pothos.org

amyntoros wrote:
True, true that the scene would have been readily understandable to its original viewers. They, however, knew who was buried in the tomb! We don't - not for certain, anyway. Artifacts have been used to help date the tombs and tentatively identify the occupant, then the presumed identity of the occupant has been used to asist in the interpretation of the frieze. IMO, this situation invites continuing hypothesis - within reason of course.

I agree. The identification is far from certain. However, Philip II remains the more likely occupant on a cold assessment of the evidence IMHO. I think there has recently been a tendency for Arrhidaeus to be preferred due to the sheer weight of hyperbole from his camp.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Hyperbole? Surely the evidence that the body in the carnyx was a dry cremation puts pay to any thought that the occupant is any other than Philip Arrhidaios. Which accords with the records that Kassander buried the remains of Philip and Eurydike and Alexander IV with great pomp according to the customs of the Macedonians. There is evidence that the burial was somewhat slip-shod and rushed, in that the stuccos was apparently still wet when the tomb was covered; I can see no reason for haste if Alexander is burying Philip, indeed he would surely insist on everything being just so. The same cannot be said for Kassander's attitude to Philip III and Alexander IV. In his case there is no familial link it is a propaganda exercise, as it was customary for a king to bury a king, he is asserting his right to kingship.

The painting depicts, then, no actual hunt but the main occupants of the tomb in a heroized scene. That Philip III is not slaying the lion alone and the Alexander figure's isolation may be deliberate hints at their unsuitability as kings; the one an incompetant the other with no following. Kassander was a complicated character and more than capable of depriving Alexander of his Royal rights and then depicting him as king for the general public. It would be a clincher if there was a prominent archeress somewhere!

Agesilaos , are you suggesting that the main figure on the center, is Alexander IV?

Alexander IV was 13 when he was assasinated and Philip Arhideus had been assasinated 4 years earlier, when Alexander IV was 9 years old.

So, unless the painter took the liberty on putting them together regardless, then this man isnt Alexander IV.

I'm with Agesilaos here. I'd dearly like it to be the tomb of "Europe's first statesman" but I somehow think it isn't.

There was, at the time, an innordinate amount of pressure under which Andronikos worked. The charged atmosphere of the time cannot have avoided colouring some of those conclusions. There has been much written and discussed since - including the forensic evidence.

I'm afraid that I'm currently in the hyperbolic camp - mostly.

I'd like for it to be Philip II. And I think, so did Andronikos. In all these things, it can be awfully difficult at times to avoid finding what one looks for.

Efstasios, that is what I am suggesting; the painting does not depict a real hunt but the dead men hunting as they were at the time of their death - in the afterlife as it were. If one wishes to object that Alexander IV would be swarthier I would just counter that it was not in Kassander's interests to push that aspect of Alexander's nature, reminding the Macadones that he was deriving his kingship from a half wit and a barbrian's brat might be going too far. So he makes the son the image of the father reminding them that he is actually Alexander the Great's successor maybe the Philip too is made to ressemble his father to hark back to the other great king. Such nuances would not be beyond a Fourth century man. Though it does muddy the waters somewhat for us - as has been said before, they knew who was in the tombs and could interpret accordingly.

As a by-the-by if we believe that Kassander hated Alexander then there may be some wish fulfilment in depicting his cypher as alone and not fully competant, a sort of sympathetic magic.

After the tomb was sealed, who would go in?This isnt a painting at a public place.

And this isnt a tomb that was made in a hurry.The painting takes some time.And what about the gold and the sarcophagus? Would they be for Arrhideus? Then Philip's tomb, how would it be?Would it have the whole Macedonian treasury inside?

Plus another thing.In the original examination of the bones, they said that they were beyond recognition.Of gender, and to identify to whom the body belonged to.Is the dry cremation theory a proven one? And how, since they originally said that they couldnt find out more from the body.Wouldnt they see back then that the bones were dry cremated?Or they didnt pay attention to it?

Efstathios wrote:After the tomb was sealed, who would go in? This isnt a painting at a public place.

There’s obviously intent and purpose behind the painting, and to argue that it isn’t in a public place is to question why the tomb was decorated at all! We don’t know enough about Macedonian funerary practices to know who might have viewed the tombs before they were sealed, but we have to assume that the artwork therein had relevance for the occupants and/or their families. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be discussing who is represented thereon.

And this isnt a tomb that was made in a hurry. . . The painting takes some time.

