Dating The Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerx

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 Nexos (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137) which occured 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 occured 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), likewise Elephantine papyri with
many double dates with 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.
2 SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
THROUGH SYNCHRONISMS DATED BY ASTRONOMY
The death of Xerxes is dated, at the present time, in 465 BCE. 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 is based on
the tablet BM 34576 (King List copy dated 99 BCE)1:
This official chronology is partly false2 (wrong datings 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 complex3 (hereafter).
In addition, the presence of months in some king lists is abnormal, because the length of
reigns is always given in years.
1 T. BOIY - Dating Problems in Cuneiform Tablets
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001) pp. 645-649.
2 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.
3 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 3
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
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 chronology4 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)5 which showed the
frequent occurrence of co-regency:
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 average lowest date highest date tablet

texts by year
Nabopolassar 430 21 [13]/II/00 (P. & D.)
08/V/21 (P. & D.)
Nebuchadnezzar II 2322 54 01/VI/00 (P. & D.)
21/VI/43 (P. & D.)
26/VI/43 (P. & D.)
Amel-Marduk 153 77 5/[IV]/00 BM 65270
20/V/00 BM 75322
08/VII/2 BM 75106
[17]/X/2 BM 61325
Neriglissar 214 54 01/II/00 BM 75489
23/V/00 (P. & D.)
01/I/4 (P. & D.)
06/[I]/4 (P. & D.)
Labashi-Marduk 12 48 23/I/00 (P. & D.)
12/II/00 (P. & D.)
09/III/00 (P. & D.)
12/III/00 (P. & D.)
Nabonidus 3317 195 15/II/00 (P. & D.)
01/III/00 (P. & D.)
17/VII/17 (P. & D.)
03/VIII/17 (P. & D.)
4 R.A. PARKER, W.H. DUBBERSTEIN - Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75

Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 10-13.
5 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
E. LEICHTY, J.J. FINKELSTEIN, C.B.F. WALKER - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets VIII
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 at 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 chronology6:

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
6M.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
Chronology: Greeks versus Babylonians

Anchor date (year 7 of Cambyses in 523 BCE) owing to tablet BM 330667:
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 9/108. 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 eclipses in years 1-4 of Cambyses II, dated by astronomy 529-
7 M.J. OPPERT – Un annuaire astronomique babylonien
in: Journal Asiatique (1890) pp. 511-516.
8 F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation
Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 166-167.

526 BCE9. A diary (VAT 4956)10 contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37
and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An
astronomical journal (BM 38462)11 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-Guppi12, 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 stele13 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)14 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 eponyms15 and the period 648-609
by a prosopography of its eponyms16.
Ø Year 1 of Amel Marduk (in 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 (in 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 I17.
Ø Dating Egyptian chronology exactly from February 663 BCE to April 525 BCE is
possible because the precise life of the Apis bulls is known18.
Egyptian king Reign Length Highest year Synchronism with:
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
9 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC

Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 94-96.
10 A.J. SACHS, H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. I
Wien 1988 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften (n° -567).

11 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. V n° 6
Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 27-30,396.

12 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560,561.

13 P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C.
in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2.

14 J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22
Paris 1993 Éd. Belles Lettres pp. 193-197.

15 S. PARPOLA – Assyrian Chronology 681-648 BC.
in: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Part II Winona Lake 2007 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 381-430.
16 S. PARPOLA – The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire
Helsinki 1998 University of Helsinki pp. XVIII-XX.

17 A.K. GRAYSON – The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal
in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 0 (1980) pp. 227-245.
18 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.

year Assyrian eponym Babylonian

Egyptian
-680 Esarhaddon Danânu 1 1 Esarhaddon
-679 Issi-Adad-anênu 2 2
-678 Nergal-šarru-uṣur 3 3
-677 Abî-râmu 4 4
-676 Banbâ 5 5
-675 Nabû-ahhê-iddin 6 6
-674 Šarru-nûrî 7 7
-673 Atar-ilu 8 8
-672 Nabû-bêlu-uṣur 9 9
-671 Kanûnâyu 10 10
-670 Šulmu-bêli-lašme 11 11
-669 Šamash-kâšid-ayâbi 12 12
-668 Assurbanipal Marlarim 1 1 Aššurbanipal
-667 Gabbaru 2 1 Šamaš-šuma-ukîn
-666 Kanûnâyu 3 2 BM 45640
-665 Mannu-kî-šarri 4 3
-664 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-shar-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 de Marash 26 5 21
-642 22 Šamaš-da’’inanni of Qué 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 Nekao 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 0 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 Tablet VAT 4956 37 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] 4 54 108
0 0 Labashi-Marduk
-555 15 stele of Hillah

[4] 1 Nabonidus 109
-554 16 [5] 2 110
-553 17 [6] [0] 3 Bel-shar-usur 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 Fall of Babylon [20] [14] 17 125
-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 3 44 4 138
1 Psammetichus III
-525 4 2 Stele IM.4187 5
5 Cambyses II
-524 6 6
-523 7 Tablet BM 33066 7
An accurate chronological reconstitution does not mean one that is historically

complete (usurpers and co-regencies do not appear). It also does not mean it is the same as
the official chronology. For example, the official chronology of Kandalanu19 (below) was
partly accurate but the reality contains many more facts making it much more complex20.
-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
-630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 Kandalanu 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
19The word kandalum means "crockery (?)" in Akkadian, probably because Kandalanu was a little bit simple.
20S. 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
5 II [B] Astyages King of Media
6 III
7 IV [C] Nabonidus King of Babylon
8 V [D] Belšaruṣ ur Coregent (Babylonian)
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)
10 VII [B] Harpagus Median Coregent
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
5 II [B] Oibaras Coregent (Mede)
6 III [C] Nabonidus King of Babylon
7 IV [D] Belšaruṣur Coregent (Babylonian)
8 V
9 VI Fall of Babylon
10 VII 0 [0] [A] Cyrus II King of Lands
11 VIII [B] Ugbaru Governor of Babylon (Mede)
12 IX
1 X Daniel 5:30-6:1
538
2 XI [C] Nabonidus Governor of Carmania
3 XII Berossus -Babyloniaca FGrH 680 F10a
4 I 1 [1] [B] Darius the Mede "King" of Babylon
5 II Daniel 9:1-2
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX [A] Cyrus II King of Babylon, King of Lands
537 1 X 0 [B] Cambyses II King of Babylon
2 XI *** ***
3 XII (Double dated contract TuM 2-3 92)
4 I** 2 1 (feast of Akitu)**
5 II Gubaru satrap of Babylon appeared in 535
6 III
Herodotus actually mentions a co-regency21, 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 Chronicle22:
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.
5 II [C] Nabonidus King of Babylon
6 III The last tablet of Nabonidus (CT 57, 168) is dated 19/XII/17
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII 0 [0] month VII when Cyrus attacked Akkad's army, Sippar was taken on
11 VIII 14/VII, Nabonidus ran away. 16/VII Ugbaru, governor of Gutium and
12 IX
1 X the troops of Cyrus entered Babylonia without fight. 3/VIII Cyrus entered
538
2 XI Babylon. Ugbaru, its governor, installed some governors. From month IX to
3 XII month XII the gods of Akkad came back to their sanctuaries.
4 I 1 [1] [A] Cyrus II (King of Lands)
5 II [B] Ugbaru Governor (King) of Babylon
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII 11/VIII [king] Ugbaru died.
12 IX
537 1 X *** 0 [B] Cambyses II (Crown prince) King of Babylon
2 XI
3 XII Month [XII] king's wife died. From 27/XII to 3/I
4 I 2 1 there was a mourning in Akkad. 4/I Cambyses, son of Cyrus, came in the
5 II temple of Nabu according the ritual of enthronement [in order to be officially
6 III
7 IV King of Babylon]
21 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).
22 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 king23). 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 Gubaru24. How do we know this?
Year King Ugbaru governor Gubaru satrap of Babylon (attested by dated texts)
540 16 Nabonidus
539 17- 0 Cyrus II from 3/VIII/00
538 1 to 11/VIII/01
537 2
536 3
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 the Gubaru, the satrap of
Babylon appearing three 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 Akkadian25 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 Akitu26, 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 Akitu27, 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 titulature28
in dated documents, which follows, confirms this.
23 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".
24 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.
25 F. MALBRAN-LABAT - Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne
Paris 1999 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner p. 97.

26 F. JOANNES - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C.
2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 131.

27 F. JOANNES - Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne
Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 20-227,26-729.

