pothos.org

Just to add more to the conversation,looking at all the possibilities, what would be a list of who the armour COULD have belonged to? So far, candidates, from what I can gather in postings on the Forum, include:
Alexander III- as a young man
Alexander III- adult
Philip (personally, I think it is too small- Philip was not a small man, and the Makedonians were considered a "taller" race)
Arridaios- as a young man
Arridaios- adult
Cassander's- guilt/blood appeasement?
Kynanne
Other candidates? (Considering a great many people in the royal lines had armour at that time)
Parade armour, or battle?
Symbolic (dress) or functional?
Thanks for any input

If its true, that someone with a height of 5'2" was the owner of the armour, then I would suggest it more likly to have belong to an adolecent, rather than an adult. Perhaps Alexander, son of ATG? He was presumably done away with when he was a teen.( Just cant buy this Philip, ATG, Arridaeus etc, being 5'2",concept)

The hypothesis is that Alexander IV was the owner of a set of bones, identified as a male adolescent's, in a different tomb at Vergina (Tomb III, I believe).L&P,
Karen

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions - plus a lot of the information that we read is worng. For instance - the received view that the iron helmet is a 'one-off' and so must have belonged to Alexander as only he could have afforded it - well, it may be a first for Greece but there were iron helmets in Asia Minor several centuries earlier.Secondly - how large is the armour ? The current view on this forum seems to be that it fits a 5ft 2in person - but is this actually correct or is it hearsay? It seems the argument is : the armour fits a 5'2" person, it was found in a tomb that the excavating archaeologists would like to believe belonged to Philip II, therefore Philip was 5'2" ... There are clearly several gaps in this reasoning.
The whole business of the tombs seems full of wishful thinking and postulates. Some may be true of course.The tumulus was probably built by Antigonos Gonatas many decades later - perhaps around 270? He certainly would have known who was in the mounds, so it's likely that Philip II lies in Tomb I or Tomb II. The contents of the three tombs are;Tomb I - 3 burials - a small-boned male in the prime of his life, a woman in her mid-twenties and a new-born infant. Not good condition - looted. Tomb II - bones of man in main chamber. Armour including breasplate, shield, iron helmet, leg greaves. Furniture with images of Philip, Alexander when young, Olympias.Woman buried in antechamber, with bow & arrow & other military equipment. Unclear if these belong to the woman or the man. Limited jewelry.Suggestions
1 - Philip II and ?Cleopatra or Meda - burial 336
2 - Philip Arrhidaeos, Eurydike - burial after 317Karl Soundy earlier raised research that showed that the bones had probably been defleshed before cremation, probsably after burial - this points to Arrhidaeos as Philip was cremated immediately.
Tomb III - youth, probably Alexander IV.Cassander buried Alexander IV, he also buried Philip Arrhidaeos & Eurydike. The origin of the armour in Tomb II may depend on his attitude - if it was a show burial, he may have used armour that didn't necessarily belong to the person being buried.I have another suggestion - Tomb I was looted. Assuming this was before the tumulus was built ( which I don't know) - maybe some of the armour and furnishings that had not been looted were moved to Tomb II which was more secure - I think similar things happened in Egypt. So it could have been Alexander's

An alternative view, in the site below, is that it is Alexander himself buried in Tomb II - an interesting hypothesis, as his body was visible in Alexandria several centuries later. There are lots of interesting photos, though. http://tdpapazois.gr/english/alexander.htm
The hunting scene fresco on Tomb II is nicely shown. There is also mention of the sword found in Tomb II , which the author says comes from Cyprus. Does anyone know anything extra about this?

Susan

When it comes to the bones one must remember that they srink when crimated so you can't have an accurate measurment of hight according to the bones alone.Btw, nice pictures in this site...

Not sure about a sword, but there was a sceptre mentioned in the original excavator's notes that has 'mysteriously' been absent from the literature since. They have pieced together a lovely ceremonial shield that some have taken to be the Shield of Achillies but I believe that to be suspect too.A person I know was allowed to personally see and touch the armor found in Tomb II and verified (this person is small also) that the armor would fit them.I have it that the bones of a large man were found in Tomb I - I know that Hammond suggested these bones were from a hapless tomb robber.

The de-fleshed cremation in tomb II points exclusively to the occupant being Philip III Aridaios, making Euridike prime candidate for the female. It would seem likely,however that Kassander used a tomb that had been started for Alexander but left incomplete when Ptolemy stole the body. this would make the best candidate for the large man in Tomb I Philip II and of course Alexander IV in No III.It would seem that originally there were three separate tholoi and that later a larger mound was constructed to prevent despoilation as had already occurred in tomb I. A good candidate for the spoiler is Pyrrhus, or more specifically his Celtic mercenaries as noted in Pausanias during his war with Lysimachos. This act is cited as one reason for the Macedonians deserting him and it would be a fair bet that Lysimachos the wiliest of the wily would have capitalized on this propaganda gift and repaired the tombs possibly shifting the contents of the despoiled one into the others. Building a big mound would have been the cheap option and that gels with his reputation as the last of the big-spenders.As to who was 5'2", either Alexander the IV or Eurydike are possible but I like the idea of Kassander using an old suit of Alexander's. Philip III was in the feild when he was captured and was then imprisoned in a privy I dare say his own armour was on the back of some Thracian or Epeirote.

Hi all:Karl wrote: "It would seem likely,however that Kassander used a tomb that had been started for Alexander but left incomplete when Ptolemy stole the body."This is what I think, too, whomever the armour & bones belonged to. Because the facade painting has Alexander as the central figure. And I think that Kassander, who so hated Alexander, would have delighted himself with the humour of burying the half-wit in the tomb meant for the great one...Love & peace,
Karen

I read about the bones in Tomb I being of a small-boned male in Carney, "Women & Monarchy", Chapter 9, page 236 ; the quote came from Musgrave, who also believes that the skull in Tomb II shows evidence of an eye-injury and that the bones were cremated soon after death; both these facts have been disputed so the other one may be, too.The image of the sword is at :
http://tdpapazois.gr/images/8s.JPGThe caption is:
Sword made of gold and ivory. A gift to Alexander the Great from King Pumyathon, from Kition on Cyprus. (Ploutarch) Found in Tomb II. It bears the symbols of Kition.I've not seen it before. There used to be a good site devoted to the museum assocated with the Vergina tombs, but it seems to have been removed.Also, does anyone on this forum know enough about Perisan artefacts to tell if the diadem from Tomb II is acually Persian, as is suggested on the http://tdpapazois.gr/
site ?Susan