Queen Esther wife of Xerxes: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence

Queen Esther wife of Xerxes Chronological, Historical and

Archaeological Evidence

Gérard GERTOUX PhD candidate in Archaeology and history of Ancient World

EDITION 2016

2 QUEEN ESTHER WIFE OF XERXES: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Jacket photograph: Head of Queen Esther (H 6.6 cm) in lapis lazuli from Persepolis (5th century BCE).

National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

Queen Esther (right, H 3.2 cm) in front of Atossa (Darius' wife and Xerxes' mother) seated on a throne (probably when she married Xerxes in 489 BCE). Musée du Louvre, Paris. Seal dated 5th century BCE (AO 22359).

The Book of Esther: fairy tale or history?

Abstract. Very few Bible scholars believe now in the historicity of the book of Esther, but what is really incomprehensible is that their conclusion is based only on the following prejudice: this story looks like a fairy tale, consequently, it is a fairy tale! There is no chronological investigation despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history and there has been no historical research among archaeological witnesses despite the fact that apart from ancient texts there is no witness. Worse still, to establish their chronology, historians have blind faith in the Babylonian king lists which are nevertheless false (reporting no usurpation and no co-regency). Additionally, in order to establish historical truth, they regularly quote the official propaganda of the time which is very often misleading. Yet it is easy to check in the tablets of Persepolis that Mordecai was an eminent royal scribe called Marduka who worked with Tatennai, the governor beyond the River, under the direction of Uštanu, the satrap of Babylon, during the years 17 to 32 of Darius. Similarly, the narrative of Herodotus regarding Amestris (a name meaning ‘vigorous woman’ in Old Persian), Xerxes' unique wife and only queen known in Persia, corresponds in many ways to Esther (‘star’ in Old Persian”) despite the unfavourable and biased description of the Persian queen.

HOW TO ESTABLISH HISTORICAL TRUTH?

“What is truth” Pilate said to Jesus (John 18:38). For historians, "truth" is based on two main pillars: 1) an accurate chronology (Herodotus’ principle) anchored on absolute dates and 2) reliable documents (Thucydides’ principle) coming from critical editions. To check the accuracy of the Book of Esther, unfortunately, historians prefer to refer to eminent experts rather than to the two previous pillars. For example, Adele Berlin wrote an article “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling1” in which she explains that "scholar so and so number 1" says this, but "scholar so and so number 2" thinks that, however "scholar so and so number 3" believes this, and so on, and her conclusion is: My main point is that Esther typifies storytelling about Persia from the Persian period. It takes some of its motifs from biblical literature, and it partakes of many others from the broader literary world of its time, preserved for us most abundantly in the Greek writings. We should, therefore, use these Greek writings in connection with Esther for literary purposes, not for historical purposes. In a similar way the Jerusalem Bible2 (official Bible translation of Catholicism) explains in its introduction to the Book of Esther: The decree Xerxes agreed to sign for the extermination of Jews is hard to reconcile with the tolerant policy of Achaemenids; it is even less likely that he authorized the slaughter of his own people and left 75,000 Persians to be killed without resistance. According to the dates given by the narrative, the Queen of Persia, wife of Xerxes, was to be named Amestris, and the great history leaves no room for Vashti or Esther (...) This amazing taking of liberty can only be explained if the authors wanted to do something other than a work of history. It is likely that they have used from real events, but one cannot determine what they were. Catholic bishops are even more incisive3: The Book of Esther tells a story of the deliverance of the Jewish people. We are shown a Persian emperor, Ahasuerus (loosely based on Xerxes, 485–464 B.C.), who makes momentous decisions for trivial reasons, and his wicked minister, Haman who takes advantage of the king’s compliance to pursue a personal vendetta (...) The book is a free composition, not a historical document. Its fictional character can be illustrated by many examples of literary motifs (...) There are many exaggerations, and even sarcastic implausibilities (cf. the effect of Vashti’s disobedience in 1:17-18), and huge ironies (e.g. 6:6,10). The work is a composite of reversals (cf. 9:1) in the lives of individuals. Some scholars, like William Shea, are more balanced: In summary, all five of Moore's major arguments against the historicity of Esther have been weighed here, two in detail and three more briefly, and they have

1 A. BERLIN - The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling in: Journal of Biblical Literature 120:1 (2001), pp. 3-14. 2 La Bible de Jérusalem. Paris 1986, Ed. Cerf, pp. 533-535. 3 http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=esther&ch=


been found wanting in greater or lesser degree. This does not prove Esther to be essentially historical, but it does open the door to that possibility to a great extent, and future arguments against its historicity should be based upon more historical merit than these. Before one describes the Book of Esther as a novella akin to A Thousand and One Nights, as Moore has done, more attention should be given to the historical details in the book itself and in our sources from this period, fragmentary though they be4. Pierre Briant5, a prominent historian, explains why official historians continue to propagate an official history resulting from King Lists, even if they are obviously biased: Generations of historians have been asking the question: Was Gaumata really the usurper called “magus” by Darius, or was he just an invention of Darius, because he was anxious to conceal that it was really he who had overthrown Bardiya, the true son of Cyrus (...) When, with good reason, the modern historian casts doubt on the reality of the execution of Bardiya, the entire structure collapses like a house of cards. But it must also be remembered that nothing has been established with certainty at the present time, given the available evidence. The historian is reduced to arguing for probabilities and choosing the option that appears the least uncertain. To explore the problem, we must now entertain the hypothesis, these days generally accepted, of a deception devised by Darius himself. In his Newspeak, Professor Briant calls the truth "hypothesis", because if "truth" is used his entire "official history" collapses like a house of cards. In contrast, if one uses an accurate chronology anchored on absolute dates and reliable documents coming from critical editions, truth is attainable (see Annex). The official reign of Darius from King lists (below) is quite different from his real reign from Babylonian dated contracts:

year month official reign real reign King 523 4 I 7 7 Cambyses II

King of Babylon, King of Lands 5 II 6 III 7 IV (Lunar eclipse dated July 16, 523 BCE) 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

522 1 X (Lunar eclipse dated January 10, 522 BCE) 2 XI 3 XII 0 Cambyses II / Bardiya King of Lands 4 I 1 8 8 1 5 II 2 0 0 Bardiya King of Babylon, King of Lands 6 III 3 7 IV 4 8 V 5 9 VI 6 10 VII 7 0 Nebuchadnezzar III King of Babylon 11 VIII 8 12 IX 9 0 0 Darius I King of Babylon, King of Lands

521 1 X 10 2 XI 11 [0] Nebuchadnezzar IV King of Babylon

3 XII 12 4 I 13 1 1 1 5 II 14 6 III 15 7 IV 16 8 V 17 9 VI 18 10 VII 19 11 VIII 20 12 IX

4 W.H. SHEA – Esther and History in: Concordia Journal (July 1987), pp. 234-248. 5 P.BRIANT – From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire Leiden 2002, Eisenbrauns, pp. 100-101.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER: FAIRY TALE OR HISTORY? 5

Based on the historical reconstruction, it is easy to see that Bardiya was made co-regent of Cambyses II at the end of Year 7 and thus that he was the legitimate king, murdered by Darius I when Nebuchadnezzar III began to revolt. Official history collapses! In fact, if absolute dates are used, the whole currently official Persian history collapses. For some unexplained reason, the number of tablets decreases sharply after Darius’ death6 (see opposite figure), probably because papyrus was used instead of clay tablets, which makes chronological reconstitution harder. Regarding the official reign of Xerxes coming from King Lists (like the tablet BM 34576) and propagated by official historians, it is completely different from the one reconstructed from dated contracts (see Annex). In addition, the following reconstruction is fully confirmed by the dating coming from the most reliable Greek historians like Thucydides and Herodotus. It is obvious that this chronology based on absolute dates (highlighted in blue) completely changes the interpretation of the events mentioned in the Book of Esther (highlighted in green).

year King Historical event Reference 502 Darius 20 (lunar eclipse 19 November 502 BCE) Almagest IV:9.11 501 21 500 22 Atossa (Udusana) is mentioned PF 0163 499 23 Hystaspes is governor of Parthia PF 1596 498 24 Xerxes is governor of Parthia PF-NN 1657 497 25 496 Darius / Xerxes 26- 0 Building of Xerxes new palace (BM 30589) BM 42567 495 27- 1 BM 75396 494 28- 2 493 29- 3 End of the Ionian Revolt (Herodotus VI:17-18,31) Esther 1:3 492 30- 4 491 31- 5 (lunar eclipse 25 April 491 BCE) Almagest IV:9.11 490 32- 6 Battle of Marathon (August 490 BCE) 489 33- 7 Xerxes married Esther (December 489 BCE) Esther 2:16-17 488 34- 8 487 35- 9 486 36-10 0 Death of Darius (8 December 486 BCE) 485 Xerxes 11 1 (1) War preparations (Herodotus VII:1-4) 484 12 2 (2) " Esther 3:7;10:1 483 13 3 (3) " (Mardocai died) 482 14 4 (4) " 481 15 5 (5) " 480 16 6 Battle of Salamis (September 480 BCE) 479 17 7 Battle of Plataea (August 479 BCE) 478 18 8 477 19 9 476 20 10 Siege of Eion, fall of Skyros (Life of Theseus §§35,36) 475 Artaxerxes I 0 - 21 11 Battle of Naxos (the last one during Xerxes’ reign) BM 32234 474 1 Themistocles met Artaxerxes (Thucydides I:98,137) 473 2 472 3 Performance of Aeschylus’ play (end of Xerxes’ empire) “The Persians” 471 4 Death of Themistocles (Diodorus XI:58:3-60:1) 470 5 Battle of the Eurymedon (Plutarch -Cimon 8;12)

6 J. EVERLING - Répartition chronologique et géographique des sources babyloniennes in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (2000) pp. 42-45.


CHRONOLOGICAL CHECKING OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Checking the chronology of the Book of Esther is very difficult for the following reason: all the Persian archives were destroyed by fire and the main (indirect) witness of that period comes from the Greek histories of Herodotus. Susa became part of the Persian Empire under Cyrus II in 539 BCE. During the balance of the Achaemenian period, Susa functioned as one of the rotating capitals (a winter capital) of the Achaemenian Kings. Darius I built an extensive palace complex ca. 520 BCE7, and Herodotus mentions Susa as being the capital of Darius' empire (Herodotus does not make any mention of Persepolis being a Persian capital). The palace complex -whose building continued under Darius' son Xerxes- was destroyed by a fire during the reign of Artaxerxes I and then restored 50 years later by his grandson, Artaxerxes II. According to Strabo, Alexander burnt up the palace at Persepolis, to avenge the Greeks, because the Persians had destroyed both temples and cities of the Greeks by fire and sword (Geography XV:3:6). According to the Book of Esther, annals of the kings of Media and Persia were written on books (scrolls), not clay tablets, recorded in Susa (Est 2:23; 6:1; 10:2) and Ecbatana (Ezr 6:1-2). Thus, the main sources for the history of the Jews during the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Persian Empire are the biblical books, supplemented by important cuneiform texts (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, the Yaukin Tablets), Old Persian inscriptions, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Murashu archive, and archaeological excavations in Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia. Some ostraca, seals, and bullae also offer specific corroborative evidence. Later Greek sources such as Herodotus, Ctesias, Berossus, and Josephus provide some further information. Nevertheless, the biblical texts remain the most important narrative sources8. Contrary to what is frequently claimed, the Book of Esther is not an Oriental novel, like "Once upon a time in a faraway land", but a precise record of numerous Persian events accurately dated9, which are supposed to have taken place in the court of an Achaemenian king, called in the Hebrew text Aḥašweroš (Ahasuerus), a name which has been plausibly interpreted as a transcription of the name Xšayārša (Xerxes). For example, the first event mentioned is: This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush (Ethiopia): At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa, and in the 3rd year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present. For a full 180 days he displayed the vast wealth of his kingdom and the splendour and glory of his majesty. When these days were over, the king gave a banquet, lasting 7 days, in the enclosed garden of the king’s palace, for all the people from the least to the greatest who were in the citadel of Susa (Est 1:1-4; New International Version). The reason for this huge banquet, dated in the spring 493 BCE, is not directly mentioned but it had have been given for celebrating a victory because the first guests among the nobles and officials are the military leaders of Persia and Media. According to Greek historians, we know that there was the Ionian Revolt from 499 to 493 BCE10. Herodotus wrote: After wintering [early 493 BCE] around Miletus, the Persian fleet sailed forth next year [spring 493 BCE] and captured the islands off the mainland with ease: Chios, Lesbos and Tenedos (...) They captured the Ionian cities on the mainland similarly, although they did not net the people, as it could not be done there (...) From Ionia the fleet departed and captured all the places on the left of the

7 M.-J. STEVE, F. VALLAT, H. GASCHE - Suse in: Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible fas. 73 (Letouzey & Ané, 2003), pp. 359-511. 8 E. YAMAUCHI - The Eastern Jewish Diaspora under the Babylonians in: Mesopotamia and the Bible (A&C Black, 2003), pp. 356-377. 9 L. SOUBIGOU – Esther, introduction. Valeur historique in: La Sainte Bible (L. Pirot, A. Clamer, 1949) Tome IV, pp. 593-600. 10 A. KUHRT – The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period London 2010, Ed. Routledge, pp. 210-230.


entrance of the Hellespont (The Histories VI:31-33). Several details in the narrative seem exaggerated but have been confirmed by archaeology. For example, the courtyard of the garden of the king's palace in Susa (Est 1:5) and the outer courtyard of the king's house (Est 6:4) could actually receive several thousand people because according to excavations, these courtyards were large squares of 60 meters length each side11. In addition, the description of the palace (below) is exact: Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace [room n°6], opposite the king's hall [room n°5]. The king was sitting on his royal throne inside the palace opposite the entrance to the palace (Est 5:1).

Palace of Darius I in Susa

11 M.-J. STEVE, F. VALLAT, H. GASCHE – Suse in: Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible fas. 73 (Letouzey & Ané, 2003), pp. 491-492.


The phrase “Xerxes ruled 127 provinces (medinah) stretching from India to Cush” is considered an exaggeration because the inscriptions of Darius (DNa§6) or Xerxes (XPh§3) mention at best 31 satrapies12. Once more the accusation is unfounded, because it is stipulated a little further: Then the king's secretaries were summoned on the 13th day of the 1st month, and an edict, according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king's satraps (aḥašdarpenim) and to the governors (paḥôṭ) over all the provinces and to the princes (śarey) of all the peoples, to every province (medinah) in its own script and every people in its own language (Esther 3:12, 8:9). Herodotus explains how the Persian administration was working: Having done these things in Persia, he [Darius I] divided his empire into 20 dominions [arke], which they call satrapies; and having divided his dominions into provinces he appointed governors, then he instructed each people to pay him tribute, consolidating neighbouring peoples and distributing outlying peoples among different provinces, passing over those adjoining (The Histories III:89)13. Herodotus gives a list of 20 satrapies comprising 65 provinces, but given that his numbering of satrapies is too low (30 is more likely) and the description of some of them is obviously partial (explanations of the discrepancies are controversial)14, the whole number of provinces had rather to be around 120 (30 satrapies multiplied by 4 provinces in each satrapy).

DNa§6 inscription = Herodotus (The Histories III:89-92) 1 Persia 9 The Ionians, Magnesians of Asia, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians, Milyans, and

Pamphylians. 2 Elam 8 The Mysians, Lydians, Lasonians, Cabalians, and Hytennians. 3 Babylonia The Hellespontians on the right of the entrance of the straits, the Phrygians,

Thracians of Asia, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Syrians (of Cappadocia). 4 Assyria Cilicia. 5 Arabia 7 The country between Posideion (Ras al-Bassit) and Egypt; in this province was all

Phoenicia, and the part of Syria called Palestine, and Cyprus. 6 Egypt 6 Egypt and the neighbouring parts of Libya, and Cyrene and Barca. 7 Those of the Sea The Sattagydae, Gandarii, Dadicae, and Aparytae. 8 Lydia 2 Susa (Elamites) and the rest of the Cissian country. 9 Ionia 3 Babylon and the rest of Assyria. 10 Media 10 Ecbatana and the rest of Media, with the Paricanians and Orthocorybantians.

Another disputed point is the role of the satrap ruling the satrapy called “Those of the sea (Phoenicia, Palestine and Cyprus)” over the governor of one of his provinces, like the governor of Palestine (Judea). No Babylonian or Persian document indicates the number of provinces and satrapies, there are only the following:

King Date (BCE) Satrapies Provinces Document Reference Darius (the Mede) 538 (3) 120 Nabonidus Chronicle Daniel 6:1-2 Darius I 520 23 (127?) Inscription DB§6 Xerxes 484 31 127 Inscription XPh§3 Esther 1:1; Artaxerxes I 450 20 (?) 65 (?) Herodotus III:89-92

According to the Nabonidus Chronicle15: He [Cyrus] appointed Gubaru, his governor, over the local governors of Babylon, but this report is very misleading (see the article Ugbaru is Darius the Mede) because Gubaru/Ugbaru was actually co-regent of Cyrus and the new (effective)

12 P. LECOQ – Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997, Ed. Gallimard, pp. 130-153. 13 A. BARGUET – Hérodote L’enquête. Livres I à IV Paris 2002, Ed. Gallimard (collection folio classique), pp. 318-319. 14 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-satrapies A. BARGUET – Bulletin d’Histoire Achéménide (I) in: Topoi, Supplement 1 (1997) pp. 77-90. 15 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge p. 51.


king of Babylon who established governors over his kingdom. Given that Herodotus wrote his book around 450 BCE he had to refer to the Persian data of his time. While initially we have (in 538 BCE): 1 satrapy = 1 province, but quickly (from 520 BCE) Darius made associations of 3 to 8 provinces in each satrapy. The term "governor" means merely "ruler/ chief", it was used as the typical title for governor’s of province. The presence of small and large provinces inside a satrapy induced a hierarchical relationship between chief-governors (bel piḫati) and under-governors (šakin ṭemi). The word “satrap”, from the Old Persian kšathrapan, was translated piḫatu “governor” into Babylonian and hegemon into Greek but also transcripted satrapes (’aḥašdarpan into Aramaic). The title “under-governor” was translated hyparchos “subordinate governor”. However, even in official documents the use of all these hierarchical titles was not always consistent16. Another problem of transcription concerns names of kings17, since the biblical text uses only official names, which are throne names18 (for example, Darius II’s birth name was Vahuka in Old Persian or Umakush in Babylonian), not birth names. Obviously when a king had been considered later as a usurper* (asterisked name), no official inscriptions used his throne name. What further complicates things is the fact that Persian rulers used Persian names, which were changed into cuneiform by Babylonian scribes, then translated into Aramaic and copied in Hebrew in the Bible by Jewish scribes19 and finally transcribed into Greek (LXX). Thus, “Xerxes” is closer to Old Persian than the Greek “Ahasuerus”.

Throne name Reign Birth-name Nickname Reference Evil-Merodach 562-560 Nabû-šuma-ukîn Jr 52:31

Darius* (the Mede) 539-538 Ubaruš? King of the diviner (UG-baru) Dn 5:31 Artaxerxes* 523-522 Bardiya Gaumata, the magus Ezr 4:7 Darius (I) 522-486 Darius? King of kings Ezr 4:5

Xerxes 496-475 Xerxes? King Ezr 4:6 [Vashti] [498-493] Vashti? ? Est 1:9 [Esther°] [489-475] Hadassa Strong wife (Amestris) Est 2:7

Artaxerxes (I) 475-425 Cyrus Long-Hand Ezr 7:1 Darius (II the Persian) 424-403 Vahuka Bastard (Nothos) Ne 12:22

Biblical name Old Persian Babylonian Greek Egyptian Evil-merodach Amel-Marduk Oulaimadakhar Darius* (the Mede) Ubarush Ugbaru Oibaras/Harpagus Artaxerxes* Bardiya “Magus” Smerdis Zerubabbel Sheshbazzar Zer-babili Zorobabel Daniel Balat-shar-utsur Baltasar Hananyah Tshithraka Shadrach Hananias Mishael Mitshaka Mishach Misael Azaryah Abed-nabu Azarias Darius (I) Darayavahush Dariamush Dareios Antaruyuasha Xerxes Xshayarsha Khishiarshu Ahasuerus Khashayarusha Mordecai Marduka Mardukaya Mardochaios Esther Stara Ishtar Esther Artaxerxes (I) Artaxshatsa Artakshatsu Artoxerxes Darius (II the Persian) Vahuka Umakush Ochos

16 T. PETIT – Satrapes et satrapies dans l'empire achéménide de Cyrus le Grand à Xerxès Ier Paris 1990, Ed Librairie Droz, pp. 15-21. 17 Bardiya is called Mardus by Aeschylus (472 BCE), Smerdis by Herodotus (450 BCE), Tanyoxarkes by Ctesias (400 BCE), etc. 18 M. A. DANDAMAEV – A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire Leiden 1989, Ed Brill, pp. 103-113. 19 The name Mehuman (Est 1:10) comes from the Old Persian name Vahumanah “intelligent”; Hammedatha (Est 3:1) from the Old Persian name Amadāta “strongly made”, which is written Ha-ma-da-da in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (PF 1459).


It is noted that the Hebrew transcriptions of Persian and Babylonian names are generally faithful to the original20, which enables one to find genuine names21 and their meaning22. For example, Zerubabbel (1Ch 3:19) comes from zer-babili “Offspring of Babel”, this name was changed into “Sheshbazzar” (Ezr 1:8-11). In fact, Jewish names were changed into Babylonian (or Persian) genuine names: Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego (Dn 1:6-7). Belteshazzar and Abednego are Babylonian names (balaṭ-ša[r]-uṣur “protect king’s life”, ‘ebed-nabu “servant of Nabu”) and Meschah is maybe of Old Persian origin (miṣ[r]-ka “to Mithra”). The name "Mordecai" means nothing but can be understood in Aramaic as "the Mardukite (mardukaya)" in the sense of "the Babylonian". Description of the administrative organization of the Persian Empire in the Bible is accurate especially Babylonia, its main satrapy. Once it was created, Babylonia remained a kingdom for 4 years (539-535) then it became a satrapy with a governor named Gubaru (535-525), which was connected by Darius I (c. 520 BCE) with another satrapy called "those [lands] of the sea (including Phoenicia, Palestine, Cyprus)" or "[lands] beyond the River (Euphrates)". During this time we know the names of a few governors: Zerubbabel (538-525?) then Hananiah (525-500?) for the province of Judea (Ezr 1:8,3:8; 1Ch 3:19), Nabonidus, the former king of Babylon, for the satrapy of Carmania (Jewish Antiquities X:247-249) and Mahlaï (525-500?), an ally of Persia (The Histories III:91), for the kingdom of Arabia23. The former kingdom of Babylon became a Persian province only after Darius' death and it is worthwhile noting that during his reign, Babylon was a satrapy of two big provinces (Babylonia and [lands] Beyond the River) and its ruler has been called "Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River24". Thus the governor of the land of Judea was under the authority of Tattannu, the governor of [the lands] Beyond the River, exactly as the Bible reports: The copy of the letter which Tattenai the governor of the province Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and his associates the governors who were in the province Beyond the River sent to Darius the king (Ezr 5:6). According to the Bible, Rehum ruled (538?-522) the province Beyond the River as “royal prefect” (Ezr 4:7-21), before Tattenai.

Ruler of Babylon Period Babylonia as: Title Ugbaru 539-538 Kingdom [King] of Babylon

Cambyses II 538-535 Kingdom King of Babylon Gubaru 535-525 Satrapy Governor of Babylon Uštanu 522-490? Satrapy and Province Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River Ḫuta-x-x 490?-486 Satrapy and Province Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River Zopyrus 486-485 Province Provincial Governor of Babylon

Ruler Period Title Area Darius I 522-486 King of Babylon and lands Empire Uštanu 522-490? Governor of Babylon and [lands] Beyond the River Satrapy

Tattannu 522-489 (City Governor) Governor of [lands] Beyond the River Province Hananiah? 525?-500? Governor of Judea Land

20 A.R. MILLARD – The Persian Names in Esther and the Reliability of the Hebrew Text in: Journal of Biblical Literature 96:4 (1977), pp. 481-488. 21 R. ZADOK – Old iranian anthroponyms and related material in late babylonian sources in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 98 (2004), pp. 109-120. 22 Darius “Who maintains the good”; Ubaruš “Who has well-formed shoulders”; Xerxes “Who heads the heroes”; Artaxerxes “Whose reign is right”; Vashti “Excellent”; Esther “Star”; Hadassa “Myrte”; Amestris “Strong wife”; Vahuka “The good one”; 23 A. LEMAIRE – Histoire de la Palestine à l’époque perse in: La Palestine à l’époque perse (Cerf, 1994), pp. 11-53. 24 M.W. STOLPER – The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River in 486 B.C. in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48:4 (1989), pp. 283-305. F. JOANNÈS – La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.-C. Paris 2002, Ed. Armand Collin, pp. 144-147.


The fact that Hananiah and Elnathan were governors of the province of Judah (Yehud) is unclear25 but Tattannu, also called Nabû-tattannu-uṣur, is well attested26. He had to collaborate with Uštanu the governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (satrapy).

Province of [lands] Beyond the River Governor Yehud Arabia Samaria

Rehum 538-522 Zerubabbel 538-525? ? ? Tattannu 522 - Hananiah? 525?-500? Mahlaï 525?-500? ?

-489 Elnathan? 500?-475? Iyâs 500?-475? ? ? Ezra? 468-467 Sahru 475?-450? ? ? Nehemiah 455-443 Gashmu 450?-425? Sin’uballit 450? -

Belshunu 429?-401 Bagohi 410-407 Qaïnu 425?-400? -400?

25 H.G.M. WILLIAMSON – The Governors of Judah under the Persians in: Tyndale Bulletin 39 (1988), pp. pp. 59-82. 26 M. JURSA, M.W. STOLPER – From the Tattannu Archive Fragment in: Wiener Zeitshrift für die kunde des morgenlandes 97 (2007), pp. 243-281.


Historical information about the Transeuphratene area “Beyond the river” given by Herodotus and the Bible during Darius I’s reign, as names and titles of rulers, as well as chronological data is extremely reliable27. Similarly, during Artaxerxes I’s reign, according to Nehemiah, the governor of Judah: Then I came to the governors beyond the River, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent with me captains of the army and horsemen. And when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite (...) But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us (Ne 2:9-10,19). Evidences for the existences of Sanballat (Sin’uballit ‘Sin gives life’), the governor of Samaria, and Geshem (Gashmu ‘rain’), the governor of Arabia (and king of Qedar), have been discovered by archaeologists28. It should be acknowledged that archaeological findings are difficult for archaeologists to interpret because available sources are essentially the biblical texts29. It is interesting to note that one of the governors of Babylon, had the Persian title vardana-pāti “Chief of the town” in a series of tablets dated between 518 and 501 BCE30 and another, Bagapana31, was City-Governor (šakin ṭemi) of Babylon in Year 19 of Darius (503), but not Governor (piḫatu). During the reign of Darius I the hierarchical structure of power in the Persian Empire between the satrapy of Babylon, her 2 provinces (Babylon, Beyond the River) and the land of Judah, was as follows:

RULER AND TITLE Period Darius I King of Babylon and Lands 522-486

Uštanu Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River (Satrapy) 522-490? Iddin-Nergal/ Bagapana City-Governor of Babylon

Tattannu Provincial Governor of Beyond the River

522-489

Mahlaï King of Arabia Hananiah Governor of Judah [525?-500?]

HISTORICAL CHECKING OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Important events mentioned in the book of Esther (Xerxes' wedding, the plot against the king, the attempted genocide against the Jews in the Persian empire) took place over a relatively short period of time, from the years 3 to 12 of Xerxes (493-484 BCE). Regarding Xerxes' marriage, the first point of agreement between the Book of Esther and Greek historians is that this king was always monogamous: After these things, when the rage of King Ahasuerus had subsided, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what had been decided against her. Then the king’s attendants, his ministers, said: “Let them seek young women, virgins, beautiful in appearance, for the king, and let the king appoint commissioners in all the jurisdictional districts of his realm, and let them collect together all the young women, virgins, beautiful in appearance, at Susa the castle, at the house of the women in charge of Hegai the king’s eunuch, the guardian of the women; and let there be a giving of their massages. And that young woman who seems pleasing in the king’s eyes will be queen instead of Vashti.” And the thing was pleasing in the king’s eyes, and he proceeded to do that way. A certain man, a Jew, happened to be in Susa the castle, and his name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish a Benjaminite, who had been taken into exile from Jerusalem with the deported people who were taken into exile with Jeconiah the king of Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon took into exile [in October 597 BCE]. And he came to be the caretaker of Hadassah, that is, Esther, the daughter of his father’s brother, for she had neither father nor mother; and the young woman was

27 T. PETIT – Satrapes et satrapies dans l'empire achéménide de Cyrus le Grand à Xerxès Ier Paris 1990, Ed Librairie Droz, pp. 174-221. 28 A. LEMAIRE – Histoire de la Palestine à l’époque perse in: La Palestine à l’époque perse (Cerf, 1994), pp. 26-27,42-43. 29 C.E. CARTER – The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study Sheffield 1999, Ed. Sheffield Academic Press pp. 50-60. 30 P.BRIANT – From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire Leiden 2002, Eisenbrauns, p. 485. 31 J. MACGINNIS – A Judgment of Darius the King in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 60 (2008), pp. 87-99.


pretty in form and beautiful in appearance, and at the death of her father and her mother Mordecai took her as his daughter. And it came about that, when the king’s word and his law were heard, and when many young women were collected together at Susa the castle in charge of Hegai, then Esther was taken to the king’s house in charge of Hegai the guardian of the women. Now the young woman was pleasing in his eyes, so that she gained loving-kindness before him and he made haste to give her her massages and her appropriate food, and to give her seven selected young women from the king’s house, and he proceeded to transfer her and her young women to the best place of the house of the women. Esther had not told about her people or about her relatives, for Mordecai himself had laid the command upon her that she should not tell. And day after day Mordecai was walking before the courtyard of the house of the women to know of Esther’s welfare and what was being done with her. And when the turn of each young woman arrived to go in to King Ahasuerus after it had happened to her according to the women’s regulation for 12 months, for that was the way the days of their massage procedure were gradually fulfilled, 6 months with oil of myrrh and 6 months with balsam oil and with the massages of the women; then on these conditions the young woman herself came in to the king. Everything that she would mention would be given her, to come with her from the house of the women to the king’s house. In the evening she herself came in, and in the morning she herself returned to the second house of the women in charge of Shaashgaz the king’s eunuch, the guardian of the concubines. She would not come in anymore to the king unless the king had taken delight in her and she had been called by name. And when the turn of Esther the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, whom he had taken as his daughter, arrived to come in to the king, she did not request anything except what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the guardian of the women, proceeded to mention (all the while Esther was continually gaining favor in the eyes of everyone seeing her). Then Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus at his royal house in the 10th month, that is, the month Tebeth, in the 7th year of his reign [December 489 BCE]. And the king came to love Esther more than all the other women, so that she gained more favor and loving-kindness before him than all the other virgins. And he proceeded to put the royal headdress upon her head and make her queen instead of Vashti. And the king went on to hold a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther; and an amnesty for the jurisdictional districts he granted, and he kept giving presents according to the means of the king. Now when virgins were collected together a second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate (Est 2:1-20). Did Mordecai and Esther leave traces in the Neo-Babylonian documents? The name "Mordecai (Mar-duk-ka)" is relatively rare; it is sometimes found during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus32, unlike the name "Marduk", typically Babylonian (always written dAMAR.UTU “calf-sun”, originally pronounced amarutuk)33, which was widely used. For example, a contract dated 16/XI/8 of Nebuchadnezzar (February 596 BCE) reads34: Adi’ilu, son of Nabu-zer-iddina, and Ḫuliti, his wife (the divine Ḫulitum) have sold Marduka, their son, for the price agreed upon, to Šula, son of Zer-ukin. The liability to defeasor and pre-emptor, which is upon Marduka, Adi’ilu and Addaku respond for. Among the cuneiform sources dating to the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, of which 16,000 have been published35, there are only 2 individuals bearing the name Marduka: an entrepreneur36 who did business under Nabonidus until the year 5 of Cyrus (534 BCE), and a administrative superintendent37 who

32 R.P. DOUGHERTY – Archives from Erech Time of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus London 1923, Ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 22,46. 33 Many etymologies of ancient names, even those well known, are conjectural like Cyrus (Kuruš in Old Persian, Kuraš in Elamite), Cambyses (Kambujiya in Old Persian, Kambuziya in Elamite), etc. 34 T.G. PINCHES – The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia London 2004, Ed. Elibrons Classics, pp. 435-436, 471. 35 K. RADNER – State Correspondence in the Ancient World London 2014, Ed. Oxford University Press, p. 99. 36 M. JURSA – The Transition of Babylonian from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid Rule in: Regime change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt (Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 84. 37 R.T. HALLOCK– Persepolis Fortification Tablets in: Oriental Institute Publications 92 (Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 102,138,165,178,233,248,286,340,353,441,489,511,725.


worked under Darius I from his years 17 to 32 (505-490 BCE), exactly the same period as Mordecai worked38. Marduka was a high official who performed some works as an accountant: Mardukka the accountant [marriš] has received (R140)39; Hirirukka wrote (the tablet), the receipt from Mardukka he received (PT 1), and royal scribe. Two tablets prove that Marduka was an important administrative superintendent and not a mere official of Darius' Palace. For example, a high official wrote: Tell Marduka, Mirinza spoke as follow (PF 1858) and in another tablet (Amherst 258) Marduka is described as a translator and royal scribe (sepīru) attached to Uštanu’s retenue, the governor of Babylon and Beyond the River40:

BCE Marduka’s role according to the years of Darius’ reign Reference 505 17 Supplied by Marduka PF 489; PF 1581 504 18 From the Marduka PF 273 503 19 Whose apportionments are set by Marduka PF 991 502 20 Supplied by Marduka; Whose apportionments are set by Marduka PF 941; PF 1794 501 21 Whose apportionments are set by Marduka PF 1183 500 22 Marduka delivered; Supplied by Marduka PF 81; PF 863 499 23 Supplied by Marduka PF 790; PF 1236 498 24 Supplied by Marduka PF 412 497 25 496 26- 0 Accession of Xerxes and building of his New Palace in Persepolis BM 30589, BM 42567 495 27- 1 494 28- 2 493 29- 3 Queen Vahti is repudiated Esther 1:3 492 30- 4 Marduka is royal scribe of Uštanu [Governor of Babylon and Beyond the River] Amherst 258 491 31- 5 490 32- 6 Hirirukka wrote (the tablet), the receipt from Mardukka he received PT 1 489 33- 7 Xerxes’ wedding Esther 2:16-17 488 34- 8 487 35- 9 486 36-10 Death of Darius I (December 486 BCE) BM 72574 485 11 Plot against Xerxes Esther 2:21-23, 3:7 484 12 Forced labour upon the land and the isles of the sea Esther 10:1

The Persian word sepīru means literally "scribe", like the Hebrew word sopher, but given that it is used only with scribes who worked for the king, the best translation is "royal scribe41" rather than "scribe". The Babylonian tablet Amherst 258 is dated 4/V/30 of Darius I by Theophilus Pinches who wrote: The text bears the date of the 30th year42, but as this date is now unreadable, many scholars prefer “to estimate” it at the beginning of the 5th century43. These documents show that Marduka began his career around 505 BCE as an administrative superintendent of the palaces of Darius and then held a position at the court until at least 490 BCE, since he collaborated with Uštanu an imperial governor of the satrapy of Babylon and Beyond the River. This high official had the same name as the Mordecai of the Bible, in the same period (505-490), in the same place (Susa) and had the same career. Mordecai was also a high official, because one reads: In those days, while Mordecai

38 G.G. CAMERON– Persepolis Treasury Tablets in: Oriental Institute Publications 65 (The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 83. 39 J.E. CHARLES; M.W. STOLPER – Fortification Texts Sold at the Auction of the Erlenmeyer Collection in: Arta 2006 vol.1, pp. 14-15. 40 P.BRIANT – From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire Leiden 2002, Eisenbrauns, pp. 260,509. 41 J. MACGINNIS – Letters Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara Poland 1995, Ed. BONAMI, pp. 122-124,131. 42 T.G. PINCHES – Notes upon a Small Collection of Tablets from the Birs Nimroud Belonging to Lord Amherst of Hackney in: Verhandlungen des XIII Internationalen Orientalischen-Kongresses (E.J. Brill, 1904), pp. 267-270. 43 J. TAVERNIER –Some thoughts on the ustarbaru in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68 (The University of Chicago, 2014), p. 299, note 19.


was sitting in the king's gate, two of the king's chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those that kept the threshold, were wroth, and sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus (...) And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, of those that kept the threshold, who had sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus. And the king said: What honour and dignity hath been bestowed on Mordecai for this? Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him: There is nothing done for him (Est 2:21, 6:2-3; American Standard Version). The word saris, coming from the Babylonian ša-reši "the head", means “chamberlain/ minister of the court” but also “eunuch” depending the on context, here the first meaning is appropriate because all these servants were ministering [šarṭ] unto the king. In addition, the mention “Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate” involves his being close to the king because according to Herodotus: They showed themselves to the king and told him why they had been treated so. Darius, fearing that the six had done this by common consent, sent for each and asked his opinion, whether they approved what had been done; and being assured that they had no part in it, he seized Intaphrenes with his sons and all his household —for he strongly suspected that the man was plotting a rebellion with his kinsmen— and imprisoned them with the intention of putting them to death. Then Intaphrenes’ wife began coming to the king’s gate, weeping and lamenting; and by continuing to do this same thing she persuaded Darius to pity her; and he sent a messenger to tell her: Woman, King Darius will allow one of your imprisoned relatives to survive, whomever you prefer of them all (The Histories III:119). Mordecai was a high official but he became vizier, instead of Haman, only from the 23/III/12 of Xerxes (June 484 BCE): On that day King Ahasuerus gave to Esther the queen the house of Haman, the one showing hostility to the Jews; and Mordecai himself came in before the king, because Esther had told what he was to her. Then the king removed his signet ring that he had taken away from Haman and gave it to Mordecai; and Esther went on to place Mordecai over the house of Haman (...) Accordingly the secretaries of the king were called at that time in the 3rd month, that is, the month of Sivan, on the 23 [day] of it; and writing went on according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews and to the satraps and the governors and the princes of the jurisdictional districts that were from India to Ethiopia, a 127 jurisdictional districts, [to] each jurisdictional district in its own style of writing and [to] each people in its own tongue, and to the Jews in their own style of writing and in their own tongue. And he proceeded to write in the name of King Ahasuerus and do the sealing with the king’s signet ring and send written documents by the hand of the couriers on horses, riding post horses used in the royal service, sons of speedy mares, that the king granted to the Jews that were in all the different cities (Est 8:1-2,9-10). The remark on the speed of postal couriers indicates a very strong knowledge of the Persian administration as well as its vocabulary44: While Xerxes did thus, he sent a messenger to Persia with news of his present misfortune. Now there is nothing mortal that accomplishes a course more swiftly than do these messengers, by the Persians’ skilful contrivance. It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day’s journey. These are stopped neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed. The first rider delivers his charge to the second, the second to the third, and thence it passes on from hand to hand, even as in the Greek torch-bearers’ race in honour of Hephaestus. This riding-post is called in Persia, angareion (angaria) (The Histories III:98). Is there a trace of Mordecai as vizier among the Persepolis tablets? The answer is no for two reasons: 1) the tablets of Persepolis stop after the year 29 of Darius45 (493 BCE) and 2) very likely Mordecai died soon after the year 12 of Xerxes (Est 3:7) as suggested by his epitaph: And King Ahasuerus proceeded to lay forced labour upon the land and the isles of the sea. As for all his energetic work and his mightiness and the exact statement of Mordecai’s greatness with which the

44 Persian words: prtmym, “nobles” (1:3); bytn, “kiosk” (1:5); krps, “cotton” (1:6); dt, “law” (1:8); ktr, “turban” (1:11); ptšgn, “decree” (1:20); gnzym, “treasury” (3:9); ptsgn, “copy” (3:14); and ḥštrnym, “royal horses” (8:10). 45 F. JOANNÈS – Pouvoirs locaux et organisations du territoire en Babylonie achéménide in: Transeuphratène 3 (1990), pp. 173-189.


king magnified him, are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Media and Persia? For Mordecai the Jew was second to King Ahasuerus and was great among the Jews and approved by the multitude of his brothers, working for the good of his people and speaking peace to all their offspring (Est 10:1-3). According to this text, Xerxes makes a corvée on earth and the islands of the Sea, which refers to the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean and the maritime regions of the empire. The Hebrew word mas can be translated as "tribute" or "forced labour", but since the regions in question were already paying tribute, the translation "forced labour" is more appropriate. Xerxes prepared his expedition against Greece for 4 whole years, creating storage and building an impressive fleet of about 1,200 fighting ships and 2000 transport vessels. These preparations are to be linked with the passage from the Book of Esther. The expedition of Xerxes is dated 480 BCE. Yet Herodotus states: From the date of submission of Egypt, Xerxes took 4 whole years to assemble his army and supplies needed and he took the field at the end of the 5th year [spring 480 BCE], with immense forces (The Histories VII:20). A document called “customs registry” contains accounts of maritime traffic from the port of Memphis46 (or Naucratis) showing the amount of customs duty payable to the "king's house." These important contributions which were sent to the Persian king are dated from years 11 to 15 of Xerxes47. A royal receipt dated year 13 of Xerxes48 (10/I/13) also mentions these requisitions. Consequently Xerxes’ war preparations are dated from spring 485 BCE to 481:

year month year of reign 486 10 VII 36 10 Darius I / Xerxes I

11 VIII 12 IX

485 1 X [0] Xerxes I / [Xerxes as new king] 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 11 1 Plot against Xerxes (Est 2:21-23) 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 0 [Xerxes I] / Bel-šimânni 9 VI 0 [Xerxes I] / Šamaš-erîba 10 VII 11 VIII Xerxes I 12 IX

484 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 12 Someone cast Pur (Est 3:7) in the

beginning of Xerxes’ reign (Ezr 4:6) 5 II 6 III Mordecai is established vizier (Est 8:9) 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

483 1 X 2 XI 3 XII Festival of Purim established (Est 9:1-32) XIIb 4 I 13 Mordecai is dead (Est 10:2) 5 II 6 III

46 E. BRESCIANI – L'Égypte des satrapes d'après la documentation araméenne et égyptienne in: Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres (1995) pp. 97-108. 47 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3 1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. 195-203. 48 M.W. STOLPER – "Fifth-Century Nippur: Texts of the Murasu from their Surroundings" in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53 (2001) pp. 26-35.


The Book of Esther places the conspiracy against Xerxes in 485 BCE and the attempted genocide against the Jews, followed by the appointment of Mordecai as vizier in 484 BCE, in the early reign of Xerxes as king (Ezr 4:6) and not at the start of his co-regency with Darius I (from 496 BCE). Mordecai's career is strictly in accordance with all historical facts and their exact chronology. In contrast, mainstream historians still seem incapable of dating the two Babylonian rebellions (484/482 ? or 480/479 ?)49, which took place early in the reign of Xerxes (year 11), after the death of Darius, and could not have occurred when he was co-regent (year 1). Herodotus explains the origin of these rebellions by describing the context that followed the defeat of Marathon (490 BCE) that King Darius wanted to avenge. As these war preparations were requiring huge resources in men (more troops) and money (more tax), this created a climate of insurrection especially from the Babylonian aristocracy which preferred to do business with the Greeks, not war. Although Xerxes was enthroned by King Darius (496 BCE), he has also been challenged on the same grounds as his father because he was approving the increase of the war effort. The legitimacy of Xerxes has been challenged compared to Artobarzanes, his eldest brother, not because of his parentage as Herodotus explained (The Histories VII:2), but because of his warrior choices that were not accepted by all. There was the same situation with Bardiya, Cambyses' brother. The Achaemenid aristocracy supported Bardiya by loyalty while the Babylonian aristocracy preferred to support a Babylonian king. These different choices explain why the chronology of the reigns is different according to protagonists, because the concept of "usurpation" is political, not historical. The Bible is more accurate when it speaks of "opposition" instead of "usurpation". The chronology of reigns relying on the Achaemenid legitimacy (official) was different for the Babylonian kings considered as usurpers by the Achaemenids:

year month Achaemenid Babylonian “Official” King 523 6 III 7 7 Cambyses II King of Babylon, King of Lands

7 IV (Lunar eclipse dated 16 July 523 BCE) 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

522 1 X (Lunar eclipse dated 10 January 522 BCE) 2 XI 3 XII 0 Cambyses II / Bardiya King of Lands 4 I 1 8 1 8 5 II 2 0 Bardiya King of Babylon, King of Lands

(called Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7) 6 III 3 7 IV 4 8 V 5 9 VI 6 10 VII 7 0 Nebuchadnezzar III King of Babylon 11 VIII 8 12 IX 9 0 Darius I King of Babylon, King of Lands

521 1 X 10 2 XI 11 0 Nebuchadnezzar IV King of Babylon

3 XII 12 4 I 13 1 1 5 II 14 6 III 15 7 IV 16 8 V 17 9 VI 18 10 VII 19 11 VIII 20

49 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge p. 249 note 4.