28 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 Cyrus According to the Chronicle 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 Fall of Babylon
17/VII/17 King of Babylon 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
[-]/XII/[17] End of gods come back
4 4/I/01 King of Babylon - (Akitu feast) 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
28/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands VAS III 35
3 2/XII/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 27
18/XII/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 30
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
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
King of Babylon then King of Lands 25/IV/01 Camb. 46
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
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
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
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
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
2 9/XI/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 80
King of Babylon King of Lands [-]/XI/01 CT 55, 731
3 2/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 83
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 kings29.
29W.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 Reference30
-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 attributed to Cyrus, but the replacement of Ugbaru, the actual King of Babylon, by
30 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).
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 documents31 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
Cambyses32, 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 reign33
(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
document (TuM 2-3, 92)34:
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 reign35 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 (in 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 (in 535 BCE) corresponds to the year when Gubaru appears as governor
(or satrap) of Babylon.
31 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency

in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale volume XC/2 (1996) pp. 171-183 (172 note 4).
32 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).
33 S. ZAWADZKI - Gubaru: A Governor or a Vassal King of Babylonia?
in: Eos vol. LXXV (1987 Wroclaw) pp.69-86.

34 O. KRÜCKMANN – Neubabylonische Rechts- und Wervaltungstexte
in: Texte und materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of Babylonian antiquities II-III, Leipzig 1933, N°92.
35 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 Bardiya36, 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 Bisitun37: 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.
36 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.

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
2 XI King of Babylon, King of Lands
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 sovereigns38.
Bardiya39 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).
38 S. ZAWADZKI Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription
in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27 (1994) pp.127-145.
39 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 father40.
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) 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
40P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide

Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 255.
CO-REGENCY DARIUS I / XERXES I
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]41
7 IV 16/IV/36
8 V 5/V/36; 9/V/36; 27/V/36 11/V?/0042
9 VI 22/VI/36; 24/VI/36
10 VII [2]7/VII/36
11 VIII --/VIII/3643; 15/VIII/3644 22/VIII/00
12 IX 10/IX/3645; 10+x/IX/3646 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 months47:
41 J.N. STRASSMAIER - Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum, (8. Kongr.)
Christiania 1892. EKBK 21 (BM 60599)
42 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).

43 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.
44 J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period
Poznan 1995. Letter Orders n80 (BM 77850).

45 J. MACGINNIS, Letter Orders n81 (BM 71941).
46 BM 72574
47 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
Xerxes48 dated 7/X/00 and 27/XI/00. In addition, the titulature49 "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).
48 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.
49 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 administration50 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).
50J. 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):
THROUGH
THROUGHSYNCHRONISMS
SYNCHRONISMSDATED
DATEDBY
BYASTRONOMY
ASTRONOMY
It is easy to see that the representation of the kings on the Assyrian and Babylonian
bas-reliefs is conventional. They
They are
are always
always bigger
taller than
than all
all other
other officials. For example,
Marduk-zakir-šumi
Marduk-zakir-!umi I (left), king of Babylon and Salmanazar III (right), king of Assyria, are
both greater than their officials.
According to the conventional representation of kings, it was obvious that, among

Persepolis bas-reliefs, the king on his throne, was Darius in front of Xerxes, the Crown
prince51. The king on his throne can not be Xerxes52, because he is mentioned explicitly on
some inscriptions as "son of Darius" (XPk), opposite to "Darius
face to "Darius the king"
the king" (DPb) 53
. 53.
(DPb)
51 E.E. HERZFELD - A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis

in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations n°5 Berlin (1932) p.8.
52 A. SHAPUR SHABAZI – The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis
Tehran 2004 Ed. Sanaye Farhangi Iran pp. 99,145-146.

53 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide
Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 100, 127, 259.

According to some records (Persepolis fortifications), mention was made of the

building of a house for Xerxes54 as early as 498 BCE. Some scholars (very few) dispute this
evidence which supports a co-regency between Darius and Xerxes55. 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 Briant56 but his arguments are dogmatic. He writes that the new palace in
Babylon that appears in the year 26 of Darius (in 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 (which should not be delegated). 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 Fortifications57 (PF) are dated from years 13 to 28 of Darius and the
Persepolis Treasury58 (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
archive59 (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.
54 A. FARKAS - Achaemenid Sculpture

Istanbul, 1974 Ed. Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Instituut pp. 51-54.
London 2010 Ed. Routeledge p. 304.

56 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre
Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 983-984.

57 R.T. HALLOCK - Persepolis Fortification Tablets
Chicago 1969 Ed. The University of Chicago Press p. 74.

58 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.
59 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.)
500 22 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 5/IX/22
499 23 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. X4 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 Ratininda T. Artataxma XII 20
465 21-0 Artaxerxes I
464 1 Uratinda R. IV 1
463 2
462 3 Barisha R.
461 4
460 5
459 6
458 7 Barisha T. Marezza X7
(Uratinda = Ratininda)60
60L. 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)

year Reign Treasurer Vice treasurer Z. archive
509 13 Darius I (Grand Palace)
508 14 Irshena
507 15
506 16
505 17
504 18
503 19 Shuddayauda Irshena
502 20 Irshena
501 21 Irshena
500 22 Irshena 5/IX/22
499 23
498 24
497 25
496 26-0 Building of Xerxes’ palace 18/VIII/26
495 27-1 Xerxes I Baratkama
494 28-2 Darkaush or Shakka
493 29-3 Darkaush or Aspathines
492 30-4 Darkaush or Shakka 10/XI/4
491 31-5
490 32-6 Appishmanda or Artataxma
489 33-7 Shakka Baratkama
488 34-8
487 35-9
486 36-10 Vahush Shakka
485 11
484 12 Artataxma
483 13
482 14
481 15 Ciçavahush
480 16 Ciçavahush
479 17
478 18 Ciçavahush
477 19 Megadates or Artataxma
476 20 Uratinda Artataxma
475 21-0 Artaxerxes I
474 1
473 2
472 3 Barisha
471 4
470 5
469 6
468 7 Marezza
Ø The fact that there was a coregency explains the following:

Ø Building of Xerxes palace in year 26 of Darius61.
Ø There is a normal succession of treasurers who have worked 6 years on average.
Ø Baratkama was appointed as Treasurer at the time of building of Xerxes palace (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 drastically62 because of the accession
of Xerxes and the building of the New Palace.
Calendar year (BCE) 498 497 496 495 494
Year of Darius 24 25 26 27 28
Number of texts 167 67 8 30 61
61 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
62 R.T. HALLOCK - Persepolis Fortification Tablets
Chicago 1969 Ed. The University of Chicago Press p. 74.

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 BCE63 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 BCE64. 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 Darius65 (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 text66, 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 BCE67 (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 mentioned68: 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 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).
63 According to Herodotus, Darius, the eldest son of Hystaspes, was barely 20 years old in 538 BCE (The Histories I:136, 209) and
according to Ctesias, he died at the age of 72 (Persica F13§23). These data are consistent and give the same lifetime to Darius (558-486).
Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 536.

65 A. KUHRT – The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period
London 2010, Ed. Routeledge pp. 574,811.

66 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.
67 K. ABRAHAM – Business and Politics under the Persian Empire (BM 30589; BM 30980)
Bethesda 2004, Ed. CDL Press, pp. 230-231,261-262.

68 For example, one reads (written after Darius’ death): Xerxes, great king, king of kings, son of king Darius the Achaemenid (XPe).
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 Jursa69 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
69M. 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.
The sign for the word "year" (MU) appears in the lines 2, 4 and 5' of this tablet. It is
formed by one horizontal nail and by four heads of nail. From the photo (below), we can
read MU 26 on the drawing (right), the figure 2 is formed by 2 heads of nail and 4 chips (in
grey) and the figure 6 is formed by 6 vertical nails and 2 chips. A large zoom is needed to
distinguish chips from nails.
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
20/IX/26 of Darius (Delegate of the chef) BM 79514
25/IX/26 of Darius Delegate of the chef BM 49999
26 of Darius; 24/[-]/00 of Xerxes (Delegate of the chef) BM 42567
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/[-]/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/[-]/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 I to IV.
Another letter (BM 75396)70 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]71" but
Stolper72 preferred to read "year 37" because that reading would have involved a 10-year
co-regency. Graziani73 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
half (he died around the 10/IX/36) and therefore could no longer be ruling. Furthermore,
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.
71 J.N. STRASSMAIER -Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum
(Actes du 8e congrès), EKBK18 1889 pp. 20-21.

72 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I
1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 p. 229 note 33.
in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 9 note 7.

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.
<< III III I

<< 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 papyrus74 (not on tablet).
74D. 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)75 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 occurred76 and also that the first dated event 14/V was no
connection with an eclipse (475 BCE = -474, P = Partial; T = Total; N = Penumbral):
75 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V
Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 20-21, 396.
76 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 BCE77 (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 III78 after the solar eclipse of 29/IV (dated 11 March 358 BCE)79:
[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°.
77 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.
78 F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1er millénaire avant J.C.
2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 145.

