Latest on the newly discovered "Alexander The Great-era" tomb near Amphipolis

[Patrick Waterson]

What seems significant is the lack of any objects of value, or at least any the archaeologists are prepared to own up to.  So far, all we have is:

"The limestone tomb was discovered 1.6m (5.2 ft) below the floor of the third chamber of the burial complex. It is 3.23m in length, 1.56m in width and 1.8m in height.
A wooden coffin was placed inside. Archaeologists discovered scattered bronze and iron nails, as well as bone and glass fragments - probably decorations from the casket. "

By royal standards, this is practically a pauper's burial.  Besides, one does not build a sumptuous tomb and then dig five feet into the floor to bury the occupant.  It looks like an interment from a time before the tomb was built, so any DNA testing, cranial matching etc. with Philip II will probably create a shoal of red herrings.

[Duncan Head]

Besides, one does not build a sumptuous tomb and then dig five feet into the floor to bury the occupant.  It looks like an interment from a time before the tomb was built

But the coffin-space is exactly under the third chamber - quite central, judging from the drawing. So if it is an earlier burial, then the whole tumulus was precisely built on top of it to put this earlier burial in the "place of honour". Which is even weirder than a lack of grave-goods.

I wonder if we could be looking at some sort of regime-change effect. For example Alexander IV was murdered by Krateros; is it possible that K gave him a modest burial, but some later monarch honoured him by erecting the tumulus over the site? (That would presume, of course, that Vergina Tomb III is not Alex IV, which it is often thought to be.) Or is there anyone else prominent in a similar situation?

[Patrick Waterson]

That seems a very reasonable hypothesis.  One feature that made me think the skeleton was from an earlier burial was the lack of any indication that the bones had been cremated, although on reflection this could simply be a failure to mention rather than an actual absence.

The size of the mound suggests that someone wanted to honour a monarch of genuine royal blood as opposed to a mere Lysimachus or Kassander, and if the discovered grave is in fact the intended recipient of honour the likely candidates would seem to be:

> Alexander IV, as suggested (and I think the current favourite).

> Philip Arrhidaeus, Alexander's brother and notional successor, killed by Olympias in 317 BC.

The description of the grave indicates that it had received the attentions of looters, and this brings to mind Plutarch's Pyrrhus 26.6:

After the battle, however, he at once proceeded to occupy the cities. And after getting Aegae into his power, besides other severities exercised upon its inhabitants he left as a garrison in the city some of the Gauls who were making the campaign with him. But the Gauls, a race insatiable of wealth, set themselves to digging up the tombs of the kings who had been buried there; the treasure they plundered, the bones they insolently cast to the four winds.

They may not have confined their activities to Aegae.  If so, then filling the outer chamber with soil which has remained undisturbed since was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had gone.

[Dangun]

If so, then filling the outer chamber with soil which has remained undisturbed since was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had gone.

I apologise for draggin us back to dirt....

But this is very interesting, and I can't come up with a good narrative.
Why would anyone loot the tomb and then re-infill with dirt?

[Duncan Head]

Why would anyone loot the tomb and then re-infill with dirt?

I don't think that's quite the implication: rather, Patrick was suggesting that one party (such as the Gauls) robbed the tomb, and somebody else filled the outer chamber afterwards to stop it being disturbed again.

Alternative possibilities include that the infill was there from the start, and there was no robbery (in which case, it's a surprisingly poorly-furnished burial); or that the infill was there from the start, but the tomb was robbed by tunnelling in from the roof or the sides, not going in through the front door (in which case, the robbers' entry has not yet been found).

[Duncan Head]

So now we have remains from five skeletons in the tomb:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11355324/Mystery-of-Greeces-Alexander-the-Great-era-tomb-deepens-with-body-discoveries.html

http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/44 - links from there to pages about each of the five

Some commenters want it to be Olympias, but the female skeleton is apparently too old for that; the cremated person of uncertain gender is presumably the principal occupant, though.

[Patrick Waterson]

Intriguing.  One of the men is about 45 years old.  Philip Arrhidaeus died at around 43-44 years old (359-317 BC).  The indeterminate cremation might in theory be his wife Eurydice.  Diodorus has them both interred at Aegae rather than Amphipolis - whether they stayed there following the plundering activities of Pyrrhus' Gauls is another matter.

[Jim Webster]

Intriguing.  One of the men is about 45 years old.  Philip Arrhidaeus died at around 43-44 years old (359-317 BC).  The indeterminate cremation might in theory be his wife Eurydice.  Diodorus has them both interred at Aegae rather than Amphipolis - whether they stayed there following the plundering activities of Pyrrhus' Gauls is another matter.

The burial of Philip Arrhidaeus was about 317BC
The sacking of the tombs at Aegae would be about 270BC

Now were the bones 'coffined' or was the body just laid out neatly on the floor?

If they were bones from a grave that had been sacked I'd expect them to be a bit jumbled

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Now were the bones 'coffined' or was the body just laid out neatly on the floor?

If they were bones from a grave that had been sacked I'd expect them to be a bit jumbled

Their Excellencies of the media are a bit coy on this point, but from this link posted by Duncan it appears the skeletons are fragmentary and incomplete, which suggests remnants being gathered and dumped rather than properly laid-out burials.

Hopefully future reporting will be a bit more thorough and explicit.

[Jim Webster]

Jumbled helps the Aegae idea

Jim

[Erpingham]

But jumbled could just mean disturbed - a lot will depend on context e.g. did they look like they were in discrete groups of bones, were there remains of grave goods or tomb furnishings equally jumbled or scattered?

[Patrick Waterson]

We do what soldiers have done since the dawn of soldiering - we wait.  Sooner or later someone will say.