Tomb II or I?

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
Hypaspist
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Tomb II or I?

Post by Hypaspist »

Greetings from Sweden

1. So now they've concluded it is not Philip in Tomb II? But what about the skull they found from which they reconstructed the famous face of Philip II?? Is that Philip or is it Arrhidaeus??

2. Where did they retrieve the skull? Tomb I or II? Either way, the skull showed markings of a wound above the right eye.


Atb, Rob
Matthew Amt
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:26 am
Location: MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Tomb II or I?

Post by Matthew Amt »

As I understand it, the skull reconstruction with the dramatic eye injury involved a bit of, shall we say, wishful thinking. The scar on the bone could very well be normal post-mortem damage. (Doesn't the ancient description say there was *not* a great piratical scar?) There's an older thread which has a number of links to wonderful papers on the topic, worth digging through:

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5803

Now, that doesn't mean it's *not* Philip! But at this point the politics are more important than the science.

Matthew
Hypaspist
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:57 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Tomb II or I?

Post by Hypaspist »

But does the skull belong to Philip then? Or could it just as well be Arrhidaeus? I am currently reading Ian Worthington's Philip II of Macedonia, and it would really assist the imagination putting a face to the man you read about...
User avatar
Jeanne Reames
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:44 am
Contact:

Re: Tomb II or I?

Post by Jeanne Reames »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26195763

Recent article on the bones in Tomb I, which makes a really good case these are Philip's, which bucks up the issues with the bones in Tomb II, plus various other dating issues from salt-cellars to the vaulted architecture. When I first read about the bones, it seemed to me logical that Tomb I was Philip, Kleopatra, and Europa, and Tomb II was Arrhidaios and Hadea Eurydike. But I recognized that, at the time, a *firm* assignment was difficult to make. But with this recent (2015) article, I'm now prepared to state pretty categorically that Tomb I is Philip's, Tomb II is (probably) Arrhidaios and Hadea Eurydike and (mostly undisputed) Tomb III is Alexander IV.
----
Dr. Jeanne Reames
Director, Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Graduate Studies Chair
University of Nebraska, Omaha
287 ASH; 6001 Dodge Street
Omaha NE 68182
http://jeannereames.net/cv.html
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Tomb II or I?

Post by Xenophon »

Dr Reames wrote:
Recent article on the bones in Tomb I, which makes a really good case these are Philip's, which bucks up the issues with the bones in Tomb II, plus various other dating issues from salt-cellars to the vaulted architecture.
Both the date of the salt cellars argument and the barrel vault argument have long since been completely debunked - earlier dated identical salt cellars turned up in Athens, and barrel vaulted Macedonian and Thracian tombs which significantly pre-dated Alexander are well known. -see for example " The burial of the dead (at Vergina) or the unending controversy on the identity of the occupants of Tomb II" Hatzopoulos (2007), available online, which summarises the position at that time ( favouring tomb II being Philip II). Since then the weight of argument and evidence (circumstantial though it may be) has shifted even further in favour of Tomb II being the tomb of Philip II, though of course absolute proof on present evidence is not certain.



But with this recent (2015) article, I'm now prepared to state pretty categorically that Tomb I is Philip's, Tomb II is (probably) Arrhidaios and Hadea Eurydike and (mostly undisputed) Tomb III is Alexander IV.
Bartsiokas has had an agenda on this subject for 15 years or more. His paper has obvious serious flaws. An examination of his paper, and a more holistic view of other papers on the subject was discussed back when it came out, here on Pothos, in July 2015 in a thread called "The lameness of King Philip II" here:-

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5803

You'll find references to many other accessible papers there in the first six pages or so ( before the subject digressed into the esoteric world of chronology! ). The ankylosed leg, which Bartsiokas claimed he knew was Philip II's before it had even been examined (Hardly scientific method !!!) is unlikely in the extreme on medical grounds alone........

It is significant that no impartial expert in the field supports Bartsiokas' views (other than his followers).

When you have read this thread, and the other papers referred to in it, I feel confident that you will be less certain of your 'categorical' views.....
Post Reply