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.
40 SCIENTIFIC
BASIC ASTRONOMYAPPROACH TO AN ABSOLUTE
FOR HISTORIANS TO GET ACHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY 31
According
According toto astronomy,
astronomy, the
the total
total eclipse
eclipse dated
dated 13 13 December
December 317
317 BCE
BCE (-396)
(-396)
80
lasted 220 minutes and was total during 83 minutes 94. It began at 20:36 (local time) or 3:34
lasted 220 minutes and was total during 83 minutes . It began at 20:36 (local time) or 3:34
81
after
after sunset,
sunset, which
which was
was at
at 17:02
17:02 in
in Babylon
Babylon95.. This
This length
length of of 3:34
3:34 corresponds
corresponds to
to 54°.
54°.
Description
Description of of the
the eclipse
eclipse (total)
(total) according
according to
to the
the tablet
tablet according
according to
to astronomy
astronomy difference
difference
11stst onset [beginning]
onset [beginning] 44° after sunset
44° after sunset 54°
54° after sunset
after sunset 10°
10° (40
(40 min.)
min.)
11stst onset
onset –– 22nd
nd onset
onset [penumbra]
[penumbra] 19°
19° 17°
17° 2°
2° (8 min.)
(8 min.)
22nd onset
nd
onset –– 33rd onset
rd
onset [maximal]
[maximal] 5°
5° (20
(20 min.)
min.) 21°
21° (83
(83 min.)
min.) 16°
16° (64
(64 min.)
min.)
33rd
rd onset – 4 th onset [clearing]
onset – 4 onset [clearing]
th 16°
16° 17° (64 min.)
17° (64 min.) 1° (4 min.)
1° (4 min.)
11stst onset
onset –– 44th
th onset
onset [length]
[length] 40°
40° (160
(160 min.)
min.) 55°
55° (220
(220 min.)
min.) 15°
15° (60
(60 min.)
min.)
Partial eclipse dated 5 April

April 397 BCE
2'
2' Month
Month XIIXII22,, the
the 14
th
14th
3'
3' it began on
it began on the
the south
south side,
side,
4'
4' 1/4
1/4 of the disk was
of the disk was covered.
covered.
5'
5' It
It cleared to the
cleared to the west.
west. 27°
27°
6'
6' onset,
onset, maximal phase, and
maximal phase, and clearing.
clearing.
7'
7' The
The "garment of the sky" was there,
"garment of the sky" was there, the
the south
south wind
wind blew.
blew.
8'
8' At 48° after sunset.
At 48° after sunset.
According
According toto astronomy,
astronomy, this
this partial
partial eclipse
eclipse dated
dated 55 April
April 397
397 BCE
BCE (-396)
(-396) lasted
lasted 63
63
82
minutes and its magnitude (covered surface
minutes and its magnitude (covered surface of of the lunar disk) was 0.08 96. It began at 21:34
the lunar disk) was 0.08 . It began at 21:34
83
(local
(local time)
time) or
or 3:09
3:09 (189
(189 minutes)
minutes) after
after sunset
sunset97,, which
which was
was at
at 18:25
18:25 in
in Babylon.
Babylon. This
This length
length
84
of 189 minutes corresponds to 47°. As the "garment of the sky" means "rain-clouds
of 189 minutes corresponds to 47°. As the "garment of the sky" means "rain-clouds ", the 98", the
observation
observation had
had to
to be
be difficult.
difficult.
Description
Description of of the
the eclipse
eclipse (partial)
(partial) according
according to
to the
the tablet
tablet according
according to
to astronomy
astronomy difference
difference
11stst onset [beginning]
onset [beginning] 48° after sunset
48° after sunset 47°
47° after sunset
after sunset 1°
1° (4
(4 min.)
min.)
Covered
Covered surface
surface ofof the
the disk
disk 0.25
0.25 0.08
0.08 3X
3X
11st onset
st – 2 nd onset [length]
onset – 2 onset [length]
nd 27°
27° (108
(108 min.)
min.) 16°
16° (63
(63 min.)
min.) 11°
11° (44
(44 min.)
min.)
85
Huber
Huber99 compared
compared the the dates
dates given
given byby the
the astronomical
astronomical tablets
tablets with
with those
those obtained
obtained
in
in astronomy today. According to his analysis, indications concerning the beginning and
astronomy today. According to his analysis, indications concerning the beginning and
end
end ofof the
the eclipse
eclipse with
with respect
respect toto sunrise
sunrise and
and sunset
sunset cancan reach
reach aa maximum
maximum deviation
deviation of of
+/-
+/- 20° (+/- 1 hour 20 minutes) and indications of duration of the eclipse can reach aa
20° (+/- 1 hour 20 minutes) and indications of duration of the eclipse can reach
maximum
maximum deviation
deviation of of +/-
+/- 10°
10° (+/-
(+/- 40 40 minutes).
minutes). Huber
Huber explains
explains thethe origin
origin of
of these
these
differences by some difficulties of observing (when there were
differences by some difficulties of observing (when there were clouds for example), clouds for example),
copying
copying errors
errors in in the
the tablets,
tablets, misinterpretation
misinterpretation of of aa poorly
poorly preserved
preserved text,
text, false
false
identifications of eclipses especially when a
identifications of eclipses especially when an eclipsepredicted eclipse replaced a missing eclipse
predicted antheclipse replaced missing (or
st stnd ndrd rd
not observed). Finally the Babylonian concept of 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 contact
or not observed. At last the Babylonian concept of 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 contact (onset) mayth (onset) may be
slightly different
be slightly from
different fromthe the
present astronomical
present astronomicalconcept.
concept.
80
94 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0316-12-13T.gif
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0316-12-13T.gif
81
95 H.
H. H UNGER -- Astronomical
HUNGER Astronomical Diaries
Diaries and
and Related
Related Texts
Texts from
from Babylonia
Babylonia vol
vol VV
Wien
Wien 2001
2001 Ed.
Ed. Akademie
Akademie derder Wissenschaften
Wissenschaften pp.
pp. 6-7,
6-7, 395.
395.
F.R. SSTEPHENSON
F.R. TEPHENSON -- Historical
Historical Eclipses
Eclipses and
and Earth's
Earth's Rotation
Rotation
Cambridge
Cambridge 1997
1997 Ed.
Ed. Cambridge
Cambridge University
University Press
Press pp.
pp. 176-177.
176-177.
82 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0399--0300/LE-0396-04-05P.gif
83 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V pp. 12-13, 395.
97 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V pp. 12-13, 395.
F.R.
F.R. SSTEPHENSON
TEPHENSON -- Historical
Historical Eclipses
Eclipses and
and Earth's
Earth's Rotation
Rotation pp.
pp. 169-170.
169-170.
84 A. PARPOLA -The Sky-Garment. A Study of the Harappan Religion and Its Relation to the Mesopotamian and Later Indian Religions
98 A. PARPOLA -The Sky-Garment. A Study of the Harappan Religion and Its Relation to the Mesopotamian and Later Indian Religions
in:
in: Studia
Studia Orientalia
Orientalia vol.
vol. 57
57 (1985).
(1985).
99 P.J. H UBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC
Milano
Milano 2004
2004 Ed.
Ed. Mimesis
Mimesis pp.
pp. 3,22,28-31.
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 BCE86
Lunar eclipses in 465 BCE87
Stolper88 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
86 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
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0499--0400/LE-0464-11-29T.gif
88 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.
eclipses does not match that indicated on the tablet (BM 32234) because the 1st eclipse was
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 Type of mag. according agreement
to the tablet eclipse to the tablet
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 end mag. sunrise sunset

1st 2nd 3rd 4th
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 end mag. sunrise sunset
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
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 calculated89 according to some theories poorly understood90.
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°) East91. With astronomy software it is possible to
see the sky at one point and at a given time92 (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).
Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis p. 7.
90 N.M. SWERDLOW - The Babylonian Theory of the Planets
1998 New Jersey Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 44,45.

91 http://www.astro.com/cgi/aq.cgi?lang=e
92 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
7 IV BM 42567 dated 24/[III?]/00 and year 26
8 V
9 VI BM 30589 dated 20/III/26 (New Palace)
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

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
10 VII
11 VIII Babylonian revolts (Esther 2:21-3:7)
12 IX *** OECT 10 176 dated 5/IX/11 (Kish)
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, can not 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 revolts93. 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)94. 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 place95. 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 Esther96 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
King Ahasuerus. But the thing came to be known to Mordecai, and he soon revealed to Esther the queen.
93 Herodotus wrote: one year after Darius death (in 485 BCE), Xerxes attacked the [Babylonian?] rebels (The Histories VII:7).
94 Ctesias states that Megabyzus who suppressed the revolt and took Babylon.
Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 257.

