The Royal Tombs at Vergina

Levesque 1 The Royal Tombs at Vergina Classics 5013 – Honours Thesis University of New Brunswick Cindy Georgette Levesque Submitted April 2012 Re-edited April 2017 Levesque 2 The Royal Tombs at Vergina Introduction The discovery of the three royal tombs (I-III) at Vergina has conclusively established that Vergina was the site of ancient Aegae. In addition, it has also provided the archaeological community with both a wealth of information and some very heated debates. Ever since Manolis Andronicos claimed that Tomb II belonged to Philip II, many scholars have stepped forward either to refute or support his statement. The Vergina museum has signs indicating who the owners of which items are and who occupied which tomb as stated by Andronicos. This paper will review the current archaeological, literary, and osteological evidence to determine the true occupancy of the tombs at Vergina. Excavation Manolis Andronicos, a teacher at the University of Thessaloniki, had always been interested in excavating Vergina. In 1976, he began excavation of a great tumulus measuring 13m high and roughly 100m in diameter.1 By October 1977, multiple Macedonian structures were uncovered. Andronicos and his team discovered Tomb I, Tomb II, Tomb III, a heroön, and a small temple.2 Following the completion of the excavation, a shelter in the form of the original tumulus was built over the museum-site.3 1 This tumulus was built after some structures were looted by Galatian invaders in 274/273 BC; Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 41 2 Andronikos 1980, 26-27 3 Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 41-43 Levesque 3 Tomb I Tomb I, also known as the Tomb of Persephone, measures 3.50 by 2.09 meters and 3 metres high. There is no entrance; the remains and grave offerings were placed inside the tomb through an opening at the top which grave robbers later used. When uncovered, the tomb contained only scattered bones, pieces of pottery, and wall paintings. The tomb includes the bones of a mature male, a young female, and an infant, all of which have yet to be conclusively identified. On one wall, a painting depicts the scene from mythology in which Hades abducts Persephone, the adjacent wall shows Persephone’s mother Demeter mourning the loss of her daughter on the ‘mourning rock’. The wall painting opposite Persephone is very faded but still shows three seated figures, probably the Fates. Many preliminary sketches can be seen from the incisions in the stucco. The artist worked free-hand and with a limited palette of warm colors. Andronicos attributed the wall-paintings to the famous painter Nikomachos from the mid fourth century BC.4 The tomb can be dated to 340 BC because of the stamped black-gloss pottery present.5 Tomb III Tomb III was left untouched by grave robbers. The tomb contained grave offerings and only one set of cremated remains in the main chamber. Xirotiris and Langenscheidt conducted the first analysis of the remains which was later supported by Musgrave6. To determine the individual’s age, the rate of fusion of the bones was observed. Fragments of the ischium, ilium, 4 Andronikos 1980, 27-30; Wynne-Thomas 1979, 28-30 Gill 2008, 352 6 J. Musgrave, 1990 5 Levesque 4 and pubis had not yet started to fuse,7 nor had other bones such as the radius, the scapula, the humerus, and the ulna, indicating that the individual was between 13 and 16.8 Five teeth from the permanent dentition remains: two premolars from the upper jaw and three molars from the lower jaw. The premolars and the first molars’ roots are fully developed. The second molar roots are not fully developed, which suggests an individual between 12 and 15.9 This would place the individual between the ages of 13 and 15. Determining the sex of an individual so young can be difficult, but nonetheless, the narrowness of the sciatic notch on the right innominate bone was consistent with a male. Also, the maximum diameter of an unsided femoral head epiphyses measures 46.9mm,10 which falls within the male range. 11 A young male of 13 or 15 years of age is consistent with the literary description of Alexander IV, the son of Alexander the Great.12 The pottery includes a black-gloss cup-kantharos with a molded rim, and a black-glossed guttus which date to the end of the fourth century BC.13 It is believed that the tomb was created in haste due to the partial cremation of the remains and some acorns and oakleaves were dropped outside the tomb. The tomb had a central door covered with stone blocks and a mural painting on the facade. The mural has not preserved and no details can be observed. The inside of the tomb contains a painted frieze with individualized chariots.14 7 These three bones fuse together to create the pelvis, or hip bone. They fuse in the center of the acetabulum slightly before or at puberty, i.e. no later than 15-16. 