The transition of power after the death of Darius experienced the same problems. Herodotus explains that there was a climate of insurrection in the Persian Empire from the Battle of Marathon (in 490 BCE): So the men published his commands; and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of 3 years, while everywhere, as Greece was to be attacked, the best and bravest were enrolled for the service, and had to make their preparations accordingly. After this, in the 4th year [486 BCE], the Egyptians whom Cambyses had enslaved revolted from the Persians; whereupon Darius was more hot for war than ever, and earnestly desired to march an army against both adversaries. Now, as he was about to lead forth his levies against Egypt and Athens, a fierce contention for the sovereign power arose among his sons (...) Darius, when he had thus appointed Xerxes his heir, was minded to lead forth his armies; but he was prevented by death while his preparations were still proceeding. He died in the year following the revolt of Egypt and the matters here related, after having reigned in all 36 years, leaving the revolted Egyptians and the Athenians alike unpunished. At his death the kingdom passed to his son Xerxes (The Histories VII:1-4). Ctesias said after the death of Darius: Xerxes decided to make war upon Greece, because the Chalcedonians had attempted to break down the bridge as already stated and had destroyed the altar which Darius had set up, and because the Athenians had slain Datis and refused to give up his body. But first he visited Babylon, being desirous of seeing the tomb of Belitanes, which Mardonius showed him. But he was unable to fill the vessel of oil, as had been written. Thence he proceeded to Ecbatana, where he heard of the revolt of the Babylonians and the murder of Zopyrus their satrap (Persica F13§§25-26). The historian Arrian also situated the Babylonian revolt at the time of his campaign against the Greeks (Anabasis of Alexander III:16:4; VII:17:2), which began in the spring of year 485 BCE, according to Herodotus (The Histories VII:20). Strabo says that Xerxes razed the temple of Bel Marduk (Geography XVI:1:5), probably in retaliation for these brief Babylonian revolts. Herodotus wrote: one year after Darius death (in 485 BCE), Xerxes attacked the [Babylonian?] rebels (The Histories VII:7), he says only that Xerxes robbed the temple of Marduk and killed the priest who tried to prevent it (The Histories I:183). These 2 brief rebellions at the beginning of the reign of Xerxes confirm the co-regency because during his accession and his 1st year of reign, Xerxes was welcomed by the Babylonians and the two Babylonian revolts, just after the death of Darius, implying that the Xerxes' accession could not have taken place at that time. Plutarch, who confirms the story of Ctesias, said that after the death of Darius the kingdom of Xerxes was challenged in a climate of insurrection (very different from the period of accession 10 years earlier): Arimenes came out of Bactria as a rival for the kingdom with his brother Xerxes, the son of Darius. Xerxes sent presents to him, commanding those that brought them to say: With these your brother Xerxes now honours you; and if he chance to be proclaimed king, you shall be the next person to himself in the kingdom. When Xerxes was declared king, Arimenes immediately did him homage and placed the crown upon his head; and Xerxes gave him the next place to himself. Being offended with the Babylonians, who rebelled, and having overcome them, he forbade them weapons (Sayings of Kings and Commanders 173c)50. If Arimenes challenged the kingdom of Xerxes that means he (Xerxes) was already king. In addition, the Babylonian revolt early in his reign had visibly worried the Babylonians, since we read of a trilingual inscription at Persepolis: King Xerxes says: When I became king, among the nations that are written above, it is one that rebelled, then Ahuramazda gave me his support and thanks to Ahuramazda I beat these people and I put it back in its place51. Xerxes does not name the Babylonians probably because this old people constituted a prestigious historical foundation of Achaemenid power, thus it was embarrassing to admit such an insurrection. The translation of the Babylonian inscription is also indicative of the awkwardness as it replaces the offending people by "these countries have rebelled,"

50 Ctesias states that it is Megabyzus who suppressed the revolt and took Babylon. 51 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 257.


combining the revolt that had taken place at the time of Darius with the rebels, which were the two Babylonians Nebuchadnezzar III and IV. Cameron52 notes that the 1st year and the accession of Xerxes are well represented in Babylon, it does not place the revolt over the two years since the Babylonians had clearly recognized Xerxes in his early steps. Waerzeggers53 notes that the tablet BM 96414, dated to the accession of Šamaš-erîba mentions the 1st year of Xerxes, but as the legitimate king was Šamaš-erîba, for the scribe, Xerxes was an usurper in his 1st year of reign, not a legitimate king in his 11th year. In the same way the tablet VS 6 331, dated to the accession of Bel-šimânni mentions the 1st year of Xerxes. Indeed, Xerxes was challenged after the death of Darius, not during the first two years of his reign. If the Babylonian revolts occurred during the year 1 of Xerxes' reign, the chronological ranking of contracts shows us that they took place when the king had been fully recognized in Borsippa, which would be quite illogical. In fact for the Babylonians the legitimate king was Šamaš-erîba. For the Babylonian scribe, Xerxes, an Achaemenid, was an usurper in his 1st year of reign, not a legitimate king in his 11th year of reign. To avoid this conclusion some historians have speculated that the Babylonian revolts were at their maximum around 484/483 rather than 485 BCE, but this assumption is contradicted by three elements: If the first Babylonian revolt occurred in 484 BCE, this year would have been the 2nd regnal year of Xerxes, however two tablets of Šamaš-erîba are clearly dated year 1 of Xerxes. Greek historians describing the succession Darius/ Xerxes all indicate that some Babylonian revolts occurred just after the death of Darius, not 2 years later. In addition, that chronology sounds logical because revolts usually occur just after the death of a king when some pretenders to the throne contest the succession, which was the case for Xerxes. An astronomical fragment (JCS 1, 350 n°2) enables the dating of these Babylonian revolts. Although the data are fragmentary they describe a revolt, clearly dated 05/IV/[?] during Xerxes’ reign (line 3 of the tablet) in perfect agreement with Bel-šimânni’s tablet (BM 87357). The astronomical fragment reads54:

3. [...] the month of Tammuz (IV), the 5th day [...] 4. [...] to Babylon went [...] 5. [...] the troops of Elam [...] 6. [... the reg]ion of Mars which to [...] 7. [... M]ars into Cancer ente[red ...] 8. [... fle]d and into the river jumped and [...] 9. [... to] Borsippa went, destroyed the city [...]

The historical notices appear to be related to a conflict between Babylon and Elam (Media and Persia). Line 4 indicates that the troops, and/or others, went to Babylon. Line 5 mentions the troops of Elam, and line 8 apparently refers to a military defeat (Here someones flees and then jumps into a river, a parallel is to be found in the annals of Assurbasirpal). In line 9 a group of people go to Borsippa. Lines 6-7 date these events to a year when the planet Mars is in the vicinity of Cancer during the month of Tammuz (IV). Observations of Mars in this context may be more than coincidental since the planet Mars is not only the planet of Nergal, the Babylonian god of war, but is also often associated with Elam in astrology. The fragment refers to an astronomical omen rather than belonging to

52 G.G. CAMERON – Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58 (1941) pp. 314-325. 53 C. WAERZEGGERS – The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’ in: Archiv für Orientforschung 50 (2003/2004) pp. 150-172. 54 W. HOROWITZ – An Astronomical Fragment from Columbia University and the Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes in: Journal of the Association of Near-Eastern Studies 23 (1995) pp. 61-67.


an astronomical diary for two reasons: 1) most information comes from a chronicle rather than an astronomical record (in which historical events are rare); 2) given that the constellation of Cancer covers 20° of the sky55 it needs 20 days to be crossed by a planet, which prevents one from making an observation dated to a specific day. For practical reasons, Mars was entering visually in a constellation when it was crossing its centre. An astronomical simulation56 indicates (see below) that Mars was in the centre of the constellation of Cancer around 9 April -484* (485 BCE), that matched to Nisan (1st month of the Babylonian year), and again57 6 March -467* (468 BCE). Presumably after the death of Darius, Babylonian priests, given the dissatisfaction with Babylon and this omen early in the reign of Xerxes (year 11), predicted wars, which happened soon after.

Year Spring equinox 1/I (Nisan) 1/II 1/III 1/IV 1/V (Ab) -485* Adar2 26 March 18 March 16 April 16 May 14 June 14 July -484* 26 March 5 April 4 May 3 June 2 July 1 August -483* Adar2 26 March 25 March 23 April 23 May 21 June 21 July -482* 26 March 12 April 12 May 10 June 10 July 9 August

Therefore the conspiracy against Xerxes, which is dated in 485 BCE in the Book of Esther, is remarkably accurate. Unfortunately, mainstream historians who conduct absolutely no chronological investigation, preferring to rely on speculations, infer from slight discrepancies between the Hebrew text and its translation in the Septuagint that: The historical backdrop to Esther is most probably from Egypt at the beginning of the first century BCE, when the extent of Jewish involvement within the Ptolemaic court and military was considerable58. The element most contested by mainstream historians in the Book of Esther is obviously its main character: Queen Esther. Although Herodotus is almost our only source of historical information about the Achaemenid period, that he does mention only one queen (Amestris) who had an important role in politics and that she was the sole wife of Xerxes (Darius got married to 6), as indicated by the book of Esther, mainstream historians refuse to identify Esther with the queen Amestris (The Histories VII:61) for the following

55 D. LEVY – Skywatching. The ultimate guide to the Universe London 1995, Ed. Collins, p. 144. 56 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon 57 The coincidence occurred after 17 sideral years or 9 sideral years of Mars (17x365.26 = 6209 days - 26 days = 9x687) 58 N. HACHAM – Bigthan and Teresh and the Reason Gentiles Hate Jews in: Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012), pp. 318-356.


reasons: 1) the name is not the same and 2) it does not appear in the tablets of Persepolis; 3) the description is different since Amestris was a cruel queen while Esther is presented as a queen loved by Xerxes and that she has protected her people from a genocide; 4) the attempted genocide (commemorated by the festival of Purim) is mentioned neither by Herodotus nor Ctesias; 5) archaeological excavations have revealed no evidence proving the existence of Esther. All these objections are fallacious and can be easily refuted: 1) The name Esther (Stara in Old Persian) means "star" and the name Amestris (Ama-stri in

Old Persian) means “Vigorous wife”:

Name: King / Queen Greek Old Persian Meaning Babylonian Darius (I) Dareios Daraya-vahush “Who maintains the good” Dariamush Xerxes Ahasuerus Xshayarsha “Who heads the heroes” Khishiarshu Mordecai Mardochaios Marduka “The Mardukite” Mardukaya

Esther Esther Stara “Star” Ishtar Amestris Amestris Ama-stri “Vigorous wife”

Vashti Astin Vahishta “Excellent” Atossa Atossa Utauθa “Well granting”

Artaxerxes (I) Artoxerxes Arta-xshatsa “Whose reign is right” Artakshatsu Darius (II) Ochos Vahuka “The good one” Umakush

As the name of Queen Amestris means “vigorous wife/ strong woman ” it was not a birth name but a nickname (The transcription and etymology of many Old Iranian names are disputed)59. It was neither a throne name, as for Darius II, because the Persian queens did not reign, this included Esther (Est 5:3-5), but were merely wives of kings. For example the name of Queen Atossa (The Histories III:133-134), Adusana in Elamite, means “well granting”, which is a birth name. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets attest to the fact that the Elamite title dukšiš (princess) was used collectively for Achaemenid royal women. Their individual status was determined by their relation to the king, and accordingly the women were referred to as “the king’s mother” (Elam. *sunki ammari), “the king’s wife” (Elam. *sunki irtiri), and “the king’s daughter” (Elam. sunki pakri). These terms of reference follow Assyrian and Babylonian usages, attested in the terms ummi šarri, aššat šarri, and mārat šarri. Babylonian sources dated to the Achaemenid period also referred to a woman belonging to the royal household as “woman of the palace” (Bab. ša ekalli), but never gave their names.

2) The name of Esther (Stara) does not appear in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets neither the name Amestris, nor any name of any queen. People who appear on these tablets depended on senior officials themselves to royal orders mainly from the king, that's why there is no name of these royal members, except on seals (like Darius or Xerxes). For example Artobarzanes, Darius’ firstborn (The Histories VII:2), appears on a Persepolis seal (PTS 26) or only his title visa-puthra “son of the house” on an unpublished tablet (Q 931). Two high officials in Persia at the time of Darius (505-498) used seals engraved with an Elamite name: Humban-aḫpi60 (Haman the Agagite?)61.

3) Herodotus’ story about Amestris, which obviously comes from an Achaemenid informant is highly negative and hostile. There are at least two details concerning Amestris that are obviously false: the fact that Amestris made human sacrifices (The Histories VII:114) as well as the King Xerxes was afraid of her (The Histories IX:109). We can conclude that

59 J. TAVERNIER– Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names Leuven 2007, Ed. Peeters Publishers, pp. 11-32. 60 P.BRIANT – From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire Leiden 2002, Eisenbrauns, pp. 427,880,958. 61 This name may have been altered in the same way Amel-Marduk "man of Marduk" be replaced by Evil-Merodak "The fool of Merodak". The name Mordecai comes from the Aramaic form Mardukaya.


the Achaemenid informant did not like Amestris and consequently had portrayed her in a very negative way. This is not surprising because Esther asked Xerxes for the execution of the vizier and his whole household (Est 8:7-8), moreover she asked him to authorize the Jews to kill the Persian warriors provided to execute them, which caused the deaths of 75,000 in Persia (Est 9:16). Consequently many Persians felt that Esther was responsible for these massacres. The Esther woman (ama-stara) became the strong woman (ama-stri).

4) The missed genocide of the Jews (on 13 Adar 483 BCE) was ignored by Persian historians in the same way today that the Armenian genocide (24 April 1915 CE) is denied by Turkish historians. However, gods belong to mythology but massacres belong to human reality and this genocide was already commemorated in 160 BCE (2M 15:36). How can one explain that the Jews (like the Armenians) were able to celebrate an imaginary genocide? For a long time official historians have argued that the explanation of the word pur was pure fantasy (Est 3:7), but it is a rare word of Assyrian origin and actually means "lot", like in the Neo-Babylonian expression62 “to cast a lot (pūru ṣalā’u)” (Ne 11:1). Some argue that Xerxes might not have allowed the massacre of 75,000 of his countrymen, but Darius did not hesitate to abandon 80,000 of his soldiers to the enemy in one day, out of a total of 800,000, according to Herodotus (The Histories IV:135-136) and Ctesias (Persica F13§21). The best proof of the existence of this ancient event is the total absence of Jewish names in Persian documents before the reign of Xerxes, then the emergence of hundreds of Jewish names just after his reign (Murashu archives, papyri of Elephantine).

5) Without written documents it is almost impossible to understand old monuments. In Herodotus’ writings there is only one queen, Amestris, who was associated strongly with royalty, consequently it is logical to identify Amestris with the unique statue of a queen unearthed at Persepolis63 (opposite figure). However, mainstream historians are unable to identify it64. The lack of a beard, the shape of the eyebrows and the very thin mouth indicate that it is a woman, the royal crown and the beautiful blue enamel indicate that this is a queen. Some assume that this statue was a young crown prince, but it contradicts the conventional representations of kings who are still bearded, including crown princes as was the case of Xerxes (he was 25 years old when he became crown prince). Others assume that it was Atossa (550?-475? BCE), one of the six wives of Darius, but the only memorable political activity of this royal wife was to advise her husband to choose Xerxes as crown prince (she was around 55 years old at that time), in addition according to Herodotus, Darius had made a statue of gold of his favourite wife: Artystone (The Histories VII:69). Amestris who was the wife of Xerxes was also the mother of King Artaxerxes I. According to Ctesias65, Amestris, now very old, died just before Artaxerxes I (Persica F14§46). Given that Artaxerxes died in February 424 BCE, Amestris had to have died around 425 BCE. The

62 J. BLACK, A. GEORGE, N. POSTGATE – A Concise Dictionnary of Akkadian Wiesbaden 2000, Ed. Harrassowitz Verlag, p. 279. 63 http://www.livius.org/person/amestris/ 64 P. BRIANT– Darius. Les Perses et l’Empire Paris 1992, Ed. Gallimard, pp. 97,164. 65 D. LENFANT – Ctésias de Cnide Paris 2004, Ed. Les Belles Lettres, pp. 123,134.


expression “very old” means more than the age of Darius I, 72 years old (Persica F13§23) and likely around 85 years old (Luke 2:36-37), because we know66, for example, that some philosophers like Xenophanes (570-478) died when he was 92, Sophocles (490-406) when he was 90 and Georgias (487-380) when he was 107. As Amestris (510-425) was a famous queen, it is likely that the king Artaxerxes buried his mother with royal honours67. Once again, official historians are unable to identify this unique Achaemenid tomb (see below) of a queen discovered in 1901 on the acropolis of Susa68 (which remains a unique case). This tomb is sober and anonymous (bronze coffin 1.65 m long, 0.56 wide and 1.29 m deep) as are all the Achaemenid tombs (Cyrus’ tomb at Pasargadae and those in the necropolis of Naqsh-e Rustam, northwest of Persepolis, for other Achaemenid kings). Dating this tomb has been controversial (350-330 BCE was a scholarly guess) but it is now fixed in the late 5th century BCE69 (425-400 BCE). Unfortunately, subsequent excavations at Susa have completely removed all traces of this exceptional tomb.

66 T. HALAY – Histoire des centenaires et de la longévité Paris 2007 Éd. L'Harmattan pp. 34-35. 67 In addition, [Arta]xerxes I held the Jews in the highest esteem, according to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities XI:120). 68 P.O. HARPER, J. ARUZ, F. TALLON– The Royal City of Susa New York 1992, Ed. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. XVII,124,242-252. 69 J. PERROT – Le palais de Darius à Suse Paris 2010, Éd. Presses de l’université Paris-Sorbonne, pp. 364-371.


Fortunately, Jacques de Morgan kept a very accurate picture of this tomb by means of a water colour painting (below). He surmised that it was a woman because the bones were small and there were no weapons in the sarcophagus, in addition, she was elderly because of the worn state of the teeth. Achaemenid rulers had weapons in their tombs, because Quintus Curtius asserts after Cleitarchus, that when Alexander visited the tomb of Cyrus on his return from India, he only found the shield of Cyrus, then rotten, two Scythian bows, and a sword in the sepulchre (History of Alexander X:1).

This is a woman for another reason: the tomb contains many jewels (now exhibited in the Louvre), which are typically feminine like pearl necklaces and huge earrings (opposite figure). Clues to identify this important character are few: it was a royal figure given that this woman was buried in the royal enclosure of Susa (at the end of the reign of Artaxerxes I), which is a case absolutely unique. The only inscription near this tomb is the name "Xerxes" at the bottom of a column70. Thus, Amestris is the best candidate.

70 F. VALLAT – Les religions à Suse in: Supplément au dictionnaire de la Bible fas. 74 (2003), p. 556.


For a long time the dating around 350-330 BCE of that tomb was based on a single element: the presence of two Phoenician silver shekels from Aradus (Arwad), a city which strongly supported Xerxes in his war against the Greeks. A closer examination has given a date towards the end of the 5th century BCE71. The presence of these two Phoenician coins in the tomb is an enigma because the currency used in the Persian Empire from Darius I was the famous daric (Ezr 8:27), however, as the powerful Phoenician cities of Tyre, Sidon and Aradus (which belonged to the satrapy of Beyond the River and had their own mint workshop) had supported Xerxes in his war against the Greeks, according to Herodotus (The Histories VII:98), their currencies became the norm in this western Persian province72 (the first Jewish coins appear after Darius II’s reign). As seen, presumptions to identify Queen Amestris with Queen Esther (who lived in Susa) are strong, but the ultimate proof is chronology. According to Plutarch, a Greek historian: he [Artaxerxes] proclaimed Darius, then 50 years of age, his successor to the throne, and gave him permission to wear the upright "kitaris," as the tiara was called (Life of Artaxerxes 26:1-30:5). Several commentators have corrected the number 50 into 30, because Plutarch says a little later that Darius (B) was a young man at his enthronement (less than 25 according to Cyropaedia I:2:13), which is confirmed by Justinus (Epitome of the Philippic History X:1-3). In fact, the number 50 refers to Artaxerxes’ age, not to Darius’ age, consequently, given that Artaxerxes enthroned his son Darius B during his 41st year (Murashu tablets) in 434 BCE, he was born in 485 BCE (= 435 + 50). According to Ctesias: Xerxes married the daughter of Onophas, Amestris. He was born a son Darius° [in 488 BCE], a second, 2 years later [in 486 BCE], Hystaspes, then Artaxerxes [in 485 BCE] and two daughters Amytis, who took the name of his grandmother, and Rhodogune (Persica F13§24). Consequently Artaxerxes was 10 years old when Xerxes died in 475 BCE, 50 in 435 BCE when Darius B was enthroned, and nearly 62 when he died in 424 BCE (Plutarch says Artaxerxes reigned 62 years!). According to Justinius (History III:1), Artaxerxes was barely out of childhood (10 years old) and Darius° was already in adolescence (13 years old) when Xerxes was murdered. If Amestris had her first child in 488 BCE her wedding occurred in 489 BCE. According to Esther 2:16-18, king Xerxes married Esther in his 7th year of reign (489 BCE). As a result, Queen Amestris, the sole wife of Xerxes (The Histories VII:61), got married in 489 BCE, at the same moment that Queen Esther got married, consequently Amestris (510-425) is Esther and when she was chosen in the 3rd year of Xerxes (493 BCE) she was a beautiful young girl, 17 years old (Est 1:3; 2:2-4), thus 21 when she got married. Royal women73 owned land and estates in Persia as well as outside the Persian heartland, as in Egypt, according to Herodotus (The Histories II:98). Indeed, they employed their own workforce and it also appears that certain administrative officials were assigned to them. Most notable is Irdabama, a royal woman of the court of Darius I and unknown to Greek sources. She possessed her own workforces74, mainly centred on Tirrazziš (Shiraz), which could include up to 480 labourers (PF 1028; PF-NN 1068, 1146). Estates are attested as belonging to Irtašduna, identified as Artystone, wife of Darius I. She also used her own seal (PFS 38) to authorize transactions and ration payments for her workforce. All these details indirectly confirm the narrative by Herodotus about Persia and despite its obvious exaggerations, his story about Amestris (Esther) is broadly in line with the biblical narrative:

71 G. ELAYI, J. ELAYI – Nouvelle datation d'une tombe achéménide à Suse in: Studia Iranica 21:2 (1992), pp. 265-270. 72 J. ELAYI – La diffusion des monnaies phénicienne en Palestine in: La Palestine à l’époque perse (Cerf, 1994), pp. 289-309. 73 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/women-i 74 A small workforce (matištukkašp) also was assigned to her. With her own seal (PFS 51) Irdabama authorized the transactions of foodstuffs, while officials, such as Uštana and Rašda, using seal PFS 36 and 78 respectively, carried out her orders.


Herodotus Book of Esther As time went on, however, the truth came to light, and in such manner as I will show. Xerxes’ wife, Amestris, wove and gave to him a great gaily-coloured mantle, marvellous to see. Xerxes was pleased with it, and went to Artaynte wearing it. Being pleased with her too, he asked her what she wanted in return for her favours, for he would deny nothing at her asking. Thereupon —for she and all her house were doomed to evil— she said to Xerxes: Will you give me whatever I ask of you? He promised this, supposing that she would ask anything but that; when he had sworn, she asked boldly for his mantle. Xerxes tried to refuse her, for no reason except that he feared that Amestris might have clear proof of his doing what she already guessed. He accordingly offered her cities instead and gold in abundance and an army for none but herself to command. Armies are the most suitable of gifts in Persia. But as he could not move her, he gave her the mantle; and she, rejoicing greatly in the gift, went flaunting her finery. She waited therefore till Xerxes her husband should be giving his royal feast. This banquet is served once a year, on the king’s birthday; the Persian name for it is “tukta,” which is in the Greek language “perfect.” On that day (and none other) the king anoints his head and makes gifts to the Persians. Waiting for that day, Amestris then asked of Xerxes that Masistes’ wife should be given to her. Xerxes considered it a terrible and wicked act to give up his brother’s wife, and that too when she was innocent of the deed; for he knew the purpose of the request. Nevertheless, since Amestris was insistent and the law compelled him (for at this royal banquet in Persia every request must of necessity be granted), he unwillingly consented, and delivered the woman to Amestris. Then, bidding her do what she wanted, he sent for his brother and spoke as follows: Masistes, you are Darius’ son and my brother, and a good man; hear me then. You must no longer live with her who is now your wife. I give you my daughter in her place. Take her for your own, but do away with the wife that you have, for it is not my will that you should have her.” At that Masistes was amazed; Sire, he said, what is this evil command that you lay upon me, telling me to deal with my wife in this way? I have by her young sons and daughters, of whom you have taken a wife for your own son, and I am very content with her herself. Yet you are asking me to get rid of my wife and wed your daughter? Truly, O king, I consider it a great honour to be accounted worthy of your daughter, but I will do neither the one nor the other. No, rather, do not force me to consent to such a desire (The Histories IX:109-111). After using these enchantments and many others besides on the river, they passed over it at the Nine Ways in Edonian country, by the bridges which they found thrown across the Strymon. When they learned that Nine Ways was the name of the place, they buried alive that number of boys and maidens, children of the local people. To bury people alive is a Persian custom; I have learned by inquiry that when Xerxes’ wife Amestris reached old age, she buried twice seven sons of notable Persians as an offering on her own behalf to the fabled god beneath the earth (The Histories VII:114).

So the king and Haman came in to Queen Esther’s banquet. The king said to Esther again on the second day during the banquet of wine: What is your petition, Queen Esther? It will be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it will be done! Queen Esther answered: If I have found favour with you, O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be granted as my petition, and my people as my request. For we have been sold, I and my people, to be annihilated, killed, and destroyed. If we had simply been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept silent. But the distress is not proper, for it will be damaging to the king. King Ahasuerus then said to Queen Esther: Who is this, and where is the man who has dared to do such a thing? Esther said: The adversary and enemy is this evil Haman. Haman became terrified because of the king and the queen. The king rose up in a rage from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden, but Haman stood up to plead with Queen Esther for his life, for he realized that the king was determined to punish him. The king returned from the palace garden to the house of the wine banquet and saw that Haman had thrown himself on the couch where Esther was. The king exclaimed: Is he also going to rape the queen in my own house? As soon as these words left the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face. Harbona, one of the king’s court officials, now said: Haman also prepared a stake for Mordecai, whose report saved the king. It is standing at Haman’s house, 50 cubits high. At that the king said: Hang him on it. So they hanged Haman on the stake that he had prepared for Mordecai, and the king’s rage subsided (Est 7:1-10). The king said to Queen Esther: In Susa the citadel the Jews have killed and destroyed 500 men and the ten sons of Haman. What, then, have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? What is your petition now? It will be granted you. And what is your further request? It will be done. Esther replied: If it pleases the king, let the Jews who are in Susa be permitted to act tomorrow also according to today’s law; and let the ten sons of Haman be hanged on the stake. So the king gave orders for that to be done. A law was issued in Susa, and the ten sons of Haman were hanged. The Jews in Susa gathered together again on the 14th day of the month of Adar and killed 300 men in Susa, but they did not seize any plunder. The rest of the Jews in the provinces of the king also gathered together and defended their lives. They got rid of their enemies, killing 75,000 of those who hated them; but they did not seize any plunder (Est 9:12-16)


Representations of women are rare during the Achaemenid period and none occurs in official or in monumental art, except Amestris’ statue. Those that are known are primarily small scale (seals, ivories, metalwork) and come mainly from western and north-western parts of the empire —Babylonia, Syro-Palestine, Egypt, Asia Minor and Armenia. Examples from the empire’s heartland are extremely rare. One of the most intriguing issues revealed in the archaeological sources is the fact that royal women are depicted holding audiences which are reminiscent of the king’s audience scene from the Apadana reliefs. As is known from the Book of Nehemiah (2:6), the king’s wife could be present at royal audiences, but the archaeological evidence reveals that they also held their own council. This may be a custom adopted from the Elamite court, as is suggested in a seal impression on some Persepolis Fortification Texts. The seal PFS 77 (below) is carved in Neo-Elamite style and shows a woman enthroned75 (without crown), accompanied by a female servant standing behind her and receiving a female visitor, who is separated from the enthroned woman by an incense burner. A similar scene is depicted on a cylinder seal carved in Achaemenid court style and on a cylinder seal (C16496). The representation of women in audience scenes could only have found artistic expression if high-ranking women indeed held audiences themselves. Women in Achaemenid-period glyptic, metalwork and sculpture are either bareheaded with a long braid falling down the back or wear a low cylindrical or beret-like cap, which is sometimes covered by a veil. The first type of headgear is worn by the standing young queen (Esther) on the seal AO22359 dated c. 500 BCE76, its dentate top indicating her royal status which is emphasized by the long ribbons that fall down her back. A distinctly different type of hairstyle and prestige headdress is worn by the seated old queen (Atossa) she approaches: a low fluted tiara covered by a veil. This fluting is unique among female depictions of the period. Wearing a crown therefore means sharing royal power, a privilege rarely granted as noted in Esther 8:15.

Composite drawing of PFS 77

Cylinder seal C16496 Buffalo Museum, New York Seal AO22359 Musée du Louvre

If Xerxes married Amestris in 489 BCE, it means he was single when he was appointed as governor of Parthia in 498 BCE, which is contrary to the Eastern tradition

75 J. CURTIS, ST-J. SIMPSON – An Achaemenid Cylinder Seal of a Woman Enthroned in: The World of Achaemenid Persia (2010), pp. 142-164. 76 http://www.photo.rmn.fr/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&IID=2C6NU0SDJ8M1 This is not the goddess Anahita (Assyrian Ishtar), represented with a radiant halo (see the seal PTS 91), whose worship began only with Artaxerxes II (405-359).


because a new leader should establish alliances by marriage with the aristocracy in place to legitimize his power77. Darius had married the two princesses Atossa and Artystone, who were Cyrus’ daughters, when he was proclaimed king (The Histories III:88). Given that he became king around December 522 BCE, Xerxes must have been born the following year. Therefore, when Xerxes was appointed governor of Parthia (after Hystaspes, the father of Darius I died) he probably married a princess of the Parthian aristocracy (Vashti). Many argue that the marriage of Esther is worthy of a fairy tale because a Persian king would never have married a foreign woman of low social class. Both objections are unconvincing: the adoptive father of Esther, Marduka, was at the time of marriage a high official (superintendent) working at the palace of Darius at Persepolis. In addition, Esther was officially Babylonian, which was a prestigious origin, since her grandfather, Shimei, was born in Babylon, after Nebuchadnezzar's deportation (in 597 BCE), as she revealed later to Xerxes (Est 7:4). The cities of Babylon, Susa and Persepolis were highly interconnected:

Principal routes of Achaemenid Empire

In fact, Esther’s great grandfather (Kish) lived in Jerusalem and was a Jew: Now there was a Jew in the citadel of Susa whose name was Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite. Kish had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with King Jeconiah of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried away. Mordecai had brought up

77 Following Near Eastern practices, female relatives of the king were used in political marriage alliances, such as Nebuchadnezzar’s marriage to the daughter of the Median king and the marriage between the Median king Astyages and Aryenis, daughter of the Lydian king Alyattes (Hdt., I:74). Royal daughters were given in marriage to foreign kings in order to affirm political alliances or to confirm a peace treaty. Astyages is said to have married his daughter Mandane to Cambyses I in an apparent attempt to prevent the downfall of his realm (Hdt., I:107), while according to Ctesias, the first link between the two royal houses was established only after Cyrus I conquered Media and subsequently married Astyages’ daughter Amytis (Ctesias F9§1). Persian kings also established their connections with the Persian nobility through a deliberate marriage policy. Cyrus II married Cassandane, daughter of the Achaemenid Pharnaspes (Hdt., II:1). Phaidyme, daughter of the noble Otanes was said to have been the wife, first of Cambyses II, and then of Bardiya. In order to legitimize his accession, but, more importantly, to prevent rival claims to the throne, Darius I entered a series of marriage alliances which remain unparalleled within Achaemenid rule. His alliances included the daughters of the previous kings, Atossa, Artystone, and Parmys (Hdt., III:88). In addition, he created close familial links with his two closest allies who helped him to secure the throne, Gobryas and Otanes. He married daughters of both nobles (Hdt., VII:2.2, III:88), while they themselves were married to sisters of Darius (Hdt., VII:5,82). Their respective offspring also intermarried, with Darius’ daughter Artazostre marrying Mardonius son of Gobryas (Hdt., VI:43; PFa 5). Such interfamilial marriages were again concluded by the offspring of Darius II, albeit on a much smaller scale, when Amestris II was married to Teritouchmes son of Hydarnes and Artaxerxes II to Hydarnes’ daughter Stateira (Ctesias F15§55). Artaxerxes’ own daughter was to be married to Tissaphernes, satrap of Sardis, who might himself have been a son of the same Hydarnes (Diod. Sic., XIV:26.4).


Hadassah, that is Esther, his cousin, for she had neither father nor mother; the girl was fair and beautiful, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai adopted her as his own daughter (...) Esther did not reveal her people or kindred, for Mordecai had charged her not to tell (...) When the turn came for Esther daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had adopted her as his own daughter, to go in to the king, she asked for nothing except what Hegai the king's eunuch, who had charge of the women, advised (Est 2:5-15). By combining information from the Bible with archaeological data it is possible to reconstruct the career of Mordecai. He was probably born in Babylon and came to settle in Susa to work on the construction of the magnificent temple of Darius I, which started around 520 BCE. He must have been at least 20 years old at that time because according to Herodotus: After valour in battle it is accounted noble to father the greatest number of sons: the king sends gifts yearly to him who gets most. Strength, they believe, is in numbers. They educate their boys from 5 to 20 years old, and teach them only three things: riding and archery and honesty. A boy is not seen by his father before he is 5 years old, but lives with the women: the point of this is that, if the boy should die in the interval of his rearing, the father would suffer no grief (...) Hystaspes son of Arsames was an Achaemenid, and Darius was the eldest of his sons, then about 20 years old; this Darius had been left behind in Persia, not yet being of an age to go on campaign (The Histories I:136,209). Consequently Mordecai must have been born around -540. His genealogy can be roughly dated, assuming that Jews became fathers when they were 25 years old on average78. Genealogy of Esther’s family:

BCE City BCE Kish 615 - Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar 634-562 ⬇

Shimei 590 - Babylon Darius the Mede 601-538 ⬇ Hystaspes 578-499

Jair 565 - ⬇ ⬇ ⬇ Abihail 555 - Darius I 558-486

Mordecai 540 - Babylon ⬇ ⬇ 520 Susa Esther 510 - Xerxes I 521-475 -483 ⬇ Artaxerxes I 485-424 ⬇ Darius B 460-426 -425 Darius II 454-405

Looking at his career, it can be assumed that Mordecai (Marduka) became qualified during the construction of the Palace of Darius I at Susa (from 520 BCE) and was used afterwards (from 505 BCE) as superintendent for the construction of the other palace of Darius I at Persepolis (which had to have started around 509 BCE). Having lived 20 years in Babylon he had to be aware of the intrigues of this prestigious city79 (Est 2:21-22). When the queen Vashti was repudiated and Esther was chosen to replace her (in 493 BCE), Mordecai began to take a position at the court until at least 490 BCE, since he collaborated with Uštanu (in 492 BCE) an imperial governor of the satrapy of Babylon and Beyond the River (Amherst 258). His career as vizier was very short, barely one year (in 484 BCE). If Esther had not existed it would be impossible to explain the benevolent policy of the Persian Empire towards Jews starting from Xerxes. When Cyrus founded this great multi-ethnic empire it had preserved the religious rituals of each subject peoples, which was new. A serious incident during the 1st year of reign of Darius the Mede (Ugbaru), the new king of Babylon (in 538 BCE), greatly changed the situation. Indeed: It seemed good to Darius to appoint 120 satraps over the whole kingdom. Over them were 3 high officials, one of whom was Daniel;

78 Joas: 22 years (2Ch 24:1); Amasiah: 38 years (2Ch 25:1); Uziah: 52 years (2Ch 26:1); Jotham: 21 years (2Ch 27:1); Achaz: 11 years (2Ch 28:1); Hezekiah: 42 years (2Ch 29:1); Manasseh: 45 years (2Ch 33:1); Amon: 16 years (2K 21:19); Josias: 13 years (2Ch 34:1). 79 The names Bigthan and Teresh could be Babylonian (not Persian): Bikitum “mourner”, Tirishu “a saddle(?)”. Moreover the two revolts after Darius’ death were of Babylonian origin.


and the satraps would report to them, so that the king would not suffer loss. Now Daniel was distinguishing himself over the other high officials and the satraps, for there was an extraordinary spirit in him, and the king intended to elevate him over the entire kingdom. At that time the high officials and the satraps were seeking to find some grounds for accusation against Daniel respecting matters of state (...) The king was overjoyed, and he commanded that Daniel be lifted up out of the pit. When Daniel was lifted up out of the pit, he was completely unharmed, because he had trusted in his God. The king then gave an order, and the men who had accused Daniel were brought, and they were thrown into the lions’ pit, along with their sons and their wives. They had not reached the bottom of the pit before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones (Dn 6:1-4,23-24). It is likely that part of the Achaemenid aristocracy that was affected by this punishment had to have great animosity against Daniel and his religion. Haman may have had one of his relatives among those executed, which would explain his hatred against the Jews. In any case, there is no Jewish name among the hundreds of Persian officials in the Persepolis texts until Xerxes. The memorable action of Mordecai (in 484 BCE) completely changed the attitude of Persians on Jews. However, this favourable prejudice would really benefit to the Jews only after the death of Xerxes and decisive action of Amestris/Esther. Indeed, Ctesias is the only historian who described the context of the murder of Xerxes.

year month Egy. year of reign 475 1 X 21 20 Xerxes I (Egyptian and Babylonian reckoning)

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 21

(Total lunar eclipse of June 26, 475 BCE) Xerxes I / Darius A (Xerxes’ death on August 24, 475 BCE)

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI (21) 1 (Xerxes I) / Artabanus

(Partial lunar eclipse of December 20, 475 BCE)

10 VII 2 11 VIII 3 12 IX 4

474 1 X 1 (22)

0 5 Artaxerxes I / Artabanus met by Themistocles (Thucydides I:98,137) 2 XI 6

3 XII 7 4 I 1 Artaxerxes I 5 II 6 III 7 IV Revolt of Bactria 8 V 9 VI 10 VII Revolt of Inaros in Egypt 11 VIII 12 IX

Ctesias explains that the defeats of Xerxes in his war against the Greeks had aroused opposition inside the Achaemenid aristocracy by the prohibitive cost of the war as well as numerous casualties which were also bad for the economy in Persia. To solve the problem, Artabanus, the vizier of Xerxes, murdered Xerxes and his heir Darius° while making believe he had executed Darius° (who was 13), because he had cut the throat his father in his sleep in order to take his place. This official version can be read from a Babylonian astronomical tablet (BM 32234). Artaxerxes was inducted by the Achaemenid aristocracy and became a peaceful king thanks to his advisers and also to the influence of his mother Amestris/Esther since he was 10 years old when he was enthroned. However, when Artaxerxes discovered that his father and his elder brother had been the victims of a conspiracy he had executed the head: Artabanus. Ctesias wrote (c. 400 BCE): for after gathering 700,000 troops against Greece, he (Xerxes) left in defeat and after returning died a most dishonourable death: during the night while he slept his throat was cut by his own son [Darius°].


Artaxerxes became king thanks to the efforts of Artabanos who in turn plotted against him. Artabanos also took as an accomplice in the plan Megabyzos, who was already distraught because of the suspected adultery of his wife Amytis. They gave each other the security of an oath, but Megabyzos exposed the entire scheme and Artabanos was killed in the same fashion he was going to kill Artaxerxes while the plots against both Xerxes and Darius were revealed. Consequently, Aspamitres, who was an accomplice in the murders of Xerxes and Darius, died a horrible death, for he was exposed in a tub to die slowly while being eaten by insects. After the death of Artabanos, there was a battle between his followers and the rest of the Persians in which his three sons fell and Megabyzos was severely wounded. While Artaxerxes, Amytis, Rhodogyne, and their mother Amestris wept, with great care he was barely saved by a doctor from Cos named Apollonides. Bactria revolted from Artaxerxes under the leadership of their satrap, another Artapanos. There was a stalemate followed by a second battle which Artaxerxes won when the wind blew in the faces of the Bactrians, and subdued all of Bactria. Egypt revolted under the leadership of the Libyan Inaros and another Egyptian and made all preparations for war. When the revolt began the Athenians, at the request of Inaros, sent 40 ships. Artaxerxes intended to personally lead the campaign but when his companions protested this decision, sent his brother Achaemenides at the head of an army of 400,000 infantry and 80 ships. Inaros met Achaemenides in battle and the Egyptians were victorious. Achaemenides was fatally wounded by Inaros and his body was sent back to Artaxerxes. Inaros was also victorious at sea where Charitimides distinguished himself as commander of the forty ships from Athens; of 50 Persian ships 20 were captured with their crews while 30 were destroyed. Megabyzos was then dispatched to face Inaros at the head of another army to be joined with the remaining 200,000 infantry and 300 ships still in Egypt under the command of Oriskos so that the force totaled 500,000 not counting the fleet. When Achaemenides fell in battle, 100,000 of the 400,000 men under his command were killed. A more fierce battle took place in which many men on both sides fell with the Egyptians suffering heavier losses. Megabyzos wounded Inaros in the thigh and routed his forces winning an overwhelming victory for the Persians. Inaros fled to Byblos, a very powerful city in Egypt, with all the Greeks who did not die with Charitimides in the battle. Consequently, all of Egypt, with the exception of Byblos, was returned to Megabyzos. Since the city seemed impregnable, Megabyzos made peace with Inaros and the Greeks who still numbered 6,000 with the promise that they would suffer no harm from the king and the Greeks were granted a free pass to return home whenever they wanted. He appointed Sarsamas satrap of Egypt and taking along Inaros and the Greeks, returned to Artaxerxes and found him in an angry mood with Inaros for the killing of his brother Achaemenides. After Megabyzos related all that happened and how he gave pledges of faith to Inaros and the Greeks before taking Byblos, he solemnly begged the king to spare their lives, secured their salvation, and finally broke the news to the army that Inaros and the Greeks would not be harmed. However, Amestris was incensed that there would be no reprisals for Inaros and the Greeks on behalf of her son, Achaemenides, and begged the king who rebuffed her requests. Then she approached Megabyzos who likewise dismissed her pleas. By continuously annoying her son, ultimately she achieved her goal and 5 years later the king delivered Inaros and the Greeks over to her. She impaled Inaros on three stakes and beheaded the 50 Greeks she was able to get her hands on. Megabyzos was very upset and grieved; then he requested to be discharged to his territory of Syria (a province “Beyond the River”). The narrative of Ctesias regarding the Egyptian revolt led by Inaros is very controversial because it differs on several points from other more reliable historians like Herodotus and Thucydides80, in addition, there are many chronological contradictions81. However, the points of agreement are the following: the Greeks supported in vain the Egyptian revolt against the Persians and the revolt lasted 6 years, according to Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War I:104,109-110); King Artaxerxes I made alliances for peace with

80 A. NICHOLS – The complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus: Translation and Commentary with an Introduction Florida 2008, Thesis of University of Florida, pp. 93-97. 81 D. KAHN– Inaros’ Rebellion and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt in: Classical Quarterly 58:2 (2008), pp. 424-440.


the Athenians, unlike Xerxes, according to Herodotus (The Histories VI:98; VII:151), the Egyptian revolt occurred soon after Xerxes’ death, according to Plato (Menexenus 241c-e), finally, Amestris (Esther) played a major role in this transition process. It should be noted that the decision of Artaxerxes I to rebuild Jerusalem dates precisely the 7th year of his reign, according to the text of Ezra 7:1-8.

