' The lameness of king Philip II .'

[Matthew Amt]

So, were all these secret stashes of bones part of some official policy by people who claim to be dedicated to knowledge and education? Or just damn sloppy archeology? Gads...

[agesilaos]

That will be it; however it does not explain the fused bones. The neonates I would assume were dumped, just as many were found in a sewer in Asia Minor. It would not even be inconceivable that an adult corpse could be disposed of casually. But this man must have had care for at least two years, and some sort of medical attention, given that there was no infection, this does not gel in my mind with a 'dumped' corpse. C14 would be useful, but since none has been forthcoming since 1977, it joins a long list of things about which not to hold ones breath.

Matthew, I would always opt for cock-up over conspiracy (unless writing a thriller!).

[Zebedee]

Thanks Amyntoros. The study is held up pending permissions to do more work according to Antikas elsewhere. Can understand Antikas being a tad miffed with this study then if he's still waiting. The reference in the official statement does seem to be about these other bones too from what Antikas has said elsewhere. Definitely cock-up with the bones rather than conspiracy - bulk went to the museum, the ones found more recently to a university for further study, which doesn't seem to have happened, and then they were forgotten about.

One fundamental problem with the dumped theory for the man is that his lower limbs and feet seem to be in the right anatomical positions. So one has to find a way to get them into this tomb, as they were found, and then mix all the other bones up whilst leaving those intact. It's not impossible, of course, to create a story which does that in the timeframe before the hole in the ceiling covered the remains. One can create a story to explain just about anything.

[Alexias]

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.

That makes a lot of sense. If you look at the appendix of the PNAS report, it says that all the leg bones show evidence of extensive horse riding. Would we really expect Cleopatra to be riding several hours a day?

There appear to be remains of a female skull (lack of a prominent brow ridge), and this has been associated with the second lower jaw. The report says that the older male was about 5' 10". The second lower jaw is almost the same size as the older person's, so either it was a pretty 'robust' young woman who spent most of her time riding, or potentially we have a young man's jaw and leg bones, as well as a female skull.

As for the hole, the appendix states

The symphyseal surface (Figure 3) seems pitted with a large hole in the centre, though it is difficult to ascertain whether the hole is postmortem or not.

yet in their determination to prove that it was Philip, they have assumed that it was not post mortem.

The whole knee issue bothers me. Why has the joint fused? As a result of being dislocated? We know bone grows, so if the ends of the bones have grown to limit mobility, why hasn't the hole grown together? The hole appears to be in the lower part of the knee and looks to be about 2.5 cm or an inch across. Potentially therefore it could be made by a javelin. I cannot tell from the photos if the hole is through the front or the side of the knee as I cannot see it in the photo of the two bones joined together (Fig 4), but if it killed the horse under Philip, then it should be through the side of the knee. In order to have penetrated the bone and killed the horse, a thrust from a hand-held weapon wouldn't have had the force to do that, and a long range shot would have arched down and likely hit the top of the knee rather than the lower knee. It would seem therefore that if the hole was made by a javelin, it would have been thrown horizontally and the man was aiming to bring the horse down, perhaps being uncertain of hitting the rider. That kind of force would likely have shattered the bone, rather than have just gone straight through. At the very least there should have been radial fractures around the hole. It would seem odd that all of these should heal so cleanly that there is no evidence for them.

I am also not convinced about the lesions on the base of the skull which are supposedly the result of the limp affecting the angle at which the head was held. Would Philip really have done that much walking in less than 3 years? He would have been off his feet for several months anyway with the severity of the wound, would have ridden wherever possible thereafter and did not have to spend all day on his feet as a less privileged person would have done.

[agesilaos]

The hole that it is difficult to decide whether it is post mortem or not is the one in the pelvic girdle not that in the leg. The hole in the leg is the cause of the fusing, and it appears that the shaft of the weapon remained in situ as the ossification has not closed the hole, but preserves the shape of the shaft, as Bartsiokis suggests.

One troubling thing is that Philip seems to have bee quite active during all his life and it is hard to imagine a cripple fighting in the front rank against Pleratos or with the hypaspists at Chaironeia.

