' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Since Professor Black had been cited hypothetically I thought I would e-mail her and ask for an opinion in fact; much to my surprise she replied :shock:
Apologies for the delay in replying Karl but I ended up out of the office for a few days. Please bear in mind that I am just a simple forensic anthropologist and anatomist and as such, tend to be beaten up when I dare to stray into archaeological realms - so I hesitate.

Would you rule trauma out as a cause of the ankylosis? It cannot be ruled out as the original causative factor especially if it is the only evidence of a joint fusion or other related pathology across the entire skeleton. Full ankylosis at a major joint such as a knee would take considerable time to progress to the stage shown in the image but would certainly be an adult event as ankylosis following injury as a juvenile would have led to considerable foreshortening I think.

b) How likely is a penetrating wound scenario? I am not convinced that the cavity that I can see is evidence of a penetrative injury if that is what is being suggested. I think it more likely to be the remnants of the joint space. Ankylosis at the knee can arise following fracture, dislocation, infection - tuberculous, pyogenic etc. Ankylosis to the extent of the angle seen in the image is not common in clinical literature as the fusion tends to occur with the leg extended and even if traumatic in origin, there is a tendency for patient management to attempt to straighten the limb for both aesthetic and ease of management issues. Therefore in this case there is an implication of 'contracture'.

c) Do you agree that there is a larger than normal separation at the joint? I am not aware that there is definitive measurements on what is normal for joint separation but the best source for that would be in current clinical orthopaedics.

d) What other causes might there be, given the lack of skeletal signs of disease? Failure of joint formation is always a possibility and this is a genetic issue e.g. congenital arthrogryposis. However if the cavitation seen on the image is the remnants of a joint space then this would not fit. It is possible that the contracture is congenital in origin and there has been only partial joint formation but for this I would advise recourse to medical genetics.

So, in summary, the persistence of an angle of contracture seems more likely to have a developmental origin than a traumatic one and I am not convinced that the cavity seen is evidence of a penetrating injury. My views are merely speculative as it is challenging to see the remnants of the anatomy just from the images and I repeat that I am not a clinician, an orthopaedic surgeon or a geneticist. They will all have different views that could be sought.

Best of luck, Sue
I have emboldened the questions I asked, as can be seen she does favour a developmental explanation over trauma but rules nothing out.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote Fri 30 Oct
So what came first; the examination of the fused femur, or the conclusion? Seems your own conclusion is dependent upon putting the cart before the horse! :lol:
The actual technical examination of the fused femur was carried out by the Spanish team who collaborated with Bartsiokas [ see his paper]
(small digression: Bartsiokas had to recruit a Spanish team because his work was unauthorised by the Greek authorities, and he had been refused permission to do this work, so could not use a Greek team. This was why Antikas was rather outraged at Bartsiokas incomplete examination – some bones were elsewhere, as previously mentioned – and Xirotiris [ the original examiner] could call Bartsiokas’ work “criminal”.)

Bartsiokas’ words are plain, he decided the ankylosed leg must be Philip’s as soon as he opened the box, or whatever, and ‘found’ it. That is, before any proper examination had taken place. Let us not forget Bartsiokas has been trying to deny that the Tomb II incumbent is Philip II for more than 15 years, and thus is hardly impartial. He has an agenda.
Nor is anyone suggesting that ‘osteological evidence alone’ will provide an answer, even in the quote above Bartsiokis is combining it with ‘…the historical evidence…’ ; that you disagree with his conclusion that it is Philip is fine, I tend to agree, but there is no need to put so many eggs in your pudding, it is in danger of becoming an omelette!
We are talking archaeological evidence here, and the only artifacts to come from Tomb 1 were the incomplete skeletons – the osteological evidence. (Barring a few unidentifiable black pottery sherds ). Literary/Historical evidence might support identification, but only if there is some demonstrable link, and it cannot be conclusive in any event – only ‘consistent with’. In this instance the archaeological evidence is not even consistent with the literary evidence, and what is worse, must be rejected in order to accept Bartsiokas’ postulation. Philip’s wound left him “lame” ( either temporarily or permanently ), not “crippled” as the male skeleton in tomb 1 clearly was, and his wound was in the “leg”, probably the upper leg, rather than the knee. Presumably our sources would know the difference!
Further, according to our sources, the blow of the spear went on to kill his horse, which would be impossible if we accept Bartsiokas’ postulation. ( The size of the hole precludes a spearhead, or even sauroter, fully penetrating. For a detailed discussion, see “THE WOUNDING OF PHILIP II OF MACEDON: FACT AND FABRICATION” by Alice Riginos, available online ).
The most likely way this might occur is if the spearhead caused a slicing cut to Philip's leg rather than penetrating it, and went on to stab the horse with undiminished force and energy. Cut muscles, tendons etc would suffice to cause subsequent lameness.

Bartsiokas is therefore indeed relying purely on osteological evidence, which can never be conclusive ( short of being labelled ; “These are the bones of King Philip II”, and even then you’d have to show the ‘label’ or inscription was contemporary with the deposition, not mistakenly added at a later date, or a deliberate fraud.... !! :lol: ) DNA comparison evidence, which is impossible in this instance, might also provide positive identification ( as in Richard the III of England’s case).
Generally it is best to demand the same rigour from different sources, so to accept a verdict based on ‘circumstantial evidence’ but deny the osteological because it ‘proves’ nothing is simply crass; neither, alone or in combination can prove the identification of the occupants, though, clearly both can fuel speculation. I expect you will eschew any reference to the alleged damaged orbit of the Tomb II male in future, or does this osteological ‘evidence’ come under the class of ‘circumstantial’?
You seem somewhat confused over what constitutes ‘circumstantial evidence’ and what is direct evidence. All osteological evidence, whether a fused knee, or a nick on an eye orbit forms part of the ‘circumstantial evidence’ ( because it is not, and cannot be, proof of identity of itself)
Your memory of the circumstances around Tomb I seems to have faded somewhat. What you call a ‘tunnel’ was, in fact damage done by the robbers once they had entered by a small hole in the central closing slab of the roof, they had attempted to gain access through the upper west wall, the one opposite the single figure (Kyana), but had been thwarted by a well fixed shelf and had smashed a hole ‘just big enough for a man to wriggle through’ Andronikos ‘Vergina; the Royal Tombs’, Athens, 1984, p.86.
Yes, you are quite right. I had refreshed my memory by looking at Elizabeth Carneys’ Clemson University site, and its excellent description and photos of Macedonian tombs, where she refers to an entry tunnel [rather inexplicably], but following your post I delved into my library and found Andronikos’ “The Royal Tombs at Aigai” from 1978, from which his description is as per your post....
This hole was not practicable for a man with the ankylosis found, nor would a robber, interred, rip his own body into three pieces which remained articulated, which also rules out a dumped body, unless the men who blocked the holes decided to tear a fleshed corpse apart. If the first robbing was down to Pyrrhos’ Gauls, which seems likely; professional grave robbers left pottery and iron goods, yet this tomb was completely striped and we know there was pottery as small sherds were found, and only sherds, the source pottery had been removed. The damage to the North wall was made to either discover treasure (Andronikos) or more likely to discover if there was a new chamber, when they found only dirt the other side of the wall they stopped digging. This was not carried out under fear of discovery and capture by notional guards.
I don’t agree that the entry hole was not practicable for the ankylosed man. Any hole in the ceiling slabs that would allow a normal man to enter, probably by rope, would admit the ankylosed man. One way would be for him to sit on the edge of the hole, legs in the hole. He could then straighten up, sitting on the edge, and his ankylosed lower leg would swing up to the horizontal, parallel to the underside of the slab. From that point he could proceed to be lowered like anyone else....a possibility then, though not one I favour.

