' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

Matthew Amt
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:26 am
Location: MD, USA
Contact:

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Matthew Amt »

Xenophon wrote:Matthew wrote:
One thing I notice is that every artifact from a tomb is assumed to have *belonged* to the person buried in that chamber. That's not necessarily an unreasonable place to start, but taking it as fact seems very dangerous to me. Other cultures have buried men with women's objects, and vice versa.
...do I take it you have in mind the so-called tomb of the Etruscan Prince, which contained two shelves, one skeleton buried with a spear beside it, presumed to be male, and the other with jewelry and small containers, presumed to be his wife ?

It turned out that the 'male' was a middle aged female, and the 'wife' was male ! Modern archaeologists now reckon on determinng bone analysis before jumping to conclusions from artifact finds.....
Exactly that one, McLeod's paper mentioned it and reminded me of the articles when the find was first made. Early medieval graves have long been said to be male or female according to the burial objects, but recent bone analyses show a much more mixed picture.

I'm also reminded of a grave from Britain that was concluded to be an Egyptian priestess of Isis AND a gladiatrix, simply because of an Isis amulet (something like that) and a lamp with a gladiator image on it. Both items, of course, were and are hugely common things, and have nothing to do with what the deceased (owner or not) actually was or did in real life. Otherwise, I would have to conclude that the 50-year-old ladies I (used to) work with are members of a professional football team, clearly shown by the number of Washington Redskins items on their desks!

So I'm just a little uncomfortable about the "Combat Queen" in Chamber 1 of Tomb II, though certainly a couple of ladies like that did exist. And both could be right--that could be a Warrior Princess, but the gorytos and greaves may not be *hers*.

Great knee pictures, by the way. Curiouser and curiouser...

Matthew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by amyntoros »

agesilaos wrote:It could be the normal space but something disjointed the leg and, presumably, lost the patella; had it been present it ought to have become fused in the mass of ossification. One reason to presume that an object remained in the joint is that the bones have not returned to a normal proximity, which would normally occur under the action of the tendons and ligaments, were these cut the limb would become totally useless, this would rule out Philip II who was active soon after the alleged wound. I wonder if the injury is not akin to that suffered by Drusus on the Rhine when his horse fell upon him, that might tear the joint apart without breaking the skin keeping infection out and the swelling disguising the extent of the damage (when I shattered my humerus I was under the impression that the injury was much less serious until I saw the x-rays). we do not know how Amyntas III died nor much about the end of his reign, but the pottery seems to rule him out, died 370.
Coincidence - just last night I was reading on an old JSTOR article by Hammond in which he dates Tomb I to around 370 and believes it to be that of Amyntas III. Wasn't going to post anything 'cause I assumed this had been well refuted since the time of writing. And, yes, I know what they say about "assuming". :D Anyway, the article is:

The Royal Tombs at Vergina: Evolution and Identities
N. G. L. Hammond
The Annual of the British School at Athens
Vol. 86 (1991), pp. 69-82

He refers to his earlier article (written before tomb III was found) in which he also credits the tomb as belonging to Amyntas - "'Philip's Tomb' in Historical Context", published in GRBS 19 (1978) 331 ff. In the later article there's some considerable research re dating the architecture of all the tombs and Hammond also feels that Andronikos' dating of the pottery shards to 'around the middle of the fourth century' does not necessarily preclude 370.

Interesting read, if only to bring another viewpoint back into play.

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Hammond is conditioned by his faith in Philip II being in tomb II, of course, and whilst 370 might just creep into the scheme of the mid-fourth century but it is pushing it, Andronikos tends to mention 350 in his reports; there is also Rigonis on 'The wounds of Philip II: fact and fabrication' or such like available at JSTOR, yet to read it but I will report :)

There is much to perplex, here.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Just to clear up some loose ends....

