Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Vergina

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Vergina

Post by amyntoros »

Today's press release from Bristol University - Experts question claim that Alexander the Great's half-brother is buried at Vergina.
Experts question claim that Alexander the Great's half-brother is buried at Vergina
Press release issued 8 September 2010

Claims that a tomb at Vergina, Greece, the ancient burial place of the Macedonian royal family in the fourth century BC, contains the body of King Philip III Arrhidaios, half-brother of Alexander the Great, and not Philip II, Alexander’s father, are called into question by researchers from the Universities of Bristol, Manchester and Oxford.

The tomb was discovered during the excavation of a large mound – the Great Tumulus – at Vergina in 1977. Along with many treasures including ceremonial military equipment, bronze utensils, silver tableware, and gold wreaths, the tomb contained two sets of skeletal remains. Those of a man were found in a gold casket in the main chamber and those of a woman in a smaller gold casket in the second chamber. Both individuals had been cremated and evidence of a wooden funerary house containing a pyre was also found near the tomb.
Dr Jonathan Musgrave of the University of Bristol’s Centre for Comparative and Clinical Anatomy and colleagues argue that evidence from the remains is not consistent with historical records of the life, death and burial of Arrhidaios, a far less prominent figure in the ancient world than his father Philip II.

The male skull appears to have a healed fracture on the right cheekbone and a marked asymmetry in the wall of the right maxillary sinus. History records that Philip II lost his right eye at the siege of Methone in 355-4 BC – an injury which would be consistent with this damage to the skeleton.

The colour and fracture lines of the bones suggest they were cremated ‘green’ (with flesh still around them) rather than ‘dry’ (after the flesh had been decomposed by burial). Arrhidaios was murdered in the autumn of 317 BC; his remains, some suggest, were subsequently exhumed and reburied between four and 17 months later. However, the existence of the funeral pyre indicates that the bodies were cremated at Vergina. As Greek beliefs would never have countenanced contact with a decomposing corpse, Arrhidaios would not have been exhumed, moved and then cremated ‘green’.

From the historical account of their deaths and committals, it is thought that Arrhidaios was buried along with his wife Eurydice and her mother Kynna. However, the tomb contains remains from only two individuals. The female remains belong to a woman aged between 20 and 30 whereas Eurydice seems to have been no more than 19 years old when she died.

Dr Musgrave said: “The aim of this paper is not to press the claims of Philip II and his wife Cleopatra but to draw attention to the flaws in those for Philip III Arrhidaios and Eurydice. We do not believe that the condition of the bones and the circumstances of their interment are consistent with descriptions of the funeral of Arrhidaios, his wife and his mother-in-law.”

The paper is published in the International Journal of Medical Sciences.
I did a quick search of the International Journal of Medical Sciences and actually found the complete article, unusual because most journal websites expect us to "pay-per-article" these days, especially medical journals. This is the link to the full article. Interested Pothosians might want to copy and save it, as I did, just in case it disappears from online access.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by marcus »

amyntoros wrote:Today's press release from Bristol University - Experts question claim that Alexander the Great's half-brother is buried at Vergina.
...

I did a quick search of the International Journal of Medical Sciences and actually found the complete article, unusual because most journal websites expect us to "pay-per-article" these days, especially medical journals. This is the link to the full article. Interested Pothosians might want to copy and save it, as I did, just in case it disappears from online access.
Many thanks for this - although I've only scanned the article quickly it looks interesting.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Sandra
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Latvia

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by Sandra »

Thank you for interesting read!
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by Semiramis »

This is one of those instances where comparing the DNA samples from two putative relatives can help establish familial relationships and consequently help identify the tombs.
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by Efstathios »

It was my position at older threads too that the remains are Philip's, and that Andronikos did not make a mistake identifying them. And it appears that it is Philip afterall. The tombs were sealed into the tumulous by Gonatas before any futher looting took place. If Philip's chamber had been looted then he would propably not have made the effort to build the tumulous, maybe he would have built something simpler.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by marcus »

Efstathios wrote:It was my position at older threads too that the remains are Philip's, and that Andronikos did not make a mistake identifying them. And it appears that it is Philip afterall. The tombs were sealed into the tumulous by Gonatas before any futher looting took place. If Philip's chamber had been looted then he would propably not have made the effort to build the tumulous, maybe he would have built something simpler.
Well, just to be clear, the article's writers clearly state that they are not saying it is Philip II ... just that it isn't Philip III.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by Taphoi »

marcus wrote:Well, just to be clear, the article's writers clearly state that they are not saying it is Philip II ... just that it isn't Philip III.
Yes, but their statement is mildly disingenuous, since to my knowledge no other viable alternative has ever been adduced in the context of the evidence. It therefore appears to follow that it is Philip II, if it is not Arrhidaeus. The strongest evidence is still the mural over the entrance. If you accept that the central figure on horseback is a youthful Alexander the Great (and this is difficult to avoid, short of positing a sophisticated forgery), then it is highly implausible that the occupant could be other than his father.
I wonder whether the authors of the paper are anticipating another paper with evidence in favour of Philip II? Alternatively, a reviewer might have required them to differentiate the topic of this paper from their old papers, else be rejected for repeating old material.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Image
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:
marcus wrote:Well, just to be clear, the article's writers clearly state that they are not saying it is Philip II ... just that it isn't Philip III.
Yes, but their statement is mildly disingenuous, since to my knowledge no other viable alternative has ever been adduced in the context of the evidence. It therefore appears to follow that it is Philip II, if it is not Arrhidaeus.
I wouldn't disagree with you at all, Andrew. But the article itself disclaims that they are saying it is Philip, notwithstanding the lack of another suspect, as you rightly say.

