8/8/2019 Royal Tomb Eye Injury - Greece

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/royal-tomb-eye-injury-greece 1/5

The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at VerginAuthor(s): Antonis BartsiokasSource: Science, New Series, Vol. 288, No. 5465 (Apr. 21, 2000), pp. 511-514Published by: American Association for the Advancement of ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3075009

Accessed: 21/09/2010 17:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Science.

8/8/2019 Royal Tomb Eye Injury - Greece

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/royal-tomb-eye-injury-greece 2/5

8/8/2019 Royal Tomb Eye Injury - Greece

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/royal-tomb-eye-injury-greece 3/5

REPORTS

tography was used for all points of facial

anatomy at issue (Figs. 1 through4). This

method provided the proper magnification,often termed"natural ize"(1:1) among pho-

tographers; hat is, that obtained between a

microscope lens and a normal camera lens.

As a result, the whole structureunderstudywas included n the photograph, nd the nec-

essarydepthof field was obtained.Here, for

instance, hemagnificationobtained n Fig. 1,with a Minolta 700si camera and a macro

lens, is X4. It could have been much more if

needed. FujichromeSensia film rated at 100

was used at an f-stop of 32 and a shutter

speed of 1/60 s in all close-up pictures.This

method is simple, fast, and portable,but it

requires ome skill in photography.Withmi-

croscopy, it is difficult to obtain such a low

magnificationwith sucha high depthof field.

I examined the male skeleton from Royal

Tomb II in the laboratoriesof the Vergina

ArchaeologicalMuseum in 1998. The bones

were in excellent condition because they

were consolidatedand restoredquitesatisfac-

torily (wherever hat was possible) by Xiroti-ris before 1981 (4).

The bone pathologyof the male skeleton

is crucial as to the identificationof the occu-

pant of Royal Tomb II, because it is histori-

cally known that Philip II, being a warrior,suffered many wounds (5); whereas Arrhi-

daeus, being unwarlike,suffered none (1, 6).These wounds of PhilipIIwouldundoubtedlyhave left their mark on his skeleton. For in-

stance,his rightclavicle was shatteredwith a

lance in 345 or 344 B.C., a wound to his right

femurwas nearly ataland eft PhilipII lame3

years before his death, and anotherwound

maimedhis arm 5). The mostimportantf his

wounds s theblindingwoundPhilip I sufferedto his right eye froman arrowat the siege of

Methone n 354 B.C., 18 yearsbefore he was

assassinatedn 336 B.C. (5).In a thorough nvestigation, ncludingthe

use of radiographyand histology, Xirotiris

andLangenscheidt ound no evidence of any

postcranial njuries,only slight degenerative

changes(4) thatwere apparentlyhe effect of

osteoarthritis. Similarly, Prag and Neave

agreethat there is no evidence of anyfresh or

healed damage to the postcranial skeleton

(7), an observation hat is confirmedhere as

well. The only woundpreviously reportedon

the skeleton of the male occupantof RoyalTombII was an eye injury o the skull (6, 8).

This injuryhas become the hallmarkof theidentificationof the male occupantof RoyalTomb II as Philip II (7) and has led to a

famous reconstruction f his face showing a

scar over his right eye (8). Theoriginalreportfound no morphologicalor radiographic vi-

dence of any injury to the skull that was

consistent with the severe eye wound suf-

feredby Philip II (4). It was concluded that

the hypothesis that Philip II and his wife

Cleopatrawere the occupantsof RoyalTomb

II was supported only by the age and sex

determinations f the human remains(4). In

view of the similarbiological ages of Arrhi-

daeus and his wife Eurydice,the age deter-

minations are no longer conclusive for theidentification of the occupants of Royal

Tomb II(2, 6). Others 6), however, reported

that there is a "notch"on the superiormargin

of the right orbit, supposedly made by the

arrow hatinjuredPhilipII (Figs. 1 and2). It

was also reported hat there is a "pimple"of

bone close to where the supraorbitalnerve

would havepassed; his was citedas evidence

of healingafter the injury 6) (Figs. 1 and2).Inthisway, thealleged eye injury o the skull

