Her own answer is given by Head of the antiquities office of Imathia, Angeliki Kottaridis, in the “certainty” expressed by the historian Eleni Glykatzi – Arveler that the tomb of Alexander the Great is located in Vergina.

The distinguished Byzantine scholar opposed the prevailing view that Vergina’s dead man was Philip II.

Ms. Arveler’s statements were answered today (12/21) in the morning by Angeliki Kottaridis, who was also a student of Manolis Andronikos through the ERT3 show “Day with color”.

The archaeologist specifically stated:

“In science we have two categories. One is data and evidence. In archaeological science, these exist, while there are also the interpretations of the elements.

For what reasons is Alexander the Great excluded?

In between there are cases that can be proven or rejected. We work with evidence, not with theoretical approaches. I will not enter into the discussion with Ms. Arveler, everyone has the weight of their opinion, but we do not talk with theories but with facts. We have a tomb with a dead man in the chamber and a woman in the vestibule. The bones are there, we’ve known them since 1977, they’ve been studied many times by anthropologists. What you can easily determine from studying the bones is the age and gender of the deceased. This dead man is in his fifth decade of life and is around 45, somewhere between 43-47.

It is ruled out by anthropologists to be between 30-33. We’re talking about a 15-year difference, that’s measurable. So it cannot be Alexander who died before he was 33 years old.

We would be very glad to have him, to find his bones, but we have his memory alive and the two earliest depictions of him preserved, the only ones we are sure he himself saw. The very small, 2.5 cm long head from the hunting animal and its image from the fresco.

The tomb of Philip II was built by Alexander himself, he buried his father. The funeral of the ruler is a political event as the next state is established from the funeral.

How it is proved that Philip II is in the tomb

It turns out to be Philip through a series of conjunctive interpretations of events. He is definitely a king and when Andronikos said this he did not have as much evidence as we have today. Since the teacher died, we have dug another 2,000 graves in Aiges. We have a lot of evidence that proves the original hypothesis that the deceased was burned next to it, we have the remains of the fire, we have the gold wreath that started to melt and some acorns were found in the fire, emphasizes Mrs. Kottaridis.
Because it is not Philip the Aridaeus
His bones were placed in the gold box, the gold box in the marble box, and the tomb was closed. Thus, it is impossible that the dead man is Philip the Aridaeus who was executed by Olympias and later recovered as bones, not a body, burned by Cassander at Aiges. He was also close to 40. The archaeologist is not like the historian. The historian makes theories. The archaeologist can also theorize, but things can get you down. It is absolutely certain that he is Philip II. There were various reactions, purely scientific with other archaeologists who said it was Aridaeus and others that were in fact motivated because at that time we also had the issue of Macedonian. It was a conscious effort by foreign centers to cut off the Macedonians from the Greek body and to document neogene formations”.