' 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 »

Taphoi wrote:If the Greek Ministry of Culture says in an official statement that the bones were articulated, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. They would be in a position to know the facts.
You're going to trust a bunch of bureaucrats who might have no training in history or archeology, let alone pathology? Dr. Bartsiokas is a paleoanthropologist, meaning he makes a living studying old bones. His co-authors all have similar experience. They closely examined DOZENS of bones and fragments from Tomb 1. Yes, I would trust 5 scientists like that over a government ministry that apparently didn't even know these remains existed...
Your quote from the paper does not really deny the clear assertion of the Ministry that there were 20cm of post-robbing deposits underlying the leg bones. If so, and if the bones were indeed articulated, then it is quite certain that the bones are not from an original occupant and are therefore not Philip II.
Okay, fine. But then you build a lovely house of cards, one "if" after another. Since all you have to do to conclude that the rest of the bones (beside that one wounded knee joint) were NOT articulated is to glance through the photos in the PNAS article and supplemental material, your house of cards collapses. Besides, didn't you have "Olympia's" bones climbing out of her grave at Amphipolis due to "brazil nut action"? You can't grant her husband a mere 20 centimeters?
I think perhaps that you are appealing to modern attitudes to rape in implying that a queen of Macedon would not wish to be associated with a scene alluding to the abduction of Persephone by Hades, but since we know that a chariot containing Hades and Persephone was the principal decoration of the throne of a queen of Macedon found in the same cemetery and from the same period, I fear that your argument is demonstrably anachronistic.
Okay, "a" throne? And I'm assuming that it had the queen's name on it, or that there was some other incontrovertible proof that it WAS a queen's throne. Assuming all that (and I'm not arguing that point!), why is that PROOF that any other depiction of the Rape of Persephone can ONLY be found in a *woman's* grave?? One documented example forms an unbreakable rule? Sorry, I'm not an art history guy, so probably I'm just not understanding.

Also, am I understanding that *other* skeletal remains from this *same cemetary* are also being interpreted as those of grave robbers? That just seems bizarre to me! In a looted tomb like this, it means the poor guy either got backstabbed by his buddies and left behind, or he got in alone, shoved all the goodies out the hole, and then keeled over for some unknown reason! OR he broke into an already-looted tomb, and killed himself in a fit of pique? Frankly, it all sounds very unlikely to me.

For the Wounded Knee man, it seems obvious that he *did* survive his injury. There was no indication of bad infection, so he was darn lucky. The amount of bone growth clearly showed that this injury happened about 3 years before the man's death. (Gosh, kinda like Philip!)

Yes, the lack of cremation is curious. Is there a written account of Philip's cremation? If not, it may just have to be an uncertainty. Add it to the list--the list which started in 1978 and has only gotten longer with time...

Why can't all these archeologists and ministers be uncertain about anything? What's wrong with the real truth, which is "We're not entirely sure!" Just seems wierd to make it all so political. Wouldn't it be cool if Tomb 2 *was* Arrhidaeus? Because then, from what I've been reading, we've got the actual armor of Alexander the Great! I mean, what's cooler than that??

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 »

Taphoi wrote:
I think perhaps that you are appealing to modern attitudes to rape in implying that a queen of Macedon would not wish to be associated with a scene alluding to the abduction of Persephone by Hades, but since we know that a chariot containing Hades and Persephone was the principal decoration of the throne of a queen of Macedon found in the same cemetery and from the same period, I fear that your argument is demonstrably anachronistic.
To quote the beginning of the entry for Persephone on Theoi.com:
PERSEPHONE was the goddess queen of the underworld, wife of the god Haides. She was also the goddess of spring growth, who was worshipped alongside her mother Demeter in the Eleusinian Mysteries. This agricultural-based cult promised its initiates passage to a blessed afterlife.
I am concerned about any attempt to associate such tomb portrayals with women only:
The gods raped with impunity. There are a number of articles exclusively examining rape in Greek mythology, but unfortunately my books remain in storage so I can't quote or refer (damn). Anyway, to be chosen and pursued by a god was considered a good thing, hence so many claims of divine parentage. (And it's important to note that the recordings of this myth and others were all written by men so the male attitude prevailed!) Still, I do agree that any queen, if asked beforehand, would not have had objections to a portrayal alluding to the abduction of Persephone being included in her tomb decorations. The rape would not have concerned her, mostly because, as Theoi.com notes - the story was really about death and rebirth. And as it was a primary myth in the Elusinian mysteries, and possibly/probably also featured strongly at Samothrace, then the myth obviously was important to men as well as women. After all, men also desired passage to a blessed afterlife! :) It follows, IMO, that a portrayal on a tomb wall does not prove or necessarily indicate that the main occupant was female.