Agesilaos wrote:
I suggest you follow the link and explain why section 5: ‘TAPHONOMIC IRONY: WHY ARRHIDAIOS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BURIED IN TOMB II’, which deals solely with the fact that his corpse too would present as a ‘green’, ‘wet’ or ’fleshed’ cremation is not saying that this is apposite. It is germane to disallowing Bartsiokis’ argument but far from excluding Arrhidaios it allows him to remain a candidate.
Shome confusion here I think.....this belongs in the ‘Occupant of Tomb II’ thread. Despite the title, which I think is meant to refer to the remainder of the paper, section 5 really only refers to why the cremation ( whoever it was) could not be dry. As I said, the evidence for concluding it is not Arrhidaios is further into the paper, and not on account of the cremation being ‘wet’......
The leg in Tomb I cannot be from any medical condition; ankyliosis would not push the joint apart but fuse it in situ. ............. It could be the normal space but something disjointed the leg and, presumably, lost the patella; had it been present it ought to have become fused in the mass of ossification. One reason to presume that an object remained in the joint is that the bones have not returned to a normal proximity, which would normally occur under the action of the tendons and ligaments, were these cut the limb would become totally useless, this would rule out Philip II who was active soon after the alleged wound.
I don’t know where you are getting this from. Presumably you have access to only the same photos as everyone else. I see no evidence for the joint being pushed apart/permanently dislocated. To my eye, the joint looks normal, but fused over ( c.f. Alexias’ photo and my posted diagram). Again, I think the fusion is perfectly consistent with this person suffering from Ankyliosis, which occurs in men rather than women, commencing in late teens early twenties. I don’t think the evidence is at all consistent with a healed wound, and especially that the ‘hole’ is a wound of some sort. The patella is a smallish ‘floating’ bone, and thus perhaps unlikely to ‘fuse’. It could have been lost at any time, either pre or post mortem.For fusion of tibia and femur to have taken place at all, the tendons and ligaments cannot have been 'cut', for if they were, and not holding the joint together, fusion could not have taken place - the bone growth would simply have pushed the two bones apart.....
The sources are quite inconsistent as to the location of Philip's wound, which just emphasises how insecure arguments based on wounds reported by one source can be, stories grow; even Alexander has movable wounds, Philip loses and eye to an arrow, a javelin and a catapult bolt depending on the source.
.... there is also Rigonis on 'The wounds of Philip II: fact and fabrication' or such like available at JSTOR,
Alice Riginos ( note: correct spelling for those searching for the paper) does a thorough job of analysing source material on all Philip’s known wounds, and how reports evolved and exaggerated over time – indeed the comprehensive list of sources for the leg wound I posted came from it. I think Pothos readers, particularly those interested in this thread would find it very interesting. As Riginos states, and I can confirm, the sources, particularly the main ones, are not in any way ‘inconsistent’ as to the location of Philip’s leg wound, they are unanimous that it was in the thigh/upper leg, with Didymus specifically stating right thigh. If the spear went on to wound/kill the horse I would suggest it was a relatively minor flesh wound, but any damage to muscle etc would suffice to leave the King lame, either temporarily or permanently.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Amyntoros wrote:
Coincidence - just last night I was reading on an old JSTOR article by Hammond in which he dates Tomb I to around 370 and believes it to be that of Amyntas III. Wasn't going to post anything 'cause I assumed this had been well refuted since the time of writing. And, yes, I know what they say about "assuming". :D
.......you are right, for Hammond's 1991 analysis of the evidence has not ever been plausibly refuted, and it was (and is) instrumental in decisively refuting the Borgia/Palagia dating evidence for Philip Arrhidaios.( the architecture, the fresco, the 'salt cellars' etc).
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Yes, should be on the other thread, oops; but really, Musgrave et , who title each section titled this one section to cover the rest of the paper,?! When one considers the so-called ‘other evidence’, this amounts to the speculation that the Macedonians would not handle a rotting corpse and could find no slaves or Thracians to do the dirty work; the coda to section 5; the forced aging of Eurydike which has a 14 year old girl wowing the troops at Triparadeisos (an incident quietly forgotten I the Musgrave Paper), and continued denial that he features in the skull are injuries rather than artefacts of the reconstruction. A position from which he has subsequently seemed to retreat, see Mcleod. It is also made moot by Antikas’ re-aging the female to 30-35.

I would also point out to those reading the Musgrave et al paper that they mis-represent Boiy as independently supporting Anson’s dating of the fall of Pydna to 315BC, this is emphatically not so. The pages cited are an overview of prior scholarship and do not reflect Boiy’s views, I suspect this carelessness can be laid at the door of Robin Lane-Fox, and it is almost inexplicable given that Boiy tabulates his opinion quite clearly and has Pydna besieged winter 317 fall spring 316 9’Between High and Low’ p149). This may become relevant once the Chronology thread starts.

