pothos.org

Although there are some recent posts that IGÇÖm meaning to answer, I wanted to bring up the topic of PhilipGÇÖs tomb before I forget again. I was reminded of this topic while reading Elizabeth CarneyGÇÖs book today (yes, it did finally arrive!) and I also searched out another recent book where IGÇÖd seen similar thoughts posted about the tomb.

Winthrop Lindsay Adams in his Alexander the Great: Legacy of a Conqueror (2005) says this on page 56:

GǪ The remains are undoubtedly the last members of the Argead house buried at Agea, though there is considerable debate as to which family members are buried there. Logically, they are Philip II, Phillip III, Arrhidaeus, AlexanderGÇÖs half-brother as well as his wife, Eurydice, and Alexander IV, Alexander the GreatGÇÖs son. The material remains from Tomb II and III, which were found intact, are remarkable, and if Tomb II is that of Philip III, it probably contains artifacts from AlexanderGÇÖs reign and campaigns.

Elizabeth Carney in Olympias: Mother of Alexander the Great (2006) in a note (7) to page 43 has this:

It is possible that CleopatraGÇÖs bones were among those found in the burials under the Great Tumulus at Vergina, burials widely viewed as royal GǪ Controversy continues to surround the occupants of Tombs I and II at Vergina. A woman, presumably royal, was buried in each tomb. While am now inclined to believe that Tomb I, where fragments of the bones of an adult male, a woman, and a newborn were found, was the burial of Philip, Cleopatra, and Europa and that Tomb II housed the remains of Philip Arrhidaeus and his wife Adea Eurydice (GǪ) rejecting this view would not substantially affect my analysis of the death of Cleopatra and its motivation.

So GǪ thatGÇÖs two recent academic GÇ£votesGÇ¥ for Tomb II being that of Philip Arrhidaeus, but both authors suggest that it is the body of Philip II in Tomb I. Interesting . . .

Best regards,

G'day Amyntoros.

Much contrversy. Interesting the views on tomb I. The slowly devolving consensus is that tomb II is Arrhidaeus. Much has come down to the pathology of the bones in II. The assertion was that they indicated damage to an eye socket and a shorter or damaged leg. The recent scientific analysis seems not to support either proposition. The aparrent damage to the eye is seemingly congenital as is the leg. The other "wounds" evident on the remains are similarly dismissed.

It was, of course, the "damage" eye that led to the almost holy writ that this was Philip II. Once that was proved natural, things began to turn. Seemingly, much of those other "wounds" ocurred in the handling and burning of the body after death.

For the life of me, I can't remeber the journal it was written up in or I'd send you the link. American Archaeology Online? That rings a bell.

My eight year old wants to ride her bike outside so, I shall return and look later....

Hi Paralus. Look forward to the link when you find it. In the meantime IGÇÖve been musing on CarneyGÇÖs suggestion that Tomb I contained the bones of Philip, Cleopatra, and Europa. I can see the logic of the argument GÇô young woman, infant child, royal burial GÇô but am having trouble understanding why Cleopatra and her child would have been buried with Philip. For a start, they had supposedly been killed by Olympias GÇ£out of the public eyeGÇ¥ and weGÇÖre not even sure exactly when the murders took place or when the knowledge (or rumors) of OlympiasGÇÖ involvement in their deaths became public. If it was known immediately, would Alexander really have buried two people killed by his mother alongside his father? I can imagine how uncomfortable that burial ceremony would have been for everyone participating. OTH, if OlympiasGÇÖ involvement was not immediately known, did the Macedonians believe that Alexander had had a hand in eliminating these two people so that they could not threaten his reign in the future? If so, again, why bury them with his father?

There are no records to indicate normal burial procedure in a royal polygamous situation, but I would have thought that being buried alongside the king would have been a indication of a wifeGÇÖs particular importance to him. That would not have pleased Olympias, surely? Nor, to AlexanderGÇÖs way of thinking, could it have pleased the gods, IMO, unless he truly had no knowledge or took no part in their deaths. In which case, burying them with Philip might have been a formal declaration of his innocence. Michael H. Jameson on page 213 of Sacrifice before Battle, an article in Hoplites: The Classical Greek Experience (Ed. Victor Davis Hanson) puts the death of those suspected of PhilipGÇÖs assassination in the context of a sacrifice.