Since the tomb was open a considerable time judging by the slowly accumulating earth fill, the skeletons, all incomplete, could have been disturbed a number of times by opportunistic scavengers, whether the skeletons were original, a dead robber or a ‘dumped’ corpse. [correction: ‘North wall’ should read ‘west wall’ according to Andronikos.]
The holes remained unrepaired while Pyrrhos was in charge at Aigai but were blocked when Antigonos came to power, prior to the construction of the great mound. During which time it would be simple to cast in the neonates, nor is this an unusual practice.
True enough, but one cannot rule out that the man, and woman for that matter, were also ‘dumped’ in the open tomb as well, not even necessarily at the same time, and then subsequently disturbed, and it was Xirotiris’ view that this was the case [one of the excavators and first examiner of the bones].
Of your posited solutions only the first is reasonable, therefore, the others are not just zebras but pink polka dot ones!
I don’t think you thought this through. All three are possible scenarios [as are others], as can be seen, and the question as to how the skeletons got into the tomb must remain unanswered. I think the last is perhaps the most likely. There are no stone beds or biers for an un-cremated corpse to be laid out on nor any traces of wooden beds/biers such as were found in tomb II, nor, it would seem, a grave, which militates against an original interment burial. One might speculate that cremation and subsequent interment in a gold or silver larnax, as in the other Aigai tombs, was the likely burial method for the original occupant or occupants, and of course a larnax would be pillaged and removed by the robbers – of whom both the male and female skeletons might conceivably have been members, leaving a mystery as to how they came to rest there. In the last scenario, the skeletons found were ‘dumped’ in the open tomb later – which is what Xirotiris believes.
Why you continue to rubbish Bartsiokis’ qualifications amazes me and you are totally wrong. Professor Black is emphatically not a ‘forensic paleo-anthropolog[ist]’, she is a forensic anthropologist, which means her evidence is called in Court, she is not a ‘paleo’ anything, as can be seen from her research areas here http://cahid.dundee.ac.uk/staff/sue-black or her CV on Wiki. This contrasts with Barsiokis who is ‘Paleo’ in spades but not ‘forensic’ as his qualifications and publications amply demonstrate see,
http://he.duth.gr/faculty/staff_pp/bartsiokas_pp.shtml

He also teaches human anatomy so can be expected to understand about flexion, I think.
Great merciful heavens ! What do you think Prof. Black was doing at the York excavations, if not paleo-anthropology? I would suggest a ‘forensic’ qualification would be a decided advantage in examining skeletal remains, whether old or new. Nor do I ‘rubbish’ Bartsiokas’ qualifications in the slightest, merely pointing out that Prof. Black's experience and qualifications as one of the world’s leading experts in the field would seem to give her an advantage. Why do you and Paralus continually, and falsely, accuse me of ‘dismissing’ or ‘denying’ or ‘rubbishing’ evidence? That is something I never do, but as every lawyer knows, “evidence is weighed, not counted” and some evidence is stronger than others, especially when trying to choose between apparently contradictory evidence.
Yes a fracture would be a more normal trauma, but they show up in the osteological evidence and are not seen here, infection is also, allegedly, not present. Itself a puzzling observation.

Perhaps you could share the link to your table the findings in these papers point to a much more rapid process, see especially the table in the last

http://www.bjj.boneandjoint.org.uk/cont ... 3.full.pdf
http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/26/2/125.full.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

This is concerned with elbow joints but they are fully ankylosed before 7 months in three cases, and these are trauma patients, the other two are more concerned with the process and indicate that the growth begins at the periphery, which would not therefore force any joint apart.
I see that you have had as much difficulty as me in researching this matter!! The first two papers are sadly not relevant, because they refer to ‘Heterotopic ossification’, which is not the same as ‘Ankylosis’. The former refers to the formation of calcified or bony tissue within soft tissue, whilst the latter is the actual fusion of one bone with another.....a chalk and cheese comparison.

In your latter example it is hard to accept that the traumatic elbow injury cases were treated and healed, then ankylosed fully, and that there were then 2 or 3 subsequent major operations on the ankylosed elbow, all in the space of 7-8 months, especially bearing in mind the length of recovery time between surgeries – usually months and sometimes years ! This suggests the ‘injury’ before the total elbow replacement in the trauma cases is in fact the previous operation rather than the original injury. Something here is clearly amiss. Nor is the type of ankylosis clear [ there are many types e.g. ‘true’ bony ankylosis union or fusion of the bones of a joint , resulting in complete immobility; or ‘false’ - ankylosis (fibrous ankylosis) reduced joint mobility due to proliferation of fibrous tissue.] nor whether fully ossified or not. Overall, the duration between injury and total elbow replacement in the 10 injury cases is a mean average of 155.6 months[12.96 years], even accepting the 7 and 8 month cases at face value. Ignoring these three, the average is 256.85 months [21.4 years].

The table I reproduced above from a 2009 study is to be found here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2666463/

Incidently, 3 of these patients showed no deformity at all after 3-4 years ( see Table 2).

Similar results can be found in Korean studies e.g.
Abstract
This study compares the results of 16 total knee arthroplasties after a spontaneous osseous ankylosis and 14 total knee arthroplasties after a takedown of formal knee fusion. This series is a collection of patients who have either ankylosis or arthrodesis because of previous pyogenic or tuberculous infection. There were 18 women and 12 men. The age at operation ranged from 30 to 62 years (average, 42.9 years). The duration of ankylosis was longer in the patients in the spontaneous ankylosis group (19.7 years) than in the patients in the formally fused knee group (11.3 years). The duration from prior infection to arthroplasty was 12.4 years (range, 6-22 years) in the patients in the formally fused group and 20.4 years (range, 7-39 years) in the patients in the spontaneous ankylosis group. The original diagnosis was tuberculous arthritis in 14 knees and pyogenic arthritis in 16 knees. The average follow-up was 5.3 years (range, 5-6 years). Gender, age, diagnosis, and follow-up period were comparable in both groups......”
which can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10884205

.....and another similar study here...
Between June 1993 and December 1994, we performed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on 27 knees in 24 patients with spontaneous bony ankylosis in severe flexion. The mean age at operation was 43.5 years (30 to 60). No patient had preoperative pain. Three were unable to walk and 21 could manage less than five blocks. The mean duration of the ankylosis was 18.7 years (13 to 25) and its mean position was 105° flexion (75 to 135)........”
http://www.ortopediavirtual.com.br/docs ... ylosis.pdf

These are all infectious disease cases, but I don’t think there is any significant difference whether the root cause is injury or disease etc. The ankylosis in all cases stems from inflammation, according to various sources including the following book:
“On Ankylosis or Stiff Joint “ by William John Little (1843) available as a free e-book from Google Books, in which I eventually tracked down an ankylosis caused by an injury such as that postulated by Bartsiokas. ( You don’t want to know how many hours I spent tracking down such a case as this online ! ) I include it complete for the sake of interest, though the medical procedures carried out without anaesthetic are not for the squeamish. :shock:

P.92 “ON ANKYLOSIS.”

CASE VI.

TRUE ANKYLOSIS OF THE KNEE, PRODUCED BY A PUNCTURED
WOUND OF THE ARTICULATION.

Division of the biceps femoris, semi-membranosus and semi-tendinosus muscles, fascia, etc.

August 9, 1841. T. N., set. 17, admitted into Orthopaedic Institution.Reports, that nearly three years since, he accidentally punctured the knee-joint by driving a nail into it. Intense inflammation succeeded the injury : the tumefaction was excessive, and the constitutional disturbance violent, requiring blood-letting, the application of a large number of leeches (the integuments appear covered with the cicatrices of their bites), and other remedies. The patient's statement is corroborated by that of his father, an intelligent man; who also mentions, that the surgeon, who so successfully combated the inflammation, gave the opinion that the articulation had been opened. No suppuration took place. The limb appears to have been necessarily laid on the outside, semi-flexed, during the protracted illness of the patient ; in this position it became contracted. The son and parent are positive that the contraction has neither augmented nor decreased since the inflammation subsided, and they have never
been able to perceive motion in the joint. The surgeons who have since examined it have pronounced the knee to be completely ankylosed. He is compelled to use a crutch. The knee is flexed nearly to a right angle ; the tibia is slightly
rotated outwardly, but no deformity of the joint exists. A total absence of motion, and an apparently fixed state of the patella, indicate the probability of union between the articular surfaces having taken place. The attempt to press down the knee produced no tension in the popliteal muscles ; no sensation of stretching in the ham, or pain in front of the articulation.
The most careful and often-repeated examination of the patella, assisted by my colleague Mr. Tamplin, did not afford satisfactory information with reference to its mobility. Although we believed its edges could be alternately depressed, so much doubt existed, that, in recommending the operation to the patient's father, he was informed of the probability of failure ; but being assured that, if unsuccessful, the young man would not be in a worse condition than before, the proposition was cheerfully acquiesced in, as the sole chance of relief from so severe an affliction. The tendons of the biceps femoris, semi-membranosus, and semitendinosus muscles, with numerous fibres of the vastus extemus, and several bands of thickened fascia, as well on the posterior aspect of the limb, as those portions attached to both tuberosities of the tibia, were divided subcutaneously. On complete section of the whole of these tissues, firm pressure having been continually maintained
on the leg, to render them if possible more tense, a loud cracking grating sound was suddenly heard and felt, evidently
resulting from the yielding of structures situated within the joint. The limb at the same moment was straightened several degrees. No attempt was made to straighten it more completely ; the punctures in the integuments were dressed in the ordinary manner, and the limb ordered to be kept quiet, in its contracted state. The limb was free from pain within half an hour after the operation, and the punctures healed without an unfavourable symptom.On the third day, the apparatus for extension was applied, and with very moderate pressure and little pain the limb was rapidly
straightened. Within three weeks it was perfectly extended. At the expiration of the fourth week, no sign of inflammation having
occurred to render extraordinary precaution necessary, he was permitted to use the limb. Passive motion, frictions, and manipulations, were recommended. Considerable pain was experienced during the attempt to bend it ; but did not interfere with his taking exercise, the limb being supported with a firm steel stem on the outside, to prevent too great strain on the articulation so recently restored to function.
Sept. 17. He was discharged, to attend as out-patient. The subsequent reports of this case confirm the favourable account
already given ; the lad walks perfectly well ; within three months after the operation he was enabled to bend the knee, and
complained of no pain after exercise. Although accustomed to those agreeable feelings which are usually experienced by the medical practitioner on the realisation of his hopes of successful treatment,and relief of patients from suffering, I cannot describe the gratification and surprise afforded me by the prompt recovery of this case, which I had considered one of peculiar difficulty and uncertainty.
.......
Remarks on Cases of true ankylosis.—The remediableness of true ankylosis will probably be found to depend in most
instances on the extent of osseous adhesion, or of calcareous deposit, among the articular structures; and I apprehend I
may venture from Case VI. to affirm the possibility of curing true ankylosis depending on osseous adhesion of a portion only
of the articular surfaces."