BCE Main events after Xerxes’ death 476 20 Fall of Skyros in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36) 475 21 0 Artaxerxes I / (Artabanus) 474 1 1 Revolt of Inaros (in Egypt) 473 2 2 472 3 3 471 4 4 470 5 5 469 6 6 468 7 Artaxerxes requested Ezra for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ezr 7:1-8), which be 467 8 celebrated by a jubilee (Ez 7:24-26) 50 years after the end of a mourning (Zc 7:1)

Esther's influence on his son, King Artaxerxes, could explain his surprising reaction of benevolence at the request of Ezra: This Ezra came up from Babylon. He was a copyist who was well-versed in the Law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given. The king granted everything he requested, for the hand of Jehovah his God was upon him. Some of the Israelites, the priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the temple servants, went up to Jerusalem in the 7th year of King Artaxerxes. And Ezra came to Jerusalem in the 5th month, in the 7th year of the king82. On the first day of the 1st month, he began the journey from Babylon, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the 5th month, for the good hand of his God was upon him. Ezra had prepared his heart to consult the Law of Jehovah and to practice it, and to teach its regulations and judgments in Israel. This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest and copyist, an expert in the study of the commandments of Jehovah and of his regulations to Israel: Artaxerxes, the king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens: May you have perfect peace. And now I have issued an order that everyone in my realm of the people of Israel and their priests and Levites who is willing to go with you to Jerusalem should go. For you are sent by the king and his seven advisers to investigate whether the Law of your God, which is with you, is being applied in Judah and Jerusalem, and to take the silver and the gold that the king and his advisers have voluntarily given to the God of Israel, whose residence is in Jerusalem, with all the silver and the gold that you receive in all the province of Babylon, along with the gift that the people and the priests voluntarily give to the house of their God, which is in Jerusalem. And you are to buy promptly with this money bulls, rams, lambs, along with their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and you are to present them on the altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem. And whatever seems good to you and to your brothers to do, you may do with the rest of the silver and the gold, according to the will of your God. And all the vessels that are given to you for the service of the house of your God, you are to deliver before God at Jerusalem. And the rest of the necessities of the house of your God that you are required to give, you will give out of the royal treasury. I, King Artaxerxes, have issued an order to all the treasurers in the region Beyond the River, that everything that Ezra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens, requests of you is to be done promptly, up to 100 talents of silver, 100 cor measures of wheat, 100 bath measures of wine, 100 bath measures of oil, and salt without limit. Let everything that is ordered by the God of the heavens be done with zeal for the house of the God of the heavens, so that there may be no wrath against the king’s realm and his sons. And you are further advised that it is not permitted to impose any tax, tribute, or toll on any of the priests and Levites, musicians, doorkeepers, temple servants, and workers of this house of God. And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom that you possess from your God, appoint magistrates and judges to judge all the people in the region Beyond the River, all those who know the laws of your God; and you should instruct anyone who does not know them. And everyone who does not observe the Law of your

82 The Temple was burnt in 587 BCE the 5th month (2K 25:8) which became a day of mourning during 70 years (Zc 7:1-5).


God and the law of the king should have judgment executed on him promptly, whether it is death, banishment, a fine, or imprisonment (Ezr 7:6-26). It was during this meeting that Queen Esther must have entrusted to Ezra the book written by Mordecai, which will be called the Book of Esther. Similarly, Artaxerxes I had the same benevolence (in 455 BCE) at the request of Nehemiah, the cupbearer to the king: In the month of Nisan, in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes, wine was set before him, and as usual I took up the wine and gave it to the king. But I had never been gloomy in his presence. So the king said to me: Why do you look so gloomy when you are not sick? This can be nothing but gloominess of heart. At this I became very frightened. Then I said to the king: Long live the king! Why should I not look gloomy when the city, the place where my forefathers are buried, lies in ruins, and its gates have been consumed by fire? The king then said to me: What is it that you are seeking? At once I prayed to the God of the heavens. I then said to the king: If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favour with you, send me to Judah, to the city where my forefathers are buried, so that I may rebuild it. Then the king, with his royal consort sitting beside him, said to me: How long will your journey be, and when will you return? So it pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a set time. Then I said to the king: If it pleases the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the region Beyond the River, granting me safe passage until I reach Judah, as well as a letter to Asaph the keeper of the Royal Park, so that he may give me timber for beams for the gates of the Fortress of the House and for the walls of the city and for the house where I will go. So the king gave them to me, for the good hand of my God was upon me. Eventually I came to the governors of the region Beyond the River and gave them the king’s letters. The king also sent with me army chiefs and horsemen (Ne 2:1-9). The events that occurred during the years 7 to 32 of Artaxerxes' reign are impossible to verify because except the biblical text there is absolutely no other document. However, Elephantine papyri covering Darius II's reign, particularly the letter No. 96 dated Year 5, confirm the changes made by Artaxerxes I in his province of Judea (Yehud).

BCE King 445 30 Artaxerxes I 444 31 443 32 Nehemiah was governor of Judea (Ne 13:6) 442 33 441 34 440 35 439 36 438 37 437 38 436 39 435 40 434 41 0 Artaxerxes I / Darius B (Murashu tablets) 433 (42) 1 Tablets CBS 5506; CBS 4986 432 (43) 2 431 (44) 3 (Beginning of the Peloponnesian War which lasted until 404 BCE) 430 (45) 4 Elephantine papyrus B40 dated year 4 of Darius B (14 Jul. 430 BCE) 429 (46) 5 428 (47) 6 427 (48) 7 Elephantine papyrus B42 dated year 8 of Darius B (25 Sep. 426 BCE) 426 (49) 8 Amestris/Esther died and was buried in the acropolis of Susa 425 50 (0) Artaxerxes I (Xerxes II) Tablet BM 65494 424 (51) 0 (Sogdianos) / Darius II Thucydide IV:50; Tablet CBM 12803 423 1 422 2 421 3 420 4 419 5 The high priest of Jerusalem asked the Jews of Elephantine to celebrate the 418 6 Passover according to the instructions of the law of Moses (letter n°96) 417 7


According to the biblical text, Ezra was sent as personal representative of King Artaxerxes in order to finance the rebuilding of the temple and inform regional authorities that the province of Judea was no longer a vassal province, with a provincial governor at its head, but an allied province as was the kingdom of Arabia. This change of status explains why Nehemiah received the strange title of Tirshatha (Ne 7:70; 10:1; Ezr 2:63) rather than the former title of Governor (Ne 12:26). The word tur-šati means “pro-curator” in Elamite83, in agreement with the full authority he received (Ezr 7:15-26). This clarification explains why he ceased to be governor after the 32nd year of Artaxerxes because the high priest was again the legitimate authority of the Jews. Although Nehemiah ceased to act as governor after 433 BCE, he held a prominent role because he organized the inauguration of the wall of Jerusalem (in 406 BCE), at the end of the reign of Darius II (Ne 12:22,27,31). The details emerging from the papyri concerning the struggle of the Jews in Egypt for permission to rebuild their Temple in Elephantine help to elucidate the historical background, which confirms the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The two drafts of the letter of 407 BCE to Bagohi84, the governor of Judah, refer to an earlier letter of 410 BCE to Bagohi and to Johanan, the High Priest85, which remained unanswered. The fact that the Jews of Elephantine turned to the Persian governor of Judah and the Jerusalem High Priest for help is most revealing regarding the functioning of Judean authorities. This letter reads: To our lord, Bagohi, governor of Yehud, (from) your servants: Yedaniah and his associates, the priests who are in the fortress of Yeb (Elephantine). May the God of the Heavens perpetually pursue the welfare of our lord greatly and grant you favours before Darius the king and the "sons of the palace" a thousand times more than now. May you be joyful and healthy at all times. Now your servant Yedaniah and his associates testify as follows: In the month of Tammuz, in the 14th year of King Darius [410 BCE], when Arsames departed and went to the king, the priests of the god Khnub, who is in the fortress of Yeb, conspired with Vidranga, who was administrator here, to destroy the temple of Yahu in the fortress of Yeb. So that villain Vidranga sent this order to his son Nefayan, who was in command of the garrison of the fortress at Syene: The temple of the god Yahu in the fortress of Yeb shall be destroyed. Nefayan consequently led the Egyptians with other troops. Arriving with their weapons at the fortress of Yeb, they entered the temple and burned it to the ground. They smashed the stone pillars that were there. They demolished five great gateways constructed of hewn blocks of stone which were in the temple; but their doors (are still standing), and the hinges of those doors are made of bronze. And the roof of cedar in its entirety, with the ... and whatever else was there, were all burned with fire. As for the basins of gold and silver and other articles that were in the temple, they carried all of them off and took them as personal possessions. Now, our ancestors built this temple in the fortress of Yeb in the days of the kingdom of Egypt; and when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it (already) constructed. They (the Persians) knocked down all the temples of the Egyptian gods; but no one damaged this temple. But when this happened, we and our wives and our children wore sackcloth, and fasted, and prayed to Yahu, the Lord of Heaven, who has let us "see to" Vidranga. The axes removed the anklet from his feet (?) and any property he had acquired was lost. And all those who have sought to do evil to this temple —all of them— have all been killed, and we have "seen to" them. We have (previously) sent letters to our lord when this catastrophe happened to us; and to the high priest Yehohanan and his associates, the priests in Jerusalem; and to Ostan, the kinsman of Anani; and the Judahite elites. They have never sent us a letter. Furthermore, from the month of Tammuz, the 14th year of Darius the king, until today, we have been wearing sackcloth and fasting, making our wives as widows, not anointing ourselves with oil or drinking wine. Furthermore, from then until now, in the 17th year of Darius the king [407

83 F. GRILLOT-SUSINI – L’élamite elements de grammaire .Paris 2008, Ed. Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, pp. 22,26. 84 This name is written Bigvai in the Massoretic text (Ne 10:14-16) but Bagoi in the Septuagint. 85 PORTEN, BEZALEL, ET AL.– The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change Leiden 1996, Ed. Brill, pp. 139-144.


BCE], no grain-offering, incense, or burnt-offering has been sacrificed in this temple. Now your servants Yedaniah, and his associates, and the Judahites, all inhabitants of Yeb, state: If it seems good to our lord, remember this temple to reconstruct it, since they do not let us reconstruct it. Look to your clients and friends here in Egypt. Let a letter be sent from you to them concerning the temple of the god Yahu to construct it in the fortress of Yeb as it was before. And the grain-offering, incense, and burnt-offering will be offered in your name, and we will pray for you continuously —we, our wives, and our children, and the Judahites who are here, all of them— if you do this so that this temple is reconstructed. And you shall have honour before Yahu, the God of the Heavens, more than a man who offers him burnt-offerings and sacrifices worth a thousand talents of silver and gold. Because of this, we have written to inform you. We have also set forth the whole matter in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. Furthermore, Arsames (the Persian satrap) knew nothing of all that was perpetrated on us. On the 20th of Marcheshwan, the 17th year of King Darius. The letter confirms numerous points from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah: Ø The God of the Heavens is an expression used particularly during the Persian period

(Ezr 1:2; 5:11; Ne 1:4-5). Ø Darius II (424-405 BCE) was the Persian emperor at that time (Ne 12:22-31)86. Ø Yahu “Yah Himself” is a substitute of the divine name Yehowah, the Israelite god,

frequently found at the end of theophorous names in –yahu (like Eli-yahu). Ø Sanballat (Sin’uballit ‘Sin gives life’) was the governor of Samaria under the Persians. He

is mentioned in Nehemiah 2:10; 3:33-4:7; 6:1-14; 13:28. Ø Yehohanan was the High Priest of Jerusalem (Ne 12:10-11,23). Many academics believe naively that Bagohi was a Persian governor of the province of Judea because it is written at the beginning of the letter “To our lord, Bagohi, governor of Yehud”, however Josephus, who is usually pretty reliable87, mentions that Bagohi88 (written Bagoi in the Septuagint) was the general of Artaxerxes II, not governor: When Eliashib the high priest was dead, his son Jodas succeeded in the high priesthood; and when he was dead, his son Joannes assumed this office; on whose account it was also that Bagoses, the general of the second Artaxerxes, defiled the sanctuary, and imposed tributes on the Jews, that out of the public stock, before they offered the daily sacrifices, they should pay for every lamb 50 shekels. Now Jesus was the brother of Joannes, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the high priesthood. In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarrelled with Joannes in the temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for Joannes, when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the Greeks nor Barbarians. However, God did not neglect its punishment, but the people were on that very account enslaved, and the temple was polluted by the Persians. Now when Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes, knew that Joannes, the high priest of the Jews, had slain his own brother Jesus in the temple, he came upon the Jews immediately, and began in anger to say to them: Have you had the impudence to perpetrate a murder in your temple? And as he was aiming to go into the temple, they forbade him so to do; but he said to them: Am not I purer than he that was slain in the temple? And when he had said these words, he went into the temple. Accordingly, Bagoses made use of this pretext, and punished the Jews 7 years for the murder of Jesus (Jewish Antiquities XI:297-301). Many commentators do not understand89 why the title of "General" is used instead of "Governor", but Josephus was right, because according the Bible (Ne 10:1,14-15), Nehemiah had been the king's representative “procurator” (tirshatha)

86 Jerusalem was rebuilt 7 weeks (= 7x7 years) after the 20th year of Artaxerxes I (Dn 9:25), which was 406 BCE (= 455 – 7x7). 87 H.G.M. WILLIAMSON – Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography Tübingen 2004, Ed. Mohr Siebech, pp. 79-86. 88 The chief eunuch and general under Artaxerxes III called Bagoas has nothing to do with Bagohi because being the most trusted friend of Artaxerxes III he played a prominent role in court affairs of that time (Diodorus Siculus, 16:47.4). 89 R. MARCUS – Josephus Jewish Antiquities Books IX-XI Cambridge 2001, Ed. Haward University Press, pp. 499-511.


before 443 BCE; Bagoi had been the "head" of the people (rosh in Hebrew and archon in Greek) and Jehohanan had been the High Priest (kohen hagadol in Hebrew). Their hierarchical positions explain why the high priest Jehohanan, the legitimate authority, could not act politically as well as Bagohi, the administrative authority of the Jews, had little real power over the Persian province of Egypt, with the exception of sympathy from the Persian satrap of Egypt (which could also be bought by bribes). As a result, from 443 BCE the only legitimate authority in the province of Judea was the high priest. A letter of Elephantine90 (AP 21) shows that he was at that time the legitimate authority for the Jews of Egypt and was considered the representative of the Persian emperor (Darius II): To my brothers, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. May the gods seek the welfare of my brothers. Now this year, the 5th year of King Darius [419 BCE], word was sent from the king to Arsames, saying: In the month of Nisan, let there be a Passover for the Judahite garrison. Now accordingly count 14 days of the month Nisan and keep the Passover, and from the 15th day to the 21st day of Nisan are 7 days of Unleavend Bread. Be clean and take heed. Do not work on the 15th day and on the 21st day. Also, drink no intoxicants; and anything in which there is leaven, do not eat, from the 15th day from sunset until the 21st day of Nisan, 7 do not eat, from the 15th day from sunset until the 21st day of Nisan, 7 days, let it not be seen among you; do not bring it into your houses, but seal it up during those days. Let this be done as King Darius commanded. To my brethren, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. This religious requirement was not an instruction from Hananiah (maybe mentioned in Nehemiah 10:14-23) to celebrate the Passover because the festival was already celebrated in Egypt since at least 495 BCE91 (ostracon RES 1792), but to do so according to the lunar calendar of Judea (of Babylonian origin and starting on the new moon) and not according to the Egyptian lunar calendar which was starting on the full moon. As the high priest of Jerusalem was both the religious and the political authority for the Jews, there was an ambiguity to designate him. If we look at the Judean coinage during the Persian period until the Hasmonean period92, there is a diversity of title for the "Governor" of Judea (Nehemiah probably lived from c. 485 to c. 405 BCE?):

Period Name of the ruler Title of the “Governor” of Judea 455-443 Nehemiah Procurator (tirshatha)/ Governor (hapehaḥ)

c. 410-400 Bagohi Head (rosh)/ General (archon)/ Governor (hapehaḥ) c. 400-350 (Johanan?, Jaddua?) None (just Yehud) c. 350-300 Yehezqiah Governor (hapehaḥ)/ High Priest (Against Apion I:187) c. 300-280 ? None (just Yehud) 135-104 Yehohanan High Priest and Head Partner (rosh ḥaber) of the Jews

Yehohanan High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews Yehohanan High Priest of the Jews

104-103 Yehudah High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews 103-76 Yehonathan High Priest and Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews

Yehonathan King (hamelekh) ? Partner (ḥaber) of the Jews Alexander Jannaeus [High Priest and] King (malka’)

The legal status of the province of Judea was therefore unclear to define because the High Priest was both a religious and political “ruler”. This very special status had been restored by Nehemiah, but in fact the influence of Queen Esther (Amestris), who was the mother of Artaxerxes I, had played a decisive role in the turn of events.

90 PORTEN, BEZALEL, ET AL.– The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change Leiden 1996, Ed. Brill, pp. 125-126. 91 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 76-77, 374-387. 92 J. MALTIEL-GERSTENFELD – 260 years of Ancient Jewish Coins Tel Aviv 1982, Ed. Kol Printing Service Ltd, pp. 103-124.


Conclusion: for most historians the Book of Esther is an Oriental story, for most archaeologists it is a fairy tale, for me it is history. Today, the most virulent attacks against the Book of Esther come from Catholic and Jewish theologians. For example, according to Catholic bishops93: The Book of Esther tells a story of the deliverance of the Jewish people. We are shown a Persian emperor, Ahasuerus (loosely based on Xerxes, 485–464 B.C.), who makes momentous decisions for trivial reasons, and his wicked minister, Haman, who takes advantage of the king’s compliance to pursue a personal vendetta against the Jews by having a royal decree issued ordering their destruction (...) The book is a free composition, not a historical document. Its fictional character can be illustrated by many examples of literary motifs: the use of extensive conversation to move the plot along; the motif of concealment (Esther is a Jew, related to Mordecai, but Haman does not know it, even as he comes to her banquet in chap. 7). A whole series of banquets structure the work: two by the king, one by Vashti, three by Esther, and the joyful banqueting that ends the book. Further artificialities are clear in the way characters are paired (e.g., Mordecai and Esther) and in the delays and the speed of the action (Esther delays the banquet in 5:3-8, but the tempo of chaps. 5-6 is particularly fast); Mordecai passes from the threat of death (5:9–14) to royal honors (6:10-11) within twenty-four hours. There are many exaggerations, and even sarcastic implausibilities (cf. the effect of Vashti’s disobedience in 1:17-18), and huge ironies (e.g., Haman in 6:6, 10). The work is a composite of reversals (cf. 9:1) in the lives of individuals and communities. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: Improbabilities of the Story: It is now generally recognized that the Ahasuerus (אחשורוש), mentioned in Esther, in Ezra iv. 6, and in Dan. ix. 1, is identical with the Persian king known as Xerxes (Ξέρζης, "Khshayarha"), who reigned from 485 to 464 B.C.; but it is impossible to find any historical parallel for a Jewish consort to this king. Some critics formerly identified Esther with Amastris (Ionic, "Amestris"), who is mentioned by Herodotus (viii. 114, ix. 110; compare Ctesias, 20) as the queen of Xerxes at the time when Esther, according to Esth. ii. 6, became the wife of Ahasuerus. Amastris, however, was the daughter of a Persian general and, therefore, not a Jewess. Furthermore, the facts of Amastris' reign do not agree with the Biblical story of Esther. Besides all this, it is impossible to connect the two names etymologically. M'Clymont (Hastings, "Dict. Bible," i. 772) thinks it possible that Esther and Vashti may have been merely the chief favorites of the harem, and are consequently not mentioned in parallel historical accounts. It is very doubtful whether the haughty Persian aristocracy, always highly influential with the monarch, would have tolerated the choice of a Jewish queen and a Jewish prime minister (Mordecai), to the exclusion of their own class —not to speak of the improbability of the prime ministry of Haman the Agagite, who preceded Mordecai. "Agagite" can only be interpreted here as synonymous with "Amalekite" (compare "Agag," king of the Amalekites, the foe of Saul, I Sam. xv. 8, 20, 32; Num. xxiv. 7; see Agag). Oppert's attempt to connect the term "Agagite" with "Agaz," a Median tribe mentioned by Sargon, can not be taken seriously. The term, as applied to Haman, is a gross anachronism; and the author of Esther no doubt used it intentionally as a fitting name for an enemy of Israel. In the Greek version of Esther, Haman is called a Macedonian (...) Finally, in this connection, the author's knowledge of Persian customs is not in keeping with contemporary records. The chief conflicting points are as follows: (a) Mordecai was permitted free access to his cousin in the harem, a state of affairs wholly at variance with Oriental usage, both ancient and modern. (b) The queen could not send a message to her own husband (!). (c) The division of the empire into 127 provinces contrasts strangely with the twenty historical Persian satrapies. (d) The fact that Haman tolerated for a long time Mordecai's refusal to do obeisance is hardly in accordance with the customs of the East. Any native venturing to stand in the presence of a Turkish grand vizier would certainly be severely dealt with without delay. (e) This very refusal of Mordecai to prostrate himself belongs rather to the Greek than to the earlier Oriental period, when such an act would have involved no personal degradation (compare Gen. xxiii. 7, xxxiii. 3; Herodotus, vii. 136). (f) Most of the proper names in Esther which are given as Persian appear to be rather of Semitic than of Iranian origin, in spite of Oppert's attempt to explain many

93 http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=esther&ch=


of them from the Persian (compare, however, Scheftelowitz, "Arisches im Alten Testament," 1901, i.). In view of all the evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected94. As we can see all these critics are fallacious because they are systematically based on “improbabilities” as well as misunderstood comments, not on evidence. For example, the statement: Amastris (Esther), however, was the daughter of a Persian general and, therefore, not a Jewess is easily rebuttable. According to Herodotus: Such was the judgment of Otanes: but Megabyzus urged that they resort to an oligarchy. I agree, said he: with all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he tells you to give the power to the multitude, his judgment strays from the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; for men fleeing the insolence of a tyrant to fall victim to the insolence of the unguided populace is by no means to be tolerated (...) The men who served in the army were the following: the Persians (...) Their commander was Otanes, son of Amestris and father of Xerxes’ wife (The Histories III:81,VII:61). Thus, Otanes would have been a Persian general supporter of democracy, which is unlikely since the Greek democrats were considered enemies. We know that Herodotus was well informed because he was aware of a “record of the king’s benefactors”: Phylacus was recorded as a benefactor of the king and granted much land. The king’s benefactors are called “orosangae” in the Persian language (The Histories VIII:85-86), which is mentioned in Esther 6:1-3, however, although annals for recording the deeds of Persian kings have existed (Esther 2:23, 10:2; Diodorus Siculus II:32), Herodotus was not able to see them because he depended mainly on biased informers (The Histories I:95). Thus, Otanes was a sobriquet, not a genuine name. The statement: It is very doubtful whether the haughty Persian aristocracy, always highly influential with the monarch, would have tolerated the choice of a Jewish queen and a Jewish prime minister (Mordecai), to the exclusion of their own class —not to speak of the improbability of the prime ministry of Haman the Agagite, who preceded Mordecai, is incorrect because, according to Esther 2:10 when Xerxes married Esther he had no idea Esther was Jewish, she was officially a Babylonian girl, consequently coming from a prestigious city (thus Artaxerxes I had 3 Babylonian wives cf. Ctesias F15§47). Regarding Haman, the son of Agag, he was not a literal son of Agag (who died ca. 1070 BCE) because this king of Amalek had been devoted to destruction (1S 15:20). In addition, the remnant of the Amalekites disappeared (1Ch 4:43) in the time of King Hezekiah (726-697 BCE). Mordecai refused to bow low and to prostrate himself to Haman (Est 3:1-4) because this gesture, called proskynesis ("kissing towards"), occurred: when one is of much less noble rank than the other, he falls down before him and worships him (The Histories I:134). Thus as the proskynesis was an act of worship95 it was exclusively dedicated to God for a pious Jew (Rv 19:10)96. Agag, whose name means "furious97", had become the symbol of the opponent intended to destruction, this explains why Gog's name in Numbers 24:7 was changed into Agag98. Consequently, “the son of Agag” was a nickname referring to a furious opponent intended to destruction. The statement: Mordecai was permitted free access to his cousin in the harem, is wrong because it is written precisely: Every day Mordecai would walk around in front of the court of the harem, to learn how Esther was and how she fared (Est 2:11; New Revised Standard). Other so-called contradictions are of the same ilk. Thus, contrary to what is usually said, the author's

94 http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5872-esther 95 Plutarch described how Themistocles was introduced to Artaxerxes I: Amongst our many excellent customs, this we account the best, to honour the king and to worship him (proskynein), as the image of the god of all things (eikōn theou). If then you (Themistocles) approve of our practices, fall down before the king and revere him, you may both see him and speak to him; but if you think otherwise, you will need to use messengers to intercede for you, for it is not our national custom for the king to grant audience to any man who does not pay him obeisance (...) When Themistocles was led into the king’s presence (Artaxerxes I), he kissed the ground in front of him and waited silently (The Life of Themistocles 27:1-5, 28:1). 96 At that I fell down before his feet to worship him. But he tells me: Be careful! Do not do that! (Rv 19:10). 97 J. BLACK, A. GEORGE, N. POSTGATE – A Concise Dictionnary of Akkadian Wiesbaden 2000, Ed. Harrassowitz Verlag, p. 5. 98 Papyrus 4Q27, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch.


knowledge of Persian customs is in keeping with contemporary records. For example, the amazing comment: for an edict written in the name of the king and sealed with the king's signet ring is not possible to undo (Est 8:8), looks fanciful but this custom is corroborated by Diodorus Siculus (XVII:30) who relates the account of Darius III and Charidemus. Darius in a fit of anger, condemned Charidemus to death. When his anger abated, the king repented and tried to undo his mistake but it was not possible because the royal edits could not be undone. The unchangeableness of Persian laws was already mentioned by Herodotus (c. 450 BCE): so they (Persian judges) neither warped the law through fear of Cambyses (The Histories III:31). In fact, in the Eastern world a king should keep his word: The king [Herod] was grieved, yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he commanded it to be given (Mt 14:9). In order to discredit the story of Esther some biblical scholars claim that the feast of Purim came from the resumption of the Persian feast of the New Year addressed to the deceased ones, or the implementation of the Babylonian feast of the New Year which was celebrating the victory of Marduk over its rivals99. These allegations are absurd for the following reasons100: 1) pagan rituals have nothing to do with the goal of Purim; 2) the feast of Purim was not celebrated at the vernal equinox, but 15 days before; 3) after their return from Babylon (538 BCE), the Jews definitely broke with all pagan rites (Persian or Babylonian). Consequently the existence of the feast of Purim101 (which is still celebrated today) depends on the existence of the Book of Esther, which reads: Mordecai recorded these events and sent official letters to all the Jews in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, both near and far. He instructed them to observe the 14th day of the month of Adar, as well as the 15th day, each and every year, because on those days the Jews rested from their enemies and in that month their grief was changed to rejoicing and their mourning to a day of celebration. They were to observe them as days of feasting and rejoicing and as a time to send portions of food to one another and gifts to the poor. And the Jews agreed to continue the celebration that they had started and to do what Mordecai wrote to them. For Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had schemed against the Jews to destroy them, and he had cast Pur, that is, the Lot, to throw them into a panic and to destroy them. But when Esther came in before the king, he gave orders in writing: Let his evil scheme against the Jews come back on his own head; and they hanged him and his sons on the stake. That is why they called these days Purim, after the name of the Pur. Therefore, because of all that was written in this letter and what they saw concerning this matter and what had come upon them, the Jews obligated themselves and their descendants and all those joining them to celebrate these two days without fail and to carry out what was written concerning them at the appointed time each and every year. These days were to be remembered and observed in every generation, by each family, each province, and each city; and these days of Purim should not cease among the Jews, and their commemoration should not come to an end among their descendants (Est 9:20-28). According to the Book of Maccabees, Purim was observed in March 161 BCE and the 14th of Adar was called the Day of Mordecai: Having collected the spoils and booty, they cut off Nicanor's head and the right hand he had stretched out in a display of insolence; these were taken and displayed within sight of Jerusalem. The people were overjoyed and kept that day as a great holiday: indeed they decided to celebrate it annually on the 13th of Adar (...) He hung Nicanor's head from the Citadel, a clear and evident sign to all of the help of the Lord. They all decreed by public vote never to let that day go by unobserved, but to celebrate the 13th day of the twelfth month, called Adar in Aramaic, the eve of what is called the Day of Mordecai (1M 7:47-49; 2M 15:35-36). At the end of the book of Esther translated into Greek, we

99 D. BACH – Purim in: Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible (Brepols 1987) p. 1079. 100 A. LANG – Magic and Religion New York 2005, Ed. Cosimo, Inc., pp. 141-196. 101 Purim means "lots" (Est 3:7), it comes from the Babylonian word pûru "lot". During the Babylonian festival of the New Year (called Akitu), on 8 Nisan, Marduk was set free, the statues of the gods were gathered in the Destinies Hall "Ubshu-Ukkina", to deliberate his destiny (or lot), there it was decided to join all the forces of the gods and bestow them upon Marduk.


read: And they shall observe these days in the month Adar, on the 14th and on the 15th day of the month, with an assembly, and joy and gladness before God, throughout the generations for ever amongst his people Israel. In the 4th year of the reign of Ptolemeus [VIII?] and Cleopatra [in 112 BCE], Dositheus, who said he was a priest and Levite, and Ptolemeus his son, brought this epistle of Phurim, which they said was the same, and that Lysimachus the son of Ptolemeus, that was in Jerusalem, had interpreted. According to Flavius Josephus (37-100), there was a festival on 13 Adar, the Day of Nicanor, just before the feast of Purim on 14 and 15 Adar: he led them out to fight, and joining battle with Nicanor, which proved to be a severe one, he overcame the enemy, and slew many of them; and at last Nicanor himself, as he was fighting gloriously, fell (...) This victory happened to fall on the 13th day of that month which by the Jews is called Adar and by the Macedonians Dystrus; and the Jews thereon celebrate this victory every year, and esteem it as a festival day (Jewish Antiquities XII:409-412). Now when the royal decree was come to all the country that was subject to the king, it fell out that the Jews at Shushan slew 500 of their enemies; and when the king had told Esther the number of those that were slain in that city, but did not well know what had been done in the provinces, he asked her whether she would have any thing further done against them, for that it should be done accordingly: upon which she desired that the Jews might be permitted to treat their remaining enemies in the same manner the next day; as also that they might hang the ten sons of Haman upon the gallows. So the king permitted the Jews so to do, as desirous not to contradict Esther. So they gathered themselves together again on the 14th day of the month Dystrus, and slew about 300 of their enemies, but touched nothing of what riches they had. Now there were slain by the Jews that were in the country, and in the other cities, 75,000 of their enemies, and these were slain on the 13th day of the month, and the next day they kept as a festival. In like manner the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together, and feasted on the 14th day, and that which followed it; whence it is that even now all the Jews that are in the habitable earth keep these days festival, and send portions to one another. Mordecai also wrote to the Jews that lived in the kingdom of Artaxerxes to observe these days (14 and 15 Adar), and celebrate them as festivals, and to deliver them down to posterity, that this festival might continue for all time to come, and that it might never be buried in oblivion; for since they were about to be destroyed on these days by Haman, they would do a right thing, upon escaping the danger in them, and on them inflicting punishment on their enemies, to observe those days, and give thanks to God on them; for which cause the Jews still keep the forementioned days, which they call Phruraioi (Purim), and Mordecai became a great and illustrious person with the king, and assisted him in the government of the people (Jewish Antiquities XI:289-295). The Roll of Fasting (c. 117 CE) states that the Day of Nicanor on 13 Adar, being a festival, it was forbidden to fast on this day (Megillat Taanit 18b)102. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the observance of days of fasting became random103. The Mishna (Taanit 2:10; Rosh Hashana 1:3) states that there was no fasting at Purim in the month of

102 H. LICHTENSTEIN - Die Fastenrolle eine Untersuchung zur Jüdisch-Hellenistishen Geschichte in: Hebrew Union College Annual Cincinnati 1931-32 pp. 279-280. 103 Some Jews wished to commemorate the 3 days of fasting observed by Esther (Est 4:16), but this fast from 14 to 16 Nisan was not a formal requirement. The She'iltot of R. Aḥa of Shabḥa (8th century) has the earliest record of the custom of fasting on the 13th of Adar. It quotes the declaration of R. Samuel b. Isaac (Megillah 2a): The 13th day of Adar is the time for public gathering, and refers to the words of Esther (9:18): The other Jews in the king's provinces gathered together and stood up for themselves on the 13th day of the month of Adar; explaining that the purpose of the gathering was for public prayer and fasting. Maimonides accepts the custom of public fasting on this day finding his scriptural authority in the words: Regarding the fasting and the crying (Est 9:31). Comparing it with other public fasts he declares: Whereas the other fasts are postponed to the following day if they would otherwise fall on the Sabbath the Fast of Esther is anticipated to the Thursday, since fasting here must precede the celebration (Yad, Ta'anit 5:5). An earlier tradition of fasting (c. 750 CE) in connection with Purim is preserved in the Talmud (Soferim 14:4), which specifically excludes fasting on the 13th of Adar: because of Nicanor and his men. This is in accordance with the prohibition of Megillat Ta'anit against fasting on those days on which the Maccabean victories over Nicanor and their other enemies were celebrated. Elsewhere tractate Soferim asserts: Our Rabbis in the West [i.e., Ereẓ Israel] are accustomed to fast at intervals after Purim [i.e., on the 3 subsequent days: Monday, Thursday, and Monday] in commemoration of the 3 days fasted by Esther and Mordecai and those who joined them" (Soferim 21:1). Maimonides stated that the commemoration of fasting should precede the festival (Hilkhot Ta'aniyot 1:14), which instituted the Fast of Esther on 13 Adar, before the feast of Purim on 14 and 15 Adar. Thus the Fast of Esther appeared only from c. 1200 CE. Consequently, when Herod died after a day that the Jews observe as a fast, was the fast of 10 Tebeth (Jewish Antiquities X:116; XVII:166). The ancient Roll of fasts (Megillat Taanit 23a) says: On Shebat 2 a feast-day, no mourning. On Shebat 2 is January 26 in 1 BCE (Herod’s death) and Tebeth 10 is January 5 in 1 BCE.


Adar and Maimonides said: even though the memory of the tragedies will fade, the days of Purim will not be rescinded (Hilkhot Megilla 2:18). The Book of Esther in Hebrew was not copied in the 1st century104, probably for not exacerbating patriotic sentiment against the Romans, but it was read105 from Adar 11 to 15 (Mishna Megilla 1:1). The feast of Purim is a historical proof of the book of Esther, in the same way as the modern celebration of the Olympic Games proves the antic existence of these games. As seen, in order to check the accuracy of the Book of Esther, historians (as well as theologians) usually prefer to refer to eminent experts (archaeologists, Egyptologists, radio-carbonists, etc.) rather than to an accurate chronology (Herodotus’ principle) anchored on absolute dates as well as on reliable documents (Thucydides’ principle) coming from critical editions. This way to check is absolutely misleading as shown in the case of Queen Atossa. The most famous bearer of this name was the daughter of Cyrus the Great (Persian king from 559 to 539) —probably his eldest; her mother may have been Cassandane. Aeschylus’ Persae indicates that she was still alive when Xerxes invaded Greece (480-479 BCE) and she is presented as a venerable queen (likely aged 70 years old)106. Atossa was consort to her brother Cambyses II (Diodorus Siculus 31:19:1) who fell in love with her at the beginning of his reign in 530 BCE because of her great beauty (she was likely 15-20 years old); and, after his death (522 BCE), she somehow passed into the harem of Gaumata (the Pseudo-Smerdis). Eventually Darius took possession of the harem, married Atossa, and made her his main consort and queen (Herodotus III:88). A prominent motive may have been Darius’ wish to legitimize the accession of his own collateral Achaemenid line by joining with a member of Cyrus’ family. Atossa, according to an anecdote of Herodotus (The Histories III:134), induced Darius to make war on the Greeks, because she wanted to have Attic, Argive, and Corinthian maidservants. Atossa had four sons by Darius (Herodotus VII:7). Xerxes was the eldest; the others were Hystaspes, leader of the Bactrian and Saka troops in Xerxes’ army, Masistes, one of Xerxes’ commanding generals, and Achaemenes, admiral of the Egyptian fleet (Herodotus VII:3,64,82,97). Because of her lineage and by her intelligence, Atossa exercised great influence on her husband and at court generally. Xerxes was the first son born to Darius after his seizure of the kingship, but not the eldest of all. Darius had three sons by his first wife, the daughter of Gubaru/Gobryas (Herodotus VII:2). Xerxes’ appointment as commander-in-chief of the Persian army was made to strengthen his position as prospective successor (Herodotus VII:2-3). The choice of Darius to appoint Xerxes as co-regent (496 BCE) must have been due in part to Atossa's great authority. During her son’s reign she held the high status of queen-mother. Her reputation is clearly reflected in Aeschylus’ Persae (472 BCE), where her dignified figure is at the heart of the play’s action. Her personality is impressively represented and drawn with esteem; Darius, called up from Hades by the chorus, explicitly approves of her influence over her son. Consequently Atossa is thought to have lived ca. 550-475 BCE107. Despite her major role in Achaemenid history, Queen Atossa does not appear among the thousands of Persepolis tablets, except maybe (assuming it is not a homonym) once or twice on tablets dated 22nd year of Darius I (500 BCE): fÙ-tam-sa-na (PF 162) and fÙ-du-sa-na-na (PF 163). Consequently archaeologists have questioned the existence of this queen

104 According to Josephus the book of Esther belonged to the Bible and was written at the time of Artaxerxes (Against Apion I:37-41) and according to the Babylonian Talmud, it was written by the men of the Great Assembly (Baba Batra 14b). 105 C. PERROT – La lecture de la Bible. Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fêtes in: Collection Massorah I:1 (Hildesheim 1973), pp. 219-222. 106 For example, according to a text from the Sultantepe tablets , dated around 650 BCE: 40 [years mean] prime of life (lalûtum); 50 [years mean] short life (ūmū kurûtu); 60 [years mean] mature age (meṭlūtu); 70 [years mean] long life (ūmū arkūtu); 80 [years mean] old age (šibūtu); 90 [years mean] extreme old age (littūtu) —(M. ENG – The Days of Ours Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in the Biblical Israel. New York 2011 Ed. Bloomsbury Publishing pp. 36-50). 107 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/atossa-achaemenid-queen


because a lesser-known Persian princess: Artystone (Ἀρτυστώνη), daughter of king Cyrus the Great, and sister or half-sister of Atossa and Cambyses II, appears 27 times in the tablets of Persepolis under the form Ir-taš-du-na/ Ir-da-iš-du-na (from Old Persian *Artastūnā, "pillar of Arta, the deified true"). In addition, Xerxes in his declaration of legitimacy breathes not a word about Atossa, which he would not have failed to do had she exercised the sort of power sometimes accorded her on the basis of Herodotus. On the contrary, he insists on the patrilinear transmission of power (XPf§3). Dynastic legitimacy was not established by way of the mother108. Are the doubts of archaeologists founded? A thorough investigation of thousands of tablets explains the apparent oddities observed by archaeologists109: Ø Paradoxically, the more a character is high-ranking the less he appears among the

Persepolis tablets. Thus, members of the royal court were well-known by scribes (but unfortunately not by us) and they are just mentioned by their titles like: "to King's wife, year 22 (without any names)". Similarly, given that titles of members of the royal court were also well known, they are rarely mentioned110. For example, Irtaštuna (Artystone), Darius’ favourite wife, out of 27 occurrences her name is accompanied by the title durkšiš (“Princess”) in only 2 texts (PF 1795 and PF-NN 3099).

Ø The names of high-ranking members appear sometimes on their seals. For example, Irtaštuna (Artystone) used her own seal (PFS 38) but it could have been used by some subordinates, not by her, such as the person who was “attached to the house of Hystapes (father of Darius)” (PF1596)111. Thus unless a seal is inscribed with the name of the individual, we don’t have any way of establishing that the seal used on behalf of that elite person is his/her own personal seal.

Ø The vast majority of the preserved written documents in the Fortification archive are inscribed in cuneiform Elamite, which is poorly understood in comparison with other ancient western Asiatic languages. A deeper knowledge regularly improves transcriptions, pronunciation and even the meaning, which is sometimes completely changed112!

Ø Archaeology have proved that Artystone (Irtaštuna), one of the six wives of Darius, was a genuine princess, not a mythical character, why not to accept that her famous sister Atossa (Udusana) was also a genuine queen.

Despite Atossa, who was a queen of the first rank (wife of Darius and mother of Xerxes), appearing almost never in the tablets of Persepolis, she is nevertheless the central character in the theatrical performance entitled "The Persians" written by Aeschylus in 473 BCE and played the following year. This play is sympathetic toward the defeated Persians presented as a tragic event for them because of the hubris of their leader: Xerxes. This is not the story of the Persian disasters at Salamis (480 BCE) and Plataea (478 BCE), but a deep reflection on the tragic end of an empire, because if it was just a national disaster, Aeschylus would have written his text immediately after the events (ca. 478 BCE) like his older contemporary Phrynichus who wrote "The Sack of Miletus" in 493 BCE, which treated the destruction of an Ionian colony of Athens in Asia Minor by the Persians (his portrayal of this brutal defeat emphasized Athens' abandonment of its colony). Aeschylus

108 P.BRIANT – From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire Leiden 2002, Eisenbrauns, p. 520. 109 L. LLEWELLYN-JONES – King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE Edinburgh 2013, Ed. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 13-14,113. 110 A.J.S. SPAWFORTH – The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies Cambridge 2007, Ed. Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-34. 111 P.BRIANT – From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire Leiden 2002, Eisenbrauns, p. 446. 112 M.B. GARRISON, M. COOL ROOT, C.E. JONES – Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets Vol. I in: Oriental Institute Publications 117 (The University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 3-12.


wrote the tragic end of an empire because its main leaders were recently deceased (Darius died on 8 December 486 BCE, Atossa around 475 BCE and Xerxes on 24 August 475 BCE). When Themistocles met King Artaxerxes around January 474 BCE, the warlike risks from the Persian Empire were over. If Xerxes died in 465 BCE, he would have been living in 472 BCE during the performance of Aeschylus' play, which would have made incomprehensible his tragic fate, except by admitting that Aeschylus was an inspired prophet or, as stated in the New Testament, to observe that: The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears will be itching for anything new and they will collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths (2Ti 4:3-4). Denying the existence of Queen Esther and Mordecai also involves denying the origin of the Purim Festival, which consequently would have a mythical origin!, but this Day is still celebrated by Jews, how can one explain that the Jews were able to celebrate an imaginary genocide (cf. the Armenians)?, but still worse, some facts of Persian history become totally incomprehensible. For example, the administration of Artaxerxes I (who was Queen Esther's son) employed numerous Jewish scribes and managers in Persia (Murashu's archives)113 as well as many soldiers in its Egyptian province (Elephantine papyri)114. In addition, the Jewish province of Judea became independent under Artaxerxes I’s reign and consequently was exempt from paying tribute to the Persian kingdom. If Artaxerxes I was not the son of Queen Esther, how can one explain this very friendly cooperation between the ancient Babylonian province of Judea and King Artaxerxes I (a peaceful king, unlike Xerxes his father)115. We know Persian history mainly through Herodotus, a great historian who was able to check his sources directly from Persian eyewitness. Besides, the results from archaeology have proved that he was well informed and very reliable. How can one explain that Ezra and Nehemiah, two famous Bible writers, were more well-informed and more reliable than Herodotus? For example, Herodotus knew that there was a king between Cambyses and Darius I called Bardiya (523-522 BCE), but he was misled by Darius' propaganda, which claimed that he was a usurper (a Mage of the same name!): Cambyses being dead (in 522 BCE), the Magus, pretending to be the Smerdis (Bardiya) of like name, Cyrus’ son, reigned without fear for the 7 months by which Cambyses had fallen short of reigning 8 years (530-522 BCE). In this time he benefited all his subjects to such an extent that after his death all the peoples of Asia except the Persians wished him back; for he sent to every nation he ruled and proclaimed an exemption for 3 years from military service and from tribute (The Histories III:67). However according to the biblical text Bardiya was a legitimate king, not a usurper: In (522 BCE) the days of Artaxerxes (Bardiya), Mithredath, Tabeel and their other associates wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia against Jerusalem; the text of the letter was written in Aramaic writing and dialect (Ezr 4:7). Herodotus knew that Darius I had chosen

113 The core activity of the family was fief and estate land management, with members primarily active as creditors for workers of agricultural enterprises, in the lending and provision of equipment, seed, tools, irrigation and animals for this purpose, to individuals including Jewish persons, these relevant as to the book of Ezekiel. The archive gives information on interaction and agreement and the like with 100 Jewish families. The family employed more than 60 agents. The house leased plots of land owned by civil servants (23 high court officials) and warriors (bow-lands, horse-lands and chariot lands) transferring rental payments and also subsequent taxes to the royal family. The government used the family for the purposes of the collection of tax on land (the family "farmed out" taxes). The family had dealings with 2500 separate individuals, at least as evidenced by the archive document. The family had no role in foreign exchange (international trade). Although members did travel to Susa (in Elam, about 200 kilometres distance) where they remained for months involved in financial businesses. 114 Jews often appear also as contracting parties and witnesses. One Elephantine papyri mention an Iranian, Choresmian Dargamana, the son of Harshina, who served in the Elephantine garrison in the detachment of the Persian Artabana. He owned his own house and made claims to some plot of land. Daragamana complained to the judges that a certain Jew from the detachment of the Iranian Varyazata had occupied the field unlawfully. In the court the defendant sworn by the god Yahu (YHW) that Dargamana himself has transferred the lot in question to him, the plaintiff gave up his claim. 115 If Artaxerxes wanted fighting against the Greeks, Themistocles would not have been able to meet him (Thucydides I:98,137).