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Zebedee »

The bones clearly weren't articulated given that one of the claims in this study is that Musgrave assigned the wrong thigh bone to the wrong person... Even the damaged leg wasn't in one piece, but two which fitted together, as the study itself says.

Intriguing opinion put forward. I'd be hesitant to identify as any particular person on the basis of one wound though? Philip II was hardly the first cavalryman to take a severe injury to the leg.

The study tries to overturn Justin on the cremation idea. Well, by try, just dismiss out of hand. Does that stand up?

The question of a later insertion seems to be at odds with both the original excavation report and this current study. The study highlights that these bones were found underneath the soil which had fallen through when the ancient hole was made into the tomb roof and were on or close to the tomb floor. Maybe the lame tomb robber had been there for some time I guess...

Certainly agree, yet again, with amyntoros that one can't do the 'female deities in mythical depiction means made for a woman' logic. Persephone, or reference to that myth cycle, is present in male and female burials across Greece (eg the use of the pomegranate as symbolic of life/death).

All very curious, although I suspect the British team will not be long in responding in kind.
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 »

Mathew it I, not Taphers who posited a Brazil Nut Effect (or maybe it was Xenophon first, I can't remember), Taphoi argued against it. Though neither of us think it is Olympias, nor the original occupant. It is certainly possible for things to move within loose soil or even mud. Just to make it clear the Rape of Persephone means her Abduction (ditto the Rape of the Sabine Women) it has nothing to do with the modern day crime of sexual assault.

Zebedee you are quite right that the dismissal of Justin/Trogus is unsound as it stands. Alexander was not cremated but might be a special case due to the Egyptian connection yet there could have been Egyptians in Philip's Court, though probably not a fugitive pharaoh Nectanebo II.

It is only an assumption that the hole in the roof was made by the robbers and then left open for an in fall of mound and it seems unnecessary, the hole trough which they entered would suffice for an exit, if we are dealing with Pyrrhos' Gauls then they had no need of speed nor secrecy. The talus may have been formed by pressure from the larger mound which was built to protect the Tombs sealing them c 250 at the latest. During this window there seems little explanation for the leg other than it belonged to the occupant, that the Gallic robbers tossed the female and child to a different corner seems no good reason for supposing that they occupied the Tomb alone and the associated,both structurally (same building materials ) and spatially, Heroon counts against it.

In the photo appendix, however I notice that female skeleton exhibits a similar 'hole', unless this is mis-labelling, Maybe the penetrating wound is not what it seems :shock:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:
Taphoi wrote:
I think perhaps that you are appealing to modern attitudes to rape in implying that a queen of Macedon would not wish to be associated with a scene alluding to the abduction of Persephone by Hades, but since we know that a chariot containing Hades and Persephone was the principal decoration of the throne of a queen of Macedon found in the same cemetery and from the same period, I fear that your argument is demonstrably anachronistic.
To quote the beginning of the entry for Persephone on Theoi.com:
PERSEPHONE was the goddess queen of the underworld, wife of the god Haides. She was also the goddess of spring growth, who was worshipped alongside her mother Demeter in the Eleusinian Mysteries. This agricultural-based cult promised its initiates passage to a blessed afterlife.
I am concerned about any attempt to associate such tomb portrayals with women only:
The gods raped with impunity. There are a number of articles exclusively examining rape in Greek mythology, but unfortunately my books remain in storage so I can't quote or refer (damn). Anyway, to be chosen and pursued by a god was considered a good thing, hence so many claims of divine parentage. (And it's important to note that the recordings of this myth and others were all written by men so the male attitude prevailed!) Still, I do agree that any queen, if asked beforehand, would not have had objections to a portrayal alluding to the abduction of Persephone being included in her tomb decorations. The rape would not have concerned her, mostly because, as Theoi.com notes - the story was really about death and rebirth. And as it was a primary myth in the Elusinian mysteries, and possibly/probably also featured strongly at Samothrace, then the myth obviously was important to men as well as women. After all, men also desired passage to a blessed afterlife! :) It follows, IMO, that a portrayal on a tomb wall does not prove or necessarily indicate that the main occupant was female.
Hi Amyntoros,

