What happened to remains of "Philip II"?

[Nicolaus]

Greetings. First, I'm a new member, so everyone say hello and be nice to me. Now, to the actual issue:

I am curious; what happened to remains alleged to be those of Philip II of Macedon that were discovered during excavation of the tombs at Vergina? The remains were inside a golden larnax, but are they still inside it or stored somewhere else?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hello and welcome!
When the treasure was originally exposed in the Thessaloniki museum,the bones were displayed there,out of the larnax. In the new museum in Vergina,the larnax and the cloth that covered the bones is displayed but not the bones themselves. This may be because the last years the bones have been further examined and maybe they are still. But you can't see them since years.
Khaire
Giannis

[MeinPanzer]

The bones have been reexamined in recent years, and it is all but certain now that they are the remains of Philip III Arrhidaeus, and not Philip II: see E. N. Borza and O. Palagia, "The Chronology of the Royal Macedonian Tombs at Vergina," JdI 123 (2008). Andronikos first brought the remains to two forensic pathologists who discovered no traces of injuries consistent with Philip's, but, apparently unsatisfied with this answer, he then went to two others who did find traces of such damage. A recent, seemingly more objective reexamination of the skeletal remains lines up with the findings of the first team of pathologists, and, along with dozens of other pieces of evidence outlined by Borza and Palagia, points to this being Arrhidaeus, and the individual interred in Tomb 1 being Philip II.

[Theodosius the Great]

Here's a fresh article on the subject. Tomb Twister: Skeleton May Be Alexander the Great's Father

Here's an excerpt : The researchers argue that a notch in the dead man's eye socket is consistent with a battle wound received by Philip II years before he died, when an arrow pierced his eye and left his face disfigured. They also dispute claims by other scientists that the bones show signs of having been buried, exhumed, burned and re-interred — a morbid chain of events that would fit with what is known about the murder and burial of Alexander the Great's half-brother and successor, Philip III Arrhidaios.

~Theo

[Dan Howard]

So did the iron cuirass come from the tomb of Philip II or Philip III?

[MeinPanzer]

Here's a fresh article on the subject. Tomb Twister: Skeleton May Be Alexander the Great's Father

Here's an excerpt : The researchers argue that a notch in the dead man's eye socket is consistent with a battle wound received by Philip II years before he died, when an arrow pierced his eye and left his face disfigured. They also dispute claims by other scientists that the bones show signs of having been buried, exhumed, burned and re-interred — a morbid chain of events that would fit with what is known about the murder and burial of Alexander the Great's half-brother and successor, Philip III Arrhidaios.

~Theo

I've read this new article challenging Borza and Palagia's conclusion, but I unfortunately can't weigh in considering that I know next to nothing about osteology and pathology. However, I will simply note that conclusions of of examinations of the skeleton in Tomb 2 have vacillated over the years depending on who has done them and what they were told beforehand. Most notably, Andronicos gave the skeleton over to several investigators telling them already that he thought it was Philip II and asking them to confirm it was him - not exactly an objective way to go about things. I only hope that this new article allows the issue to be discussed more widely again.

However, if this conclusion that the body was cremated with the flesh still on the bones, and not after having been exhumed, is correct, then it only rules out Philip III, and doesn't prove anything one way or another about whether this was Philip II. The eye notch has been widely disputed, and I don't think it is as conclusive as they make it out to be. Nonetheless, Borza and Palagia's other conclusions, based on a detailed study of all other aspects of Tomb II and its contents, still hold fast: that this tomb could not have been shut until decades after Philip II's death. We may therefore be looking at somebody else entirely who died in the late 4th c. BC.

So did the iron cuirass come from the tomb of Philip II or Philip III?

If this new conclusion about the bones is correct (and, as someone not informed on osteology, it's really just taking one scholar's word against another), then it is neither Philip II nor Philip III.