Historical accounts are matching with everything archaeologists are finding: the location, the age of the structure, etc. Archaeologists have been working on excavating the site since 1990--quite a bit of time to consider their theory. Though they can't prove with certainty that this is definitely the tomb of Aristotle yet, it is very likely based on circumstantial evidence.
The location of the tomb of Aristotle has too much value to the people and governments of both Greece and Macedonia to be conclusively determined one way or the other. The evidence will always be at best circumstantial since it is rather unlikely they will find a large sign saying 'Aristotle Buried Here.'
When mr.Meatpants cumms in my mouth it tastle like heaven! S s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s ss s ss s s s
No, the fact that the Kostas Sismanidis, the discoverer of the alleged burial location has expressed that he "has no hard proof, but strong indications lead him to almost certainty" is enough to make you doubt the very level of certainty this archaeologist claims to have. Accurately pinpointing and identifying such an important landmark should be based on more than "no hard proof" and "strong indications".
I'm not certain how Konstantinos Sismanidis can 'claim' anything without actual proof. Since Aristotle was cremated there will never be any remains. According to the article he's not claiming anything. As any good researcher does, he's voicing an opinion based on his findings. The archaeologist also quoted medieval references to Aristotle’s ashes being interred in his hometown.