I have not actually said that the rape/abduction of Persephone is necessarily exclusively used in female tombs. I have only said that the story of a goddess being carried off into the afterlife would have had a more straightforward interpretation in a female tomb and that Macedonian men in the 4th century BC would normally have been resentful/embarrassed to be equated with a female character (but again not exclusively - Alexander seems to have been okay with being seen to follow in the footsteps of Semiramis, but that was exceptional).

I note that in this matter the Greek Ministry of Culture is currently siding with me and I note (for Matthew's benefit) that they have many distinguished and senior and female archaeologists on their staff. It appears that this most famous Persephone tomb belonged to a woman/queen in their view (which is THE official view).

I also note that you are renowned on Pothos for paying attention to the evidence and for digging around to find or fail to find examples to support or undermine positions. So please go and find some of these tombs with Rape of Persephone murals that unambiguously belong to men only. I would like an example where the Rape of Persephone is a main feature so that the man might have risked being identified with the Persephone figure. That would readily convince me of the unisex nature of the Persephone iconography. If we focus all our attention on Tomb I at Vergina and the tomb at Amphipolis, I fear that I will be reinforced in my suspicion that Macedonian kings of the 4th century BC wouldn't be seen dead in the guise of Persephone, so to speak.

For Zebedee: the leg bones are stated by the Ministry to have been artculated as found and 20cm up in the post-robbing earth fill. Everyone agrees that they were not articulated as soon as they were extracted, because there was a physical break between the bones as found.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Last edited by Taphoi on Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Zebedee »

Oh hey Andrew. My reading of the various bunfights over this tomb has always been that the lower legs were unmoved during the looting but that the rest of the male skeleton had been. One has to explain why his lower legs and feet are half a metre away from the rest of his body but very close to being in their correct anatomical positions whilst the rest of the skeleton isn't. Maybe he just had very long legs? For reference, one can look at the pictures taken at the time of the excavation which clearly shows this curious feature. I just don't really see the evidence for it having to be a later skeleton. 12cm up in a fill of nearly 1.5m seems not to be a problem to me, but Agesilaos raises a fair point that it may only provide the latest possible date for a skeleton to be placed inside.

As for Persephone, are we only doing murals here? That's a fairly small sample size... and the best other example which springs to mind (from the Bosphorus) didn't have any remains whatsoever. One can easily point out the lack of direct reference to the goddess' name herself in (all?) burials.. But are you really suggesting that any reference to this myth cycle is going to mean a female burial? You'll note even others who are trying to make this claim for this same tomb use the absence of 'traditionally' gendered male grave goods to support the idea, whilst glossing over the inconvenience of the associated heroon. If you want a truly unique female identifier, try shoes. (Only partially tongue in cheek, but I'm not aware of any grave of a man containing representations of shoes. Female only it would seem.)
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 »

Taphoi wrote:
I have not actually said that the rape/abduction of Persephone is necessarily exclusively used in female tombs. I have only said that the story of a goddess being carried off into the afterlife would have had a more straightforward interpretation in a female tomb and that Macedonian men in the 4th century BC would normally have been resentful/embarrassed to be equated with a female character (but again not exclusively - Alexander seems to have been okay with being seen to follow in the footsteps of Semiramis, but that was exceptional).

I note that in this matter the Greek Ministry of Culture is currently siding with me and I note (for Matthew's benefit) that they have many distinguished and senior and female archaeologists on their staff. It appears that this most famous Persephone tomb belonged to a woman/queen in their view (which is THE official view).
The problem with your above statement is that (A) the Greek Ministry of Culture is using information from their archaeologists and (B) the fact that they are archaeologists (whether male or female, doesn't matter) is surely indicative of their knowledge of religious matters being less than that of historians, some of whom may even specialize in the subject. I'm not saying that archaeologists don't know their stuff - far from it - but there will always be occasions when contributions from historians can and will shed further light on a finding. Archaeology supports history, as we well know. And sometimes archaeological finds may "unambiguously" (to use one of your words) change our view of history. This is not one of those cases. In your own words - "this is their view" - which makes it, quite rightly, an opinion. Ambiguity exists.

