OT: Philip II's tomb and the massive tomb being unearthen in northen Greece

Hi guys,

http://www.archaeology.org/news/2595...gina-philip-ii

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29589427


Just wondering if anyone has been following these stories and has any ideas or opinion's on them?

I've heard it mentioned before that the jury is still out on whether the remains found are infact those of Philips but does this latest study confirm it then?

I suppose its wishful thinking that Alexander could reside in the large tomb being currently excivated?

Alexander's corpse was brought to Alexandria and mummified, for political reasons if I recall. A certain Roman who will remain nameless broke off his nose...

In the Vergina tomb there is apparently some typological irregularities conflicting with a pre-Alexandrian date. It wasn't uncommon for Macedonian nobles to have facial injuries and horse riding was a status symbol of its own, so I wouldn't say the skeletal evidence is definite. AIA should be a little more responsible with their headlines. I'm more interested about the "Scythian" female though...

If we go by historical accounts, the Amphipolis grave cannot be Alexander's. I doubt the real location of the grave would have remained hidden from classical authors, unless maybe if he was buried in Macedonia in absentia in a failed publicity stunt, but then why Amphipolis and not "proper" Macedonia? On the other hand, events were pretty chaotic, so we'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conan

I suppose its wishful thinking that Alexander could reside in the large tomb being currently excivated?

---

Stranger things have happened; but it's unlikely. According to the historical record, Alexander's funeral cortège was hijacked by Ptolemy, who brought it to Alexandria (the Egyptian one). Several Roman emperors are reported to have visited the tomb and its occupant, so we are pretty certain that Alexander was still buried there during the heyday of the Roman Empire.

It's not impossible that a later Roman emperor had the body transferred to Amphipolis (assuming that Amphipolis was indeed intended as Alexander's final resting place), but it seems unlikely. Why would they care? Alexander's Macedonian heritage wouldn't have meant much to the Romans.

Edit: just checking this on Wikipedia. Ptolemy initially brought Alexander's body to Memphis. Only later was it moved to a tomb in Alexandria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

Alexander's corpse was brought to Alexandria and mummified, for political reasons if I recall. A certain Roman who will remain nameless broke off his nose...

---

Augustus...

God you're such a hard-***: the guy did it by accident, you can't blame him...sort of... :clown:

actually, the account IIRC is apocryphal: I know he laid a wreath at the tomb, but that was it.

http://www.greece.org/alexandria/ale...aftermath.html

according to Liana Souvaltzi Alexander's tomb is in oasis of Siwa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarkiss

according to Liana Souvaltzi Alexander's tomb is in oasis of Siwa.

---

Point of order: there isn't a single "Tomb of Alexander". I mean: we know that Ptolemy constructed two separate tombs for him (at Memphis and Alexandria); and it's not unlikely Alexander himself had a tomb built at some point (Siwa? Amphipolis?). So Souvaltzi may well be right about it being intended as Alexander's tomb, but it's probable it was never used as such, because Egypt's ruler preferred to move the body to Alexandria.

It's possible that Alexander's remains were relocated at some point during the late Roman Empire, but I doubt that a Roman emperor who cared enough about Alexander to rebury him, would be content to put him a crumbling, five centuries old tomb that had been built during Alexander's lifetime. Not without extensively reconstructing and redecorating it, at the very least.

(Also, couldn't the tomb in Siwa be intended for Ptolemy rather than Alexander? Ptolemy would have used the same symbols as Alex; and, obviously, had an even stronger connection with Egypt.)