8 Musgrave 1990, 292 9 Musgrave 1990, 293 10 This measurement is considered with 10% shrinkage, without the shrinkage it is 42.2mm 11 These ranges were compiled by Krogman 1962, Stewart 1979, Bass 1979, Krogman and Iscan 1986 with data amassed from earlier worker: Dwight, Dorsey, Parsons, Maltby, and Pearson & Bell; Musgrave 1990, 291 12 This analysis e ludes Ale a der the Great’s illegiti ate so Barsi e, Herakles, who was 16 when he died. Musgrave 1990, 280-281 13 This analysis is based on similar finds in the Athenian agora. Gill 2008, 352-353 14 Wynne-Thomas 1979, 32-34; Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 56-57 Levesque 5 Tomb II Tomb II is the largest of the three tombs and contains the remains of two individuals. The tomb contents include some of the rarest items ever discovered.15 Andronicos stated that Tomb II belonged to Philip II which quickly sparked much debate in the archaeological community. Consequently, the style of construction, the grave offerings and the remains were scrutinized in order to determine who the true occupant of the tomb is. Candidates Tomb II contains the remains of a male and a young female. Given the time period, and the luxurious contents of the tomb, there are only two options for the identification of the occupants. The first and most publicized is Philip II and his wife Cleopatra (or possibly Meda), who was killed in 336BC16; the second is Arrhidaeus and his wife Eurydice, who both died in 317 BC17. Philip II When Andronikos first examined the tomb, he believed it was the burial place of Philip II.18 Philip II was the father of Alexander the Great and Arrhidaeus. He stabilized Macedonia and became the hegemon of Greece. Macedonian royalty were known for their polygamy, which Philip used to make political alliances with all of his greatest allies and threats. He was a great military leader with many famous battle scars and the best trained army in Greece. He was also a very cunning man, and after uniting all of Greece, he began making plans to conquer the 15 One example is the iron helmet with the tall crest that curls forward at the peak. The hel et is of Thra ia or Phr gia st le, ut has ee k o to e or Ma edo ia s fro art i the late fourth a d earl third century BC. Borza 1987, 112-113 16 Badian 1963, 246-247 17 Lehmann 1980, 530 18 Andronikos, 1980 Levesque 6 Persians. But as fate would have it, Philip was murdered at his daughter’s wedding by Pausanias. Alexander subsequently inherited the throne and buried his father according to Macedonian customs.19 He later led a Greek army and conquered the whole of Persia. Arrhidaeus After Alexander’s death, Arrhidaeus went to Asia to succeed his brother where he put on his brother’s robe and diadem which had been left on the throne.20 There he married Adea, who changed her name to Eurydice, and he changed his name to Philip III. Eurydice had been trained in military affairs by her mother Kynna, which was a great asset to the king who ruled over a military-oriented kingdom but was not himself fit for duty. In the fall of 317, Olympias (Alexander the Great’s mother, and widow of Philip II) was responsible for the death of the new king, and then forced his wife to commit suicide. Kassander retaliated by ordering the death of Olympias the following spring. After some power struggles, Kassander was responsible for burying Arrhidaeus and Eurydice at Aegae many months after their death, in 316 BC.21 Tomb II Layout The tomb shows a new style of construction for this area. It has a central door covered with stone blocks and a mural painting on the facade. 22 It has a rather large antechamber followed by the main chamber. Andronicos has pointed out the haste with which the tomb was built and how the walls of the main chamber only had a preliminary coat of stucco.23 19 Badian 1963, 248 Hammond 1989, 219 21 Lehmann 1980, 529-530 22 Wynne-Thomas 1979, 32-34 23 At this time, Kassander was enrolling all Macedonians who were fit for military duty to campaign in the Peloponnesus. This could explain why the tomb was built in such haste; Lehmann 1982, 441 20 Levesque 7 Hunting Frieze A mural painting representing a hunting scene is painted just above the doorway of the tomb. In the scene, there are a number of young men hunting a lion with the aid of hunting dogs. A young man on a rearing horse in the center of the fresco has been identified as Alexander the Great.24 Andronicos pointed out the relationship between the frieze and the famous scene by Philoxenos of Eretria which depicts the battle between Alexander and Darius.25 The hunting frieze has most of its action concentrated around