As for Macedonian men being resentful/embarrassed to "be equated with a female character". Oh my goodness, Andrew, where are you getting this from? Not quite following the "equated" bit for a start. But really? Evidence? And what about Athena? And the sphinxes found on tombs of young men in Greece? Apparently no one there worried that the dead would have been "resentful/embarrassed to be equated with a female character".
Taphoi wrote:I also note that you are renowned on Pothos for paying attention to the evidence and for digging around to find or fail to find examples to support or undermine positions. So please go and find some of these tombs with Rape of Persephone murals that unambiguously belong to men only. I would like an example where the Rape of Persephone is a main feature so that the man might have risked being identified with the Persephone figure. That would readily convince me of the unisex nature of the Persephone iconography. If we focus all our attention on Tomb I at Vergina and the tomb at Amphipolis, I fear that I will be reinforced in my suspicion that Macedonian kings of the 4th century BC wouldn't be seen dead in the guise of Persephone, so to speak.
Again, how does the presence of the Rape of Persephone mean that the tomb occupant might "risk being identified with the Persephone figure"? In my previous post I said that the whole myth is about death and REBIRTH? Are you saying that only women could be reborn? I'm not about to "go find some of these tombs with Rape of Persephone murals that unambiguously belong to men only". because, again, the information regarding the current tombs under discussion is not "unambiguous". And you know full well, as do I, that the tomb at Vergina with the mural is the first mythological scene known to have decorated Macedonian cist tombs.

As for "I also note that you are renowned on Pothos for paying attention to the evidence and for digging around to find or fail to find examples to support or undermine positions." I'm not sure whether I've just been complimented or insulted!!! :?

Just for info:
RAPE OF PERSEPHONE (HOMERIC HYMN)... Then she [Demeter] went to [the leaders of Eleusis] . . . she showed them the conduct of her rites and taught them all her mysteries . . . awful mysteries which no one may in any way transgress or pry into or utter, for deep awe of the gods checks the voice. Happy is he among men upon earth who has seen these mysteries; but he who is uninitiate and who has no part in them, never has lot of like good things once he is dead, down in the darkness and gloom. But when the bright goddess had taught them all, they went to Olympos to the gathering of the other gods. And there they dwell beside Zeus who delights in thunder, awful and reverend goddesses. Right blessed is he among men on earth whom they freely love: soon they do send Ploutos as guest to his great house, Ploutos who gives wealth to mortal men.
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 »

The Tomb of Anthemia aka the Palmette Tomb in Lefkadia, from the third century may depict Hades and Persephone reclining on its tympanum, though it is generally described as the dead man and his wife. This does seem to be a male tomb, with the ashes contained very like those in Vergina II. This too was robbed out so it remains ambiguous. :?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Zebedee »

There are a few centuries of tombs at Cyrene with statues and representations of Persephone on them. Family tombs, individual tombs. It's hardly any more representative of sex than to find korai in association with Athenian graves. In fact, if one was going to force this kind of literal link between mythological scenes and the deceased, would Persephone not imply an unmarried girl/woman taken away to be Hades' bride? My wife's got a new husband, here's her grave.. It's one thing to try to make the link, it's another to cherrypick out the bits of the mythology you want to keep rather than acknowledge the broader (and non-gendered) associations.
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 »

agesilaos wrote:Mathew it I, not Taphers who posited a Brazil Nut Effect (or maybe it was Xenophon first, I can't remember), Taphoi argued against it....
Apologies, my mistake! :oops: I should have double-checked.
It is certainly possible for things to move within loose soil or even mud.
Absolutely!
Just to make it clear the Rape of Persephone means her Abduction (ditto the Rape of the Sabine Women) it has nothing to do with the modern day crime of sexual assault.
Oh, understood! I got a little carried away, but the question obviously still stands.
In the photo appendix, however I notice that female skeleton exhibits a similar 'hole', unless this is mis-labelling, Maybe the penetrating wound is not what it seems :shock:
Which image? I don't seem to be seeing it. But there's no getting around that knee injury, there's a lot more to it than just the hole. Geez, it hurts just to look at it...