Xerxes his son as king before his death: But while Darius was making preparations against Egypt and Athens (489-487 BCE), a great quarrel arose among his sons concerning the chief power in the land. They held that before his army marched he must declare an heir to the kingship according to Persian law (...) After declaring Xerxes king, Darius was intent on his expedition. But in the year after this and the revolt of Egypt, death came upon him in the midst of his preparations, after a reign of 36 years in all (522-486 BCE), and it was not granted to him to punish either the revolted Egyptians or the Athenians (The Histories VII:2-4). Thus, Xerxes was co-regent for 1 year (487-486), according to Herodotus, however according to the biblical text Xerxes was co-regent for 10 years (496-486) because the serious accusation against the Jews is dated in the 12th year of the legal reign of Xerxes (Est 3:7-10), in 484 BCE, at the beginning of his effective reign: In the reign of Xerxes, at the beginning of his reign, they drew up an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem (in 484 BCE). Unlike Cambyses who "started again" his reign after the death of Cyrus in 530 BCE, Xerxes continued his dating from the beginning of his co-regency, as Bardiya (523-522) did. After the death of Darius I, Xerxes was then in his 10th year of reign. Cameron116 notes that the 1st year and the accession of Xerxes are well represented in Babylon, it does not place the revolt over the two years since the Babylonians had clearly recognized Xerxes in his early steps. Waerzeggers117 notes that the tablet BM 96414, dated the accession of Šamaš-erîba mentions the 1st year of Xerxes, but as the legitimate king was Šamaš-erîba, for the scribe, Xerxes was an usurper in his 1st year of reign, not a legitimate king in his 11th year. Indeed, Xerxes was challenged after the death of Darius in 486 BCE, not during the first two years of his reign (495-494). The most likely explanation of the very intriguing seal AO 22359 (Musée du Louvre)118 dated around 500 BCE, is that it represents Queen Esther (below right) in front of Atossa (Darius' wife and Xerxes' mother) when she married Xerxes in 489 BCE.

116 G.G. CAMERON – Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58 (1941) pp. 314-325. 117 C. WAERZEGGERS – The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’ in: Archiv für Orientforschung 50 (2003/2004) pp. 150-172. 118 With the following comment: Image of harem or scene of worship before the queen or goddess Anahita (dated 500 B.C.)! This comment is absurd because the royal woman seated on the throne is neither a queen (she has no crown) nor the goddess Anahita, always represented with a radiant halo around her head, whose worship began only with Artaxerxes II (405-359).

Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes

Abstract. The pivotal date of 465 BCE for the death of Xerxes has been accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, according to Thucydides, a historian renowned for his high chronological accuracy, Themistocles met Artaxerxes, who had succeeded Xerxes, his father, just after the fall of Naxos (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137) which occurred after the fall of Skyros dated at the beginning of the archonship of Phaedo in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474, not 465/464.

The present Achaemenid chronology comes mainly from official Babylonian king lists which ignore coregents and usurpers. This official version is contradicted by contracts dated in "year, month, day" proving the existence of frequent co-regencies and usurpers. In addition, according to the astronomical tablet referenced BM 32234 the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V/21 between two lunar eclipses, one dated 14/III/21 (26 June 475 BCE), which was total, and a second dated 14/VIII/21 (20 December 475 BCE), which was partial. Thus the death of Xerxes has to be dated 24 August 475 BCE. Likewise, the death of Artaxerxes I is fixed precisely by Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War IV:50-52) just before a partial solar eclipse (21 March 424 BCE) which would imply an absurd co-regency of Darius II with a dead king for at least one year! In fact, Plutarch and Justinus have effectively described a long co-regency of Artaxerxes but with his first son Darius B (434-426), not Darius II, and afterward two shorts reigns: Xerxes II for 2 months then Sogdianus for 7 months, which occurred before the reign of Darius II.

The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has several anomalies especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency, and thus two distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) corresponds to another cycle ending in year 4 of Xerxes. The titulature of Xerxes (496–475) in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the co-regency of 10 years with Darius (522–486), as do Elephantine papyri with many double dates both in civil and lunar calendars.

Lunar dates were supposed to come from a Babylonian calendar, but this is impossible because the city of Elephantine, in the far south of Egypt, was largely administered by Egyptian officials who used a civil calendar to date their documents. Parker (1950) assumed that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with the 1st invisibility (day after the new moon and just before the new crescent). As lunar day 1, called psdntyw "shining ones", has played a major role in Egyptian religious celebrations, it is regularly quoted in ancient documents, which sometimes also date it in the civil calendar. In the papyrus Louvre 7848 containing a double date, lunar and civil, in the year 44 of Amasis, the first date (II Shemu 13) is lunar and the second (I Shemu 15) is civil and as the civil date fell on 21 September 558 BCE the lunar date fell on 9 (= 21 – 12) September 558 BCE which was a full moon day according to astronomy, not 1st invisibility "shining ones"! The lunar calendar at Elephantine with its system of double dates used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes from 500 to 400 BCE confirms that the Egyptian lunar day 1 was a full moon. The death of Xerxes is dated in 465 BCE by mainstream historians. This date comes mainly from the official Babylonian chronology, however, the testimony of Thucydides and from some Egyptian records of Elephantine rather support the dating 475 BCE. A careful chronological analysis of Babylonian astronomical tablets allows to fix the precise date of Xerxes' death on August 24th in 475 BCE. The official Babylonian chronology used by historians is based on the tablet BM 34576 (King List copy dated 99 BCE)119:

119 T. BOIY - Dating Problems in Cuneiform Tablets in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001) pp. 645-649.


This official chronology is partly false120 (wrong dating are highlighted in orange):

Year King Date Reign Length Co-regency Coregent Year [38] Nebuchadnezzar II 567 605-[562] [43] [ 7] Nabonidus 549 556-539 17 attested Bel-shar-usur [4] [ 8] Cyrus 531 539-[530] [9] [ 9] Darius I 513 522-486 36 27 Darius I 495 9 Xerxes I 477 486-465 21 6 Artaxerxes I 459 465-424 41

[24] Artaxerxes I 441 [ 1] Darius II 423 424-405 19 19 Darius II 405 18 Artaxerxes II 387 405-359 46 36 Artaxerxes II 369 8 Artaxerxes III 351 359-336 23 3 Darius III 333 336-[331] [5] 3 Antigonus 315 318-312 6 15 Seleucus I 297 312-[281] [31] 33 Seleucus I 279 attested Antiochus I [3]

There is no coregent and no usurper! The reality was more complex121 (hereafter). In addition, the presence of months in some king lists is abnormal, because the length of reigns is always given in years.

Official chronology Reconstituted chronology Remark Philip Arrhidaeus 323-316 Alexander IV 323 - child king Antigonus Monophtha. 316-311 -310 murdered in -310 Seleucus I 311-281 (Alexander IV) (310-305) usurped attribution

Seleucus I 305-294 11 years of reign alone Seleucus I /Antiochus I 294-281 co-regency of 13 years

Antiochus I 281-261 Antiochus I 281-261

120 T. BOIY - Aspects chronologiques de la période de transition (350-300 av.J.C.) in: www.achemenet.com/pdf/colloque/BOIY.pdf T. BOIY - Dating Method During the Early Hellenistic Period in: Jounal of Cuneiform Studies 52 (2000) pp. 115-121. S. ZAWADZKI - The Fall of Assyria (...) in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle Poznan 1988 Ed. A. Mickiewick University Press. 121 T. BOIY – Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period 2007 Leuven Ed. Verlag Antike pp. 95-131.

DATING THE REIGNS OF XERXES AND ARTAXERXES 49

King King List of Uruk Ptolemy Berosus Eusebius Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 21 years 21 years Nebuchadnezzar II 43 years 43 years 43 years 43 years Amel-Marduk 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years Neriglissar [x]+2 years, 8 months 4 years 4 years 4 years Labashi-Marduk […] 3 months - 9 months 9 months Nabonidus [x]+15 years 17 years 17 years 17 years

This chronology122 has been reconstructed through the set of Babylonian lists of kings and all dated contracts. Since then many tablets have been published (by J. Everling and by E. Leichty, A.K. Grayson, J.J. Finkelstein and C.B.F. Walker)123 which showed the frequent occurrence of co-regency (highlighted in orange):

King Reign Length Nabopolassar 17/05/626–15/08/605 21 years Nebuchadnezzar II 07/09/605–08/10/562 43 years Amel-Marduk 08/10/562–07/08/560 2 years Neriglissar 11/08/560–16/04/556 4 years Labashi-Marduk 03/05/556–20/06/556 2 month Nabonidus 25/05/556–13/10/539 17 years

King dated

texts average by year

lowest date highest date tablet

Nabopolassar 430 21 [13]/II/00 08/V/21

(P. & D.) (P. & D.)

Nebuchadnezzar II

2322 54 01/VI/00 21/VI/43 26/VI/43

(P. & D.) (P. & D.) (P. & D.)

Amel-Marduk 153 77 5/[IV]/00 20/V/00

08/VII/2 [17]/X/2

BM 65270 BM 75322 BM 75106 BM 61325

Neriglissar

214 54 01/II/00 23/V/00

01/I/4 06/[I]/4

BM 75489 (P. & D.) (P. & D.) (P. & D.)

Labashi-Marduk 12 48 23/I/00 12/II/00

09/III/00 12/III/00

(P. & D.) (P. & D.) (P. & D.) (P. & D.)

Nabonidus

3317 195 15/II/00 01/III/00

17/VII/17 03/VIII/17

(P. & D.) (P. & D.) (P. & D.) (P. & D.)

122 R.A. PARKER, W.H. DUBBERSTEIN - Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 10-13. 123 E. LEICHTY - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VI 1986 Trustees of the British Museum. E. LEICHTY, A.K. GRAYSON - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VII 1987 Trustees of the British Museum. E. LEICHTY, J.J. FINKELSTEIN, C.B.F. WALKER - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets VIII 1988 Trustees of the British Museum.


TRANSITION AND CO-REGENCY Co-regencies were in fact very frequent during transition between two kings:

562 1 X 42 Nebuchadnezzar II 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 43 5 II 6 III 7 IV 0 Nebuchadnezzar II/ Amel-Marduk 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

561 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 Amel-Marduk 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

560 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 2 5 II 0 Neriglissar / Amel-Marduk 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

559 1 X 2 XI Neriglissar 3 XII 4 I 1 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

556 1 X 3 Neriglissar

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 4 5 II 0 0 Labashi-Marduk/ Nabonidus 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

555 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 Nabonidus 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX


Greek Achaemenid Chronology According to Thucydides: Themistocles manifested a desire to visit the king of Persia (...) The storm caused the vessel to drift towards the camp of the Athenians who then besieged Naxos (...) Accompanied by a Persian coast, then he penetrated into the interior of the country and sent to Artaxerxes, who had succeeded Xerxes, his father a letter (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137). Therefore, he reports the fall of Naxos after the one of Skyros dated of the beginning of the archonship of Phaedo in -476, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474. Furthermore, Themistocles died under the archon of Praxiergos (in -471) according to Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library XI:54-60), and Herodotus situated the transfer of power from Darius to Xerxes at the time of the revolt of Egypt (The Histories VII :1-4), four years after Marathon, or -486, and the change Xerxes / Artaxerxes shortly after the storming of Eion [dated -476], last event of the reign of Xerxes (The Histories VII :106-107).

epoch 450 BCE 400 BCE 250 BCE 50 BCE 150 CE 200 CE 300 CE 400 CE historian Herodotus Ctesias Manetho Diodorus Ptolemy Clement Eusebius Sulpice

Cyrus II 29 30 9 30 9 [30] 31 Cambyses II 7 + 5 m. 18 3 / 6 8 19 8 6 Bardiya 7 months 7 months 7 months 7 months Nabu. III* Nabu. IV* Darius I 36 31 36 36 46 33 36 Bel-shimanni* Shamash-eriba* Xerxes I ?? ?? 21 20 21 26 11*/ 20 21 Artaban [-] [-] 7 months [-] 7 months 7 months Artaxerxes I 42 40 / 41 40 41 41 40 41 Xerxes II 45 days 2 months 2 months 2 months 2 months Sogdianos 6 m+15 d 7 months 7 months 7 months 7 months Darius II 35 19 19 19 8 19 19 Artaxerxes II 43 46 42 42 62 Artaxerxes III 26 23 21 3 21 23

Greek Achaemenid chronology124:

Cyrus II/ Cambyses II (539-530) 9 years [co-regency of 1 year] Cambyses II (530-522) 8 years Darius I (522-496) 26 years Darius I/ Xerxes I (496-486) [coregency of 10 years] Xerxes I (486-475) 11 years Artaxerxes I (475-434) 41 years Artaxerxes I/ Darius B (434-426) [co-regency of 8 years] Artaxerxes I (426/425) 1 year [= "50th year"] Xerxes II/ Sogdianos (425/424) 1 year [= "51st year"] Darius II (Ochos) (424-405) 19 years Artaxerxes II (Arsakes) (405-359) 46 years [coregency of 3 years] Artaxerxes III (Ochos) (359-338) 21 years Artaxerxes IV (Arses) (338-336) 2 years Darius III (336-331) 5 years

124 M.S. KOUTORGA - Recherches critiques sur l'histoire de la Grèce, pendant la période des guerres médiques in: Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l'Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l'Institut de France, 1re série. t. VII Paris 1861. E. LEVESQUE - Revue apologétique vol. 68 Paris 1939, pp. 92-94.


Achaemenid chronology according to synchronisms dated by astronomy

Year King Co-regent 525 5 Cambyses II 524 6 523 7 522 8 1 Bardiya Nebuchadnezzar III 521 1 0 Darius I Nebuchadnezzar IV 520 2 519 3 518 4 517 5 516 6 515 7 514 8 513 9 512 10 511 11 510 12 509 13 508 14 507 15 506 16 505 17 504 18 503 19 502 20 501 21 500 22 499 23 498 24 497 25 496 26 0 Xerxes I 495 27 1 494 28 2 493 29 3 492 30 4 491 31 5 490 32 6 489 33 7 488 34 8 487 35 9 486 36 10 485 11 (1) Xerxes I Bel-shimanni / Shamash-eriba 484 12 483 13 482 14 481 15 480 16 479 17 478 18 477 19 476 20 Fall of Skyros 475 21 0 Artaxerxes I (Artaban) 474 1 Themistocles met Artaxerxes 473 2 472 3 471 4 Death of Themistocles 470 5 469 6 468 7 467 8


466 9 465 10 464 11 463 12 462 13 461 14 460 15 459 16 458 17 457 18 456 19 455 20 454 21 453 22 452 23 451 24 450 25 449 26 448 27 447 28 446 29 445 30 444 31 443 32 442 33 441 34 440 35 439 36 438 37 437 38 436 39 435 40 434 41 0 Murashu tablets Darius B 433 (42) 1 432 (43) 2 431 (44) 3 430 (45) 4 429 (46) 5 428 (47) 6 427 (48) 7 426 (49) 8 425 50 (0) (Xerxes II) 424 (51) 0 Darius II Sogdianos 423 1 422 2 421 3 420 4 419 5 418 6 417 7 416 8 415 9 414 10 413 11 412 12 411 13 410 14 409 15 408 16 407 17


Chronology: Greeks versus Babylonians Anchor date (year 7 of Cambyses in 523 BCE) owing to tablet BM 33066125:

19 mu 7 šu ge6 14 1 2/3 danna ge6 gin 20 sin an-mi til gar i-ṣi i-ri-hi si gin 21 ab ge6 14 2 1/2 danna ge6 ana zalàg i-ri-hi 22 sin an-mi til gar ulù u si dir gin

19 Year 7 month IV, night 14, 1 2/3 beru (= 50° = 50x4 minutes) after sunset, 20 the Moon makes a total eclipse, [but] a little is left over, north [wind] went. 21 month X, night 14, 2 1/2 beru (= 75° = 75x4 minutes) to sunrise are left over, 22 the Moon makes a total ecmipse. South and north, clouded, went.

The sentence "a little is left over" is unusual (a guess of copyist for a damaged tablet) but the partial eclipse may be dated 523 BCE July 16/17 [mag. = 0.54] and the total eclipse 522 BCE January 9/10126. Claudius Ptolemy had to know the original tablet because he gave the right magnitude of 0.50 for the partial eclipse (Almagest V:14). Another astronomical tablet (BM 36879) describes eclipses127 in years 1-4 of Cambyses II, dated by astronomy 529-526 BCE. A diary (VAT 4956) contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years

125 M.J. OPPERT – Un annuaire astronomique babylonien in: Journal Asiatique (1890) pp. 511-516. 126 F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 166-167. 127 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 94-96.


37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar128 which are dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An astronomical journal (BM 38462)129 list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE, another one (BM 45640) gives the partial lunar eclipse in year 2 month I of Šamaš-šuma-ukîn dated 10/11 April 666 BCE. Ø The */II/5 of Cambyses II corresponds to the */V/2 of Psammetichus III (May -525). Ø According to the biography of Adad-Guppi130, mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar

reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele131 there were 54 years between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901)132 and Adad-Guppi's stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar. The Hillah's stele also quotes some events during the 1st year of Nabonidus and mentions an astronomical configuration which happened between 2 and 6 Siwan 555 BCE.

Ø After the fall of the Assyrian empire in October 609 BCE, Babylonian domination lasted exactly 70 years until its fall in October 539 BCE, according to Jeremiah 25:11,12.

Ø The Assyrian period 911-648 is dated owing to its eponyms133 and the period 648-609 by a prosopography of its eponyms134.

Ø Year 1 of Amel Marduk (561 BCE) corresponds to year 37 of Jehoiachin's exile (2 Kings 25:27). This exile began just after the attack on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in the year 7 of his reign (598 BCE).

Ø The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronism, since the year of Assur-uballit II corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II.

Ø Year 6 of Assurbanipal corresponds to year 1 of Psammetichus I135. Ø Dating Egyptian chronology exactly from February 663 BCE to April 525 BCE is

possible because the precise life of the Apis bulls is known136.

Egyptian king Reign Length Highest year Synchronism with: Chabataka [ /712-01/689] 23 years 3 year 10 of Sargon II Taharqa [01/689-01/663] 26 years 26 Psammetichus I 02/663-01/609 54 years 54 Year 6 of Assurbanipal Nekao II 02/609-10/594 15 years 10 months 16 Year 17 of Nabopolassar Psammetichus II 11/594-01/588 6 years 1 month 7 Apries 02/588-12/570 19 years 17 [Apries/ Amasis] [01/569-12/567] [3 years co-regency] [3] Amasis 01/569-10/526 43 years 10 months 44 Psammetichus III 11/526-04/525 6 months 2 Year 5 of Cambyses II

128 A.J. SACHS, H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. I Wien 1988 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften (n° -567). 129 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. V n° 6 Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 27-30,396. 130 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560,561. 131 P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2. 132 J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22 Paris 1993 Éd. Belles Lettres pp. 193-197. 133 S. PARPOLA – Assyrian Chronology 681-648 BC. in: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Part II (Eisenbrauns 2007) pp. 381-430. 134 S. PARPOLA – The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire Helsinki 1998 University of Helsinki pp. XVIII-XX. 135 A.K. GRAYSON – The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 0 (1980) pp. 227-245. 136 H. GAUTHIER – Le livre des rois d'Égypte Le Caire 1915 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 74,87,88,92,93,106,115,119.


BCE Assyrian king Egyptian king

Assyrian eponym Babylonian king

688 2 Taharqa Iddin-ahhê 17 [11] 1 Sennacherib 687 3 Arda-Mulissu Sin-ahhê-erîba 18 [12] 2 686 4 Bêl-êmuranni 19 [13] 3 685 5 Aššur-da’’inanni 20 [14] 4 684 6 Manzernê 21 [15] 5 683 7 Mannu-kî-Adad 22 [1] 6 682 8 Nabû-sharru-uṣur 23 [2] 7 681 9 Nabû-ahhê-êreš 24 [3] 8 680 10 Esarhaddon Danânu 1 1 Esarhaddon 679 11 Issi-Adad-anênu 2 2 678 12 Nergal-šarru-uṣur 3 3 677 13 Abî-râmu 4 4 676 14 Banbâ 5 5 675 15 Nabû-ahhê-iddin 6 6 674 16 Šarru-nûrî 7 7 673 17 Atar-ilu 8 8 672 18 Nabû-bêlu-uṣur 9 [1] 9 671 19 Kanûnâyu 10 [2] 10 670 20 Šulmu-bêli-lašme 11 [3] 11 669 21 Šamash-kâšid-ayâbi 12 [4] 12 668 22 Assurbanipal Marlarim 1 1 Aššurbanipal 667 23 Gabbaru 2 1 Šamaš-šuma-ukîn 666 24 Kanûnâyu 3 2 Tablet BM 45640 665 25 Mannu-kî-šarri 4 3 664 26 Thebes devastated Šarru-lû-dâri 5 4 663 1 Psammetichus I Bêl-na’id 6 5 1 662 2 Tab-šar-Sîn 7 6 2 661 3 Arba’ilâyu 8 7 3 660 4 Girsapûnu 9 8 4 659 5 Silim-Aššur 10 9 5 658 6 Ša-Nabû-šû 11 10 6 657 7 Lâ-bâši 12 11 7 656 8 Milkî-râmu 13 12 8 655 9 Amyânu 14 13 9 654 10 Assur-nâsir 15 14 10 653 11 Assur-ilâya 16 15 11 652 12 Assur-dûru-uṣur 17 16 12 651 13 Sagabbu 18 17 13 650 14 Bêl-Harrân-šadûa 19 18 14 649 15 Ahu-ilâya 20 19 15 648 16 Belshunu 21 20 16 647 17 Nabû-nadin-ahi 22 1 Kandalanu 17 646 18 Nabû-šar-ahhešu 23 2 18 645 19 Šamaš-da’’inanni of Babylon 24 3 19 644 20 Nabû-sharru-uṣur 25 4 20 643 21 Nabû-sharru-uṣur of Marash 26 5 21 642 22 Šamaš-da’’inanni of Que 27 6 22 641 23 Aššur-garu’a-nere 28 7 23 640 24 Šarru-metu-uballit 29 8 24 639 25 Mušallim-Aššur 30 9 25 638 26 Aššur-gimilli-tere 31 10 26 637 27 Zababa-eriba 32 11 27 636 28 Sin-šarru-uṣur 33 12 28 635 29 Bel-lu-dari 34 13 29 634 30 Bullutu 35 14 30 633 31 Upaqa-ana-Arbail 36 15 31 632 32 Tab-sil-Sin 37 16 32 631 33 Adad-remanni 38 17 33 630 34 Salmu-šarri-iqbi 39 18 34 629 35 Aššur-etel-ilâni Nabû-šarru-uṣur [40] 1 19 35 628 36 ?Nur-salam-sarpi? [41] 2 20 36 627 37 Marduk-šarru-uṣur [42] 3 21 Sin-šum-lišir 37 626 38 Sin-šar-iškun Iqbi-ilani /Marduk-remanni 0 4 22) Sin-šar-iškun 38 625 39 Sin-šarru-uṣur 1 1 Nabopolassar 39


624 40 Kanunaiu 2 2 40 623 41 Aššur-matu-taqqin 3 3 41 622 42 Daddî 4 4 42 621 43 Bel-iqbi 5 5 43 620 44 Sa’ilu 6 6 44 619 45 Mannu-ki-ahhe 7 7 45 618 46 Nabû-sakip 8 8 46 617 47 Assur-remanni 9 9 47 616 48 Bel-ahu-uṣur 10 10 48 615 49 Sin-alik-pani 11 11 49 614 50 Paši 12 12 50 613 51 Nabû-tapputi-alik 13 13 51 612 52 Shamash-šarru-ibni 14 14 52 611 53 Aššur-uballit II Nabû-mar-šarri-uṣur 1 15 53 610 54 Nabû-šarru-uṣur 2 16 Temple of Harran wrecked 54 609 1 Necho II Gargamisaiu 3 [0] 17 Stele of Adad-Guppi 1 55 608 2 [1] 18 2 56 607 3 [2] 19 3 57 606 4 [3] 20 4 58 605 5 [4] 21 5 59 604 6 1 Nebuchadnezzar II 6 60 603 7 2 7 61 602 8 3 8 62 601 9 4 9 63 600 10 5 10 64 599 11 6 11 65 598 12 7 12 66 597 13 8 13 67 596 14 9 14 68 595 15 10 15 69 594 16 1 Psammetichus II 11 16 70 593 2 12 17 71 592 3 13 18 72 591 4 14 19 73 590 5 15 20 74 589 6 16 21 75 588 1 7 Apries 17 22 76 587 2 18 23 77 586 3 19 24 78 585 4 20 25 79 584 5 21 26 80 583 6 22 27 81 582 7 23 28 82 581 8 24 29 83 580 9 25 30 84 579 10 26 31 85 578 11 27 32 86 577 12 28 33 87 576 13 29 34 88 575 14 30 35 89 574 15 31 36 90 573 16 32 37 91 572 17 33 38 92 571 18 34 39 93 570 19 35 40 94 569 [20] 1 Amasis 36 41 95 568 [21] 2 37 Tablet VAT 4956 42 96 567 [22] 3 38 43 97 566 4 39 44 98 565 5 40 45 99 564 6 41 46 100 563 7 42 47 101 562 8 0 43 48 102 561 9 1 Amel-Marduk 49 103 560 10 0 2 50 104 559 11 1 Neriglissar 51 105


558 12 pap. Louvre 7848 Cyrus II [1] 2 52 106 557 13 [2] 3 53 107 556 14 [3] 0 4 Lâbâši-Marduk 54 108 555 15 stele of Hillah [4] 1 Nabonidus 109 554 16 [5] 2 110 553 17 [6] [0] 3 Belshazzar 111 552 18 [7] [1] 4 112 551 19 [8] [2] 5 113 550 20 [9] [3] 6 114 549 21 [10] [4] 7 115 548 22 [11] [5] 8 116 547 23 [12] [6] 9 117 546 24 [13] [7] 10 118 545 25 [14] [8] 11 119 544 26 [15] [9] 12 120 543 27 [16] [10] 13 121 542 28 [17] [11] 14 122 541 29 [18] [12] 15 123 540 30 [19] [13] 16 124 539 31 [20] [14] 17 Fall of Babylon 125 538 32 Cyrus II 1 [1] Ugbaru 126 537 33 2 1 Cambyses II 127 536 34 3 [2] 128 535 35 4 [3] 129 534 36 5 [4] 130 533 37 6 [5] 131 532 38 7 [6] 132 531 39 8 [7] 133 530 40 9 [8] 134 529 41 Cambyses II 1 135 528 42 2 136 527 43 3 137 526 1 44 Psammetichus III 4 138 525 2 5 Cambyses II Stele IM.4187 5 524 3 6 6 523 4 7 Tablet BM 33066 7 522 5 8 8

An accurate chronological reconstitution does not mean that is historically complete (usurpers and co-regencies do not appear). It also does not mean it is the same as the official chronology of Kandalanu137 (below), for example, was partly accurate:

630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 Kandalanu 34 629 35 40 19 35 628 36 41 20 36 627 37 42 21 37 626 38 43 22 38 625 39 Sin-šar-iškun 1 1 Nabopolassar 39

However the reality contains many more facts making it much more complex138:

630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 34 629 35 Aššur-etel-ilâni [40] 1 19 35 628 36 [41] 2 20 36 627 37 [42] 3 21 Sin-šum-lišir 37 626 38 0 4 22) Sin-šar-iškun 38 625 39 Sin-šar-iškun 1 1 Nabopolassar 39

137 The word kandalum means "crockery (?)" in Akkadian, probably because Kandalanu was a little bit simple. 138 S. ZAWADZKI - The Fall of Assyria (...) in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle Poznan 1988 Ed. A. Mickiewick University Press. G. FRAME - Babilonia 689-627 B.C. A Political History 1992 Istanbul Ed. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut pp. 302-306. F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C. 2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin pp. 102-105.


"OFFICIAL" KING VERSUS "REAL" KING IN 539 BCE

Babylonian king reign # Persian king reign # Median king reign Esarhaddon 681-669 12 Deiokes 728-675 53 Šamaš-šum-ukîn 668-648 20 Phraortes 675-653 22 Kandalanu 648-627 21 Achemenes ? ? ? [Madius? Scythes] 653-625 28 Nabopolassar 626-605 21 Teispes 635-610 [25] Cyaxares 625 - 40 Nebuchadnezzar 605 - 43 Cyrus I 610-585 [25] -585 -562 Cambyses I 585 - 26 Astyages 585 - 35 Amel-Marduk 562-560 2 -559 Neriglissar 560-556 4 Cyrus II 559 - 20 -550 Nabonidus 556-539 17 -539 Harpagus 550-539 11 Cyrus II 539-530 9 Cambyses II 530-522 8

The chronology of Median kings comes from Herodotus (The Histories I:101-108). He mentions a total solar eclipse at the end of Cyaxares reign (dated May 28, 585 BCE according to astronomy). He wrote that Astyages was defeated by Cyrus after a reign of 35 years. Cyrus thus became the ruler of Persia and Media with Harpagus becoming a coregent (The Histories I:127-130, 162, 177-178). He was called "Lieutenant of Cyrus" by Strabo (Geography VI:1) and "Commandant of Cyrus" by Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library IX:31:1). Harpagus is called Oibaras by Ctesias (Persica §13,36,45). According to Flavius Josephus, Cyrus captured Babylon with the help of Darius the Mede, a "son of Astyages", during the reign of Belshatsar, in the year 17 of Nabonidus (Jewish Antiquities X:247-249). Transition in 550 BCE:

year month [A] [B] [C] [D] King 551 1 X [7] [33] 4 [1]

2 XI 3 XII 4 I [8] [34] 5 [2] [A] Cyrus II King of Persia

[B] Astyages King of Media [C] Nabonidus King of Babylon [D] Belšaruṣur Coregent (Babylonian)

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

550 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I [9] [35] 6 [3] 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI [0] [A] Cyrus II King of Persia (and Media)

[B] Harpagus Median Coregent

10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

549 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I [10] [1] 7 [4] 5 II

According to the text of Daniel, a ram with two horns appearing in the 3rd year of Belšaruṣur represents the kings of Media and Persia (Daniel 8:1-6,20). In -550, Cyrus II became king of Persia and Harpagus, his coregent, was king of Media.


year month [A] [B] [C] [D] King 539 4 I** [20] [11] 17 [14] [A] Cyrus II King of Persia

[B] Oibaras Coregent (Mede) [C] Nabonidus King of Babylon [D] Belšaruṣur Coregent (Babylonian) Fall of Babylon

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 0 [0] [A] Cyrus II King of Lands

[B] Ugbaru Governor of Babylon (Mede) Daniel 5:30-6:1 [C] Nabonidus Governor of Carmania Berossus -Babyloniaca FGrH 680 F10a

11 VIII 12 IX

538 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 [1] [B] Darius the Mede "King" of Babylon Daniel 9:1-2

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX [A] Cyrus II King of Babylon, King of Lands

[B] Cambyses II King of Babylon (Double dated contract TuM 2-3 92)

537 1 X 0 *** 2 XI ***

3 XII 4 I** 2 1 (festival of Akitu)**

Gubaru satrap of Babylon appeared in 535 BCE 5 II

Herodotus actually mentions a co-regency139, between Cyrus King of Lands (year 1) and Cambyses King of Babylon (accession) (The Histories I:208). The precise chronology of the fall of Babylon is given by the Nabonidus Chronicle140:

year month [A] [B] [C] King according to the Nabonidus Chronicle 539 4 I** 17 Year 17 of Nabonidus the feast of the New year (Akitu) was celebrated.

[C] Nabonidus King of Babylon The last tablet of Nabonidus (CT 57, 168) is dated 19/XII/17

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 0 [0] month VII when Cyrus attacked Akkad's army, Sippar was taken on

14/VII, Nabonidus ran away. 16/VII Ugbaru, governor of Gutium and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylonia without fight. 3/VIII Cyrus entered Babylon. Ugbaru, its governor, installed some governors. From month IX to month XII the gods of Akkad came back to their sanctuaries.

11 VIII 12 IX

538 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 [1] [A] Cyrus II (King of Lands)

[B] Ugbaru Governor (King) of Babylon

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 11/VIII [king] Ugbaru died.

[B] Cambyses II (Crown prince) King of Babylon Month [XII] king's wife died. From 27/XII to 3/I

12 IX 537 1 X *** 0

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 2 1 Mourning in Akkad. 4/I Cambyses, son of Cyrus, came in the temple of Nabu

according the ritual of enthronement [in order to be officially King of Babylon] 5 II

139 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale volume XC/2 (1996) pp. 171-183 (172 note 4). J. PEAT - Cyrus "King of Lands," Cambyses "King of Babylon", the Disputed Co-regency in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies Vol 41/2 (1989) pp. 199-215 (200-203). 140 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 50-53.


The name, title and role of Ugbaru is particularly confusing. The Babylonian chronicle is biased about him. It says he is governor of Gutium when he assumes the kingship (the appointment of governors, or satraps, was only done by the king141). Gutium, though is a pejorative geographical term used by the Babylonians when referring to the former territory of the ‘barbarian’ Medes. This great "governor" Ugbaru is not to be confused with the satrap of Babylon (535-525) named Gubaru142. How do we know this? Year King Period of time Ruler of Babylon 540 16 Nabonidus Ugbaru (governor attested by the Nabonidus Chronicle) 539 17- 0 Cyrus II from 3/VIII/00 538 1 to 11/VIII/01 537 2 536 3 Gubaru (satrap of Babylon attested by dated texts) 535 4 from 1/VIII/04 NBRU 43, 45, 46; 534 5 533 6 RECC 56, 92; 532 7 TCL XIII 142 531 8 RECC 70; NBRU 61 530 9- 0 Cambyses II GCCI II 103; LCE 169; BIN 114 529 1 Camb. 96; BE VIII 20 528 2 TCL XIII 150, 152; GCCI II 120; RECC 127, 128 527 3 RECC 137, 160 526 4 RECC 168, 172 525 5 to 27/VI/05 RECC 177, 178; TCL 168 524 6

Ugbaru, died October 26, 538 BCE, so cannot be Gubaru, the satrap of Babylon who appears 3 years later in November 535 BCE. In addition, the name Ugbaru means nothing in Akkadian (but Gubaru means "neck"), a transcription UG-ba-ru rather than ug-ba-ru as might be read in Akkadian143 uggu-baru "anger of the diviner" or šarru-baru "king of the diviner." According to the timeline of the Chronicle of Nabonidus, the [actual] king of Babylon was Ugbaru although he was not formally enthroned. Indeed, the presence of the [official or formal] King of Babylon was necessary for the ceremony of Akitu144, the New Year's Day. This celebration was observed in the year 17. Nabonidus was present on this occasion (which had not been the case in previous years). Belšaruṣur, although a co-regent, was not the official king (necessary for that ceremony). On the other hand, the fact that two years later Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, had gone to the temple to celebrate this festival proves that he was officially the new King of Babylon. Indeed, among the highlights of the Akitu145, one can identify the recitation of the Epic of Creation, the coming of the statue of Nabu from Borsippa the 4th day of Nisan [date of the Chronicle], the humiliation of the king who, after being slapped by the high priest, swore in front of Bel-Marduk that he had not sinned against Babylon, and so on. The analysis of the titulature146 in dated documents, which follows, confirms this.

141 The case of the Roman Emperor is a good parallel because, as governor of the Roman world, he could appoint provincial governors who could themselves only appoint their own legates, but not governors. In addition, the emperors did not receive the (legal) title of king, however the Roman historians have reckoned their years of (effective) "reign". 142 W.H. SHEA – An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: IV in: Andrews University Seminary Studies vol. X:2 (1972) pp. 147-179. 143 F. MALBRAN-LABAT - Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne Paris 1999 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner p. 97. 144 F. JOANNES - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C. 2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 131. 145 F. JOANNES - Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 20-227,26-729. 146 W.H. SHEA – An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: III in: Andrews University Seminary Studies vol. X:1 (1972) pp. 88-117.


Year Date Nabonidus reference 539 10 4/VII/17 King of Babylon REN 189

7/VII/17 King of Babylon Bertin 1627 9/VII/17 King of Babylon Bertin 1633 10/VII/17 King of Babylon CT 55, 191 15/VII/17 King of Babylon CT 56, 55 16/VII/17 According to the Chronicle Fall of Babylon 17/VII/17 King of Babylon Cyrus GCCI I 390 23/VII/00 King of Babylon King of Lands BM 56154 [-]/VII/00 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 1 11 3/VIII/17 Ugbaru Cyrus Ugbaru appoints governors 10/VIII/17 King of Babylon (Nabonidus appointed Bertin 1054 24/VIII/00 - King of Lands governor of Carmania) Cyr. 2 12 7/IX/00 King of Babylon Cyr. 3 24/IX/00 - King of Lands Cyr. 4 [-]/IX/17 King of Babylon Bertin 1055 [-]/IX/[17] Beginning of gods come back

538 1 21/X/00 - King of Lands RECC 1 2 21/XI/00 - King of Lands RECC 2 3 8/XII/00 - King of Lands RECC 3 10/XII/00 - King of Lands Cyr. 7 17/XII/00 - King of Lands RECC 4 19/XII/17 King of Babylon CT 57, 168 21/XII/00 - King of Lands Cyr. 8 [-]/XII/[17] End of gods come back 4 4/I/01 King of Babylon - (Akitu festival) Cyr. 11 7/I/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 12 30/I/01 - King of Lands BLC C 1 5 1/II/01 - King of Lands RECC 10 8/II/01 - King of Lands BRLM 58 25/II/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 15 30/II/01 - King of Lands RECC 10 6 5/III/01 - King of Lands RECC 9 7 29/IV/01 - King of Lands RECC 6 8 1/V/01 - King of Lands TCL XIII 124 9 1/VI/01 - King of Lands GCCI II 102 [-]/VI/01 - King of Lands RECC 7 11 8/VIII/01 - King of Lands TCL XIII 125 11/VIII/[01] Death of "King" Ugbaru 12/VIII/01 - King of Lands NBC 4761 23/VIII/01 - King of Lands CUL 357 12 20/IX/01 - King of Lands BRLM 57

537 Cyrus Cambyses Cambyses replaces Ugbaru 1 [-]/X/01 King of Babylon - Cyr. 18 2 16/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 22 17/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 23 18/XI/01 - King of Lands NBRU 37 19/XI/01 - King of Lands NBC 4664 01 / King of Babylon and of Lands 25/XI/00 TuM 2-3 92 26/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 24 27/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 25 28/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands VAS III 35 29/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 26 3 2/XII/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 27 18/XII/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 30 26/XII/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 29 28/XII/01 King of Babylon King of Lands VAS III 60 4 1/I/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 32 4/I/[02] Cambyses is enthroned as king [King of Babylon] King of Babylon King of Lands 9/I?/01 CT 56, 126 King of Babylon King of Lands 27/I/01 BM 67848 5 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 7/II/01 CT 56, 149 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 9/II/01 Camb. 36 9/II/02 King of Babylon - Cyr. 36 King of Babylon King of Lands 18/II/01 CT 57, 345 King of Babylon King of Lands 20/II/01 BM 63703 26/II/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 37 6 2/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 38 King of Babylon King of Lands 10/III/01 Cyr. 16 21/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 39 22/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 40 24/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 41 7 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 2/IV/01 CT 56, 142


King of Babylon son of King of Lands 7/IV/01 Camb. 42 8/IV/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 42 19/IV/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 43 King of Babylon then King of Lands 25/IV/01 Camb. 46 26/IV/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 44 8 King of Babylon then King of Lands 20/V/01 VAS 6 328 3/V/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 45 5/V/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 47 13/V/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 48 14/V/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 49 27/V/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 52 9 7/VI/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 53 3/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 54 9/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 56 15/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 57 16/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 58 17/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 59 17/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 60 10 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 5/VII/01 OECT 10, 127 8/VII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 61 10/VII/02 King of Babylon - Cyr. 62 13/VII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 63 20/VII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 64 22/VII/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 65 30/VII/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 66 11 3/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 67 7/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 68 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 9/VIII/01 Camb. 72 11/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 69 17/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 70 21/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 71 26/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 72 12 King of Babylon during King of Lands 25/IX/01 Camb. 81 King of Babylon King of Lands 25/IX/01 Camb. 426

536 1 3/X/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 74 5/X/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 75 7/X/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 76 14/X/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 77 21/X/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 78 29/X/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 79 2 9/XI/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 80 12/XI/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 81 King of Babylon King of Lands [-]/XI/01 CT 55, 731 3 2/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 83 3/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 84 7/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 85 8/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 86 21/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 87 26/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 88 27/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 89 4 3/I/03 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 96 5/I/03 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 97 11/I/03 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 98

This reconstruction shows that Cyrus lost his title as King of Babylon just after entering the city. This situation continued up to the death of Ugbaru. The only explanation for this paradox is to accept the chronological sequence of the Chronicle describing Ugbaru as the actual king of Babylon during the period from 3/VIII/00 to 11/VIII/01. At the time of the fall of Babylon, Belšaruṣur (the actual king) was killed and Nabonidus (the king in title) was captured. Babylonian scribes dated their documents according to the reign of the official King of Babylon. Thus, after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus was the only official and actual ruling king, but he was a foreign conqueror. This was not the first time there was a co-regency between the King of Babylon and another foreign king. This had already occurred in the past with the Assyrian kings147.

147 W.H. SHEA – An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period in: Andrews University Seminary Studies vol. IX (1971) pp. 51-67.


Year Date Title of King of Assyria year of reign Title of King of Babylon Reference148 -668 Assurbanipal 1 -667 2 1 Šamaš-šuma-ukîn

-651 21/VI/18 King of Lands 18 17 King of Babylon BR 53 -650 14/III/19 King of Lands 19 18 King of Babylon RA XV 83

23/III/19 King of Lands King of Babylon BM 113929 -649 20/I/20 - 20 19 King of Babylon BR 13

29/I/20 King of Lands King of Babylon BM 113928 20/XII/20 King of Lands King of Babylon AnOr IX 4

-648 25/XII/21 King of Assyria 21 20 King of Babylon 2 NT 19 -647 20/I/22 King of Lands 22 1 Kandalanu AnOr IX 13

8/[-]/22 King of Lands King of Babylon 4 NT 19 -643 [-]/X/26 [King of Lands?] 26 5 King of Babylon BE VIII 1 -641 10/VIII/28 King of Lands 28 7 King of Babylon 2 NT 288 -638 9/VII/31 King of the World 31 10 King of Babylon 2 NT 289

26/XII/31 King of Assyria King of Babylon TCL XII 5 -635 15/VII/34 King of Lands 34 13 King of Babylon BR 58 -633 27/I/36 - 36 15 King of Babylon 2 NT 342

17/VI/36 King of the World King of Babylon NBRVT 2/3 132 [-]/[-]/36 [King of Lands?] King of Babylon BR 24

The actual king of Babylon generally bore the title "King of Lands" and the official king of Babylon bore the title "King of Babylon." When the city of Babylon surrendered, Cyrus became the only official and actual King of Babylon, so he combined the two titles "King of Babylon" and "King of Lands." Then, when he entered Babylon, he demoted king Nabonidus, captured in his 17th year, by the Governor of Carmania (some documents have, however, retained his old title). He replaced the effectively ruling king Belšaruṣur, killed in his 14th year, with his commander in chief Ugbaru. This new foreign king (Median) who had not been enthroned by the Babylonians was not recognized by them, hence does not appear in their documents. After the death of Ugbaru, the title of "King of Babylon" was again

148 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AnOr VIII-IX = Analecta Orientalia - Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus den Berliner Statlichen Museen (Pohl A., 1933,1934). BE VIII 1 = Legal and commercial transactions dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (Clay A.T., 1908). Bertin = Corpus of Babylonian Terra-Cotta Tablet, Principally Contracts I-IV (Bertin G., 1883). BIN II = Historical, Religious, and Economic Texts (Nies, J. B. & C. E. Keiser, 1920). BLC = Bodleian Library Collection, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University. BM = British Museum tablets. BR = Babylonische Rechts-urkunden des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v Chr (San Nicolo M, 1951). BRLM = Babylonian records in the library of J. Pierpont Morgan (Clay A.T., 1912-). BRLM I = Babylonian business transactions of the first millennium B.C. (Clay A.T., 1912). BRLM II = Legal documents from Erech dated in the Seleucid era (Clay A.T., 1913). BSCAS 32/2 = Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences Vol. 32 n°2(Knopf C.S., 1933). Camb. = Inschriften von Cambyses, Konig von Babylon (Strassmaier, J.N., 1890). CT 55-57= Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian tablets in the British Museum (Pinches T.G., 1982). CUL = Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the Libraries of Columbia University (Mendelsohn, I., 1943). Cyr. = Inschriften von Cyrus, Konig von Babylon (Strassmaier J.N., 1890); GCCI I et II = Goucher College Cuneiform Inscriptions (Dougherty, R.P., 1923, 1933); LCE = Letters and Contracts from Erech Written in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Keiser, C.E., 1918). NBC = Nies Babylonian Collection (at Yale). NBRU = Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus den Berliner Staatlichen Museen (Pohl, A., "Analecta Orientalia" VIII-IX, 1933-1934). NBRVT = Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungs- Texte (Kruckmann O. "Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Universitat Jena II/III", 1933). NT = Nippur Text. OECT 10 = Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (McEvan G.J.P., 1984). RA = Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale (Paris, 1884-). RECC = Recmds from Erech, Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (Tremayne, A., "Yale oriental series. Babylonian texts" VII, 1925). REN = Records from Erech (Dougherty, "Yale oriental series. Babylonian texts VI", 1920). TCL XII-XIII = Contrats néo-babyloniens. I-II (Contenau G., 1927-29). TuM 2-3 = Texte und Materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of Babylonian antiquities II-III (Kruckmann O., 1933). VAS = Vorderasiatische Abteilung Schriftdenkmiiler (Leipzig, 1907-17). YOS 7 = Yale Oriental Series: Records from Erech. Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (Tremayne A., 1925).


attributed to Cyrus, but the replacement of Ugbaru, the actual King of Babylon, by Cambyses the son of Cyrus, again complicated the situation. The Babylonians had experienced a similar situation with Nabonidus, the official king, and his son Belšaruṣur, the actual king, except that the latter king had not been enthroned (as Ugbaru was). The co-regency between an official king, Cyrus, and a new appointed King, Cambyses, brought about the need for the appearance of double dated documents149 as: month I, day 27, year 1, Cambyses King of Babylon son of Cyrus King of Lands. The chronological interpretation of these documents is controversial because some scholars see that Year 1 refers to Cyrus, not to Cambyses150, but this would imply an overlap with the 1st year of Ugbaru. In fact, as Cyrus had received the title of "King of Babylon" only after month X of the 1st year of his reign151 (before this date, he was only "King of Lands"), year 1 of Cambyses coincides with year 2 of Cyrus. So according to the reconstruction of chronologically arranged documents, Cyrus chose Cambyses as King of Babylon from [-]/X/01, but he was enthroned by the Babylonians only from 4/I/02 (Akitu feast) 2 months later. The co-regency between Cyrus (actual King of Babylon) and Cambyses (official king of Babylon) had begun informally from [-]/X/01 of Cyrus as confirmed by a double dated document152:

Tablet TuM 2-3, 92 Transcription Translation

11) nippurki Nippur 12) ITI šabaṭu UD 25 KÀM MU 1 KÀM month XI, day 25, year 1 of [Cyrus] 13) MU NAM SAG NAM! LUGAL year of accession of kingship! of 14) mgan!-zi!-zi-ia šar babili(E)ki u matati(KUR.KUR) Ganzyse! King of Babylon and of Lands

This document showing the accession of Cambyses (written Ganzyse!) is also dated year 1 [of Cyrus]. From 4/I/01, the day of Cambyses enthronement, the documents are dated, either of Cambyses (year 1) or Cyrus (year 2). The co-regency has created problems in dating, because the scribes usually dated their documents according to the official reign and not by the rule of a co-regent. A document (CT 56, 126) is dated, for example, "month X, day 9, year 1 of Cymbyse [Ku (!)-Am-bu-zi-ja] King of Babylon." The scribe began by writing "year 1 of Cyrus [Kurash]" and then changed his mind by writing Cambyses [Kambuzia]. From the 3rd year of his reign153 Cyrus turned the former Babylonian kingdom into a satrapy, but as his son Cambyses was appointed King of Babylon appearances of kingship were saved. It is likely that, following the appointment of Gubaru as governor of the satrapy of Babylon and Beyond the River (535 BCE), his role as viceroy became more honorary than real. The official and effective king was Cyrus once again, not Cambyses. The scribes have transferred the title "King of Babylon" to Cyrus. It is unclear whether Cambyses retained his honorary title, but it seems not, since a tablet dated 5/VIII/4 of Cyrus (Cyr 177) mentioned him only as "son of the King" and not as "King of Babylon." Year 4 of Cyrus (539-530) corresponds to the year when Gubaru appears as governor (or satrap) of Babylon.