Phylarchus, the Hellenistic historian, wrote that at one time all the Greeks killed a human being before going out against the enemy (FGrHist. 81 F 80 = Porphyry De Abst. 2.56). The mostly mythical examples on which such a statement was based were once thought to illustrate the evolution of civilization as mankind substituted animal for human sacrifice. More recently they have been examined as imaginative and symbolic expressions of human values and emotions in situations of great tension. The most famous of the allegedly historical examples, the sacrifice of three Persian prisoners before the Battle of Salamis by Themisokles, has been shown to be unhistorical, which is not to say that human sacrifice before battle could not have happened since there are two instances of the killing of prisoners being put into a ritual context. Alexander the Great is said to have killed those suspected of his fatherGÇÖs assassination at his fatherGÇÖs tomb, in effect converting an execution into a sacrifice (Just. Epit. 11.2.1), and Messenian prisoners of war were killed at the grave of Philopoimen in the second century BC (Plut. Philip. 21). Both examples recall the killing of twelve Trojan captives at the pyre of Patroklos in the Iliad (23.175-6) and of PolyxenaGÇÖs death in EuripidesGÇÖ Hecuba. Here the imagined practices of legend have been made real.

The contrast between the GÇ£sacrificeGÇ¥ of PhilipGÇÖs murderers and the presence of the murdered Cleopatra and Europa in the tomb seems unacceptable to me, unless Alexander was indeed making a statement to Philip, his gods, and all his Macedonians of his non-involvement in their deaths. Would he really have hung his mother out to dry in this manner though? If I continue to theorize in this direction I would have to suggest that talk of OlympiasGÇÖ involvement did not occur until a much later date.

Hmm, I started out to write why I believed that Tomb I couldnGÇÖt be that of Philip, and as IGÇÖve progressed I have found myself reasoning how it might be possible. And IGÇÖm exonerating Alexander of any involvement in these two deaths at the same time! How unexpected. Ah, itGÇÖs all just idle musing anyway.

Best regards,

Seemingly, much of those other "wounds" ocurred in the handling and burning of the body after death.

I dont think that is correct.I mean, did they toss the body of a King in the grave?And how can wounds like these occur during burial or even burning?

As for the wound in the eye, and the scientific examination, it is interesting but we cannot draw any conclusions.Because we dont know how exactly Philip got wounded.The thesis that the wound might be of natural causes is just a specculation.

The remains might be of Philip II and might not.I dont think that we can come to a conclusion unless another grave is found with remains of a man with a wounded eye and other wounds.

G'day Amyntoros.

Nice to hear from you! The Paralus world wide extravaganza is fast approaching the funds committal stage. Plans are afoot for a world wide tour of Kandersteg!. Prices at the Algonquin climb by the day. AnyhowGǪ..

I located the article for you. Don't ask me how GÇô I'm in the recovery ward having attended a mate's fiftieth last nightGǪerGǪthis morning. You will find the full discourse here in Archaeology (online).

I see (in as much as I'm seeing at all today) your logic re tomb I. I can't see that such a burial will have taken place during Alexander's lifetime. He will not GÇô no matter his feelings for or against her GÇô have hung the old Atrax Robustus out to dry. I'm not so certain that Alexander will have bothered with the removal of the child either. Notwithstanding his removal of others, the child was of little consequence GÇô should it survive GÇô as long as the Robustus was about to see to his interest. Not to forget Antipater GÇô well in Alexander's camp at the time of his departure. Alexander most likely felt secure enough to cross into Asia without having to make such a display (the burial) of his hated and recently departed opponent's daughter and child. Cassander may well have had them re-buried in his endless quest for that coin of the realm of the Diadochs: legitimacy? I don't know.

Still, I'm not sure we'll ever know. The evidence GÇô in that article GÇô seems fairly strongly in favour of another Argaed corpse (Philip III so it would seem) rather than Europe's first and, one of its greatest "statesmen."