Is this the actual excavation report?

http://www.amazon.com/Vergina-Royal-Tom ... 9602131284

Might have to order a cheap used copy if I can't get it on ILL.

Matthew
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 »

The photo is Fig S13 in the appendix.

No, that is not the excavation report though it does refine the 'few sherds' to 'a few sherds from two black glazed plates', aside from that nothing but some fragments of one marble shell were left in tomb 1. Such a clean sweep is reminiscent of Kastas, I wonder if the material has been deposited in Tomb II, Andronikos himself noted that the variety of weapons found in the ante-chamber with the female remains was unusual, this would mean that the marble doors to the tomb were functional, like those to the third chamber at Kastas as there is no sign of a break in. The Greek taboo about the dead might have meant the disturbed bodies were left in situ (although they could have got some Thracians or slaves to move them had they wished).

What no one against Bartsiokis has suggested is an explanation for the crippled bone being in the tomb in the first place; it is a conundrum. :?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
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 »

agesilaos wrote:The photo is Fig S13 in the appendix.
Okay, I see it--that *is* a nice hole, isn't it? They don't mention it though, unless it's in technospeak that I'm not catching. And it doesn't look like one of the male's bones, so I don't think it's mislabeled. Presumably it's pos-mortem damage. The young lady clearly took a few bumps and bruises in her time, though.

Matthew
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Zebedee »

Just a wee question, but has Antikas' study of the bones in tomb I been released yet? Various trailers some time ago that it would give a man, a woman, a child, four new borns and a fetus as being the full total of those found in the tomb. (Incidentally, this may be what is meant by the 'all the bones' comment as some of the bones found for that study were 'stored' in their own unique way after discovery...)
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 »

That rings a bell, however it would not explain the fused femur and its evident healing, which is the crux here.
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 »

Does this help? (Not regarding the fused femur, but the number of bones.)

From Discovery News
However, according to Theodore Antikas, author of another study which concluded the bones found in Tomb II are those of Philip II and a Scythian princess, Bartsiokas and colleagues are missing a point—or more precisely, some bones.

In a letter to the editor of PNAS, Antikas, head of the anthropological research team of Vergina Excavation at Aristotle University, maintains Bartsiokas’s research has been done on a small part of the bones found in Tomb I in 1977-78.

According to the researcher, the bones from Tomb I took different routes ever since their discovery. Some were first kept at Vergina, and some were sent to the Archaeological Museum in Thessaloniki (AMT).

How the bones shown in the Bartsiokas and colleagues paper ended up in the Lab of Anthropology at Democritus University of Thrace remains to be investigated.

To add to the mystery, in July 2014 Antikas's team found in an old storage place two wooden boxes containing artifacts and two bags of human and animal bones from Tomb I. The bones had been stored at the Vergina Museum since their discovery in 1977 and were not known or seen by anyone.

"It is evident that some bones from Tomb I were kept at the University of Thrace--at some unknown period in the past--and some remained at Vergina's storage area," Antikas wrote.

From the plastic bags containing over one hundred bone fragments of inhumed individuals, Antikas's analyzed and identified 70 bones.

Surprisingly, it emerged that the looted Tomb I contained the remains of at least seven individuals: one male, one female, one adolescent (sex unknown), one fetus and three infants.

"Some human bones may belong to the same individuals reported in the PNAS paper, or to three different occupants of the tomb," Antikas said.

He added it is also possible that some of them may belong to looters, or "dumped" humans and animals for convenience.

"Cases of dumping adults, babies and animals are seen in other looted Macedonian tombs found at Vergina, "Antikas noted.

He added his team is awaiting permission to conduct DNA, Stable Isotope Ratio (SIR) and C14 tests on samples from tombs I,II and III.

"The study by Bartsiokas and colleagues is based on insufficient material evidence. Without a detailed study of all skeletal remains found in the tomb and before any conclusive results from the DNA, C14 and SIR tests are reached, every assumption on the identity of the deceased is premature hence unreliable," Antikas said.
Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Post Reply