149 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale volume XC/2 (1996) pp. 171-183 (172 note 4). 150 J. PEAT - Cyrus "King of Lands," Cambyses "King of Babylon", the Disputed Co-regency in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies Vol 41/2 (1989) pp. 199-215 (200-203). 151 S. ZAWADZKI - Gubaru: A Governor or a Vassal King of Babylonia? in: Eos vol. LXXV (1987 Wroclaw) pp.69-86. 152 O. KRÜCKMANN – Neubabylonische Rechts- und Wervaltungstexte in: Texte und materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of Babylonian antiquities II-III, Leipzig 1933, N°92. 153 M. JURSA – Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents Münster 2005 Ed. Ugarit-Verlag p. 54.


The death of Cyrus is controversial. According to Herodotus: Cyrus entrusted Croesus to his son Cambyses, to whom he was giving the kingdom, with the charge to honour him and treat him well, if something should go wrong with the crossing against the Massagetae (...) Most of the Persian army perished and Cyrus himself fell, after a reign of 29 years less one (...) Many stories are told about the death of Cyrus, but I think this one is the most convincing (The Histories I:208-214). According to Ctesias: On the point of death, Cyrus appointed his eldest son to kingship (...) He pronounced blessings on them, if they maintained good will towards each other, and curses, if they acted unjustly. After this speech, he died on the 3rd day after he had received his wound; he had reigned 30 years. The transition between Cyrus II and Cambyses II according to the set of dated contracts is as follows:

an mois Cyrus II Cambyses II 530 4 I 9 3/I/09; 4/I/09; 21/I/09; [8]

5 II 3/II/09; 10/II/09; 21/II/09; 22/II/09; 6 III 2/III/09; 17/III/09; [-]/III/09; 7 IV 7/IV/09; 16/IV/09; 25/IV/09; 27/IV/09 8 V 12/V/09; 13/V/09; [-]/V/09; 9 VI 23/VI/09 (VS 5, 42) 0 12/VI/00; 16/VI/00; 19/VI/00; 20/VI/00 VIb 6/VIa/00; 4/VIb/00; 4/VIb/00; 10 VII 1/VII/00; 3?/VII/00; 29/VII/00; [-]/VII/00; 11 VIII 19/VIII/09 (OECT 10, 123) 10/VIII/00; 12 IX 2/IX/00; 5/IX/00; 17/IX/00; 20/IX/00;

529 1 X 3/X/00; 10/X/00; 12/X/00; 30/X/00; 2 XI 26/XI/09 (YOS 7, 84) 6/XI/00; 17/XI/00; 21/XI/00; 29/XI/00; 3 XII 4 I 1 5 II

The previous reconstruction may be interpreted in two ways: 1) Cyrus gave his son the kingdom (on October 530 BCE) and died 7 months later (around

February 529 BCE). Thus, there was a new co-regency of 7 months between Cyrus and Cambyses.

2) Cyrus gave his son the kingdom just before the battle against the Massagetae (on October 530 BCE) then he died during the battle. As most of the Persian army perished, the moment and the place of his death remained unknown during several months.

The second possibility is the most convincing, because a battle of 7 months long seems unlikely. In addition, during the first co-regency in 538 BCE, Cyrus was "King of Lands" and Cambyses was "King of Babylon", but during this short new co-regency (month VI) Cyrus and Cambyses were both "King of Babylon, King of Lands".

year month year of reign King 530 1 X 8 [7] Cyrus II King of Babylon, King of Lands

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 9 [8] 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 0 Cambyses II King of Babylon, King of Lands 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

529 1 X 2 XI 3 XII


Chronology of usurpers and co-regencies

TRANSITION CAMBYSES II/ DARIUS I The transition between Cambyses II and Darius I is complicated because there were several usurpers and co-regencies involved. The reconstruction, according to the dated tablets of Bardiya154, may be interpreted in two ways:

year month year of reign (choice 1) 522 1 X 7 11/X/07; 14/X/07; 24/X/07; 30/X/07

2 XI 1/XI/07; 28/XI/07; 30/XI/07 3 XII 3/XII/07; 4/XII/07 4 I 8 2/I/08; 5/I/08; 23/I/08 5 II 0 xx/II/00 6 III 3/III/00; 6/III/00 7 IV 15/IV/00; 25/IV/00 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

521 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 19/I/01 5 II 6 III 23/III/01; 26/III/01 7 IV 19/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 23/IV/01; 27/IV/01; 28/IV/01 8 V 1/V/01; 3/V/01; 6/V/01; 9/V/01; 20/V/01; 21/V/01 9 VI 3/VI/01; 6/VI/01/; 10/VI/01; 13/VI/01; 15/VI/01; 19/VI/01; 20/VI/01 10 VII 0 1/VII/01; 10/VII/01; 14/VII/00; 17/VII/00; 20/VII/00 11 VIII 20/VIII/01; 7/VIII/00; 10/VIII/00; 24/VIII/00

year month year of reign (choice 2) 522 1 X 7 11/X/07; 14/X/07; 24/X/07; 30/X/07

2 XI 1/XI/07; 28/XI/07; 30/XI/07 3 XII 0 3/XII/07; 4/XII/07; 14/XII/00 King of Babylon, King of Lands 4 I 8 1 2/I/08; 5/I/08; 23/I/08; 19/I/01 King of Lands 5 II 0 xx/II/00 King of Babylon, King of Lands 6 III 3/III/00; 6/III/00; 23/III/01; 26/III/01 7 IV 9/IV/01; 15/IV/00; 19/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 23/IV/01; 25/IV/00; 28/IV/01 8 V 1/V/01; 3/V/01; 6/V/01; 9/V/01; 20/V/01; 21/V/01 9 VI 3/VI/01; 6/VI/01/; 10/VI/01; 13/VI/01; 15/VI/01; 19/VI/01; 20/VI/01 10 VII 0 1/VII/01; 10/VII/01; 14/VII/00; 17/VII/00; 20/VII/00 King of Babylon 11 VIII 20/VIII/01; 7/VIII/00; 10/VIII/00; 24/VIII/00 12 IX 0 7/IX/01; 20/IX/00; 21/IX/00; 26/IX/01; 19/IX/01

521 1 X 2/X/01; 6/X/00; 14/X/00: 15/X/00: 19/X/00: 26/X/00: 2 XI 0 9/XI/00; 15/X/00; 20/XI/00; 27/XI/00 King of Babylon, King of Lands 3 XII 4/XII/00; 13/XII/00; 19/XII/00; 21/XII/00; 22/XII/00; 23/XII/00; 24/XII/00;

Choice 2 agrees with the dates (underlined) coming from the trilingual inscription on the rockface of Bisitun155: A magus, Gaumata by name, rebelled in Paishiyauvada. A mountain, by name Arakadri, from there 14/XII had gone when he rebelled. He lied thus to the people: ‘I am Bardiya, son of Cyrus, brother of Cambyses.’ Then all the people became rebellious against Cambyses; they went over to him, both Persia and Media, as well as the other peoples. He seized the kingship; 9/IV, then he seized the kingship. After that Cambyses died his own death (no date!). 10/VII, then I, with a few men, killed that Gaumata the magus, and his foremost followers.

154 S. ZAWADZKI -Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription and Babylonian Sources in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27 (1994) pp. 127-145. 155 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 140-157.


Choice 1 is not possible because there were two lunar eclipses, correctly described by Ptolemy, the first one dated 28 Epiphi year 20 of Darius I and the second one 3 Tybi year 31 (Almagest IV: 9.11). They are respectively dated by astronomy on November 19, 502 BCE and on April 25, 491 BCE which confirms an accession in 522 BCE. In addition, the 8 months gap in Bardiya chronology with choice 1 is an unlikely choice.

year month year of reign King 523 1 X 6 Cambyses II

King of Babylon, King of Lands 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 7 5 II 6 III 7 IV (Lunar eclipse dated July 16, 523 BCE) 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

522 1 X (Lunar eclipse dated January 10, 522 BCE) 2 XI 3 XII 0 Cambyses II / Bardiya King of Lands 4 I 1 8 1 5 II 2 0 Bardiya King of Babylon, King of Lands 6 III 3 7 IV 4 8 V 5 9 VI 6 10 VII 7 0 Nebuchadnezzar III King of Babylon 11 VIII 8 12 IX 9 0 0 Darius I King of Babylon, King of Lands

521 1 X 10 2 XI 11 [0] Nebuchadnezzar IV King of Babylon

3 XII 12 4 I 13 1 1 5 II 14 6 III 15 7 IV 16 8 V 17 9 VI 18 10 VII 19 11 VIII 20 12 IX

520 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 2

The fragmentary information of Herodotus is therefore generally good: duration of Cambyses reign of 7 years and 5 month (Herodotus would include the 4 months of Nebuchadnezzar III); Bardiya reign of 7 months (The Histories III:66-67); or a total duration of 20 months for the revolt (The Histories III:152-153). The whole reconstitution is surprising, since it involves two co-regencies: one of 2 months with Bardiya at the end of Cambyses reign, and another of 10 months with Nebuchadnezzar IV at the beginning of Darius reign. As noted by Zawadzki, we are facing an extremely paradoxical fact: the scribes in the same city would have recognized both rival kings as they have simultaneously dated their documents of these two sovereigns156. Bardiya157 was regarded both as a coregent of Cambyses (The Histories III:61-63) and also as a new king (but regarded as an usurper by Darius I).

156 S. ZAWADZKI Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27 (1994) pp.127-145. 157 Bardiya is called Mardus by Aeschylus (in -472), Smerdis by Herodotus (in -450), Tanyoxarkes by Ctesias (-400), Artaxerxes by Esdras (Esdras 4:4-24), Mergis by Justinus, etc.


TRANSITION DARIUS I / XERXES I For his part, Xerxes made explicit reference to the previous choice of his father Darius. According to an inscription (XPf §4), recalling the arrival of his father, while his brothers and Hystapes Arsames were still alive: King Xerxes says: Darius had other sons, the good pleasure of Ahuramazda was that Darius my father made me the greatest after him. When Darius my father left the throne, with Ahuramazda, I became king on the throne of my father158. According to Herodotus, Darius established his son Xerxes as king (and his co-regent) at the end of his reign: Now, as he was about to lead forth his levies against Egypt and Athens, a fierce contention for the sovereign power arose among his sons; since the law of the Persians was that a king must not go out with his army, until he has an appointed one to succeed him upon the throne. Darius, before he obtained the kingdom, had had three sons born to him from his former wife, who was a daughter of Gobryas; while, since he began to reign, Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, had borne him four. Artabazanes was the eldest of the first family, and Xerxes of the second. These two, therefore, being the sons of different mothers, were now at variance. Artabazanes claimed the crown as the eldest of all the children, because it was an established custom all over the world for the eldest to have the pre-eminence; while Xerxes, on the other hand, urged that he was sprung from Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, and that it was Cyrus who had won the Persians their freedom. Before Darius had pronounced on the matter, it happened that Demaratus, the son of Ariston, who had been deprived of his crown at Sparta, and had afterwards, of his own accord, gone into banishment, came up to Susa, and there heard of the quarrel of the princes. Hereupon, as report says, he went to Xerxes, and advised him, in addition to all that he had urged before, to plead that at the time when he was born Darius was already king, and bore rule over the Persians; but when Artabazanes came into the world, he was a mere private person. It would therefore be neither right nor seemly that the crown should go to another in preference to himself. "For at Sparta," said Demaratus, byway of suggestion, "the law is that if a king has sons before he comes to the throne, and another son is born to him afterwards, the child so born is heir to his father's kingdom." Xerxes followed this counsel, and Darius, persuaded that he had justice on his side, appointed him his successor. For my own part I believe that, even without this, the crown would have gone to Xerxes; for Atossa was all-powerful (The Histories VII:2-5). This indicates that Xerxes was appointed king (basileus), not just a crown prince, during the reign of his father Darius. Even using the official chronology of royal lists there was a co-regency of at least 7 months (below) between Darius and his son Xerxes as we can see by compiling contracts dating from this period.

year month Darius I (year 36) Xerxes I (accession) 486 4 I 13/I/36; 27/I/36

5 II 7/II/36 6 III xx/III/[00] 7 IV 16/IV/36; 8 V 5/V/36; 9/V/36; 27/V/36 11/V?/00 9 VI 22/VI/36; 24/VI/36 10 VII [2]7/VII/36 11 VIII --/VIII/36; 15/VIII/36 22/VIII/00 12 IX 10/IX/36; 10+x/IX/36 13/IX/00

485 1 X 06+x/X/00; 7/X/00; 22/X/00 2 XI 09/XI/00; 27/XI/00; 27/XI/00 3 XII 11/XII/36 ? 12/XII/00; 21/XII/00; 24/XII/00; 27/XII/00 4 I 5/I/01; 7/I/01; 15/I/01; 16/I/01; 22/I/01; 23/I/01 5 II 3/II/01; 8/II/01; 10/II/01; 17/II/01; 28/II/01 6 III 3/III/01; 14/III/01; 21/III/01; 24/III/01; 26/III/01 7 IV 13/IV/01; 15/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 23/IV/01

158 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 255.


CO-REGENCY DARIUS I / XERXES I (IN 486 BCE) As a result, based on dated contracts as well as the current Babylonian chronology, Xerxes began to reign from June 486 BCE (accession), Darius died in October 486 BCE but surprisingly many Babylonian scribes continued to date their contracts in behalf of Darius during 2 months (November and December) after his death.

year month Darius I (year 36) Xerxes I (accession) 486 4 I 13/I/36; 27/I/36

5 II 7/II/36 6 III xx/III/[00]159 7 IV 16/IV/36 8 V 5/V/36; 9/V/36; 27/V/36 11/V?/00160 9 VI 22/VI/36; 24/VI/36 10 VII [2]7/VII/36 11 VIII --/VIII/36161; 15/VIII/36162 22/VIII/00 12 IX 10/IX/36163; 10+x/IX/36164 13/IX/00

485 1 X 06/X/00; 7/X/00; 22/X/00 2 XI 09/XI/00; 27/XI/00 3 XII 12/XII/00; 21/XI/00; 27/XI/00

There are many variants of reading among cuneiform signs to represent months165:

159 J.N. STRASSMAIER - Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum, (8. Kongr.) Christiania 1892. EKBK 21 (BM 60599) 160 M. SAN NICOLÒ, A. UNGNAD -Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden übersetzt und erläutert, Vol. I, part 4 Leipzig, 1934, p. 544, tablet No. 634, VS 6, 177 (VAT 4397). 161 G.J.P. MCEWAN –Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum in: Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts vol. X (Clarendon Press, 1984) pp. 12, 72 n° 159. 162 J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period Poznan 1995. Letter Orders n80 (BM 77850). 163 J. MACGINNIS, Letter Orders n81 (BM 71941). 164 BM 72574 165 L.-J. BORD, R. MUGNAIONI –L'écriture cunéiforme -syllabaire sumérien babylonien assyrien 2002 Paris Éd. Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner S.A. F. MALBRAN-LABAT - Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne Paris 1999 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner.


The cuneiform signs ITI SIG4 meaning "month III" appear in the boxed part, which is enlarged below:

Tablet BM 60599 dated xx/III/[00] of Xerxes

The accession year [00] is deduced from the prosopography of the scribes of Sippar, Marduk-mukîn-apli and Marduk-bêl-šunu, who only appear in contracts under Xerxes166 dated 7/X/00 and 27/XI/00. In addition, the title167 "King of Babylon, king of Lands" appears only in the year 00 (10 times) and 01 (15 times), then disappears until the year 12 (once).

166 S. GRAZIANI - I testi Mesopotamici datati al regno di Serse (485-465 a. c.) in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 4-9, 14-17, 124. 167 R. ROLLINGER - Xerxes und Babylon in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1999 N°1 pp. 9-12.


Year [1] [2], [3], [4] [5] [6] [7] period Xerxes 0 0 Xerxes 1 ? 1 Xerxes 2 Xerxes 3 Xerxes 4 Xerxes 5 5 Xerxes 6 Xerxes 7 Xerxes 8 Xerxes 9 Xerxes 10 Xerxes 11 11 Xerxes 12 Xerxes 13 Xerxes 14 Xerxes 15 Xerxes 16 16 Xerxes 17 Xerxes 18 Xerxes 19 Xerxes 20 Xerxes 21

(each square represents 1 dated document)

[1] King of Persia [2] King of Persia (and) Media (crisscrossed) [3] King of Persia (and) Media and (King) of lands (hatched) [4] King of Persia (and) Media, King of Babylon and lands [5] King of lands [6] King of Babylon and (King) of lands [7] No titulature

Two possible readings of date: xx/III/[00], the more likely, or xx/III/[01] (in grey):

Date of contract 1st scribe of Sippar 2nd scribe of Sippar 3rd scribe of Sippar Xer xx/III/[00] Marduk-mukîn-apli Bêl-ittanu Marduk-bêl-šunu Xer 7/X/00 Marduk-mukîn-apli Marduk-bêl-šunu Iddin-Nabû Xer 27/XI/00 Marduk-mukîn-apli Marduk-bêl-šunu Iddin-Nabû Xer xx/III/[01] Marduk-mukîn-apli Bêl-ittanu Marduk-bêl-šunu

The prosopography of the officials of Ebabbara's administration168 shows that Marduk-mukîn-apli and Marduk-bêl-šunu were scribes (ṭupšarru) from year 28 of Darius to year 2 of Xerxes, without co-regency (or from year 0 of Xerxes to year 36 of Darius with co-regency, with the synchronism: year 28 of Darius = year 2 of Xerxes). Furthermore, Bêl-ittanu was not a scribe, but the chief of the temple administration (šangû). He was used as a scribe only for the accession of Xerxes, afterwards he made the receipt for the offering of Xerxes in his letter dated [-]/III/01 of Xerxes (VS 6, 179). He was still šangû in a contract dated 21/III/01 of Xerxes (BM 65378) and one dated 17/III/29 of Darius (BM 64022).

168 J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period Poznan 1995. Ed. BONAMI pp. 114-134. A.C.V.M. BONGENAAR – The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar Istanbul 1997 Ed. Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Institut pp. 78-81.


Tablet VAT 4397 dated 11/V?/00 of Xerxes

The full date is: ITI NE? UD! 11 KAM MU SAG meaning "month V?, [day] 11, accession year" (the word "day" UD! is missing). The month X is unlikely because it has always 4 horizontal nails (there are at least 5 visible in the photo) and the month IX never has any vertical nail at the end of the sign. The cuneiform signs ITI NE meaning "month V" appears in the boxed part which is enlarged below (grey areas replace scratched parts): Xerxes’ co-regency is challenged because he only wrote an inscription (while his brothers Hystapes and Arsames were still alive): King Xerxes says: Darius had other sons, the good pleasure of Ahuramazda was that Darius my father made me the greatest after him. When Darius my father left the throne, with Ahuramazda, I became king on the throne of my father (XPf §4)169. However, several carved reliefs at Persepolis show that Xerxes was designated as crown prince, several years before Darius' death. According to the conventional representation of kings, it was obvious that the king on his throne was Darius before Xerxes, the Crown prince170. Representation of kings on the Assyrian and Babylonian bas-reliefs is conventional, they are always

169 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 255. 170 E.E. HERZFELD - A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations n°5 Berlin (1932) p. 8.


taller than all other officials (who are themselves exactly the same size). For example, Marduk-zakir-šumi I (left below), king of Babylon and Shalmaneser III (right below), king of Assyria, are both greater than their officials. At Persepolis, Darius and Xerxes (above) are the same size with the same crown.

The king on his throne cannot be Xerxes171, because he is mentioned explicitly on some inscriptions as "son of Darius" (XPk), opposite to "Darius the king" (DPb)172. For a long time, the lack of the title "Crown prince" for Xerxes was an argument used to deny his co-regency with Darius, however the recent publication of an Elamite tablet from Persepolis (NN 1657), dated to Darius’ “3rd month, 24th year” (=May/June 498 BCE), provides the earliest dated reference to a ‘Xerxes (HALše-ir-šá)’ who can hardly be a person other than the future Achaemenid King173. W.F.M. Henkelman, the editor of the tablet, comments: And although our text does not state Xerxes’ rank, it does indicate that he had at least attained a position of some importance. Parthian men, spear bearers, were assigned by him. The term used, dama, suggests in this context a role in the chain of command, perhaps as (a) commander in the important satrapy of Parthia. Since the Parthian men were travelling from the King to Parthia, and were carrying a sealed authorisation from the King, they may have been initially dispatched by Xerxes to report to his father. Having done so, they were now heading back with the King’s response. The context makes the scribe’s silence on Xerxes’ title (or the fact that he was Darius’ son) eloquent: his position was apparently well-known. Even if we arrange the dated contracts according to the Babylonian royal lists we find that Darius died around 10/ IX/ 36 (8 December 486 BCE) and Xerxes began to reign around [-]/III/00 (June 486 BCE) which implies a co-regency of at least 6 months!

171 A. SHAPUR SHABAZI – The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis Tehran 2004 Ed. Sanaye Farhangi Iran pp. 99,145-146. 172 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 100, 127, 259. 173 A.V. ROSSI -Building Chronology and Epigraphic Chronology at Persepolis: DPa, DPb and XPk* in: Dariosh Studies II, Persepolis and its settlements: territorial system and ideology in the Achaemenid state (Napoli 2012) pp. 445-458.


According to some records (Persepolis fortifications), mention was made of the building of a house for Xerxes174 as early as 498 BCE. Some scholars (very few) dispute this evidence which supports a co-regency between Darius and Xerxes175. Yet this fact was known since ancient times. Herodotus (The Histories VII:2-5), for example, knew that Xerxes was appointed king (basileus), not just crown prince, during the reign of his father Darius [the same term "appointed king" is used by Herodotus (The Histories I:208) to describe the co-regency between Cyrus and Cambyses]. One of the main opponents of this identification is Briant176 but his arguments are dogmatic. He writes that the new palace in Babylon that appears in the year 26 of Darius (496 BCE) cannot be linked with the accession of Xerxes because king never shares power! His claim is unfounded, it reflects only his personal concept of power. He does not address any chronological evidence. He also claims that it is difficult to draw chronological conclusions from the inscription of Xerxes (XPk), despite his never having used any chronological analysis. For scientific historians, whose chronology is considered as the eye of history, there is no difficulty. The Persepolis Fortifications177 (PF) are dated from years 13 to 28 of Darius and the Persepolis Treasury178 (PT) from year 30 of Darius to year 7 of Artaxerxes I. Irshena was treasurer from years 14 to 22 of Darius as šaramana "Responsible" (PF 280, 239), and Shuddayauda from years 19 to 26 (PF 490, 642). These two names never appear together in the same document. Then, in years 27 and 28, Baratkama was "Responsible [of Treasury]" (PF 864-868, 879, 1120). From year 32 two names appear at the beginning of documents (but not systematically), with or without their title, the first one is considered as treasurer and the second one as vice-treasurer. Thus in year 32, Baratkama was still treasurer because his name is placed at the beginning of documents dated IV/32 and XII/12 (PT 2, 9). But at the end of year 32 (beginning of year 33) the first name is Shakka (PT 1), who became the new treasurer. Baratkama's name is sometimes written with its title kanṣabara "Treasurer" (PT 12, 21, 22). Shakka's name appears in a document dated year 7 of Xerxes (PT 24). The second name (Baratkama) is mentioned with its title "Responsible", but Shakka had a more prestigious title sadabatiš "Chief of hundred". For example, Haradkama the "Chief of hundred" is before Vahauka the "Responsible" and Bakuradathe the "Chief of hundred" is before Shiraz the "Responsible" (PT1, 42). When the two titles appear at the same time, "Chief of hundred" is always written before "Responsible". The prosopography of treasurers during the transition of reign between Darius and Xerxes with or without the corengency of 10 years enables one to see which one is the more suitable. It is also interesting to use the last three contracts from Zababa-šar-uṣur's archive179 (dated 5/IX/22, 18/VIII/26 of Darius, 10/XI/4 of Xerxes) because they overlap the transition between Darius and Xerxes. Without co-regency these three contracts are separated respectively from 4 to 12 years while with co-regency there is a periodicity of 4 years, which is more logical because trade deadlines are periodic.

174 A. FARKAS - Achaemenid Sculpture Istanbul, 1974 Ed. Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Instituut pp. 51-54. 175 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge p. 304. 176 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 983-984. 177 R.T. HALLOCK - Persepolis Fortification Tablets Chicago 1969 Ed. The University of Chicago Press p. 74. 178 G.G. CAMERON - Persepolis Treasury Tablets Chicago 1948 Ed. The University of Chicago Press pp. 14-17, 33 G.G. CAMERON - New Tablets from the Persepolis Treasury in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies XXIV (1965) p. 186. 179 L. DEPUYDT – Contrats babyloniens d'époque achéménide du Bît-Abî Râm avec une épigraphie araméenne in: Ressue d'Assyriologie XC (1996) pp. 41-60.


PROSOPOGRAPHY OF TREASURERS Without co-regency (and Zababa-šar-uṣur's archive)

year Reign First name Second name Reign date Z. archive 509 13 Darius I (Grand Palace) 508 14 Irshena R. 507 15 Irshena R. 506 16 Irshena R. 505 17 Irshena R. 504 18 Irshena R. 503 19 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 502 20 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 501 21 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 500 22 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 5/IX/22 499 23 Shuddayauda R. 498 24 Shuddayauda R. 497 25 Shuddayauda R. 496 26 New Palace for Xerxes Shuddayauda R. 18/VIII/26 495 27 Baratkama R. 494 28 Baratkama R. 493 29 492 30 491 31 490 32 Baratkama Appishmanda IV 32

Baratkama Appishmanda XII 32 489 33 Shakka Baratkama XII 32 488 34 487 35 486 36-0 Xerxes I 485 1 484 2 Baratkama Darkaush VI 2

Shakka Baratkama R. XII 2 483 3 Baratkama T. Aspathines IV, VII 3

Baratkama Darkaush VI, XII 3 482 4 Baratkama Darkaush III 4

Shakka Baratkama R. IV 4 Baratkama Darkaush VI, VII 4 Shakka Baratkama R. X 4 10/XI/4

481 5 480 6 Baratkama T. Artataxma IX 6

Shakka Baratkama R. XII 6 479 7 Shakka C. Baratkama R. II 7 478 8 477 9 476 10 Shakka Vahush R. IX 10 475 11 474 12 Vahush T. Artataxma XII 12 473 13 472 14 471 15 Vahush T. Ciçavahush X 15 470 16 Vahush T. Ciçavahush IV, VII 16

Vahush R. XI 16 469 17 468 18 Vahush T. Ciçavahush XII 18 467 19 Vahush T. Megadates IX 19

Vahush R. X 19 Vahush T. Artataxma XI 19

466 20 Uratinda T. Artataxma XII 20 465 21-0 Artaxerxes I 464 1 Uratinda180 R. IV 1 463 2 462 3 Barisha R. 461 4 460 5 459 6 458 7 Barisha T. Marezza X 7

180 L. DEPUYDT – Les compléments phonétiques ou graphiques en élamite achéménide in: Annali 49:3 (Septembre 1989), pp. 219-222.


With co-regency (and Zababa-šar-uṣur's archive)

BCE Darius I Treasurer Tablet Vice treasurer Z. archive 510 12 509 13 Grand Palace for Darius 508 14 Irshena R. PF 280, 239 507 15 Irshena R. 506 16 Irshena R. 505 17 Irshena R. 504 18 Irshena R. 503 19 Shuddayauda R. PF 490, 642 (Irshena R.) 19 502 20 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 20 501 21 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 21 500 22 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 5/IX/22 499 23 Shuddayauda R. 23 498 24 Shuddayauda R. 24 497 25 Shuddayauda R. 25 496 26 0 Xerxes I Shuddayauda R. (BM 42567) New Palace for Xerxes 18/VIII/26 495 27 VIII-XII2 1 Baratkama R. PF 864-868, 879, 27 494 28 I-VI 2 VI-XII Baratkama R. PF 1120 Darkaush / Shakka 28 493 29 3 IV-XII Darkaush / Aspathines 29 492 30 4 III-X Darkaush /Shakka 10/XI/4 491 31 5 5 490 32 IV-XII 6 IX-XII Baratkama PT 2, 9 Appishmanda / Artataxma 6 489 33 (XII2/32) 7 II Shakka C. PT 1, PT 24 Baratkama R. 7 488 34 8 487 35 9 486 36 IX 10 IX Vahush R. Shakka 485 11 484 12 XII Vahush T. Artataxma 483 13 482 14 481 15 X Vahush T. Ciçavahush 480 16 IV-XI Vahush T./ R. Ciçavahush 479 17 478 18 XII Vahush T. Ciçavahush 477 19 IX-XI Vahush T./ R. Megadates / Artataxma 476 20 XII Uratinda T Artataxma 475 0 21 (BM 32234) 474 1 IV Artaxerxes I Uratinda R. 473 2 472 3 Barisha R. 471 4 470 5 469 6 468 7 X Barisha T. Marezza

The fact that there was a co-regency explains the following:

Ø Xerxes palace is built in year 26 of Darius181. Ø There is a normal succession of treasurers who have worked 6 years on average. Ø Baratkama was appointed as Treasurer when Xerxes palace is built (at Persepolis). Ø Vahush was appointed as Treasurer by Xerxes on xx/X/10 just after the death of

Darius on 10/IX/36. Ø The last 3 contracts from Zababa-šar-uṣur's archive are dated every 4-year. Ø The number of texts during year 26 of Darius fall drastically182 because of the

accession of Xerxes and the building of the New Palace.

181 A.T. OLMSTEAD -History of the Persian Empire Chicago 1970 Ed. University of Chicago Press pp. 214,215. P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 983-984. 182 R.T. HALLOCK - Persepolis Fortification Tablets Chicago 1969 Ed. The University of Chicago Press p. 74.


Calendar year (BCE) 498 497 496 495 494 Year of Darius 24 25 26 27 28 Number of texts 167 67 8 30 61

Briant noted that if Xerxes had been appointed as crown prince just before the death of Darius, one would have to admit that this king had waited a long time since he was 72 years old in 486 BCE183 and Xerxes was 35 years old, the marriage of his parents dating back to the accession of Darius in 522 BCE. Consequently these chronological points involve a choice before 490 BCE184. The departure of Darius in campaign cannot be used to justify his last choice since this king was almost perpetually in campaign. If Herodotus places the co-regency of Xerxes at the end of the reign of Darius, that is more a Greek interpretation of events because this explanation is found again when he places the co-regency of Cambyses at the end of the reign of Cyrus. Recent findings enable us to reconstruct the career of Xerxes. When Darius seized the throne in 522 BCE Xerxes was not yet born and Hystaspes (Vishtasp) was governor of Parthia and Hyrcania (The Histories III:70). The latest contracts where the name Hystaspes appears are dated [/IV]/23 and 15/V/23 of Darius185 (21 August 499 BCE). Regarding the date and circumstances of Xerxes' selection, the text of the tablet NN 1657 (Persepolis Fortification) is of special interest. Although this text186, dated III/24 of Darius (June 498 BCE), does not state Xerxes’ rank, it does indicate that he had at least attained a position of some importance. Parthian men, spear bearers, were assigned by him. The term used (dama) suggests in this context a role in the chain of command, perhaps as (a) commander or governor in the important satrapy of Parthia. Since the Parthian men were travelling from the king to Parthia, and were carrying a sealed authorisation from the King, they may have been initially dispatched by Xerxes to report to his father. Having done so, they were now heading back with the king’s response. The context makes the scribe’s silence on Xerxes (Xšerša) title eloquent: his position was apparently well-known. Consequently the sequence of events seems to be: after the death of Hystaspes (in 498 BCE), who was governor of Parthia, King Darius appointed his eldest son Xerxes (23 years old) to replace him at this strategic position. Two tablets dated 20/III/26 and 4/VIII/26 of Darius indicate that the New Palace (É.GAL eššú) for Xerxes was built in 496 BCE187 (Grand Palace for Darius). As in this palace one caption speaks of: Xerxes, son of king Darius, an Achaemenid (XPk), it shows that Xerxes was referred to as crown prince from the 26th year of Darius' reign. Although Xerxes was co-regent from 496 BCE his royal title never appears in the palaces built by Darius for a simple reason: the royal ideology requires having one sovereign at a time. In practice there was little ambiguity because king Xerxes, who lived in Susa, his capital, was leading the western part of the empire while king Darius who resided at Persepolis, his capital, was leading the eastern part. Moreover, according to Persian protocol an inscription could have mentioned: king Xerxes, son of king Darius, king of kings. Even during the period when Darius was king and Xerxes was co-regent (496-486), double-dated contracts always mention only one king while there were actually two. These contracts (BM 42567, BM 75396) are crucial to confirm the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius from his

183 According to Herodotus, Darius, the eldest son of Hystaspes, was barely 20 years old in 538 BCE (The Histories I:136, 209) and he died at the age of 72 (Ctesias, Persica F13§23). These data are consistent and give the same lifetime to Darius (558-486). 184 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 536. 185 A. KUHRT – The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period London 2010, Ed. Routeledge pp. 574,811. 186 W.F.M. HENKELMAN – Xerxes, Atossa, and the Persepolis Fortification Archive in: Annual Report 2010. Netherlands Institute for the Near East, Leiden. pp. 26-33. 187 K. ABRAHAM – Business and Politics under the Persian Empire (BM 30589; BM 30980) Bethesda 2004, Ed. CDL Press, pp. 230-231,261-262.


year 26, but there are two obstacles: dates are usually written at the end of tablets, which are often damaged areas, and specialists tend to read 36 instead of 26 because of the official dogma of unique king (no co-regency, no usurper).

DOUBLE DATED CONTRACTS

A letter (BM 42567) dated 24/[-]/00 of Xerxes (lines 6’ and 7’) is also dated year 26 of Darius (line 2). In his transcription Jursa188 chose to read "year 36" but in his drawing we can read MU 26 "year 26" (2 heads of nail and 6 vertical nails).

BM 42567

The text reads: 6 kur [253 l] of dates, an assessment of imposed tax (ZAG.LU), a claim of god Šamaš, for year 26 [of Darius], under the responsibility of Itti-Šamaš-balatu, the canal-inspector, at the disposal of Ribata, son of Šamaš-iddin of the family of Maskata, has Šamaš-nasir, son of Mušebši-

188 M. JURSA – Das Archiv des Bel-Remanni in: Uitgaven van het Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 86 (1999) pp. 138, 206-207, Tafeln VII, XLIV.


Marduk, of the family of Sangu-Šamaš, by order of Ina-tasi-eter [... ] (about 2-3 lines missing, then follows the witnesses and lastly the date-line) Day 24 of month ?, the accession [00] year of Xerxes, king of lands.

From the photo (left below), we can read MU 26, because on the drawing right below, the digit 2 is formed by 2 heads of nail and the digit 6 is formed by 6 vertical nails. A large zoom is needed to see chips from nails and to distinguish the reading “MU 26” from “M[U] 36 (the last head of nail in the sign MU would be missing)”. The year 26 refers to an imposed tax paid at once during the accession of Xerxes, not one levied 10 years earlier.

The reading "year 26 [of Darius]" is also confirmed by the prosopography of some officials. For example, the career of Ribâta son of Šamaš-iddin of Maštukata family, as head of bakers (chef), of Bêl-rêmanni son of Mušebši-Marduk family of Šangû-Šamaš, a scribe of the temple, and of Itti-Šamaš-balâtu, as inspector of the canal, can be dated. This chronological reconstruction is based on a career progression (knowing that the lucrative activity of prebendary was reserved for the leaders):

Personage Date of the letter Responsibility Tablet Ribâta 05/ X/24 of Darius Delegate of the chef BM 64067 26 of Darius; 24/[I-IV]/00 of Xerxes (Delegate of the chef) BM 42567 20/IX/26 of Darius (Delegate of the chef) BM 79514 25/IX/26 of Darius Delegate of the chef BM 49999 07/ X/00 de Xerxes (Chef) BM 75070 27/XI/00 de Xerxes Chef BM 75396 07/IX/30 of Darius Prebendary and witness BM 74644 02/IV/31 of Darius Prebendary and witness BM 74636 Bêl-rêmanni 22/IV/07 de Cyrus Scribe CT 56, 194 [-]/ I/02 of Darius Scribe VS 5, 60 18/VII/06 of Darius Scribe BM 74605 [-]/[-]/18 of Darius Scribe BM 70233 08/ X/24 of Darius Scribe VS 3, 135 24/[I-IV]/26 of Darius Scribe BM 42567 07/V/26 of Darius Prebendary VS 3, 138-139 16/VII/26 of Darius Prebendary BM 74560 15/III/32 of Darius Prebendary BM 75232 22/VII/33 of Darius Prebendary VS 3, 154 06/ X/34 of Darius Prebendary BM 74569 4+/XII/34 of Darius Prebendary BM 74549 23/XII/35 of Darius Prebendary VS 5, 109 Itti-Šamaš-balâtu 24/[ I-IV]/00 de Xerxes Canal inspector BM 42567 11/IX/00 de Xerxes Canal inspector EKBK 22:3

Without the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius from the year 26, the careers of several top officials become implausible. Ribâta, for example, would have overseen the bakers from year 24 to 26 of Darius and then would stop for 10 years before returning to service only for the accession of Xerxes. Similarly, Bêl-remanni officiated as a scribe from year 7 of Cyrus to year 26 of Darius, and would have, too, stopped for 10 years before returning to service for the accession of Xerxes. Furthermore Ribâta who was a prebandary


from 07/IX/30 of Darius would be demoted as chef for Xerxes accession and Bêl-remanni who was prebandary from 07/V/26 of Darius would also be demoted as scribe for Xerxes accession. As Bêl-remanni was scribe up till 24/[-]/26 and then prebendary from 07/V/26, the month [-] of that letter must be between months I to IV. Another letter (BM 75396)189 dated 27/XI/00 of Xerxes relates a settlement of accounts for the following year dated year 27 (of Darius):

(1) [Letter of Marduk-mu]kin-apli and Marduk-bêl-šunu, (2) the scri[bes], to [Birûqâya], (3) [master of] the sûtu-taxe [of Šamaš-(temple)]. Bel and Nabu (4) health [and (long) life to] our brother, may they ordain (5) 9 kur of emmer, (as offering) for the month of Addaru (6) 10 kur of emmer in kupputu and [kupputu] of Addaru month (7) 2 kur of emmer, (as offering) to the temples (8) 9 kur of emmer, (as offering) for the mon[th ..] (9) [or a] total of 30 kur of emmer to (10) [Ribâ]ta, the chef, give (him). (11) Until there is a settlement of accounts, that you will do (12) as you (always) done, (13) on (the payment of) the sûtu-taxe of year [2]7 we will count it.

(14) Month of Shabatu, day 27, accession year (15) of Xerxes King of Babylon, King of lands.

When Strassmaier published this letter, he translated: "year 27 [of Darius]190" but Stolper191 preferred to read "year 37" because that reading would have involved a 10-year co-regency. Graziani192 preferred to correct 37 into 36 assuming an error of scribe. This last assumption is unlikely because this was an important contract in which the figures indicating the quantities and dates were crucial and, therefore, carefully checked. In any case the two readings, 36 or 37, are illogical since at the supposed epoch of writing of that letter, at the 27/XI/[36], king Darius had been dead for two months and a

189 S. GRAZIANI - I testi Mesopotamici datati al regno di Serse (485-465 a. c.) in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 6-9. J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period, Poznan 1995. Letter N° 85 pp.63-64 plate 23. 190 J.N. STRASSMAIER -Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum (Actes du 8e congrès), EKBK18 1889 pp. 20-21. 191 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I 1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 p. 229 note 33. 192 S. GRAZIANI - I testi Mesopotamici datati al regno di Serse (485-465 a. c.) in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 9 note 7.


half (he died around the 10/IX/36) and therefore could no longer be ruling. Furthermore, Ribâta who was a prebandary from 07/IX/30 would be demoted as chef at the last year of Darius! Despite his reading ("37"), MacGinnis published a drawing where the reading MU [2]7 "year 27" (line 13) is more likely. The number "27" appears also in line 14, the number "30" in the line 9, and the sign MU "year" appears in lines 10 and 14 (see boxed parts).

BM 75396

On the photo of the boxed part (below), the number [2]7 looks badly damaged, but 4 vertical nails out of 7 appear clearly and 3 vertical nails (at the right side in grey) may be guessed. The first "7" in line 13 is bigger than the second one in line 14 (below)

<< III III I (10+10+3+3+1) << III III I

Darius (= year 1 of Xerxes) after having had written a digest of law Egyptian, called "Book of Ordinances", requested to add an addendum, dated in his year 27, written in Aramaic on papyrus193 (not on tablet).

193 D. AGUT-LABORDERE – Darius législateur et les sages de l'Égypte: un addendum au Livre des Ordonnances in: Cahiers de Recherches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et d'Égyptologie de Lille n°26 (2006) pp. 1-8.


ABSOLUTE DATES FROM ASTRONOMY An astronomical tablet (BM 32234)194 contains two lunar eclipses dated [14/III] and 14/VIII in addition the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V.

1' at ˹18°?˺ [...] 2' 40° onset, ma[ximal phase, and clearing]. The "garment of the sky [rain-clouds]" was there. 3' In the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius it was eclipsed. Month VI was intercalary 4' Month V, the 14?, ˹Xer˺xes —his son killed him. —————————— 5' Month VIII, the 14th, 13° after 6' sunset, [the moon] came out of a cloud, 7' ˹1/4˺ of the disk on the [...] 8' and west side was covered. 8°? [onset? and] 9' clearing [...]