Comparatively speaking, yes it was! Agesilaos has already pointed out that the stuccos were apparently still wet when the tomb was sealed. This suggests a “speedy” burial and, IMO, one performed without much time spent on ceremony and funeral games. Would that have applied to Philip?

And what about the gold and the sarcophagus? Would they be for Arrhideus? Then Philip's tomb, how would it be? Would it have the whole Macedonian treasury inside?

Efstathios, the gold and artifacts within the tomb may be impressive by our modern standards, but they are hardly excessive if the occupant was only Arrhideus. Have you read about the marriage of Caranus, one of Alexander’s Friends (Athenaeus 4.128c-131e – See Susan’s site?) During the course of the banquet each of twenty wedding guests was given a gold tiara worth 5 gold staters apiece; two half-pint jars of perfume joined with a gold band, one silver, one gold; a second tiara, same as the first; baskets and bread-racks made of plaited ivory strips; another crown; a second set of perfume jars, same as the first; a gold tiara twice the size of the first; another double perfume jar; and ivory desert baskets. According to Hippolochus, “We, however, have carried away a fortune from Caranus’s banquet instead of trifling portions, and are now looking for houses or lands or slaves to buy.”

Considering that the above wedding gifts were given to a total of twenty guests, I suggest that the content of the tomb is a relatively poor showing if the occupant is Philip. And, yes, I know that the Macedonian treasury is considered to have been depleted at the time of Philip’s death, but Alexander was hardly a “poor” man who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) properly honor his father. Plenty of money was spent on other celebrations, etc. in the period before Alexander crossed the Hellespont.

And (anticipating other arguments), if it is suggested that tomb contents were not normally exorbitant, even in the case of great kings, then their relative splendor can’t really be used to debate the importance of the occupant; that is to say, Philip II versus Arrhideus.

I’ll leave discussion of the bones to someone else . . .

Best regards,

agesilaos wrote:Hyperbole? Surely the evidence that the body in the carnyx was a dry cremation puts pay to any thought that the occupant is any other than Philip Arrhidaios.

The dry cremation theory is exactly what I mean when I mention hyperbole. It argues that the bones in Tomb II were too complete to have been cremated with the flesh still on the bones. However, I recall, for example, seeing some vile photos of the Nazi cremation ovens with near complete, bare skeletons inside. Those were not dry cremations.

Sorry to use such an unpleasant example.

Andrew

As Andrew said it isnt certain that it was a dry cremation.So it is just a specculation.The official thesis is still the original which said that the bones are beyond recognition,

As for Andronikos, i dont know.But as i can see, every argument that there has been since then about the tomb and body of not being Phlip's, has a counter argument that leads back to being Philip's.Meaning that Andronikos' assesment seems to be holding strong.

Andronikos didnt just named the tomb II that of Philip's.There are reasons and arguments for that.

The royal tombs were covered in a tumulus by Antigonos Gonatas to protect them, after the Gaulic raid.He covered the royal tombs where Philip was.So one of these tombs certainly is the tomb of Philip II.

But which one? There are 3 tombs and a cist grave in the tumulus.The 1st tomb was a contemporary tomb and was found looted and desecrated.The II tomb was the one with the anterchamber and the big square burial chamber, and tomb III which is considered to be that of Alexander IV and is smaller.And a heroon , and a cist grave.

So considering that one of these tombs is that of Philip's, then it it is really simple i think which is it.The 1st tomb is contemporary so it cant be.The 3rd tomb is smaller than tomb II, and tomb II is a large burial chamber with an anterchamber.

So if the man in tomb II is Arrhideus, then where is Phlip? In the anterchamber? In the contemporary tomb I? In the cist grave, or in the smaller tomb III?He couldnt be somewhere else, cause Gonatas sealed these tombs in the tumulus, the royal tombs of Philip. He sealed these, and not other tombs in the area, which are northwest of Aigai.

Oh, and something else.There are 3 paintings there, of which the two are saved.The first is the hunting scene, which is at the so called Philip's chamber.The second is that which shows the rape of Pershephone, and is at the cist grave.And the 3rd painting which has been destroyed is at tomb III, the so called Alexander IV tomb.And probably the subject of it was irrelevant to Philip.And anyway this tomb is smaller than tomb II, so it couldnt be that of Philip's.

So the hunting scene which supposedly represents Philip and Alexander, is at tomb II, the only tomb of the 3 where Philip could be.