(8) providedthe identificationfor the occu-

pantsof Royal Tomb II (5).I studiedthe anatomyof the rightorbit of

the male skull of RoyalTomb II (Figs. 1 and

2) by means of macrophotography.As seenin Figs. 1 and 2 of the right orbit,the "pim-

ple" anatomically correspondsto the bony

protuberanceof the supraorbitalnotch and

therefore does not constitute evidence of

bone remodeling or callus formation. This

bony protuberances even less pronounced

than those of many recent nonpathologicskulls (9). There is some surfacerougheningover thebonyprotuberance, ut there is more

rougheningon the left orbit. Similarly, the

"notch" s identifiedwithwhat is anatomical

ly termed he frontalnotch(Figs. 1and2) and

bears no evidence of healingor callus forma-

tion as would be expectedin a notch madebyan arrowhead.The evidence provided here

regardingthe right orbit may explain thediscrepancy n which the famousreconstruc

tion of the eye scar (8) shows a nick in the

right eyebrow (presumablymade by the de-

scendingarrow)running n direction rom the

upperleft to the lower right (/), whereasthe

small ivoryhead of King PhilipII usedby the

advocates of a Philip II identification(1)shows the brow nick running n the oppositedirection(\). It has been suggestedthat there

is an abnormalasymmetrybetween the two

orbitsof the frontalbone that is caused main-

ly by the notch (6). However,a fracture ine

thatrunsparallel o thesupraorbitalmarginof

the left orbit shows that the bone was lifted

up during cremation, so as to create thisseeming asymmetry (Fig. 4). Regardlessof

the cremation ffects, it is not unusual o have

a supraorbital otch on the rightorbit and a

supraorbitaloramen on the left orbit of the

same skull, resulting n a normalasymmetrybetween the two orbits(10).

It has been reportedthat the male skull

presentsa facial asymmetry hat is the result

of the arrow wound that removed Philip's

right eye (11). Since there is no skeletal

evidence of such an arrow wound, as has

been shown here, it follows that there is no

facial asymmetry at least causedby such an

arrow wound) either. Besides, there is no

reasonwhy such a facial wound would resultin such an extensive bone remodelingthat

would change the whole symmetry of the

face. At the most, it would cause a bone

reaction to a possible infection. But no such

infection is evidencedby the skull.Therehas

also been mentionof a "healed fracture"6,

-ag. 1 (tlet). Ine rigntoroitaimarginortne maleoccupantor KoyaTombIIat Vergina frontalview).The left arrowshows the bonyprotuberancef the supraorbitalotch,and he rightarrow howsthefrontal notch. No evidence of healingor callus formationcan beobserved. Fig. 2 (right).The rightorbitalmarginof the maleoccupantof RoyalTombIIat Vergina internal iew).The left arrowshows the bony protuberancef the supraorbitalotch,andthe righarrow shows the frontal notch. No evidence of healingor callusformation an be observed.

21 APRIL 000 VOL288 SCIENCEwww.sciencemag.org12

. a r a e ~ i i ^ t i '

8/8/2019 Royal Tomb Eye Injury - Greece

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/royal-tomb-eye-injury-greece 4/5

7) at the zygomaticomaxillary uture caused

by the arrow, which after hitting the eye"struck he cheekboneat thejoin betweenthe

maxilla and the zygomaxillare with such

forcethat it caused the suture o openand the

two bones to move out of alignment.A small

piece of bone was knockedaway in the inci-

dent" (7). Again, there is no evidence of

healing at this suture (Fig. 3), because the

trabecularbone is stillexposed, apparentlyfrom a crack made during cremation. If it

were healed,no trabecularwould be exposedbecause 18 years had passed between the

wound and Philip's II death. The suggestedantemortem racture n this area is an artifact

of the skull reconstruction(12). What the

skull shows is bone distortionowing partly o

cremationandpartly o a poorreconstruction

of the facial skeleton. In other words, we

conclude that the "healed fracture" s an ar-

tifact of whatever these bones sufferedpost-mortem.Similarly,the reportedgross asym-

metrybetween the lateral walls of the rightand left maxillarysinuses (7, 13) is a resultof

this poorreconstructionFig. 3). A fragmentof thejugal crest was brokenoff, apparently

duringcremation,and thenbadlyreconstruct-

ed so as to give the impressionof asymmetry.The presence of "osteophytes" 13) (appar-

ently meaning exostosis) andalveolarresorp-tion on the rightside of the alveolarprocess

(11, 13) as a result of possible periodontaldisease is too limited (4) to account for the

seeming asymmetry. Regardingthe state of

preservationn the area of the "nick," here s

no differencebetween whatXirotiris n 1981,

Musgrave n 1983, and myself in 1998 stud-

ied, as can be seen from thephotographs hey

produced 4, 6). Thus,the materialexamined

by Musgraveand myself was not less com-plete or in any way downgraded ince Xiroti-

ris reconstructedt, refuting any suggestionthatdifferingthingswere examined.