The points to note are that the injury is identical to Bartsiokas' postulation, if a somewhat lesser nature and not so severe, and that it took 3 years to partially ankylose ( the ‘cure’ was effected by manipulation, snapping the ankylosed joint. Obviously the bone fusion/ossification was not terribly advanced, and Dr Little comments that only a portion was fused.) In contrast, the Vergina man’s leg had a much more advanced ankylosis, with very thick ossification, which must have taken considerably longer to reach that stage. This is consistent with the other evidence I have referred to.
That would seem to make Bartsiokas’ postulation – that the ankylosis had reached the complete, advanced stage of the skeletal leg found, in a little over two years virtually impossible.

P.S. I see that whilst this post was in preparation, you have corresponded with Professor Black with some questions and some images, and that she has responded. Congratulations on your initiative! :D
Did you explain the full circumstances to her? Apparently you did not mention that not only was there no evidence for disease, but none for trauma either. Her reply is most interesting, though it is what one would expect. It is a pity you did not pose the question of whether such advanced ankylosis could have developed within two years or so, though I note that she says in passing “..would take considerable time to progress to the stage shown in the image”, which is consistent with my own view.
She also refers to the contracture to a right angle as a factor against trauma. However Case VI I've just quoted shows that contracture as a result of trauma is at least possible, provided the limb is held 'in flexion' while it heals ! However, it should be noted that the contraction advanced no further in the space of three years. As Professor Black points out however, contraction/flexion usually occurs over a lengthy period of time as a result of long-term disease/illness, or is congenital......

Bartsiokas' hypothesis would indeed seem so unlikely as to verge on the impossible on duration/time grounds alone.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

When I found the femur fused to the tibia at the knee joint, I suddenly remembered the leg injury of Philip, but I could not recall any details," Bartsiokas told Live Science. "I then ran to study the historical evidence."

He found a description of Philip II's wounds in the writings of the ancient historian Justin. "At that moment," he wrote in an email to Live Science, "I knew the bone must belong to Philip!"

The injury does match descriptions of Philip II's limp, the University of Waterloo's Liston said.

"This was a devastating injury that separated the knee joint and left it probably completely unstable until it fused," Liston told Live Science. The pain would have been excruciating, she said.

After reading the new PNAS paper, she said, she asked two middle-age men at her lab in Athens to stand on one foot, with the toes of the other foot just touching the ground. The angles of their knees were 72 degrees and 80 degrees. This ad hoc experiment suggests that, like Philip II, the man in the tomb could have walked, but only with difficulty. He probably could have ridden a horse — but he may have been vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat.

"This injury may also explain why Philip, a skilled warrior, was so utterly unable to fight off the assassins," Liston said. "With this knee, he would have limited mobility and very poor balance."
Live Science here http://www.livescience.com/51605-alexan ... ivescience

So the quote is not from an ‘article’ at all but from an e-mail to a popularist blog, not a forum for precision of language, but what’s this immediately after, another academic and uninvolved, had a little experiment and the conclusion was that walking would be possible! Did that snippet not seem relevant? Or did you weigh it against your own decision and discard it (perhaps this demonstrates some of the ‘why’ behind charges of ‘dismissing the evidence’; this is more probably failure to disclose, unless you read no further).

You seem to have totally misunderstood the various papers; only one gives any indication of the time from the trauma and, in this case, the total replacement of the elbow joint (my third paper), this refers to the causative trauma and not to the time of the last surgical intervention whereas the other stats are how long the patient has lived with the ankylosis; useful for the surgical purposes of the paper less so for ours. Even the data in my table includes time once the joint has fused but at least the start point is the causative trauma.

Heterotopic Ossification is the mechanism which forms the bony ankyloses and is therefore relevant, both for the time scale and the contributory factors (immobilisation for instance).

The lack of Funerary Beds is simple to explain, they or it was wooden and inlaid with ivory or the like and was looted, this might also explain the distribution of the male skeleton, the looters took hold of the lower legs and the shoulders but the torso split, happens in every zombie movie! These were official looters; there is no other way to explain the complete stripping of the grave so noise was no issue. There were no subsequent lootings once the tumulus had been piled up and probably none after the first had cleared everything.

The ankylosed leg was broken before burial I think (or possibly before an inefficient cremation), which is why the body separated where it did and maintained a general articulation. We can also support the notion that the body was the original occupant as we know that the hole in the wall was filled; there would be no reason for the Gauls to do this, so just as the attempted entrance at the north west corner was filled with rubble, we can discern the activity of the Macedonians in preparation for covering the site with the Great Tumulus, were there a robber’s corpse in a Royal Tomb it would have been removed rather than dismembered. Were the desiccated corpse of a Royal there, it may well have been left in situ. The bodies of the neonates may have passed unnoticed; they were partially covered by the spoil and with ancient lighting could easily be missed.

The associated Heroon points to either Amyntas III or Philip II by 278 the latter would have been entombed for over fifty years and the former for over ninety; this would make Philip a better candidate as Amyntas must have been fully skeletised and thus unable to maintain corporeal integrity when moved, even Philip is pushing it. :?

Yes, Bartsiokis has form for speaking against the identification of the Tomb II occupant as Philip II; but everyone involved is tainted, Hammond invented a wife, Musgrave found an injury which is now thought to be an artefact of poor reconstruction, the list could go on and involve both sides, they are all guilty of holding their opinions too strongly; and the same is happening at Amphipolis.

I did ask all the questions you suggest of Prof Black, but you can only lead an academic to water…I can send you a copy of our correspondence if you require confirmation as long as you keep it between us, as she did not want anything posted prior to the reply I posted; I also sent the full article which she seems not to have looked at, but then she is busy and this is not a big thing as she is not an archaeologist and gets ‘beaten up’ when she strays onto that turf, though I take that with a pinch of the same salt with which I digest Bartsiokis’ "I then ran to study the historical evidence." :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
So the quote is not from an ‘article’ at all but from an e-mail to a popularist blog, not a forum for precision of language, but what’s this immediately after, another academic and uninvolved, had a little experiment and the conclusion was that walking would be possible! Did that snippet not seem relevant? Or did you weigh it against your own decision and discard it (perhaps this demonstrates some of the ‘why’ behind charges of ‘dismissing the evidence’; this is more probably failure to disclose, unless you read no further).
You have a propensity for jumping to incorrect conclusions - luckily for the world you are not a lawyer or policeman or an investigator ! :evil:
I have never seen the 'blog' or the article you have quoted. If you 'googled' "Live Science" (which I have just done) you would be aware that they have published several ( at least four) articles pushing Bartsiokas' case. My source of information was an on-line "Huffington Post" article to be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../alexa ... _55afec52e...

As usual, your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are quite wrong - and I take such ill-founded accusations very, very seriously, and take grave exception to your false accusation. I never 'fail to disclose', or suppress any relevant information I come across when researching subjects, and not just here on Pothos. You owe me an apology.

