., according to a review published in the December 2023 issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.
Researchers initially discovered the tomb complex in the 1970s and proposed that the crypts, known as Tombs I, II, and III, contained the remains of several royals who were closely related to Alexander the Great, the Macedonian leader who reigned from 336 B.C. until he died in 323 B.C. Those individuals included Alexander the Great's father, King Philip II; his son, Alexander IV, whom he had with his wife Roxana; and his older half-brother, King Philip III Arrhidaeus.
However, there's been an ongoing debate about which royal is interred in each tomb.

 

[Old School]

Alexander the Great once lived in Pakistan and contributed significantly to the civilization here. We, therefore, share no less glory of this great general than his place of birth.

 

[TheNewb77]

Alexander the Great once lived in Pakistan and contributed significantly to the civilization here. We, therefore, share no less glory of this great general than his place of birth.

'Glory' would be subjective here. I always caution myself when gloryfing certain individuals. There's a lot we can and do not know about a person that we are only so told.

 

[Old School]

'Glory' would be subjective here. I always caution myself when gloryfing certain individuals. There's a lot we can and do not know about a person that we are only so told.

It all depends on the extent of knowledge. We glorify many people whose very existence can be challenged. I only talked about things that are known. Nothing can be said about what is unknown. The same logic can be applied to many glorified prominent personalities. Some personalities even exist as part of a belief system without objective evidence. However, It will hurt many people's feelings so that I won't name them here. Alexander's life and the Seleucid dynasty are well documented in contrast to many famous people a thousand years younger than him.