Who's buried in the Tomb of Vergina?

[Wolfie]

I know that in the recent journal articles I've managed to get my hands on from several years ago that the debate still rages on who is exactly entombed at Vergina. Has it ever been decided for certain if its Philip II and Eurydice or Philip Arraidaos (can never spell his name right)?Wolfie

[davej]

I think everybody but the Greek Ministry for Tourism is convinced that it is not Philip. It could be Arrhidaeus or somebody else. Who really knows, I personally think that it is Arrhidaeus.

[ruthaki]

I disagree. I just visited there (for the second time) in July and everything in the tombs state it is Philip's (that is seemingly supported by the Greek National Tourism, of course). And any of the archaeologists I have spoken to there(or Classical scholars) including people from the Society of Macedonian Studies in Thessaloniki seemed to agree. (I have talked to lots of people there while doing research for my novel.) I have seen all the grave findings including the skeleton many times since they were first put on display in l978 and I am personally thoroughly convinced that it is Philip's tomb. The latest (and surprising) exhibit states that the woman buried in the out chamber was one of his barbarian wives (likely a Thracian one.)And they have even named her. This seemed more logical as his young Macedonian wife was murdered some time after his death so how could she have been buried with him?

[maciek]

O I think not only this ministry but many other Greeks think that too - ask Yannis!!
I'm not sure about it - we can only trust or not archeologists. I'd like it to be Philips tomb but more interesting to me is where is grave of Alexander. It would be funtastic if they would find his remines and reconstruct his look like they did with Philip.Regards Maciek

[Macedons#1]

Yeah , I've been twice as well
2000 & 2002
Once with a package tour where I got
30 minutes and didnt even see the
palace or the theatre ..not that there
is much to see & in 2002 when I drove
all the way fron Neos Marmaras in Halkidiki
through Thessaloniki to Pella , Dion
& Vergina in a day ..also
visited Pydna and spent the next day driving
to Delphi & finally back to Halkikdiki..
long long drive

There is no doubt in my mind it
is Philips Tomb

[davej]

Hi Ruth,Of course thats what they are going to say, as I said in my oroginal post they are convince no matter what the science that it is Philip and maybe not just for economic reasons. Who is going to want to see the tomb of Alexander's idiot brother? have spoken to many classicists and archaeologist (without a vested interest in it being Philip's tomb), who are all convince that an error has ben made that the Greek can't or won't recognise. The evidence if you have'nt read it is very convincing. The work done in 1978 is very suspect. I wonder if the recent bodgie Persian mummies would have been exposed if they were already establish as Xerxes' daughter Ruhduktah (sorry spelling), or weather they would be explained away. Ruth check out this science article which is well respected and then see if your opinion is swayed. On compelling piece of evidence not mentioned is the discovery of Skythian coins in the tomb (seem to me more likely after Persia was part of the empire). Anyway everyon is entitled to their opinion, lets all be inform rather then taking the word of those who stand to gain from perpetuating a falsehood.http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/macedon/

[yiannis]

Prof. Andronikos based his theory, that the person that was buried in the tomb is Philip, because of the Philip/Alexander type of decoration and style of the tomb. Don't forget that that was back in 1977. He also based his theory on the nick found on the scull's eye, that indicated that it was Philip's wound and also that the two ivory figurines represented Alex and Philip. Also two greaves of unequal size pointed to Philip, who was limping from one foot. At the time he had plenty of evidence to base his theory. I believe that he's not to be depreciated because of this.Recently (2000), prof. Bartziokas of the Democritus University, presented his theory that rejected the previous theory that the nick indicated Philip (and other evidence followed). However there're still archaeologists (and not few nor of negligible value) that believe that it was Philip in the tomb.
The dispute is not over although the balance is turning towards Arridaeus.
Here's the full Bartziokas research: http://eris.knue.ac.kr/Ejournal/e-s/f-s ... 49.pdfDave, you're very harsh and categorical in your post. Archaeologists are very difficult to agree on anything. Bartziokas (and others) gave this evidence and his work has been presented many times (recently in the Symposium of the Greek Archeometric Society (May 2003). Minds change but it takes time.