Efstathios wrote:As for the wound in the eye, and the scientific examination, it is interesting but we cannot draw any conclusions.Because we dont know how exactly Philip got wounded.The thesis that the wound might be of natural causes is just a specculation.

Umm, read it first Efstathios, then dismiss. The article is posted now and the researchers are much better at their job than myself...

The only consensus regarding Tomb II is that it is either Philip II or Philip III. The article in Archaeology would seem to me to be rather partisan. Most of the vocal commentators on this matter are partisan, so you cannot listen to one side and get a balanced picture (an exception is Peter Green in "Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage" edited by Adams and Borza). The article in Archaeology does not point out a well known truth of forensic archaeology: that most wounds, even fatal wounds, do not leave marks on the skeleton. Hence the absence of skeletal evidence is not really evidence against the remains being Philip II. I am deeply sceptical, as a scientist, about the dry cremation theory. From what I've read the bones in the silver hydria in Tomb III were also in good condition: at least it has been possible to say with authority that they belonged to a boy between the ages of about 12 and 16. (There is a degree of consensus that these remains are Alexander IV.) We do not know the exact cremation process employed, so we do not really know what its results would have been. It is also doubtful whether artefacts can be dated on stylistic grounds to within a decade or two for this period. The latest fashions are likely to have been represented at the court of Philip II for example. In short all this evidence is essentially equivocal on whether the occupant was Philip II or III.

Where I start to lose touch with the Philip III people is in the matter of the frieze on the facade of Tomb II. It has the king (Philip II or III) on the righthand side exercising his royal prerogative of spearing the lion. I find it hard not to see this king as the occupant of the tomb. Then at the exact centre of the mural there is a young man (circa late teens) poised to throw his spear whilst mounted on a rearing steed and wearing a laurel wreath. I find it hard not to see in this figure the successor of the dead king and the commissioner of the frieze. If so, he must be Alexander and the king must be Philip II. These are not secure arguments, so I do not express certainty and Philip III is still possible. Nevertheless, the "emerging consensus on Philip III" viewpoint is very unsafe imho.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:We do not know the exact cremation process employed, so we do not really know what its results would have been.

We do, however, know that the source of fuel for cremations had to have been whatever was available GÇô wood GÇô and, as has been pointed out by Mary Renault (of all people); it would take an enormous amount of heat to melt or burn all the flesh off a body, let alone reduce a skeleton to GÇ£little more than a pile of small fragmented bones." The Archaeology article states that GÇ£after cremation, dry bones are more or less complete, whereas fleshed bones are more or less fragmented.GÇ¥ Is it likely that an average open-air wood funeral pyre would have had such an effect? Or whether it was even intended to reduce the bones to such a state?

The following on ancient cremations from Funeral Customs by Bertram S. Puckle (1926)

In considering cremation we must distinguish between the funeral pyre of the ancients and of primitive peoples, and the modern methods of scientific incineration.
The earliest pyre was merely a heap of wood upon which the body was placed, and in most cases only half destroyed, for it is no easy matter to reduce to ashes a body containing a large percentage of fluid matter. This altar-like erection must have been very nearly related to the pagan sacrifice of human and animal offerings to the gods, and may have had something to do with the Christian attitude.

Pine or other resinous wood was selected, and some light combustible materials added such as dried grass and twigs, in order to set the pyre alight. Oak and hard woods generally, that resist the flames, take twice as long in producing the same results. With these materials oil, pitch, etc., were in later use, adding much to the heat and effectiveness of the flames.

Christianity found the Romans building their pyres of pine logs constructed altar-wise. The interstices were stuffed with pitch and brushwood to which sweet-smelling gums were added, the structure being decorated with the symbolic branches of cypress. When all was prepared the uncoffined body was placed in position, and the chief mourner, with head averted, set fire to the pyre with a torch. When the whole was reduced to ashes, wine was poured on the embers to cool them. The bones were then reverently collected, washed with milk and placed with perfume in a cinerary urn.GÇ¥

