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!
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.... !!
) 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.
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!
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.
