Athenian Chronology 352/1-322/1 BCE (FILAQHNAIOS [2010])

The Athenian Year Primer, Volume II (Under Development), 2022

DRAFT: Work in Progress - to be included in the second volume of the Athe Athenian Year Primer. Analyzes various evidence from the 5th Century and applies it to the schemas put forth in The Athenian Year Primer

The Athenian Year Primer: Attic Time-Reckoning and the Julian Calendar Vol II, 2023

Excerpted Chapter from the forthcoming Athenian Year Primer Vol. II. It presupposes familiarity with AYP. I present three theses: 1) Thucydides employed a fixed astronomical seasonal calendar; 2) both ancient Athenian Archontic & Boulitic calendars followed astronomical referents; and 3) provide (or uncover) the Archontic, Boulitic, and Julian dates for each event that led up to and encompassed the Archidamian War (Plataea to Peace of Nicias).

Athenian Year Primer, Volume II (Under Development), 2021

DRAFT: Work in Progress. Tests the hypothesis put forth in the Athenian Year Primer that the Ancient Athenian Calendars stood astronomically based, far more than appreciated, by analyzing thirteen inscriptions spanning five years: 326/5 - 322/1 BCE.

One important category of information available to chronologists, particularly if used in association with archaeological evidence, is that found in the writings of authors from the classical period of Greece through to the first few centuries of the Roman Empire. This article will examine these ancient sources to test whether they present a picture of the past consistent with that revealed by archaeology, particularly inscriptions indicating sequences and timescales, and also to see the extent to which they support, or otherwise, the orthodox chronology and a number of representative alternative chronologies.