If a shafted weapon strikes with sufficient velocity the bone does not exhibit radial fractures, as is demonstrated by arrows found in and through bison ribs, I would imagine that Philip was charging the soldier that wounded him on horseback, hence the velocity. here are some sites on arrow wounds and knee trauma I will try to provide links tomoz.

[Alexias]

The hole that it is difficult to decide whether it is post mortem or not is the one in the pelvic girdle not that in the leg. The hole in the leg is the cause of the fusing, and it appears that the shaft of the weapon remained in situ as the ossification has not closed the hole, but preserves the shape of the shaft, as Bartsiokis suggests.

Ah, my mistake. I confess I only skimmed the 40 pages of the appendix.

[Alexias]

I would imagine that Philip was charging the soldier that wounded him on horseback, hence the velocity.

I would have thought it would have been harder to hit both man and horse front on, unless we are talking about a sarissa that went through the horse's breast and came out into Philip's leg. But then it would seem more likely that it was his thigh that was hit.

One troubling thing is that Philip seems to have been quite active during all his life and it is hard to imagine a cripple fighting in the front rank

A piece of wood left through his knee would likely have been extremely painful. The ends of it would not have been smooth, nor flush with the bone and this would have meant that flesh and sinew would have adhered to it limiting movement and constantly catching against the rough surface. Philip's temper would have suffered.

[agesilaos]

http://www.bmj.com/content/2/205/623

http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/05/bat ... of-a-body/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... a00070/pdf

Some references: in the first you can read of farmers walking miles having speared their knee on hay forks or laid them open with baling knives!

When dealing with the wound one has to start with the evidence we have, which s the bone itself. The penetrating blow has prised the knee-joint apart which would be consistent with a blow on the outside of the knee, displacing the patella and parting the joint. Turning to the written sources it would be possible for the horse to be killed, but that is, perhaps more to be put down to rhetorical exaggeration.

I suggest that part of the weapon remained in the knee since it appears it was there when the calcification began and it is clear that the joint remained sprung and dislocated; if we accept the horse being killed as well then it must be the wooden haft, some woods do have antiseptic sap which might explain the lack of infection; conversely it may have been the head and/or socket that remained. Two soldiers in the army of Belisarios survived with arrow and javelin heads embedded in them which finally grew out.

The test will be whether the degree of damage seen is too great to accommodate Philip’s activity, sadly we are not well informed on that, but we do know that at some stage after the wound Philip fought the Illyrians and at Chaironeia.

More research needed, into the capability of those with such a restriction to flexion too.
edited to put a line space between http addresses

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

When dealing with the wound one has to start with the evidence we have, which s the bone itself. The penetrating blow has prised the knee-joint apart which would be consistent with a blow on the outside of the knee, displacing the patella and parting the joint. Turning to the written sources it would be possible for the horse to be killed, but that is, perhaps more to be put down to rhetorical exaggeration.
I suggest that part of the weapon remained in the knee since it appears it was there when the calcification began and it is clear that the joint remained sprung and dislocated; if we accept the horse being killed as well then it must be the wooden haft, some woods do have antiseptic sap which might explain the lack of infection; conversely it may have been the head and/or socket that remained. Two soldiers in the army of Belisarios survived with arrow and javelin heads embedded in them which finally grew out.

When looking at the photos, I have some very serious doubts as to whether this injury is a “wound” at all. I find it hard to believe that the almost broken off leg – 80degrees, and twisted through 30 degrees – would not have been straightened and splinted at the time of injury, even if not treated by a doctor. Nor is it terribly credible that part of the weapon would be left ‘in situ’ for several years whilst the bone fused around it. Next, the round ‘hole’ that is present cannot have been inflicted by any sort of spearhead – invariably leaf shaped. It is a roundish hole which from the photos is a mere 10-15mm diameter – too small even for a javelin shaft. Conceivably, it could have been made by the tip of a sauroter, but then why did it not heal? Moreover, no explanation is offered for the similar hole in the pelvis. There are also similar ‘holes’ in the leg-bones of the female – see photos S.13 and S.14 of Bartsiokas’ report, and even in the infant bones ! (photo S.20) Are all these holes due to ‘wounds’ too ? Are they perhaps post mortem ?