[davej]

I am sorry if I appear harsh I am merely trying to be brief, that may make me appear rude. I mean no offence. I thank you for the link. I know archaeologist take time to surrender ground or even to publish for that matter. we are still awaiting the publication of ostka found in the agora of Athens from the 60's or 70's. I attended a lecture last year by Mattingly on coins. I a perfect example of how stubborn people can be in the 70's he concluded that Egasta decree feature a 3 bar sigma or didnGÇÖt (I cant recall and really wasnGÇÖt that interested). However what interested me was this, everybody told him he was wrong because the letter form he claim was no longer used. A new scientific method of X-raying fault lines in concrete revealed small fault lines in the marble indicating the name f the Archon for the year as claimed by Mattingly, thus vindicating his theory. I am sure in spite of this some people still believe he is wrong too. The point of all this is, it takes years for academics to desert entrenched positions, particularly when they have a vested interest. Nobody like to admit they are wrong, when your livelihood is effect as well it is even harder. I appreciate this, nobody likes being right more than me. Sometimes of course I have to back down and admit I am wrong. This would be impossible if I was going to loss professional credibility.So the point is this, accept nothing on face value, question everybodyGÇÖs motive for an entrenched position, particularly if they have a vested interest.Ever sine I read Bleodows article on Alkibiades re examined I have been a revisionist. A lot of what we accept as fact is suspect and should be questioned, including Philip's tomb. Dr Andronicus was not a forensic scientist his examination of the skull can and should be questioned. The Greaves found in the tomb claimed to be Philip's because he walked with a limp are highly suspect. Philips limp was caused by a thigh wound not a disfigurement in his lower leg. Arhideaus on the other had is reputed to have been disfigured by Olympias. This would account for a custom made greaves being that shape.

[panos]

Hi companions!
Having no "entrenched position", and no "vested interest" and using the same site mentioned before I am wondering why should we exclude the possibility that the skeleton found is of Alexander the Great. After all the skeleton was cremated "dry", complete and it was burried with great honors (in a golden Larnaka etc). Panos

[yiannis]

Hi Panayioti,
You're mentioning Mr. Papazois' theory, right?
Well, it's not adequally supported in my opinion. He makes a few points, but nothing solid. Regards,
Yiannis

[panos]

YannisIt is an assumption of course but I cannot see a reaso why not. Alexander was Macedon and by tradition should be buried in his homeland with the adequate rituals. I dont think anyone would accept the body of the most legendary and heroic of the Macedonians to be an excibit in a glass coffin in Egypt.......
Panos

[marcus]

Hi Panos,Except that Alexander *was* displayed in Egypt.Also, I wonder whether most of the Macedonians really thought of him as being the most famous and heroic of Macedonians - after all, he had denuded the country of thousands of men to go off fighting, had all but ignored the kingdom for the past few years, and by the time of his death his soldiers were not entirely enamoured of him. (That's not to say that they had completely turned against him - far from it - but they were certainly quite disillusioned.)So why *would* they care too much about taking him to Macedonia - or why would the Macedonians care too much about having his body turn up?All the bestMarcus

[panos]

MarcusIn Egypt there was a mummy in a glass sarconice personus bringing great wealth to the area.A good example of "somebody who cared"is Cassander. He was struggling to prove his decence from the Argeads. So appart from getting married to the sister of ATG (Thessaloniki) he would very much gain from a spectacular "return of the heros body".And concerning the dislike of the population to ATG:with his campaign Macedonia neutralised most of its enemies and became very wealthy, so he was appreciated for this. It is very indicative that when the Romans conquered Macedonia the Patricians of Rome became excempt of taxes because of the acquired wealth.
A disapproval to ATG would be expressed with a revolt or disorder mentioned in the sources...Regards Panos

[marcus]

Hi Panos,So why is there nothing in the sources to say that Cassander brought Alexander's body back to MAcedonia - and how did he get hold of it when Ptolemy had it in Alexandria?I don't think there needed to be a revolt - and let's not forget that there was a mutiny, at Opis, where the soldiers made it quite clear that they were not as slavishly prepared to tolerate Alexander as they had been. All the bestMarcus

[Tre]

A few points:The theory that Alexander destroyed Macedonia proper is greatly exaggerated by modern scholars. Funny, I don't recall reading that Macedonia fell anywhere near the year of his death, or for long afterwards.Alexander naturally, was intended to be cremated and buried in the Royal Cemetery as was proper for a King. This no doubt was not Alexander's wish, but when he was dead, his men intended to keep the traditions. It was Perdiccas' duty to see to it he was buried there as he was defacto acting 'King' having been handed the ring by Alexander.Naturally Ptolemy objected, and by filching the body from Perdiccas, was declaring to all who would listen, he was Alexander's natural successor and in fact his relative and put him at the seat of his own Kingdom.Did the Macedonians consider Alexander the greatest of their Kings? Not at first - those who were unhappy with Alexander would have seen Philip in the more favorable light, but you should have asked them about two years after Alexander died. I think their answer would have been rather surprising Marcus. And of course the Greeks would think the same many years after that. What is it they say about not appeciating things until they're gone. Cassander wouldn't have given a rodent's behind whether Alexander's body ever made it back to Macedon, for all the reasons history tells you he wouldn't have. The only reason he married Alexander's half sister was to try and legitimize his claim to the throne, and also make himself uncle to Alexander IV so he would in fact, be entitled to control the boy. Cassander did more to undermine Macedon than Alexander ever did - his attempt to place his line in charge over the Argeads had disastrous results.Regards,Tre