Well you answer your own astonished plea for where I am ‘getting it from’, it will be those photographs, fig 4 in the main article which is captioned ‘…In the radiograph …the distance between the femur and the tibia is 2.8 cm (i.e., by far greater than in normal bones).’ X-rays of which can be found here http://www.rad.washington.edu/academics ... ee-anatomy just in case the picture is too large to load.
knee.jpg
knee.jpg (32.4 KiB) Viewed 1049687 times
From http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... /ankylosis
ankylosis
[ang″kĭ-lo´sis] (pl. ankylo´ses) (Gr.)
immobility and consolidation of a joint due to disease, injury, or surgical procedure. adj., adj ankylot´ic. Ankylosis may be caused by destruction of the membranes that line the joint or by faulty bone
structure. It is most often a result ofchronic rheumatoid arthritis, in which the affected joint tends to assume the least painful position and may become more or less permanently fixed in it. Other causes include infection and traumatic injury to the joint. Artificial ankylosis(arthrodesis), fusion of a joint by surgical operation, is sometimes done to ameliorate the pain experienced in a severe joint
condition.
Perhaps you could source your claim that this effect is found in ‘men rather than women’, sounds spurious to me, human bone is human bone.
Alice Swift Riginos, ‘The Wounding of Philip II of Macedon: Fact and Fabrication@, JHS 114 (1994 pp103-119, this excerpt 116

WOUND IN THE LEG: TESTIMONIA
Demosthenes xviii 67. [τὸ σκέλος]
Didymus in Dem. Xi 22, col xiii 3-7 (46-7 [Pearson-Stevens]) [τὸν μηρὸν]
Justin ix.3.2 [in femore]
Seneca Con. X 5.6 [crūs ]
Plutarch Mor. 331b [τὸν μηρὸν] and 739b no. 4 [τὸ σκέλος]
Athenaeus vi 248f [τὸ σκέλος]
Scholion in Dem. Xviii 67.124 (i215 [Dilts}) [τὸ σκέλος]

WOUND IN THE LEG DISCUSSION

In contrast to the abundant testimonia regarding Philip’s eye injury, the sources for a lg wound are few and quite consistent. The wound was to the upper leg or thigh [Demosthenes, the Scholiast , Plutarch and Athenaeus refer to τὸ σκέλος, Didymus and Plutarch to τὸν μηρὸν; Justin says in femore . Only Seneca’s crure debili points to the lower leg.]
Yet skelos does not mean ‘upper leg’ merely leg, it is non-specific so the unanimous evidence is 4 for the leg in general, 2 for the thigh and 1 for the lower leg. As Riginos goes on to say, the side of the injury was considered unknowable in Plutarch’s day ( that is the point of Mor 739b: one guest asks another what arm Diomedes wounded Aphrodite in and another objects that there is insufficient evidence ‘It is like asking in which leg Philip was wounded!’; the first guest demonstrates that Aphrodite was wounded in the right arm conceding that no one knows about Philip.

It is part of her thesis that these stories grew with time (the weapon that took his eye went from an arrow to a catapult bolt via a javelin, for instance) allowing us to discount the horse being slain through the rider and probably the ‘sarissa’, Plutarch’s ‘lonche’ is much more likely and the pairing is comparable to the dispute over the weapon that killed Kleitos. Although at least there the weapon was in Macedonian hands!
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by amyntoros »

agesilaos wrote:
knee.jpg
From http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... /ankylosis
ankylosis
[ang″kĭ-lo´sis] (pl. ankylo´ses) (Gr.)
immobility and consolidation of a joint due to disease, injury, or surgical procedure. adj., adj ankylot´ic. Ankylosis may be caused by destruction of the membranes that line the joint or by faulty bone
structure. It is most often a result ofchronic rheumatoid arthritis, in which the affected joint tends to assume the least painful position and may become more or less permanently fixed in it. Other causes include infection and traumatic injury to the joint. Artificial ankylosis(arthrodesis), fusion of a joint by surgical operation, is sometimes done to ameliorate the pain experienced in a severe joint
condition.
Perhaps you could source your claim that this effect is found in ‘men rather than women’, sounds spurious to me, human bone is human bone.
I'll jump in briefly here. Ankylosing Spondylitis is seen mostly in men, but not exclusively. See this health site for:
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a form of arthritis. It is considered an immune disease that affects your spine. Also called rheumatoid spondylitis, AS limits your range of motion and causes discomfort. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the condition is most prevalent in men, but women are not immune to the disease. Approaches in diagnosis and treatment can vary between genders because the symptoms and severity are not the same in men and women.
Also, ankylosis of even a single joint, especially weight-bearing joints such as the knee, used to be seen frequently as a symptom of tuberculosis or syphilis.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

But we are not talking about ankylosing spondylitis, that is a medial condition as you say, but we only have the ankylosis or fusion, the cause of it is up for debate.

