Topic 2: Who are the most likely candidates for the burials in Tomb II at Vergina?
Theresa Nguyen
Student Number: 270275616

Ever since the excavations of ‘The Great Tumulus’ mound by Manolis Andronicus in 1977, the remains found in the second (Tomb II) of the three tombs revealed, have been a source for controversy in the archaeological community. Upon inspection, tomb II uncharacteristically had managed to evade looters and remained untouched, much to the delight of the excavators. According to reports, tomb II held the remains of two individuals: a man and a woman. The debate in this issue lies in the identities of the remains found. Most theories and reports derived from extensive anthropological and archaeological analysis, suggest that the male remains are that of King Phillip II of Macedon, the predecessor and father of Alexander the great and his seventh wife Kleopatra, adversely numerous articles contend this, stating that the remains actually belong to his other son King Phillip III Arrihadeus and his spouse Eurydice. The most commonly employed technique used in the quest to determine the identity of the bones found in Tomb II, was the anthropological study of the bones. As mentioned above, there were two remains identified in Tomb II, the first being found in the main chamber (Chamber II) wrapped in a gold and purple cloth and entombed in a gold larnax, decorated by a gold wreath depicting myrtle leaves and acorns, the skeleton found was almost complete and is generally accepted to have belonged to a 35 to 55-year-old man, who had a height of about 167.3 cm to 168.9 cm (Musgrave, 1991, 16). These findings satisfy both the age of death requirement for Phillip II and Phillip III. The second set of remains were also found in a similar fashion, but instead in the antechamber of the tomb, wrapped in a purple and gold cloth and entombed in a gold larnax, however this time the wreath was of myrtle leaves and flowers. These remains were identified as a female aged between 20 to 23 (Antikas, 2015, 3). The set of male skeletal remains showed evidence of having been subjected to cremation, and thus experienced a substantial amount of deformation making an accurate reconstruction of the entire skeleton almost impossible. In early in depth analysis the skeletal remains according to Musgrave showed certain healed injuries or ‘asymmetries’ as he liked to call them, with one of these ‘asymmetries’ being found in the right eye sockets in a ‘notch’ on the superior margin of the right orbit. A “pimple of bone” (Musgrave, 1991) was also found in this area which highly suggests some form of bone remodeling as the body tried to repair the injury, this indicated that the injury was sustained before the individual’s death. Continuing in a similar fashion Musgrave identifies damage found in the right Zygomatic bone (cheek bone) and right maxilla (upper jaw bone) from a healed fracture found within these location, furthermore there seemed to be a bone missing from the zygomaxillare and damage to the right mandible, (lower part of the skill) which consequently results in reformation and realignment of the skull. All these afflictions, suggest a severe injury to the right side of the face, which can be linked to a historically recorded arrow wound that Phillip II sustained at Methone in 354 BC (Musgave, 1991, 21), suggesting that he is a strong contender in being the identity of the remains.

The claims made by Musgrave however, have constantly been contested by others, such as Bartsiokas who describes the ‘pimple’ on the orbital bone not as a healed injury, but as a bony protuberance of the superorbital notch, which has shown no sign of healing despite the wound having been inflicted 18 years prior to his death (Bartsiokas, 2000, 514), furthermore he did not find any bones in the zygomaxillare to be missing, all the injuries identified by Musgrave in the right side of the skeletons face, was attributed to the cremation and poor reconstruction of the skeletal remains. Bartsiokas furthers his case against the identification of the remains as Phillip II, by questioning the absence of incisions and signs of healing in areas where Phillip was historically recorded to have suffered injuries as a warrior. According to various historical sources Phillip suffered from several injuries from his years at war, including an injury from an arrow to his right eye, sustained 18 years before his death at the Siege of Methone, which would have resulted in permanent blindness. He also sustained a broken right collar bone from personal combat training with Illyrians, a maimed right arm and also possibly injured right leg caused by a Sarissa piercing his leg through. The last injury corresponds with a disfigurement found on the remains in Tomb I at the ‘Great Tumulus’, where a hole was found going right through an overgrowth of the knee, this may have caused the flexional ankyloses found in the remains. The ankyloses would have resulted in the individual experiencing an uneven gait, in which Phillip II was known to have walked with a limp (Bartsiokas et.al 2015) therefore suggesting that the remains found were his. Tomb I like Tomb II is reported to contain the remains of a woman as well as an infant, the female remains, when assessed were given a skeletal age in the teens which would be congruent with the approximate age of Phillip’s II latest wife when she met her untimely murder along with her new born baby. This murder sanctioned by Olympias to ensure there were no obstacles for Alexander when he claimed his kingship following Phillip’s assassination, and explains why the remains of an infant was found in the tomb (Green, 1982, 5). This revelation allows argument for female skeletal remains found in Tomb II to be far too old to be claimed as Kleopatra, all of which suggests that Phillip II was not buried in Tomb II but Tomb I alongside his late wife Kleopatra and their child.

