Ivory heads found in Tomb II belongs to two Royal families!

[antipater]

Tomb II, also known as Philip's tomb is actually the tomb build for burial of the Macedonian king, Alexander the Great. The gold larnax in the main chamber contains the remains of king Cassander while the gold larnax found in antechamber contains the remains of Thessalonice. On the top of the tomb it was found remains of many inflammable objects and two burnt iron swords and one iron spearhead. All those artifacts found there testify that a symbolic burials was performed of Cassander's sons, Antipater and Alexander V, in the moment before the tomb was finally coverd with earth. The young Macedonian kings were killed in 294.

The Ivory heads found in the Royal Tomb II belongs to members of two Royal families,
Philip II, Olympias, Alexander, Thessalonice, Cassander, Antipater and Iollas, as shown at http://www.macedonia.se/en/Load/30/vergina_tomb_2/

[Efstathios]

I will have to disagree. As i already pointed out in another post not long ago, Antigonos Gonatas sealed the royal tombs, of which the one was that of Philip II, to protect them from futher looting. It is assumed that the tomb of Philip was not looted otherwise i dont know if Gonatas would seal it. The tombs were sealed with a tumulus. That tumulus was found by Andronikos. There is no other tumulus that contains royal tombs in the area, so tomb II must be the tomb of Philip II.

Tomb I which is looted, could have been that of Cassander, because it was built some decades after tomb II.

[antipater]

Tomb I, also known as the Tomb of Persephone, is the tomb of Philip II. The golden larnax with the remains of the macedonian king Philip II was hastily removed in the days of the danger of civil war in Macedonia by the general Antipater, shortly before his death, to be buried in a remote place, not reachable for the hostile and destructive hellenes. The vacant tomb was later reused for the brother of the king Cassander, Iollas, his wife and their unborn child, who where killed by Olympias.
http://www.macedonia.se/en/Load/30/vergina_tomb_1/

[jasonxx]

With Regard to the Ivories. We have had an artistic Scientist rebuilding of the Face from the Tomb which is supposedly Philip.

The Picture doesnt look much like the Aparent Philip Ivory.

kenny

[antipater]

Hello Kenny,
The reason that artistic Scientist rebuilding of the Face from the Tomb II based on the bone remains which is supposed to belongs to Philip II does not look much like the aparent face of the Ivory portrait of Philipl II is clear, because it shows the Face of Cassander.

[marcus]

Tomb I, also known as the Tomb of Persephone, is the tomb of Philip II. The golden larnax with the remains of the macedonian king Philip II was hastily removed in the days of the danger of civil war in Macedonia by the general Antipater, shortly before his death, to be buried in a remote place, not reachable for the hostile and destructive hellenes. The vacant tomb was later reused for the brother of the king Cassander, Iollas, his wife and their unborn child, who where killed by Olympias.
http://www.macedonia.se/en/Load/30/vergina_tomb_1/

I'm not a great expert on the period following Alexander's death, but it does seem to me that you are citing what amounts to speculation, rather than fact. There is only so much one can tell from the archaeological record, and what you are presenting here is only a set of theories about the tombs, which do not agree with other theories that have gained far wider currency.

It would be helpful if you could present some good evidence for your statements (and, to be honest, a link to the Macedonia Development Center isn't really sufficient).

ATB

[marcus]

With Regard to the Ivories. We have had an artistic Scientist rebuilding of the Face from the Tomb which is supposedly Philip.

The Picture doesnt look much like the Aparent Philip Ivory.

kenny

Don't worry about it, Kenny. The pictures on the website of the ivories depicting (supposedly) Philip and Antipater are of the same ivory, just from different angles. As are those of the ivories depicting (supposedly) Alexander and Iollas.

As it happens, I think that the reconstructed "Philip" is a pretty good representation of the face shown on the ivory. For a start, you wouldn't expect the facial reconstruction to be 100% accurate.