As to walking, you evidently didn't try the experiment I proposed a few posts back, or you would not accept this alleged experiment as being true. Repeating the experiment, if I point my toe ballet fashion and just touch the floor, my leg forms an angle of around 120 degrees - any further flexion, to 90 or 80 or 70 degrees means the foot cannot touch the floor. Have another look at the pictures I posted on page 5. The angle of the leg in the artist's reconstruction is around 130 degrees, whilst the actual bone is clearly 80 degrees aprox in fact. See also the Chinese example I posted, whose leg is ankylosed very similarly at 75 degrees aprox. Anyone can see that walking on such a limb without a prosthesis and/or crutch is quite impossible. What I wrote on page 5 is 100% correct.
You seem to have totally misunderstood the various papers; only one gives any indication of the time from the trauma and, in this case, the total replacement of the elbow joint (my third paper), this refers to the causative trauma and not to the time of the last surgical intervention whereas the other stats are how long the patient has lived with the ankylosis; useful for the surgical purposes of the paper less so for ours. Even the data in my table includes time once the joint has fused but at least the start point is the causative trauma.
I’m well aware the duration referred to in the various tables is from commencement up to the time of surgical intervention, and not necessarily the time taken for the actual ankylosis to develop – that is obvious from simply looking at them – but even so it is a good indicator that the process is very slow in progressing to a point where surgical intervention becomes necessary, even if a patient has had to wait for an operation. The fact that it took 3-4 years to develop a modest 5-10 degrees flexion in my first table is a good example, for clearly progression to 80 degrees would take much longer. As Prof Black remarked “Full ankylosis at a major joint such as a knee would take considerable time to progress to the stage shown in the image”.
Heterotopic Ossification is the mechanism which forms the bony ankyloses and is therefore relevant, both for the time scale and the contributory factors (immobilisation for instance).
That is not correct, so far as I understand matters. One medical definition of HO is: “Heterotopic Ossification (HO) refers to the formation of lamellar bone inside soft tissue structures where bone does not normally exist. This process can occur in structures such as the skin, subcutaneous tissue, skeletal muscle, and fibrous tissue adjacent to bone. In more rare forms, HO has also been described in the walls of blood vessels and intra-abdominal sites such as the mesentery.[“
HO is not “the” mechanism, but rather one mechanism which if it forms around a joint can lead to a form of ankylosis (Ankylosis or anchylosis [from Greek ἀγκύλος, bent, crooked] is a stiffness or more often fusion of a joint due to abnormal adhesion and rigidity of the bones of the joint, which may be the result of injury or disease or congenital), but HO is not “true” bony ankylosis, which involves actual fusion of the bones themselves and is what we are dealing with here. HO appears to be a more rapid process than “true” bony ankylosis. I mentioned that there were several forms of ankylosis in my previous post.
The lack of Funerary Beds is simple to explain, they or it was wooden and inlaid with ivory or the like and was looted, this might also explain the distribution of the male skeleton, the looters took hold of the lower legs and the shoulders but the torso split, happens in every zombie movie! These were official looters; there is no other way to explain the complete stripping of the grave so noise was no issue. There were no subsequent lootings once the tumulus had been piled up and probably none after the first had cleared everything.
This all pure speculation, without a shred of evidence. I pointed out that there were no traces of wooden biers in my previous post. In order to get such an item through the smallish roof entry hole ( see attached photo), the bier/bed/couch would have to be broken up, and those parts not having anything of value affixed almost certainly discarded. There do not appear to have been any organic remains found which would provide evidence of anything like this occurring. Nor were the looters necessarily ‘official’ – noise may not have been an issue in any event. It is also possible to ‘quietly’ dig into the original tumulus, and then use a pick etc to make a hole in the roof slab that would not be heard at any great distance. ( All soldiers can dig trenches, even in stony ground, without making much noise that carries a distance, for instance). Nor can you say that no scavengers entered the tomb in the length of time it was left open – considerable given the amount of sediment that had filtered in.

We simply cannot say who the skeletons may have been, nor how or when they entered the tomb, and these questions will remain unanswerable.
The ankylosed leg was broken before burial I think (or possibly before an inefficient cremation), which is why the body separated where it did and maintained a general articulation. We can also support the notion that the body was the original occupant as we know that the hole in the wall was filled; there would be no reason for the Gauls to do this, so just as the attempted entrance at the north west corner was filled with rubble, we can discern the activity of the Macedonians in preparation for covering the site with the Great Tumulus, were there a robber’s corpse in a Royal Tomb it would have been removed rather than dismembered. Were the desiccated corpse of a Royal there, it may well have been left in situ. The bodies of the neonates may have passed unnoticed; they were partially covered by the spoil and with ancient lighting could easily be missed.
Attempted entrance at the North-West corner? Please explain this further. To my knowledge, there is only the large hole in the northern wall, below the Hades and Persephone painting ( see the drawing in my earlier post ), and a stone block removed from the west wall. Neither of these seems to have been ‘filled with rubble’ - unless the excavation team removed it ( see photos). It would seem the robbers looked for additional chambers, and abandoned their efforts on reaching the natural sub-surface.
The associated Heroon points to either Amyntas III or Philip II by 278 the latter would have been entombed for over fifty years and the former for over ninety; this would make Philip a better candidate as Amyntas must have been fully skeletised and thus unable to maintain corporeal integrity when moved, even Philip is pushing it. :?
I don't think you can say the heroon was intended for a particular person just from its position, or proximity to a tomb - that is more speculation. It could have been for any, or conceivably all the entombed Kings, although perhaps Philip II is the most probable candidate. From the few pottery shards associated with Tomb 1, found in the earth on top of the tomb, Andronicos stated : "As we noted, the "tomb of Persephone" had been pillaged; only a few sherds were found in the earth which had covered part of the tomb. Some of these belong to a fish dish which can be dated to around the middle of the fourth century BC." This is the only dating evidence available, and can only be regarded as tentative, and of course an old artifact can be buried at a later date.
Yes, Bartsiokis has form for speaking against the identification of the Tomb II occupant as Philip II; but everyone involved is tainted, Hammond invented a wife, Musgrave found an injury which is now thought to be an artefact of poor reconstruction, the list could go on and involve both sides, they are all guilty of holding their opinions too strongly; and the same is happening at Amphipolis.
I’d agree to an extent – but Hammond’s hypothetical wife is looking more likely in the light of the most recent examinations of the skeletal material from Tomb II ( that of Chrisoula Saatsoglou-Paliadelli in 2013, and that of the Antikas husband and wife team ). Musgrave may be correct – it is Bartsiokas again who postulates poor reconstruction.
I did ask all the questions you suggest of Prof Black, but you can only lead an academic to water…I can send you a copy of our correspondence if you require confirmation as long as you keep it between us, as she did not want anything posted prior to the reply I posted; I also sent the full article which she seems not to have looked at, but then she is busy and this is not a big thing as she is not an archaeologist and gets ‘beaten up’ when she strays onto that turf, though I take that with a pinch of the same salt with which I digest Bartsiokis’ "I then ran to study the historical evidence." :lol:
I would indeed be interested in your correspondence with Pro Black, which you can send by PM or better still direct email ( you have my address). Most kind of you to offer to share this, and I thank you in anticipation. :D
Attachments
Tomb 1 Vergina showing robbers entry hole M Andronicos.jpg
Tomb 1 Vergina showing robbers entry hole M Andronicos.jpg (83.48 KiB) Viewed 6501 times
Tomb 1 Vergina northeast corner showing hole in northern wall.JPG
Tomb 1 Vergina northeast corner showing hole in northern wall.JPG (77.75 KiB) Viewed 6501 times
Tomb 1 Vergina west wall showing where block was removed M Andronicos.jpg
Tomb 1 Vergina west wall showing where block was removed M Andronicos.jpg (85.23 KiB) Viewed 6501 times
Last edited by Xenophon on Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by amyntoros »

We're starting to slip back into old habits here which I'm sorry to see. I don't think this particular subject has been discussed elsewhere in such depth and to date I have appreciated seeing the differing viewpoints. And that is what they are - differing viewpoints. Can we all agree on this and quit with the "right and wrong" which sadly seems to be always lurking in the background waiting to jump out and attack? What is wrong with "I respectfully disagree", and "my (this) source states", and "I would like to present my own opinions which lead to a different conclusion"? Seriously, how hard can it be?
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

POSTSCRIPT:

Sorry, in my last post I also meant to ask about this......
The ankylosed leg was broken before burial I think (or possibly before an inefficient cremation), which is why the body separated where it did and maintained a general articulation.
Is there evidence to suggest this ? And do you mean to suggest the body was already a skeleton when this occurred ? It would take a lot of force to break the leg if it were fleshed....
Also what evidence is there that the body was cremated, inefficiently or otherwise ? My understanding is that the partial skeletons in Tomb 1 were not cremated at all.......

The separated body, and scattering of other skeletons may have been done by the original robbers, but just as easily by subsequent opportunistic scavengers. Another minor mystery is the incomplete state of all the skeletons. What became of the missing bones ?

....and on checking, I see that link I posted turns out to be a generic one to the Huffington post. A better link direct to the actual article is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ ... verride=au
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Not sure I get what I am meant to apologise for; is it your not giving a reference for your attack on Bartsiokis or for finding the original of the quote and assuming you might have checked its context?

Still having been given that original you still do not seem to have bothered to read any more of the articles, here is the end of the one I posted
Whether the finding will rewrite history remains to be seen. The museum at the site of the Royal Tombs of Vergina identifies Tomb II, not Tomb I, as belonging to Philip II. So does UNESCO, which classifies the monuments as a royal heritage site.

"These are bold claims that I don't think will be very welcome in certain quarters in Greece," said Jonathan Musgrave, an anatomist at the University of Bristol, who has argued that the bones in Tomb II belong to Philip II and Cleopatra.

Indeed, researchers who have argued for Tomb II as Philip II's final resting place were not quickly convinced by the new study. In 2014, two bags of human and animal bones were found in a storage area with plaster from Tomb I, Antikas told Live Science. He and his team have analyzed those bones, he said, and found that Tomb I contained not two adults and a baby as discussed in Bartsiokas' new paper, but two adults, a teenager, a fetus and three newborns. Those findings have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, pending permission for further study from Greece's Central Archaeological Council, Antikas said.

"Any prejudgment concerning the occupants is impossible before the complete context is re-examined," said Chrysoula Paliadeli, an archaeologist at the director of the Aristotle University excavations at Vergina.