96 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
(Esther 2:15-17), and her name is close to Amestris (Ama-stari “strong woman”). Amestris would be 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).
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 (Esther 2:21-3:7). We also note that Mordecai appears as
debtor of Uštanu in a contract (dated c. 490 BCE by Ungnad97 through prosopography).
The biblical text also mentions the presence of Tattenai (Ezra 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 Darius98).
The destruction (maybe partial?) of the famous sanctuary of Marduk had to
destabilize the Babylonian administration and may explain, in part, the disappearance of the
Babylonian archives99 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 (Esther 3:7-10), at the beginning of his effective reign (Ezra 4:6).
Cameron100 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. Waerzeggers101 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/21102.
King Tablet Year of Date Place Titulature
Xerxes
Xerxes BSCAS 32 n°2 11 02/I/11 [Uruk] ?
JCS 1, 350 n°2 [11?] 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 04/VI/00 Harru-mîlû King of Babylon
Xerxes BM 36304 [11?] 15/VI/[-] Babylon? King of Kings
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 ?
97 A. UNGNAD - Neubabylonische Privaturkunden aus der Sammlung Amherst

in: Archiv für Orientforschung XIX (1959-1960) pp. 80-81.
98 M.W. STOLPER – The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48 (1989) pp. 290-291.

99 According to the biblical text (Ezra 5:17-6:2; Esther 6:1), the archives were located mainly in Babylon in rolls.
100 G.G. CAMERON – Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia
in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58 (1941) pp. 314-325.
101 C. WAERZEGGERS – The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes andthe ‘End of Archives’
in: Archiv für Orientforschung 50 (2003/2004) pp. 150-172.

102 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
contracts103 shows us (see 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
3 XII
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
A Chronicle fragment and an astronomical fragment enable the dating of these

Babylonian revolts. The Chronicle fragment reads104 (BM 36304):
3. [...] they removed him [from the t]hrone. To [...]
4. [...]
5. [...] his few [troop]s from the troops [...]
6. [...] he slew. The army of Hanu, his troops wh[ich ...]
7. [...] son of Darius, king of kin[gs... ]
8. [...] on the 15th day, he put Kidinnu to the sword. In the month Elul (VI), on the [...]
9. [...] Yanu, the city of Guti [...]
10. from the p]alace of Babylon they sent out [...]
The only certain clue to the chronological position of this fragment is the apparent
reference to Xerxes (in line 7). In the first section which is at all legible there is mention of
armies, fighting, and the Haneans. In the following, succinct section it stated that Kidinnu
was slain. Finally one finds a section in which a military defeat is recorded (reverse line 12).
Although the data are fragmentary they describe a revolt, dated 15/VI during Xerxes’ reign.
The astronomical fragment reads105 (JCS 1, 350 n°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 [...]
103 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])
104 K. GRAYSON – Texts from Cuneiform Sources Volume V Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
Winona Lake 2000 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 24, 112-113.

105 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
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 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 sky106 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
center. An astronomical simulation107 indicates (see below) that Mars was in the center of
the constellation of Cancer around the 9 April -484 (485 BCE), that matched to Nisan (first
month of Babylonian year), and again108 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
106 D. LEVY – Skywatching. The ultimate guide to the Universe

London 1995, Ed. Collins, p. 144.
107 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon
108 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 heir109.
A contract under Artaxerxes I, refers to a previous arrangement dated IX/21 of
110
Xerxes , 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 Artaxerxes111. 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.
475 1 X 20
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 21 Xerxes I
5 II
6 III (Total lunar eclipse of June 26, 475 BCE)
7 IV
8 V
9 VI (21) 1 (Xerxes I) / Artabanus
10 VII 2
11 VIII 3 (Partial lunar eclipse of December 20, 475 BCE)
12 IX 4
474 1 X 0 5 Artaxerxes I / Artabanus
2 XI 6 (met by Themistocles)
3 XII 7
4 I 1 Artaxerxes I
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
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).
Stolper112 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.
110 H.H. FIGULLA - Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period
London 1949 Ed. Harrison & sons p. 15 text n° 193.

111 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English
Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 164-165.

112 M.W. STOLPER - The Estate of Mardonius
in: Aula Orientalis Vol. X 1992 pp. 211-221.

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 Memphis113 (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 Xerxes114. A royal receipt dated year 13
of Xerxes115 (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
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) 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
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
113 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.
114 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3
1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. 195-203.

115 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 BCE, Themistocles,
who died in 471 BCE, could not have met him. Aware of this aberration, many historians
today move the death of Themistocles in 460 or even in 450 BCE. 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 old116.
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), 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 old (which means to have been around
50 or more) when he took the head of the Athenian forces during the Median wars117.
116 C. ORRIEUX, P. SCHMITT PANTEL - Histoire grecque.
Paris 1995 Ed. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 165,197.
117 J. STOBAEI - Florilegium CXVII:9 Vol. III
TRANSITION ARTAXERXES I / DARIUS II
TRANSITION ARTAXERXES I / DARIUS II
According to the conventional chronology, mainly from Ptolemy's Royal Canon,

According
supplemented to the conventional
by information from the chronology, mainly(Herodotus,
ancient historians from Ptolemy's Royaletc.),
Manetho, Canon,
the
supplemented by information from the ancient historians (Herodotus, Manetho, etc.),
following scheme was accepted (Artaxerxes accession is supposed to be in 465 BCE): the
following schema was accepted (Artaxerxes accession is supposed to be in 465 BCE):
year
424 month
1 X year
40 of reign Artaxerxes I
424 12 XXI 40 Artaxerxes I
23 XI
XII
34 XII
I 1 (41) Xerxes II
45 III 12 (41) Xerxes II
56 II
III 21 Sogdianus
67 III
IV 12 Sogdianus
78 IV
V 23
89 VVI 34
910 VI
VII 45
10
11 VII
VIII 56
11
12 VIII
IX 67
423 12
1 IX
X 07 Darius II
423 12 XXI 0 Darius II
23 XI
XII
34 XII
I 1
45 III 1
5 II
Statistical spreading of tablets118

98
Because of the small number of tablets the chronology of Artaxerxes reign was
119
hard to verify. However,
However, the
the discovery
discovery of
of the
the Murashu archives99 completely changed the
Murashu archives
previous reconstitution since a co-regency of several months (up till month XII)120 100
121
appeared between Artaxerxes I and Darius instead of a period ruled by two usurpers .
101
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
1824
98 J. ELipsiae
VERLING Ed.– Thomas
MaterialsGaisford p. 392.of First Millenium B.C. Babylonian Texts
for the Study
118
2000J. EParis
VERLING – Materials
Bibliothèque for the Study
du Collège of First
de France Millenium
(Assyrie) cote: B.C. Babylonian Texts
TP-Everling.
2000
99 M.W. Paris Bibliothèque
STOLPER du Collègeand
- Entrepreneurs de France
Empire.(Assyrie) cote: TP-Everling.
The Murashu Archive
119 M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive
Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 13-24.
Leiden
100 V. DIstambul
ONBAZ, M.W.1985 pp. 13-24.– Istanbul Murasu Texts
STOLPER
120 V. DONBAZ, M.W. STOLPER – Istanbul Murasu Texts
in: Pihans 79 (1997) Leiden-Istanbul.
in: Pihans
101 L. 79 (1997)
DEPUYDT Leiden-Istanbul.
- The Date of Death of Artaxerxes I
121 L. DEPUYDT - The Date of Death of Artaxerxes I
in: Die Welt des Orients XXVI (1995) pp. 86-96.
in: Die Welt des Orients XXVI (1995) pp. 86-96.
48 SCIENTIFIC
DATING THE REIGNS OF XERXES
APPROACH TO ANAND ARTAXERXES
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY 53
SomeSome scholars scholars have suggested