Given that the second lunar eclipse is dated 14/VIII (November/ December) it is easy to check what year it occurred195 and also that the first dated event 14/V was no connection with an eclipse (475 BCE = -474, P = Partial; T = Total; N = Penumbral):

194 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 20-21, 396. 195 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0499--0400.html


year [14 III] eclipse 14 V eclipse 14 VIII eclipse BCE (Sivan) (Ab) (Heshvan) 476 6-Jul. P 3-Sept. _ 1-Dec. _ 475 26-Jun T 24-Aug. _ 20-Dec. P 474 15-Jul. _ 12-Sept. _ 9-Dec. N 473 3-Jul. _ 31-Aug. _ 28-Nov. _ 472 23-Jul. _ 20-Sept. _ 17-Dec. _ 471 12-Jul. _ 9-Sept. _ 6-Dec. _ 470 1-Jul. _ 29-Aug. _ 25-Nov. _ 469 19-Jun _ 17-Aug. P 14-Nov. _ 468 9-Jul. _ 6-Sept. _ 3-Dec. _ 467 28-Jun _ 26-Aug. _ 22-Nov. _ 466 16-Jul. N 13-Sept. _ 11-Dec. _ 465 5-Jun P 4-Aug. _ 29-Nov. T 464 25-Jul. _ 22-Sept. _ 19-Dec. _

This preliminary analysis shows that only two years may agree: 475 or 465 BCE. A complete analysis of these eclipses (when they began and ended and how much area of the moon was darkened) enables to keep only the year 475 BCE (T then P). Contrary to the politically correct academic interpretation of astronomical data, which supports the date 465 BCE196 (P then T), the analysis of this tablet is easy and gives 475 BCE. First of all, Babylonian astronomical tablets are extremely accurate as regards their describing of astronomical events. For example, the astronomical tablet BM 71537 fixes the death of Artaxerxes III197 after the solar eclipse of 29/IV (dated 11 March 358 BCE)198:

[year] 21, month IV, (after) 5 month, the 29 [...] not observed month VI, Umakuš [Artaxerxes III] went to his fate. Aršu, his son sat on the throne.

King Name according to astronomical tablets Greek name Xerxes I Ḫišiaršu Xerxes Artaxerxes I Artakšatsu Artoxerxes Darius II Umakuš, whom name is Darawušu Ochos Artaxerxes II Aršu, whom name is Artakšatsu Arsakes Artaxerxes III Umakuš, whom name is Artakšatsu Ochos Artaxerxes IV Aršu, son of Umasu, whom name is Artakšatsu Arses Darius III Artakšatsu, whom name is Dariyawuš Darios

Babylonian astronomers used a reference system based of course on a local observer. Stars position in the sky were measured according to their altitude, or elevation, in degrees between the horizon (0°) and the zenith (90°) and their azimuth in degrees from north (0°), east (90°), south (180°) or west (270°). Altitude is the angle above the observer's horizon and azimuth is the angle measured clockwise from north along the horizon to the point on the horizon that lies beneath the star. Meridian is an imaginary great circle that passes through the zenith from north to south, dividing the sky in two: the eastern and the western halves. It is important to be aware of this line because when an object crosses it, it's as high in the sky as it's going to get. The Sun crosses the line of the meridian around noon every day. We say that the Sun, or any star, culminates when it crosses the meridian. Meridian covers a total angle of 180° (-90° to 90°) and horizon a total angle of 360°.

196 M.W. STOLPER - The Evidence of Cuneiform Texts for the date of Xerxes' Death in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol CVIII (1988) pp. 196-198. M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) N°6 pp. 9-12. 197 F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C. 2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 145. 198 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften p. 45.


Babylonian astronomers measured the sky with their hands knowing that when reaches out, the little finger has an apparent width of 1° and a span (distance between the ends of the thumb and little finger) has an apparent width of 15°. Thus the moon has an apparent width of 0.5° (or 30') like the Sun. Each zodiac constellation has an apparent diameter of around 15°, "a span", so there are 12 constellations in the celestial vault. The darkness of the sky appears when the sun is 6° below the horizon. Given that the full celestial sphere (360°) is covered in a 24-hour day (or 24x60 = 1440 minutes), each celestial degree corresponds to a duration of 4 minutes (= 1440/360). For example the technical indication « 14° after sunset » means "[the eclipse began] 56 minutes (= 14x4) after sunset", likewise « 14° before sunrise » means "[the eclipse began] 56 minutes before sunrise". Paradoxically a lunar eclipse in the Babylonian astronomical records may start slightly before sunset or end slightly after sunrise, which normally is not possible (not observable), but as the beginning and end of eclipses are symmetrical, Babylonian astronomers used to add some appropriate calculations to their observations. There are two types of eclipse, total and partial. For a total eclipse (left below) the 1st onset point out the beginning of the penumbra (highlighted in grey) on the moon (in yellow), the 2nd onset: the beginning of full eclipse (in dark red), the 3rd onset: the end of total eclipse and the 4th onset: the end of the penumbra. The full length of the eclipse is given by the time between the 1st and the 4th onset (maximum of 52° or 3.5 hours). For a partial eclipse (right below) the 1st onset points out the beginning of the penumbra and the 2nd onset the end of it. In this case the surface covered by the shadow is given by means of a fraction of the lunar disk (around 2/3 for the example).

4th, ,3rd 2nd, 1st onset 2nd, 1st onset (Moon) Total lunar eclipse Partial lunar eclipse

Total eclipse dated 13 December 317 BCE (-316)

5' Month IX, the 15th. When it began on the south and east side, 6' in 19° all was covered. 5° maximal phase. 7' In 16° it cleared to between north and east. 8' 40° onset, maximal phase and clearing. During onset (and) maximal phase 9' it was slow, during clearing fast. 10' Its eclipse was red. 1 1/2 cubits 11' in front of β Geminorum it was eclipsed. At 44° after sunset.


According to astronomy, the total eclipse dated 13 December 317 BCE (-316) lasted 220 minutes and was total during 83 minutes199. It began at 20:36 (local time) or 3:34 after sunset, which was at 17:02 in Babylon200. This length of 3:34 corresponds to 54°.

Description of the eclipse (total) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference 1st onset [beginning] 44° after sunset 54° after sunset 10° (40 min.) 1st onset – 2nd onset [penumbra] 19° 17° 2° (8 min.) 2nd onset – 3rd onset [maximal] 5° (20 min.) 21° (83 min.) 16° (64 min.) 3rd onset – 4th onset [clearing] 16° 17° (64 min.) 1° (4 min.) 1st onset – 4th onset [length] 40° (160 min.) 55° (220 min.) 15° (60 min.)

Partial eclipse dated 5 April 397 BCE

2' Month XII2, the 14th 3' it began on the south side, 4' 1/4 of the disk was covered. 5' It cleared to the west. 27° 6' onset, maximal phase, and clearing. 7' The "garment of the sky" was there, the south wind blew. 8' At 48° after sunset.

According to astronomy, this partial eclipse dated 5 April 397 BCE (-396) lasted 63 minutes and its magnitude (covered surface of the lunar disk) was 0.08201. It began at 21:34 (local time) or 3:09 (189 minutes) after sunset202, which was at 18:25 in Babylon. This length of 189 minutes corresponds to 47°. As the "garment of the sky" means "rain-clouds203", the observation had to be difficult.

Description of the eclipse (partial) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference 1st onset [beginning] 48° after sunset 47° after sunset 1° (4 min.) Covered surface of the disk 0.25 0.08 3X 1st onset – 2nd onset [length] 27° (108 min.) 16° (63 min.) 11° (44 min.)

Huber204 compared the dates given by the astronomical tablets with those obtained in astronomy today. According to his analysis, indications concerning the beginning and end of the eclipse with respect to sunrise and sunset can reach a maximum deviation of +/- 20° (equal to +/- 1 hour 20 minutes) and indications of duration of the eclipse can reach a maximum deviation of +/- 10° (+/- 40 minutes). Huber explains the origin of these differences by some difficulties of observing (when there were clouds for example), copying errors in the tablets, misinterpretation of a poorly preserved text, false identifications of eclipses especially when a predicted eclipse replaced a missing eclipse (or not observed). Finally the Babylonian concept of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th contact (onset) may be slightly different from the present astronomical concept.

199 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0316-12-13T.gif 200 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 6-7, 395. F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 176-177. 201 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0396-04-05P.gif 202 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V pp. 12-13, 395. F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation pp. 169-170. 203 A. PARPOLA -The Sky-Garment. A Study of the Harappan Religion and Its Relation to the Mesopotamian and Later Indian Religions in: Studia Orientalia vol. 57 (1985). 204 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 3,22,28-31.

BASIC ASTRONOMY FOR HISTORIANS TO GET A CHRONOLOGY 31

According to astronomy, the total eclipse dated 13 December 317 BCE (-396) lasted 220 minutes and was total during 83 minutes94. It began at 20:36 (local time) or 3:34 after sunset, which was at 17:02 in Babylon95. This length of 3:34 corresponds to 54°.

Description of the eclipse (total) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference 1st onset [beginning] 44° after sunset 54° after sunset 10° (40 min.) 1st onset – 2nd onset [penumbra] 19° 17° 2° (8 min.) 2nd onset – 3rd onset [maximal] 5° (20 min.) 21° (83 min.) 16° (64 min.) 3rd onset – 4th onset [clearing] 16° 17° (64 min.) 1° (4 min.) 1st onset – 4th onset [length] 40° (160 min.) 55° (220 min.) 15° (60 min.)

Partial eclipse dated 5 April 397 BCE

2' Month XII2, the 14th

3' it began on the south side,

4' 1/4 of the disk was covered.

5' It cleared to the west. 27°

6' onset, maximal phase, and clearing.

7' The "garment of the sky" was there, the south wind blew.

8' At 48° after sunset.

According to astronomy, this partial eclipse dated 5 April 397 BCE (-396) lasted 63 minutes and its magnitude (covered surface of the lunar disk) was 0.0896. It began at 21:34 (local time) or 3:09 (189 minutes) after sunset97, which was at 18:25 in Babylon. This length of 189 minutes corresponds to 47°. As the "garment of the sky" means "rain-clouds98", the observation had to be difficult.

Description of the eclipse (partial) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference 1st onset [beginning] 48° after sunset 47° after sunset 1° (4 min.) Covered surface of the disk 0.25 0.08 3X 1st onset – 2nd onset [length] 27° (108 min.) 16° (63 min.) 11° (44 min.)

Huber99 compared the dates given by the astronomical tablets with those obtained in astronomy today. According to his analysis, indications concerning the beginning and end of the eclipse with respect to sunrise and sunset can reach a maximum deviation of +/- 20° (+/- 1 hour 20 minutes) and indications of duration of the eclipse can reach a maximum deviation of +/- 10° (+/- 40 minutes). Huber explains the origin of these differences by some difficulties of observing (when there were clouds for example), copying errors in the tablets, misinterpretation of a poorly preserved text, false identifications of eclipses especially when an eclipse predicted an eclipse replaced missing or not observed. At last the Babylonian concept of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th contact (onset) may be slightly different from the present astronomical concept. 94 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0316-12-13T.gif 95 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 6-7, 395. F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 176-177. 96 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0396-04-05P.gif 97 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V pp. 12-13, 395. F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation pp. 169-170. 98 A. PARPOLA -The Sky-Garment. A Study of the Harappan Religion and Its Relation to the Mesopotamian and Later Indian Religions in: Studia Orientalia vol. 57 (1985). 99 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 3,22,28-31.


Astronomical analysis show two important points: the Babylonian measures were excellent but their lack of precision could reach 1 hour, that is to say around "a span" (15°), and the way of describing eclipses depended on their nature, either partial or total. It is easy to verify that the two lunar eclipses which occurred in 475 BCE, first total then partial, are in reverse in 475 BCE, first partial then total.

Lunar eclipses in 475 BCE205

Lunar eclipses in 465 BCE206

Stolper207 dated 4 August 465 BCE the death of Xerxes (14/V/21) as there were actually two eclipses in that year. However, the astronomical description of these two eclipses does not match that indicated on the tablet (BM 32234) because the 1st eclipse was

205 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0474-06-26T.gif http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0474-12-20P.gif 206 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0464-06-06P.gif http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0464-11-29T.gif 207 M.W. STOLPER - The Evidence of Cuneiform Texts for the date of Xerxes' Death in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol CVIII (1988) pp. 196-198.


total and the 2nd eclipse was partial. A comparison of all the data from the tablet with those of astronomy gives the following results (local time in Babylon; LT = UT +2:58):

Year Date of eclipse

according to the tablet

Type of eclipse

mag.

according to the tablet

agreement

475 BCE 26 June [14 III] Total 1.80 total OK 20 December 14 VIII Partial 0.60 0.25 (1/4) OK 465 BCE 5 June [14 III] Partial 0.94 total NO 29 November 14 VIII Total 1.46 0.25 (1/4) NO

First eclipse start 1st

2nd

3rd

end 4th

mag.

sunrise sunset

26 June 475 BCE 4:05 5:02 6:42 7:39 1.82 5:02 19:06 5 June 465 BCE 21:51 0:55 0.94 5:00 18:59

Second eclipse start 1st

2nd

3rd

end 4th

mag.

sunrise sunset

20 December 475 BCE

20:24 23:20 0.61 7:02 17:00

29 November 465 BCE

14:25 15:31 17:05 18:11 1.46 6:47 16:55

Partial eclipse eclipse not observed at Babylon total eclipse

According to 475 BCE gap 465 BCE gap First eclipse tablet BM 32234 26 June 5 June

1st onset [-] 13° before sunrise [-] 43° after sunset [-] 1st – 2nd onset [-] 14° [-] [-] 2nd – 3rd onset [-] 25° [-] [-] 3rd – 4th onset 18° 14° 4° NO 1st – 4th onset 40° 54° 14° 46° 6°

Second eclipse 20 December 29 November 1st onset 13° after sunset 51° after sunset 38° 38° before sunset NO

- 17° NO - 24° ## NO - 17° NO

1st – 2nd onset [8°] 44° 36° 57° 49°

According to astronomy, only the beginning of the first eclipse (26 June 475 BCE) could be observed. In addition, the weather was rainy ("The garment of the sky was there"). Observations have therefore been difficult, thus the two durations of eclipse, 40° and [8°], were due to a guess. In 30% of cases (on average), the Babylonians completed their observations with values calculated208 according to some theories poorly understood209. Despite some difficulties of observation the results obtained by the ancient Babylonian astronomers for the two lunar eclipses of 475 BCE are remarkably good (there are 5 major disagreements in 465 BCE). A second way of checking the data in the astronomical tablet is the wording: In the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius it [the moon] was eclipsed [1st eclipse]. The observations were performed in Babylon whose latitude is 32°33' (or 32.55°) North and longitude is 44°26' (or 44.43°) East210. With astronomy software it is possible to see the sky at one point and at a given time211 (in 475 BCE Universal Time: -474-06-26 0:00; Azimuth: 230°; Field of view: 45°; in 465 BCE Universal Time: -464-06-06 0:00).

208 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis p. 7. 209 N.M. SWERDLOW - The Babylonian Theory of the Planets 1998 New Jersey Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 44,45. 210 http://www.astro.com/cgi/aq.cgi?lang=e 211 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon


One can see that in 475 BCE the moon was 20° rear back of Sagittarius (above left) and in 465 BCE it was inside (above right). According to the astronomical tablet the first lunar eclipse [total] was: in the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius [in 475 BCE]. Consequently, according to astronomy, Xerxes died (14/V/21) on Wednesday 23 August 475 BCE. Astronomical concepts necessary to historians are actually quite rudimentary. One must just know the working of solar and lunar cycles, which served to define the years and months (generally: from equinox to equinox / from 1st crescent to new moon).


As Bardiya, Xerxes began his reign on two occasions, first as co-regent his accession is dated III/00 and again as true king after the death of Darius dated 10/IX/10.

year month year of reign 496 1 X 25 Darius I

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 26 5 II 6 III *** 0 Darius I / Xerxes I

BM 42567 dated 24/[III?]/00 and year 26 BM 30589 dated 20/III/26 (New Palace)

7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII BM 30980 dated 4/VIII/26 (New Palace) 12 IX

495 1 X 2 XI *** BM 75396 dated 27/XI/00 3 XII 4 I 27 1 to 01/I/27 5 II

year month year of reign 486 1 X 35 9 Darius I / Xerxes I

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 36 10 5 II 6 III 7 IV *** Bertin 2857 dated 23/IV/10 (Babylon) 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII *** CT 4, 34 dated 24/VIII/10 (Babylon) 12 IX

485 1 X 10 [0] Xerxes I / [Xerxes as new king] 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 11 1 BSCAS 32 n°2 dated 02/I/11 [Uruk] 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 0 Xerxes I / Bel-šimânni 9 VI 0 Xerxes I / Šamaš-erîba

BM 96414 dated 24/VI/00 year 1 of Xerxes 10 VII

11 VIII Babylonian revolts (Esther 2:21-3:7) OECT 10 176 dated 5/IX/11 (Kish) 12 IX ***

484 1 X 2 XI *** JCS 28 38 dated 24/XI/11 (unassigned) 3 XII 4 I 12 5 II

Babylonian revolts that took place early in the reign of Xerxes (year 11), after the death of Darius, cannot have occurred when he was co-regent (year 1). Indeed, from the Battle of Marathon (in 490 BCE), Herodotus describes a climate of insurrection in the Persian Empire: So the men published his commands; and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of 3 years, while everywhere, as Greece was to be attacked, the best and bravest were enrolled for the service, and had to make their preparations accordingly. After this, in the 4th year [486 BCE], the Egyptians whom Cambyses had enslaved revolted from the Persians; whereupon Darius was more hot for war than ever, and earnestly desired to march an army against both adversaries. Now, as he was about to lead forth his levies against Egypt and Athens, a fierce contention for the sovereign power arose among his sons (...) Darius, when he had thus appointed Xerxes his heir, was minded to lead forth his armies; but he was prevented by death while his preparations were still proceeding. He died in the year following the revolt of Egypt and the matters here related, after having reigned in all 36 years, leaving the revolted Egyptians and


the Athenians alike unpunished. At his death the kingdom passed to his son Xerxes (The Histories VII:1-4). Ctesias said after the death of Darius: Xerxes decided to make war upon Greece, because the Chalcedonians had attempted to break down the bridge as already stated and had destroyed the altar which Darius had set up, and because the Athenians had slain Datis and refused to give up his body. But first he visited Babylon, being desirous of seeing the tomb of Belitanes, which Mardonius showed him. But he was unable to fill the vessel of oil, as had been written. Thence he proceeded to Ecbatana, where he heard of the revolt of the Babylonians and the murder of Zopyrus their satrap (Persica F13§§25-26). Arrian situated also the Babylonian revolt at the time of his campaign against the Greeks (Anabasis of Alexander III:16:4; VII:17:2), which began in the spring of -485 according to Herodotus (The Histories VII:20). Strabo says that Xerxes razed the temple of Bel Marduk (Geography XVI:1:5) probably in retaliation for these brief Babylonian revolts212. Herodotus says only that Xerxes robbed the temple of Marduk and killed the priest who tried to prevent it (The Histories I:183). These two brief rebellions at the beginning of the reign of Xerxes confirm the co-regency because during his accession and his first year of reign, Xerxes was welcomed by the Babylonians and the two Babylonian revolts, just after the death of Darius, imply that the Xerxes' accession could not have taken place at that time. Plutarch, who confirms the story of Ctesias, said after the death of Darius the kingdom of Xerxes was challenged in a climate of insurrection (very different from the period of accession 10 years earlier): Arimenes came out of Bactria as a rival for the kingdom with his brother Xerxes, the son of Darius. Xerxes sent presents to him, commanding those that brought them to say: With these your brother Xerxes now honours you; and if he chance to be proclaimed king, you shall be the next person to himself in the kingdom. When Xerxes was declared king, Arimenes immediately did him homage and placed the crown upon his head; and Xerxes gave him the next place to himself. Being offended with the Babylonians, who rebelled, and having overcome them, he forbade them weapons (Sayings of kings and commanders 173c)213. If Arimenes challenged the kingdom of Xerxes that means he (Xerxes) was already king. In addition, the Babylonian revolt early in his reign had visibly worried Babylonian scribes, since we read of a trilingual inscription at Persepolis: King Xerxes says: When I became king, among the nations that are written above, it is one that rebelled, then Ahuramazda gave me his support and thanks to Ahuramazda I beat these people and I put it back in its place214. Xerxes does not name the Babylonians probably because this old people constituted a prestigious historical foundation of Achaemenid power, thus it was embarrassing to admit such an insurrection. The translation of the Babylonian inscription is also indicative of the awkwardness as it replaces the offending people by "these countries have rebelled," combining the revolt that had taken place at the time of Darius with the rebels, who were the two Babylonians: Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV. The information from Ctesias and Plutarch overlap, making it possible to locate the two brief reigns of Bel-šimânni and Šamaš-erîba in the year 485 BCE or early in the effective reign of Xerxes after the death of Darius. According to the book of Esther215 there was a plot to kill Xerxes which was thwarted in the 11th year of his reign, we read: Bigthan and Teresh, two officials of the king's court — the porters — were outraged and sought to lay hands on

212 Herodotus wrote: one year after Darius death (in 485 BCE), Xerxes attacked the [Babylonian?] rebels (The Histories VII:7). 213 Ctesias states that Megabyzus who suppressed the revolt and took Babylon. 214 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 257. 215 Esther, stâra “star” in Old Persian (from Ištar), Abigail's daughter, was the wife of Xerxes from the year 7 of his reign in 489 BCE (Est 2:15-17), and her name is close to Amestris (Ama-stari “strong woman”), the biblical Esther (ZAW 119:2 [2007] pp. 259-271). Although portrayed as a cruel woman (Otanes' daughter, an usurper!) several points of Herodotus coincide with that of the Bible: 1) When he is king, Xerxes has only one wife (The Histories VII:61; Esther 2:17), 2) during a royal banquet the queen asks a special favor (The Histories IX:110 -111; Esther 7:1-10), and 3) this request, not good for the Persians, leads a war that the Jews won, again, a dozen young Persian of noble family were executed in retaliation (The Histories VII:114; Esther 9:12-14).


King Ahasuerus. But the thing came to be known to Mordecai, and he soon revealed to Esther the queen. Then Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. The case was therefore sought and finally discovered, and both were hanged on a pole (...) Shortly afterwards (...) In the 1st month, that is the month of Nisan, of the 12th year of King Ahasuerus (Est 2:21-3:7). Note that Mordecai appears as debtor of Uštanu in a contract (Amherst 258) dated c. 485 BCE through prosopography by Ungnad216. The biblical text also mentions the presence of Tattenai (Ezr 4:24-6:15), the governor beyond the river, only from year 2 of Darius I, which is consistent with his early peaceful reign at the end of year 1 (Tattenai, Uštanu's assistant, the governor of Babylon and beyond the river, appears in a contract dated in the year 20 of Darius217). The (partial) destruction of the famous sanctuary of Marduk had to destabilize the Babylonian administration and may explain, in part, the disappearance of the Babylonian archives218 recorded since that time. Unlike Cambyses who "started again" his reign after the death of Cyrus, Xerxes continued his dating from the beginning of his co-regency (as Bardiya did). After the death of Darius, Xerxes was then in his 10th year of reign. For example, the serious accusation against the Jews is dated in the 12th year of the legal reign of Xerxes (Est 3:7-10), at the beginning of his effective reign (Ezr 4:6). Cameron219 notes that the 1st year and the accession of Xerxes are well represented in Babylon, it does not place the revolt over the two years since the Babylonians had clearly recognized Xerxes in his early steps. Waerzeggers220 notes that the tablet BM 96414, dated the accession of Šamaš-erîba mentions the 1st year of Xerxes, but as the legitimate king was Šamaš-erîba, for the scribe, Xerxes was an usurper in his 1st year of reign, not a legitimate king in his 11th year. Indeed, Xerxes was challenged after the death of Darius, not during the first two years of his reign. The last text of Xerxes (CBS 10059) is dated 20/V/21221.

King Tablet Year of Xerxes

Date Place Titulature

Xerxes BSCAS 32 n°2 11 02/I/11 [Uruk] ? JCS 1, 350 n°2 485 BCE 05/IV/[?] Babylon? ? Bel-šimânni AfO 19 n°23 - 14+/V/00 Borsippa King of Babylon and of lands

VS 6 331 1 01/VI/00 Dilbat King of Babylon BM 87357 1 04/VI/00 Harru-mîlû King of Babylon

Šamaš-erîba LB 1718 - 04/V/00 Sippar(!) King of Babylon and of lands BM 25897 - 22/VI/00 Borsippa King BM 96414 1 24/VI/00 Borsippa King of Babylon, king of lands VS 3 178 - 25/VI/00 Borsippa King of Babylon BM 67297 - 25/VI/00 Sippar King of Babylon and of lands BM 94878 - 09/VII/00 Kish King of Babylon, king of lands VS 5 116 - 21/VII/00 Borsippa King of Babylon ZA 3, 157f. - 22/VII/00 Babylon King of Babylon and of lands VS 6 173 - 23/VII/00 Borsippa King of Babylon, king of lands BM 22072 - 24/VII/00 Borsippa King of Babylon VS 6 174 - 29/VII/00 Borsippa King of Babylon

Xerxes OECT 10, 176 11 05/IX/11 Hursag-kal. King of Babylon, king of lands JCS 28 n°38 11 24/XI/11 Sippar ?

216 A. UNGNAD - Neubabylonische Privaturkunden aus der Sammlung Amherst in: Archiv für Orientforschung XIX (1959-1960) pp. 80-81. 217 M.W. STOLPER – The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48 (1989) pp. 290-291. 218 According to the biblical text (Ezra 5:17-6:2; Esther 6:1), the archives were located mainly in Babylon in rolls. 219 G.G. CAMERON – Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58 (1941) pp. 314-325. 220 C. WAERZEGGERS – The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes andthe ‘End of Archives’ in: Archiv für Orientforschung 50 (2003/2004) pp. 150-172. 221 M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) pp. 6-7.


If the Babylonian revolts had taken place during the year 1 of Xerxes' reign (in 485 BCE), according to the tablets VS 6 331 and BM 96414, the chronological ranking of contracts222 shows us (below) that they took place when the king was fully recognized in Borsippa, which would be incomprehensible:

year month year of reign Xerxes I (year 1) Bel-šimânni / Šamaš-erîba 485 1 X [0]

2 XI 22/VIII/00 3 XII 13/IX/00 4 I 23/I/1 5 II 13/II/1 6 III 21/III/1 7 IV 05/IV/[-], 13/IV/1, 15/IV/1 8 V 0 20/V/1, 21/V/1, 26/V/1, 04/V/00, 14+/V/00, 9 VI 1 0 17/VI/1, 15/VI/[-] 01/VI/00, 04/VI/00, 22/VI/00,

24/VI/00, 25/VI/00, 25/VI/00 10 VII 17/VII/1, 27/VII/1, 28/VII/1 09/VII/00, 21/VII/00, 22/VII/00,

23/VII/00, 24/VII/00, 29/VII/00 11 VIII 24/VIII/1, 27/VIII/1, 30/VIII/1 12 IX 13/IX/1

484 1 X 29/X/1 2 XI 02/XI/1 3 XII 03/XII/1, 13/XII/1

If the Babylonian revolts occurred during the year 1 of Xerxes' reign, the chronological ranking of contracts shows us that they took place when the king had been fully recognized in Borsippa, which would be quite illogical. In fact for the Babylonians the legitimate king was Šamaš-erîba. For the Babylonian scribe, Xerxes, an Achaemenid, was an usurper in his 1st year of reign, not a legitimate king in his 11th year of reign. To avoid this conclusion some historians have speculated that the Babylonian revolts were at their maximum around 484/483 rather than 485 BCE, but this assumption is contradicted by three elements: If the first Babylonian revolt occurred in 484 BCE, this year would have been the 2nd regnal year of Xerxes, however two tablets of Šamaš-erîba are clearly dated year 1 of Xerxes. Greek historians describing the succession Darius/ Xerxes all indicate that some Babylonian revolts occurred just after the death of Darius, not 2 years later. In addition, that chronology sounds logical because revolts usually occur just after the death of a king when some pretenders to the throne contest the succession, which was the case for Xerxes. An astronomical fragment (JCS 1, 350 n°2) enables the dating of these Babylonian. The astronomical fragment reads223:

2. [...] ... [...] 3. [...] the month of Tammuz (IV), the 5th day [...] 4. [...] to Babylon went [...] 5. [...] the troops of Elam [...] 6. [... the reg]ion of Mars which to [...]

222 BE 8/1, 119. (Xer.01.01.23, B.); OECT 12, pl.19:A 124 (Xer.<01>.01.23, Borsippa); *Goetze JNES 3 45:YBC 11450 (Xer.01.02.13, B.); *Ungnad AfO 19:AT n246.(Xer.01.02.28?, Borsippa); VS 4, 191. (Xer.01.03.03, Borsippa); MacGinnis, Letter Orders n86 (Xer.01.03.21, <S.>); Stigers JCS 28 n51. (Xer.01.03.21, <S.>); VS 6, 179. (Xer.01.03.x, B.), *Bertin 2851. (Xer.01.04.13, B.); OECT 12, pl.13:A 111. (Xer.01.04.15, <Borsippa>); *Goetze JNES 3 45:MLC 557; VS 6, 191. (<Xer>.01.05?.13, <Borsippa>); VS 3, 204 (<Xer>.<01>.05.14, <Borsippa>); EKBK 19. (Xer.01.05.20, <S.>); OECT 10, 170 (Xer.01.05.21, H.); Wunsch AfO 42/43 n13 (Xer.01.05.26, B.); VS 4, 192. (Xer.01.06.17, o); *Goetze JNES 3 45:YBC 11293. (Xer.01.07.17, B.); MacGinnis, Letter Orders n87. (Xer.01.07.27, <S.>); *Ungnad AfO 19:AT n244 (Xer.01.07.28, o); VS 6, 192. (<Xer>.01.07.o, o); CT 44, 75 (Xer.01.08.24, S.); Stolper BaM 21 App. (Xer.01.08.27, S.); VS 4, 193. (Xer.01.08.30, <Borsippa>); *Ungnad AfO 19:AT n245 (Xer.01.09.13, Borsippa) TuM 2/3, 98. (Xer.01.10.29, Rime); Stolper AH 11 139. (Xer.01.11.02, S.); VS 4, 194. (Xer.01.12.03, Šušan); VS 6, 180. (Xer.01.12.13, [Borsippa]) 223 W. HOROWITZ – An Astronomical Fragment from Columbia University and the Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes in: Journal of the Association of Near-Eastern Studies 23 (1995) pp. 61-67.


7. [... M]ars into Cancer ente[red ...] 8. [... fle]d and into the river jumped and [...] 9. [... to] Borsippa went, destroyed the city [...]

The historical notices appear to be related to a conflict between Babylon and Elam (Media and Persia). Line 4 indicates that the troops, and/or others, went to Babylon. Line 5 mentions the troops of Elam, and line 8 apparently refers to a military defeat (Here someone flees and then jumps into a river, a parallel is to be found in the annals of Assurbasirpal). In line 9 a group of people go to Borsippa. Lines 6-7 date these events to a year when the planet Mars was in the vicinity of Cancer during the month of Tammuz (IV). Observations of Mars in this context may be more than coincidental since the planet Mars is not only the planet of Nergal, the Babylonian god of war, but is also often associated with Elam in astrology. The fragment must refer to an astronomical omen rather than belonging to an astronomical diary for two reasons: 1) most information comes from a chronicle rather than an astronomical record (in which historical events are rare); 2) given that the constellation of Cancer covers 20° of the sky224 it needs 20 days to be crossed by a planet, which prevents one from making an observation dated to a specific day. For practical reasons, Mars was entering visually in a constellation when it was crossing its centre. An astronomical simulation225 indicates (see below) that Mars was in the centre of the constellation of Cancer around the 9 April -484 (485 BCE), that matched to Nisan (first month of Babylonian year), and again226 the 6 March -467 (468 BCE). Presumably after the death of Darius, Babylonian priests, given the dissatisfaction with Babylon and this omen early in the reign of Xerxes (year 11), had predicted wars (which happened soon after).

Year Spring equinox 1/I (Nisan) 1/II 1/III 1/IV 1/V (Ab) -485 Adar2 26 March 18 March 16 April 16 May 14 June 14 July -484 26 March 5 April 4 May 3 June 2 July 1 August -483 Adar2 26 March 25 March 23 April 23 May 21 June 21 July -482 26 March 12 April 12 May 10 June 10 July 9 August

224 D. LEVY – Skywatching. The ultimate guide to the Universe London 1995, Ed. Collins, p. 144. 225 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon 226 The coincidence occurred after 17 sideral years or 9 sideral years of Mars (17x365.26 = 6209 days - 26 days = 9x687)


After Xerxes had been killed (14/V/21 that is August 24, 475 BCE) there was no king any more because Artabanus was only his legal representative. Herodotus wrote: Have no fear, therefore, on this score; but keep a brave heart and uphold my house and empire. To thee, and thee only, do I intrust my sovereignty (The Histories VII:52), but Artabanus is never mentioned as coregent: For in the three following generations of Darius the son of Hystaspes, Xerxes the son of Darius, and Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes (The Histories VI:98). Justinus and Aristotle even suggest clearly that Darius, the eldest son of Xerxes, was the designated heir227. A contract under Artaxerxes I, refers to a previous arrangement dated IX/21 of Xerxes228, or 4 months after his death, and not to Artaxerxes accession, which had just been recognized. An Elephantine Papyri (B24) is dated: [17] Thoth, year 21 (of Xerxes), accession year of Artaxerxes229. As the 17 Thoth corresponds to January 5 (that is 10/IX/21), the accession year of Artaxerxes must have been dated around 1-10/IX/00 (between December 25, 475 BCE and January 5, 474 BCE). Xerxes must have been dead because after the 1st Thoth he would have begun his 22th year of reign in Egypt.

year month year of reign 475 1 X 20

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 21 Xerxes I

(Total lunar eclipse of June 26, 475 BCE) 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI (21) 1 (Xerxes I) / Artabanus

(Partial lunar eclipse of December 20, 475 BCE)

10 VII 2 11 VIII 3 12 IX 4

474 1 X 0 5 Artaxerxes I / Artabanus (met by Themistocles) 2 XI 6

3 XII 7 4 I 1 Artaxerxes I 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V

According to this chronological reconstitution the accession of Xerxes is dated -475 (instead of -465) which involves shifting 10 years all years of Xerxes, for example: Ø Mardonios died in 479 BCE (= year 17 of Xerxes). A batch of tablets on the domain of

Mardonius is dated 3-10 years of Xerxes, in addition, according to Herodotus, the general died in August 479 BCE at the Battle of Plataea (The Histories IX :81-84). Stolper230 suggests that one continued to talk about him posthumously a few years after his death (up till -476) as if he were still alive, but his explanation defies common sense!

Ø War preparations are dated 485 to 481 BCE (= year 11 to 15 of Xerxes). The book of Esther describes some events in the 12th year of Ahasuerus (Esther 3:7). According to this text, Xerxes makes a corvée on earth and the islands of the Sea (Esther 10:1), which refers to the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean and the maritime regions of the empire. The Hebrew word mas can be translated as "tribute" or "forced labour", but since the regions in question were already paying tribute, the translation "forced labour" is more

227 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 581-583. 228 H.H. FIGULLA - Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period London 1949 Ed. Harrison & sons p. 15 text n° 193. 229 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 164-165. 230 M.W. STOLPER - The Estate of Mardonius in: Aula Orientalis Vol. X 1992 pp. 211-221.


appropriate. Xerxes prepared his expedition against Greece for 4 whole years, creating storage and building an impressive fleet of about 1,200 fighting ships and 2000 transport vessels. These preparations are to be linked with the passage from the Book of Esther. The expedition of Xerxes is dated 480 BCE. Yet Herodotus states: From the date of submission of Egypt, Xerxes took 4 whole years to assemble his army and supplies needed and he took the field at the end of the 5th year [spring 480 BCE], with immense forces (The Histories VII:20). A document called “customs registry” contains accounts of maritime traffic from the port of Memphis231 (or Naucratis) showing the amount of customs duty payable to the "king's house." These important contributions which were sent to the Persian king are dated from 11th to 15th year of Xerxes232. A royal receipt dated year 13 of Xerxes233 (10/I/13) also mentions these requisitions.

Ø Succession Xerxes / Artaxerxes (= year 21 of Xerxes) is mentioned just after the siege of Eion (The Histories VII:106-107; The Peloponnesian War I:98,137), which is placed during the archon Phaedon, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36), dated 476/475 BCE.

year King Historical event Reference 503 Darius 19 502 20 (lunar eclipse 19 November 502 BCE) Almagest IV:9.11 501 21 500 22 Atossa (Udusana) is mentioned PF 0163 499 23 Hystaspes is governor of Parthia PF 1596 498 24 Xerxes is governor of Parthia PF-NN 1657 497 25 496 Darius / Xerxes 26- 0 Building of Xerxes new palace (BM 30589) BM 42567 495 27- 1 BM 75396 494 28- 2 493 29- 3 End of the Ionian Revolt (Herodotus VI:17-18,31) Est 1:3 492 30- 4 491 31- 5 (lunar eclipse 25 April 491 BCE) Almagest IV:9.11 490 32- 6 Battle of Marathon (August 490 BCE) 489 33- 7 Xerxes married Esther (December 489 BCE) Est 2:16-17 488 34- 8 Birth of Darius A (son of Xerxes I) Persica F13§24 487 35- 9 486 36-10 0 Death of Darius (8 December 486 BCE) 485 Xerxes 11 1 (1) War preparations (Herodotus VII:1-4) 484 12 2 (2) " Est 3:7;10:1 483 13 3 (3) " (Mardocai died) 482 14 4 (4) " 481 15 5 (5) " 480 16 6 Battle of Salamis (September 480 BCE) 479 17 7 Battle of Plataea (August 479 BCE) 478 18 8 477 19 9 476 20 10 Siege of Eion, fall of Skyros (Life of Theseus §§35,36) 475 Artaxerxes I 0 - 21 11 Battle of Naxos (the last one during Xerxes’ reign) BM 32234 474 1 Themistocles met Artaxerxes (Thucydides I:98,137) 473 2 472 3 Performance of Aeschylus’ play (end of Xerxes’ empire) The Persians 471 4 Death of Themistocles (Diodorus XI:58:3-60:1) 470 5 Battle of the Eurymedon (Plutarch -Cimon 8;12)

231 E. BRESCIANI – L'Égypte des satrapes d'après la documentation araméenne et égyptienne in: Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres (1995) pp. 97-108. 232 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3 1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. 195-203. 233 M.W. STOLPER – "Fifth-Century Nippur: Texts of the Murasus from their Surroundings" in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53 (2001) pp. 26-35.


DID THEMISTOCLES MEET ARTAXERXES ?

Diodorus (Historical Library XI:54-60) mentions the death of Themistocles: when Praxigerus was archon [471/470]. If Artaxerxes began his reign in 465, Themistocles, who died in 471, could not have met him. Aware of this aberration, many historians today move the death of Themistocles in 460 or even in 450. But this choice comes up against a problem: the life of Themistocles is well documented. This paradox is not new, as already evoked by Cornelius Nepos: I know most historians have related that Themistocles went over into Asia in the reign of Xerxes, but I give credence to Thucydides in preference to others, because he, of all who have left records of that period, was nearest in point of time to Themistocles, and was of the same city (Life of Themistocles IX). Plutarch says: Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest (Life of Themistocles XXVII). Cicero relates: Who was more eminent in Greece than Themistocles, who more powerful? But he, after having saved Greece from slavery by his leadership in the war with Persia, and after having been banished because of his unpopularity, would not submit to the injustice of an ungrateful country, as he was in duty bound to do: he did the same thing that Coriolanus had done among our people 20 years before. Not one single supporter could be found to aid these men against their country; therefore, each took his own life (Laelius on Friendship XII§42). Livy (Roman History II:34-39) dates precisely the life of Coriolanus, indicating that he betrayed in the consulship of Marcus Minucius and Aulus Sempronius (in -491) and died 3 years later when Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius were consuls (in -488). The parallel between these two famous men who have had a similar purpose would involve a death of Themistocles around -468. Plutarch also says that Themistocles ended his days in the city of Magnesia, having lived 65 years (Life of Themistocles III; XXXI). According to Cornelius Nepos, Themistocles and Aristides were about the same age (Aristides I:1). Elien says: Themistocles, and Aristides Son of Lysimachus, had the same Governours, they were also brought up together, and taught by one Master, but whilest yet Boyes, they were alwaies at variance ; and this emulation continued from their childhood, to extreme old age (Various History XIII:44). Plutarch wrote: Aristides being the friend and supporter of that Clisthenes (...) had Themistocles, son to Neocles, his adversary on the side of the populace. Some say that, being boys and bred up together from their infancy, they were always at variance with each other in all their words and actions (Aristides II:1). Now, to be part of the Boule (Senate), you had to be at least 30 years old234. So Aristide have been to be born a little before -538, for the constitution of Cleisthenes is -508. With an estimated birth around -538, the death of Themistocles (65 years later) would be around -473. Ælian wrote: On a time Themistocles, yet a boy, returning from School, his Master bade him, meeting Pisistratus the Tyrant, to go a little out of the way. Whereto he generously answered, "Is not here way enough for him?" So much did something ingenious and generous appear in Themistocles at those years (Various History III:21). As Pisistratus died in the archonship of Philoneos (in 527 BCE), according to Aristotle (Constitution of Athens XVII:1-2), Themistocles had to have risen about 537/536, as being a pais (boy) at this meeting he was at less 10 years old. If Themistocles, who died at the age of 65, was born in -536, his death is therefore in -471. He must have been 46 years old at the Battle of Marathon (in -490). Stobaeus supports this testimony by saying that Themistocles was already old235 when he took the head of the Athenian forces during the Median wars236.

234 C. ORRIEUX, P. SCHMITT PANTEL - Histoire grecque. Paris 1995 Ed. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 165,197. 235 At that time a man became an elder when he was 50 or more. 236 J. STOBAEI - Florilegium CXVII:9 Vol. III 1824 Lipsiae Ed. Thomas Gaisford p. 392.


TRANSITION ARTAXERXES I / DARIUS II According to the conventional chronology, mainly from Ptolemy's Royal Canon, supplemented by information from the ancient historians (Herodotus, Manetho, etc.), the following schema was accepted (Artaxerxes accession is supposed to be in 465 BCE):

year month year of reign 424 1 X 40 Artaxerxes I

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 (41) Xerxes II 5 II 2 6 III 1 Sogdianus 7 IV 2 8 V 3 9 VI 4 10 VII 5 11 VIII 6 12 IX 7

423 1 X 0 Darius II 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 5 II

Statistical spreading of tablets237

Because of the small number of tablets the chronology of Artaxerxes reign was hard to verify. However, the discovery of the Murashu archives238 completely changed the previous reconstitution since a co-regency of several months (up till month XII)239 appeared between Artaxerxes I and Darius instead of a period ruled by two usurpers240.

month Artaxerxes I (year 41) Darius II (accession) 424 4 I

5 II 6 III 7 IV 25/IV/00 8 V 5/V/41; 20/V/41 9 VI 1/VI/41; 25/VI/41 10 VII 4/VII/41; 16/VII/41 11 VIII 6/VIII/41 12 IX 1/XI/41; 12/IX/41 14/IX/00; 29/IX/00

423 1 X 2 XI 17/XI/41 4/XI/00; 15/XI/00 3 XII 14/XII/41; 20/XII/41 9/XII/00; 22/XII/00

237 J. EVERLING – Materials for the Study of First Millenium B.C. Babylonian Texts 2000 Paris Bibliothèque du Collège de France (Assyrie) cote: TP-Everling. 238 M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 13-24. 239 V. DONBAZ, M.W. STOLPER – Istanbul Murasu Texts in: Pihans 79 (1997) Leiden-Istanbul. 240 L. DEPUYDT - The Date of Death of Artaxerxes I in: Die Welt des Orients XXVI (1995) pp. 86-96.


TRANSITION ARTAXERXES I / DARIUS II

According to the conventional chronology, mainly from Ptolemy's Royal Canon, supplemented by information from the ancient historians (Herodotus, Manetho, etc.), the following scheme was accepted (Artaxerxes accession is supposed to be in 465 BCE):

year month year of reign 1 X 2 XI

40

3 XII

Artaxerxes I

4 I 1 5 II 2

(41) Xerxes II

6 III 1 7 IV 2 8 V 3 9 VI 4 10 VII 5 11 VIII 6

424

12 IX 7

Sogdianus

1 X 2 XI 3 XII

0 Darius II

4 I

423

5 II 1

Statistical spreading of tablets98

Because of the small number of tablets the chronology of Artaxerxes reign was hard to verify. However, the discovery of the Murashu archives99 completely changed the previous reconstitution since a co-regency of several months (up till month XII)100 appeared between Artaxerxes I and Darius instead of a period ruled by two usurpers101.

month Artaxerxes I (year 41) Darius II (accession) 4 I 5 II 6 III 7 IV 25/IV/00 8 V 5/V/41; 20/V/41 9 VI 1/VI/41; 25/VI/41 10 VII 4/VII/41; 16/VII/41 11 VIII 6/VIII/41

424

12 IX 1/XI/41; 12/IX/41 14/IX/00; 29/IX/00 1 X 2 XI 17/XI/41 4/XI/00; 15/XI/00

423

3 XII 14/XII/41; 20/XII/41 9/XII/00; 22/XII/00

98 J. EVERLING – Materials for the Study of First Millenium B.C. Babylonian Texts 2000 Paris Bibliothèque du Collège de France (Assyrie) cote: TP-Everling. 99 M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 13-24. 100 V. DONBAZ, M.W. STOLPER – Istanbul Murasu Texts in: Pihans 79 (1997) Leiden-Istanbul. 101 L. DEPUYDT - The Date of Death of Artaxerxes I in: Die Welt des Orients XXVI (1995) pp. 86-96.


