Date formulas in cuneiform tablets and Antigonus Monophthalmus, again.

• Author: Boiy, Tom
• Position: Report

INTRODUCTION

In date formulas from the early Hellenistic period, not only kings are mentioned. In Babylonian cuneiform documents and in Aramaic ostraca from Idumaea (1) also Antigonus Monophthalmus appears in the date formulas already before he accepted the royal title in 306 B.C. In the cuneiform documents he is called [.sup.lu]rab uqu or "strategos."

Legal and administrative cuneiform documents were dated with Antigonus' name from Antig.03 until Antig.09. Thanks to two astronomical tablets, the well-known Saros Canon TAPS 81,6 12 (= LBAT 1428) and the so-called Solar Saros TAPS 81,6 24, these years can be placed exactly in the early Hellenistic period. Both cuneiform texts are so-called Saros Cycle Texts that present eclipse possibilities arranged in an 18-year cycle. The Saros Canon lists possible lunar eclipses and the Solar Saros mentions the possibilities of solar eclipses. Since both lunar and solar eclipses can occur twice (occasionally thrice) a year, every single year of each cycle is recorded in the Saros Cycle Texts. In the Saros Canon the years Phil.01-06 are followed by Antig.01-06 and in the Solar Saros the years Antig.03-06 follow Phil.07-08. Although the information in the two texts is not exactly the same, they are perfectly compatible, and because the date of Alexander's death (and its relation to the start of the reign of Philip Arrhidaeus) (2) is known, these years can also be dated in absolute terms. (3)

Table 1. 324/3 to 311/0 B.C. in Solar Saros and Saros Canon B.C. Solar Saros Saros Canon 324/3 AlexIII 7 AlexIII 7 323/2 [Phil] [1] Phil 1 322/1 [2] 2 321/0 [3] 3 320/19 [4] 4 319/8 [5] 5 318/7 [6] 6 317/6 7 Antig 1 316/5 8 2 315/4 Antig 3 3 314/3 4 4 313/2 5 5 312/1 6 6 311/0 AlexIV 6 SE 1 It has been noticed that the Saros Canon, compared to the date formulas from the legal and administrative tablets, presents a later, schematized version of the dating formulas of the early Hellenistic period. (4) The regnal years of Alexander the Great were AlexIII.01-07 instead of his Macedonian regnal years that were in use in the date formulas of contemporary legal and administrative documents. (5) In 311 B.C. the Saros Canon starts counting the years according to the Seleucid Era although the date formulas of the legal and administrative tablets use AlexIV.06-11 for the period from 311/0 until 306/5 B.C. and the years according to the Seleucid Era only appear there starting from 305/4 B.C. when Seleucus I was actually Seleucid king. (6) The years Phil.07-08 are replaced by Antig.01-02 because Philip Arrhidaeus was murdered in October 317 B.C. and Phil.07-08 for 317/6 and 316/5 B.C. were largely posthumous dates in the date formulas of the legal and administrative tablets. Since no date formulas mentioning Antig.01-02 were found, they were considered virtual backdates.

The Solar Saros on the other hand, perfectly followed, apart from the reign of Alexander the Great, the dating habits from the early Hellenistic period that can be deduced from the date formulas of the legal and administrative tablets: Phil.01-08, Antig.03-06, and AlexIV.06 are found in these date formulas, only 324/3 B.C. appears as AlexIII.13 in the date formulas of the tablets instead of AlexIII.07 in the Solar Saros.

As mentioned above, the years Antig.03-09 appear in the date formulas of legal and administrative tablets. Antig.07-09 are not mentioned in the Solar Saros, but if the logic of regnal dating is followed, these years must be identical with AlexIV.06-08 (311/0-309/ 8 B.C.). The political history of these years explains why two regnal dating systems were used in Babylonia. In spring 311 B.C., soon after the start of the Babylonian year, Seleucus reconquered his Babylonian satrapy and restored the name of Alexander IV in the date formulas of the cuneiform tablets. For this reason 311/0 B.C. was not only called Antig.07, but also AlexIV.06. But Antigonus did not give in so easily and he first sent his son Demetrius to reconquer the region. When this attempt failed, he headed another campaign himself. The astronomical diaries and so-called Chronicle of the Successors BCHP 3 (7) report hostilities until at least AlexIV.08.05.25 or 26 (30 or 31 August 309 B.C.). (8) Because of the unstable political situation in Babylonia in 311-309 B.C. and especially the presence of both Antigonus Monophthalmus and Seleucus in the region, it is no surprise that the years 311/0-310/09 B.C. were called both AlexIV.07-08 and Antig.08-09 (9) in the date formulas of contemporary legal and administrative cuneiform documents.

The years AlexIV.01-02 are present in the cuneiform documents BM 78948 (AlexIV.01), CT 49 27 (AlexIV.01), and CT 49 13 (AlexIV.02). These dates are not mentioned in the Solar Saros, but if we count back from the attested year AlexIV.06 = 311/0 B.C., the years AlexIV.01-02 must be identified with 316/5 and 315/4 B.C. Since these years were counted in the Solar Saros as Phil.08 and Antig.03, respectively, and both Phil.08 and Antig.03 appear in the date formulas of legal and administrative tablets, there is at first sight no place for AlexIV.01-02. As I explained earlier, (10) there is an essential difference between lists of regnal years and date formulas. In date formulas the name of the king/ruler changes at the moment the old king/ruler dies and is replaced by a new one or at the moment this news was known in Babylonia, whereas in lists an abstraction of the actual situation was made and only one name and regnal year appears for every year. A dating system that attributes the year during which such a change took place to the old king/ruler is called a postdating system. If such a year is attributed to the new king/ruler, we call it a predating system. (11) For these reasons there is room for more date formulas in the legal and administrative tablets at every change of rule. (12) Since there is a change from Philip Arrhidaeus to Antigonus Monophthalmus, the date formulas may have more regnal years than those visible in the lists. We would therefore expect a date formula in legal and administrative tablets that mentions either Antig.02 (13) in a postdating scenario or Phil.09 (14) in a predating scenario. Since neither Antig.02 nor Phil.09 appears in the date formulas of legal and administrative tablets, we concluded that the presence of AlexIV.01-02 fits this gap perfectly. In 316/5 B.C. the date formulas changed from Phil.08 to AlexIV.01 and the following year another change took place, from AlexIV.02 to Antig.03. If the Solar Saros had systematically used either predatation or postdatation, the result would have been as follows (compared to the actual situation in the Solar Saros):

Table 2. Systematic Pre- and Postdatation and Actual Situation in Solar Saros postdatation predatation actual situation 317/6 Phil 7 Phil 7 Phil 7 316/5 8 AlexIV 1 8 315/4 AlexIV 2 Antig 3 Antig 3 314/3 Antig 4 4 4 If we compare the actual situation in the Solar Saros with a systematic pre- or postdating scenario, it is clear that a combination of both methods is used. In 316/5 B.C. Phil.08 is postdated and in 315/4 B.C. Antig.03 is predated. A combination of post- and predatation and a change of king/ruler in two consecutive years resulted in the disappearance of the regnal years of Alexander IV from the Solar Saros. This way we have reconciled the information from the Solar Saros and Saros Canon with the years of Philip Arrhidaeus, Antigonus Monophthalmus, and Alexander IV that were attested in the date...