Publication: The identification of the Royal Tombs in the Great Tumulus at Vergina: A comprehensive review
Moderator: pothos moderators
Publication: The identification of the Royal Tombs in the Great Tumulus at Vergina: A comprehensive review
This paper just came out: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104279 by Bartsiokas et al., where they attempt to further clarify their position on the identification of the remains (e.g. Philip in Tomb A, etc.), while also offering responses to various points raised by those dismissing their interpretations. Havent really read it yet, not sure if I have time to, but maybe you find it interesting.
Re: Publication: The identification of the Royal Tombs in the Great Tumulus at Vergina: A comprehensive review
This is very interesting, thanks, although a bit of a heavy read.
Basically, the authors' contention is that Tomb I, which has an associated heroon, contained the uncremated remains of a man in his mid-forties, a teenage girl, and a newborn child, which are the remains of Philip II, his last wife Cleopatra (whom Olympias murdered) and their newborn daughter Europa (although the baby's sex can't be determined). They contend that Tomb II (the one with all the rich grave goods) contained the remains of Philip Arrhidaeus and his wife Adea Eurydike. They believe that Olympias buried Arrhidaeus, but left Eurydike unburied. After about 6 months, Cassander cremated both sets of remains and reburied them lavishly, including the armour that might have been Alexander's (on the basis that Arrhidaeus never went into battle so wouldn't have needed armour - but he would have needed dress armour to appear before the army).
The bones in Tomb II appear to be of a man about 40, and a woman in her mid/late twenties. The male skeleton is quite gracile and the female fairly robust. The side-by-side photo of their lower jaws would appear to bear this out, being almost the same size. This is meant to identify the female as Eurydike as she was the only Macedonian warrior-queen. Contrary to popular opinion, the male skull does not show damage above the right eye. Nor is there any evidence of a knee injury in the male, as there is in the male in Tomb I, which shows a fairly crippling knee injury consonant with the leg injury Philip received from the Triballians on his return from campaigning against the Scythians. They don't consider whether this injury would have impacted Philip's ability to ride and go into battle.
It has been proposed that the male bones in Tomb I entered the tomb with the soil from the tumulus through the hole in the roof made by the tomb robbers, but the authors' refute this. The scattering of the bones is likely due to the coffin(s) being raised off the ground and attached to the wall, so the robbers may have broken to coffins to recover any artifacts. What the paper doesn't consider is that the remains shown in Tomb I do not appear to represent complete skeletons, particularly of the female. So what happened to the rest of the bones?
Their technical arguments are fairly convincing, though I was less convinced by some of their textual arguments - for example whether Cleopatra and her baby were murdered within a few weeks of Philip's death, or several months later, and they are quite explicit about Arrhidaeus's age at death being 39.
One thing that is a little troubling though is that the box containing the remains from Tomb I appears to have been in the sole possession of one professor for several years, accompanying him to Germany for several years, then Crete, then to Thrace. A couple of bone fragments that had previously been recorded have gone missing.
Basically, the authors' contention is that Tomb I, which has an associated heroon, contained the uncremated remains of a man in his mid-forties, a teenage girl, and a newborn child, which are the remains of Philip II, his last wife Cleopatra (whom Olympias murdered) and their newborn daughter Europa (although the baby's sex can't be determined). They contend that Tomb II (the one with all the rich grave goods) contained the remains of Philip Arrhidaeus and his wife Adea Eurydike. They believe that Olympias buried Arrhidaeus, but left Eurydike unburied. After about 6 months, Cassander cremated both sets of remains and reburied them lavishly, including the armour that might have been Alexander's (on the basis that Arrhidaeus never went into battle so wouldn't have needed armour - but he would have needed dress armour to appear before the army).
The bones in Tomb II appear to be of a man about 40, and a woman in her mid/late twenties. The male skeleton is quite gracile and the female fairly robust. The side-by-side photo of their lower jaws would appear to bear this out, being almost the same size. This is meant to identify the female as Eurydike as she was the only Macedonian warrior-queen. Contrary to popular opinion, the male skull does not show damage above the right eye. Nor is there any evidence of a knee injury in the male, as there is in the male in Tomb I, which shows a fairly crippling knee injury consonant with the leg injury Philip received from the Triballians on his return from campaigning against the Scythians. They don't consider whether this injury would have impacted Philip's ability to ride and go into battle.
It has been proposed that the male bones in Tomb I entered the tomb with the soil from the tumulus through the hole in the roof made by the tomb robbers, but the authors' refute this. The scattering of the bones is likely due to the coffin(s) being raised off the ground and attached to the wall, so the robbers may have broken to coffins to recover any artifacts. What the paper doesn't consider is that the remains shown in Tomb I do not appear to represent complete skeletons, particularly of the female. So what happened to the rest of the bones?
Their technical arguments are fairly convincing, though I was less convinced by some of their textual arguments - for example whether Cleopatra and her baby were murdered within a few weeks of Philip's death, or several months later, and they are quite explicit about Arrhidaeus's age at death being 39.
One thing that is a little troubling though is that the box containing the remains from Tomb I appears to have been in the sole possession of one professor for several years, accompanying him to Germany for several years, then Crete, then to Thrace. A couple of bone fragments that had previously been recorded have gone missing.