have suggested that scribes
that scribes who had whodated
had dated contracts
contracts in theinyear
the41 year 41
102 103
of Artaxerxes
of Artaxerxes were unaware
were unaware that Darius
that Darius had begun
had begun to reignto122
reign , butisthis
, but this is unlikely
unlikely 123
. Aware . Aware
of thisofdifficulty
this difficulty
some some have proposed
have proposed to reduce
to reduce the duration
the duration of theofcoregency
the coregency by reading
by reading
104
XI instead
XI instead of IV,ofbut IV,Stolper
but Stolper
124
acknowledges:
acknowledges: LeichtyLeichty
(1974)(1974) as Walker
as Walker (1979)(1979)
observedobserved
that that
although
although the signtheof sign of the month
the month is moreislike
morethat
likeŠU
thatthan
"UZIZ,
than itZIZ, it is partially
is partially broken,broken,
damaged damaged along the
along the
bottombottom andedge.
and right rightThus,
edge. Thus, the reading
the reading 25/IV/4125/IV/41 accession
accession of Darius
of Darius (on tablet
(on tablet BM 33342BM 33342
below)below)
seemsseemsmost mostlikely.likely. He added
He added that since
that since Artaxerxes
Artaxerxes died around
died around -424 in -424 in March
March at theat the
end ofendhisof
40his
th
40thof
year year of reign,
reign, the Babylonian
the Babylonian scribes scribes
were were well aware
well aware of hisofdeath
his death
in theon12theth
12th
monthmonth
of thisofyear.
this Stolper
year. Stolper
thoughtthought that Darius
that Darius II wasIIimmediately
was immediatelyadmittedadmitted to Babylon
to Babylon
along along with Xerxes
with Xerxes II, Sogdianus
II, Sogdianus being being only recognized
only recognized in Persiain Persia
beforebefore
being being assassinated.
assassinated.
Chronological reconstitution
Chronological currently
reconstitution accepted
currently is as follows:
accepted is as follows:
year monthmonth
year year ofyear
reignof reign
424 1
424 X1 40
X 40 Artaxerxes I
Artaxerxes I
2 XI2 XI
3 XII
3 XII 1 [Artaxerxes
1 I] / I] /
[Artaxerxes / Xerxes II
/ Xerxes II
4 I4 I41 41 2 2
5 II5 II 1 [Artaxerxes
1 I] / I] /
[Artaxerxes / Sogdianus
/ Sogdianus
6 III
6 III 2 2
7 IV7 IV 0 03 [Artaxerxes
3 I] / Darius
[Artaxerxes II / Sogdianus
I] / Darius II / Sogdianus
8 V8 V 4 4
9 VI9 VI 5 5
10 VII
10 VII 6 6
11 VIII
11 VIII 7 7
12 IX12 IX [Artaxerxes I] / Darius
[Artaxerxes II
I] / Darius II
423 1
423 X1 X
2 XI2 XI
3 XII
3 XII
4 I4 (42)
I 1
(42) 1 DariusDarius
II II
5 II5 II
122 F.X. K-UGLER

F.X. K102UGLER - Sternkunde
Sternkunde und Sterndienst
und Sterndienst in Babel in
11Babel 11
MünsterMünster 1907,
1907, 1912 1912 p. 312.
p. 312.
123 D.M. 103 D.M.- L
LEWIS - Sparta
EWIS and
Sparta and Persia
Persia
Leiden
Leiden 1977 Ed.1977
E.J. Ed.
BrillE.J.
pp. Brill
70-72.pp. 70-72.
124 M.W.104 M.W. STOLPER
STOLPER - The Death- TheofDeath of Artaxerxes
Artaxerxes I I
1983in:Berlin
1983 Berlin in: Archäologische
Archäologische Mitteilungen
Mitteilungen auspp.
aus Iran 16 Iran223-236.
16 pp. 223-236.
Although it is generally accepted that reconstitution is absurd because it implies a

co-regency with a dead king. Indeed, 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%)125 dated March 21, 424 BCE. However, as the 1st of Nisan fell on April
20126 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)127 and the 1st Nisan (= 1st
crescent appearing after the equinox) fell on April 20 in 424 BCE. As there was an
intercalary month128 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 42129. 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.

434 1 X 40 Artaxerxes I
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).
125 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0499--0400.html
126 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
127 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php
128 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.
129 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 enough130:
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
P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre
130
Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 586-589, 793, 1029.

involve the kingdom anew in wars and contests, he [Artaxerxes] proclaimed Darius, then 50 years of
age131, his successor to the throne, and gave him permission to wear the upright "kitanis," as the tiara was
called (...) Accordingly, it was adding fire to fire when Tiribzus 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 Tiribzus; 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 Tiribzus and his friends to be off since their plot was known.
The rest, then, were dispersed and fled; but Tiribzus 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 a hundred and fifteen sons by his
concubines, but only three 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
131 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).
his son while he lived. But Darius, after such an extraordinary proof of his father’s affection, conceived the
design of killing 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 archives132 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
132M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive

Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 23-24.
Tablet BM 65494 dated 4/VI/50 of Artaxerxes I
Stolper reconstituted the prosopography of Murashu's family and has dated it

according to the accepted chronology133. 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 rejuvenation134. By contrast, taking into account
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
133 M.W. STOLPER - The Genealogy of the Murashu Family

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies XXVIII (1976) pp. 189-200.
134 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) 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), 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
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI Tablet BM 65494 dated 4/VI/50 of Artaxerxes
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
424 1 X
2 XI
3 XII 1 0? (Solar eclipse dated March 21, 424 BCE)
4 I 2 [1] (51) Xerxes II
5 II 3
6 III 4 [0] Sogdianus
7 IV 5
8 V 6
9 VI 7
10 VII 8
11 VIII 9
12 IX 10 Tablet dated 14/IX/00 of Darius
423 1 X 0 Darius II
2 XI
3 XII Tablet CBM 12803 dated 20/XII/51 and accession of Darius
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 mentioned135. 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,
D. LENFANT - Ctésias de Cnide, la Perse
135
Paris 2004 Ed. Les Belles Lettres pp. CVI-CVII.

60 SCIENTIFIC
DATING THEAPPROACH
REIGNS TO XERXES
OF AN AND A
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
RTAXERXES 55
but the soldiers hated him because he he had

had killed his brother
brother Xerxes and and Bagorazos.
Bagorazos. Sogdianus
Sogdianus sends Ochos Ochos
a message that demand.
demand. The other promises to come, but does not show
to come, but does not show up. up. The incident
incident repeated many
is repeated many
times. Finally, Ochos surrounded by a large army army and
and is expected
expected toto see
see him
him prevail.
prevail. Arbarios,
Arbarios, headhead ofof the
the
cavalry Sogdianus and Arxan, satrap of Egypt, have defected to Ochos.
defected Ochos. The eunuch Artoxares comes
Artoxares comes from from
Armenia to join Ochos and they cause cause him
him to wear
wear the crown in spite of himself. Ochos Ochos became
became king
king and
changed his name to Darius. He pursues Sogdianus with his betrayals and his oaths, oaths, following advice
following the advice ofof
Parysatis while Menostanes
Menostanes regularly
regularly calls
calls Sogdianus
Sogdianus not to relyrely on
on oaths
oaths andand not toto negotiate
negotiate with
with people
people
who seek to deceive him. Sogdianus is convincing nonetheless leaves, he falls into their
nonetheless leaves, he falls into their hands, hands, he is thrown
thrown
into the ashes
ashes and dies after a reign of 6 months and and 15 days.
days. Ochos
Ochos aka aka Darius,
Darius, is only one one ruler
ruler
(Persica F14§46]-F15§50).
F14 [46]-F15 [50]). Polyaenus gives another chronological detail: After the death ofof
Polyaenus gives another chronological detail: After the death
Artaxerxes,
Artaxerxes, his son son Ochus [Darius II] realised that he would not immediately have the the same
same authority
authority
over his subjects, which hishis father had. Therefore he prevailed
had. Therefore he prevailed upon the
the eunuchs, the stewards, and
eunuchs, the stewards, and the
the
captain of the guard, to conceal the death ofof his father
father for
for aa period of 10 months. In the meantime, he wrote
letters in his father's name, and sealed
sealed them
them with
with the
the royal
royal signet,
signet, commanding
commanding his subjectssubjects toto acknowledge
acknowledge
Ochus as their king, and to pay homage to him. When this decree decree had
had been
been obeyed
obeyed by by all his subjects,
subjects,
Ochus announced the death of
death of his father, and ordered
father, and ordered a general mourning for him, according to the
the custom
custom
of the Persians (Stratagems of war war VII:17).
VII:17).
136
Tablet CBM 12803
12803116 dated
dated 20/XII/51 accession year of
of Darius
Darius II
II
Transcription Translation
Translation
1 22 ½# ma-na kaspu šîmu !îmu 55 biltu šipâtu
!ipâtucol
col 2½ # mines of silver, price ofof 5 talents ofof wool
wool
2 mdDan-nu-a
md ê-šu-ibni
Dan-nu-a"ê-!u-ibni
ḫ aplu ša
!a Dannu-ahêshu-ibni son of
3 mmBêl-iddina
Bêl-iddina ina qât mmBêl-šu-nu
Bêl-!u-nu aplu ša !a Bêl-iddina received from the the hand of Bêlshunu, sonson
4 mmMan-nu-ki-
Man-nu-ki-ddNanâNanâ ina na-aš-pa-aš-tum
na-a!-pa-a!-tum of Mannu-ki-Nanâ the order
5 ša
!a mmEllil-šum-iddina
Ellil-!um-iddina ma-ḫ"i-ir of Ellil-shum-iddina.
6 u-ša-az-za-az-ma
u-!a-az-za-az-ma kaspu-’ 22 ½ # [ma-na]
[ma-na] He will deliver silver, that isis 22 ½
# mines
7 mdDan-nu-a
md
Dan-nu-aḫ"ê-su-ibni itti mmEllil-šum-iddina
Ellil-!um-iddina Dannu-ahêshu-ibni with Ellil-shum-iddina
8 ana mmBêl-šu-nu
ana Bêl-!u-nu i-nam-din paying for Bêlshunu
Bêlshunu
(... names of 5 witnesses (... names of 5 witnesses
15 ...)
...) iti še
!e ud 20-kàm
20-kàm mu mu 51-kàm
51-kàm ...) month XII,
XII, day 20,
20, year 51
51 [of Artaxerxes I],
16 mu
mu sag-nam-lugal-e da-ri-a-muš
da-ri-a-mu! lugal kur-[kur] accession year of of Darius king
king ofof lands.
lands.
136
116 A.T.
A.T. C LAY -- Legal
CLAY Legal and
and Commercial
Commercial Transactions
Transactions Dated
Dated in
in the
the Assyrian
Assyrian (...)
(...) Persian
Persian Periods
Periods
in:
in: The
The Babylonian
Babylonian Expedition
Expedition vol.
vol. VIII
VIII (1908)
(1908) p.
p. 34.
34.
TRANSITION DARIUS II / DARIUS III
The tablet CBS 1714137 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):

