Alexander The Great's Family Tombs: An Archaeological Debate

Recent work published by an international team of researchers from Greece, Spain, and the United States has corroborated the original theories from 1977 about who the deceased were, but now presents new arguments about who exactly was where. 

The Great Tumulus, one of many monumental man-made burial mounds at Aegae, contains four burial chambers all dated to the 4th century BCE. Tombs II and III consisted of two monumental vaulted chambers and were unlooted, well-preserved, and contained an incredibly rich collection of objects. 

Tomb I was a smaller cist tomb and had been looted sometime in antiquity. Tomb IV, another monumental tomb, was also disturbed in antiquity. Manolis Andronikos, director of the 1977-78 excavations, initially concluded that Tomb II must have belonged to Philip II, Alexander the Great’s father; Tomb I to Alexander’s less famous half-brother, Arrhideaeus; Tomb III to Alexander IV; and Tomb IV to Cassander (King of Macedonia after Alexander IV’s death). 

These tomb assignments remained the prevailing theory for decades, though the debate between Tomb I and II’s inhabitants has always been present. Tombs III and IV are less contested due to sureties in the historical record and the chronology of the tombs. 

The debate is not without its significance and new conclusions about who exactly is buried where stands to shift not only how we understand the materials within the tombs and how they represented the deceased individuals, but even how we think about the relationship between the historical and archaeological records. 

In order to draw their new conclusions, the research team combined osteological analyses of the human remains with historical records detailing the appearance of and known facts about the individuals in question. They then compared what they could conclude to the chronology of the tombs themselves and their objects.

While it might make more sense to assume that the father of the great conqueror Alexander would have a sumptuous and decked out tomb, the new research urges us to consider the historical circumstances of Philip’s death more closely in relation to the tombs at hand. 

Tomb I, although disturbed in antiquity, is of generally inferior quality with regards to its construction and aesthetics when compared to the elegant vaulting of Tombs II and III. 

Considering that upon Philip’s death Alexander was not yet “The Great” but rather the new, young, and ambitious king of a growing kingdom, it makes sense that a certain amount of frugality was exercised in constructing a royal tomb. This is especially so, considering Alexander would soon thereafter embark on his lengthy and expensive invasion of Asia. 

What is more, the male skeletal remains of Tomb I, though incomplete, coincide more closely with Philip’s age at death (ca. 45 years old) and show significant signs of injuries during life that match quite remarkably to what we know about his physical appearance. 

For instance, we know that around 339 BCE Philip II was nearly fatally injured when he was struck by a lance through his leg, and he retained a limp until his death. The surviving left leg in Tomb I shows a significant fusion and granuloma at the knee from an injury by a penetrating object that likely split the joint in two and then left fragments of the foreign object within the bone. 

Tomb I also contained the remains of a younger female, likely around 18 years old at death, and a newborn infant. We know from ancient authors that Cleopatra, Philip’s seventh and last wife, died very young (Plutarch notes that she was in her late teens) and did not survive long after Philip’s assassination.

The male remains of Tomb II, on the other hand, are more or less perfectly preserved and show no signs of traumatic injury during life. We know for certain that Arrhidaeus did not partake in military campaigns. There is historical evidence to suggest this was due to the fact that he had some mental disabilities and that Alexander kept him from any such engagements. 

The female remains also seem more indicative of an older woman, possibly in her mid to late 20s, and show a certain level of physical wear consistent with frequent horse riding. This would not match what we know of the young Cleopatra, but tracks quite well to Arrhidaeus’ wife, Eurydice II of Macedon, who was known to have been a skilled equestrian and took active roles in military campaigns in her own bids for power. 

In this way, the new research that suggests these altered tomb assignments demands that we also shift how we view the material culture of the burials. In the past, it was quite common for archaeologists to assume gendered identities based on material culture, so it was unsurprising that a rich tomb with weapons within would have been assigned to a renowned warrior king. 

Knowing what we do now, however, about both the skeletal remains and Arrhidaeus and Eurydice’s lives, the fine weaponry inside Tomb II was most likely deposited on Eurydice’s behalf, neither for Arrhidaeus nor Philip II. The sparsity of Philip II’s tomb also sheds light on the financial circumstances of Alexander’s early reign, showcasing the need for tighter purse strings, even for the burial of his father. 

Though these new conclusions are compelling and utilize strong evidence to make their arguments, it must always be noted that we can never say with 100% certainty that these are definitive identifications without surefire evidence such as DNA testing or named inscriptions. However, the arguments presented by this research present an exciting reexamination of a pivotal group of individuals in the history of the ancient world.