agesilaos wrote:the Musgrave Paper did nothing of the sort; let me refresh your memory.
This statement is untrue, save in the most pedantic sense, and simply serves to obfuscate matters. In absolute terms, Musgrave et al did not "prove" in an absolute sense that the occupant is Philip II, nor did they attempt to do so ( contra your inaccurate comments about an agenda).
"
The aim of this paper is not to press the claims of Philip II and Cleopatra, but to draw attention to the flaws in those for Philip III Arrhidaios and Eurydice."
There is no absolute evidence, such as the DNA evidence from King Richard III's descendants that proved beyond shadow of a doubt that the bones found beneath the car park were undoubtedly his .But Musgrave et al did succeed in their aim, conclusively demonstrating that the bones of the tomb II occupants could NOT be those of Philip Arrhidaeus.
Bartisiokis' case was based on the assumption that the adult male had been burned 'unfleshed'. Musgrave et al demonstrated that it is not possible to differentiate between a partially fleshed, ie rotting, corpse and a fully fleshed one.
This is a complete mis-statement of the case, and a misreading of the report. Musgrave et al proved by tests and reference to other studies that fleshed (green) bones and unfleshed (dry) bones cremated in different ways, particularly warping and cracking. They also showed that Bartsiokis' assumption that Arrhidaeus' bones would have been completely dry is wrong.
"If Bartsiokas is right and the bones in the gold casket were burned dry, they could never have belonged to Philip III Arrhidaios because it would have taken them several years to achieve the state of dryness to produce the fracture lines classic of dry cremation.The literature on decomposition is extensive....." The occupant of the Tomb showed no signs of 'dry' cremation.
It IS possible to differentiate between fleshed and partially fleshed cremation - obviously the skeletal parts will show characteristics of 'dry' cremation, whilst those bones still fleshed or partially fleshed will show characteristics of 'green' cremation. In this case the conclusion was that the body had been completely fleshed from head to foot.
"
Conclusion:
We believe that the man in the main chamber of Tomb II was burned as a fleshed cadaver on the evidence of the widespread warping and distortion of the bones of his cranial vault and at least six long limb bones: his right humerus, left ulna, both femora and both tibiae."
The conclusion is neutral, but Musgrave working to an agenda declares that since the prop of Bartiosokis' argument has gone the body was fully fleshed and thus Philip II which is fallacious; all one can say is that the identities cannot be separated on grounds of the type of cremation (though this reappears in the new analysis!).
Again, this completely wrong. As can be seen, the conclusion is NOT neutral, but rather that the body was definitely cremated fully fleshed on the evidence of the bones from head to foot, not on any 'fallacious' assumption based on the demolition of Bartsiokis' suppositions. The evidence of the bones is that the body was NOT cremated either fully 'dry' or partially fleshed, but rather fully fleshed. Accordingly the body cannot possibly be that of Arrhidaeus (contra Agesilaos' above). Nor can I see an 'agenda'....this appears to be the product of Agesilaos' reading.
He also made the female older than Adea would have been but only withing a few years, so few as to make the finding within the range of growth rate differences.
The point being that on age grounds, the female cremated corpse could not possibly be that of Eurydice, being far too old.
The new evidence makes the woman 30 -34 too old for any known consort of either man but perfect for Kyannane, who seems to have been forgotten in favour of a wholly unknown Skythian unattested in the sources.
Again this is untrue. Cynane, or Kynna, daughter of Philip, and half-sister of Alexander, mother of Eurydike was killed and ultimately interred with Royal ceremony along with Philip Arrhidaeus and Eurydike in Aegae by Cassander. Fatally for any such postulation, Tomb II contains two, not three bodies. In any event, Cynane/Kynna was likely older than the age range given for the female body, not to mention that the female body from Tomb II was undoubtedly cremated fully fleshed.
There is however a more likely candidate. Meda of Odessos, believed to have died in 336 BC, was a Thracian princess, daughter of King Cothelas of the Getae, and wife of king Philip II of Macedon. Philip married her after Olympias, circa 339 BC. The presence of the 'gorytus' in the ante-chamber need not indicate 'scythian' origin ( digression: The people of Aietes kingdom, though called 'scythian' by Greeks were not true nomads but rather a mixed people ), but could also have been a gift, trophy or even a prized possession of a Getae princess.
According to N. G. L. Hammond (followed by Elizabeth Carney), when Philip died, Meda committed suicide so that she would follow Philip to Hades. The people of Macedonia, not used to such honours to their kings by their consorts, buried her with him at the Great Tumuli of Vergina, in the ante-room.
In the interest of completeness it has to be said that the circumstantial evidence does favour Philip II and that the objections of Philip III's proponents have been shown to be erroneous, as in the case of the barrel vault, or are not as clear cut as stated, Attic Salt cellars (largely style based). It would be nice if the new analysis could give a definitive answer but its agenda are already showing; as is clear from its 'definitive answer'
As early as 2007, a comparison of the evidence in an unbiased fashion by Hatzopoulos came down in favour of Philip II, and everything since, such as the 'new' evidence referred to supports that conclusion.
The evidence, even if not definitive as with King Richard III, may be circumstantial but is overwhelming. With the removal of the only other plausible candidate ( Arrhidaeus) and the erroneous dating 'evidence' swept away, there can be no realistic conclusion other than that the occupant of Tomb II is indeed Philip II, Agesilaos' caution notwithstanding.