Bartsiokis, despite his own evident axe to grind, would not suggest it was the effect of a wound if he thought it was spondylitis, even if it may not be the effect of the wound he wants. This injury remained dislocated for years and shows no signs of infection; if the Antikas team are correct with the five neonates etc then I would venture that all are later intrusions and all argument is moot, the main problems with that are that the female and the new born Bartsiokis considers, were in a different deposit according to some and that the corpse of this individual had his lower legs pulled apart from his thighs before the fill.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by amyntoros »

agesilaos wrote:But we are not talking about ankylosing spondylitis, that is a medial condition as you say, but we only have the ankylosis or fusion, the cause of it is up for debate.
Now, you may not be talking about ankylosing spondylitis, but ... ...
Xenophon wrote:
When looking at the photos, I have some very serious doubts as to whether this injury is a “wound” at all.....

With the caveat that I am not a doctor or medical expert, nor have I examined the skeleton of course, the male skeleton’s leg condition and bone fusion seems to me to be more consistent with ankylosing spondylitis, an inflammatory disease with genetic links and defined as :
Stiffening or fixation of a joint as the result of a disease process, with fibrous or bony union across the joint; fusion.
[G. ankylōsis, stiffening of a joint]

This could explain why the leg was not straightened, the disease being a gradual progression over time.
:) :) :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Doh! Guess I just have no faith in the diagnoses of self confessed non medicoes but that does cover the sexual bias, though irrelevantto Bartsiokis' case which is clearly that it is the result of a wound and the displacement, that the non-doctor denies despite the photos, I presume you and others can see that the separation is greater than usual, I do not think I am falling for some legere de main or de jambe, on the part of Dr B. Ankylosing Spondylitis fuses the joint in situ it does not force the joint apart as far as I know; which may not be much further than Xenophon! :D

According to http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Ankylosing ... ction.aspx the condition affects the spine, indeed this is the condition which affected Richard III, arthritic inflamation of the joints is a complication, nothing here suggests that it leads to ankylosis of the joint and I do not think there are signs of spinal disease in the Tomb 1 skeleton, but will check that appendix to PNAS. Just checked and there is no abnormality reported in the spine ascribed to individual 1.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Alexias »

Is there any indication of how rapidly the bones would grow to fuse to that extent? Is 3 years sufficient? I know someone who has had ankylosing spondylitis of the spine for over 20 years and although modern medicine might be reducing the effects of the disease, I don't think his spine is a solid mass of bone.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Yet skelos does not mean ‘upper leg’ merely leg, it is non-specific so the unanimous evidence is 4 for the leg in general, 2 for the thigh and 1 for the lower leg.
That is not correct. According to the LSJ 'skelos' means "A.leg from the hip downwards, only once in Hom., πρυμνὸν σκέλος the ham or buttock, Il.16.314;" in other words the upper leg or thigh, save for a single reference in Homer to buttock. I confess I did not consider Seneca a 'source' as such, rather simply a later Roman commentator (1C AD). The evidence is as Riginos and I said, all for the upper leg/thigh [ bar Seneca], with Didymos specifying right thigh.
agesilaos wrote:Doh! Guess I just have no faith in the diagnoses of self confessed non medicoes but that does cover the sexual bias, though irrelevant to Bartsiokis' case which is clearly that it is the result of a wound and the displacement, that the non-doctor denies despite the photos, I presume you and others can see that the separation is greater than usual, I do not think I am falling for some legere de main or de jambe, on the part of Dr B. Ankylosing Spondylitis fuses the joint in situ it does not force the joint apart as far as I know; which may not be much further than Xenophon! :D
In which case you should have no faith in the 'diagnosis' of Bartsiokas either.
Firstly, Bartsiokas is an anthropologist, and no more qualified to make medical diagnoses than you or I......
Second, the radiograph you posted is of a normal knee joint, and it can be seen that there is quite a gap at the joint. I am aware of Fig 4 and Bartsiokas' comments, but a 28 mm gap is not that much larger than normal, and certainly not evidence of spearhead penetration. I would not regard this as solid evidence of a penetrating wound. Both you and Bartsiokas are making a mountain out of a molehill here.As I mentioned previously, we might expect the growing bone surfaces to push against one another before fusing, and hence tendons or ligaments might stretch to enlarge the normal gap ( and it is only slightly enlarged)....or the ends of the two bones might degenerate following fusion.....not to mention possible post-mortem changes.There are a number of possible explanations beyond the unlikely one that a portion of the supposed weapon remained 'in situ' to hold the joint open while the bone fused i.e. years.As you said: "This injury remained dislocated for years and shows no signs of infection". What is the explanation for this unlikely hypothesis?

Bartsiokas in his report introduction says: "The male individual in Tomb I displays a conspicuous case of knee ankylosis that is conclusive evidence of lameness. Right through the overgrowth of the knee, there is a hole. There are no obvious signs that are characteristic of infection and osteomyelitis. This evidence indicates that the injury was likely caused by a severe penetrating wound to the knee, which resulted in an active inflammatory process that stopped years before death."