With the caveat that I am not a doctor or medical expert, nor have I examined the skeleton of course, the male skeleton’s leg condition and bone fusion seems to me to be more consistent with ankylosing spondylitis, an inflammatory disease with genetic links and defined as :
Stiffening or fixation of a joint as the result of a disease process, with fibrous or bony union across the joint; fusion.
[G. ankylōsis, stiffening of a joint]

This could explain why the leg was not straightened, the disease being a gradual progression over time.

The test will be whether the degree of damage seen is too great to accommodate Philip’s activity, sadly we are not well informed on that, but we do know that at some stage after the wound Philip fought the Illyrians and at Chaironeia.
More research needed, into the capability of those with such a restriction to flexion too.

Certainly no-one with their lower leg pointed out at 80 degrees could possibly have ridden a horse ( especially without stirrups), nor do I think it likely that such an injury would allow that individual to march or take part in infantry battle. I share your doubts on this score.
Then there’s the size of the hole. No weapon that went on to kill or even wound Philip’s horse would leave such a small hole. And embedded in the knee bones, it would be unlikely to have carried on into the horse at all. As Agesilaos points out, we are required to depart from our source material for this to be possibly Philip II.
Incidently, Philip’s leg wound is reported by Demosthenes xviii 67. Didymus in Dem. xi 22, col. xiii 3-7 (46-7]). Justin ix 3.2 Seneca Con. x 5.6. Plutarch Mor. 331b and 739b no. 4. Athenaeus vi 248f. Scholion in Dem. xviii 67.124 (i 215 ), all of whom report that the wound was in the upper leg/thigh, with Didymus specifying right thigh. Didymus and Plutarch Mor. 33 lb make it clear that the wound from the engagement with the Triballi made Philip lame. Whether the lameness was a temporary passing condition or permanent is not raised. There is a difference between 'lame' - which means mere limping or unable to walk properly, and 'crippled', a much more severe condition meaning disabled, which the skeleton appears to be.
Justin/Trogus, perhaps going back to Theopompus, a contemporary of Philip records a ‘sarisa’ going on to kill the horse. Plutarch says the weapon was a ‘longche’.[digression: I think it plausible that ‘sarisa’ was originally a generic Macedonian word for spear, or perhaps long spear, and that it was later Greek writers who used the word in a technical sense for the lengthy two handed pike. This would explain its use here, and also how cavalry could wield a ‘sarisa’].

Bartsiokas’ hypothesis of a wound in the left knee is incompatible with all of this. His case seems to be rather badly flawed, especially in the light of current criticisms.

[Matthew Amt]

Yeah, I just finished reading Jolene McLeod's thesis (where the heck did I find the link for that??), and now I think *everybody* is wrong! Maybe. I had totally missed the whole right leg/left leg problem the first time... The whole issue is clearly MUCH worse than I thought!

One thing I notice is that every artifact from a tomb is assumed to have *belonged* to the person buried in that chamber. That's not necessarily an unreasonable place to start, but taking it as fact seems very dangerous to me. Other cultures have buried men with women's objects, and vice versa.

WHAT a mess! Kinda fun, eh?

Matthew

[agesilaos]

I suggest you follow the link and explain why section 5: ‘TAPHONOMIC IRONY: WHY ARRHIDAIOS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BURIED IN TOMB II’, which deals solely with the fact that his corpse too would present as a ‘green’, ‘wet’ or ’fleshed’ cremation is not saying that this is apposite. It is germane to disallowing Bartsiokis’ argument but far from excluding Arrhidaios it allows him to remain a candidate.