It should be noted that the direction of

REPORTS

the "notch" n the orbit is different from the

position of the supposed "healed fracture"

of the cheek; the "notch"goes straightintothe orbit, whereas the supposed "healed

fracture" s in a completely different level

and direction. The arrow could not have

knocked away a piece of bone from the

zygomaticomaxillary suture had it not first

struck the infraorbitalmargin, because theformer

is tucked under the latter.However,no evidence of such injury in the infraor-

bital marginexists. The suggested asymme-

try of the mandible (6, 7) is also the result

of cremation and not the result of congen-ital deformation or injury;the mandible, for

instance, is wider than the maxilla. Bone is

very pliable when on fire. Therefore,bones

in cremations may easily be deformed bythe weight of overlying items, such as burn-ing wood. Experiments in kilns and ovens

can be misleading [see, for example (7,

13)]. In such experiments, the bones are

placed on flat surfaces and remain rather

undistorted without the effect of any over-

lying weight.For various archaeological and histori-cal reasons (1, 6, 14), it is unlikely that

Arrhidaeuswas crematedsoon after death:

It has been suggested that afterArrhidaeus'

assassination and burial by Olympias in

317 B.C., Cassander exhumed, cremated,and reburied Arrhidaeus the following

year;thatis, about6 months after his death.

It seems that Cassanderdid that as a policyto establish his own legitimacy by honoringthe last king of the Argeads. So the critical

question that would determine the identityof the cremains is whether there is any wayof determining from the bones themselves

whether they were cremated with flesharound them or cremated dry (degreased)after the flesh had been decomposed byburial. Fortunately, forensic anthropologycan give the answer: Long bones cremated

dry are nearly intact in size and form and

show negligible warping; they assume a

light brown color and present infrequentand straighttransverse fractures(15). Longbones cremated fleshed are fragmentarywith markedwarping; they assume a white,

blue, and gray color and present frequentand parallel-sided transverse fractures thatare either curved (thumbnail) or serrated

(15) (it is not as yet clear what happens tothe flat bones). In flesh-covered bones, the

mechanical alterations mentioned above

occur because of the denaturationand con-traction of bone collagen at high tempera-tures (16). This produces many transverse

cracksperpendicular o the direction of the

collagen fibers (that is, the long axis of the

bone) and markedwarping as the collagencontractiondragsthe bone mineralalong. If

the bone is dry because of having been

buried in the ground, the collagen-apatitebonds weaken (17) and the collagen is

hydrolyzed into smaller peptide products

(18). Then, during cremation, the collagen

cannot drag the bone mineral along. As aresult, warping and transverse cracking in

dry bone are minimal and of differentkind.Inmechanical erms,the transverse racks

formed in a fleshed bone duringcremation

areperpendicularo the directionof the col-

lagen tensile forces, as when wedging a log.This results in curvedor serrated ransverse

fractures. n drybone, where the tensile forc-

es of thecollagenareweak and the transverse

forcespredominate,he transverse racks arethe result of a "tearing" henomenon; hatis,the shearingforces are perpendicularo the

directionof the crack.This resultsin straighttransverseor step fractures hat extend from

the margin of the longitudinal fracturesacross the bone. Sucha step fracture s shown

in Fig. 5.

As can be observed from the long bones

of the male skeleton,the preservationof the

Fig. 3 (left). The area of zygomaticomaxillaryutureshowing hes;*W\6s\r-es> si S,{ "nick,"hat is, the misalignment f bones owing to the fact that

- ;' \ S t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ometfagerNtsuchenashejeuigaLc ebstbhown dere,re badly tuck:~!'~!:}:~ . t~,,. . , ~ ~~ together.No evidenceof injury an be observed. Fig.4 (right).

+-w>*Xe - j The left orbital marginof the male occupant(internalview).Theasymmetryobservedbetween the two orbits(6) is mainlya postmortemeffect:Thetop partof the bonewas liftedupduring remation.

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCEVOL288 21 APRIL000 513

8/8/2019 Royal Tomb Eye Injury - Greece

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/royal-tomb-eye-injury-greece 5/5