the lion. Lions had been absent from Greek art since the end of the orientalising period (seventh century BC) and did not resurface in art until Alexander’s expedition to Asia made it popular again.26 The scene also contains a tall pillar which suggests a staged hunt in a game park, a common sport for Persian royalty.27 Philip II was thoroughly Hellenized and constantly sought to justify his rule over the whole of Greece. For Philip II to have Persian artwork displayed on his tomb would be highly inappropriate for the time period and the political climate. Arrhidaeus on the other hand, was supposedly ascending to his brother’s Persian throne which would make Persian themed artwork fitting. Barrel-Vault Tomb II at Vergina is possibly the earliest example of a barrel-vaulted tomb yet uncovered by archaeologists. The barrel-vault at Vergina shows no experimental tendencies whatsoever and is flawless in its construction. The only earlier examples of such construction are 24 Andronikos 1980, 30-31 Lehmann 1980, 531 26 Borza 1987, 109-110 27 Borza 1987, 117 25 Levesque 8 found in Persia.28 Many scholars have put forward the argument that the design came from Alexander’s engineers who had accompanied him in Persia. Nevertheless, the Greeks were no strangers to Persia and had frequent contact with them prior to this, such as during the Persian wars in the fifth century BC; one of these contacts could have brought over the barrel-vault construction at this time.29 However, Philip had spent much time gaining the respect of the Greeks and Macedonians and was a thoroughly Hellenized individual; to be buried in a Persianstyle tomb would have been very odd. Antechamber The antechamber itself is almost as big as the main chamber, which is quite unusual. Antechambers are typically used as a repertoire for grave goods and never contain any human remains. In this tomb however, the antechamber does contain cremated human remains in a larnax within a sarcophagus. This would instead suggest that it is not an antechamber in the traditional sense, but a secondary burial.30 Tomb II: Contents Diadem In Persia, the diadem was a symbol for kingship which was always worn by the current king of Persia. Xenophon describes Cyrus wearing a diadem around his tiara. After Alexander defeated Darius, the diadem was the first article of Persian attire that he adopted in order to symbolize (and perhaps legitimize) his ascension to the Persian throne. Arrhidaeus in his turn 28 Another example of this style of construction can be found in the form of two city gates at Priene. The gates were thought to date to the mid-fourth e tur BC, ut the prese e of a aso ’s ark i plies a Hellenistic date; Fredricksmeyer 1981, 333; Lehmann 1980, 528-529; Lehmann 1982, 440 29 Calder 1981, 85 30 Borza 1987, 105 Levesque 9 also adopted it to emphasize that he was following in his brother’s footsteps. When the diadem was first discovered in Tomb II, it raised arguments that it could only have belonged to Arrhidaeus due to the literary evidence.31 Ernst Fredricksmeyer, however, makes the argument that the Persian diadem was a cloth ribbon tied around the tiara, and that no evidence of a metal diadem like the one found in Tomb II has been found in Persia. On the other hand, Macedonian archaeology has revealed numerous artefacts that may attest to the kingdom’s use of metal diadems prior to its defeat of Persia. The diadem found in the tomb was made of gilded silver, which comes from the earlier bronze diadems of Macedonia.32 In addition, multiple coins of Philip II show a bearded rider (possibly Philip himself) with the ends of a diadem ribbon under the hat. Even though Alexander adopted many articles of Persian attire, his successor might not have adopted all of the same articles; the Macedonians resented being ruled by men who took to Persian customs. The diadem would have more readily been accepted if it already had a place in Macedonian royal attire; though the purple and white colouring of the diadem seems to appeal more to Persian aesthetics.33 It is also worth noting that this diadem is unique in its tubular shape. Images of Alexander the Great show him wearing a tubular diadem,34 but it is still unclear if his father would have also worn one.35 31 Lehmann 1980, 529-530 Theses diadems were found in tombs dating between 1000 to 700BC. No Macedonian tombs dating between the th th 8 and 4 century have been discovered. Fredricksmeyer 1981, 85 33 Fredricksmeyer 1981, 332-333 34 Marble portraits of Alexander in the Museum of Fine Art in Boston as well as Antiochos III in the Louvre, Attalos III in Copenhagen, and Ptolemy II Philadelphos in Alexandria. 