The mounting evidence against Phillip II and Kleopatra not being the inhabitants of Tomb II places his son Phillip III Arrhidaeus and his wife Eurydice as the likelier candidates. This claim is strongly supported by the in depth study surrounding the time of cremation following the deaths of the 2 pairs of rulers (Hatzopolous, 2008, 16). Phillip II and Kleopatra are believed to have gone through a ‘wet’ cremation which is where the individual is cremated soon after their death, whilst the skin and muscles are still somewhat moist. The result of a wet cremation are fragmented bones with marked warping, the bones become a white, blue and grey colour and serrated or curved fractures frequently form (Musgrave, 1990, 23). The colouring and state of bones expected do not correspond to the colour of bones found in Tomb II which favoured a light brown colour and fractures were uncommon. The brown colour would have been a result of dry cremation, which is cremation that occurs after the individual has been dead for a while and the flesh has lost moisture and is in later stages of decomposition. When cremated the bones would stay intact in size and form and show little warping and infrequent fractures (Musgrave, 1990, 33). According to various historical reports, Phillip III Arrhidaeus unlike his father Phillip II was not cremated soon after his death, he was in fact buried whole and only exhumed 6 months later by Olympias before being cremated and reburied, which conclusively suggests that Arrihadeus went through a dry cremation, this would have left his remains found in the state similar to that of those seen in Tomb II.

Alongside the anthropological study of bones, studying archaeological remains may also aid in the identification in the inhabitants of Tomb II. The structure of Tomb II was that of a barrel – vaulting style one, these semi- cylindrical tombs are the typical features of Hellenistic Macedonian tomb architecture (Haddad 2015). Like its inhabitants the structure of Tomb II has been a source for debate within the archaeological society. The argument lies in the origin of the Macedonian tomb architecture; it is unsure if this architectural style came from Macedonia itself, or if it is imported by Alexander the Great. In this case, it seems highly probably that the idea of these barrel vault style tombs were ones that were borrowed from the East (Lehman 1980), and developed to suit Macedonian burial needs. This would imply that for Tomb II to be the burial site for Phillip II impossible, as he was Alexander’s predecessor and would have died before Alexander’s conquests.

As mentioned before Tomb II was one of the three that remained unplundered, upon excavation archeologist were given a direct look into an intact tomb and found an abundance of luxuries including diadems, armour (emphasis on the greaves) ivory miniature heads, gold wreaths, pottery, silver vessels and murals all of which suggested the that buried where of royal stature. The presence of the diadem suggests that the inhabitants of the tomb are royal, but does nothing to resolve the identity of the remains, similarly this can be said for the silver vessels, pottery, gold wreaths and majority of the armour (Borza, Palgia, 2007, 58). The armour was found in the antechamber alongside the female remains, initially it was believed that it belonged to Phillip II since one of the greaves for the left leg seemed to be shorter than the one for the right (MaClean, 2013, 33), the reason for the link was Phillip’s limp, his limp however was caused by an injury in his right leg and not his left one, which suggests that if one leg was shorter, then Phillip II must have suffered a second wound in his opposing leg or had a congenital disease neither of which have any historical evidence (Green, 1982, 6). Further investigation into the second set of remains however, suggested that the greaves belonged to the female corpse, her remains had a fracture in the upper end of her leg which caused a shortening atrophy, this may have been the result of her her frequent equestrian activities from an early age and would also explain the pair of mismatched greaves (McLeod, 2014, 75). The frequent equestrian activities also indicate that the female corpse would have participated in warrior like activities, which coincides with Eurydice Phillip III’s wife, who was historically recorded to have fought in many battles, in which time she may have sustained injuries that would have required for her to wear different length greaves (Bartsiokas et al 2015).