He should have added that there are no obvious signs characteristic of wound trauma either. That the 'wound' ( hardly a "severe penetrating wound") should occur just where there is a natural hole/gap in the knee joint is, to me, stretching co-incidence too far. If it is the case that this is a wound, what of the 'hole' in the pelvis? Or the hole in the female skeleton's leg? or the hole in the infant skeleton? ( that I referred to earlier)
According to http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Ankylosing ... ction.aspx the condition affects the spine, indeed this is the condition which affected Richard III, arthritic inflamation of the joints is a complication, nothing here suggests that it leads to ankylosis of the joint and I do not think there are signs of spinal disease in the Tomb 1 skeleton, but will check that appendix to PNAS. Just checked and there is no abnormality reported in the spine ascribed to individual 1.
That is not entirely correct either - ankylosis of the joint is not always a complication of a spinal condition. As Amyntoros pointed out: "Also, ankylosis of even a single joint, especially weight-bearing joints such as the knee, used to be seen frequently as a symptom of tuberculosis or syphilis."[ my emphasis]

Alexias wrote:
Is there any indication of how rapidly the bones would grow to fuse to that extent? Is 3 years sufficient? I know someone who has had ankylosing spondylitis of the spine for over 20 years and although modern medicine might be reducing the effects of the disease, I don't think his spine is a solid mass of bone.
I don't know for certain, but like you I know of one or two sufferers, and the condition and bone fusion only develop very slowly over many years - but this is anecdotal evidence. Certainly the fusion in the Tomb 1 middle-aged male's knee is consistent with the disease commencing in his teens ( the usual occurrence) and then developing over many years.....
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by amyntoros »

Not trying to end the current (and quite enlightening) conversation, but I have been thinking about something else Agesilaos said. If we argue or accept that this quite severely disabled man/skeleton is not Philip, then how on earth did he get into the tomb? Quick research on ankylosis of the knee (whatever the cause) shows that many people with a severe case are unable to even walk. So all of the earlier claims that the skeleton might be a tomb robber seemingly fall by the wayside when we consider his disability. If not Philip, then who?

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

We can probably exclude the 'tomb robber' hypothesis. There are a number of other possibilities. If he was an original occupant, then he could be Amyntas, as suggested by Hammond - or some other Macedonian 'Royal'. If he came later - certainly a possibility given that his remains were at a slightly higher level than the others, he could be anything from a dumped beggar's corpse onward.....as Agesilaos mentions, all seven skeletons being later intrusions.

As with the Kastas skeleton being Olympias, the evidence doesn't 'mesh' with our other evidence for this skeleton being Philip II.


edited to correct spelling
Last edited by Xenophon on Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Ah, LSJ! It is a common source of error, but can you tell us all, and allowance will be made for your lack of medical experience, just where is your shin? Is it above your hip? Like I said, a general word for the whole leg.

Bartsiokis’ credentials can be found here http://he.duth.gr/faculty/staff_pp/bartsiokas_pp.shtml and should suffice to prevent any confusion between your, nay our abilities to diagnose and his. You will note the frequent references to ‘anatomical studies’ and even ‘osteology’ . Might, I suggest you search for an expert’s CV before dismissing them?

So a trained and experienced physical anthropologist says 28mm is ‘far greater than normal’ and you claim that it is ‘not much larger’ neither claim is referenced, so whom do we believe? Not much of a poser unless you can support your assertion with some evidence, of course, I doubt Bartsiokis will be contributing but the force of authority is definitely on his side.
healthy knee.jpg
healthy knee.jpg (33.63 KiB) Viewed 1049639 times
Here is another normal knee and an arthritic one, you can see the joint collapses rather than a growth forcing it apart. I agree that there is a hole in the female knee too, but you will have to list these ‘characteristic signs of wound trauma’ which you do not see.

You seem to have misunderstood, I was referring specifically to ankolysing spondylitis, the condition you had proposed and that Amyntoros drew my attention to. Both TB and Siphylis present on skeletal remains as I remember from my own Paleopathology lectures, normally as lesions on the bone surface if I recall correctly. No signs of these pathologies are reported, indeed syphilis may not have been present in Europe at the time (unless the remains are later than 1st Century BC; the latest find is from Herculaeneum 79AD but one would have to posit an earlier date for patient 1).

Your closing comment again relates to ankolysing spondylitis which is not the case here.

Yes Amyntoros, getting the cripple into the tomb is a puzzle, and do not forget that his body was not in one piece see the photo above from Mcleod’s paper.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Post Reply