405 1 X 18
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 19 Darius II / Artaxerxes II
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI Tablet AO 17606 dated 02/VI/19
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)138 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 Syncellus139. 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).

359 1 X 45 (2) Artaxerxes II / Artaxerxes III
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 46 (3)
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
358 1 X Tablet VS 6, 186 dated 10/VIII/46
2 XI 0 Artaxerxes III
3 XII
4 I 1
5 II
6 III

in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) N°1 pp.6-9.
in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) N°6 pp. 9-12.


Artaxerxes III death is dated in month VI (September 338 BCE) in the

astronomical tablet BM 71537140 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 Macedonia141, dated
20/XII/02 (March 19, 335 BCE) in a papyrus from Wadi Dâliyeh142. 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)143.
338 1 X 20 Artaxerxes III
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 21
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI Tablet TCL 6, 56 dated 15/VII/21
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
336 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 2
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
2 XI
Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 45,398.

142 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.
143 J.A. BRINKMAN - BM 36761, the Astronomical Diary for 331 B.C.
in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987) §63.


4 I 2 Darius III
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
333 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 3
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
332 1 X
2 XI
3 XII
4 I 4
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
331 1 X
2 XI
3 XII Tablet UET 4, 25 dated 20/XII/4
4 I 5
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII [0] Alexander the Great (III)
11 VIII
330 1 X
2 XI
3 XII 6 Arasiuqa (?) BRM 2, 51 dated XII/6
4 I [1] 7
5 II
6 III
7 IV
8 V
9 VI
10 VII
11 VIII
12 IX
329 1 X
2 XI
3 XII Tablet CBS 7345 dated 08/XII/7
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 6144.
144 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 Coregent Official

reign 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
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 II145:
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 calculations146 (the
computed data in diaries appear roughly before 350 BCE)147. 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 year148.
145 J. FINEGAN - Handbook of Biblical Chronology
Massachusetts 1999 Ed. Hendrickson Publishers pp. 27-28.
146 J.M. STEELE – Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East
Oxford 2007 Ed. Oxbow Books pp. 120-123.

147 F. ROCHBERG-HALTON – Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50:2 (1991) pp. 107-120.

148 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 periods149, with some
exceptions. However, Parker and Dubberstein assumed, because of these anomalies, the
Babylonian calendar had really been standardized as from -367 instead of -500150.
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 40151, but also in the years 42, 43, 44 and 45152, 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
3A 536 A A A a A a A A A a
4 535 U
5 534 A A A
6A 533 A A A a a a A A A a
7 532 A
8A 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° 3A 2 A° 366 a° 3A 2
364 4 a 3A 365 4 A 3A A
383 5 4 364 5 4
382 A° 6A 5 A° 363 A° 6A 5 A°
381 7 a 6A 362 7 A 6A A
380 a° 8A 7 361 A° 8A 7 A°
379 9 a 8A a 360 9 A 8A 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)
149 J.P. BRITTON – Treatments of Annual Phenomena in Cuneiform Sources
in: Under One Sky (Münster 2002) Ed. Ugarit-Verlag pp. 25-35.
150 R.A. PARKER, W.H. DUBBERSTEIN - Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75
Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 1-6.

151 H.G. STIGERS - Art 2. XIIb.11.40
in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28 (1976) note 47.

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 Reign Reign cycle

X with co-regency without co-regency 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
489 3A 7?A (Persepolis) 33 33 12
488 4 8 34 34 13
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 inscriptions153, 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 Egyptian154, 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, Master of crowns
King of Babylon and of lands
10th year – 21th year King of lands Lord of the two lands
153 G. POSENER - La première domination perse en Égypte

Le Caire 1936 Ed. IFAO pp. 92, 120-124, 162.
154 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".
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 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
rd
the 63 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.
Length according to: dates: official reign actual reign
Cambyses II 526 - 6 years 6 years
Darius I 36 years 36 years
Xerxes I 20 years 21 years
Artaxerxes I 40 years 51 years
Darius II 19 years 19 years
Artaxerxes II -403 2 years 2 years
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 Ptolemy155, which
is still in agreement with recent studies156. 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.
155 R.S. PARKER – Persian and Egyptian Chronology
in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages 58:3 (1941) pp. 285-301.
156 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 Parker157, 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 absurdity158, to begin the month by an observation which is in fact a
non-observation, his work is always considered as authoritative. Depuydt159, 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, 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 Depuydt160 who prefers to date the death of Amasis in -527 in his 44th
year, assuming that the 4th year of Cambyses (at -526) 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 and not in -527.
157 R.A. PARKER - The Calendars of Ancient Egypt
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago.
158 A.J. SPALINGER – Revolutions in Time: Studies in Ancient Egyptian Calendrics
Texas 1994 Ed. Van Siclen Books p. 15.

159 L. DEPUYDT - Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt
Leuven 1997 Ed. Uitgevers Peeters pp. 164-165, 203-207.

160 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
4 I Egypt defeated 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 years161 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 Manetho162: 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
The reign of Amasis is counted from the revolt after the attack of Nebuchadnezzar II in -582.
161
W.G. WADDELL - Manetho (Loeb Classical Library 350)

162
Cambridge 1956 Ed. Harvard University Press pp. 169-177.

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 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 Udjahorresnet163, 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 III164 (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 text165, 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
164 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).
165 Papyrus Rylands IX 21.
4th year of Cambyses166. 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 as last year167. 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 leaders168, 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)169 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
Itourodj son of Inarou, his
[mother] being Itourou,
(choachyte = mummies guardian)
Tacherou and the choachyte Djechy
son of Tesmont, total 3 men:
“It is we who have caused the choachyte
Petosiris son of Itourodj 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:


168 R.A. PARKER - Persian and Egyptian Chronology
in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures LVIII/3 (1941) pp. 298-301.
169 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.
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 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 astronomy170. 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
Julian computation
4 January 5 January 6 January
Egyptian computation
16 Thoth 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
Xerxes involve an accession in 496 BCE (the full moon of 1st Elul fell on August 29 in
171
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
170http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
171B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English
Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 18, 153-161.
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.
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 counterpart172. Stern173 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
Macnaughton174, for three reasons:
Ø He felt that Macnaughton was an eccentric175 (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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
172 S. STERN - The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine
in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) pp. 159-171.
173 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.

174 D. MACNAUGHTON - A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology
London 1932 Ed. Luzac and co. pp. 145-151.

in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago p. 9.

achieve the filling of the eye Wedjat176 (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.
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
E.A.W. BUDGE - Gods of the Egyptian Vol II

176
1969 Ed. Dover Publications p. 321.