In conclusion, despite the majority current opinion of the archaeological society favouring Phillip II and his late wife Kleopatra as the inhabitants of Tomb II, a large portion of the conclusive evidence says otherwise. They are more likely to have been the identities of the remains found in Tomb I. The identification of the knee ankyloses in the Tomb I remains corresponds with an injury Phillip II sustained, as well as the fact that he was found alongside the corpse of a young teenage girl and baby which would coincide with the murder of his late wife Kleopatra and his baby shortly thereafter his own assassination. By placing this couple in Tomb I it leaves Phillip III Arrihadeus and Eurydice to be the only plausible inhabitants of Tomb II. This is evidentiated by the certain physical traits on the bones which suggest a specific version of dry cremation having occurred during the burial and subsequent reburial of Phillip III and could not have possibly occurred in Phillip II’s cremation. Furthermore, the barrel like structure of Tomb II could not have been built prior to Phillip II’s death since it was a borrowed idea from the East imported by Phillip II’s successor Alexander the Great. Finally, the circumstances in which Eurydice grew up explain the uneven greaves found in Tomb II and could not be linked whatsoever to Phillip II or Kleopatra, therefore conclusively making the most likely candidates of Tomb II Phillip III and Eurydice.

References

Primary Sources

Quintus C.R., 2004, The history Of Alexander. Trans. John Yardley. Penguin books, London, 60 -91.

Secondary sources

Antikas T.G., Wynn – Antikas L.K. 2015, New Find from the Cremain in Tomb II at Aegae Point to Phillip II and a Scythian Princess, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, USA, 4 – 11

Bartsiokas A., 2000, The Eye Injury Of King Phillip II and the Skeletal Evidence From the Royal Tomb II at Vergina, Science, 511 – 514

Bartsiokas A., Arsuga J.L., Santos E., Algaba M., Gomez – Olivencia A., 2015, The Lamesness of King Phillip II and Royal Tomb I at Vergina, Macedonia, PNAS, 1 – 4

Borza E.N., Palagia O., 2007, The Chronology Of The Macedonian Royal Tombs At Vergina, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologische Instituts ,81 – 125

Green, P., 1982, The Royal Tombs at Vergina, in W.L. Adams and E.N. Borza eds, Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage, University Press of America, Washington D.C., 29-51

Haddad N.F., 2015, Critical assessment of the barrel vault geometry and structure of the oldest Macedonian tomb of Eurydice in Vergina, Mediterranean Archaeology of Archaeometry, Greece, 2 – 4

Hatzopoulos M., 2008, The burial of the dead (at Vergina) or the unending controversy on the identity of the occupants of Tomb II. Tekmeria, 91-118

MacLean M., 2013, Tomb II at Vergina: A discussion of the Controversy over the occupants, Academia, 11 – 13

McLeod J., 2014, The Human Skeletal remains from Tomb I, II and III at Vergina, University of Calgary, 51 – 94

Musgrave J.H., 1990, Dust and damn'd oblivion: a study of cremation in ancient Greece. Annual of the British School at Athens. 1990, 27 – 99

Musgrave J, Prag NJW, Neave R, Fox RL, White H. The occupants of Tomb II at Vergina, Why Arrhidaios and Eurydice must be excluded. Int J Med Sci 2010

Prag A. J. N. W., Musgrave J.H., Neave RAH., 1984, The skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Macedon. Journal of Hellenic Studies., 60 – 78

Xirotiris N.I,, Langenscheidt F., 1981, The cremations from the royal Macedonian tombs of Vergina. Archaiologiki Ephimeris., 142 – 160