35 Lehmann 1982, 437-438 32 Levesque 10 Pottery The main chamber contained four Attic black-gloss spool-shaped saltcellars which showed no signs of wear, suggesting that they were new when placed in the grave. Rotroff who has studied similar saltcellars from the Athenian agora, was able to confidently state that they date to between 325 and 295 BC, placing them after the death of Philip II (in 336 BC). A redfigure shallow askos decorated with an olive-wreath motif was dated to between 350 and 325 by Drougou. The tomb also contained silver calyx cups of Macedonian style. These were dated by Pfrommer to be between 330 and 316 BC.36 The presence of calyx cups and wine strainers similar to those found in Tomb III suggest that the tombs were nearly contemporary. 37 The pottery is thus consistent with the time of Arrhideaus’ death (in 317 BC, buried in 316 BC), but appears to be too recent for Philip II. Scepter The scepter found in the antechamber seems to have disappeared from most scholarly debates. The scepter was never present in a Macedonian king’s personal items until Alexander the Great conquered Persia and adopted it as one of the many regal elements from their kingship. When first claiming the throne, Arrhidaeus would likely have kept most of Alexander’s new regal items to emphasize the continuity of the Argead line. The scepter found in the tomb measures approximately two metres, has a wooden core, and is wrapped in gold. The item was identified as a scepter based on the Porus medallion showing Alexander holding a scepter which 36 Gill 2008, p.345-348; Borza 1987, 104-105 Kassander buried Arrhidaeus and Eurydice in 316, he also killed Alexander IV in 311 or 310 (possibly as late as 309) so he could succeed to the throne. Since only a few years passed between both burials, the presence of contemporary/similar objects would be expected. Gill 2008, 352-353 37 Levesque 11 went higher than the plume on his helmet, necessitating a height of approximately two metres.38 Philip would not have had any logical reasons to have a scepter in his tomb.39 Weapons and Armour The tomb contains various military-oriented items such as a breastplate, a shield, greaves, spears, etc. The greaves in the antechamber are of different lengths, suggesting that the individual had a shorter left leg. Philip II is known to have had a lame leg; however, it was his right leg meaning that the greaves would not have fit him.40 This implies that the armour in Tomb II did not belong to Philip II. Since Arrhidaeus was not a militarily inclined person, the weapons and armour could only have been his if they were used strictly for ceremonial purposes. It is, however, possible that some of the military equipment might have been used in battle if it had belonged to Alexander. After Alexander’s death, while his body was transported to Aegae to be buried according to Macedonian customs, Ptolemy intercepted the funerary car. Ptolemy buried Alexander with the burial offerings which had been in the funerary car with him, but not all of Alexander’s royal paraphernalia had been present.41 When the commanders met to discuss the continuity of the Argead line, a tent was set up with a throne, on which were placed Alexander’s diadem, scepter, and armour.42 These items could have eventually made their way to Aegae, but whether they did so and were placed in Tomb II or not is still under debate.43 38 The item must be a scepter and not a Macedonian cavalry sarrissa since that weapon measures between 4.5 and 5.5 meters; Borza 1987, 116 39 Borza 1987, 115-116 40 Gill 2008, 351 41 Hammond 1989, 220-223 42 Diod. 18.60.3-61.3 43 Borza 1987, 111 Levesque 12 The antechamber also contained military paraphernalia which could be linked to Eurydice since she was known to be a warrior. Her husband Arrhidaeus was not fit for military service and compensated for this by marrying a woman trained in the art of war by her mother Kynna. Military equipment was not generally considered a proper burial offering for a queen, but it would be a reasonable break from tradition in the case of a queen who oversaw the military affairs of the kingdom.44 Antechamber Remains The golden larnax in the antechamber contained the remains of one individual. The sex can be determined by the slight supraorbital margin, mastoid process, external occipital protuberance, left half of the mandible, as well as the few preserved postcranial bones, all of which in this case suggest a female. In addition to these anthropomorphic observations, the vertical diameter of the left humeral head measurement of 42.3mm (adjusted for 10% shrinkage) falls well within the female range. The maximum diameter of both femoral heads, 42.8mm and 42.6mm (also adjusted for shrinkage)45, also fall within the female range. It can then be concluded that the remains are female.46 The cranial sutures showed