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.
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
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.
According to Depuydt177: 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).
Amasis BCE Lunar calendar Civil calendar Julian day Full moon
year (day 1) (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
177 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.
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
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
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
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).
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. Peace178. After the conquest
of Egypt by Cambyses Egypt became a Persian satrapy but most of the scribes were
Egyptians or Jews179. Persian officials at Elephantine were familiar with three kinds of lunar
calendar (Elamite, Old-Persian, Babylonian), which appear in Darius I's inscriptions at
Behistun180. Jewish scribes at Elephantine were familiar with different calendars181, 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 yerah182 "lunation"
178 A. LEMAIRE – Recherches d'épigraphie araméenne en Asie mineure et en Égypte
in: Achaemenid History V (1991) Ed. Nederlands Instituut Leiden pp.199-201.
179 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 Kings 23:34, Jeremiah 26:21-23, 42:14). After the
murder of Gedaliah, many of these Jews emigrated to Egypt (Jeremiah 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.
Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 171-174.

181 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte
in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 33-63, 509-510.
182 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3
1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. XXXVI.

(implying the [full] moon), to designate the month while at the same time, in Judea, the
Jews of Arad used only the word hodesh "new" (implying the new [moon])183. 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 month184. At that time there were the following equivalences among calendars185:
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
186
In the Hebrew Bible , 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
inscriptions187 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 sense188. 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
pattern189 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 BCE190.
The reform of the calendar is dated in the 5th year of Darius II (419 BCE) but as often
happens, reforms are not fully followed191. At Elephantine the main system of dating was
183 G.I. DAVIES - Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance
Cambridge 1991 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 14,15,348.
184 A. LEMAIRE -Inscriptions hébraïques Tome I, Les Ostraca
In: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°9 Paris 1977 Ed. Cerf pp. 168,231.

186 The word "full moon (Proverbs 7:20)" is kese in Hebrew or lebanah "the white one (Isaiah 30:26)".
187 H. DONNER, W. RÖLLING - Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften
Wiesbaden 2002 Ed. Harrassowitzp. 9 N°3.

188 J.A. WAGENAAR - Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations
in: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115 (2003) p. 7 note 9.

189 J. MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI - Les Juifs d'Égypte de Ramsès II à Hadrien
Paris 1991 Éd. Errance p. 37

190 A. VINCENT - La religion des judéo-araméens d'Éléphantine
Paris 1937 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner pp. 267-274.

191 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".
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 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 7848192 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
September193 and as the II Shemu 1 (lunar) began on full moon (10 September)194,
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 Kislev195, 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 Artaxerxes196. 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 crescent197 after the spring equinox (26 March)198,
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
192 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.
193 http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/convertisseur/
194 http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 174-178.
196 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English
Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 164-165.

197 http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php
198 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 indicated199 (see below), for example
(papyrus N°40): 3 Kislev, year 8 [Babylonian reckoning], which is 12 Thoth, year 9 [Egyptian
in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 198-207.
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.
Egyptian lunar calendar record
Very early (at least since the Fifth Dynasty) the Egyptians used two calendars: 1) a
civil calendar (with a year of 365 days consisting of 12 months of 30 days and completed by
5 days "in addition") in order to date their documents and 2) a religious schedule to
determine the days of their numerous festivals linked to the moon200. The Egyptians
distinguished "seasonal festivals", celebrated in their civil calendar, from "sky festivals"
related to the lunar cycle. A major point has to be noted: the Egyptians were concerned
only by the increasing part of the lunar cycle, never by its decreasing part. So they
celebrated their lunar festivals during the 15 last days (half a month) of the full lunar
month. Obviously, the feast of psdntyw "shining ones" was the starting point, day 1 of the
full month corresponding to day 15 of the half-month, which was sometimes dated in the
civil calendar, and also the wag feast (day 18 of the full month, called "day of the moon",
corresponding to day 2 of the half-month, called "month day").
An Egyptian document describes numerous lunar festivals201 that occurred during
the 19 years of Sesostris III's reign, followed by the 45 years of Amenemhat III202. This
shows that the lunar days203 psdntyw which were dated in the civil calendar (dates highlighted
in dark green) fit together in a cycle of 25 years. Few wag feasts that have been dated
(highlighted in blue sky) fall on lunar day 17 (instead of theoretical day 18). These dates are
shifted by one day in relation to those of Parker who translated the word "up to" in an
inclusive way204, not exclusive. This document can be dated precisely thanks to the Sothic
rising of IV Peret 16 Year 7 of Sesostris III since, according to astronomy205, it took place
on July 11 around -1850 (in Thebes). This heliacal rising of Sirius is dated between -1849
and -1846 owing to the equality: IV Peret 16 = July 11. The table below checks that the
first lunar cycle of 25 years (beginning on I Akhet 1) coincided with the full moon of
November 30, 1857 BCE. In addition, the Sothic rising of IV Peret 16 Year 7 of Sesostris
III, dated July 11, 1848 BCE, coincided with the first lunar crescent, which ha to be a
remarkable event (IV Peret 1 coincided with the full moon of June 26, 1848 BCE).
Colour Event
Lunar day 1 (psdntyw) dated in the civil calendar
* Lunar day 1 shifted one day compared to the theoretical cycle
Wag Feast dated in the civil calendar
Heliacal rising of Sirius dated in the civil calendar
200 A. SPALINGER - The Private Feast Lists of Ancient Egypt

Wiesbaden 1996 Ed. Harrassowitz pp. 9-72.
A. SPALINGER - The Lunar System in Festival Calendars from the New Kingdom Onwards
in: Société d'Égyptologie N°19 (1995) Genève pp. 25-40.
in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization N°26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago pp. 63-67.
202 C. OBSOMER - Sésostris Ier. Étude chronologique et historique du règne
Bruxelles 1995 Éd. Connaissance ancienne de l'Égypte p. 149.

203 U. LUFT – Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches
Wien 1992 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 150,151.

R. KRAUSS - Arguments in Favor of a Low Chronology for the Middle and New Kingdom
in: The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern (M. Bietak 2003) pp. 175-197
204 L.E. ROSE – The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom
in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 53 (1994) pp. 247-248.

205 Thebes: Longitude 32° 39' East, Latitude 25° 42' North; Arcus visionis 8.5°.
http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php
Year AKHET PERET SHEMU

1857 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct.
1856 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1855 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
Sesostris III 1854 1 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1853 2 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1852 3 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1851 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1850 5 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1849 6 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1848 7 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 16 30 29 29 28
1847 8 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1846 9 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1845 10 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1844 11 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1843 12 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1842 13 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1841 14 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1840 15 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1839 16 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1838 17 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1837 18 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 17 1 30
1836 19 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
Amenemhat III 1835 1 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1834 2 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27
1833 3 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1832 4 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6
1831 5 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1830 6 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14
1829 7 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1828 8 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1827 9 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 29 12 12
1826 10 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1825 11 7 25 25 *25 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
1824 12 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
1823 13 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28
1822 14 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18
1821 15 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
1820 16 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26
1819 17 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15
1818 18 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4
1817 19 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24
1816 20 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13
1815 21 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2
1814 22 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21
1813 23 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
1812 24 20 *6 5 4 4 3 3 *3 2 1 1 1 30
1811 25 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19
1810 26 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8
1809 27 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27
1808 28 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17
1807 29 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 *8 7 6 6
1806 30 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25
1805 31 2 19 *20 *19 *19 18 *18 17 *17 16 15 15 14
1804 32 3 9 *9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3
1803 33 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23
1802 34 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12
1801 35 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
1800 36 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20
Lunar dates have not been translated into the civil calendar, except sometimes the
lunar day 1 (psdntyw), because these dates had no practical value. There were some
exceptions with the lunar days coinciding with a unique astronomical event such as a helical
rising of Sirius. We find such an example with the dating: III Shemu 9 "Opening of the Year" in
the Ebers papyrus (below)206 dated year 9 of Amenhotep I.
Year 9, in the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Djoser-ka-Ra [Amenhotep I], living forever.
Opening of the Year: III Shemu 9 Rise of Sirius

[festival of] Thoth IV " 9 "
[festival of] Consent I Akhet 9 "
[festival of] Hathor II " 9 "
[festival of] Soul of Horus bull III " 9 "
[festival of] Honored spelt IV " 9 "
[festival of] Flare I Peret 9 "
[festival of] Flare II " 9 "
[festival of] Cheering III " 9 "
[festival of] Khonsu IV " 9 "
[festival of] South I Époque 9 "
[festival of] Opet's majesty II " 9 "
It is indeed a lunar date because the Sothic rising is dated July 11 (around -1500)
and the date in the civil calendar should have been III Shemu 14 (July 11). The number "9"
in Egyptian (psd) also means "shine", which also explains the connection between the lunar
day 1 psdntyw "those shining ones", the Ennead of gods (psdt) and the Nine Bows (psdt).
Note that this date has not been converted into the civil calendar: III Shemu 9 (lunar)
/ III Shemu 14 (civil) as with the year 12 of Amasis, but was connected with the main
religious festival called "Opening of the Year" celebrated on this month. The same
procedure is also applied to other lunar months. Over time all the lunar months would be
A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité
206
London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 32-33.