Efstathios, I know you're very earnest about this debate, but that last argument is way too reminiscent of a three-card monte game, except you're looking for the King and not the Queen. If it's not this card and it's not this card, then it must be this one . . .

If it was that simple there'd be no contention amongst scholars, archaeologists, or, indeed, anyone!

Best Regards,

But why this contetion started in the first place? Isnt it really that simple? Like the three card game?

Do you agree that Philip should be in one of these tombs? Since Gonatas sealed the tomb, i dont think another raid has been done there.The excavation started at the 19th century.Gonatas wouldnt have sealed the tombs if Philip's tomb was also looted by the Gauls.He wouldnt have had a reason.So when he sealed it, Philip's tomb was unlooted.

I have searched at the net and books to find out if the tombs were also looted afterwards they were sealed in a tumulus.But i found no reference.The tumulus is essentially a hill.Like that in Marathon, but bigger.But no raiding party afterwards could have easily known that it was Macedonian tombs underneath, and especially the royal tombs.

So all evidence leads to the fact that Philip II was still there when the excavations begun in 1850.But the tombs were not found until Andronikos found them.So they couldnt have been looted in the mean time.

Isnt it really simple?

All the other evidence that were proposed as to the body being that of Arrhideus, are really not that strong.Because, one of the main arguments was of that of the dating of the items found there.That they date some decades after Philip's death.But since carbon dating is not that accurate, and since Philip already had ties with the east and presents from his weddings from the east, these items could be his. Remember the Scythian quiver that was found, and that Philip had a Scythian wife.

Other arguments about the body being that of Arrhideus are not that strong.And in conjuction with what i proposed aboved, the i ask, if this is Arrhideus, then where is Philip, who should have been there after Gonatas sealed the tombs?

Efstathios wrote:The tumulus is essentially a hill.Like that in Marathon, but bigger.But no raiding party afterwards could have easily known that it was Macedonian tombs underneath, and especially the royal tombs.

Like those in the Valley of the Kings? Hmm....

Efstathios wrote:…one of the main arguments was of that of the dating of the items found there.That they date some decades after Philip's death.But since carbon dating is not that accurate…

It's not carbon dating that's at issue, but, rather the objects. To Quote P Green, Classical Bearings:

Perhaps the most significant (of the grave goods) is Susan I. Rotroff's (dating) of three spool saltcellars found in the Athenian Agora, and exactly comparable to others from tomb II at Vergina, to the period period between 325 and 295, now further confirmed by numismatic evidence. Philip was assassinated in 336, and grave goods tend to predate the tomb in which they are placed.

Another interesting aside concerns the greaves. These too were trumpeted as proof that Tomb II was that of Philip II as one was shorter than the other. This, of course, was because Philip II was lame in the one leg (due to wounds). Problem is that the sources clearly indicate that the lame leg was the right. The shortened greave was for the left. It would, then, seem that should these belong to Philip II, he was deformed in both legs.

Taking Andrew's argument from the bones first I am given to beleive that it is the pattern of the fractures that indicate a dry cremation - they are straight breaks - whereas in a wet cremation the bone twist as the sinews and other connective tissue tauntens giving longitudinal long,curved cracks - it is the former that we find at Vergina. The Nazis were able to cremate at much higher temperatures than the ancients so the evidence is not directly comparable, the corpses of those Bylorussians burned by the hundred in their wooden churches would provide a better control, though I think humanitarian concerns would prevent their disinterrment for academic study. It might be a profitable use for the contestants of 'I'm a Celebrity..', but enough fantasy. I am unaware of the circumstances of body disposal either in Iraq or the former Jugoslavia, but I think like Katyn they were mere mass interrments; but there are phorensic experts there gathering evidence for war crimes maybe they have a site that can clear up the different indicators and they would have no axe to grind in this case.

As to Philip having to be there; that Philip's tomb should be there seems a fair assumption but to go on to say that it must be the larger of the three seems fallacious, I would say it was the robbed out one, the body being ashes and scattered when the gold casket was plundered.

That the three tombs seem contemporaeneous, which is what I think Efstasios is saying , apologies if I am mistaken here; is it not posssible that having planted daddy Alexander started building his own tomb on a grander scale to be decorated at a later date, if Antipater did not stop work to conserve his meagre resources without instructions - Perdikkas' desire to bring the body to Aegai may presuppose some construction work upon a tomb or an existing chamber. Kassander merely reused the Conqueror's empty tomb finishing it double quick and adorning it for his own political purposes.