virtually no obliteration and the epiphysis of the right clavicle showed an incomplete ossification process. The spongy substance of the femur head was left relatively unchanged, and there was only a small remnant of granular relief observed on the partial sternum. The chondral end of at least one rib appears very youthful. The vertebral body 44 Lehmann 1980, p.530 These ranges were compiled by Krogman 1962, Stewart 1979, Bass 1979, Krogman and Iscan 1986 with data amassed from earlier worker: Dwight, Dorsey, Parsons, Maltby, and Pearson & Bell. The measurements without the adjustements for 10% shrinkage are: Vertical Diameter of Head of left Humerus 38.1mm; Medial Diameter of Head of right femur 38.5mm, left femur 38.3mm. Musgrave 1990, 287 46 Musgrave 1990, 286-288 45 Levesque 13 epiphyses as well as the heads of the femurs were completely fused. These observations all together give an estimate of between 20 and 30 years of age.47 Thus, the remains from the antechamber are consistent with those of a young adult female. The analysis of Xirotiris and Langenscheidt agree with that of Musgrave. Scholars have put forward three possible identities for the woman: Cleopatra or Meda (both wives of Philip II), or Eurydice (Arrhidaeus’ wife). Cleopatra died in 335 BC between the ages of 19 and 22, while Meda died around the same time (336-335 BC) at the age of approximately 25. Eurydice who was born between 337 and 335 died in 317 making her no older than 20. Since all women were so close in age at the time of their deaths, the biological profile cannot help narrow down the possibilities. No infant remains were present in the golden larnax.48 Main Chamber Remains The remains in the main chamber belonged to a male between the ages of 35 and 55. Arrhidaeus died at 39 or 40 while Philip died at 46, both are well within the age range. However, the greatest difference between both men would lie in their military career. Arrhidaeus was not fit for military duty, though it is not clear if it was strictly a mental problem or a physical one since there are no clear descriptions of him. Philip II on the other hand was constantly at war during his reign. He suffered many wounds, the most distinctive being his lame right leg, his shattered clavicle and most importantly, the blinding of his right eye. Skull The bones from the main chamber were first analyzed by Xirotiris and Langenscheidt who published the official report on the remains. They failed to observe any traces of illness or 47 48 Musgrave 1990, 287 Musgrave 1990, 278-279 Levesque 14 any wounds, whether fresh or healed on the right supraorbital margin.49 After a very thorough analysis which included methods such as radiography and histology, no injury was found on the skull. They did however note some degenerative changes most likely due to osteoarthritis.50 Later, another team (including Musgrave, Neave, and Prag) had the chance to observe the bones. Unlike the initial analysis, they quickly focused a small pimple of bone in the right orbit, close to where the supraorbital nerve would have passed. They speculated that the supraorbital foramen had been damaged and that the pimple observed would have been the result of the bone healing after an injury. They claimed that the zygomatic bone also showed signs of a healed fracture and even stated that the skull in its present reconstruction is missing a tiny piece of bone which could have been removed while the patient was being treated for his injury. With the location of both of these injuries in mind, the team claimed that the injuries were consistent with the blinding of Philip’s right eye and the subsequent healing. The team supported their claim by burning test skulls in an electric kiln at 900 degrees for over five hours and comparing the warping from the fire with any possible anomalies.51 Finding no nicks or pimples on their test skulls, they concluded that the fire did not cause any of these anomalies and thus that the anomaly from the skull in Tomb II must have occurred antemortem; therefore, they concluded that the bones did in fact belong to Philip II.52 However, sixteen years after Musgrave’s team published their results, Antonis Bartsiokas had a chance to perform some macrophotography on the skull and take a closer look at Philip’s 49 Musgrave et al. 1984, 61 Osteoarthritis is a fairly common occurrence in people of this age, both Philip and Arrhidaeus could have suffered from this at some point; Bartsiokas 2000, 512 51 These e peri e ts a pro e to e greatl isleadi g due to ho the are ei g ur ed. The kil ’s te perature ould e o sta t hereas a ope p re’s te perature ould easil flu tuate. The kil also pro ides a sta le pla e to set the bones where they did not have to worry about the logs from the pyre falling and damaging the bones further. The experiments are in fact not useful or relevant to the study of these bones. 