Chapter 1-Greece: Mythology, History and Chronology Greek tradition maintained a continuous sequence between the Mycenaean and Archaic periods, indicating the succession of generations but, in the first instance, giving no details about the length of each of these (none being suggested until after the time of Herodotus). It was also supposed that, soon after the Trojan War, Dorian Greeks from the north had invaded the Peloponnese, conquering its southern and eastern regions, including Sparta (also known as Lacedaemon). These Dorians had a different dialect and culture from the Ionian Greeks of Attica (the region dominated by Athens, separated from the Peloponnese by the Isthmus of Corinth), as well as the Ionian Greeks of the Aegean islands and Asia Minor (now known as Anatolia). According to legend, the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese was led by the Heraclids (Heracleidae), who were great-great-grandsons of the hero Heracles, and so not themselves regarded as Dorians. The Heraclids did not take the land route to the Peloponnese through the isthmus but crossed the narrow Gulf of Corinth by ship from Naupactus in Aetolia. After their victory, they distributed control over Sparta, Corinth, Messenia and Elis between members of their group, with Sparta being allocated to Eurysthenes and Procles, the twin sons of Aristodemus, one of the Heraclids [4]. That gave rise to two lines of Spartan kings, the Agiads (named after Agis, the son of Eurysthenes) and the Eurypontids (after Eurypon, son of Procles) of which, according to Herodotus (writing in the 5 th century BC), the Agiad line was regarded as the more senior [5]. In the 4 th century AD, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, taking his information from Diodorus Siculus, i.e. Diodorus of Sicily (in a section of his history which has not otherwise survived, some of which was taken in turn from Apollodorus), stated in his chronicle that the Heraclids entered the Peloponnese 80 years after the fall of Troy, uprooting almost all the people there apart from the Arcadians. He went on to give the names of the subsequent Spartan kings in both the Agiad and Eurypontid lines, noting that Alcamenes was the 8 th generation descendent of Eurysthenes in one line whereas, in the other, Theopompus, the contemporary of Alcamenes, was the 5 th generation descendent of Procles. There were 322 years from the beginning of the reign of Eurysthenes to the end of that of Alcamenes, and 288 years from the accession of Procles to the end of the reign of Theopompus. Eusebius also noted that the Heraclids appointed Aletes king of Corinth, the first in a line of 11 Corinthian kings who reigned in total for 326 years. The final king, Telestes, was killed by his own family, the Bacchids, after reigning for 12 years. The Bacchids then maintained control of Corinth for the next 90 years through the appointment of an annual prytanis (magistrate) from amongst their number [6]. Concerning the rulers of Athens, Eusebius, following Castor of Rhodes (who, like Diodorus, lived during the 1 st century BC, a century later than Apollodorus), wrote in his chronicle that the Erechtheids had been kings of Athens for 450 years, the dynasty consisting of 15 kings from Cecrops I (a contemporary of Prometheus and Atlas) to Thymoetes (whose reign ended just before the invasion of the Peloponnese by the Heraclids). A timescale of 352 years was indicated from the start of the dynasty to the death of Theseus, and 77 years from the accession of the next Athenian king, Menestheus (in whose reign Troy fell to the Greeks) to the end of the reign of Thymoetes. Similarly, Argos had been ruled by 9 kings, from Inachus to Sthenelus, over a period of 382 years, towards the end of which Cecrops I became king of the Athenians. Danaus then drove Sthenelus out of Argos and founded a dynasty of 5 kings who ruled in total for 162 years. The Argives were then ruled from Mycenae for 215 years by a dynasty of kings including Atreus, Agamemnon (who captured Troy in his 18 th year) and Orestes, before Cometes lost the throne to the invading Heraclids. In Athens, after the end of the Erechtheid dynasty, Melanthus of Pylus (whose reign coincided with the Heraclid invasion), followed by his son Codrus, ruled in total for 58 years. Athens was then ruled by hereditary archons (magistrates) for 209 years, beginning with Medon, son of Codrus, and ending with Alcmaeon, son of Aeschylus. For the next 70 years, Athens was governed by a succession of seven archons, who each served 10-year terms. After that, archons held power for just one year each, the first of these being Creon. Aristotle (or possibly one of his students), in The Athenian Constitution, written during the 4 th century BC, presented a similar picture of the transition from kings to hereditary archons to fixed term archons, but gave fewer chronological details and said it was uncertain whether the first hereditary archon was Medon or his son Acastus. He also indicated that several archons served together, one having the senior role and, when the office became an annual one, the eponymous archon, i.e. the one who gave his name to the year, was the head of the group. In the chronicle of Eusebius, the author went on to give the complete list of kings (17 in total), hereditary archons (13 altogether) and the 7 archons who served 10-year terms. He gave reign-lengths for the kings and hereditary archons consistent with the overall timescale given by Castor, so were presumably taken from that source, but Eusebius commented that these figures could not be considered reliable, because other historians gave different timescales. According to the list, Thymoetes, the last of the Erechtheidae, was the great-grandson of Theseus, who was supposedly a contemporary of Heracles. Eusebius wrote that the Heraclids occupied the Peloponnese during the reign of Melanthus in Athens, and he went on to indicate that Aeschylus, last but one of the hereditary archons, was a contemporary of the Spartan kings Alcamenes and Theopompus [7]. Around this time, the Spartans began their rise to dominance in the Peloponnese by winning the first of their wars against the Messenians. According to the poet Tyrtaeus, writing around two generations after the event, this victory was achieved under the leadership of Theopompus. It enabled the Spartans to create a strictly hierarchical society with outsiders, mainly Messenians, at the base, these being the helots, i.e. slaves, whose labour enabled Spartan males to devote their entire time to achieving military excellence [8]. Alcamenes and Theopompus were the last Spartan kings mentioned in the chronicle of Eusebius, but we know from other sources that both lines of kings continued long after this time. However, they formed part of a structure of government which included five magistrates, known as ephors, who were elected for a one-year term, and could not be re-elected. The chief ephor, who was in some ways more powerful than either of the kings, gave his name to the year. Whether this system came into operation after the reigns of Alcamenes and Theopompus, or at a later time, is uncertain [9]. More generally, there can be little certainty about any Greek historical details from this period or earlier, and the same situation applies for more than another hundred years into the future. The first major Greek historian is generally considered to have been Hecataeus of Miletus, who lived in the middle of the 6 th century BC. Although little of his work has survived, we know from other sources that he expressed scepticism about the details of events described in earlier accounts, and their timescale. Nevertheless, he was not able to provide a solution to the problems. The next important historian, Herodotus, who lived half a century later, similarly expressed scepticism about events involving gods and demigods, but continued to rely on generation times (for want of anything better) to provide a timescale for historical events [10]. 1.3 Herodotus and the Persian Wars Perhaps because, although he was an Ionian Greek, Herodotus was born within the Persian Empire in Halicarnassus, on the western coast of Asia Minor, a long way from the Greek mainland, he was interested in the customs, geography and history of all of the regions in the world in which he lived. The main thread running through his nine-book work, The Histories, was the history of the Persians, from their rise to power under Cyrus the Great to their invasions of Greece under Darius I and Xerxes I, close to the time when Herodotus was born. Interrupting this narrative were accounts, sometimes lengthy, of other people such as the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Lydians and Greeks, providing background to their interactions with the Persians. So, for example, when writing about the Greeks, he said that Lycurgus, famed for introducing the Spartan code of laws and for re-organising the army, was the uncle of King Labotas of Sparta (grandson of Agis), and acted as his regent [11]. Later, he noted that Miltiades, who led the Athenians (and their allies from Plataea) to victory over the army of Darius at Marathon, effectively ending the first Persian invasion of Greece, claimed descent from Philaeus, son of the great Ajax, who was believed to have settled in Athens. Herodotus gave no generation count, but it is known that the Philaid family in Athens were claiming in the mid-sixth century to be 12 generations removed from Ajax, and Miltiades himself was apparently 3 generations further down the line [12]. More directly, Herodotus stated that Leonidas, the Agiad king of Sparta who died at Thermopylae trying to hold back the army of Xerxes, could trace his ancestry back 20 generations to Heracles, through his father