Even the "smoking gun" leg wound falls under scrutiny; ancient historians were not always very detailed or clear with their sourcing. Bartsiokas and his team trust the writings of Demosthenes, a contemporary of Philip II, who simply wrote that the king was wounded in his leg. But 300 years later historian Didymos wrote that Philip's wound was in his right thigh, said Hatzopoulos of International Hellenic University. The wound on the skeleton analyzed by Bartsiokas was on the left leg.

It might seem natural to trust the historian who was writing at the time of Philip II's life versus the one writing 300 years later, but Didymos' source was probably Theopompos, who did live at the same time as Philip II, Hatzopoulos said.

"Having followed this controversy through four decades I have come to the conclusion that in this particular issue one cannot put much faith in the so-called 'exact sciences,'" Hatzopoulos said. "Reputed scientists have contradicted one another time and time again."
Bartsiokas and his team seemed prepared for ongoing strife.
"I think that we have made a very strong case," said study co-author Juan-Luis Arsuaga of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. "Now the focus of attention will turn to Tomb I. I am open to debate."
Yet you characterise this as ‘pushing’ Bartsiokis’ line, I do not think I owe you any apology at all if this is your idea of ‘intellectual honesty’.

Clearly you have no respect for other people’s IH as you have clearly just called Liston a liar, these are her qualifications for forming an opinion
Maria Liston, Associate Professor and Chair of the Anthropology department, received her BA in Classics from King College in Bristol, Tennessee and her MA in Classics from Indiana University. She then completed a BA and PhD in Anthropology from the University of Tennessee. She pursues research as a skeletal biologist and archaeologist, focusing on the excavation and analysis of human remains and their mortuary contexts. Since 2001 she has worked as the skeletal biologist in the Athenian Agora, the civic and religious center of ancient Athens. In her work there she has recently identified the oldest case of battered child syndrome known from the archaeological record. She also works in Greece with the excavations at Mycenaean Iklaina, and the new excavations in the Sanctuary of Ismenion Apollo in Thebes. She is currently publishing the skeletons from tombs found at Kavousi, Crete. She also has directed the analysis of the remains of British and colonial soldiers at Fort William Henry, in New York. She involves students in research and overseas study projects whenever possible.
Consider that she asked two men to pose and got two different angles, one lower and the other just over the observed flexion, I would conclude that there are individual variables rendering one observation alone more than inconclusive. Thus your ‘experiment proves nothing and hers only that it is possible for some individuals to walk with this degree of flexion; it does not show that the individual from Tomb I was one of the latter nor one of the former; computer modelling would be a better route, but beyond my skills.

On a brighter note the injury you presented was interesting as the same twisting of the tibia and fibula was observed. However, I do not think there will be any conclusive evidence coming from the ‘ankylosis question’. It may be more illuminating to consider the degeneration of the vertebrae which were consequent upon it. The sites and degree of wear are stated in the appendix to the original article, that might suggest a firmer timescale.

If speculation is not allowed why do you continue to speculate? If believe that you cannot say anything about these skeletons how can you rule anything out? One of them may be Olympias on that reasoning!

The NW corner attempted entrance is in Andronikos’ 1984 book, Bartsiokis mentions attempted entry from the heroon so maybe it is the missing block you picture, apparently a shelf blocked ingress, the holes being tre-filled before the Great Tumulus was built is again in Andronikos, so yes the excavators removed the rubble.

As for the Heroon being ascribed to specific people perhaps you can list for the member’s benefit all those Macedonians granted heroic honours before 275. Then continue to speculate.
...but Hammond’s hypothetical wife is looking more likely in the light of the most recent examinations of the skeletal material from Tomb II
So an invented 18 year old princess is more likely if the bones are those of a 35 year old??? Intellectual honesty, honestly! :roll:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Not sure I get what I am meant to apologise for; is it your not giving a reference for your attack on Bartsiokis or for finding the original of the quote and assuming you might have checked its context?

Still having been given that original you still do not seem to have bothered to read any more of the articles, here is the end of the one I posted
I believe I made myself clear in my previous post – you falsely accused me of suppressing information - “failure to disclose”, thus impugning my intellectual honesty – and feigning ignorance regarding this does not reflect well on you, in my opinion. That you did not have the grace to apologise I suppose I should have expected. And given your contrary nature, I should also not be surprised that you compound the offence by continuing to attack my intellectual honesty, although fortunately the attempt is weak and laughable, so I shall ignore it. Still, it is hardly conducive to encouraging friendly debate, is it ? Instead of attacking me, I am sure readers would rather see your response to the questions I raised in my two previous posts.

Whether the finding will rewrite history remains to be seen. The museum at the site of the Royal Tombs of Vergina identifies Tomb II, not Tomb I, as belonging to Philip II. So does UNESCO, which classifies the monuments as a royal heritage site.

"These are bold claims that I don't think will be very welcome in certain quarters in Greece," said Jonathan Musgrave, an anatomist at the University of Bristol, who has argued that the bones in Tomb II belong to Philip II and Cleopatra.

Indeed, researchers who have argued for Tomb II as Philip II's final resting place were not quickly convinced by the new study. In 2014, two bags of human and animal bones were found in a storage area with plaster from Tomb I, Antikas told Live Science. He and his team have analyzed those bones, he said, and found that Tomb I contained not two adults and a baby as discussed in Bartsiokas' new paper, but two adults, a teenager, a fetus and three newborns. Those findings have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, pending permission for further study from Greece's Central Archaeological Council, Antikas said.

"Any prejudgment concerning the occupants is impossible before the complete context is re-examined," said Chrysoula Paliadeli, an archaeologist at the director of the Aristotle University excavations at Vergina.

Even the "smoking gun" leg wound falls under scrutiny; ancient historians were not always very detailed or clear with their sourcing. Bartsiokas and his team trust the writings of Demosthenes, a contemporary of Philip II, who simply wrote that the king was wounded in his leg. But 300 years later historian Didymos wrote that Philip's wound was in his right thigh, said Hatzopoulos of International Hellenic University. The wound on the skeleton analyzed by Bartsiokas was on the left leg.

It might seem natural to trust the historian who was writing at the time of Philip II's life versus the one writing 300 years later, but Didymos' source was probably Theopompos, who did live at the same time as Philip II, Hatzopoulos said.

"Having followed this controversy through four decades I have come to the conclusion that in this particular issue one cannot put much faith in the so-called 'exact sciences,'" Hatzopoulos said. "Reputed scientists have contradicted one another time and time again."
Bartsiokas and his team seemed prepared for ongoing strife.
"I think that we have made a very strong case," said study co-author Juan-Luis Arsuaga of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. "Now the focus of attention will turn to Tomb I. I am open to debate."
Yet you characterise this as ‘pushing’ Bartsiokis’ line, I do not think I owe you any apology at all if this is your idea of ‘intellectual honesty’.
That is not what I was referring to – you have simply selectively taken a single quote out of context. It is one of the few attempts at ‘balance’ by Live Science – more of a pseudo-science website than one to be taken seriously whose ‘scientific articles’ run more typically to “51 sultry facts about sex” or “50 amazing facts about Antarctica” – a ‘Wow! Amaze’ me type site.

By “pushing Bartsiokas’ line” I was referring to the fact that that Antikas’ bone study published in May got a single short article, much of which was given over to Maria Liston’s criticism of it ( yes, the same Maria Liston who claims you can flex your knee to 80 degrees or so and still touch the floor so as to walk, and who so evidently supports the views of Bartsiokas.) In contrast, Bartsiokas’ paper in July was the subject of at least four Live Science articles, all largely favourable.

Incidently, Hatzopoulos' views were succinctly put in his 2007 article. He demolished all the arguments of the Philip Arrhidaeus camp, and concluded that the evidence, circumstantial though it be and not conclusive, favoured Philip II as occupant of Tomb II, which is my view too. ( and apparently yours as well !! :lol: )
Clearly you have no respect for other people’s IH as you have clearly just called Liston a liar, these are her qualifications for forming an opinion

Neither Bartsiokas’ or Liston’s qualifications are in question – but their stated views in this matter, poorly evidenced to say the least, are.

