My son, visiting for Thanksgiving, smiled up from his phone and offered, “You might be interested in this. They’ve found Cleopatra’s tomb.” Then there was a longish pause and he added, “Well, maybe not.”
What’s in a title?
The CNN post he sent me carried the title, “Tunnel discovered beneath Egyptian temple may lead to Cleopatra’s tomb, archaeologist says.” All that is true, an archaeologist did say that and she is using “may.” But she’s making quite a leap to claim even a likelihood.
The headline in LiveScience is more to the point, “Vast tunnel found beneath ancient Egyptian temple.” Or the one in archaeology.org “Tunnel Discovered at Egypt’s Ancient City of Taposiris Magna.”
A marvel of engineering–the real find
Indeed they’ve excavated a very exciting tunnel, a marvel of engineering. It’s 1,305-meters (4,281-foot) long, located 13 meters (43 feet) underground. As the archaeologist, Dr. Martinez of the University of Santo Domingo said, this newly excavated tunnel is “an exact replica of Eupalinos Tunnel in Greece, which is considered as one of the most important engineering achievements of antiquity.” The Eupalinos tunnel brought water to a city. This one may serve the same purpose, although an ancient earthquake submerged much of the ancient city and determining more about the tunnel will require some underwater archaeology. This discovery is genuinely intriguing, but remarkably Cleopatra-connection-free, as far as I can tell.
Where does Cleopatra’s tomb come into it?
So where did CNN get their click-bait title? CNN is not alone, by the way. Here are two others that mention the marquee queen: “A tunnel to Cleopatra’s lost tomb has reportedly been discovered in Egypt” (EnVols) and “Archaeologists Hunting For Cleopatra’s Tomb Uncover a “Geometric Miracle” Tunnel” (Science Alert).
Here’s what happened–just the facts, as they say. Dr. Martinez has been excavating a site in Egypt since 2005 with the express hope of finding Cleopatra’s tomb. Hunting for a specific thing is rarely a sound archaeological premise. Sites offer up layers of human use, each to be valued on their own terms. Schliemann went looking for Troy and then destroyed the ruins containing the most likely “Homeric” Troy as he dug on down to where he “knew” his Troy lay. Dr. Martinez has not done anything destructive like that as near as I can infer, but I believe she is engaging in some overly wishful thinking that may mean she’s undervaluing what is coming to light or valuing it only to the extent it supports her belief she’s on Cleopatra’s trail.
Taposiris Magna as a possible location for Cleopatra’s tomb
In 2004, Dr. Martinez selected as her desired excavation site the ruined city of Taposiris Magna, on Egypt’s northern coast, where the Nile River meets the Mediterranean. Martinez focuses primarily on the name of this ancient city to explain her belief that Cleopatra and Antony lie somewhere in the site. Cleopatra represented the goddess Isis and thus her husband Antony would be the divine equivalent, Osiris. This site contains a temple to Isis and Osiris. Zahi Hawass, the then Egyptian minister for antiquities granted her approval for the excavation, allowing that important discoveries could be made at the site whether the dig uncovered the famous lost tomb or not. Martinez has dedicated overall roughly 20 years to her search for Cleopatra’s tomb.
Dr. Martinez says, “My perseverance cannot be confused with obsession. I admire Cleopatra as a historical character. She was a victim of propaganda by the Romans, aiming to distort her image.” I also find Cleopatra a fascinating historical character, particularly as a study of how the Romans ran a successful smear campaign against a strong and intelligent woman. But Martinez maintains a single-minded belief that this particular temple (of many in Egypt) must be “the one” despite finding only a few coins with Cleopatra’s name on them, which only shows that the temple was in use at the time or after her rule. Lincoln’s face on a penny does not mean the jar of change on my bureau marks his burial spot.
Media Choices
I suppose it is not surprising that various news outlets rose to the Cleopatra teaser Martinez offered to make a story that would draw eyes. If you are interested in the variations in how much emphasis the various outlets put on the famous queen versus telling the straight archaeological tunnel discovery story, do a quick read of them (links in the titles above). I actually found the story of the varied way the outlets covered this as interesting as the archaeology.
For a post about Cleopatra’s bulky boats and why Octavian won the battle.
Your take on this sounds much like what my brother, an historian by nature who has lived and worked all over the world and studied Roman archeology and history, would say.
Good for you for pointing out the flawed approach to ‘prove a theory’ rather than uncover a rich historical site that could unbury secrets from long ago.
Thank you, Claire. Archaeologists rarely approach a site these days with only one goal or focus. There might be a layer a particular archaeologist is most interested in, but every aspect of the process gets it due. I suspect she’s digging this one that way, although I don’t know, but talking a more sensationalist story to the press.
Comments are closed.