IGÇÖd add to the above that not only was there the problem of the body containing a large percentage of fluid matter, but half of the weight of freshly cut logs is also water. TodayGÇÖs cremation procedures reduce the bones to tiny fragments and particles; however, this happens at a temperature ranging between 1400 and 2100 degrees. When a wood fire is reduced to charcoal the charcoal burns and emits heat when the inner temperature of the fire reaches around 1000 degrees. Given the amount of fluids involved in the body and the wood I figure it would take considerable time and a great reduction in the mass of wood before such a temperature would be reached. We also donGÇÖt know exactly when wine or other liquid was poured on the embers to cool them - a Greek as well as a Roman custom. If this was done at the point that the wood was first reduced to charcoal then it seems logical that the bones would survive fairly intact. Walter Burkett in Greek Religion (Page 191) says there was no intent to fully destroy the corpse by means of cremation.

Inhumation and cremation are found side by side in the same place GÇô in Crete they even appear together in the same grave; in the accompanying ritual and in the grave goods no difference can be detected; nor is the purpose to destroy the corpse, for the bones are collected all the more piously and preserved in an urn. To explain the varying usage, we find ourselves thrown back on possible external factors GÇô such as wood shortage GÇô or simply unpredictable fashion; a change in religious belief can no more be invoked than a difference in tribe.

After Chaeronea Philip sent the bones of 300 Athenians back to Athens; I truly doubt that sufficient heat was applied to this many bodies to fragment them. Imagine how many trees would have been needed for such a mass cremation; plus there was the burial of the Macedonian dead at the site as well, although hiistory doesnGÇÖt tell us if they were cremated first. I know that the burial site has been interred, but donGÇÖt know where to access any archaeological evidence on this. Anyway GÇô and back to the Athenian corpses - I wouldnGÇÖt be surprised if burnt flesh still adhered in places, necessitating scraping of the bones as well as washing them before final internment. In the case of royal burials there would have been a single body on a large pyre, but can we be sure that the heat produced would have been efficient enough to GÇ£warp and bear curved fractures as a result of the retraction of relatively fresh collagen during cremationGÇ¥ as stated in the article. (HephaistionGÇÖs funeral pyre, as described, might have been an exception, but the pyre in itself was an exception.) The Department of Archaeological Sciences at Bradford University conducted an experiment in the reconstruction of GÇ£prehistoricGÇ¥ funeral pyres, but I canGÇÖt find any conclusions for evidence of the effect on a body. There was another bronze age recreation performed less scientifically in 2004, but again the conclusions are missing. So . . . if a fairly complete skeleton could have been rescued from a royal funeral pyre, is it not possible that knives were used to scrape residual burnt flesh off the bones of the occupant in Tomb II, thereby causing the knick on the eye socket?

Taphoi wrote:I am deeply sceptical, as a scientist, about the dry cremation theory.

Well, all my ramblings above signify that IGÇÖm in agreement with you on this, however I donGÇÖt have a strong personal conviction as to who is in each tomb. IGÇÖd say I'm equally interested in general Macedonian funeral procedures as I am in the occupants of the tombs. For instance, why were the Macedonian dead buried on the battlefield at Chaeronea? Athenian bones were sent back to their city, why not the Macedonian dead? It isnGÇÖt as if the distance was too great, as in Asia.

Best regards,

Amyntoros

PS to Paralus GÇô Many thanks for the article link!

We do, however, know that the source of fuel for cremations had to have been whatever was available GÇô wood GÇô and, as has been pointed out by Mary Renault (of all people);

Hello,

I don't have at the moment the time to answer properly to the post but just reading the above comment it reminded me that at some stage I wanted to summarize the interesting and enlightening comments that Renault has drawn to my attentiion.

I wasn't aware of the above but I have been amazed by the wonderful insights she has brought up amongst others.

The possibility that Alexander was referring to Krateros at the moment of his naming a successor-sa opposed to the "strongest" : the word in Greek is very similart- Kratistos or something similar.

Also that the reason that Alexander was so short was perhaps due to the Spartan diet prescribed by Leonidas.

