Skip to main content

Vergina: Was Philip II's Tomb Looted in Antiquity?

The stunning finds from Tomb II at Vergina in Macedonia have frequently been taken to be associated with Philip II of Macedon. Eugene N. Borza and Olga Palagia have now talked about why they think the accepted interpretation is incorrect (Sara Goudarzi, "Alexander the Great's "Crown," Shield Discovered?", National Geographic News, April 23, 2008).

Borza comments:
Tomb II is a generation later than Philip II's death.
I agree with this interpretation as the weight inscriptions on the silver from Tomb II cannot, in my view, be earlier than the reign of Alexander the Great (if they were applied in Macedonia). My research (which is due to be published this summer) seems to be cited (without acknowledgement):
a number of silver vessels discovered in Tomb II and Tomb III are inscribed with their ancient weights, which use a measurement system introduced by Alexander the Great a generation after Philip II's death.
So where was Philip II buried? My hunch is that Tomb I is a likely candidate—and that it was looted in 274 BCE.

Who do I think was buried in Tomb II? You will have to wait and see ...

Image
The plain at Vergina from the Royal Palace © David Gill

Comments

David Gill said…
For Olga Palagia's lecture, "The Tomb of Philip at Vergina: Which Philip?. This gives a reference to:
E. N. Borza and O. Palagia, "The Chronology of the Royal Macedonian Tombs at Vergina," JdI 123 (2008), forthcoming [JdI website]
That's a theory. The other theory by professor Andronikos, says that the tomb that has been found at Vergina was the roayl tomb of Philippos. You should say something about that, too. Because Palagia and Borza have not examined the findings, have they?
David Gill said…
My views are now in press. The issue is about the identity of the person buried in Tomb II - not if Philip II was buried at Vergina.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is worth mentioning that all participants in the AIA session on the chronology of the royal Macedonian tombs at Vergina are scholars who traditionally have rejected Andronikos' interpretation. But for those of us who have followed the “Tomb II controversy”, it is well known that they represent just one side of the dispute. Therefore, I would have wished to see also some other names on this list, especially from those advocating the other side. This would have definitely given us a more balanced approach to this long lasting discussion. In any case, it will be interesting to read the forthcoming articles and see if they really add something substantial to the debate.
David Gill said…
My work will appear later this summer. I do not wish to use this posting for a debate that strays too far from looting and the antiquities market. Tomb I was looted in antiquity ...

I was very struck in the 'History Lost' exhibition by the question about what would have happened if the contents of Tomb II had been looted in recent times. Yet we know that elite burials in Macedonia have been looted to provide material for collections outside Greece.
David Gill said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with you that this has nothing to do with looting, but it is worth mentioning that all participants in the AIA session on the chronology of the royal Macedonian tombs at Vergina are scholars who traditionally have rejected Andronikos' interpretation. But for those of us who have followed the “Tomb II controversy”, it is well known that they represent just one side of the dispute. Therefore, I would have wished to see also some other names on this list, especially from those advocating the other side. This would have definitely given us a more balanced approach to this long lasting discussion. In any case, it will be interesting to read the forthcoming articles and see if they really add something substantial to the debate.
David Gill said…
Konstantinos Chilidis writes:

It is worth mentioning that all participants in the AIA session on the chronology of the royal Macedonian tombs at Vergina are those who traditionally have rejected Andronikos' interpretation. But for those of us who have followed the “Tomb II controversy”, it is well known that they represent just one side of the dispute. Therefore, I would have wished to see also some other names on this list especially from those advocating the other side and have a more balanced approach to this long lasting discussion. In any case, it will be interesting to read the forthcoming articles and see if they really add something substantial to the debate.
Gaba said…
I believe Philip the 11 was not buried in tomb 11. I believe that all the royal family are buried in the temple both King and wife are buried in the respective burials according the the tradition of that time.However we dont have concrete evidence of the skeleton that was found belong to Philip the second, but otherwise there is contradicting evidence of how the kings and their wives were buried.The Antiquity found clearly show that it was not in Philip 11's era bur that of later Alexander the greats era. Majak

Popular posts from this blog

Marble bull's head from the temple of Eshmun

Excavations at the temple of Eshmun in Lebanon recovered a marble bull's head. It is now suggested that it was this head, apparently first published in 1967, that was placed on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art (Tom Mashberg, "Met Museum Turns Over Another Relic With Disputed Past to Prosecutors", New York Times August 1, 2017 ). The head is reported to have been handed over to the Manhattan district attorney after a request was received from the Lebanese authorities.

It is suggested that the head may have been looted from an archaeological storage area at Byblos in the 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Mashberg has rehearsed the recent collecting history:
The owners of the bull’s head, Lynda and William Beierwaltes of Colorado, say they have clear title to the item and have sued Manhattan prosecutors for its return.  The Beierwaltes bought the head from a dealer in London in 1996 for more than $1 million and then sold it to another collector, Michael …

Sardinian warrior from "old Swiss collection"

One of the Sardinian bronzes of a warrior was seized from an as yet unnamed Manahattan gallery. It appears to be the one that passed through the Royal-Athena Gallery: Art of the Ancient World 23 (2012) no. 71. The collecting history for that warrior suggests that it was acquired in 1990 from a private collection in Geneva.

Other clues suggested that the warrior has resided in a New York private collection.

The identity of the private collection in Geneva will no doubt be telling.

The warrior also features in this news story: Jennifer Peltz, "Looted statues, pottery returned to Italy after probe in NYC", ABC News May 25 2017.

Attic amphora handed back to Italians

The research of Dr Christos Tsirogiannis has led to the return of an Attic red-figured amphora, attributed to the Harrow painter, to Italy (Tom Mashberg, "Stolen Etruscan Vessel to Be Returned to Italy", New York Times March 16, 2017).

The amphora is known to have passed through the hands of Swiss-based dealer Gianfranco Becchina in 1993, and then through a New York gallery around 2000 (although its movements between those dates are as yet undisclosed).

During the ceremony, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the District Attorney stated:
“When looters overrun historic sites, mine sacred spaces for prized relics, and peddle stolen property for top dollar, they do so with the implicit endorsement of all those who knowingly trade in stolen antiquities” More research clearly needs to be conducted on how material handled by Becchina passed into the North American market and into the hands of private and public collectors.