J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas, and R. Parker (edd.), Interpreting the Athenian Empire, London, 2009

The Author provides a thorough introduction to the five (5) most commonly used calendars in Ancient Athens through the Roman Period. This paper presents an outline of each calendar as well as a detailed example of converting an example to its Julian equivalent. This draft includes an added paragraph that permits coversions to Gregorian Calendar dates (as well as minor grammatical and bibliographic corrections)

Journal of cuneiform studies, 2000

During the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods, cuneiform documents were dated by numbered royal regnal years. The same method was used after Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Empire. Because of the rapid and frequent political changes during the early Hellenistic period, the dating systems used in the cuneiform sources can be confusing.

Nabu, 1998

Dating in early Hellenistic Babylonia: evidence on the basis of CT 49 13, 1982.A.1853 and HSM 1893.5.6 1 -The date of CT 49 13, a fragmentary ration list from Hellenistic Babylon, has been interpreted in various ways by several scholars since its publication in 1968. Despite the fragmentary state of the tablet there are two indications for a possible date: first of all the name of Alexander in Obv. 1 and secondly mu.2.kám in Rev. 11'. These two data seem incompatible: the normal scheme of dating formulas in early Hellenistic Babylonia does not include the years 1-5 both for Alexander the Great and for his son Alexander IV. The regnal years of Alexander the Great were counted starting from his first year as king in Macedonia. Since Alexander conquered Babylonia in his 6 th year, no earlier years are attested in the cuneiform sources.The early years of Alexander IV do not appear in the cuneiform documents because at that time Antigonus Monophtalmus ruled in Babylonia and the tablets were dated with his name. Only after Seleucus' return to Babylon (311 B.C.) this method was replaced by a date according to the regnal year of the legitimate king and the cuneiform tablets start with the 6 th year of Alexander IV.

2021

Timeline of Greek History from Neolithic to the Roman conquest (death of Cleopatra in 33BC)