Consider that she asked two men to pose and got two different angles, one lower and the other just over the observed flexion, I would conclude that there are individual variables rendering one observation alone more than inconclusive. Thus your ‘experiment proves nothing and hers only that it is possible for some individuals to walk with this degree of flexion; it does not show that the individual from Tomb I was one of the latter nor one of the former; computer modelling would be a better route, but beyond my skills.
I’m afraid I am extremely sceptical, to the point of disbelief, of Liston’s statement. I should want to see photographic evidence of someone with their knee flexed at 80 degrees walking, or at least touching the ground before I would accept it. Some things are just physically impossible. The evidence of the photo of the Vergina ankylosed leg, and the Chinese example illustrated on this thread, together with an experiment anyone can perform for themselves are quite conclusive.
Again, this one thing is fatal to Bartsiokas’ postulation, unless you want to suggest that Philip II took part in Chaeronea hobbling on a peg-leg and/or crutch, mention of which is totally absent from our source material.
On a brighter note the injury you presented was interesting as the same twisting of the tibia and fibula was observed. However, I do not think there will be any conclusive evidence coming from the ‘ankylosis question’. It may be more illuminating to consider the degeneration of the vertebrae which were consequent upon it. The sites and degree of wear are stated in the appendix to the original article, that might suggest a firmer timescale.
One thing at least is conclusively proven - the man with that ankylosed leg did not walk on it !!
If speculation is not allowed why do you continue to speculate? If believe that you cannot say anything about these skeletons how can you rule anything out? One of them may be Olympias on that reasoning!
How is pointing out that we have no means of identifying with certainty the skeletons in tomb 1, or how and when they came to be there, speculation ? I have not speculated at all, merely mentioned possibilities, and as I said there are others ( such as a secondary burial) in addition. Given the likely date of 370 BC or thereabouts, for the female skeleton to be Olympias, it would have to be a secondary burial, but there’s no evidence and the facts don’t seem to fit.
The NW corner attempted entrance is in Andronikos’ 1984 book, Bartsiokis mentions attempted entry from the heroon so maybe it is the missing block you picture, apparently a shelf blocked ingress, the holes being tre-filled before the Great Tumulus was built is again in Andronikos, so yes the excavators removed the rubble.

As for the Heroon being ascribed to specific people perhaps you can list for the member’s benefit all those Macedonians granted heroic honours before 275. Then continue to speculate.
Please read what I said. I don't make any speculations. What we have is the foundations of a small building which is probably, but not certainly, a heroon. The heroon could have been built for Amyntas, and then extended to Philip so as to cover both Kings , or it might have been dedicated to either alone – again there’s just no way of knowing.

...but Hammond’s hypothetical wife is looking more likely in the light of the most recent examinations of the skeletal material from Tomb II
So an invented 18 year old princess is more likely if the bones are those of a 35 year old??? Intellectual honesty, honestly!
Speaking of intellectual honesty, what are we to make of someone who does not believe Bartsiokas' hypothesis, but vigorously defends it here ?

Why do you say “invented” and 18 year old ? What Hammond actually wrote in discussing the possibilities[1991] was:
....The queens of the required age were Cleopatra, the ward of Attalus, whose death was probably associated with the killing of Attalus, her guardian, in 335 (Philip was assassinated in the late summer of 336), so that she can be excluded; Meda, daughter of a Getic king; and if Philip took the daughter of the Scythian king Atheas in 339, a Scythian queen.

We don't know just how many wives Philip actually had, or for that matter how many concubines /mistresses in addition. It is quite possible that the woman in Tomb II is another wife altogether, or a favourite, unknown to history. So there are even more possibilities.

The Antikas team concluded from the their examination of the female bones that the weapons in the antechamber (greaves, gorytus etc ) were hers and from the skeleton that she had one leg shorter than the other from a previous broken leg, and was a habitual rider. They favoured an unknown Scythian princess....... re-inforcing Hammond's view.

Xirotiris, the original examiner, put the age of the tomb II female at 23-27, Hammond a broader range at 20-30, The recent Antikas study “early thirties” ( 30-34?), which Liston criticised here [http://www.livescience.com/51172-alexan ... stery.html ] in another Live Science article. Incidently, her comments on the greaves are patently incorrect, as is obvious from the two photos below. Eurydike was younger than this, and hence Philip Arrhidaeus can thus be largely ruled out.

That's three from three obvious errors by Liston - doesn't inspire confidence in her pronouncements, does it ?
Attachments
Vergina Philip tomb II greaves from ante chamber showing one shorter than another in situ.JPG
Vergina Philip tomb II greaves from ante chamber showing one shorter than another in situ.JPG (102.53 KiB) Viewed 6458 times
Vergina Philip tomb II greaves from ante chamber showing one shorter than another.jpg
Vergina Philip tomb II greaves from ante chamber showing one shorter than another.jpg (45.6 KiB) Viewed 6458 times
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

The ankylosed leg was broken before burial I think (or possibly before an inefficient cremation), which is why the body separated where it did and maintained a general articulation.
Is there evidence to suggest this ? And do you mean to suggest the body was already a skeleton when this occurred ? It would take a lot of force to break the leg if it were fleshed....
Also what evidence is there that the body was cremated, inefficiently or otherwise ? My understanding is that the partial skeletons in Tomb 1 were not cremated at all.......

The separated body, and scattering of other skeletons may have been done by the original robbers, but just as easily by subsequent opportunistic scavengers. Another minor mystery is the incomplete state of all the skeletons. What became of the missing bones ?
The evidence is that the bones of the feet and lower leg remained articulated after being separated from the lower abdomen; had the ankylosed joint been intact one might expect separation at the hip on that leg. The body cannot have been fully skeletised and remained broken yet articulated. This leads to positing an inefficient cremation as a carbonised body might be expected to resist the processes involved in skeletisation better and longer than a simple fleshed corpse which would have been reduced to bones in the fifty odd years that it had lain there. Discoloration of the bones is dependent on the temperature of the pyre and the duration of the burning as are the cracks that develop. Were the pyre extinguished by a rainstorm, say or the flames blown away from the corpse by high wind these temperatures may not have been reached.

Since the grave was almost certainly robbed out by Pyrrhos’ Gauls, and very completely, I doubt there were any ‘opportunistic scavengers’ due to want of opportunities.

Few if any skeletons are found complete, the bones crumble to dust, so hardly any ‘mystery’ there.
That is not what I was referring to – you have simply selectively taken a single quote out of context.
That the single quote is almost as long as the whole of the Huffington Post ‘article’ is unimportant , then (429 words to 606 or 533 if you discount the quote from New Science). Still since the source for your attack on Bartsiokis methodology is
more of a pseudo-science website than one to be taken seriously whose ‘scientific articles’ run more typically to “51 sultry facts about sex” or “50 amazing facts about Antarctica” – a ‘Wow! Amaze’ me type site.
I take you will be retracting it and be more careful from which boards you leap to your conclusions in future :lol: :lol: !

While you are at you might also like to explain why you place Philip's death in SPRING? It was clearly in Dios/October.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
The ankylosed leg was broken before burial I think (or possibly before an inefficient cremation), which is why the body separated where it did and maintained a general articulation.

Xenophon wrote: Is there evidence to suggest this ? And do you mean to suggest the body was already a skeleton when this occurred ? It would take a lot of force to break the leg if it were fleshed....
Also what evidence is there that the body was cremated, inefficiently or otherwise ? My understanding is that the partial skeletons in Tomb 1 were not cremated at all.......

The separated body, and scattering of other skeletons may have been done by the original robbers, but just as easily by subsequent opportunistic scavengers. Another minor mystery is the incomplete state of all the skeletons. What became of the missing bones ?

The evidence is that the bones of the feet and lower leg remained articulated after being separated from the lower abdomen; had the ankylosed joint been intact one might expect separation at the hip on that leg. The body cannot have been fully skeletised and remained broken yet articulated. This leads to positing an inefficient cremation as a carbonised body might be expected to resist the processes involved in skeletisation better and longer than a simple fleshed corpse which would have been reduced to bones in the fifty odd years that it had lain there. Discoloration of the bones is dependent on the temperature of the pyre and the duration of the burning as are the cracks that develop. Were the pyre extinguished by a rainstorm, say or the flames blown away from the corpse by high wind these temperatures may not have been reached.
....which comes down to the fact that there is no positive evidence at all for even partial cremation, which is pure speculation.
Since the grave was almost certainly robbed out by Pyrrhos’ Gauls, and very completely, I doubt there were any ‘opportunistic scavengers’ due to want of opportunities.
The tomb was left open for a considerable time, as evidenced by the accumulation of silt and dust on the floor 20 cm deep. It is hardly credible that in all that time, no opportunistic scavengers ventured in, in hopes that something of value had been left behind – or even children playing and ‘exploring’ the site. Proof comes from the fact that many of the bones were found on top of the 20 cm silt layer, so had been disturbed well after the original robbers plundered the tomb. ( see illustration I attached to post page 5 Oct 29 and attached photo below)
Few if any skeletons are found complete, the bones crumble to dust, so hardly any ‘mystery’ there.
That hardly explains why one bone has crumbled to dust and disappeared, whilst an adjacent one is found perfectly intact. I think a better explanation is that either Human or animal agency has physically removed the ‘missing’ bones.


Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon wrote:That is not what I was referring to – you have simply selectively taken a single quote out of context.
That the single quote is almost as long as the whole of the Huffington Post ‘article’ is unimportant , then (429 words to 606 or 533 if you discount the quote from New Science). Still since the source for your attack on Bartsiokis methodology is;
more of a pseudo-science website than one to be taken seriously whose ‘scientific articles’ run more typically to “51 sultry facts about sex” or “50 amazing facts about Antarctica” – a ‘Wow! Amaze’ me type site.
I take you will be retracting it and be more careful from which boards you leap to your conclusions in future!
This is simply untrue! My criticisms of Bartsiokas’ methodology come from his published report and his own words regarding his leaping to his conclusion as soon as he saw the ankylosed knee that it ‘must’ be Philip II (!)
While you are at you might also like to explain why you place Philip's death in SPRING? It was clearly in Dios/October.
The month of Philip's death is not stated in our sources, hence not 'clearly' in Dios/October, and various guesses and estimates have been made by lots of scholars, varying from "Spring"[CAH 1927] to “June/July”,[Richard Gabriel] to “late Summer or early Fall”[Elizabeth Carney] to "October" [Hammond followed by Bosworth. Hammond's later articles do not specify a month]. The subject is an 'unknowable' and still debated. The only (uncertain)clue in our sources is Diodorus [xvi.91.4] who says, after specifying the archon/consular year, "Straightaway he set in motion plans.... " which would imply earlier in the year rather than later. In addition, the obvious time for such a ceremony would be at the annual muster of the Makedones in the month of Xandikos/March. That the army was mustered and present at the time is certain, since Alexander was immediately acclaimed King by the assembly of the Makedones. On balance of probability therefore, I think a Spring date the most likely, and that would be my guess.
Attachments
Floor of Tomb 1 Vergina showing male skeleton disturbed and on top of silt layer.JPG
Floor of Tomb 1 Vergina showing male skeleton disturbed and on top of silt layer.JPG (51.62 KiB) Viewed 6386 times
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

The month of Philip's death is not stated in our sources, hence not 'clearly' in Dios/October, and various guesses and estimates have been made by lots of scholars, varying from "Spring"[CAH 1927] to “June/July”,[Richard Gabriel] to “late Summer or early Fall”[Elizabeth Carney] to "October" [Hammond followed by Bosworth. Hammond's later articles do not specify a month]. The subject is an 'unknowable' and still debated. The only (uncertain)clue in our sources is Diodorus [xvi.91.4] who says, after specifying the archon/consular year, "Straightaway he set in motion plans.... " which would imply earlier in the year rather than later. In addition, the obvious time for such a ceremony would be at the annual muster of the Makedones in the month of Xandikos/March. That the army was mustered and present at the time is certain, since Alexander was immediately acclaimed King by the assembly of the Makedones. On balance of probability therefore, I think a Spring date the most likely, and that would be my guess.
Oh dear! Whilst it is true that the sources do not state the month of Philip’s death they do state the length of Alexander’s reign which commenced on the very day of Philip’s murder. The date of Alexander’s death is known precisely towhit 28thDaisios 323 so Arrian VII 28 i
He had reigned twelve years and these eight months
Means that your speculation about Xandikos is shown for what it is ; totally ill-informed, October is right as the count back makes it Dios (possibly Apellaios due to the embolimic month in 323 so six or seven months after your guess), what people class as various seasons is dubious ; have you nor read Arrian?

So your speculative children and scavengers left the phalanges fully articulated? They must have been particularly delicate. The fill would have continued once the great tumulus was constructed since the holes were not totally sealed.

I suggest you acquire a bit more archaeological knowledge; many bones are lost while their neighbours remain, it is hardly strange, though the bones remaining articulated after scavenging animal activity is, I think unheard of ever.

Spring is your best guess :lol: :lol: LOL is that speculation or wishful thinking?? :roll: :roll: :roll:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Oh dear! Whilst it is true that the sources do not state the month of Philip’s death they do state the length of Alexander’s reign which commenced on the very day of Philip’s murder. The date of Alexander’s death is known precisely towhit 28th Daisios 323 so Arrian VII 28 i

"He had reigned twelve years and these eight months"


Means that your speculation about Xandikos is shown for what it is ; totally ill-informed, October is right as the count back makes it Dios (possibly Apellaios due to the embolimic month in 323 so six or seven months after your guess), what people class as various seasons is dubious ; have you nor read Arrian?
Oh, dear ! Let us see who is ill-informed. To begin with, which Macedonian calendar do you think is being referred to? ( there were at least 3 or even 4, but perhaps we can discount the Ptolemaic version....or perhaps not).
The one used in Macedon, (beginning in the Autumn with Dios, which equated roughly with October) or since Arrian's source was writing after his death, the one used in Babylon? In this version the Macedonian calendar was re-aligned with the Babylonian one ( which began in Spring, close to the Vernal equinox), in which Dios usually, but not always, equated to the Babylonian seventh month of Tashritu? This calendar [ and the original Macedonian one] had a 19 year lunar cycle, with 7 intercalations/embolimoi in each. In this scheme, intercalations occurred after Xandikos (= Addaru) and after Hyperberetaios (= Ululu), often, though not always, coincident with Babylonian intercalations. So how many intercalations would you like to guess for Alexander's reign ? ( there were obviously more than one ! ). How accurate is the original source's count of years and months ? Which calendar did they use? (was it even a Macedonian one?). Did they include the intercalary months? Or like you did they (inaccurately) do a simple count-back?

With so many uncertainties, any attempt to establish the date based on 'count-back' is difficult if not impossible, and your calculation is certainly incorrect.
So your speculative children and scavengers left the phalanges fully articulated? They must have been particularly delicate. The fill would have continued once the great tumulus was constructed since the holes were not totally sealed.
But none of the skeletal material was 'fully articulated' as is evident from the photos. Andronicos also recorded that the skeletal material was disturbed . (Tomb I contained the remains of at least seven individuals: an adult male, a female, a child, four babies aged 8-10 lunar months and one fetus of 6.5 lunar months, according to Prof. Antikas) Furthermore, according to the Clemson university site "Aegae";

"The openings created by the robbers were sealed with piles of stone before the Great Tumulus was constructed."

and the silt did not fill the tomb, but was only 1.42 m deep at most - with most of the individual bones of the male some 12 cm/5inches above floor level.
I suggest you acquire a bit more archaeological knowledge; many bones are lost while their neighbours remain, it is hardly strange, though the bones remaining articulated after scavenging animal activity is, I think unheard of ever.
Having worked as a forensic lawyer most of my life, I am thoroughly familiar with the process of human decomposition, right down to fossilisation, thank you. Bones can deteriorate through abiotic or biotic factors - for instance 'bog' burials often have no skeletal material through dissolving in acidic soil, while soft tissues including skin are preserved. I find it odd that, according to you, of two bones adjacent to one another, in identical environments, one disappears completely whilst the other remains completely intact. That requires some explanation, and I note you offer none.....

I repeat, none of the bones were 'articulated', though some were found in their relatively correct anatomic positions, and that can occur where animal activity affects only part of the corpse - such as removal of small bones by a small animal. Or removal of major bones by human agency.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Arrian VII 28 i
ALEXANDER died in the 114th Olympiad, in the archonship of Hegesias at Athens. According to the statement of Aristobulus, he lived thirty-two years, and had reached the eighth month of his thirty-third year. He had reigned twelve years and these eight months
Diodoros XVII 117 v
This was how he died after a reign of twelve years and seven months.
Plutarch Alx 75 vi
But Aristobulus says that he had a raging fever, and that when he got very thirsty he drank wine, whereupon he became delirious, and died on the thirtieth day of the month Daesius
Plutarch Alx. 76 ix -77 i
And on the twenty-eighth, towards evening, he died.
77 1
Most of this account is word for word as written in the "Journals."
Astronomical Diary (full text here http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... r_t41.html
[Year fourteen of Alexander, Month Two]
[The first part is missing.]
Night of the fourteenth, beginning of the night, the moon was [lacuna] in front of Theta Ophiuchi….[This observation can be dated on 26 May 323 BCE]
The twenty-ninth: The king died. Clouds [were in the sky [The twenty-ninth of Ajaru is the period between the evening of 10 June and the evening of 11 June 323 BCE.]

Oh dear! You seem particularly confused by a very simple matter. As can seen above Arrian’s source was Aristoboulos of Kassandreia, who gives the month as Daisios a Macedonian month which runs parallel with Aiiaru of the Astronomical Diary, done to the very day – the last day of the month 29 for the astronomer and 30 for Aristoboulos, due to different counting systems rather than radically different calendars. So we are dealing with the Macedonian calendar, which still began in Dios (and always did until a first century realignment by the Arsacids) this is demonstrable by the six month lag between dual dates of the Seleukid Era given in Greek and Babylonian style, the Parthian adjustment is shown by Josephos’ usage, and particularly coin inscriptions which include embolimic months of Gorpiaios and Dystros rather than, Hyperberetaios and Xandikos; a fuller exposition in ‘Arrian’s Monthly Problem’ and a link to G R F Assar in his article ‘Parthian Calendars at Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris’ Iran Vol 41 (2003) pp171-191.

We can therefore ignore the Egyptian re-herring (the Macedonian calendar used in Egypt was the same as that elsewhere, the Egyptian Civil and Lunar calendars both had different month names and are, thus excluded by Aristoboulos’ statement that the date was in Daisios), the re-aligned calendar with a new start (it did not exist), leaving the standard Macedonian one which is evidently in line with the Babylonian in 323, including embolimic months. Some instances of where the dates are out of sync would be useful, but I doubt they will be forthcoming.

