Full Text | PDF

Int J Med Sci 2010; 7(6):s1-s15. doi:10.7150/ijms.7.s1 This issue Cite

Research Paper

The Occupants of Tomb II at Vergina. Why Arrhidaios and Eurydice must be excluded

Jonathan Musgrave^1✉, A. J. N. W. Prag², Richard Neave³, Robin Lane Fox⁴, Hugh White⁵

1. Centre for Comparative and Clinical Anatomy, University of Bristol, Southwell Street, Bristol, BS2 8EJ, UK
2. The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
3. RN-DS Partnership, 89 Stamford Road, Bowdon, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 2JJ, UK
4. New College, Oxford, OX1 3BN, UK
5. Department of Pathology, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK

✉ Corresponding author: Dr J H Musgrave, Centre for Comparative and Clinical Anatomy, University of Bristol, Southwell Street, Bristol, BS2 8EJ, UK Tel (UK): 0117-928-7417, E-mail: j.h.musgraveac.uk

Abstract

On 21 April 2000 Science published an article by Antonis Bartsiokas titled 'The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina'. In it he criticised some observations made by Prag, Neave and Musgrave in earlier publications concerning possible trauma to the cranium and facial asymmetry. In an attempt to identify the man in the main chamber of Tomb II at Vergina as Philip III Arrhidaios rather than Philip II, he also argued that the bones had been burned dry, degreased and unfleshed. We answer his criticisms, and refute his dry cremation argument, pointing out that, far from strengthening the claim for Arrhidaios, it weakens it considerably.

Keywords: Vergina, facial reconstruction, cremation, decomposition, Philip II, Philip III Arrhidaios, Eurydice, Kynna

Citation styles

©2024 Ivyspring International Publisher. Terms of use