Later Pyrrhus' Gallic mercenaries despoil it but during the war with Lysimachos rather than Gonatos (this is in Pausanias) he may then have moved the remaining goods into the more secure Tomb II to further confuse matters before sealing it and adding a great tumulus. The heroon could have been dedicated to Philip II to appease the spirit of the great man whose body had been cast to the winds.

As to the Scythian quiver, it is representative of a trade consignment rather than the personal regalia of a Scythian princess - evidence? The scene thereon is exactly the same ie made from the same pattern as another quiver which resides in another cllection - Adea/Eurydke is attested to have been a warlike queen and may be expected to have fancy arms of this order for until Triparadeisos she was minor royalty only, the daughter of the barbarian wife of an executed Prince, Amyntas Perdikkou.

Much of this is speculation of course but none of it runs counter to the evidence, I hope.

Another interesting aside concerns the greaves. These too were trumpeted as proof that Tomb II was that of Philip II as one was shorter than the other. This, of course, was because Philip II was lame in the one leg (due to wounds). Problem is that the sources clearly indicate that the lame leg was the right. The shortened greave was for the left. It would, then, seem that should these belong to Philip II, he was deformed in both legs.

Well, i remember reading a book about a convention that was held in Greece back in the early 90's, and at which various things were discussed, among which the matter of the tomb II.

The argument there was by a Greek woman archaiologist, cant remember her name now, that said that the greaves could well belonge to different pairs, and not the same pair.But cant remember now exactly what was written in the book.I will check it.

It is possible though that the sources were wrong about this, and that it was the left leg that was deformed.That wouldnt be the first mistake found in sources.

I will check about this and i will post more.

Agesilaos: As you have said, these are only specculations which could be true, as the original thesis could also be true.

What intrigues me is that in none of the tombs or inside them were names on inscriptions.But as i said Gonatas probably wouldnt have built a tumulus of Philip's tomb was already looted.

As for tomb I, it is actually contemporary to the others.Meaning it was built at a later period, and that can be seen by the architecture of it, and of course before Gonatas sealed the tombs.So after tomb II and before Gonatas, so it could be that of Arrhideus.

"The first tomb is a large Macedonian tomb, almost contemporary with the others, which was found desecrated and completely destroyed. It is important because it illustrates the development of Macedonian sepulchral architecture since the time of Philip’s tomb (the latter had piers with half columns, while this one had independent columns which simply stood close to the front wall)."

from http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museu ... ginas.html

agesilaos wrote:Taking Andrew's argument from the bones first I am given to beleive that it is the pattern of the fractures that indicate a dry cremation - they are straight breaks - whereas in a wet cremation the bone twist as the sinews and other connective tissue tauntens giving longitudinal long,curved cracks - it is the former that we find at Vergina. The Nazis were able to cremate at much higher temperatures than the ancients so the evidence is not directly comparable...
As to the Scythian quiver, it is representative of a trade consignment rather than the personal regalia of a Scythian princess - evidence? The scene thereon is exactly the same ie made from the same pattern as another quiver which resides in another cllection - Adea/Eurydke is attested to have been a warlike queen and may be expected to have fancy arms of this order for until Triparadeisos she was minor royalty only, the daughter of the barbarian wife of an executed Prince, Amyntas Perdikkou.

As a scientist, I would be fairly confident that it would be possible to reproduce the bone fragments from Tomb II using a wet cremation process, given a few experiments. If high temperature turns our to be necessary, then a charcoal fire might have been used. Transverse fractures of the bones could probably be produced by casting libations of wine or oil onto the blaze at the right stage. There isn't anything sufficiently specific in the observations of the bones as to make a watertight case for a dry cremation (pun intended). Would Cassander have even considered a cremation necessary, if all that remained of Arrhidaeus was a bare skeleton, which could have been packed straight into the larnax? What is the evidence for the practice of cremating bare skeletons in Greece? Perhaps the fact that the bones were definitely cremated is actually evidence that the flesh was still on the bones. Perhaps this makes it difficult for the bones to be Arrhidaeus, since his funeral was long delayed.

Hammond says the queen in Tomb II may have been Meda, daughter of the Getic king Cothelas or a daughter of the Scythian king Atheas - hence the Scythian quiver. He notes that there was a tradition that when a Getic or Scythian king died, one of his wives commited suicide or was killed and her body was buried with the king. But virtually every argument on the contents of the tombs has a counter-argument. It currently seems that the hunting frieze is the clearest evidence, though still not conclusive.

Best wishes,

Andrew