So, hardly a mystery as to which calendar is being used. What of the intercalated months? Another red-herring; the question is did the ancients count the number of months and divide by twelve to determine the number of years (despite the fact that there were thirteen months in 7/19 years), or if they took account of them some other way? Fortunately a good check exists, the reign of Philip III which began 1st Panemos and ended six years and four months later (Diod XIX 11 v).

Panemos 323, if we count embolimic months and we have 76 months and his deposition or death comes in Loios 317, July, if we count years from the anniversary of his accession and add four months we come to Dios 317 (October), a two month difference we also have a report, most likely of his death, from Babylon LBAT 1414 dated to late December. Either two or four months after his rule ended.

Diod.XIX
11 v. But after she had for many days unlawfully treated the unfortunate captives, she ordered certain Thracians to stab Philip to death, who had been king for six years and four months.
35 i In Europe when Cassander, who was besieging Tegea in the Peloponnesus, learned of the return of Olympias to Macedonia and of the murder of Eurydicê and King Philip, and moreover what had befallen the tomb of his brother Iollas, he came to terms with the people of Tegea and set out for Macedonia with his army, leaving his allies in complete confusion;
49 i Although Cassander had shut Olympias into Pydna in Macedonia, he was not able to assault the walls because of the winter storms,
So, Philip was imprisoned ‘for some days’ and Kassandros moved swiftly to Macedonia once he had heard of the various murders and desecration, swiftly passed the Perrhaibaian passes and was thwarted in his planned escalade by ‘winter storms’. One only has to decide whether Olympias took over in July or October and managed to keep the regicide quiet for months or two. Kassandros certainly moved close to winter if not during it.

This would seem to support a straight anniversary plus some months system of reckoning. One can explain the different month count in Diodoros either by ‘inclusive and exclusive’ counting as Welles does in his note in the Loeb, or by Aristoboulos counting the embolimic Xandikos of 323 and Diodoros’ source not; Aristoboulos was there and familiar with the Macedonian calendar of the time Kleitarchos may not have realised there was an extra month to include.
With so many uncertainties, any attempt to establish the date based on 'count-back' is difficult if not impossible, and your calculation is certainly incorrect.
You really ought to stop being so ‘certain’; I think it will be clear to all ’who is ill-informed.’ :lol: :lol: :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

From Mcleod's thesis
From Mcleod's thesis
articulated arms.png (202.99 KiB) Viewed 6334 times
As can be seen the fingers, phalanges and the small bones of the hands, all in yellow are in place as are the radii and their ulnae, in red and green and the carpal joints are proximal enough to call this ‘articulated’. Yes it has been ‘disturbed’, but it is not scattered as would be the case with scavenging animals.
"The openings created by the robbers were sealed with piles of stone before the Great Tumulus was constructed."
Which does not contradict what I said,
The fill would have continued once the great tumulus was constructed since the holes were not totally sealed

Andronikos 1977 notes that the sealing was rough and not complete, soil would continue to fall in becoming the talus or cone of fill, it does not mean that the grave was filled, just that the process was on going

You seem confused by just what ‘forensic’ means this link might help.

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/f ... 002-03.pdf

Look at these pictures, some ribs are there adjacent ones are not similarly for the facial bones and other parts of the skull; like I said it no mystery, except it seems to a life-long ‘forensic lawyer’; a court case involving fossils sounds interesting.
Parco dei Ravennati necropolis
Parco dei Ravennati necropolis
Parco-dei-Ravennati-necropolis.jpg (140.43 KiB) Viewed 6334 times
Burial-of-armour-bearer.jpg
Burial-of-armour-bearer.jpg (75.57 KiB) Viewed 6334 times
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'

Post by agesilaos »

Whilst the evidence from Aristoboulos apud Arrian, is clear and easily understood, as well as being from a contemporary source and an accurate reporter (relatively speaking, Arrian does make errors, of course). There are different sets of ‘witnesses’ which do involve some of the complications which vexed Xenophon. These are the Babylonian king-lists and astronomical texts, and the various chronographic texts including P.Oxy 12, a chronological exercise (it is corrected in a second hand) from the second to third century AD. For the sake of completeness it might be best to say something about these.

The most contemporary evidence we have are various dating formulae in cuneiform documents from Babylon. These show that Alexander was accorded an ‘accession year’ or mu sag, more fully, mu sag nam.lugal.la; this was a convention wherein the first partial year of a reign was not given a number but this epithet and the numbered years began with the next New Year in Nisanu c.April. Unfortunately, no document survives dated to Alexander’s last year, the dating formula of the astronomical Diary reporting his death is a restoration. The numbered years run from 7 to 13 with examples of each but none of 1 to 6, it appears that they are the number of his regnal years in Macedonia.

If Alexander was in the seventh year of his reign in April 330 then he must have ascended in or before April 336, it might be thought, but the Macedonians had no tradition of ‘accession years’ so it only demonstrates that he was ruling sometime between April 336 and April 335, An inscription from Athens demonstrates that Philip was still alive in the tenth pryttany of 337/6 c July
Honours for a courtier of Philip II
IG II3 1 322 Date: 337/6 BC

Gods.
In the archonship of Phrynichos (337/6), in the
tenth prytany, of Pandionis, for which
Chairestratos son of Ameinias of Acharnai
5 was secretary. Of the presiding committee
Antiphanes of Euonymon was putting to the vote[1].
Demades son of Demeas of Paiania[2] proposed:
for the good fortune of the Athenian People,
the People shall decide: since
10 -os son of Andromenes of - is well disposed
towards the Athenian People [and now?]
takes care of Athenians
visiting Philip, doing
what good is in his power for the Athenians
15 with Philip, he shall be proxenos and
benefactor of the Athenian People,
himself and his descendants, and
the Council shall take care of him, and the generals,
whatever may be needed;
20 and the prytany secretary shall inscribe
the proxeny on a stone stele
and stand it on the acropolis;
and for inscribing the
stele let the treasurer give thirty
25 drachmas, according to the law.
So, all we can glean from these is the year of Alexander’s accession they do not pin down a month. Neither king-list (Uruk or Babylon) actually records the length of Alexander’s reign, although 7 has been restored for the Uruk and posited for Babylon by Glassner. Whilst interesting in many ways these documents do not help date the beginning of Alexander’s reign to any particular month.

Much the same can be said for the chronographers who are only working in whole years, Clement of Alexandria preserves two of these in his ‘Stromata’ I xxi
Eratosthenes thus sets down the dates: "From the capture of Troy to the descent of the Heraclidae, eighty years. From this to the founding of Ionia, sixty years; and the period following to the protectorate of Lycurgus, a hundred and fifty-nine years; and to the first year of the first Olympiad, a hundred and eight years. From which Olympiad to the invasion of Xerxes, two hundred and ninety-seven years; from which to the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, forty-eight years; and to its close, and the defeat of the Athenians, twenty-seven years; and to the battle at Leuctra, thirty-four years; after which to the death of Philip, thirty-five years. And after this to the decease of Alexander, twelve years."
As also Duris, from the taking of Troy to the march of Alexander into Asia, a thousand years; and from that to the archonship of Hegesias, in whose time Alexander died eleven years.
Eratosthenes fl c250BC, was born in Kyrene and worked in Alexandria, we might expect him to work on the Egyptian year running November to November in Alexander’s period, and October to October during his own. Now, looking at his dates we find that he must be using events falling in Egyptian years viz

First Olympiad begins Aug 776BC + 297 = Xerxes’ invasion 479 wrong!
First Olympiad falls in Egyptian year Oct/Nov 777 to Oct/Nov 776 BC + 297 = Oct/Nov 480 to Oct/Nov 479; closer, but Xerxes did not invade in October.
If we assume an inclusive count 297 becomes 296 so 776 -296 = 480 – 47 = 433 wrong;
The second method seems better which gives the ranges all Oct/Nov
1st Olympiad 777 -776 (Aug 776) Tick
Xerxes’ Invasion 480 – 479 (April 480) Nope
Peloponnesian War 432-431 (April 431) Tick
End of P War 405-404 (April 404) Tick
Leuktra 371-370 (5th Hekatombaion 371) Nope
Death of Philip 336-335 ?
Death of Alexander 324-323 (June 323) Tick

Unfortunately the months are wrong in at least two calculations otherwise it would be easy to say Philip died Oct/Nov 336 as Arrian implies.

Duris is likewise only pin-pointing a year for Alexander’s death, 11 years after crossing into Asia, in the archonship of Hegesias, which is right but says nothing about the start of his reign.

The P.Oxy chronographer gives Alexander a reign of 13 years which some have seen as correct and placed Philip’s death in Daesios, but this is clearly a round figure and there are sufficient errors in P.Oxy 12 for its evidence to judged inferior to that of Arrian/Aristoboulos; it can be found on page 25 here

https://archive.org/details/oxyrhynchuspapyr01grenuoft
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Post Reply