BY DIMOSTHENIS VASILOUDIS

Clash of Theories: Archaeologist Angeliki Kottaridi responds to Byzantine scholar Ahrweiler on why the tomb belonged to Philip II and not Alexander the Great

In the realm of history and archaeology, debates often arise when it comes to interpreting ancient relics and remains. One such intriguing debate revolves around the tomb discovered in Vergina, Greece, and whether it belongs to the legendary Alexander the Great or his father, Philip II. Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler firmly asserted that Alexander the Great lies within, but Angeliki Kottaridi, the head of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Imathia, presents a compelling counterargument. With the help of scholarly insights, we explore the complexities of this academic dispute in this article.

reasons why Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler believes Alexander the Great is buried in Vergina

While most scholars believe that he was laid to rest in Alexandria, there is a bold and heretical claim by Byzantine scholar Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler. She firmly contends that the tomb at Vergina does not house Philip II, as widely accepted, but rather Alexander himself. In this article, we delve into the six compelling reasons behind Ahrweiler's belief and explore the fascinating insights she offers.

The Ivory Effigy of Alexander: Ahrweiler cites the presence of an ivory effigy of Alexander in the tomb at Vergina as one of the most important pieces of evidence. This intricate carving raises questions about the identity of the occupant. Could this elaborate effigy be a custom unseen in other tombs?

The Frieze's Representation: Another compelling argument presented by Ahrweiler is the depiction of the frieze within the tomb. The representation of an action that must have occurred prior to its recording intrigues researchers. Could this be a subtle clue pointing to Alexander's final resting place?

Macedonian's Wish to Be Buried at Home: Ahrweiler highlights the Macedonians' historical desire to be buried in their homeland. This cultural preference for burial in one's place of origin raises doubts about Alexander's purported burial in Alexandria, Egypt.

Time Gap Between Burial and Mausoleum Construction: The time gap between the initial burial and the construction of the mausoleum is a crucial point of contention. Ahrweiler suggests that this timeline discrepancy challenges the conventional narrative surrounding Alexander's burial location.

The Deceased's Height: Ahrweiler draws attention to the height of the deceased individual in the tomb. According to her analysis, it does not match the stature of Philip II but instead aligns more closely with Alexander's own height, adding another layer of complexity to the mystery.

The Huntite Mineral: One of the lesser-known pieces of evidence Ahrweiler brings to light is the presence of huntite, an Egyptian mineral, in the tomb. This mineral's origin in Egypt poses questions about its significance in the context of Alexander's burial.

Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler's unconventional belief that Alexander the Great might be buried in Vergina challenges established historical narratives. Her arguments, though heretical to mainstream archaeologists, provide a fresh perspective on a centuries-old mystery. As the debate continues, it is a testament to the enduring allure of ancient history and the ongoing quest to uncover the truth about one of history's greatest figures. Only time and future generations of archaeologists may determine the ultimate resolution of this captivating puzzle.

Archaeologist Kottaridi explains why the tomb belonged to Philip II, not Alexander the Great

Kottaridi's standpoint is rooted in the principles of archaeological science, where data and evidence reign supreme. She emphasizes that the debate should be grounded in tangible findings rather than theoretical musings. In the tomb, there are remains—a male in the chamber and a female in the vestibule. These bones, meticulously studied since their discovery in 1977, offer critical information. The male's age at death, approximately in his fifth decade of life (around 45 years old), becomes a pivotal factor.

The Age Discrepancy: Kottaridi raises a compelling point by highlighting the age of the deceased. Alexander the Great, the conqueror of vast territories, perished before the age of 33. The age of the male found in the tomb contradicts this fact, as he lived well into his forties. This age gap, which is scientifically measurable, makes it improbable for the tomb to be that of Alexander.

The Case for Philip II: To support her claim, Kottaridi offers a series of combinatorial interpretations of events. She refers to the deceased as a king, which Manolis Andronikos has already stated. However, recent excavations have provided additional evidence. Over 2,000 graves have been unearthed in Aiges since Andronikos's time, strengthening the case for Philip II.

Kottaridi elaborates on the findings, revealing traces of fire and a golden wreath that began to melt within the tomb. These details suggest a ceremonial cremation, a ritual often associated with kings. The bones of the deceased were placed in a gold box, which, in turn, was enclosed within a marble one. This elaborate burial process aligns with the historical accounts of Philip II's death and funeral.

The Historical Context: Kottaridi underscores a crucial distinction between historians and archaeologists. Historians can formulate theories based on existing knowledge, but archaeologists must remain tethered to tangible evidence. In the case of the Vergina tomb, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the presence of Philip II, not Alexander the Great.

The debate over the occupant of the Vergina tomb remains a captivating discourse within the realms of history and archaeology. Angeliki Kottaridi's commitment to empirical data and evidence strengthens the case for Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great. While the allure of Alexander's resting place is undeniable, the scientific scrutiny of the tomb's contents and historical context unequivocally point to the conclusion that it is the final resting place of Philip II. As history and archaeology continue to unveil new insights, this debate will undoubtedly persist, but for now, the evidence tilts in favor of a Macedonian king who, in death, continues to intrigue and captivate the world.