And to finish off, coincidentally, the loss of sight around Marakand could /would have caused unusual dialation of his pupils and thus engendered the legend about his eyes being different colours.
These are just three things that immediatley spring to mind from the nature of Alexander. I am sure that a reading of the other fiction books would also glean more interesting insights.
Anyway, I am in awe of the woman-
Best regards,
Dean

I suppose if this were Arrhidaeus' remains, much will hinge on the time between his original burial and Cassander's exhumation of the remains for the propagandistic cremation and re-burial. Evidently, the less that remained of bodily fluids, the more complete the incineration. But, we do not know how long this period was. I am no expert on cremation and it would appear that much hinges on what (is a semi-dry state) remained on the corpse to contract or, at least, create temperature differentials with the bone.

Debates over pyres and temperatures aside, the evidence with respect to the eye socket is rather compelling. It was this feature (at the time) of the remains that indicated the remains might well be Philip II. As an aside, I've often wondered about how someone might receive an arrow in the eye GÇô and survive. What are the odds of such an occurrence? Possibly the helm may have taken much of the blow?

There is, as Andrew has alluded to, much verbiage on the hunting fresco. As with all such works of art, we are not privy to the artist's commission or intents when he created the frieze. It may, of course, not meant to be literal in its representations. Olga Palagia's observation (Alexander in Fact and Fiction) is pertinent:

Only a drawing prepared for Andronikos' original report has ever been published and it attempts to interpret rather than represent

All of which is admirable in an artistic evaluation but, not so helpful in an historical one. All of which, too, is understandable given the political clime of the time of the discovery and initial publications.

Palagia makes a strong case for the scene GÇô though rendered through Macedonian eyes as the Holy Land is in Italian Renaissance paintings GÇô resembling a Persian game park. She also disputes Andronikos' interpretation of the figure holding the net as a kausia-wearing Macedonian on the grounds that the hat is too ornate and that his skin is "darker" than all the others in the scene lending the appearance of an Asian. There is, of course, much more but still we come back to interpretation and both sides will see the evidence GÇô such as it is GÇô their own way.

Not that I am privy to all the available information on the tombs, but, to the best of my recollection the only firmly datable objects from Tomb II are the saltcellars. Susan I Rostoff has dated several found in Athens which are exactly comparable to those in Tomb II to between 325 and 295. As Green GÇô in typical fashion GÇô remarks (Classical Bearings, adding that it has been "further confirmed by numismatic evidence, which he does not supply):

Philip was assassinated in 336, and grave-goods tend to predate the tomb in which they are placed.

Much the same has been made of the quantity of precious metals used in the artefacts in the tomb. The argument being that such funerary splendour will have only been available for such ostentatious use after Alexander's conquest of the east.

The arguments are interminable. Most of what I have read resides in the Arrhidaeus camp. My own view GÇô or wish GÇô is that it was the tomb of Philip II as it would be nice to "have" the father if not the son. In the absence of a definitive "here lies Philip II of Macedon" inscription as yet to be unearthed, I suspect we'll have to live with the contending sides.

You are forgetting something.There was also a golden Scythian quiver found in the tomb, and one of Philip's wives was Scythian.And that might have been a present for their wedding.You can see the picture in Cartledge's book.

All the findings in the tomb suggest that these are Philip's remains.The paintings,the items, and the remains.I think Andronikos' estimation was correct.

P.G Alexander was at medium height.But the Macedonians were generally tall.So medium height for them would be around 1.80 meters?

Paralus wrote:The Paralus world wide extravaganza is fast approaching the funds committal stage. Plans are afoot for a world wide tour of Kandersteg!. Prices at the Algonquin climb by the day.

So many places to visit GÇô could this trip be turning into an Australian version of the Griswold family vacation? Ah, donGÇÖt mind me; IGÇÖm just envious, although when family circumstances change and I am finally able to travel I think IGÇÖd prefer a more leisurely vacation. IGÇÖd like as not do things such as sitting on a rock within sight of Delphi and then remaining there, gazing at the ruins until someone forces me to leave!

Paralus wrote:Palagia makes a strong case for the scene GÇô though rendered through Macedonian eyes as the Holy Land is in Italian Renaissance paintings GÇô resembling a Persian game park. She also disputes Andronikos' interpretation of the figure holding the net as a kausia-wearing Macedonian on the grounds that the hat is too ornate and that his skin is "darker" than all the others in the scene lending the appearance of an Asian.