82
88 SSCIENTIFIC
CIENTIFICAPPROACH
APPROACHTO
TOAN
ANABSOLUTE
ABSOLUTECHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
THROUGHSYNCHRONISMS
THROUGH SYNCHRONISMSDATED
DATEDBY
BYASTRONOMY
ASTRONOMY
177
designated by
designated by the
the name
name ofof the
the main
main festival
festival celebrated
celebrated during
during this
this month
month207 (with an
(with an
apparentstabilization
apparent stabilizationfrom
from1100
-1100).
BCE).ByBya aprocess
processofof assimilation,
assimilation, civil calendar
calendar months
months
178
(high-lined) have received in turn the names of their related lunar months
(highlighted below) have received in turn the names of their related lunar months . . 208
Lunar
Lunarmonth
month Ebers
Ebersfestival
festival Civil
Civilmonth
month Later
Laterfestival
festival Greek
Greektranscription
transcription
11 III
IIIShemu
Shemu Wp-rnpt
Wp-rnpt Horus
Horus55days
days Epagomenon
Epagomenon
22 IVIVShemu
Shemu TTḫ" I IAkhet
Akhet DDḥ#wty
wty Thoth
Thoth 11
33 I IAkhet
Akhet MnMnḫ"t t IIIIAkhet
Akhet P3n-ipt
P3n-ipt Phaophi
Phaophi 22
4 4 IIIIAkhet Ḥt-ḥr III
IIIAkhet Ḥwt-ḥr Hathyr 33
Akhet $t-#r Akhet $wt-#r Hathyr
55 III
IIIAkhet
Akhet K3K3ḥ#rk3rk3 IVIVAkhet
Akhet K3
K3ḥ#rk3
rk3 Khoiak
Khoiak 4 4
66 IVIVAkhet
Akhet Šfb-dt
"fb-dt I IPeret
Peret T3‘3bt
T3‘3bt Tybi
Tybi 55
77 I IPeret
Peret RkRkḥ#[wr][wr] IIIIPeret
Peret [P3n]-M
[P3n]-Mḫ"r r Mecheir
Mecheir 66
88 IIIIPeret
Peret RkRkḥ#[nds]
[nds] III
IIIPeret
Peret P3n-imn
P3n-imnḥ#tptp Phamenoth
Phamenoth 77
99 III
IIIPeret
Peret Rnnwt
Rnnwt IVIVPeret
Peret P3n-Rnntt
P3n-Rnntt Pharmouthi
Pharmouthi 88
Ḫnsw
P3n-Ḫ%nsw
10
10 IVIVPeret
Peret %nsw
I IShemu
Shemu P3n- nsw
Pakhons
Pakhons 99
11 I IShemu Ḫnty-hty IIIIShemu P3n-Int Payni 10
11 Shemu %nty-hty Shemu P3n-Int Payni 10
12
12 IIIIShemu
Shemu ’Ipt-
’Ipt-ḥ#mtmt III
IIIShemu
Shemu Ip-ip
Ip-ip Epiphi
Epiphi 11
11
IVIVShemu
Shemu Mswtr‘
Mswtr‘ Mesore
Mesore 12
12
We note that the twelve lunar months (29 or 30 days) are in advance of one month
compared Wewith
notethethattwelve
the twelve lunar months
civil months (29 orThis
(30 days). 30 days) are arises
advance in advance of one
because the month
lunar
compared with the twelve civil months (30 days). This advance arises because
year (354 days) is shorter than the calendar year (365 days). According to astronomy the there
lunar
were actually several remarkable coincidences during year 9 ("shine") of Amenhotep I: there
year (354 days) is shorter than the calendar year (365 days). According to astronomy
were actually several remarkable coincidences during year 9 ("shine") of Amenhotep I:
Year Astronomical event Lunar date Festival of: Civil date Julian date
Year Astronomical
(in 1496 BCE) event Lunar date Festival of: Civil date Julian date
9 (in 1496
Full moonBCE) III Shemu 1 (Shining ones) III Shemu 6 July 3
9 Full moon
Summer solstice IIIShemu
III Shemu41 (Shining ones) IIIShemu
III Shemu 96 July 63
July
Summer
Sothic solstice
rising III Shemu 49
III Shemu Opening of the Year III Shemu
III Shemu 149 July116
July
Sothic rising III Shemu99
IV Shemu Opening of the Year
Thoth III Shemu
IV Shemu 14 14 August11
July 10
10 25 years lunar cycle start I Akhet 1 9
IV Shemu ThothYear)
(New IV Shemu
I Akhet 1 14 August 101
September
10 25 years lunar cycle start IIAkhet
Akhet 91 (New Year)
Consent IIAkhet
Akhet 91 September91
September
I Akhet 9 Consent I Akhet 9 September 9
(for more details see the file entitled Basic astronomy for historians to get a chronology)
L.L.DD EPUYDT- -CivilCivilCalendar
Calendarand
andLunar
LunarCalendar
CalendarininAncient
AncientEgypt
Egypt
177
207 EPUYDT
Leuven1997
Leuven 1997Ed.Ed.Uitgevers
UitgeversPeeters
Peetersp.p.116.
116.
178 L. DEPUYDT - The Two Problems of the Month Names
208 L. DEPUYDT - The Two Problems of the Month Names
in:in:Revue
Revued'égyptologie
d'égyptologie5050(1999)
(1999)pp.
pp.107-133.
107-133.

Dating The Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dating The Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes

2007 Leuven Ed. Verlag Antike pp. 95-131.

Official chronology Reconstituted chronology Remark

King King List of Uruk Ptolemy Berosus Eusebius

King dated average lowest date highest date tablet

4 R.A. PARKER, W.H. DUBBERSTEIN - Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75

1986 Trustees of the British Museum.

TRANSITION AND CO-REGENCY

Greek Achaemenid Chronology

Greek Achaemenid chronology6:

Achaemenid chronology according to synchronisms dated by astronomy

Chronology: Greeks versus Babylonians

19 mu 7 šu ge6 14 1 2/3 danna ge6 gin

Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 166-167.

9 P.J. HUBER, S. DE MEIS – Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC

Wien 1988 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften (n° -567).

Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 27-30,396.

Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560,561.

in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2.

Paris 1993 Éd. Belles Lettres pp. 193-197.

Helsinki 1998 University of Helsinki pp. XVIII-XX.

Le Caire 1915 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 74,87,88,92,93,106,115,119.

year Assyrian eponym Babylonian

-555 15 stele of Hillah

An accurate chronological reconstitution does not mean one that is historically

-630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 Kandalanu 34

-630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 Kandalanu 34

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

Babylonian king reign # Persian king reign # Median king reign

year month [A] [B] [C] [D] King

year month [A] [B] [C] [D] King

Herodotus actually mentions a co-regency21, between Cyrus King of Lands (year 1)

21 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency

London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 50-53.

Paris 1999 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner p. 97.

2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 131.

Paris 2001 Éd. Robert Laffont pp. 20-227,26-729.

Year Date Nabonidus Cyrus According to the Chronicle reference

7 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 2/IV/01 CT 56, 142

-651 21/VI/18 King of Lands 18 17 King of Babylon BR 53

31 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency

in: Eos vol. LXXV (1987 Wroclaw) pp.69-86.

Münster 2005 Ed. Ugarit-Verlag p. 54.

The death of Cyrus is controversial. According to Herodotus: Cyrus entrusted Croesus

The previous reconstruction may be interpreted in two ways:

year month year of reign King

The transition between Cambyses II and Darius I is complicated because there

year month year of reign (choice 2)

London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 140-157.

The fragmentary information of Herodotus is therefore generally good: duration of

(Esdras 4:4-24), Mergis by Justinus, etc.

TRANSITION DARIUS I / XERXES I

year month Darius I (year 36) Xerxes I (accession)

40P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide

CO-REGENCY DARIUS I / XERXES I

year month Darius I (year 36) Xerxes I (accession)

Leipzig, 1934, p. 544, tablet No. 634, VS 6, 177 (VAT 4397).

Poznan 1995. Letter Orders n80 (BM 77850).

2002 Paris Éd. Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner S.A.

in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1999 N°1 pp. 9-12.

Year [1] [2], [3], [4] [5] [6] [7] period

The prosopography of the officials of Ebabbara's administration50 shows that

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