For myself, I have to say that I don't know the archaeology of the tombs well enough to make any judgement; but I am very happy to proclaim that, if it clearly isn't Arrhideus' tomb, then it seems more than likely that it is Philip II's.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by Semiramis »

Just came across this in the latest issue of New Scientist. It's sort of relevent I think.

"Do Egyptian mummies have a right to privacy

Medical ethicists are questioning whether researchers should be more considerate of the rights of ancient corpses

SHOULD we consider the privacy or reputation of the individual when analysing an Egyptian mummy The assumption that ancient corpses are fair game for science is beginning to be challenged.

Though strict ethical guidelines apply to research on modern tissue samples, up until now there has been little discussion about work on ancient human remains. In a recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.036608), anatomist Frank Rühli and ethicist Ina Kaufmann of the University of Zurich, Switzerland, argue that this is disturbing because research on mummies is invasive and reveals intimate information such as family history and medical conditions. And, of course, the subjects cannot provide consent.

"The human body, alive or dead, has a moral value," says Rühli, who is himself involved in mummy research. He says that no matter how old a body is, researchers must balance the benefits of their research against the potential rights and desires of the deceased individual.

For example, the release of information about the medical history of an ancient Egyptian ruler such as Tutankhamun could violate his wish to be remembered as strong and healthy. On the other hand, it could increase his fame, which would fit with his desire to be remembered after death.

Others in the field take a different view. Franco Rollo of the University of Camerino, Italy, has worked on Ötzi the iceman (pictured), who died around 3300 BC and whose mummified remains were found in the Alps in 1991. Rollo argues that ethical considerations are minimal if remains are "old enough to belong to an historical and social epoch that is felt sufficiently different and far from the present one by most people".

Likewise, Helen Donoghue of University College London, who has analysed human remains for signs of infectious disease, says she has no qualms about research on mummies as long as it is carried out for valid scientific reasons and is not opposed by any descendants.

But Søren Holm, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, says ethical considerations do apply to ancient remains, especially where the individuals are identifiable. "In a certain sense these people still have a life," he says. "We still talk about them. There are pieces of research that could affect their reputation."

Holm, a philosopher and bioethicist at the University of Manchester, UK, wants researchers to think about whether their work is motivated by scientific inquiry or simply by curiosity. "Do we really need to sort out the intricate details of Tutankhamun's family history" he asks. Even when bodies are not identifiable, he argues that we should still take the dignity of the dead into consideration by treating remains with respect. Rühli agrees. "I try to treat mummies like patients," he says. "I don't like it if researchers make fun out of them, or show them to gruesome effect."

So are ethical guidelines needed Holm says it would be difficult to devise a universal policy, but a checklist of questions to consider would be useful. Rühli would rather scientists took personal responsibility. "If a researcher is planning to work on a mummy, I would like to see that he thinks about it." Jo Marchant"
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by agesilaos »

Finally got to read the article; Hmmm, seems the crux of the case is that Kynna is not there, that the greeks had a Jewish taboo of the dead and that 'Eurydice' is too young.

None of these points are clinchers. For all that Krateros was burned by his men as was Eumenes, neither was put to death as a usurper by a vindictive Olympias. Agesilaos, it will be remembered was brought from Egypt in a jar of honey, but maybe the Spartans just weren't so squeamish; although in matters religious they were deemed scrupulous.

The female remains are scanty and I do not recall any great growth spurt at nineteen the possibility must remain that the 'cremains' could belong to an eighteen year-old viz a 10% margin of error.

Kynna's absence is explained by the looting of the mound by Pyrrhos' Gauls, she had been reduced to ashes in Asia and Gonatos had nothing to reinstate.

For Arrhidaios, is the 'mixed' nature of his remains; displaying both 'wet' and 'dry' artefacts, viz the colour of the bones in places. Philip would have been totally 'wet'.

That Barzoukias was mistaken in his belief that fleshed bones would burn significantly differently to decomposed ones is shown but nothing further, either way. It boils down to that 'arrow-notch', which seems pretty minor especially if it was launched from a catapult, and which Philip had peridontal disease, the deformation must have interferred with speech which is not attested for Philip II but could lead to a diagnosis of weak wits and maybe even pressure on the brain.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Experts question claim that Arrhidaios is buried at Verg

Post by athenas owl »

I agree with agesilaos.

One other thing, and not to tread too closely to the forbidden subject, the blanket statement that "Greeks" did this or that leaves out the fact that Macedonians did a lot of things that Greeks didn't do (as though the Greeks were all exactly alike anyway) or differently from their contemporary neighbours. And what had changed in Macedonian society after the death of Alexander. Certainly his own body was not treated in the customary manner. What may have been a taboo before might have changed. Also, if the Antiginods really wanted to stick it to the memory of Cassander, they may have made an exception to the supposed taboo and went and dug up Arrhidaeus and Auda (and Kynna?) and performed the rites.

Also, it just makes more sense, to me that Philip in Tomb I , isn't there a young woman and a baby in that tomb? Tomb II for Arihhdaeus and Tomb III for the young Alexander IV. Tomb IV is the most intriguing, because as far as I know it remains unexplained as to who or what it was for. By the way, if anyone has some recent information on Tomb IV, I'd appreciate it.

I think that Borza and Palagia presented a good case for why Tomb II was that of Arihhdaeus. There is also the architecture of the barrel vault and the fresco on the outside...I don't see why a mural with Alexander and Philip would exclude Arrhidaeus...after all they were his illustrious family, and bless his heart, he didn't have a lot of glory to commemorate himself.

Just on an emotional level the idea that some of the artifacts belonged to Alexander has a kind of beauty in it. Though as always, everyone around Alexander seems to be better known and closer than Alexander himself.
Post Reply