But I really wouldn't take much notice of what's on that site that Antipater has linked to - it's a nice site, but the 'findings' about the tombs are way off target.

ATB

[marcus]

The reason that artistic Scientist rebuilding of the Face from the Tomb II based on the bone remains which is supposed to belongs to Philip II does not look much like the aparent face of the Ivory portrait of Philipl II is clear, because it shows the Face of Cassander.

However, if, as you said in the earlier post:

The gold larnax in the main chamber contains the remains of king Cassander

... then the rebuilding of the face from bone remains surely shows a representation of Cassander, too. You can't have it both ways.

Try to be consistent at least within your own posts, Antipater!

ATB, and happy Christmas

[antipater]

Hello Marcus,
The theory truth of the Royal Tombs at Vergina is questioned. The finds in the Royal Tombs I, II and III does not corresponds to the conclustions made by Andronicos at his time. In the light of facts presented by others and the new concept introduced by me will contribute to correct the faulty identification made by Andronicos.

By the way, the Tomb III, also known as the Prince's Tomb is the tomb of Philip IV, king of Macedonia. He was the oldest son of Kassander who died in 297. Philip IV was on the Macedonian throne only few months when he died in 297 at an age of about 14 years. The silver hydria contains the burnt bones of the young king Philip IV.
http://www.macedonia.se/en/Load/30/vergina_tomb_3/

[Efstathios]

Antipater: In order to prove your theories you will need aguments and evidence to support them.Either historical or findings.There is no historical evidence , in any text, that leads to the assumption that Cassander was in tomb II, or in any of the tombs there.

You cannot prove Andronikos fault in his theory simply because the new theories that are presented which say that the body in tomb II is that of Arhideus, and come with good arguments and evidence, still dont prove anything.The body is beyond recognition, so much that in the initial forensics they couldnt tell if it was a male or a female (that of the main chamber of tomb II). The rest of the evidence ,like the greaves which the one is shorter and the other longer, are only specculations, and dont prove anything either.

Furthermore tomb I couldnt have been that of Philip's because it was built after tomb II and around 300 b.c. That was assumed due to the technotropy of the tomb which is newer. So tomb I could have been that of Arhideus, or maybe Cassander.

The theory that Cassander moved the body of Philip from tomb I to protect it lacks somewhere else too. It would be a sacriledge to move the body of Philip II somewhere else, along with the other bodies there. And why not built a tumulus as Gonatas did? But then, Gonatas built a tumulus to protect the royal tombs. To protect Cassander? I dont think so.

[antipater]

The facts presented by others confirms that reconstructed Face is not that of Philip II of Macedon, but probably that of Cassander according to the concept introduced by me. Please see the following
link.

The reason that artistic Scientist rebuilding of the Face from the Tomb II based on the bone remains which is supposed to belongs to Philip II does not look much like the aparent face of the Ivory portrait of Philipl II is clear, because it shows the Face of Cassander.

However, if, as you said in the earlier post:

The gold larnax in the main chamber contains the remains of king Cassander

... then the rebuilding of the face from bone remains surely shows a representation of Cassander, too. You can't have it both ways.

Try to be consistent at least within your own posts, Antipater!

ATB, and happy Christmas

[amyntoros]

I have transferred a post made by Antipater to this thread: Here it is:

Heading: Tomb I is Philip II tomb with bone remains of Iolla's family

With crusial facts in mind I decided to introduce a whole new concept about the interpretation of the Royal Tombs at Vergina and the identities of their occupants, which is totally different of that presented by Andonicos at his time. In the days of persistent civil war and apparent danger by the hostile and destructive hellenes, the general Antipater shortly before his death in 319, gave order the golden larnax with the bone remains of Philip II to be removed to a remote and safe place. The Tomb I, remained vaccant until Olypias get the access to the throne in Pella and committed great slaughter among the nobility throughout the country, as revenge for the slander that her son Alexander was poisoned on order by Antipater with help by his son Iollas. Among the victims Iollas is accounted as a dead man which bones was scatered from his grave by Olympias. One of the ivory heads found in the Tomb II, I have identified to represent Iollas in a shape of blinded viktim, before he was killed. Probably he was married and his whife was pregnant when she also was killed at the same event. When Cassander returned to Pella, Olymias was left to be killed with stones by the relatives of her viktims.
Cassander made his best, collected the residues of bodies of his murdered brother Iollas and his whife, and buried them in Tomb I, the Tomb of Philip II, which was already empty and on access for re-use.
http://www.macedonia.se/en/Load/30/vergina_tomb_1/