Some scholars have suggested that scribes who had dated contracts in the year 41 of Artaxerxes were unaware that Darius had begun to reign241, but this is unlikely242. Aware of this difficulty some have proposed to reduce the duration of the coregency by reading XI instead of IV, but Stolper243 acknowledges: Leichty (1974) as Walker (1979) observed that although the sign of the month is more like that ŠU than ZIZ, it is partially broken, damaged along the bottom and right edge. Thus, the reading 25/IV/41 accession of Darius (on tablet BM 33342 below) seems most likely. He added that since Artaxerxes died around -424 in March at the end of his 40th year of reign, the Babylonian scribes were well aware of his death in the 12th month of this year. Stolper thought that Darius II was immediately admitted to Babylon along with Xerxes II, Sogdianus being only recognized in Persia before being assassinated.

Chronological reconstitution currently accepted is as follows:


2 XI 3 XII 1 [Artaxerxes I] / / Xerxes II 4 I 41 2 5 II 1 [Artaxerxes I] / / Sogdianus 6 III 2 7 IV 0 3 [Artaxerxes I] / Darius II / Sogdianus 8 V 4 9 VI 5 10 VII *** 6 Contract CBS 4986 dated 17/VII/41 to be paid on II/42 11 VIII 7 12 IX

[Artaxerxes I] / Darius II

423 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I (42) 1 Darius II 5 II

241 F.X. KUGLER - Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel 11 Münster 1907, 1912 p. 312. 242 D.M. LEWIS - Sparta and Persia Leiden 1977 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 70-72. 243 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I 1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 pp. 223-236.

48 SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY THROUGH SYNCHRONISMS DATED BY ASTRONOMY

Some scholars have suggested that scribes who had dated contracts in the year 41 of Artaxerxes were unaware that Darius had begun to reign102, but this is unlikely103. Aware of this difficulty some have proposed to reduce the duration of the coregency by reading XI instead of IV, but Stolper104 acknowledges: Leichty (1974) as Walker (1979) observed that although the sign of the month is more like that "U than ZIZ, it is partially broken, damaged along the bottom and right edge. Thus, the reading 25/IV/41 accession of Darius (on tablet BM 33342 below) seems most likely. He added that since Artaxerxes died around -424 in March at the end of his 40th year of reign, the Babylonian scribes were well aware of his death on the 12th month of this year. Stolper thought that Darius II was immediately admitted to Babylon along with Xerxes II, Sogdianus being only recognized in Persia before being assassinated.

Chronological reconstitution currently accepted is as follows:

year month year of reign 1 X 2 XI

40 Artaxerxes I

3 XII

1 4 I 2

[Artaxerxes I] / / Xerxes II

5 II 1 6 III

2 [Artaxerxes I] / / Sogdianus

7 IV 3 8 V 4 9 VI 5 10 VII 6 11 VIII 7

[Artaxerxes I] / Darius II / Sogdianus

424

12 IX 1 X 2 XI 3 XII

41

0

[Artaxerxes I] / Darius II

4 I

423

5 II (42) 1 Darius II

102 F.X. KUGLER - Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel 11 Münster 1907, 1912 p. 312. 103 D.M. LEWIS - Sparta and Persia Leiden 1977 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 70-72. 104 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I 1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 pp. 223-236.


Although it is generally accepted that reconstitution is absurd because it implies a co-regency with a dead king during at least one year! The death of Artaxerxes is fixed precisely by Thucydides just at the end of the 7th year of the Peloponnesian War and before a partial solar eclipse in March 424 BCE according to his chronological system (The Peloponnesian War IV:50-52). Astronomy confirms the existence of the eclipse (annular eclipse of magnitude 94%)244 dated March 21, 424 BCE. However, as the 1st of Nisan fell on April 20245 in 424 BCE, Artaxerxes I could not have begun his 41st year of reign because the spring equinox fell on March 25 in 424 BCE (Julian calendar)246 and the 1st Nisan (= 1st crescent appearing after the equinox) fell on April 20 in 424 BCE. As there was an intercalary month247 in the year 40 of Artaxerxes I, year 41 should be synchronized with the equinox. Moreover, even if the 1st Nisan fell on March 22, Artaxerxes I died before that date as Thucydides puts his death before the solar eclipse of March 21. Although Artaxerxes died in March 424 BCE the co-regency with his son Darius lasted until March 423 BCE. Indeed, the tablet CBS 5506 is a contract dated --/VI/41 to take effect the 1st month of the year 42, and the tablet CBS 4986 dated 17/VII/41 is an obligation to pay dates and grain to the next harvest, in the 7th month [current year] and the 2nd month of the year 42248. The most logical solution is therefore to consider that Artaxerxes I was still alive during his 41st year. This fits especially since his 41st year fell in 434 BCE, not in 424.


2 XI 3 XII 4 I 41 5 II 6 III 7 IV 0 Artaxerxes I / Darius B 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

433 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I (42) 1 (Artaxerxes I) / Darius B 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI

Plutarch and Justinus have effectively described a co-regency between Artaxerxes and his son Darius, but as the king is identified with Artaxerxes II, the story of these two historians are not taken into account. Although Plutarch announced in the introduction about the life of Artaxerxes II, his description does not match the end of his reign, which appears to have happened smoothly according to Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library XV:93), but rather that of Artaxerxes I with its fratricidal strife between his sons: Xerxes II, Sogdianus and Ochos, the future Darius II, not to be confused with the first Darius (B).

244 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0499--0400.html 245 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php 246 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php 247 H.G. STIGERS - Art 2. XIIb.11.40 in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28 (1976) note 47. H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften p. 227. 248 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I. 1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 p. 229 note 34.


Confusion of Kings among some historians is due to the frequent presence of homonyms and family trees which are close enough249:

Xerxes I choice 1 I Artaxerxes I I

Xerxes II Sogdianus (Ochos) Darius (B) Arsites Darius II I

Ostanes Cyrus (Arsakes) I Artaxerxes II I I I Ariapes (Ochos) Darius Arsames

Arsanes Artaxerxes III I I I Arbupales I I I (Arses) Bisthanes I Artaxerxes IV

Darius III I I

Ochos

Xerxes I choice 2 I Artaxerxes I I

Xerxes II Sogdianus (Ochos) Darius (B) Arsites Darius II I

Ostanes Cyrus (Arsakes) I Artaxerxes II I I I Ariapes (Ochos) Darius Arsames

Arsanes Artaxerxes III I I I Arbupales I I I (Arses) Bisthanes I Artaxerxes IV

Darius III I I

Ochos

There was a co-regency at the end of the reign of Artaxerxes II, but his successor Ochos (the future Artaxerxes III), ascended the throne without difficulty. By contrast, it was not the case of Ochos (the future Darius II) who performs no co-regency with his father (Artaxerxes I) and ascended the throne after eliminating Sogdianus. According to Plutarch: But Artaxerxes, being now advanced in years, perceived that his sons were forming rival parties among his friends and chief men with reference to the royal succession. For the conservatives thought it right that, as he himself had received the royal power by virtue of seniority, in like manner he should leave it to Darius. But his youngest son, Ochus, who was of an impetuous and violent disposition, not only had many adherents among the courtiers, but hoped for most success in winning over his father through the aid of Atossa. For he sought to gain Atossa's favour by promising that she should be his wife and share the throne with him after the death of his father. And there was a report that even while his father was alive Ochus had secret relations with Atossa. But Artaxerxes was ignorant of this; and wishing to shatter at once the hopes of Ochus, that he might not venture upon the same course as Cyrus and so involve the kingdom anew in wars and contests, he [Artaxerxes] proclaimed Darius, then 50 years of

249 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 586-589, 793, 1029.


age250, his successor to the throne, and gave him permission to wear the upright "kitaris," as the tiara was called (...) Accordingly, it was adding fire to fire when Tiribazus attached himself to the young prince and was forever telling him that the tiara standing upright on the head was of no use to those who did not seek by their own efforts to stand upright in affairs of state, and that he was very foolish if, when his brother was insinuating himself into affairs of state by way of the harem, and his father was of a nature so fickle and insecure, he could suppose that the succession to the throne was securely his (...) Accordingly, Darius put himself in the hands of Tiribazus; and presently, when many were in the conspiracy, an eunuch made known to the king the plot and the mention of it, having accurate knowledge that the conspirators had resolved to enter the king's chamber by night and kill him in his bed. When Artaxerxes heard the eunuch's story, he thought it a grave matter to neglect the information and ignore so great a peril, and a graver still to believe it without any proof. He therefore acted on this wise. He charged the eunuch to attend closely upon the conspirators; meanwhile he himself cut away the wall of his chamber behind the bed, put a doorway there, and covered the door with a hanging. Then, when the appointed hour was at hand and the eunuch told him the exact time, he kept his bed and did not rise from it until he saw the faces of his assailants and recognised each man clearly. But when he saw them advancing upon him with drawn swords, he quickly drew aside the hanging, retired into the inner chamber, closed the door with a slam, and raised a cry. The murderers, accordingly, having been seen by the king, and having accomplished nothing, fled back through the door by which they had come, and told Tiribazus and his friends to be off since their plot was known. The rest, then, were dispersed and fled; but Tiribazus slew many of the king's guards as they sought to arrest him, and at last was smitten by a spear at long range, and fell. Darius, together with his children, was brought to the king, who consigned him to the royal judges for trial. The king was not present in person at the trial, but others brought in the indictment. However, the king ordered clerks to take down in writing the opinion of each judge and bring them all to him. All the judges were of one opinion and condemned Darius to death, whereupon the servants of the king seized him and led him away into a chamber near by, whither the executioner was summoned. The executioner came, with a sharp knife in his hand, wherewith the heads of condemned persons are cut off; but when he saw Darius, he was confounded, and retired towards the door with averted gaze, declaring that he could not and would not take the life of a king. But since the judges outside the door plied him with threats and commands, he turned back, and with one hand clutching Darius by the hair, dragged him to the ground, and cut off his head with the knife. Some say, however, that the trial was held in the presence of the king, and that Darius, when he was overwhelmed by the proofs, fell upon his face and begged and sued for mercy; but Artaxerxes rose up in anger, drew his scimitar, and smote him till he had killed him; then, going forth into court, he made obeisance to the sun and said: "Depart in joy and peace, ye Persians, and say to all whom ye meet that those who have contrived impious and unlawful things have been punished by great Orosmasdes." Such, then, was the end of the conspiracy. And now Ochus was sanguine in the hopes with which Atossa inspired him, but he was still afraid of Ariaspes, the only legitimate son of the king remaining, and also of Arsames among the illegitimate sons (Life of Artaxerxes 26:1-30:5). According to Justinus: Artaxerxes, king of Persia, had 115 sons by his concubines, but only 3 begotten in lawful wedlock, Darius, Ariarathes, and Ochus. Of these the father, from paternal fondness, made Darius king during his own lifetime, contrary to the usage of the Persians, among whom the king is changed only by death; for he thought nothing taken from himself that he conferred upon his son, and expected greater enjoyment from having progeny, if he saw the insignia of royalty adorning his son while he lived. But Darius, after such an extraordinary proof of his father’s affection, conceived the design of killing

250 Several commentators have corrected the number 50 into 30, because Plutarch says a little later that Darius (B) was a young man at his enthronement (less than 25 according to Cyropaedia I:2:13), which is confirmed by Justinus (Epitome of the Philippic History X:1-3). In fact, the number 50 refers to Artaxerxes’ age, not to Darius’ age. According to Esther 2:16-18, king Xerxes married Esther in the 10th month, the 7th year of his reign (in 489 BCE) and according to Ctesias: Xerxes married the daughter of Onophas, Amestris (Esther). He was born a son Darius (in 488 BCE), a second, 2 years later, Hystaspes, then Artaxerxes (in 485 BCE) and two daughters Amytis, who took the name of his grandmother, and Rhodogune (Persica F13§24). Consequently Artaxerxes was 11 years old when Xerxes died in 475 BCE, 50 in 434 BCE when Darius (B) was enthroned, and 62 when he died in 423 BCE (Plutarch says Artaxerxes reigned 62 years). According to Justinius, Artaxerxes was barely out of childhood (11) and Darius was already in adolescence (14) when Xerxes was murdered (History III:1).


him. (...) Artaxerxes, from fondness from his children, said at first that he would do so, but afterwards, from a change of mind, and in order plausibly to refuse what he had inconsiderately promised, made her a priestess of the sun, an office which obliged her to perpetual chastity. The young Darius, being incensed at this proceeding, broke out at first into reproaches against his father, and subsequently entered into this conspiracy with his brothers. But while he was meditating destruction for his father, he was discovered and apprehended with his associates, and paid the penalty of his guilt to the gods who avenge paternal authority. The wives of them all, too, together with their children, were put to death, that no memorial of such execrable wickedness might be left. Soon after Artaxerxes died of a disease contracted by grief, having been happier as a king than as a father. Possession of the throne was given to Ochus (Epitome of the Philippic History X:1-3). The length of the reign of Darius B can be deduced from two elements: the disappearance of year 9 in Murashu's archives251 and the appearance of a contract (BM 65494) dated year 50 of Artaxerxes I.

436 39 Artaxerxes I 435 40 434 41 -0 Darius B Tablets of Murashu 433 (42)-1 432 (43)-2 431 (44)-3 430 (45)-4 429 (46)-5 428 (47)-6 427 (48)-7 426 (49)-8 death of Darius B 425 50 -(9) Tablet BM 65494 424 Xerxes II, Sogdianus (51) Darius II Thucydide IV:50 423 1

251 M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 23-24.


Tablet BM 65494 (verso) dated 4/IV/50 of Artaxerxes I

Transcription Translation 4' EN.LÍL.KI ITI ŠU UD 4-KÁM MU 50-KÁM month IV, day 4, year 50 of 5' mAr-tak-šat-su LUGAL KUR.KUR Artaxerxes king of lands.

Stolper reconstituted the prosopography of Murashu's family and has dated it according to the accepted chronology252. According to this reconstruction (Choice 1), length of service is 27.5 years for the first two generations, 20.5 years for the third and 11.5 years for the fourth, which would be a surprising rejuvenation253. By contrast, taking into account King Darius B (Choice 2), we get a more balanced period of activity for four generations with an average of 22.5 years respectively for the first two, then 20.5 years and 21.5 years for the two following ones:

Genealogy of Murashu family

Choice 1 generation Artaxerxes Ḫatin (ca. 500) 1st gap (465-424) I 27.5 0

Murašu (ca. 445) 2nd I I I 27.5 0

Enlil-ḫatin Enlil-šum-iddin Naqqitu (454-437) (445-421) (436) 3rd

I I I 20.5 -7 Rimut-Ninurta Enlil-ḫatin Murašu

(429-414) (419) (424-416) 4th 11.5 -16

Choice 2 generation Artaxerxes Ḫatin (ca. 500) 1st gap (475-424) I 22.5 0

Murašu (ca. 455) 2nd I I I 22.5 0

Enlil-ḫatin Enlil-šum-iddin Naqqitu (464-447) (455-431) (446) 3rd

I I I 20.5 -2 Rimut-Ninurta Enlil-ḫatin Murašu

(439-414) (429) (434-416) 4th 21.5 -1

252 M.W. STOLPER - The Genealogy of the Murashu Family in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies XXVIII (1976) pp. 189-200. 253 27.5 years = (500 - 445)/2; 20.5 years = (454-437 + 445-421)/2; 11.5 years = (429-414 + 424-416)/2.


The death of Artaxerxes I is precisely dated by Thucydides (early March 424 BCE) in agreement with the account of Diodorus of Sicily who wrote: When Stratocles when archon in Athenes [July 425 to June 424] Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians, died after a reign of 40 years, and Xerxes succeeded to the throne and ruled for a year (...) King Xerxes died after a reign of 1 year, or, as some record, 2 months; and his brother Sogdianus succeeded to the throne and ruled for 7 months. He was slain by Darius, who reigned 19 years (Historical Library XII:64:1; 71:1). As Artaxerxes' death can be dated xx/XI/50 and as the first tablet of Darius II (PIHANS 79, 22) is dated 14/IX/00 (December 424 BCE), we must have the following chronology:

an month year of reign 425 1 X [49] 8 Artaxerxes I / Darius B

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 50 (9) Artaxerxes I

Tablet BM 65494 dated 4/IV/50 of Artaxerxes

(Solar eclipse dated March 21, 424 BCE)


424 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 1 [0] 4 I 2 [1] (51) Xerxes II 5 II 3 6 III 4 [0] Sogdianus

Tablet dated 14/IX/00 of Darius

7 IV 5 8 V 6 9 VI 7 10 VII 8 11 VIII 9 12 IX 10

423 1 X 0 Darius II

Tablet CBM 12803 dated 20/XII/51 and accession of Darius 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 5 II 6 III

The story of Ctesias which is about the hectic transition between Artraxerxes I and Darius II seems very reliable, because many names that appear in the archives of Murashu are the same as those he mentioned254. Furthermore, his story is chronologically very detailed: Artoxerxes dies in his turn, having reigned 42 years (...) After the death of Artoxerxes, it was the reign of his son Xerxes, who was the only legitimate son he had by Damaspia — the life she had left the day Artoxerxès was dead. Bagorazos took into Persia the body of the father and mother. Artoxerxes I had seventeen bastards, including Sogdianus, Alogoune son of the Babylonian female, Ochos and Arsita, the son of Cosmartidene also Babylonian. Later, Ochos [Darius II] ascended to the throne (...) Concerning Ochos, his father, during his lifetime, had appointed him satrap of Hyrcania and gave him a woman named Parysatis, who was the daughter of Artoxerxes I and own sister of Ochos. Sogdianus had conciliated the eunuch Pharnakyas, who came in the hierarchy, after Bagorazos, Menostanes and others. While Xerxes became drunk at a party and he slept in the palace, they come and kill him, 45 days after the death of his father. It happened so that their two bodies were transported together into Persia (...) Sogdianus becomes king and Menostanes becomes his chief of thousand. Bagorazos was gone, then returned to Sogdianus. As an old feud brewing between them, saying that he had left there the remains of his father without his consent, Bagorazos was stoned on the order of Sogdianus. The army was deeply distressed. The king gave him gifts, but the soldiers hated him because he had killed his brother Xerxes and Bagorazos. Sogdianus sends Ochos

254 D. LENFANT - Ctésias de Cnide, la Perse Paris 2004 Ed. Les Belles Lettres pp. CVI-CVII.


a message that demand. The other promises to come, but does not show up. The incident is repeated many times. Finally, Ochos surrounded by a large army and is expected to see him prevail. Arbarios, head of the cavalry Sogdianus and Arxan, satrap of Egypt, have defected to Ochos. The eunuch Artoxares comes from Armenia to join Ochos and they cause him to wear the crown in spite of himself. Ochos became king and changed his name to Darius. He pursues Sogdianus with his betrayals and his oaths, following the advice of Parysatis while Menostanes regularly calls Sogdianus not to rely on oaths and not to negotiate with people who seek to deceive him. Sogdianus is convincing nonetheless leaves, he falls into their hands, he is thrown into the ashes and dies after a reign of 6 months and 15 days. Ochos aka Darius, is only one ruler (Persica F14§46]-F15§50). Polyaenus gives another chronological detail: After the death of Artaxerxes, his son Ochus [Darius II] realised that he would not immediately have the same authority over his subjects, which his father had. Therefore he prevailed upon the eunuchs, the stewards, and the captain of the guard, to conceal the death of his father for a period of 10 months. In the meantime, he wrote letters in his father's name, and sealed them with the royal signet, commanding his subjects to acknowledge Ochus as their king, and to pay homage to him. When this decree had been obeyed by all his subjects, Ochus announced the death of his father, and ordered a general mourning for him, according to the custom of the Persians (Stratagems of war VII:17).

Tablet CBM 12803255 dated 20/XII/51 accession year of Darius II

Transcription Translation 1 2 ½ ma-na kaspu šîmu 5 biltu šipâtucol 2 ½ mines of silver, price of 5 talents of wool 2 mdDan-nu-aḫê-šu-ibni aplu ša Dannu-ahêshu-ibni son of 3 mBêl-iddina ina qât mBêl-šu-nu aplu ša Bêl-iddina received from the hand of Bêlshunu, son 4 mMan-nu-ki-dNanâ ina na-aš-pa-aš-tum of Mannu-ki-Nanâ the order 5 ša mEllil-šum-iddina ma-ḫi-ir of Ellil-shum-iddina. 6 u-ša-az-za-az-ma kaspu-’ 2 ½ [ma-na] He will deliver silver, that is 2 ½ mines 7 mdDan-nu-aḫê-su-ibni itti mEllil-šum-iddina Dannu-ahêshu-ibni with Ellil-shum-iddina 8 ana mBêl-šu-nu i-nam-din paying for Bêlshunu

(... names of 5 witnesses (... names of 5 witnesses 15 ...) iti še ud 20-kàm mu 51-kàm ...) month XII, day 20, year 51 [of Artaxerxes I], 16 mu sag-nam-lugal-e da-ri-a-muš lugal kur-[kur] accession year of Darius king of lands.

255 A.T. CLAY - Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian (...) Persian Periods in: The Babylonian Expedition vol. VIII (1908) p. 34.


but the soldiers hated him because he had killed his brother Xerxes and Bagorazos. Sogdianus sends Ochos a message that demand. The other promises to come, but does not show up. The incident is repeated many times. Finally, Ochos surrounded by a large army and is expected to see him prevail. Arbarios, head of the cavalry Sogdianus and Arxan, satrap of Egypt, have defected to Ochos. The eunuch Artoxares comes from Armenia to join Ochos and they cause him to wear the crown in spite of himself. Ochos became king and changed his name to Darius. He pursues Sogdianus with his betrayals and his oaths, following the advice of Parysatis while Menostanes regularly calls Sogdianus not to rely on oaths and not to negotiate with people who seek to deceive him. Sogdianus is convincing nonetheless leaves, he falls into their hands, he is thrown into the ashes and dies after a reign of 6 months and 15 days. Ochos aka Darius, is only one ruler (Persica F14 [46]-F15 [50]). Polyaenus gives another chronological detail: After the death of Artaxerxes, his son Ochus [Darius II] realised that he would not immediately have the same authority over his subjects, which his father had. Therefore he prevailed upon the eunuchs, the stewards, and the captain of the guard, to conceal the death of his father for a period of 10 months. In the meantime, he wrote letters in his father's name, and sealed them with the royal signet, commanding his subjects to acknowledge Ochus as their king, and to pay homage to him. When this decree had been obeyed by all his subjects, Ochus announced the death of his father, and ordered a general mourning for him, according to the custom of the Persians (Stratagems of war VII:17).

Tablet CBM 12803116 dated 20/XII/51 accession year of Darius II

Transcription Translation 1 2 # ma-na kaspu !îmu 5 biltu !ipâtucol 2 # mines of silver, price of 5 talents of wool 2 mdDan-nu-a"ê-!u-ibni aplu !a Dannu-ahêshu-ibni son of 3 mBêl-iddina ina qât mBêl-!u-nu aplu !a Bêl-iddina received from the hand of Bêlshunu, son 4 mMan-nu-ki-dNanâ ina na-a!-pa-a!-tum of Mannu-ki-Nanâ the order 5 !a mEllil-!um-iddina ma-"i-ir of Ellil-shum-iddina. 6 u-!a-az-za-az-ma kaspu-’ 2 # [ma-na] He will deliver silver, that is 2 # mines 7 mdDan-nu-a"ê-su-ibni itti mEllil-!um-iddina Dannu-ahêshu-ibni with Ellil-shum-iddina 8 ana mBêl-!u-nu i-nam-din paying for Bêlshunu

(... names of 5 witnesses (... names of 5 witnesses 15 ...) iti !e ud 20-kàm mu 51-kàm ...) month XII, day 20, year 51 [of Artaxerxes I], 16 mu sag-nam-lugal-e da-ri-a-mu! lugal kur-[kur] accession year of Darius king of lands. 116 A.T. CLAY - Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian (...) Persian Periods in: The Babylonian Expedition vol. VIII (1908) p. 34.


TRANSITION DARIUS II / DARIUS III The tablet CBS 1714256 contains year 19 of Darius II and year 1 of Artaxerxes II, confirming a planned transition between these two kings. The last tablet of Darius II is dated 02/VI/19 (TBER pl. 36; AO 17606):

year month year of reign 405 1 X 18

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 19 Darius II / Artaxerxes II

Tablet AO 17606 dated 02/VI/19

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII (0) Artaxerxes II 11 VIII 12 IX

404 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 Tablet AO 26780 dated 11/I/1 5 II 6 III

VAS 6186 tablet contains the last known text that is dated in the reign of Artaxerxes II. This king probably died shortly thereafter on 10/VIII/46 (November 359 BCE)257 because the astronomical tablet BM 71537 connects the accession of Artaxerxes III just before the solar eclipse of 28/XI (March 11, 358 BCE). The succession Artaxerxes II / Artaxerxes III seems to have gone smoothly according to Syncellus258. Diodorus of Sicily wrote that the Persian king died after 43 years of rule. The kingship came to Ochos who took the name of Artaxerxes and reigned for 23 years (Historical Library XV:93), a period which seems to incorporate a co-regency of 3 years in the reign of Artaxerxes III (21 years).

year month year of reign

359 1 X 45 (2) Artaxerxes II / Artaxerxes III 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 46 (3)

Tablet VS 6, 186 dated 10/VIII/46


358 1 X 2 XI 0 Artaxerxes III 3 XII 4 I 1 5 II 6 III

256 M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) N°1 pp.6-9. 257 M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) N°6 pp. 9-12. 258 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 700.


Artaxerxes III death is dated in month VI (September 338 BCE) in the astronomical tablet BM 71537259 between the eclipses of July 24, 338 BCE and January 20, 337 BCE. The last tablet is dated 15/VII/21 (TCL 6, 56). According to Diodorus, Artaxerxes IV died shortly after the assassination of Philip II of Macedonia260, dated 20/XII/02 (March 19, 335 BCE) in a papyrus from Wadi Dâliyeh261. According to the astronomical tablet BM 36761, Darius III lost the battle of Gaugamela against Alexander the Great in the 5th year of his reign, the 24/VI/5 (October 1, 331 BCE), just after the lunar eclipse of 13/VI/5 (September 20, 331 BCE)262.

year month year of reign 338 1 X 20 Artaxerxes III

2 XI 3 XII 4 I 21

Tablet TCL 6, 56 dated 15/VII/21

5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 0 Artaxerxes IV 11 VIII 12 IX

337 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 1 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX


335 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 0 Darius III 4 I 1 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

334 1 X

259 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 45,398. 260 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 794-800. 261 A. LEMAIRE – Les formules de datations en Palestine au premier millénaire avant J.-C. in: Proche-Orient ancien, temps vécu, temps pensé (Paris 1998) Éd. J. Maisonneuve p. 72. 262 J.A. BRINKMAN - BM 36761, the Astronomical Diary for 331 B.C. in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987) §63.


year month year of reign 4 I 2 Darius III



332 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 4

Tablet UET 4, 25 dated 20/XII/4


331 1 X 2 XI 3 XII 4 I 5 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII [0]

6

Alexander the Great (III) Arasiuqa (?) BRM 2, 51 dated XII/6

11 VIII 330 1 X

2 XI 3 XII 4 I [1] 7

Tablet CBS 7345 dated 08/XII/7


329 1 X 2 XI 3 XII

The first cuneiform tablet (CBS 7345) of Alexander (III) is dated 08/XII/7, which shows that the counting of years of his reign was backdated. What makes the situation extremely complex is the use of three reckoning systems (Babylonian, Egyptian and Lydian) for formula dates and the presence of an unknown king called Arsuqa (mar-’-si-uq-qa) on a tablet (BRM 2 51) dated year 6263.

263 T. BOIY – Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period in: Oikumene Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 5 (2007), pp. 22-27,73-104.


Achaemenid chronology synchronized

Date King Actual reign

Coregent Official reign

559/539 Cyrus II [20] Harpagus [11] 10-539/ 10-538 Cyrus II Ugbaru [1] 11-538/ 08-530 Cyrus II 9 Cambyses II (1) 9 09-530/ 02-522 Cambyses II 03-522/ 04-522 Cambyses II 8 Bardiya 8 05-522/ 09-522 Bardiya Bardiya (1) 10-522/ 11-522 Nebuchadnezzar III 0 Bardiya 12-522/ 01-521 Darius I Nebuchadnezzar III (0) 02-521/ 11-521 Darius I Nebuchadnezzar IV (1) 12-521/ 04-496 Darius I 05-496/ 12-486 Darius I 36 Xerxes I (10) 36 01-485/ 07-485 Xerxes I

08-485 Xerxes I Bel-shimanni (0) 09-485/ 10-485 Xerxes I Shamash-eriba (0) 11-485/ 08-475 Xerxes I 09-475/ 12-475 [Xerxes I] 11 + (10) (Artabanus) 21 01-474/ 03-474 Artaxerxes I (Artabanus) 04-474/ 06-434 Artaxerxes I (41) 41 07-434/ 03-425? Artaxerxes I (--) Darius B (8) 04-425/ 03-424 Artaxerxes I 50 04-424/ 05-424 Xerxes II (1) 06-424/ 12-424 Sogdianus - 01-423/ 03-423 Darius II [51] 04-423/ 09-405 Darius II 19 19 10-405/ 03-361 Artaxerxes II 04-361/ 02-358 Artaxerxes II 46 Artaxerxes III (3?) 46 03-358/ 09-338 Artaxerxes III 21 21 10-338/ 03-335 Artaxerxes IV 2 2 03-335/ 09-331 Darius III 5 5

336/323 Alexander III 13 The Babylonian King lists were expurgated of all usurpers and co-regencies (highlighted periods):

King in King list Date min Date max Death King as Reign King List Cambyses II 12/VI/00 23/I/08 xx/I/08 530-522 530 - Bardiya 14/XII/00 co-regent 523-522 20/VIII/01 10/VII/01 “usurper” 522 Nebuchadnezzar III 14/VII/00 2/X/00 xx/X/00 “usurper” 522 Nebuchadnezzar IV 27/II/01 26/VII/01 xx/VIII/01 “usurper” 522 -522 Darius I 6/X/00 10+/IX/36 [10]/IX/36 522-486 522 - Xerxes I [-]/III/[00] [10/IX/10] co-regent 496 - -486 Bel-shimanni 14+/V/00 04/VI/00 xx/VI/00 “usurper” 484 Shamash-eriba 04/V!/00 29/VII/00 [29]/VII/00 “usurper” 484 Xerxes I 20/V/21 14/V/21 -475 486 - Darius A - - [14/V/00] crown prince (475) Artaban xx/XII/00 “usurper” (475) -465 Artaxerxes I 10/IX/00 20/XII/41 475 - 465 - Darius B 14/IX/00 6/VII/08 xx/xx/08 co-regent 434-426 Artaxerxes I 4/VI/50 xx/XI/50 -425 Xerxes II - - [xx/II/51] 425-424 Sogdianus [xx/IX/51] “usurper” (424) -424 Darius II 14/IX/00 2/VI/19 xx/VIII/19 424-405 424-405


Dating based on intercalary months

The achievement of the ancient Babylonian astronomers in devising the 19-year cycle with its 7 intercalated months was indeed remarkable. How the system worked in actual practice may be seen in the first 19 years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II264:

April January year cycle I II III IV V VI VI2 VII VIII IX X XI XII XII2

604 11 29 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 30 30 29 29 - 603 12U 30 29 29 29 30 30 30 29 30 30 29 30 29 - 602 13 30 29 29 30 29 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 601 14 29 30 29 29 30 29 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 - 600 15U 29 30 29 30 29 30 28 30 30 30 29 29 30 - 599 16 30 30 29 30 30 29 - 30 29 29 30 29 30 - 598 17U 29 30 29 30 30 30 29 30 29 29 30 29 29 - 597 18 30 29 30 30 30 30 - 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 596 19U 29 30 29 30 30 30 30 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 595 1 29 30 29 30 30 29 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 - 594 2A 29 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 29 30 30 29 30 593 3 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 30 29 30 30 30 29 - 592 4 30 29 30 29 29 30 - 29 29 30 30 30 29 - 591 5A 30 30 29 30 29 29 - 30 29 29 30 30 29 30 590 6 30 29 30 29 30 29 - 30 29 30 29 29 30 - 589 7 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 29 30 29 29 - 588 8A 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 29 29 587 9 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 29 - 586 10 29 30 29 29 30 30 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 -

This cycle of 19 years was based on observation and not on calculations265 (the computed data in diaries appear roughly before 350 BCE)266. It was not a theoretical cycle like the cycle of Meton but a coincidence which came from the following equivalences: 19 solar years = 6539.6 days (= 365.24219x365) 19 lunar years + 7 intercalary months = 6539.6 days (= [19x12+7]x29.530288). The presence of four months Elul2 in the period 603-596, instead of only one, proves that the Babylonian system of intercalary months was empirical. These months (VI2) were mainly used to calibrate the 1st Tishri (VII) just after the autumn equinox. Historians of Babylonian astronomy have in recent decades come to the conclusion that the cycle was known to the Babylonians by about 500 BCE, but it must be admitted, however, that there are still problems with the list of intercalary months during the later years of the Achaemenid empire. For instance, in the 16th year of Darius II (408/407 BCE), three sources suggest an intercalary Ulul but one an intercalary Adar; in the 16th year of Artaxerxes II, two sources suggest an intercalary Ulul but one an intercalary Adar; and two sources (including a contemporary astronomical Diary) suggest an intercalary Adar in the 20th year of Artaxerxes II (385/384 BCE) whereas two other sources (including the Saros canon) attribute the intercalary month to his 21st year267.

264 J. FINEGAN - Handbook of Biblical Chronology Massachusetts 1999 Ed. Hendrickson Publishers pp. 27-28. 265 J.M. STEELE – Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East Oxford 2007 Ed. Oxbow Books pp. 120-123. 266 F. ROCHBERG-HALTON – Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50:2 (1991) pp. 107-120. 267 C. WALKER - Achaemenid Chronology and the Babylonian Sources in: Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period Ed. British Museum Press (1997) pp. 23-24.


A table of intercalary months gives the impression that the 19-year cycle was standardized from -500 or -483, depending on the way to group periods268, with some exceptions. However, Parker and Dubberstein assumed, because of these anomalies, the Babylonian calendar had really been standardized as from -367 instead of -500269. In the 19-year cycle there can be only 7 intercalary months. However, during the reign of Cyrus to Darius I, two cycles contain 10, which means that multiple calendars depended on several Persian capitals (Persepolis, Suse, Ecbatana, Pasargadae), not just on Babylon. In the reign of Artaxerxes II we find, for example, an intercalary month in the year 40270, but also in the years 42, 43, 44 and 45271, which is unlikely. Anomalies (highlighted) are much more numerous than in the study of Parker and Dubberstein.

cycle 538 519 500 481 462 443 424 405 386 367 348 1 U A 2 537 U A 3 A 536 A A A a A a A A A a 4 535 U 5 534 A A A 6 A 533 A A A a a a A A A a 7 532 A 8 A 531 A A A A a a A a 9 530 U U U 10 529 11 A 528 U A A a A a A a A a a 12 527 U 13 526 U 14 A 525 A A A a a A A A A a a 15 524 U 16 523 A 17 U 522 A U/A U U A A U u U U u 18 521 19 A 520 A a A A A A a a a

total 10 10 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 7 (A: attested Adar; U: attested Ulul; a: supposed Adar; u; supposed Ulul)

Assuming that the set of dates came in fact from two Persian capitals (Babylon and another city) whose cycle was shifted by one year, all the abnormalities disappeared.

year City° cycle° Bab. cycle C°+B year City° cycle° Bab. cycle C°+B 386 2 1 367 2 1 385 A° 3 A 2 A° 366 a° 3 A 2 364 4 a 3 A 365 4 A 3 A A 383 5 4 364 5 4 382 A° 6 A 5 A° 363 A° 6 A 5 A° 381 7 a 6 A 362 7 A 6 A A 380 a° 8 A 7 361 A° 8 A 7 A° 379 9 a 8 A a 360 9 A 8 A A 378 10 9 359 10 9 377 a° 11 A 10 358 a° 11 A 10 376 12 A 11 A A 357 12 a 11 A a 375 13 12 356 13 12 374 a° 14 A 13 355 a° 14 A 13 373 15 A 14 A A 354 15 a 14 A a 372 16 15 353 16 15 371 u° 17 U 16 352 u° 17 U 16 370 18 U 17 U U 351 18 U 17 U U 369 a° 19 A 18 350 a° 19 A 18 368 1 a 19 A a 349 1 a 19 A a

(A: attested Adar; U: attested Ulul; a: supposed Adar; u; supposed Ulul)

268 J.P. BRITTON – Treatments of Annual Phenomena in Cuneiform Sources in: Under One Sky (Münster 2002) Ed. Ugarit-Verlag pp. 25-35. 269 R.A. PARKER, W.H. DUBBERSTEIN - Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 1-6. 270 H.G. STIGERS - Art 2. XIIb.11.40 in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28 (1976) note 47. 271 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 215,217,227,247,261.


The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has several anomalies especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle, year 30 of Darius and year 2 of Xerxes. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency and thus two distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) corresponds to another cycle ending in year 4 of Xerxes (Babylon?).

year cycle X

Reign with co-regency

Reign without co-regency

cycle D

522 8A 0A Darius I 0A Darius I 17U 521 9 1 1 18 520 10 2 2 19A 519 11A 3U** 3U** 1 518 12 4 4 2 517 13 5A 5A 3A 516 14A 6 6 4 515 15 7 7 5 514 16 8A 8A 6A 513 17U 9 9 7 512 18 10 10 8A 511 19A 11U** 11U** 9 510 1 12 12 10 509 2 13A 13A 11A 508 3A 14 14 12 507 4 15 15 13 506 5 16A 16A 14A 505 6A 17 17 15 504 7 18 18 16 503 8A 19U (Persepolis) 19U (Persepolis) 17U 502 9 20 20 18 501 10 21 21 19A 500 11A 22A (Babylon) 22A* Babylon) 1 499 12 23 23 2 498 13 24A (Babylon) 24A (Babylon) 3A 497 14A 25 25 4 496 15 0 Xerxes I 26 26 5 495 16 1 27A (Babylon) 27A (Babylon) 6A 494 17U 2U (Persepolis) 28 28 7 493 18 3 29 29 8A 492 19A 4?A (Babylon) 30U (Persepolis) 30U** (Persepolis) 9 491 1 5 31 31 10 490 2 6 32A (Babylon) 32A (Babylon) 11A 489 3A 7?A (Persepolis) 33 33 12 488 4 8 34 34 13 487 5 9 35A (Babylon) 35A (Babylon) 14A 486 6A 10A (Babylon) 36 36-0 Xerxes I 15 485 7 11 1 16 484 8A 12A (Persepolis) 2U (Persepolis) 17U 483 9 13 3 18 482 10 14 4?A (Babylon) 19A 481 11A 15A (Babylon) 5 1 480 12 16 6 2 479 13 17 7?A (Persepolis) 3A 478 14A 18A (Babylon) 8 4 477 15 19 9 5


476 16 20 10A (Babylon) 6A 475 17U 21U-0 Artaxerxes I 11 7 474 18 1 12A (Persepolis) 8A 473 19A 2A 13 9 472 1 3 14 10 471 2 4 15A (Babylon) 11A 470 3A 5A 16 12 469 4 6 17 13 468 5 7 18A (Babylon) 14A 467 6A 8 19 15 466 7 9 20 16 465 8A 10A 21U-0 Artaxerxes I 17U 464 9 11 1 18 463 10 12 2A 19A 462 11A 13A 3 1 461 12 14 4 2 460 13 15 5A 3A 459 14A 16 6 4 458 15 17 7 5 457 16 18 8 6A 456 17U 19A* 9 7 455 18 20 10A 8A 454 19A 21A 11 9 453 1 22 12 10 452 2 23 13A 11A 451 3A 24 14 12 450 4 25 15 13 449 5 26 16 14A 448 6A 27 17 15 447 7 28 18 16 446 8A 29A 19A* 17U 445 9 30 20 18 444 10 31 21A 19A 443 11A 32 22 1 442 12 33 23 2 441 13 34 24 3A 440 14A 35A 25 4 439 15 36 26 5 438 16 37 27 6A 437 17U 38A* 28 7 436 18 39 29A 8A 435 19A 40A 30 9 434 1 41 0 Darius B 31 10 433 2 (42) 1 32 11A 432 3A (43) 2A 33 12 431 4 (44) 3 34 13 430 5 (45) 4 35A 14A 429 6A (46) 5A 36 15 428 7 (47) 6 37 16 427 8A (48) 7A 38A* 17U 426 9 (49) 8 39 18 425 10 50 (0) Xerxes II 40A 19A 424 11A [51]-0 Darius II (1) 41-0 Darius II 1 423 12 1 1 2


Chronology: Egyptians versus Babylonians In his collection of hieroglyphic inscriptions272, Posener classified the Persian kings according to the chronology accepted in his time. However, several anomalies can be explained only by assuming a 10-year co-regency between Xerxes and Darius. In these inscriptions, Egyptian pharaohs, from Amasis to Artaxerxes, are still called "Lord of the Two Lands", except Xerxes who is called "Master of crowns" between year 1 and year 10 of his reign. He received the title of "Lord of the Two Lands", the official title of the Pharaohs of Egypt, only from his year 10. If Xerxes had become pharaoh immediately after the death of Darius, he would have received the usual title Lord of the Two Lands used to designate the pharaohs, but the title was awarded to him only from his year 10. In addition, for no apparent reason, the name Darius changed from year 27 up till year 36 of his reign to become inDarius. The hieroglyph in, literally meaning "contribution" in Egyptian273, or "booster", can not be a phonetic complement, since it deteriorates the pronunciation.

year 2 Master of crowns, Xerxes year 6, Master of crowns, Xerxes year 10, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes year 6, Lord of the two lands, Cambyses year 36, Lord of the two lands, Darius year 12, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes

King in Babylonia in Egypt Cambyses Kambuzia K-n-b-w-d3

5th year – 8th year King of Babylon, King of lands Lord of the two lands Darius Dariawush (in)-Ti-rw-y-w-š3

1st year – 36th year King of Babylon, King of lands Lord of the two lands Xerxes Khisi‘arsa Ḫ-š3-y-rw-š3

accession – 1st year King of Babylon, King of lands ? 1st year – 10th year King of Persia and Media,

King of Babylon and of lands Master of crowns

10th year – 21th year King of lands Lord of the two lands

The years indicated in those documents were understood to be years of reign while they are in fact years of domination (months and days are usually unspecified). The Egyptian administrator Atiyawahy, for example, says that he spent "6 years under Cambyses and 36 years under Darius". The hieroglyph with an eyebrow above the date is used, while the years of reign are typically identified by the hieroglyph . As the Egyptian word

272 G. POSENER - La première domination perse en Égypte Le Caire 1936 Ed. IFAO pp. 92, 120-124, 162. 273 This hieroglyph appears in the names some pharaohs like Antef "contribution of his divine father". It could be an abbreviation of the Egyptian word inpw "royal child", meaning a pretender to the throne that is a "Crown prince".


inḥ "eyebrow" also means "surround", those years [of reign] were for the Egyptians years [of surrender]. Diodorus dates the beginning of the Persian domination in Egypt in the 3rd year of the 63rd Olympiad [in 526 BCE] (Historical Library I: 68:6) and the end in the archonship of Euclid [in 403 BCE], or in the year 2 of Artaxerxes II, when Amyrtaeus had become the new pharaoh of the XXVIII dynasty (Historical Library XIV:11:1-12:1, I:44:3). Those data taken from his Greek chronology are accurate. However, Diodorus wrote in summary: The Persians were the masters, after King Cambyses had subjected the nation by force of arms, for 135 years, contradicting his own chronological calculations (length of 123 years obtained between 526 and 403 BCE). In fact, the total period of 123 years corresponds to an amount calculated with a 40-year reign for Artaxerxes I, while that of 135 years corresponds to an actual reign of 51 years. Diodorus probably compiled different data from an Egyptian informer (Historical Library III:11) without trying to harmonize them. The reign of 6 years* in the Egyptian reckoning can correspond to 4 years in the Babylonian reckoning (526-522).

Length according to: dates: official reign Diodorus Ptolemy actual reign Cambyses II 526 - 6 years 526-520 526-522 ( 6 years*) 526-522 Darius I 36 years 520-484 522-486 36 years 522-486 Xerxes I 20 years 484-464 486-465 21 years 496-475 Artaxerxes I 40 years 464-424 465-424 51 years 475-424 Darius II 19 years 424-405 424-405 19 years 424-405 Artaxerxes II -403 2 years 405-403 405-403 2 years 405-403

Total: 123 years 123 years 135 years

The titulature of Xerxes in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the co-regency of 10 years with Darius, but the discovery of the Elephantine papyri with many double dates with civil and lunar calendars have cancelled those conclusions. Indeed, the dating of these documents was consistent with the chronology from the Canon of Ptolemy274, which is still in agreement with recent studies275. This paradox could be puzzling, but the former (and unique) study of Parker that was used to validate this work is wrong mainly because of the two following reasons: Ø Lunar dates were supposed to come from a Babylonian calendar, but this is impossible

because the city of Elephantine, in the far south of Egypt, was largely administered by Egyptian officials who used a civil calendar to date theirs documents. There was also an Egyptian lunar calendar (with the same names as the months of the civil calendar), but it was used mainly for religious celebrations organized by the Egyptian priests. Since there was never a Babylonian priesthood in Egypt, the occupying Persians and the Jews, who were accustomed to use a Babylonian calendar, therefore used the Egyptian lunar calendar but by giving it the well known names of Babylonian months.