52 Musgrave et al. 1984, 61-63 50 Levesque 15 “eye injury”. Bartsiokas identified the pimple as the bony protuberance of the supraorbital notch, a nonpathological and fairly common phenomenon. The notch also shows no signs of trauma or consequent healing, which directly contradicts the hypothesis that the remains belonged to Philip II.53 Musgrave and his team had based their whole analysis on the eye injury and neglected all of the postcranial bones. This led to a severe lack of information on the skeleton as a whole since subsequent (English) writers all focused on the skull. Therefore, no reliable information can be discussed here regarding the rest of the bones individually. Cremation The remains from the main chamber were very well preserved considering they were subjected to cremation. While cremation in both ancient and modern times cannot completely destroy all of the bones (especially the larger ones such as the femur), the remains are usually mostly reduced to ash. Nonetheless, the male remains from Tomb II are mostly still solid. Most limb-bone fragments measure less than 100mm in length after burning on a pyre, but the right ulna of this individual is still complete and measures 227mm. Musgrave and his team began to theorize as to how and why these bones were preserved so well in comparison to regular cremations. Musgrave thought that this state of preservation might be due to the fact that Philip II was cremated in a new way that began and ended with him. He proposed that the sun dried bricks on top of the tomb might have been used to construct a cremating chamber as opposed to a traditional altar.54 53 54 Bartsiokas 2000, 512-513 Musgrave et al. 1984, 77-78 Levesque 16 However, other scholars discovered the true reason why these bones were preserved so well. Bartsiokas spent some time analyzing the color and the fracture patterns of the bones and concluded that the bones were burnt while dry.55 The bones are a dominantly light brown color and show straight transverse fractures sporadically, both sure signs of a dry bone cremation. If the bone had still been wet, the long bones would have been much more fragmentary with frequent parallel-sided transverse fractures that would be either curved or serrated. Wet bone becomes white, blue or gray after cremation; not brown. Dry bones crack less and warp differently than wet bones. The left proximal ulna shows some curved fractures which indicate that this bone was not completely defleshed. The right ulna on the other hand is in excellent condition with a longitudinal crack.56 Literary evidence tells us that Philip II was buried immediately after his death; Arrhidaeus on the other hand was not. He was killed in 317, and his wife followed soon after. Kassander did not bury them until the following year, in 316 BC. 57 Philip’s body would not have had any time to decompose before he was placed on the pyre. Conversely, Arrhidaeus would have been buried in a shallow grave for months, giving his body time to decompose. Arrhidaeus’ bones would have been dry at the time of cremation, which would result in the patterns described above. The evidence left by the method of cremation, especially when combined with the other factors discussed, ultimately proves that Arrhidaeus and Eurydice are the occupants of Tomb II. 55 Wet o es still ha e fat i the hile Dr o es do ot. To e o e dr , a o e ust go through the stages of decomposition and be defleshed. 56 All of the information regarding bone cremation has been tested extensively by forensic osteologists. The results from these tests are non-refutable; they have been established as definitive scientific fact and are frequently used in courts of law. Bartsiokas 2000, 513-514; Stewart 1979, 59-68 57 Lehmann 1980, 529-530 Levesque 17 Conclusion for Tomb II When considering all of the evidence as a whole, it is clear that the style of construction for Tomb II was not present in Macedonia until after Alexander conquered Asia. The antechamber was very large, which means the woman buried there would have been a person of great status, influence, and dignity, such as Eurydice. The pottery present in the tomb all date to a generation after the death of Philip II, during the time of Arrhidaeus. The military paraphernalia in the tomb did not belong to Philip; though they might have belonged to Arrhidaeus (for ceremonial purposes), Eurydice, or perhaps Alexander the Great. The remains from the main chamber show no signs of any of Philip’s great battle wounds, and the bones were cremated after being buried for some time. All of the archaeological, literary and skeletal evidence points to Arrhidaeus and his wife Eurydice. Tomb II does not belong to the father of Alexander the Great, but to his brother. Tomb I revisited Seeing as Philip is not the occupant of Tomb II, the only remaining question is “where is he?” The remains of Philip II were buried in Aegae as was the custom, but were clearly not found in Tomb II, which contains Arrhidaeus and Eurydice, or in Tomb III, which contains Alexander IV. The remains found in Tomb I, however, have been labelled as unknown. The tomb includes the bones of a mature male, a young female, and an infant; these would seem to correspond with Philip II, his young wife Cleopatra, and their infant child. The cist tomb is consistent with other Macedonian tombs discovered at Derveni from the time of Philip II. The wall-paintings have been attributed to the famous Macedonian painter Nikomachos who lived during the time of Philip II and Alexander. The stamped black-gloss pottery found in the tomb Levesque 18 also dates to 340 BC.58 Philip could have been buried here, and later a roof slab could have been removed to add his wife and child. 59 Tomb I is, therefore, most likely the tomb of Philip II. In conclusion, the signs at the site of Vergina should be changed in light of the fact that the archaeological evidence does not support Andronicos’ statements. The abundance of archaeological, literary, and osteological evidence point to the inhabitant of Tomb II being Arrhidaeus (a.k.a. Philip III) while his more prominent and influential father, Philip II, rests in Tomb I. 58 59 Gill 2008, 352 Borza 1987, 118-119 Levesque 19 Bibliography Andronikos, Manolis. "The Royal Tombs at Vergina: A Brief Account of the Excavations." In The Search for Alexander: An Exhibition, by Greek Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 26-38. The Greek Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1980. Badian, E. "The death of Philip II." Phoenix 17, no. 4 (1963): 244-250. Bartsiokas, Antonis. "The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina." Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 288, no. 5465 (Apr 2000): 511-514. Bass, W. M. Human Osteology. 2nd. Columbia, Missouri: Missouri Archaeological Society, 1979. Borza, E. N. "The Royal Macedonian Tombs and the Paraphernalia of Alexander the Great." Phoenix (Classical Association of Canada) 41, no. 2 (Summer 1987): 105-121. Burns, Karen Ramey. Forensic Anthropology Training Manual. 2nd. Upper Sadle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2007. Calder, William Musgrave. ""Golden Diadems" Again." American Journal of Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of America) 87, no. 1 (Jan. 1983): 102-103. Calder, William Musgrave. "Diadem and Barrel-Vault: A Note." American Journal of Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of America) 85, no. 3 (Jul. 1981): 334-335. Drougou, Stella, and Chrysoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli. Vergina: Wandering Through the Archaeological Site. 3rd Edition. Edited by Evangelia Kypraiou. Athens: Ministry of Culture, 2004. Fredricksmeyer, Ernst A. "Again the So-Called Tomb of Philip II." American Journal of Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of America) 85, no. 3 (Jul. 1981): 330-334. Gill, David W. J. "Inscribed Silver Plate from Tomb II at Vergina: Chronological Implications." The Journal of American School of Classical Studies at Athens (The American School of Classical Studies at Athens) 77, no. 2 (Apr-Jun 2008): 335-358. Hammond, N. G. L. "Arms and the King: The Insignia of Alexander the Great." Phoenix (Classical Association of Canada) 43, no. 3 (Autumn 1989): 217-224. Krogman, W. M. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1962. Krogman, W. M., and M. Y. Iscan. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1986. Lehmann, Phyllis Williams. "The So-Called Tomb of Philip II: A Different Interpretation." American Journal of Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of America) 84, no. 4 (Oct 1980): 527-531. Levesque 20 Lehmann, Phyllis Williams. "The So-Called Tomb of Philip II: An Addendum." American Journal of Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of America) 86, no. 3 (Jul. 1982): 437-442. Musgrave, Jonathan. "Dust and Damn'd Oblivion: A Study of Cremation in Ancient Greece." The Annual of the British School at Athens (British School at Athens) 85 (1990): 271-299. Musgrave, Jonathan H., R. A. H. Neave, and A. J. N. W. Prag. "The Skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Macedon." The Journal of Hellenic Studies (The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies) 104 (1984): 60-78. Stewart, T. D. Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1979. Wynne-Thomas, Joan L. Proud-Voiced Macedonia. Springwood Books, 1979.