pothos.org

Hi Everyone,I don't think the Mosaic is a good guide to what Alexander looked like, but what about the ivory portrait which adorned the wooden couch in the tomb of Philip? There is a matching ivory of Philip himself which experts seem to think is an accurate likeness of the king down to the wounded right eye and I remember seeing a TV programme once which constructed a head of Philip based on measurements taken from the skull bones found in the tomb and this model head showed a middle-aged man very similar in looks to the one in the ivory portrait.So, assuming the same artist carved them both, which seems reasonable given the similarity of style, then it is feasible that he also carved Alexander from life. In that case, maybe the slight turn of the neck and the rather dreamy gaze were real characteristics? Certainly, later artists have depicted him that way too.One thing I do know for sure, out of all the treasures I saw at Vergina those little ivories impressed me the most! Along with the gold flower, bee and bird diadem they would be what I would have liked to take home with me if I'd had the choice.Cheers,Kate

The curious thing is that the body in the tomb was Philip III Arrhidaeos and not his father; the bones had been dry-cremated ie there was no flesh upon them when burned. Which shows that reconstruction is informed by expectation. There is no reason to doubt that the ivories aren't accurate, though

Hi Karl,Yes, I've read the theory that the body was that of Philip Arrhidaios, but according to the book I got when I was at Vergina, which actually I bought because it has masses of beautiful illustrations, the bones in the tomb were interred immediately after cremation whereas Philip Arrhidaios's interment didn't take place until several months after his assassination. There are some other clues such as the haste with which the walls of the funerary chamber was plastered which indicate it is Philip II in there, not his son. Also I think the wound to the "eye bone" (not sure what that particular bit of bone is called) is pretty convincing too unless Philip Arrhidaios had also lost his right eye by violent means.Cheers,Kate

This is for the first time that i hear about the new version about the found remaines. So now the scientists think this is Phillipos Arridaes (sp?)?!!!!
But how come i've read at the time that they discovered the eye-injury in the sculp and wounded, lame leg (and the armor that fitted it?!). All these detailes fitted the description of Phllip's injuries to the t...

One always has to be careful when an autopsy is performed on bones when you want to have a specific conclusion that it's a certain person. The damage to the skull over the eye could not have been determined to be from an old wound, despite what some would have you believe. As for the ivory portraits, it is questionable who is actually portrayed just as it is questionable who is portrayed in the painting over the tomb. Scholarly thought these days tends to support the idea that the tomb is that of Philip Arrhidaeus and that the armor contained therein may have been Alexander's. The Greek government is not about to embarrass itself and admit error, so don't expect things to change on that end.

Apparently while in the official site of the Greek Ministry of culture (http://www.culture.gr) you can read that the tomb belongs to King Philip II there's more and more evidence that this is falce.
I read a relevant article in "Eleftherotypia" newspaper by prof. Antonis Bartsiokas regarding this issue.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... .phpHere's an interresting research on the subject by Triandafyllos D. Papazois (an amateur historian):
http://www.tdpapazois.gr/en_mel/2.htmCase closed

Very interesting, however I tend towards the Philip III conclusion, the accompanying woman being Eurydike, his wife who was murdered along with him.The problem with it being Alexander aside from the obvious weight of evidence that it was his actual bodily remains on show in the Alexandreum is that had he been cremated at Memphis the cremation would have been wet not dry ie with the flesh on were he then reburied after a second dry cremation nothing like so much bony material would survive and it would also show the curved fracturing associated with the initial fleshy burning; dead bones cannot heal.That the painting shows Alexander need not trouble us perhaps the tomb was intended for him but then re-used for Philip, if the stories of Kassander hating Alexander were true it no doubt pleased him to install the idiot half-brother in the great man's tomb.

A friend and I are having something of a debate on the question of whether it was Philip II or III in Tomb II, and in aid of that I tracked down the Bartsiokas article in full: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 65/511#RF3. You have to be registered on the Science magazine site to get it, but that's free. It's very technical, lots of anatomical terms, but it has lots more detail.I also looked for a good rebuttal to it in the three years since, but haven't seen anything more than "maybe the bones have degraded" since they were examined and thought to be Philip II's. 2300 years they stay the same, and they get degraded that much in 16?Kate, you saw the grave goods yourself -- do you remember the gold-trimmed breast-plate? Did it look like it was made for a big or a small man? You can't tell from photos, and I can't find the dimensions anywhere. Thanks in advance...Love & peace,
Karen

I think the general view now is that it is Arrhidaeos in Tomb II - it might be Philip in Tomb I. The breastplate looks very much like the one in the Alexander mosaic, and I think it was probably the same - similarly the iron helmet.Susan