Beth CarneyGÇÖs site, Aegae, has a nice recreation of the frieze, although itGÇÖs incomplete and the figure holding the net canGÇÖt be seen. In addition, some close-ups of the original fresco can be found on Elias KapetanopoulosGÇÖ site GÇô heGÇÖs a professor at Central Connecticut State University. He takes an opposite view to Palagia and itGÇÖs quite entertaining to witness the differing arguments about the same figures.

Taphoi wrote:The article in Archaeology does not point out a well known truth of forensic archaeology: that most wounds, even fatal wounds, do not leave marks on the skeleton.

I could understand this if, for example, the lance that struck PhilipGÇÖs leg missed the bone and instead gouged out tendons and nerves, thus causing the limp. However, having seen the heads of various ancient lances close up I find it very difficult to believe that there would be no mark on the skeleton if the weapon had indeed been thrown with enough force to impact on the bone.

dean wrote:. . . reading the above comment it reminded me that at some stage I wanted to summarize the interesting and enlightening comments that Renault has drawn to my attention.

She does have a way of writing things that stick in oneGÇÖs mind, doesnGÇÖt she? Even though IGÇÖve long put RenaultGÇÖs GÇ£versionGÇ¥ of Alexander behind me I remain in awe of how brilliantly and convincingly she created her image of this man that she obviously adored.

Best regards,

It is easy for a spear thrown at the thigh to have missed the bone, especially if it passed right through and killed the horse.

I will share with Pothosians an observation of my own about the hunting frieze on the facade of Tomb II, which as far as I know has not been published before. Those of you who have read Alexander's Lovers will know that the figure wielding a double-headed axe in the pebble mosaic of two hunters killing a deer found in the House with a peristyle at Pella has been identified as Hephaistion by Paolo Moreno, mainly because the double-headed axe is the special attribute of Hephaistos, the god of fire. Also because the other figure in the mosaic has an anastole and may be Alexander.

In the hunting frieze one of the young men assisting the bearded king in killing the lion also appears to wield a double-headed axe. By analogy, perhaps this should also be identified as Hephaistion. If so, I would think this a powerful reason to believe that the king is Philip II.

(I have read the Olga Palagia thing. Her arguments are tremendously complicated with a lot of space devoted to nonsense about how a mountainous landscape might nevertheless be Babylon, which is flat as a pancake! And about how young men might actually represent old ones or dead ones! She also has lots of glosses about Alexander adopting a purple tunic in Asia, when what he adopted was a purple tunic with a broad white stripe down the centre. Also the purple in question was murex, which is a sort of blue-purple. The central horseman in the frieze is wearing a magenta tunic and we do not know for certain that that was the original colour. Beware!)

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:It is easy for a spear thrown at the thigh to have missed the bone, especially if it passed right through and killed the horse.

True, true, although the flanges could certainly have scraped the bone on the way through. JustinGÇÖs very brief description gives us little to go on. Seems to me that a wound in just the fleshy area of the thigh shouldnGÇÖt have caused anyone to believe Philip was dead. OTH, I have an image of Philip quite literally GÇ£impaledGÇ¥ on his horse by the lance GÇô if indeed it was a lance. And who knows how the horse fell when it collapsed and died and what further damage it could have done to PhilipGÇÖs leg while the lance was still run through him?

Taphoi wrote:She also has lots of glosses about Alexander adopting a purple tunic in Asia, when what he adopted was a purple tunic with a broad white stripe down the centre. Also the purple in question was murex, which is a sort of blue-purple.

Oh, I love discussions on AlexanderGÇÖs clothing and Pothos usually doesn't afford much opportunity. The following on the Persian clothing which Alexander partially adopted is from Meyer ReinholdGÇÖs The History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity; Latomus: Revue DGÇÖEtudes Latines (1970).