This whole paper is flawed and now, thanks to Antikas, so is every other, since the age of the female, re-determined from a pelvis not previously inspected (!) has pushed her age into the thirties (30-35) which contradicts the clavicular fusion evidence of an age in the twenties! Musgrave’s finding was 25 with ‘no possibility of 19 or 20’ citing the original, and significantly less ‘certain’ investigators, Xirotiris and Langenscheidt, or rather mis-citing their ‘immature female’ as ‘skeletally mature’; this aside we now have evidence in the clavicle that should be fully fused by 30 but was not and a pelvic fragment that points to a post 30yrs age. There is a simple solution, that might be supported by a collection of all the material. The larnax in chamber 1 of Tomb II contains both the newly cremated remains of Eurydike-Adea AND the re burned cremains of Kyananne, there are other examples of double cremains and the pelvis is the sort of bone to survive a double cremation.

The leg in Tomb I cannot be from any medical condition; ankyliosis would not push the joint apart but fuse it in situ. This is the result of an injury, though I share your doubts about a spear wound, some solid measurements would help especially of the hole. Spear heads come in all shapes and sizes, and this was a barbarian weapon if we are dealing with Philip so unlikely to be standardised. That said, we know Philip remained active, the only reason that I do not simply agree with your assessment of the individual’s mobility is that I can remember the emerging skeleton of Richard III and the scoliosis; on finding a modern man with almost the same curvature it was revealed that this was not as debilitating as it appeared.

The sarissa of Didymus is troubling, although the smaller heads may belong to the sarissai found an Tomb II; I have heard the ‘old word for a generic spear’ based on the –issa suffix , but there is little reason for a first century author to use such an archaic term nor is it likely in Theopompos et al (Arrian six hundred years later might happily parade an obscurantist love of archaism but these authors seem to explain the Macedonian terms they use). If it is not just Didymus getting confused and inserting the Macedonian weapon par excellence, I wonder if it is not a corruption of a word for ‘arrow’; ‘sagitta’ seems eminently corruptible into ‘sarissa’ but Didymus is writing in Greek and ‘oistos’ does not….

It amazes me that the Archaeological Council produced so much bull instead of raising a point that seems obvious to us, the severity of the injury. There still has to be a scenario to get this man into the tomb and have his lower legs separated from the thighs, and that is a poser, unless he was the original occupant, and high status. That does not make him Philip but then there is that structure currently denoted a Heroon.

The sources are quite inconsistent as to the location of Philip's wound, which just emphasises how insecure arguments based on wounds reported by one source can be, stories grow; even Alexander has movable wounds, Philip loses and eye to an arrow, a javelin and a catapult bolt depending on the source.

This is set to run and run, as I believe Xenophon said, at least two years ago.

[Alexias]

Better picture of the hole in the knee, which makes it look as if it is from the front

[Xenophon]

Alexias wrote:

Better picture of the hole in the knee, which makes it look as if it is from the front

See attachment - that 'hole' could easily be the normal gap at the front of the knee joint partially fused over.....

[Xenophon]

Matthew wrote:

One thing I notice is that every artifact from a tomb is assumed to have *belonged* to the person buried in that chamber. That's not necessarily an unreasonable place to start, but taking it as fact seems very dangerous to me. Other cultures have buried men with women's objects, and vice versa.

...do I take it you have in mind the so-called tomb of the Etruscan Prince, which contained two shelves, one skeleton buried with a spear beside it, presumed to be male, and the other with jewelry and small containers, presumed to be his wife ?

It turned out that the 'male' was a middle aged female, and the 'wife' was male ! Modern archaeologists now reckon on determinng bone analysis before jumping to conclusions from artifact finds.....

[agesilaos]

It could be the normal space but something disjointed the leg and, presumably, lost the patella; had it been present it ought to have become fused in the mass of ossification. One reason to presume that an object remained in the joint is that the bones have not returned to a normal proximity, which would normally occur under the action of the tendons and ligaments, were these cut the limb would become totally useless, this would rule out Philip II who was active soon after the alleged wound. I wonder if the injury is not akin to that suffered by Drusus on the Rhine when his horse fell upon him, that might tear the joint apart without breaking the skin keeping infection out and the swelling disguising the extent of the damage (when I shattered my humerus I was under the impression that the injury was much less serious until I saw the x-rays). we do not know how Amyntas III died nor much about the end of his reign, but the pottery seems to rule him out, died 370.