[marcus]

The facts presented by others confirms that reconstructed Face is not that of Philip II of Macedon, but probably that of Cassander according to the concept introduced by me. Please see the following
link.

I really don't know why I'm spending time on this, but anyway:

you are still being totally inconsistent. OK, so now you're saying that the reconstructed face is of Cassander, which is the point I was making, as you had said it before. However, earlier you said that the reconstruction cannot be the same as the ivory, yet on your website you clearly show the ivory that many take to be Philip, and say that it's Cassander. So you're now agreeing that both are Cassander, yet the reason I raised this was because you were saying they were of different people.

Make your mind up.

Anyway, as I said before, and as others have now added - where is your proof? All you have done is presented some dogmatic assertions with absolutely no foundation of evidence, and are now asking us to accept what you are saying in lieu of what Andronicos said. Needless to say, there has been endless debate, in the academic world as well as on this forum, about whether Andronicos was right in his theory; but at least some people have attempted to provide evidence for their counter-claims.

ATB

[antipater]

In an article writen by Angela M.H. Schuster (http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/macedon/)
it was stated that the bone remains found in the golden larnax in Tomb II does not pertain to Philip II of Macedon. It was said that the "eye bone injury" of the right eyesocket, was in reality a "shrinkage of the bone mass" due to the cremation process. Thus, the reconstracted Face of Philip II, based on damage to the skull, is faulty and incorrect. The reconstracted Face of Philip II with exeptions of the faulty eye damage may in reality represent the Face of King Cassander.

The facts presented by others confirms that reconstructed Face is not that of Philip II of Macedon, but probably that of Cassander according to the concept introduced by me. Please see the following
link.

I really don't know why I'm spending time on this, but anyway:

you are still being totally inconsistent. OK, so now you're saying that the reconstructed face is of Cassander, which is the point I was making, as you had said it before. However, earlier you said that the reconstruction cannot be the same as the ivory, yet on your website you clearly show the ivory that many take to be Philip, and say that it's Cassander. So you're now agreeing that both are Cassander, yet the reason I raised this was because you were saying they were of different people.

Make your mind up.

Anyway, as I said before, and as others have now added - where is your proof? All you have done is presented some dogmatic assertions with absolutely no foundation of evidence, and are now asking us to accept what you are saying in lieu of what Andronicos said. Needless to say, there has been endless debate, in the academic world as well as on this forum, about whether Andronicos was right in his theory; but at least some people have attempted to provide evidence for their counter-claims.

ATB

[marcus]

In an article writen by Angela M.H. Schuster (http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/macedon/)
it was stated that the bone remains found in the golden larnax in Tomb II does not pertain to Philip II of Macedon. It was said that the "eye bone injury" of the right eyesocket, was in reality a "shrinkage of the bone mass" due to the cremation process. Thus, the reconstracted Face of Philip II, based on damage to the skull, is faulty and incorrect. The reconstracted Face of Philip II with exeptions of the faulty eye damage may in reality represent the Face of King Cassander.

It must be as tedious for you as it is for me, but ...

irrespective of whether the bones in the larnax are those of Philip II - and we only have the opinions of some academics against those of others, with no absolute *proof* either way ... if the bones are not those of Philip, it does not follow that they are those of Cassander - and certainly stating so without any proof is of no use to anyone, and will continue to gain you nothing but argument from people on this forum (or anywhere else, for that matter).

ATB