In the Persian institutionalization of purple for status purposes we encounter for the first time, within the limits of our knowledge, legalized restrictions on the ceremonial use of purple. The royal costume of Cyrus, as described by Zenophon, included a sleeved robe completely voilet-purple, a tiara with a white-purple diadem, a purple tunic with a vertical white stripe woven into the center (chiton mesoleukos), as well as red-purple trousers (the latter possibly of Median origin). In this costume the use of the white stripe on the purple chiton was interdicted to all but the Persian king as his exclusive royal symbol. Xenophon also tells us that, "as everyone knows", the use of Median robes was restricted to those persons to whom the Persian king had given them. This official sanction of the use of purple is the first certain evidence we have in recorded history of the deliberate sharing of a status color by a ruler with a circle of his courtiers - which included, no doubt, not only the Persian royal court but also certain strata of officialdom. For this time forth, among many peoples of the ancient world down to the end of antiquity, and indeed into the Middle Ages, the use of purple for official insignia in one form or another existed side by side with its use both as a sacerdotal color and for private adornment and luxury display.

The question is - did anyone wear purple in Macedonia before AlexanderGÇÖs conquests? Trust me, I know all about Tyrian purple and the use of murex, etc. GÇô IGÇÖm looking for evidence of the use of purple in Macedonia, prior to Alexander. (The royal purple kausia certainly appears to post-date AlexanderGÇÖs Asian campaign.) Regarding the frieze, Palagia (page 195) says that GÇ£The purple chiton must be a sign of royalty. There is no evidence that Macedonian royalty used it before Alexander.GÇ¥ She supports this with a footnote that refers to page 29 of the above work, saying GÇ£No sign of royal purple in Macedonia before Alexander: Reinhold 1970: 29.GÇ¥ ThatGÇÖs, ummm, not exactly what Reinhold says. HereGÇÖs the relevant excerpt, with footnotes:

While there is no evidence that the kings of Macedon and the Macedonian aristocracy used purple either for royal insignia or status symbols of nobility before Alexander(1), the possibility is not excluded that the Macedonians, like their neighbors the Thessalians and Thracians, had already by the Fifth Century B.C. accepted the international status token as an aspect of their culture.(2) However, that may be, it was Alexander who institutionalized its use for the Macedonians.

(1) Indeed, Dio Chrys., 4.71, specifically tells us that King Archelaus of Macedon did not wear purple.
(2) Cp. NEUFFER, op. cit., p. 23-25, on the traditional Macedonian costume. Neuffer (p. 26) maintains that the purple chlamys was very probably part of the royal insignia. So DELBRUEK, Kaiserornat, 6. For the currency of purple in Thessaly and Thrace before Alexander, see supra, p. 23, 26.

As for representations of Alexander wearing a purple tunic with a white stripe, I havenGÇÖt read of the stripe being visible on the Alexander Sarcophagus even though Alexander is obviously wearing a Persianized garment as evidenced by the long sleeves. Of course, itGÇÖs entirely possible that the ravages of time have eliminated any evidence of the stripe, although very early photographs when the color was still quite vibrant do seem to show only a plain purple tunic. Do you have any further information to share?

Best regards,

Hi Amyntoros,

The Alexander sarcophagus shows Issus, which precedes Alexander's adoption of Persian royal attire (which was after Darius' death). The white stripe is worn by Darius in the Alexander Mosaic. There are lots of MAGENTA clothes in the murals of Tomb I at Vergina, so it is hardly surprising if Alexander wears a MAGENTA chiton in the frieze of Tomb II. He wears a sleeveless magenta chiton, which is classically Greek, and at odds with Olga Pelagia's hypothesis. This and the lack of a white stripe shows that she is quite wrong to argue this as Alexander's Persian dress. It rather fits his youth. The portrait is obviously a young man. Why wouldn't Cassander have portrayed a mature Alexander in his full oriental pomp? If the painter of this frieze really was following Pelagia's extraordinarily complex plan for a mountainous version of a park near Babylon, he nevertheless produced something which even to a viewer in 316BC would have looked like a youthful Alexander out hunting with his father in Macedonia. If anyone swallows Pelagia's arguments, I think they are in danger of being convinced that black is just a darker shade of white. Her arguments remind me of those of Tarn and I do not mean that as a compliment: legalistic and trying to persuade us that complex and tortuous explanations are better than obvious ones.

Best wishes,

Andrew