Ø Parker assumed that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with the 1st invisibility (day after the new moon and just before the new crescent). But the only data that was used to validate his revolutionary hypothesis, a double date in year 12 of Amasis, fell in 559 BCE instead of 558 BCE, which is the computed date from astronomy.

274 R.S. PARKER – Persian and Egyptian Chronology in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages 58:3 (1941) pp. 285-301. 275 L. DEPUYDT – More Valuable than all Gold: Ptolemy Royal Canon in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47 (1995) pp. 97-117.


DATING BASED ON LUNAR CALENDAR

The running of the Babylonian lunar calendar is simple, every 1st day of the month coincided with the observation of the new crescent. The running of the Egyptian lunar calendar is confusing because, according to Parker276, every 1st day of the month coincided with the observation of the 1st invisibility (day after the new moon and before the new crescent)! Despite this absurdity277, to begin the month by an observation, which is in fact a non-observation, his work is always considered as authoritative. Depuydt278, for example, explains: It is necessary to check, then, whether Day 1 of the lunar month in the double date did indeed fall around astronomical conjunction or new moon. It is accepted here on the authority of others that the ancient Egyptian lunar day as a rule began in the morning of the day when the last crescent could no longer be seen in the eastern horizon. The matter cannot be discussed here (Parker 1950: 9-23). Lunar Day 1 is called psdntyw. In determining the beginning of a lunar month by means of observation, variations of one or two days are possible due to the vicissitudes of the human factor and the climate. Furthermore the pivotal date (I) coming from the year 12 of Amasis, mainly used to prove the functioning of the Egyptian lunar calendar, is doubtful: Incidentally, there is a potential weakness in the validity of date (I), because the date rests on external arguments. When Parker and Malinine first discovered the double date, Year 12 of Amasis was generally believed to be the year lasting from 10 January 558 BCE to 9 January 557 BCE. This year was obtained by a line of reasoning which cannot be discussed here in detail. In brief, there are sources that strongly suggest Amasis’s Year 44 was his last and that this Year 44 was 526/25 BCE. Counting back from 526/25 = Year 44, one obtains 558/57 = Year 12. But Parker showed that, as regards double date (I) lunar II šmw 15 cannot be matched with civil I šmw 13 for the presumed Year 12, 558/57 BCE. However, there is a match in 559/58 BCE (October 19 559 BCE). This is for various reasons the only other year that could be a candidate for Amasis’s Year 12. Parker therefore assumed that the civil year beginning in 526 BCE was Amasis’s forty-fifth. There is no evidence for a Year 45. Again, the sources strongly suggest that Year 44 was Amasis’s last. Parker’s arguments appear convincing and date (I) can therefore be deemed valid. In fact the sole weak point in Parker’s analysis, which is the necessity of assuming a Year 45 for Amasis whereas the evidence points to Year 44 as his last, can be eliminated. In conclusion, the date that was used to validate the Egyptian lunar calendar contradicts all the old Babylonian and Greek sources. But, this is not serious. Why? Chronological difficulties are numerous, but unless admitting an unlikely collusion of mistakes, the year 44 of Amasis, the last of his reign, should be dated 526 BCE, and therefore the year 12 to be dated 558. Thus, the dating of the year 12 in 559, obtained by Parker with the calculation of the double date of Papyrus Louvre 7848, is unacceptable. The solution proposed by Parker of a year 45 of Amasis dated 526 is not possible, as recognized by Depuydt279 who prefers to date the death of Amasis in 527 in his 44th year, assuming that the 4th year of Cambyses (526 BCE) was a period of disorder without pharaoh! But this choice leads to an implausible result, contrary to the accounts of all the ancient historians (Herodotus was close to events, and Manetho, an Egyptian priest (who haad to know the history of his country): the throne of Egypt would have been vacant for one year after the disappearance of Psammetichus III, from May 526 to May 525 BCE, when Cambyses was recognized Pharaoh. A chronological reconstitution (below) allows to check that the year 44 of Amasis must be dated in 526 BCE and not in 527.

276 R.A. PARKER - The Calendars of Ancient Egypt in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago. 277 A.J. SPALINGER – Revolutions in Time: Studies in Ancient Egyptian Calendrics Texas 1994 Ed. Van Siclen Books p. 15. 278 L. DEPUYDT - Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt Leuven 1997 Ed. Uitgevers Peeters pp. 164-165, 203-207. 279 L. DEPUYDT - Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the Persian Conquest 1996 in: Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson pp. 179-190.


year in King year in according to: year month Egypt Persia Egypt Parker Depuydt 527 1 X 43 Amasis 44 44

2 XI 3 XII 4 I Cambyses 3 5 II 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 1 12 IX

526 1 X 44 P. Rylands IX 4 45 ##

2 2 XI

3 XII 4 I 4 5 II ## 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 1 Psammetichus III 1 12 IX

525 1 X 2 5 2 2 XI 3 XII

Egypt defeated 4 I 5 5 II IM.4187 6 III 7 IV 8 V 9 VI 10 VII 11 VIII 12 IX

(## indicates an improbability)

The end of the ancient Egyptian empire was an important milestone that has been recounted by the following historians: Ø According to Diodorus Siculus: After a reign of 55 years280 he [Amasis] ended his days at the time

when Cambyses, the king of the Persians, attacked Egypt, in the 3rd year of the 63rd Olympiad (Historical Library I:68:6). Thus Amasis died between July -526 and July -525.

Ø According to the Egyptian priest Manetho281: Cambyses, in the 5th year of his reign over the Persians [in -525] became king of Egypt and led it for 3 years [from spring -525 to spring -522].

Ø According to Herodotus (around -450): On the death of Cyrus, Cambyses his son by Cassandane daughter of Pharnaspes took the kingdom (...) Amasis was the Egyptian king against whom Cambyses, son of Cyrus, made his expedition; and with him went an army composed of the many nations under his rule, among them being included both Ionic and Aeolic Greeks (...) One of the mercenaries of Amasis, a Halicarnassian, Phanes by name, a man of good judgment, and a brave warrior, dissatisfied for some reason or other with his master, deserted the service, and taking ship, fled to Cambyses, wishing to get speech with him (...) Psammenitus, son of Amasis, lay encamped at the mouth of the. Nile, called the Pelusiac, awaiting Cambyses. For Cambyses, when he went up against Egypt, found Amasis no longer in life: he had died after ruling Egypt 44 years, during all which time no great misfortune had befallen him (...) The Egyptians who fought in the battle, no sooner turned their backs upon the enemy, than they fled away in complete disorder to Memphis (...) 10 days after the fort had fallen, Cambyses resolved to try the spirit of Psammenitus, the Egyptian king, whose whole reign had been but 6 months (...) Psammenitus

280 The reign of Amasis is counted from the revolt after the attack of Nebuchadnezzar II in -582. 281 W.G. WADDELL - Manetho (Loeb Classical Library 350) Cambridge 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 169-177.


plotted evil, and received his reward accordingly. He was discovered to be stirring up revolt in Egypt, wherefore Cambyses, when his guilt clearly appeared, compelled him to drink bull’s blood, which presently caused his death. Such was the end of Psammenitus (The Histories II:1; III:1,4,10-16).

The Egyptian priest Manetho indicates the same values as Herodotus, 44 years for Amasis and 6 months for Psammetichus III. By combining this information with data from the reign of Persian King Cambyses, who became Egypt in May 525 BCE, the death of Amasis can be fixed around October 526 BCE. Fixing the date of the conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE is also confirmed since the 5th year of Cambyses began the 1st Nisan (March 29) in the Persian system, and the 1st Thoth (January 2) in the Egyptian system. The account of these historians is confirmed by several archaeological finds: Ø The narrative of Udjahorresnet282, the Egyptian general who led the naval fleet under

Amasis, then under Psammetichus III and finally under Cambyses, authenticates the version of Herodotus. This war probably lasted at least six months because, according to the historian Polyaenus: When Cambyses attacked Pelusium, which guarded the entrance into Egypt, the Egyptians defended it with great resolution. They advanced formidable engines against the besiegers, and hurled missiles, stones, and fire at them from their catapults. (Stratagems of war VII:9). These narrative overlap exactly and give the following chronological scheme: war of Cambyses against Egypt beginning in the year 44, the last year of Amasis, which ends after the brief reign of 6 months of Psammetichus III, his successor or in the 5th year of Cambyses.

Ø According to the stele IM.4187 in the Louvre, an Apis bull was born on month 5, day 29, year 5 of Cambyses, died on month 9, day 4, year 4 of Darius I and was buried on month 11, day 13, of the same year, covering a total period of 7 years 3 months and 5 days (reading 8 years less likely). This computation is consistent (between the month9, day 4, and the month 11, day 13, there are exactly 70 days for the period of embalming the bull) gives the following dates in the Julian calendar: May 29, 525 BCE, August 31, 518 BCE and November 8, 518 BCE. This stele proves that Cambyses reigned in Egypt from May 525 BCE because at the end of this month, an Apis bull is dedicated to him. Thus the conquest of Egypt had to have been completed in early May 525 BCE as the last text referring to Psammetichus III283 (below) is dated I Peret year 2 (May 525 BCE). That Psammetichus III was the son of Amasis is confirmed by the stele No. 309 of the Serapeum (Louvre).

Before his conquest Cambyses was a Persian leader but thereafter he also became an Egyptian pharaoh. This new situation has created a dual system of counting the reign. Ø Egyptian documents of the time of Darius I mention the events of years 3 and 4 of

Cambyses, apparently before the conquest of Egypt. A papyrus dated 9th year of Darius says: In his 2nd year, therefore, Cambyses conquered Egypt really, and in 5th year he died. This demotic text284, entitled Peteisis petition spoke of a conflict in a family of priests of the temple of Amon at Teuzoi (El-Hibeh) between the 4th year of Psammetichus I and the 4th year of Cambyses285. It ends with the following dates: Until the Year 44 of Amasis. In Year 3 of Cambyses, Hor son of Psammet-kmenempe, the prophet of Amon (...) in Year 4 of Cambyses. A second Egyptian papyrus known as the Demotic Chronicle, confirmed the year 44 of Amasis

282 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 63-65. 283 It is indeed Psammetichus III because one of the contracting parties cited in the text is still alive in the year 35 of Darius I (H. GAUTHIER – Le livre des rois d'Égypte. Le Caire 1915 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 131-132). 284 Papyrus Rylands IX 21. 285 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 92.


as last year286. The source said that Darius I in the 3rd year of his reign (in 519 BCE) had given the satrap of Egypt the order that together a committee of wise men from among the Egyptian warriors, priests and scribes in order: that they put in writing that Egyptian law was in force until the 44th year of the reign of Amasis.

Ø Cambyses died in 522 BCE, it was therefore his 5th year in Egypt, the 2nd corresponded to 525 BCE and the 1st to 526 BCE. This conquest began in 526 BCE, since Herodotus (The Histories III:1,10) states that the war began with the death of Amasis. Years 2 to 5 of Cambyses refer to his years of domination in Egypt. It is not logical to assume that the Egyptians used a counting system reserved for their pharaohs rather than for foreign leaders287, which Cambyses was before his conquest (though, after 525 BCE, Persian leaders were considered as Pharaohs).

YEAR 12 OF AMASIS (558 BCE)

The year 44 of Amasis, the last of his reign should be dated 526 BCE, and therefore the year 12 to be dated 528 BCE. Double-dated documents are rare, they are all the more valuable since they allow absolute dating, which is the case of the following papyrus (pap. Louvre 7848)288 both dated II Shemu 13 / I Shemu 15, Year 12 of Amasis (line 5):

Year 12, 1st month of Shemu, (day) 21 under Pharaoh Amasis life-prosperity-health (...) Has said the choachyte Petosiris son of Iturodj son of Inaru, his [mother] being Ituru,

(choachyte = mummies guardian) Tacheru and the choachyte Djechy son of Tesmont, total 3 men: “It is we who have caused the choachyte Petosiris son of Iturodj to swear for us in the presence of Chonsemwasneferhotep, in year 12, 2nd month of Shemu, (day) 13, on the 15th day of the 1st month of Shemu, saying: ‘The place of the mountain, of which I said: «I have received

Parker assumed that the first date was from the civil calendar and the second from the lunar calendar, but this is illogical for the following reasons: Ø Egyptian lunar dates being exceptional they should be specified in the civil calendar and

not the opposite. Among the twenty papyrus from Elephantine in southern Egypt, which contain double dates, all begin with the date of the lunar calendar followed by that of the Egyptian civil calendar, but never the reverse.

Ø "It is we who have caused the choachyte to swear for us" refers to the past not to the future ("It is we who will cause the choachyte to swear for us"). If this vow was recorded and dated, it is logical to assume that it was written relatively soon after having been delivered, otherwise one

286 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 124-125. 287 R.A. PARKER - Persian and Egyptian Chronology in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures LVIII/3 (1941) pp. 298-301. 288 K. DONKER VAN HEEL – Abnormal Hieratic and Early Demotic Texts collected by the Theban Choachytes in the reign of Amasis: Papyrus from the Louvre Eisenlohr Lot (Thesis). Leiden 1996 Ed. Rijksuniversiteit pp. 93-99.


would have to admit the existence of a "prophetic vow", but the document being dated I Shemu 21 in the civil calendar, the vow had to have been made on I Shemu 15, actually 6 days before.

Ø As the lunar year is shorter than the solar year (the lunar month being 29 or 30 days while the Egyptian civil month is always 30 days), dating in a lunar calendar goes faster than in the civil calendar, thus the lunar dates are more advanced (II Shemu) than those of the civil calendar (I Shemu).

According to these logical arguments, the first date (II Shemu 13) is lunar and the second (I Shemu 15) is civil. As the civil date I Shemu 15 fell in 558 BCE on September 21, the lunar date II Shemu 1 fell on September 9 (= 21 – 12), which was a full moon day according to astronomy289. However, there are two difficulties in reckoning the days: Ø The Babylonians counted the new day after sunset (around 18:00) while the Egyptians

counted it after the disappearance of the stars (around 5 am). If a scribe wrote on 17 Thoth around 16:00, for example, he dated his document on 18 Kislev, but if he wrote about 20:00 he dated it on 19 Kislev.

midnight midday midnight 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6

Babylonian computation 18 Kislev

19 Kislev

4 January

Julian computation 5 January

6 January

16 Thoth

Egyptian computation 17 Thoth

Ø Astronomical observations were made at night, at the beginning of the day for the Babylonians, but at the end for the Egyptians. Finally, the observation of the first crescent can be delayed by one day (due to bad weather, for example) while watching the full moon can be shifted more or less one day.

According to this lunar calendar, the two papyrus double dated years 15 and 21 of Xerxes290 involve an accession in 496 BCE (the full moon of 1st Elul fell on August 29 in 481 BCE at Elephantine and the full moon of 1st Kislev fell on December 20 in 475 BCE):

Year Xerxes I Civil Egyptian Julian Lunar Egyptian Julian Gap 1st Elul 29 August (full moon)

481 15 28 Pakhons 14 September 18 Elul 15 September 1 1st Kislev 20 December (full moon)

474 21 17 Thoth 5 January 18 Kislev 5 January 0

When Porten published the Elephantine papyri he wrote: The language, religion, and names of the Jews differed from their Egyptian neighbours, but their legal procedures and formulary bear striking similarity. Though we cannot explain the phenomenon of “Who gave to whom” we must conclude that in matters legal the Jews and Arameans fit into their Egyptian environment rather snugly. Whereas the demotic contracts constitute a little over 20% of the thirty-seven demotic texts here published, the Aramaic contracts constitute almost 60% of the total Aramaic selection of fifty-two documents. If thirty documents are ample material to ascertain schemata and verify formulae, eight may not be, particularly if they are of different types. Comparison, nonetheless, shows how much the demotic and Aramaic conveyances had in common. Both followed an identical schema (...) Variations were slight. As indigenous documents, the demotic contracts noted only the Egyptian calendar, whereas the Jewish/Aramean scribes, writing in the lingua franca of the Persian Empire, added for most of the fifth century a synchronous Babylonian date.

289 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php 290 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 18, 153-161.


This last remark contradicts what was said at the beginning because the Egyptians never used a Babylonian calendar in Egypt. In addition, Porten fails to mention that several Babylonian dates have a gap of 2 days (which is difficult to explain by errors of scribes), or even a month apart (B32 and B42 for example), and that the lunar calendar was closer to the Jewish or Aramaic calendar than its Babylonian counterpart291. Stern292 noted: This explanation has been fully endorsed by Porten, but it is problematic in more than one respect. In the ancient world, where artificial lighting was often expensive and/or inadequate, scribes would have been reluctant to write legal documents at night: legal documents, indeed, had to be written with precision and care. Although such a practice was possible — as Porter points out, the Mishna refers to legal documents written at night (M. Gittin 2:2), and further evidence could conceivably be found — it seems unlikely that the majority of contracts at Elephantine would have been written at night (...) In order to account for this high incidence of discrepancies, it seems more plausible to argue that the Babylonian calendar at Elephantine was reckoned differently from the standard Babylonian calendar. How it was reckoned, however, remains somewhat unclear. The inconsistent relationship between document dates and visibility of the new moon (nil, 1 day, or 2 days) suggest perhaps that at Elephantine, visibility of the new moon was not used as a criterion to determine when the new month began. The solution was at hand, but Stern did not know that the problem stemmed from the wrong interpretation of Parker. This is particularly more regrettable in that Parker had given all the elements to find it. Parker refused to consider a lunar reckoning starting at full moon, as proposed by Macnaughton293, for three reasons: Ø He felt that Macnaughton was an eccentric294 (no comment!). Ø This type of calendar was not well known during his time. Parker was unaware that the

Hindu lunar calendar, for example, is equally divided between amanta versions (8 states in southern India) which start on the new moon and purnimanta versions (10 states in northern India) starting on full moon. In addition, it is likely that some ancient lunar calendars began on the full moon, like the Old Persian calendar whose 30th day is called jiyamna "decreasing", that would be inexplicable if the lunar cycle began on 1st crescent.

Ø Lunar phases being symbolized at Dendera (around -50) by 14 deities climbing stairs to achieve the filling of the eye Wedjat295 (safe eye) the 15th day of the full moon, the lunar day 1 (psdntyw) must match the 1st invisibility. But this cycle of 15 days is only a ½ month, the next full month had to begin at the end of this cycle, that is at the full moon.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

291 S. STERN - The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) pp. 159-171. 292 S.H. HORN, L.H. WOOD - The Fifth-Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies XIII/1 (1954) pp. 1-20. 293 D. MACNAUGHTON - A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology London 1932 Ed. Luzac and co. pp. 145-151. 294 R.A. PARKER - The Calendars of Ancient Egypt in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago p. 9. 295 E.A.W. BUDGE - Gods of the Egyptian Vol II 1969 Ed. Dover Publications p. 321.


Babylonian lunar cycle Egyptian lunar cycle according to: astro ½ month Parker Macnaughton astro

14 full moon 1 shining ones [day] 15 2 month [day]

16 3 17 4 18 5 19 6 20 7 quarter [day] 21 last quarter 8 22 9 23 10 24 11 25 12 26 13 27 last crescent 14 perceptions [day]

28 15 subordinate [day] 29 new moon 16 30 1st invisibility 1 tp 3bd 1 shining ones [day] 17 perceptions [day] 1 1st crescent 2 3bd 2 month [day] 18 Moon [day]

2 3 3 19 3 4 4 20 4 5 5 21 5 6 snt 6 22

6 first quarter 7 dnit 7 quarter [day] 23 quarter [day] 7 8 8 24 8 9 9 25 9 10 10 26 10 11 11 27 11 12 12 28 12 13 13 29 13 14 14 perceptions [day] 30 Min rise [day] 14 full moon 15 smdt 15 subordinate [day] 15 šapattu 16

16 17 perceptions [day] 17 18 Moon [day] 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 last quarter 22 22 23 quarter [day] 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 last crescent 28

28 29 29 new moon 30 Min rise [day] 30 1

Parker has compiled and explained the 30 days of the Egyptian lunar month, showing that several days do not fit at all with their Moon phases. In Parker's lunar cycle it is obvious that the meaning of days 1 (psdntyw) and 18 (i‘ḥ) has nothing to do with and is even contrary to the lunar phase that corresponds to them. The Egyptian word psdntyw literally means "shining ones" which is contrary to its moon phase (after the new moon) called "first invisibility". In addition the day 18 which literally means "moon" would have no link with the lunar cycle, which would be the last straw.


½ month n° Day of the month Moon phase according to: Name Meaning Macnaughton Parker

(15) 1 psdntyw Shining ones Full moon First invisibility 2 3bd Month After full moon First crescent 7 dnit Quarter Last quarter First quarter 14 si3w Perceptions Last crescent Before full moon 15 smdt Subordinate Before new moon Full moon 1 17 si3w Perceptions Before first crescent - 2 18 i‘ḥ Moon First crescent - 7 23 dnit Quarter First quarter Last quarter 14 30 prt Mn Min going-forth Before full moon New moon

According to Depuydt296: There is little doubt as to what ancient Egyptians saw of the moon on the day they called psdntyw the first of the lunar month (...) Parker has done the most to consolidate the theory of psdntyw outlined above. Yet the view that Egyptian lunar months began with the observation of nothing has met with resistance. Černy and Posener believed that the passage from Theban Tomb 57 quoted above “shows that it was possible to depict psdntyw ... For the Egyptians, psdntyw was therefore something visible ... Indeed, it would be difficult to understand how the Egyptians could have conceived of ‘moon on psdntyw’ ... if psdntyw was an invisible celestial phenomenon.” This remark disregards the fact, however, that “moon on psdntyw” is modified by “whose brightness has illuminated the netherworld” (...) “you set like Re on the day of psdntyw”. To summarize his arguments, the Egyptian day 1 (psdntyw) would represent both the invisibility of the moon for the living ones and the sun illuminating the netherworld, but this explanation is more theological than scientific. Year 10 of Amasis (in -560) that began on I Akhet 1 (January 10) coincided with a full moon, which involved the starting equivalence I Akhet 1 (lunar) = I Akhet 1 (civil). It is noteworthy that the observation of the full moon is more difficult than the 1st lunar crescent, because depending on the time of day or night the 1st astronomical crescent may be seen a day late (but never in advance) so that the full astronomical moon can be seen frequently with one day difference (delay or advance, or +/- 1 day) 297.

Amasis year

BCE Lunar calendar (day 1)

Civil calendar Julian day Full moon

(astronomy) 10 560 I Akhet 1 I Akhet 1 10 January 9 January

II Akhet 1 I Akhet 30 8 February 7 February III Akhet 1 II Akhet 30 10 March 9 March IV Akhet 1 III Akhet 29 8 April 8 April

I Peret 1 IV Akhet 29 8 May 7 May II Peret 1 I Peret 28 6 June 6 June

III Peret 1 II Peret 28 6 July 6 July IV Peret 1 III Peret 27 4 August 4 August I Shemu 1 IV Peret 27 3 September 2 September

II Shemu 1 I Shemu 26 2 October 2 October III Shemu 1 II Shemu 25 1 November 1 November IV Shemu 1 III Shemu 25 30 November 30 November

I Akhet 1 IV Shemu 25 30 December 29 December 11 559 II Akhet 1 I Akhet 19 28 January 28 January

III Akhet 1 II Akhet 19 27 February 26 February IV Akhet 1 III Akhet 18 28 March 28 March

I Peret 1 IV Akhet 18 27 April 27 April II Peret 1 I Peret 17 26 May 26 May

III Peret 1 II Peret 17 25 June 25 June IV Peret 1 III Peret 16 24 July 24 July

296 L. DEPUYDT - The Hieroglyphic Representation of the Moon's Absence (Psdntyw) in: Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies (1998) Ed. L.H. Lesko pp. 71-89. 297 II Shemu 13 (Egyptian lunar calendar) = I Shemu 16 (Egyptian civil calendar) = 22 September (Julian calendar). If the full moon was seen on September 9, instead of 10, we have: II Shemu 13 (Egyptian lunar calendar) = I Shemu 15 (Egyptian civil calendar) = 21 September (Julian calendar)


I Shemu 1 IV Peret 16 23 August 23 August II Shemu 1 I Shemu 15 21 September 21 September

III Shemu 1 II Shemu 15 21 October 21 October IV Shemu 1 III Shemu 14 19 November 19 November

I Akhet 1 IV Shemu 14 19 December 19 December 12 558 II Akhet 1 I Akhet 8 17 January 17 January

III Akhet 1 II Akhet 8 16 February 16 February IV Akhet 1 III Akhet 7 17 March 17 March

I Peret 1 IV Akhet 7 16 April 16 April II Peret 1 I Peret 6 15 May 15 May

III Peret 1 II Peret 6 14 June 14 June IV Peret 1 III Peret 5 13 July 13 July I Shemu 1 IV Peret 5 12 August 12 August

II Shemu 1 I Shemu 4 10 September 10 September II Shemu 13 I Shemu 16 22 September III Shemu 1 II Shemu 4 10 October 10 October IV Shemu 1 III Shemu 3 8 November 9 November

DATING OF THE XXVIITH DYNASTY THROUGH ASTRONOMY

The calendar at Elephantine (in the far south of Egypt) with its system of double dates, Egyptian and Babylonian, was used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes only during a short period from 500 to 400 BCE. For example, a Persian official erected a votive stele stating: This temple, (W)id(arnaga) head of the garrison at Syene was done in the month of Siwan, that is to say Mehir, year 7 of King Artaxerxes, (to) Osirnaḥty, the god. Peace298. After the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses Egypt became a Persian satrapy but most of the scribes were Egyptians or Jews299. Persian officials at Elephantine were familiar with three kinds of lunar calendar (Elamite, Old-Persian, Babylonian), which appear in Darius I's inscriptions at Behistun300. Jewish scribes at Elephantine were familiar with different calendars301, but they mainly used a calendar based on the Babylonian calendar after their return to Judea from Babylon (538 BCE). As the Egyptian calendar had 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 days at the end (called epagomenon in Greek), it was not lunar. As the Jews of Elephantine were in an Egyptian environment they used the Egyptian lunar calendar for the dating of their religious festivals. It is noteworthy that those Jews used only the word yerah302 "lunation" (implying the [full] moon), to designate the month while at the same time, in Judea, the Jews of Arad303 used only the word hodesh "new" (implying the new [moon]). We read for example on the ostracon n°7 (c. 600 BCE): for the 10th [month], the 1st of the month to the 6th of the month304.

298 A. LEMAIRE – Recherches d'épigraphie araméenne en Asie mineure et en Égypte in: Achaemenid History V (1991) Ed. Nederlands Instituut Leiden pp.199-201. 299 According to Herodotus (The Histories II:152-154), Psammetichus I, dynasts of Sais, called on foreign mercenaries, including Ionians and Carians, to consolidate his power in Egypt. The pharaoh then installed these mercenary garrisons in Daphne west of Delta, and Elephantine, on the border in the south (The Histories II:30-31). The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates III:13 states that among these mercenaries there were Jews. According to the biblical text, the massive emigration of Jews into Egypt began shortly after the pharaoh Necho II established King Jehoiakim (in 609 BCE) on the throne in Jerusalem (2 Ki23:34, Jr 26:21-23, 42:14). After the murder of Gedaliah, many of these Jews emigrated to Egypt (Jr 43:7, 44:1) especially in the country of Patros (meaning "the Land of the South" in Egyptian) the southern province in which Elephantine was the main town. 300 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 171-174. 301 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 33-63, 509-510. 302 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3 1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. XXXVI. 303 G.I. DAVIES - Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance Cambridge 1991 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 14,15,348. 304 A. LEMAIRE -Inscriptions hébraïques Tome I, Les Ostraca In: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°9 Paris 1977 Ed. Cerf pp. 168,231.


At that time there were the following equivalences among calendars305:

EGYPTIAN JEWISH/ PERSIAN BABYLONIAN JULIAN SECULAR RELIGIOUS HEBREW ARAMAIC I Akhet 30 Thoth (1) 30 January 31 II Akhet 30 Paopi (2) 29 February 28 III Akhet 30 Hathor (3) 30 March 31 IV Akhet 30 Koyak (4) 29 month I Nisan Nisanu 30 April 30 I Peret 30 Teobi (5) 30 month II Iyyar Ayyaru 29 May 31 II Peret 30 Mehir (6) 29 month III Siwan Simanu 30 June 30 III Peret 30 Pamenotep (7) 29 month IV Tammuz Dumuzu 29 July 31 IV Peret 30 Parmuti (8) 29 month V Ab Abu 30 August 31 I Shemu 30 Pahons (9) 29 month VI Elul Ululu 29 September 30 II Shemu 30 Paoni (10) 29 month VII Tishri Tashritu 30 October 31 III Shemu 30 Epipi (11) 30 month VIII Marheshwan Arahsamna 29 November 30 IV Shemu 30 Mesore (12) 29 month IX Kislew Kislimu 30 December 31 Epagomen 5 [xxx2] (13) 30 month X Tebeth Tebetu 29 January 31 month XI Shebat Shabatu 30 February 28 month XII Adar Addaru month XIII [Adar2] [Addaru2] 29 March 31

In the Hebrew Bible306, the words hodesh and yerah are often used in the sense of "month", but they are not synonymous since some phrases are found in Canaanite inscriptions307 like: hodesh yerah Etanim "new moon of Etanim (1Kings 8:2)". If the two words hodesh and yerah were synonymous the translation would be "month of the month of Etanim", which does not make sense308. This semantic distinction is important. Indeed, in a lunar calendar starting at the new moon, the two words hodesh "new [moon]" and yerah "lunation" to refer to one month may be suitable. But in a schedule starting at the full moon, only the word "lunation" is appropriate. Following the religious reform carried out by Nehemiah in Jerusalem about 440 BCE (Nehemiah 13:6-9), the Jews of Elephantine would celebrate the Passover again using an Aramaic calendar based on a Babylonian pattern309 because this festival was to be celebrated 14 days after the new moon. It was a reform of the calendar, not a reform of worship, because the Jews were in contact with the priesthood in Jerusalem and they had celebrated the Passover since at least 450 BCE310. The reform of the calendar is dated in the 5th year of Darius II (419 BCE) but as often happens, reforms are not fully followed311. At Elephantine the main system of dating was from the Egyptian calendar (secular), but as numerous religious festivals in Egypt were based on moon phases, a lunar calendar was used to fix these dates. The Jews, then the Persians, naturally used this calendar for their own festivals based on a lunar calendar (as the Passover for the Jews). The language of administration being either Egyptian or Persian, it

305 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 885-886. 306 The word "full moon (Proverbs 7:20)" is kese in Hebrew or lebanah "the white one (Isaiah 30:26)". 307 H. DONNER, W. RÖLLING - Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften Wiesbaden 2002 Ed. Harrassowitzp. 9 N°3. 308 J.A. WAGENAAR - Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations in: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115 (2003) p. 7 note 9. 309 J. MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI - Les Juifs d'Égypte de Ramsès II à Hadrien Paris 1991 Éd. Errance p. 37 310 A. VINCENT - La religion des judéo-araméens d'Éléphantine Paris 1937 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner pp. 267-274. 311 Yefet ben Eli, a Karaite living in Iraq (c. 950 CE) recalled that while the Karaites determined the 1st lunar day according to the observation of the new moon and Rabbinites determined it by calculations, those who had determined it in the past as the full moon did not exist (S. POZNANSKI – Les écrits d'Anan in: Revue des Études Juives 44 (1902) pp. 171-172). By contrast, Jacob Qirqisani, a contemporary of Yefet ben Eli, also known Jewish supporters of the full moon: the "Margariya" and Yeshua ben Yehuda (c. 1050 CE) mentions them as the "Albedaryah".


was necessary to convert the names of the Egyptian lunar month to a common language understood by all (Aramaic). For example, the Jews converted into Aramaic the name of the months of their Hebrew calendar: It came about that in the 4th year of Darius (...) on the 4th [day] of the 9th month, [that is] in Kislev (Zechariah 7:1). Given that the Egyptian name of lunar months was the same as the one from their secular calendar, it is clear that if the Jews had only transcribed the lunar date and a current date the double dating would have been incomprehensible (except for the Egyptians). For example the papyrus Louvre 7848312 is dated (line 5): in year 12, 2nd month of Shemu, (day) 13, on the 15th day of the 1st month of Shemu. In 558 BCE the year 12 of Amasis began on I Akhet 1 (10 January) and I Shemu 1 is dated 7 September313 and as the II Shemu 1 (lunar) began on full moon (10 September)314, consequently I Shemu 15 (secular) and II Shemu 13 (lunar) are both dated 21 September:

August September 558 BCE 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IV Peret (secular) I Shemu (secular) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I Shemu (lunar) II Shemu (lunar) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

For reasons of clarity the scribes of Elephantine (both Jews and Persians) used the Egyptian lunar calendar while replacing the names of months by their Aramaic equivalent, which were familiar to them. However, like the Babylonians, they counted the new day after sunset (c. 18:00) while the Egyptians counted it from the vanishing of stars (c. 05:00). If a Jewish scribe wrote on (in 475 BCE) 17 Thoth around 16:00 he dated his document on 17 Kislev315, but if he was writing about 20:00 he would have dated it on 18 Kislev. An Elephantine Papyri (B24) is dated: [17] Thoth, which is 17 Kislev, year 21 (of Xerxes), accession year of Artaxerxes316. As Xerxes died on 14/V/21 (24 August) the 1st Thoth (I Akhet 1) in 475 BCE is dated on 20 December and the 17 Thoth, on 5 January 474 BCE. The reckoning of regnal years is different depending on which pattern is referred: Egyptian or Babylonian. For example the 21st year of Xerxes' reign began on 1st Nisan (month I) at Babylon but on 1st Thoth (month I) at Elephantine. The 1st Nisan is dated 14 April in 475 BCE, which was the 1st lunar crescent317 after the spring equinox (26 March)318, and the 1st Thoth is dated 20 December as well as the 1st Kislev. In the Babylonian pattern the 1st Kislev (month IX) is dated 6 December (1st lunar crescent) while in the Egyptian pattern the 1st Kislev is dated 20 December (full moon).

November December 475 BCE 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mesore Epagomen Thoth 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arahsamna Kislimu (Babylon) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Marheshwan Kislev (Elephantine) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6

312 K. DONKER VAN HEEL – Abnormal Hieratic and Early Demotic Texts collected by the Theban Choachytes in the reign of Amasis: Papyrus from the Louvre Eisenlohr Lot (Thesis). Leiden 1996 Ed. Rijksuniversiteit pp. 93-99. 313 http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur/ 314 http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php 315 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 174-178. 316 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 164-165. 317 http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php 318 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php


The 20 documents from Elephantine with a dual date enable us to reconstruct the chronology of the reigns of the XXVIIth dynasty. For example the papyrus B23 is dated: year 15 [of Xerxes] 18 Elul, which is 28 Pahons, hence the 1st lunar day is dated 11 Pahons (= 28 - 17), which was a full moon in 481 BCE (30 August). The 11 Pahons or I Shemu 11 matches exactly to day 11, column I Shemu, in the 25-year lunar cycle (year 8 of the cycle):

Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day Full moon Xerxes I 1 Elul 11 Pahons (I Shemu) 29 Aug. 30 Aug.

B23 15 18 Elul 28 Pahons 15 Sept. 481

SEASON AKHET PERET SHEMU I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5

month 483 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Xerxes I 482 14 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 481 15 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 480 16 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28

Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day Full moon Darius I

N°1 7 6 Mehir 3 Jun. 515 N°2 27 2 Epipi 22 Oct. 495

Xerxes I 1 Elul 11 Pahons (I Shemu) 29 Aug. 30 Aug. B23 15 18 Elul 28 Pahons 15 Sept. 481

Artaxerxes I [0] 1 Kislev 5 epagomen [475] 19 Dec. 20 Dec. B24 1 18 Kislev [17] Thoth 5 Jan. 474 1 Kislev [ 1] Mesore (IV Shemu) 14 Nov. 14 Nov. B25/26 6 21 Kislev [21] Mesore 4 Dec. 469 1 Kislev 28 Mesore (IV Shemu) 10 Dec. 11 Dec. B34 9 7 Kislev 4 epagomen* 16 Dec. 466 1 Siwan 6 Pamenot (III Peret) 20 Jun. 21 Jun. B35 14 20 Siwan 25 Pamenot 9 Jul. 461 1 Tammuz 16 Pamenot (III Peret) 29 Jun. 28 Jun. N°43 16 18 Tammuz 3 Parmuti 16 Jul. 459 1 Ab [13] Parmuti (IV Peret) 26 Jul. 28 Jul. B36 16 18 Ab [30] Parmuti 12 Aug. 459 1 Tishri 13 Paoni (II Shemu) 24 Sep. 25 Sep. B28 16 24 Tishri 6 Epipi 17 Oct. 459 1 Kislev 9 Mesore (IV Shemu) 18 Nov. 20 Nov. B29 19 2 Kislev 10 Mesore 19 Nov. 456 1 Ab 6 Pahons (I Shemu) 16 Aug. 17 Aug. B30 25 14 Ab 19 Pahons 29 Aug. 450 1 Elul 3 Paoni (II Shemu) 11 Sep. 13 Sep. B37 28 7 Elul 9 Paoni 17 Sep. 447 1 Tishri 1 Epipi (III Shemu) 8 Oct. 9 Oct. B38 31 25 Tishri 25 Epipi 1 Nov. 444 1 Siwan 18 Mehir (II Peret) 27 May 27 May B39 38 20 Siwan 7 Pamenotep 15 Jun. 437

Darius B 1 Tammuz 1 Parmuti (IV Peret) 7 Jul. 8 Jul. B40 4 8 Tammuz 8 Parmuti 14 Jul. 430 1 Elul 1 Paoni (II Shemu) 5 Sep. 5 Sep. B31 4 30 Elul 30 Paoni 4 Oct. 430 1 Tishri 17 Paoni (II Shemu) 20 Sep. 20 Sep. B42 8 6 Tishri 22 Paoni 25 Sep. 426

After year 5 of Darius II (419 BCE) when a document is dated between Thoth and Koyak (December to March) the accession year is indicated319 (see below), for example

319 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 198-207.


(papyrus N°40): 3 Kislev, year 8 [Babylonian reckoning], which is 12 Thoth, year 9 [Egyptian reckoning] of king Darius. The Egyptian lunar calendar began on the full moon while the Babylonian lunar calendar began on the 1st crescent, consequently the 25-year lunar cycle had to be shifted of 10 years (later). For example, a 25-year lunar cycle began in 439 BCE on the full moon dated I Akhet 1 (11 December), while the new 25-year lunar cycle in 429 BCE began on the 1st lunar crescent dated I Akhet 1 (9 December).

Papyrus year Lunar date Egyptian calendar BCE 1st lunar day 1st crescent Darius II 1 Kislev 10 Thoth (I Akhet) [9] 14 Dec. 13 Dec.

B32 (N°40) 8 3 Kislev 12 Thoth [9] 16 Dec. 416 1 Shebat 16 Paopi (II Akhet) [14] 18 Jan. 18 Jan. B33 (N°41) 13 24 Shebat 9 Hathor [14] 10 Feb. 410

Artaxerxes II 1 Heshwan 6 Mesore (IV Shemu) 2 Nov. 2 Nov. B43 1 24 Heshwan 29 Mesore 25 Nov. 404 1 Adar 19 Hathor (III Akhet) 18 Feb. 17 Feb. B44 3 20 Adar 8 Koyak 9 Mar. 402

Amartaeus N°7 5 21? Pamenhotep 19 Jun. 400

Legend of colours (I Akhet 1 in 489 BCE is dated 24 December, which was a full moon) 1 Lunar dates dated by Egyptian calendar (secular) in the 25-year lunar cycle based on full moon 1 Lunar dates dated by Egyptian calendar (secular) in the 25-year lunar cycle based on first lunar crescent

36 Darius I died on 10/IX/36 (8 December 486 BCE) just before I Akhet 1 (23 December)


month 491 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Darius I 490 32 6 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 489 33 7 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 488 34 8 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 487 35 9 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 486 36 10 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 Xerxes I 485 11 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 484 12 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 483 13 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 482 14 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 481 15 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 480 16 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 479 17 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 478 18 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 477 19 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 476 20 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 475 0 21 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 Artaxerxes I 474 1 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 473 2 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 472 3 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 471 4 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 470 5 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 469 6 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 468 7 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 467 8 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 466 9 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 465 10 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 464 11 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 463 12 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 462 13 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 461 14 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 460 15 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 459 16 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 458 17 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1


457 18 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 456 19 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 455 20 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 454 21 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 453 22 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 452 23 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 451 24 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 450 25 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 449 26 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 448 27 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 447 28 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 446 29 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 445 30 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 444 31 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 443 32 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 442 33 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 441 34 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 440 35 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 439 36 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 438 37 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 437 38 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 436 39 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 435 40 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 434 0 41 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 Darius B 433 1 42 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 432 2 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 431 3 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 430 4 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 429 5 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 428 6 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 427 7 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 426 8 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 425 50 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 424 0 51 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 Darius II 423 1 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 422 2 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 421 3 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 420 4 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 419 5 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 418 6 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 417 7 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 416 8 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 415 9 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 414 10 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 413 11 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 412 12 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 411 13 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 410 14 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 409 15 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 408 16 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 407 17 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 406 18 23 3 2 2 1 1 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 405 0 19 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 Artaxerxes II 404 1 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 403 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 402 3 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 Armataeus 401 4 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 400 5 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23


month Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.

A demanding reader could legitimately ask why I am still a PhD candidate and not an academic with a PhD degree, and why my article has not been published in a scholarly review with a peer reading committee. The answer is as follows: I completed a thesis in Archaeology and History of Ancient Worlds320 in order to get a PhD (Doctorate) at the University of Lyon II (Maison de l’Orient)321. I had a research director and a jury of six322 ready to review my dissertation in December 2007. However, four months before I had to make the defence of my work, Pierre Villard, my research director, and all six jurors received a letter informing them I was a Jehovah’s Witness323. After they received the letter, they refused to grant me the PhD. However my research director accepted to sign a transfer request so I could move to another school to get my PhD. Consequently, I transferred my PhD to the INALCO, a university in Paris, but the President of Doctoral School, Magdalena Novotna, refused on 7 July 2009 to accept me as a transfer despite the fact that I received the agreement of Daniel Bodi, my new research director at the INALCO, and two of my former jurors for recording, Francis Joannès324 and André Lemaire325, who had agreed to serve on my new jury, I was not accepted. The CAP LC European Coordination for Freedom of Conscience, an association created in order to counter discrimination in France concerning the right to freedom of conscience and belief and to alert the public to acts and speech violating human rights or which are a threat to fundamental liberties, reported my case326 in its report 2010 and sent it327 to Congress of the United States328 on October 28, 2011. Unfortunately nothing changed. Finally, I filed a complaint of religious discrimination because Daniel Bodi, my research director, sent me an email dated 14 September 2009 in which he clearly wrote that INALCO refused me, solely because I was considered as a “fundamentalist”. However, on 10 February 2011 the Tribunal Administratif de Paris (Dossier n°: 0918003/7-3) refused to validate my complaint of religious discrimination because the word “fundamentalist” is not mentioned in French laws! It is noteworthy that on 7 July 2012 (Request n°8916/05)329 the European Court of Human Rights unanimously condemned France for religious discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately nothing changed for me. Still worse I am now blacklisted in the academic world because I dared to file a complaint against a prestigious university.

320 http://opac.mom.fr/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=487510 321 http://www.theses.fr/sujets/?q=Gertoux+Gérard 322 http://mom.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae 323 Procès Verbal 2009/1011 daté du 25 mai 2009, BSU de Riom (Clermont Ferrand) 324 Professor at the Université Paris 1 -Panthéon Sorbonne, Research Director at the Unité Archéologie et Sciences de l’Antiquité. 325 Research Director at the École pratique des hautes études, member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. 326 http://www.freedomofconscience.eu/discrimination-of-minority-belief-groups-in-france/ 327 http://www.aicongress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/France-Executive-Summary-October17.2011.pdf 328 http://www.coordiap.com/Document/letter%20of%20Congress%20US.pdf 329 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-112025#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-112025%22%5D%7D


Regarding my skills as astronomer member of the International Association for Assyriologists (from September 2013):

Regarding my skills as historian: author of The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story (University Press of America, 2002): This detailed treatment of the Name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation of the centuries, Won W. Lee in: Religious Studies Review Vol. 29:3 (2003) p. 285, published by Council of Societies for the Study of Religion (Valparaiso University). I would like to thank my friend Norman Cleworth for his corrections.

Dr. Hermann Hunger Professor of Assyriology (retired) University of Vienna Spitalgasse 2 1090 Wien Austria

7. Mai 2015 To whom it may concern: I have read the manuscript „Basic astronomy for historians to get a chronology“ of Gerard

Gertoux and found it a well-informed and informative introduction to this complicated subject. It

clearly explains what is required from a historian who wants to establish the chronology of

historical events.

The author shows by examples how different chronologies can be evaluated or refuted. He also

explains the astronomical phenomena that can be used for dating events, and the pitfalls in using

ancient calendars. For some cases, he offers new conclusions or refutes chronologies proposed

by other scholars.

The manuscript forces the reader to be very attentive, but this attention is well worth it.

Hermann Hunger

Queen Esther wife of Xerxes: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence

Documents

Transcript of Queen Esther wife of Xerxes: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence