Chronologies of the Ancient World: Names, Dates and Dynasties [Hardcover ed.] 9004153209, 9789004153202

Citation preview

Brill’s New Pauly S upplem ents CH RO NO LO GIES OF THE AN CIEN T W ORLD

Brill’s New Pauly Supplements E D IT O R S

Hubert Cancik Manfred Landfester Helmuth Schneider

Edited by Walter Eder and Johannes Renger

Translated and edited by Wouter F. M. Henkelman

Assistant Editor Robert Chenault

LEID EN - BOSTON ✓

BRILL

2007

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill Leiden, The Netherlands

nv

,

Koninklijke Brill n v incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, i d c Publishers, Martinus N ijhoff Publishers and v s p . Original German language edition: Walter Eder/Johannes Renger (Hrsg.): Herrscherchronologien der antiken Welt. Namen, Daten, Dynastien (= Der Neue Pauly Supplemente 1) published by J. B. Metzler’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH Stuttgart, Germany. Copyright © 2004 Cover design: TopicA (Antoinette Hanekuyk) Front: Delphi, temple area

ISBN -13

9 7 8 9 0 0 4 15 3 2 0 2

ISBN-IO

9OO4153209

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, m a 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. P R I N T E D IN T H E N E T H E R L A N D S

CONTENTS

V

Contents

Editors’ preface

IX

Notes to the user

XVI

A. The Near, Middle and Far East

1

Introduction: Sources for the reconstruction of ancient Near Eastern chronological systems

1

I.

Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions

I. i.

Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions in the third and second millennium BC (Joachim Oelsner) Southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia) Ebla, Mari, Habur region, Assur, Elam Aleppo (Wilfred M. van Soldt) Alalal) Ugarit

I. I. I. I. I.

1 .1 . i.2 . 1.3 . 1.4. 1.5.

I. 2. I. I. I. I.

2 .1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.

Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions during the end of the second and the first half of the first millennium BC (Joachim Oelsner) Assur (Assyria) Babylonia Elam: Neo-Elamite Period (ca. 1000-530 BC) (Jan Tavernier) Urartu (Joachim Oelsner)

I. I. I. I.

3. 3 .1. 3.2. 3.3.

Babylonia Babylonia Babylonia Babylonia

11

11 12

13 14 15 16 18 18 20 22

I. 4.

The dynasty of the Seleucids (Walter Eder)

25 27 27 28 30 31

II. II. 1. II. 2. II. 3.

Egypt Egyptian rulers until Alexander the Great (Joachim Friedrich Quack) The dynasty of the Ptolemies (Walter Eder with Joachim Friedrich Quack) Kush (Hans-Ulrich Onasch)

34 34 47 50

III.

Israel and Judah (Rudiger Liwak)

56

IV.

Synchronistic charts

61

IV. 1. IV. 2.

Synchronistic overview of the main states of the ancient Near East in the second millennium BC (Frank Starke) Synchronistic overview of the main states of Asia Minor ca. 1000-550 BC

61 78

V.

Asia Minor in the first millennium BC

84

V. 1.

Phrygia (Peter W. Fiaider)

84

V. V. V. V.

Lydia Rulers in Lydia according to Herodotus Lydian kings of the Heraclid dynasty until the beginning of the Mermnad dynasty Lydian rulers according to the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Egyptian sources

2. 2 .1. 2.2. 2.3.

during the second half of the first millennium BC under Achaemenid rule after Alexander the Great and under Macedonianand Seleucid rule in the Arsacid period

86

87

88

89

CONTENTS

VI

V. 2.4.

Revised chronology of Lydian rulers

V. 3.

The Attalids of Pergamum (Walter Eder)

V . 4.

The Dynasty of the Seleucids

VI.

Peripheral states in Asia Minor in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Martin Schottky)

VI. 1.

Adiabene

VI. VI. VI. VI. VI.

Armenia Hellenistic kingdom of (western) Armenia/Sophene Kingdom of eastern or Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior) Lesser Armenia (Armenia minor) Gordyaea

2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.

90 91

93 93 94 96 96 98 99 99

VI. 3.

Bithynia

VI. 4. VI. 4.A.

Emesa Appendix: Emesa and the Roman Empire

100 101

VI. VI. VI. VI. VI.

Galatia Tectosages Tolistobogii Trocmi Rulers of all Galatia

102 102

5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

VI. 6. VI. 6.A.

Cappadocia Appendix: Cietis

VI. 7.

Commagene

VI. 8.

Osroene

103 103 104 105 107 108 108

VI. 9. VI. 9.A.

Pontus Appendix: Comana Pontica (priest-princes)

110 111

VI. 10.

Regnum Bosporanum

112

VI. 1 1 .

Palmyrene Empire

114

VII.

Iranian Empires and their vassal states

115 115 117 117

VII. VII. VII. VII.

1. 1 .1 . 1.2. 1.3.

Media (Robert Rollinger) Median rulers according to Herodotus Median rulers according to Ctesias Rulers in western Iran attested in cuneiform sources and previously interpreted as Median kings

VII. VII. VII. VII.

2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

Iranian Empires (Josef Wiesehofer) Achaemenids Arsacids (Parthians) Sassanids

120 121 122

VII. VII. VII. VII. VII.

3. 3 .1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

Parthian “ vassal kingdoms” Characene Elymais Persis Media Atropatene (Martin Schottky)

124 124 125 126 128

118 119

CONTENTS

VIII.

Graeco-Bactxia and India

VII

130

VIII. 3.

Kushan (until ca. 250 AD)

VIII. 4.

Maurya Empire (Harry Falk)

130 130 131 131 131 133 134 135 135 135 136 137

IX.

Rome and the West in Chinese historiography (Erling von Mende)

139

Early Han period (206/202 BC-7/9 AD) Later Han period (25-220 AD) Sun Wu (222-280 AD) Northern Wei (386-534 AD) Northern Qi (550-576 AD) Northern Zhou (557-58 1 AD)

140 141 142 143 144 145

VIII. VIII. VIII. VIII. VIII. VIII.

i. 1 .1 . 1.2. 1.3. 1.3 .1. 1.3.2.

Graeco-Bactrians and Indo-Greeks (Klaus Karttunen) Diodotids and Euthydcmids (ca. 2 5 0 -15 5 BC) Eucratids (ca. 17 0 - 13 0 BC) Later Indo-Greeks (ca. 155 BC-at. 10 AD) Paropamisadae and Arachosia Gandhara and Punjab

VIII. VIII. VIII. VIII.

2. 2 .1. 2.2. 2.3.

Iranian rulers of Indo-Bactria Sacae/Indo-Scythians (ca. 85 BC-20 AD) Parthians (from 50 BC onwards) Indo-Parthians (from 20 AD onwards)

IX. IX. IX. IX. IX. IX.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introduction: Bibliography on the Chronology of the Ancient Mediterranean and Western Europe

146 146

X.

148

B. The Mediterranean and Western Europe

X. X. X. X. X. X. X. X. X.

Greece and Rome 1. 1 .A. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

148 173 185 188 191

X. 10.

Archons of Athens (Meret Strothmann and Karl-Wilhelm Welwei) Alphabetical Index of Archons Kings of Sparta (Mischa Meier) Macedonia (Walter Eder) Thrace Dynasties of the Seleucids and Ptolemies The Attalids of Pergamum Peripheral States in Asia Minor Roman Consuls, Dictators, Censors and Extraordinary Commissions until 30 BC (Karl-Ludwig Elvers) Roman Emperors from Augustus (30/27 BC) to Romulus Augustulus (476 AD) and Nepos (480 AD) (Meret Strothmann) Byzantine Emperors

XL

Late-antique Germanic Kingdoms (Martin Schottky)

268 282 286

Germanic Kingdoms in Britannia (Anglo-Saxons) Jutes in Kent (Reges Cantiae) Appendix: Jutes on the Isle of Wight (Uecta insula) Angles in Northumbria Deira Bernicia Northumbria (Reges Nordanhymbrorum) Angles in East Anglia (Reges Orientalium Anglorum)

286 287 288 288 289 289 290 291

X. 9.

XL XI. XL XI. XI. XI. XI. XI.

1. 1.1. 1 . 1 . A. 1.2. 1 .2 .1 . 1.2.2 . 1.2 .3 . 1.3 .

195

CONTENTS

VIII

XI. XI. XI. XI. XI. XI.

1.4. 1.4. A. I.4.B. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7.

Angles in Mercia (Reges Merciorum) Appendix 1: Kingdom of the Middle Angles/Southern Mercians Appendix 2: Sub-kings of Surrey (Subreguli Provinciae Surrianorum) Saxons in Sussex (Reges Australium Saxonum) Saxons in Essex (Reges Orientalium Saxonum) Saxons in Wessex (Reges Occidentalium Saxonum)

XI. XI. XI. XI. XI. XI. XI. XI. XI. XI.

2. 2 .1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.8.A.

Germanic Kingdoms in Western Europe Burgundians Gepids Merovingians (Walter Eder) Rugians (Martin Schottky) Suebi in Gallaecia (Galicia) Thuringians Vandals in Africa Visigoths Appendix: Asturia

XI. XI. XI. XI. XI.

3. 3 .1. 3.2. 3.2 .1. 3.2.2.

Germanic Kingdoms in Italy Ostrogoths in Italy Lombards (Langobardi) The Kings in Upper Italy The Dukes of Benevento

292 293 293 294 295 296 298 298 299 300 303 304 305 305 306 308 309 309 311 311 313

XII.

The Empire of the Huns (Martin Schottky)

314

XIII.

Bishops and Patriarchs (Wilhelm Geerlings and Meret Strothmann)

315

Bishops of Rome Bishops and Patriarchs of Constantinople Bishops and Patriarchs of Alexandria Bishops and Patriarchs of Antioch Bishops and Patriarchs of Jerusalem Synoptic Chart of the Patriarchates

315 319 323 325 329 332

XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII. Index

1 2 3 4 5 6

345

editors’ preface

e d it o r s

’ preface

. A ims of the present volume Long lists of dates and endless series of names hardly make for reading that is especially exciting or even interesting: emperors, kings, princes and hold­ ers of various offices follow one another, arranged in columns and accompanied by more columns with the dates of their lives and terms in office. The result: a ‘columned’ or compartmentalised history of antiquity that, at first sight, is just as lifeless as the marble of ancient columns. A second look, however, shows that there is a concise form of history to be found in these columns, and that they truly sup­ port our image of antiquity. Many of these names - significantly, most of them are men - have indeed not been forgotten because they have left a decisive mark on their periods of antiquity, because they have “ made history,” to quote a widespread cliche that remains prominent even in today’s renaissance of the biographical genre. Endorsing this cliche by collecting and listing dates and names is not the aim of the editors. Rather, the inclusion of great figures in long series of predecessors and successors may help to put into perspective the role of the personal and particular in history. Thus the individual agent can be presented as both part and result of a historical development. At the same time, the significance of individuals in history should not be underestimated, for history is not just set in a geographical landscape, but is also structured by its actors. By fulfilling govern­ mental and administrative duties in societies that, in the course of history, grew more and more com­ plex, individuals structure time into shorter periods. Kinglists, genealogies and registers of priests and magistrates emerged in the ancient Near East and in the Graeco-Roman world to gain a foothold in the floods of time. They made it possible, not just for leading individuals but also for societies as a whole, to place themselves in a social, political and religious tradition. The recording and passing on of that record were meant to structure the endless unfold­ ing of events and to add a chronological and, within certain limits, a substantive perspective. The present volume cannot and does not attempt to replace a narrative history of antiquity, but aims to supplement and deepen such a narrative and at the same time to facilitate the reader’s orientation in time and space. As an independent work of reference it is intended to offer more than a comprehensive and chronologically structured survey of rulers and officials. The volume is organised on a geographical basis, with a chronological sequence provided for each geographical entity. As a result, the succes­ sive or contemporaneous existence of dynasties or forms of social organisation in a given region should become more readily apparent. i

IX

Moreover, the traditional format, usually limited to the dates and names of rulers in two columns, has been expanded significantly in order to present addi­ tional information. The introductions to the lists, some of which are extensive, address problems in dating and chronology, outline issues concerning the reliability of the tradition and introduce, concisely, the historical context and development of each rul­ ing entity and list of rulers. The lists and charts are not confined to the mere names and dates of rulers, but include - whenever reliable data is at hand and wherever this may be relevant for the understanding of the dynastic succession - information on lineage, wives and children. The advantages of an easilyread chronological chart are thus combined with the merits of the genealogical tree, which can sometimes be difficult to navigate. In the resulting lists and charts important familial relations may be discerned, and thus possible causes for dynastic conflicts, wars of succession, territorial claims and even the back­ ground for sudden dynastic change or the abrupt end of a kinglist. Likewise, to improve the understanding of his­ torical connections, so often blurred by columns of numbers and names, ‘notes’ have been provided, which contain various kinds of information ranging from source-citations to brief historical commentar­ ies and supplementary data. The format of the chronological lists is also intended to help the user in finding, behind the names and dates, the acts of individuals, societies and nations, who at certain moments decided to count the number of years - for reasons that we often can only guess at: because they wanted to know who founded their city and when, or which dynasty ruled their fates and for how long, or how long ago famous events took place. Numbers and names yield clues as to the origins of statehood, real or invented in the context of legitimation, and therefore to a new phase in his­ torical consciousness. They tell us about the forms and dynamics of a social system, when the names of annual magistrates abruptly replace those of kings. They indicate the periods of peace and of turmoil, when, after long reigns of only a few rulers, suddenly many names are crammed into just a few years. And they point to the divergent mentalities of societies, some of which count the years according to the leading military officials (as the Romans did) and others according to priests, civil magistrates or even sporting events (as many Greeks did). 2. C onnection with B r ill's N e w P a u ly Though conceived as an independent work of reference, this volume nevertheless originates from the work that shaped Brill's N ew Pauly {BNP). It is conceived as a genuine supplement to the latter and it can therefore be used both independently from and together with the volumes of the encyclopaedia.

X

ed ito rs’ preface

References to further information on regions, peoples, individuals and historical conditions in the entries of the encyclopaedia are consistently included in this volume and make using them in conjunction with one another especially profitable. The name of each person discussed in the encyclopaedia is marked with an arrow (-► ) or asterisk (*) and fol­ lowed, where applicable, by one of the numbers subdividing the encyclopaedia entry, so that back­ ground information may be looked up easily. In addition, this volume strives to offer at least the beginnings of a solution to a problem that emerged in the course of the work on the BNP and that revealed the limits within which even a larger encyclopaedia must operate. Even in such a multi-volume work of reference the available space is finite. Therefore, certain priorities had to be established in selecting the entries on persons, even though these priorities might not be shared by every user. The complete­ ness of the lists of rulers and officials in this volume should fill in the lacunae that emerged in BNP, where individuals are accurately presented in their wider historical context. The alphabetical organi­ sation of an encyclopaedia dictates that historical complexes are rent asunder as they are subjected to detailed discussions. In the individual entries, genea­ logical and political relationships among members of a royal family or a dynasty, and the activities of specific officials, are dissected. Against this unavoid­ able encyclopaedic fragmentation, the lists compiled in this volume offer a structure that collects material which was dispersed in the encyclopaedia. The lists may therefore in turn provide a useful guide to the encyclopaedia. 3. C riteria

for the selection of the lists of

RULERS AND OFFICIALS

The selection of the lists of rulers and officials is also closely connected, both temporally and geographically, to the scope of BNP. The lists in this volume essentially span from the middle of the second millennium BC to 800 AD, but this temporal demarcation has not been applied dogmatically. Notably the kinglists of the Mesopotamian states and of Egypt sometimes reach back to the third millennium and attest to their enduring contacts with the inhabitants of Asia Minor, the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean. Conversely, the list of Byzantine emperors does not end until the 1 1 th cen­ tury and as such gives full emphasis to the sub­ sequent far-reaching shift of power, starting with the Comneni, which saw the military nobility finally take the place of the civil nobility, that very last remnant of antiquity. The geographical scope of the present volume is similarly wide and stretches from the Atlantic shores to India, and from Britain to North Africa and the Sudan. As such it covers most of the territo­ ries that were either part of the short-lived empire of

Alexander the Great or that were, at the time of the greatest expanse of the Roman Empire, under emperor Trajan in the second century AD, ruled by the Romans.The inclusion of the early Chinese dynasties may seem to be an exception. Yet, not only does Chinese historiography point to contacts between China and the Roman Empire (Da Qin)y but western sources also report on highly-priced silk (Tac. Ann. 2.33: vestis serica) and on the ‘Seres,’ who engaged in silk manufacture (Paus. V I.26.6-8). Both the product and the news of the land of the Seres travelled via the Silk Road, the same route that was taken by envoys and traders who eventu­ ally reached China and are, possibly, mentioned by Chinese sources. Another line of communication was the sea route, via India to the West. Contacts between China and the Parthians are also attested, as are contacts with the Eastern Roman Empire (the latest in the 6th century AD). Introducing China in the context of traditional Altertumswissenschaft means breaking away from the paradigm, considered sacred by Chinese scholar­ ship, of Chinese cultural independence and unique­ ness. Yet, archaeological finds from the past few decades in China point to influences from the West that are not insignificant (bronze technique, charac­ teristic styles; cf. -► China). Such finds show that, even at that time, China was part of a larger world. 4. I n t e r n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n In accordance with the primarily geographical organisation of the contents of the volume, the first part of the text pertains to the regions between the Aegean Sea and the Indus River (including, as men­ tioned above, China). The chronological boundaries are, on the one hand, the end of the third millennium BC and, on the other, the end of the Sassanid empire in the seventh century AD. This format should help to make plain the synchronism of historical events within the lands of Eurasia, as defined by the afore­ mentioned geographical and chronological boundar­ ies. The cultures of Eurasia knew of one another and were in contact with each other, even though — for various reasons - such relations sometimes are only faintly visible in the textual and archaeological record. A second objective of this format is to indi­ cate, by the chronological development of rulership and statehood, the continuities and breaks in the manifold and often rather small-scale state histories of the area under discussion. Part A offers a successive treatment of the dynas­ tic lists for Mesopotamia (Babylonia and Assyria), Egypt, Hittite Anatolia and the neighbouring states that were historically connected to these regions or had more or less close relations with them. Such relations are apparent in the dynastic lists of Kush, in present-day Sudan, and especially in the lists for Syria (Aleppo) and the Levant (Alalab, Ugarit), regions that stood in close contact with both the

editors’ preface

Hittite Empire and Egypt. New excavations (at -► Ebla and * Emar in modern Syria) have revital­ ised interest in these regions. Extensive relations with neighbouring states are also attested for Israel and Judah and the Anatolian kingdoms (Urartu, Phrygia, Lydia) in the second and early first millennium BC. Indeed, the sequencing of their rulers is to a considerable degree dependent on these connections. Phrygians and Lydians, whose kings are mentioned by both Herodotus and the Assyrian sources, are stock examples for the long­ standing role of Anatolia as a bridge between the ancient Near East and the Greek world, a function that continued after the demise of the Hittite Empire (ca. 1200 BC) and its successor-states in northern Syria and southern Anatolia. With the rise of the Achaemenid Empire, starting in Iran from the late sixth century onwards, a coher­ ently organised territorial entity emerged such as the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires had never achieved. The new empire stretched from the eastern coasts of the Aegean to the borders of India and, for some time, included Egypt and the northern Aegean up to Macedonia. Accordingly, this region, together with the Parthian, Sassanid and smaller kingdoms that emerged in parts of it, is treated in a separate section. The unity of the Achaemenid empire was eventually lost as a consequence of the attempt of Alexander the Great to join its territory to that of the Macedonian and Greek regions under his sway. Following Alexander’s death (323 BC), the empire he had ruled for only a short while broke into the variegated mosaic of the Hellenistic states, as attested by the dynastic lists of the Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Attalid kings, as well as those of the Central Asian successor states that replaced Seleucid rule (Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians/Saka, Indo-Parthians, Kushanians). The Graeco-AramaicIranian trilingual text (from the vicinity of Kanda­ har) of Asoka, the best-known ruler of the Indian Maurya dynasty, bears witness to the continuity of Achaemenid and Seleucid traditions. In Hellenistic Asia Minor - as in the easternmost regions of the disintegrating Seleucid Empire - a multitude of ‘peripheral states’ emerged under different monarchs, in which Achaemenid traditions persisted alongside Greek-influenced ways of life. Part A also includes two smaller kingdoms. One of these, the Regnum Bosporanum, was in close con­ tact with the Greek colonies in the Black Sea region long before Alexander the Great, but was inextri­ cably bound up with the fate of Asia Minor in the Hellenistic period. The other, the Palmyrene Empire, extended to Asia Minor in the Roman period, if only for a short time. Not until the formation of the state of the Par­ thian Arsacids, the advance of Rome into the East (since ca. 200 BC) and the Empire of the Sassanids, which succeeded that of the Parthians in the third

XI

century AD, did greater entities under sole rule reemerge. This, however, did not mean that the tradi­ tion of small states came to an end altogether in Asia Minor and the regions to its East. The confusing complexity of the dynastic lists of such smaller states also indicates the rivalry among the great powers that exercised influence in these regions following the disintegration of Alexander’s Empire and that had either to accept the rise and continuity of small states or even had, on strategic or political grounds, an interest in the existence of ‘buffer states* in the peripheral regions of their empires. The lists for the Greek world and the Roman West (Part B) yield a completely different picture. In the archaic and classical periods, dynastic lists of the type current in the ancient Near East disappear almost completely. Only the long list of Spartan kings has been included here, as is the list of Macedonian rulers from the seventh century BC to the downfall of the last dynasty, that of the Hellenistic Antigonids, in the battle of Pydna (168 BC). Thracian rulers, in as much as they had connections with Macedonia and the Greek (and, later, the Roman) world, have been included too. Though technically possible, a line of mythical Athenian kings starting from Cecrops or a list of the seven kings of Rome, steeped in legend, has not been attempted here. Mythologists rather than historians would benefit from such an undertaking. The main focus of the classical antiquity part of this volume is on those lists that were a traditional way of reckoning time in Greece and Rome: the line of annual eponymous archons of Athens and that of the highest annual magistrates in Rome, the consuls. Both sequences can be reliably reconstructed thanks to a providential survival of the textual record. Together, they form the backbone of the chronologi­ cal skeleton of Graeco-Roman history starting from ca. 500 BC and leading well into late antiquity. Many more lists of the type just described, con­ sisting of eponymous magistrates and priests, are known, especially from the Greek world, but have not been included here. They are either of limited, local significance, such as the list of stephanophoroi from Miletus, or can be reconstructed for limited time-spans only. One example in the latter category is the important Spartan list of ephors, which spanned several centuries but which can be reconstructed, from Xenophon, only for the period of the Pelopon­ nesian War (431-404/403 BC). Another is the list of priestesses of Hera at Argos, attested by Thucydides (II.2.1) of which only snippets survive. The Argos list apparently was of such importance that, in the fifth century BC, Hellanicus [1] of Mytilene used it, in his universal Greek history, to provide a unified chronological structure. This situation in the eastern Aegean changes abruptly after the desolution of the Achaemenid Empire by Alexander the Great. With the re-emergence

XII

edito rs’ preface

of the monarchic tradition, unity was replaced by the wide variety of successor states such as those headed by the royal houses of the Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Attalids as well as the Hellenistic ‘peripheral’ king­ doms (all of which have been included in Part A on geographical grounds). The picture is redrawn once again, and this time in the entire Mediterranean and its adjoining regions, by the end of the Roman Republic, with the appearance, alongside the contin­ ued lists of consuls, of the dynastic lists of the Roman emperors, from Augustus to Romulus Augustulus, and of the Byzantine emperors. In contrast to the Byzantine East, where the line of emperors (represented in the present volume until the eleventh century) continued unbroken until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, the rule of the Roman emperors in the West came to an end. Starting already in the last decades of imperial rule and subsequently fuelled by the final breakdown of the Western Roman Empire (after 476 AD), various regions controlled by Germanic tribes emerged as states in the former Roman territories and beyond: Gaul, Spain, northern Africa and Britain (AngloSaxons, Burgundians, Franks, Suebi, Thuringians, Visigoths). Among these the Frankish kingdom of the Merovingians would emerge as the most impor­ tant and, because of its Roman and catholic roots, the most consequential for the history of Europe. An exception among the group of Germanic kingdoms of late Antiquity is the non-Germanic kingdom of the Huns. They are included in this volume because of their significant role in triggering the westward migration of the Germanic tribes. Italy too now lay open to German invasion. The short reign of Odoacer was followed by the kingdom of the Ostrogoth Theoderic the Great. This, in turn, was followed, after a short intermezzo of Byzantine rule, by Lombard rule in Italy, which continued, in principalities of regional importance, into the elev­ enth century. At this point the dynastic lists per se come to an end. The inclusion of lists of the Bishops of Rome, i.e. the early pontiffs, as well as of the bishops and patriarchs of the four eastern patriarchates (Cons­ tantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), is based upon several considerations. Firstly, the episcopal lists constitute an important structuring element in early Christian chronicles from Hippolytus [2] onwards and are therefore closely linked to the history of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Secondly, the bishops in East and West assumed, already in the fourth century, key admin­ istrative functions and quickly attained the position of ‘second rulers,’ as it were, and in any case became leading advisors (and opponents) of the emperors. Last but not least, the episcopal lists should underline the now commonly accepted tripartite structuring of antiquity into ancient Near Eastern, Graeco-Roman and early Christian history. They should also draw attention to the different organi­

sation of the eastern and western Church and the decisive role of the latter in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. 5. C h r o n o l o g i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y Each of the lists collected in this volume is pre­ sented in a form resulting from the activity, dating back to antiquity itself, of historians and chroniclers who checked lists handed down by tradition, com­ bined or compared lists, searched for synchronisms with dates in other lists or composed lists themselves on the basis of both oral and textual traditions. The interests that stimulated the composition of lists of rulers, or of magistrates, were rarely academic, how­ ever, as expected in modern chronological research. Even though serious attempts at a critical chronography of antiquity were made in the Hellenistic period from Eratosthenes [2] onwards, the handling of traditional data remained, for the most part, unscientific. As a result, the dates handed down to us from antiquity yield a historical structure, but the context of their origin and transmission call for cau­ tion when assessing the reliability of certain details. It is, in fact, rarely the case that from the pre­ served names, dates and dynasties the historical origins of a given social order can be deduced, as the ancient compilers of lists of kings, rulers, and mag­ istrates and of chronicles wished their audiences to believe. Even the beginnings of literacy - a necessary precondition for making such lists - are not securely proved by the first date recorded. In the ancient Near East and the Graeco-Roman world, the textual record often post-dates the first date mentioned by several centuries. The well-known example of the Olympiad system of time-reckoning may illustrate this point: it was introduced in the third century BC, but started with a point in time almost 500 years before (776 BC). Time, and length of time, had long since become an argument in support of his­ torical precedence and political claims; it served to legitimise personal authority and social order, or was used to enhance the self-consciousness of a political community in comparison to other entities. Tradition enhanced legitimacy and even more so when its origins lay further back in time. This caused lengthening of many a list or chronicle well into a dim and distant mythical past. The ancient authors, paradoxically, often knew less about that past than we do today thanks to the benefit of the sophis­ ticated techniques and methods of archaeological research. Lengthening of the lists into a distant past often required large-scale inventions crafted to fill in the lacuna between a postulated historical beginning and the first historically attested names and dates. For modern scholarship the limits o f this propagandists twilight zone are often hard to define since parallel traditions, which could have served for verification or falsification, are in most cases lacking. The exact chronological sequencing o f the many kinglists of the ancient Near East pertaining to

editors’ preface

the time before the middle of the second millennium BC are hut one area of controversy within the field of ancient chronology (on the problems inherent in the reconstruction of chronological systems in the ancient Near East and in China see the extensive commentary in the introduction to Part A and in the introductions to the individual lists). The early Spar­ tan and Macedonian kings as well as the Athenian archons of the seventh and sixth centuries BC are just as uncertain as the Roman consuls and triumphatores of the fifth and fourth centuries - not to mention the Trojan War, which served as a chrono­ logical fixed point for Eratosthenes. 6 . Y ear r e c k o n in g and c ale nd ar Even for the best-documented historical periods many uncertainties complicate exact dating. The reasons for this situation are to be found in the incomprehensible mass of systems used in antiquity to structure the year calendrically, to determine its length and to define years in the continuous flow of time. The consequence of this diversity was chaos: innumerable calendars and systems of year reckoning co-existed, largely independent of one another. In fact almost every society in antiquity, regardless of its political organisation, persisted in using its own calendar and specific year reckoning by kings, magistrates, foundation dates, important historical events, etc. even if it had long since been incorporated in a larger state (such as the Diadochi kingdoms or the Roman Empire). The complex problems involved in the division of the year into months are an important part of the field of chronology, but of a very different nature from the problems mentioned above and only rel­ evant in the present context when they have a bear­ ing on the conversion from ancient to Julian dates. Chronology is the science of measuring and reckon­ ing time over longer periods of history and its goal is to put as many successive years into a series in which temporal sections and durations can be marked with exactness. Conversely, the calendar relates to a single year and is significant only within this context. The essential purpose of every calendar is to transform time into social time, i.e. to divide it into comprehensible units and thus to enable a society to adopt a common way of life with communal feasts and sacrifices, foreseeable dates set for courts and markets, regular changes in military and politi­ cal leadership, etc. Because they are designed wholly for the needs of a given society, ancient calendars are always, as it were, ‘autistic.’ This is apparent from the month names that differ from city to city; it was said of the citizens of Abdera (as proverbial as Gotham or Schilda) that each man there kept his own calendar. These observations also explain one of the main problems of research on ancient calendrical systems, namely the unfortunately lacunose tradition. The latter is caused by an evident lack of interest, espe­

XIII

cially in the Graeco-Roman world, in documenting the division of the year. Even for important cities like Argos or Sparta not all the month names are known to us. The local arbitrariness of calendrical systems is especially visible in the methods used by ancient, i.e. agrarian, societies to harmonise (lunar) time, which is divided in West and East by means of the visible phases of the moon, with (solar) time based on the earth’s revolution around the sun. The lunar months of 29 or 30 days do not divide evenly into the solar year that, in an agrarian society, sets the dates for sowing and harvesting and especially the festivals connected with them. Twelve lunar months (ca. 354 days) amount to less than a solar year (365.2422 days); thirteen such months (ca. 384 days) result in more than a year. Because festivals were invariably linked to certain months named after those festivals, the solar and lunar year had to be synchronized so that the months would more or less adhere to the cycle of the seasons and so that, for example, the month of the harvest festival would not shift to the time of sowing. The addition of supplementary days and months, necessary to remedy this problem, often occurred in a somewhat arbitrary way both with regard to the number of supplemented days or months and the point within the year at which they were supplemen­ ted. Rules and cycles of intercalation, first attested in ca. 500 BC and reaching, in the case of the so-called metonic cycle of intercalation (-► Meton), a high degree of precision, were hardly adhered to outside Babylon, where they were used from ca. 380 BC onwards. As a result there were official and regnal years of unequal lengths. At this point the calendrical problem is no longer limited to a single year, but becomes a problem for chronology, i.e. for the continuous counting of years and reckoning of time. For chronological reckoning, years of equal length are required and, in addition, these years should match the astronomical solar year closely or exactly. This is a necessary condition to enable a conversion into Julian dates, and thus mod­ ern time reckoning, that is as precise as possible. The Julian calendar was introduced by Caesar in 46 BC, reportedly inspired by an Egyptian model. It survives even today, after minor intercalary corrections intro­ duced by Augustus (29 BC) and pope Gregory XIII (1582), as the basis of modern time reckoning with nearly-exact solar years. A good indication for the sorry state of the Roman calendar at the time of Caesar is that his reform necessitated the addition of 90 intercalary days. As a result the year 46 BC was, with 455 days, the longest in world history. Because of the unequal length of years, the con­ version from ancient to Julian years is not always possible with absolute certainty. In the extreme case, three consecutive lunar years coincide with one Julian solar year. This occurs when the end of a lunar year continues into the beginning of a Julian year of

XIV

editors’ preface

365 days. When the next lunar year of 354 days (i.e. without intercalation) starts, e.g., on January 5th, several days at the end of the solar year are left for the start of the third lunar year. Every event from one of the three lunar years could, unless the moment within the year is indicated or synchronisms exist, be dated to one and the same Julian year. 7. B eginning

of the year and assumption of

office

The real point of contact between calendar and chronology is, however, the beginning of the year. Every deviation from the Julian beginning of the year at January i st may have serious consequences for the precise assignment of historical events in antiquity and such deviations in fact almost always occur. Ancient calendrical specialists, when deter­ mining the moment of a given year’s beginning, often focussed on the beginning of work in the field in spring or fall. In astronomic terms these moments are the vernal equinox in March and the autumnal equinox in September. The equinoxes are attested as the year’s beginning in Babylonia and Assyria, but also in Macedonia and Sparta and, originally, perhaps in Rome as well. The beginning of the year could also be in the summer (July), as it was in Athens and in some Ionian cities. And it could actually be on January I st, as it was in Rome after Caesar’s reform (Julian cal­ endar). The year’s beginning could also shift back­ wards throughout the year, as it did in Egypt, where the length of the year was exactly fixed at 365 days but no intercalation was used. As a result the year’s beginning returned to its astronomical position after a cycle of 1460 years (a Sothis-period). The disparate beginnings of the year in each calendar not only leads to overlapping among the various ancient systems of counting regnal and magisterial years, but also to overlapping with the Julian year. In such cases, and in the absence of more precise chronological specificity, it cannot always be decided with full certainty whether a certain historical event that is reported during the regnal or magisterial year of a certain person should be dated before or after January i st in the Julian calendar. This problem is best known from the Athenian dat­ ing system according to archons, whose magisterial year began in the summer and ended in the next summer (and which, incidentally, did not match the Spartan ephoric year, which began in the fall). In antiquity, there were attempts to solve the problem by giving dates according to more than one calen­ drical system (e.g., Thuc. II. 1); for modern chronol­ ogy double dates such as “ 387/386” are frequently unavoidable. Similar problems in dating are caused by different ways of counting the regnal years of a ruler. If a ruler counts his years from the day he actually assumed power, i.e. within the then current year, there will be overlapping between regnal, calendrical and Julian

years. If, on the other hand, the beginning of the first year of his rule is pre-dated to the beginning of the then current year or post-dated to the follow­ ing calendrical year, questions as to the assignment of certain events to one ruler or his predecessor emerge. Still other, more difficult, problems for the exact chronological placement of individuals and his­ torical events are caused by the parallel existence of numerous local and regional systems of time­ reckoning in the ancient world. This is true for the ancient Near East and even more so for the fragmented Greek and Italian worlds, where every community took pride not only in political and calendrical but also in chronological autonomy. Double dating in treaties between adjacent states that were only a few kilometres apart was some­ times necessary in Greece. Thucydides (II.2..1) had to use three systems of time-reckoning simultane­ ously when he wanted to fix exactly the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. Polybius (1. 6 ) links sev­ eral import events in the Greek world to the Gallic attacks on Rome (387 BC) in order to attach Roman history chronologically to Greek history and thereby gain his footing. The chaos apparently only increased once Alex­ ander had united the ancient Near East and Greece. The Greeks mostly retained their individual systems of time-reckoning, the Macedonian calendar did not harmonise with the Babylonian and Egyptian, and further, innumerable local city- and dynastic eras with very different starting points emerged in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, especially in Asia Minor. These eras often can be reconstructed only by detailed epigraphic and numismatic study, or not at all. 8. T he time f r a m e w o r k of a n c i e n t HISTORY That we are able, notwithstanding the many problems, to provide ancient history with a reliable framework that reaches back to the 1 5th century BC in the ancient Near East, that offers secure dates for Greek history from the sixth century BC and that is generally not questioned for Roman history from the end of the fourth century onwards is due to a number of factors. First, there is the work of the ancient historians and chronographers who started, in the fifth cen­ tury BC, to record lists of eponymous magistrates that reach back far into the history of their cities. This was undertaken not only out of pride, but also in an attempt to place one’s own city in relation to the tradition of other cities. The Greek world was increasingly conceived as a unity; had this not been the case, Hellanicus’s effort to press Greek history into the chronological straitjacket of the eponymous priestesses of Hera at Argos would not make sense. The same is true for the recording, starting roughly at the same time, of the names of the victors at

edito rs’ preface

Olympia, who came from the whole (Greek) world. The first testimonies in stone appear in the fourth century: a fragment of a list of archons of the sixth century and the list of stephanopboroi of Miletus, commissioned by the stephanophoros Alexander the Great in 334/33 BC but stretching back eighty years. Apart from this interest in Greece, an interest in the Oikoumene, the whole inhabited world, emerged in the wake of Alexander’s expedition. From the third century comes an inscription (the so-called ► Marntor Parium) that, stretching backwards from the moment of its recording in 2.64/63, continues to the first Athenian king, Cecrops. The document uses the Athenian archons for dating, but intro­ duces also synchronisms with the ancient Near East. At roughly the same time, -*■ Timaeus [2] of Tauromenion used the list of Olympic victors as a chronological framework, as did Eratosthenes, who, in his Chronographtai, divided time from the Trojan War up to Alexander the Great into ten periods. Next came -* Apollodorus [7] of Athens around the middle of the second century BC; his Chronika reached the year 144/43 anc^ were, by a later reviser, extended backwards. Apollodorus, in turn, was followed by -*■ Castor 12.) of Rhodes who, with his system of chronology based on certain fixed points, would become the model for the bishop and ecclesi­ astical historian -♦ Eusebius (7 1 of Caesarea (fourth century AD). Scientific interest in questions of time-reckoning and in the development of supra-regional systems for it increased over time. The matrix of syn­ chronisms among the individual systems of timereckoning in the East continued to develop and influenced the West even before Rome’s interven­ tions in the eastern Mediterranean; indeed, the Greeks became aware of Rome at least by the time of the war with Pyrrhus, if not before. From that point forward, lists of Roman consuls and fasti triumphales, soon to be followed (from Varro onwards) by the Roman time-reckoning Ab urbe condita, are paralleled by the Greek system of Olympiads, the Greek lists of magistrates and the dynastic lists of Hellenistic kings, making possible an increasingly exact dating of historical events. A second important factor is the calendrical reform of Caesar, the significance of which can hardly be overestimated. By this reform the Julian year became a fixed unit, even though no unified calendar or system of time-reckoning extended to the whole Roman Empire for a long time to come. Also of decisive significance were the chronicles and universal histories that, increasingly defined by the notion of Christian salvation, have preserved an invaluable collection of ancient material for mediae­ val chroniclers, Renaissance and Humanist scholars, and academics of the modern age.

XV

The only thing that was missing in these chron­ icles encompassing wide stretches of time was a universal fixed point, an ‘era’ in the literal sense, i.e. a generally accepted and binding first year. It is the great merit of the monk -► Dionysius [55] Exiguus to have introduced this keystone element in the sixth century (525 AD). Instead of the Era of Diocletianus, who was hated as a persecutor of the Christians, Dionysius chose the Incarnation of Christ, i.e. his birth, as the first year in his system. In doing so he may have been inspired by the tradition of many cities to start their system of time-reckoning with the first entrance of an emperor within their city walls. The new way of counting years, the Era Ab incarnatione Christ/, was initially accepted only hesitantly in the western sphere of the empire, but by the time of the Venerable Bede could be used as the framework for an ecclesiastical history of Britain. It remained the single most important system and was adopted by the imperial bureaux. The Byzantine East never officially introduced this time-reckoning, created as it was by a pontifical commission and designed to calculate the date of Easter; instead, it continued to date by imperial reigns and indictions (-► indictio). The first year of the Christian Era, the birth of Christ, truly became the fulcrum of time-reckoning when the Jesuit Denis Petau (Dionysius Petavius) in the 1 7 th century started counting not only the years since the birth of Christ, but also those before. After a few decades this method, to count backwards from the Incarnation, became generally accepted even though the old way of dating the years before the birth of Christ Anno Mundi, i.e. counting from the Creation onwards, still continued. A comparative and synchronistic exposition of ancient -> Chronography can be found in BN P the Classical Tradition (CT) vol. I. The form in which the lists included in this vol­ ume are presented would not, however, have been possible without the unglamorous and self-effacing studies of modern historians. From the 1 8th century onwards, these scholars have subjected the material handed down to them to meticulous and detailed research; moreover, from the 1 9th century onwards, this material has been supplemented by new or suc­ cessfully decoded data. They critically examined all these pieces of evidence, related them to one another and reached conclusions relevant both to calendrical research and to the reconstruction of ancient systems of time-reckoning. Their findings are nowadays considered the secure and axiomatic foundations of every single historical publication, including the lists presented in this volume.

W alter E der und J ohannes R enger

Notes to the user

Abbreviations of Contributors’ Names

The supplement series aims to complete and expand the information offered in volumes 1- 2 0 of Brill's N ew Pauly. Each volume in the series is conceived as an actual supplement: it can be used independently as an autonomous reference work, or in conjunction with the encyclopaedic volumes.

E.v.M. F.S. H.F. H.-U.O J.F.Q . J .o . JT . J.W . K.K. K.-L.E. K.-W.W. M .M . M.S. M.Str. P.W.H. R.L. R.R. W.M.v.S. W.E. W.G.

Cross-references facilitate the finding of relevant entries in BNP, which in turn refer to more infor­ mation. In this volume, cross-references occur in three types: a. An arrow (-► ) is used in the introductions to refer to entries in volumes 1- 2 0 of BNP. b. For reasons of economy an asterisk ( ), instead of an arrow, is used within lists and charts. Proper names (of individuals and places) that have an individual entry in BNP have an after the name or that part of the name that coincides with the title of the entry. c. Arabic numbers between square brackets follow­ ing proper names (as in ‘Nymphidius [2] Sabinus’ ) refer to the numbers used to distinguish between homonymous entries in BNP. Because numbers between square brackets refer to distinct entries, an arrow or asterisk is omitted in these cases. Numerous internal references to names of rulers and dynastic lists are provided to help users navigate among the different lists in this volume. The index of personal names that concludes this volume, as well as two indices within the text (Archons: X. i.A ; bishops and patriarchs: XIII. 6) offer additional access points to the thousands of names contained in Chronologies o f the Ancient World.

Erling von Mende Frank Starke Harry Falk Hans-Ulrich Onasch Joachim Friedrich Quack Joachim Oelsner Jan Tavernier Josef Wiesehofer Klaus Karttunen Karl-Ludwig Elvers Karl-Wilhelm Welwei Mischa Meier Martin Schottky Meret Strothmann Peter W. Haider Rudiger Liwak Robert Rollinger Wilfred M. van Soldt Walter Eder Wilhelm Geerlings

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I NTRODUCTION

A. The Near, Middle and Far East Introduction: S ources for the re c on s t r u c t i on of anci ent N ear E astern c h r o n o l o g i c a l systems

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

T he t e x t u a l and a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record S cienti fi c methods of dating M esopotamia E gypt and the S udan ( K u s h ) A sia M inor T he L evant and S y r i a ; P alaestina I rani an E mpires and their vassal states T he successor states of the S eleucids in I ran and C e n t r a l A s i a ; the d y n a s t y of the M a u r y a s ; C hina 9. P roblems in the re c on s t r u c t i o n of absolute and relati ve chronologi e s

1 . T he t e x t u a l and a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record A secure, absolute chronology can be given for most of the so-called classical period of Antiquity (in Greece from ca. 500 BC and in Rome from the end of the fourth century BC onwards) as well as for the regions that were in direct contact with it. By contrast, no such chronology is possible for many regions of the ancient Near East. Certainty exists only in those cases where direct links can be made with the chronology of the Graeco-Roman world. This is true for --*■ Egypt, Mesopotamia, the » Achaemenids, -► Arsacids (-♦ Arsaces, -♦ Parthians) and the -► Sassanids, as well as for -► Judah and Israel. In the cases of northern Syria and -*• Asia Minor, one must have recourse to finding reliable or at least plausible links with chronologically secure areas, i.e. with Mesopotamia and Egypt. Reconstruction of dynastic lines may depend on dynastic lists (-♦ Kings’ lists) handed down within the relevant culture. Such lists typically record the length of individual reigns, but the moment of their com­ position is invariably post factum and, in the form in which they are handed down, they are part of a long scholarly tradition. The details provided by the kinglists are in many cases confirmed by the dates on legal and economic texts and those in contem­ porary monumental inscriptions (-* Inscriptions B). As such, the lengths of reigns given in the kinglists appear to be highly reliable and this may also be assumed for those cases where dated documents are not available as a check. There are also references to certain astronomical phenomena in relation to individual rulers, which often permits exact dating. Furthermore, there are sometimes reports by ‘third parties’ on certain regions, especially Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Graeco-Roman world. Finally, numismatics plays an important role in the reconstruction of dynastic chronologies.

1

2. S cientific methods of dating Particularly in the case of the periods of pre- and proto-history, and for the historical period when no informative textual record is at hand for the con­ struction of an absolute chronology, scientific dating methods may be used. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) dat­ ing, a method known for some time now, provides approximate indications with a certain margin of error (standard deviation). For the prehistoric period such estimates are a helpful tool. For historical periods that have yielded textual sources, however, the method is not very productive, as the standard deviation regularly amounts to several decades. Tree-ring dating or dendrochronology allows for dates that are accurate to the year. The method requires, however, that there be usable material from a certain cultural layer which can be assigned to a certain ruler. Until now this has only occasionally been the case in the Near East. 3. M esopotamia Mesopotamia is of special interest when it comes to reconstructing reliable chronologies because of its many connections with neighbouring regions and states (Elam, Asia Minor, Syria and the Levant). The textual traditions of the latter regions provide us with insufficient information for composing their internal chronology. As a result of this situation, problems and uncertainties in the reconstruction of the Mesopotamian chronologies have a direct bearing on the reconstruction of chronologies in these neighbouring areas. Two factors define Meso­ potamia’s central position. Firstly, the corpus of relevant textual sources is extensive. Secondly, the Mesopotamian textual tradition spans a period of more than two millennia and therefore documents the relations with neighbouring states over a long period. By contrast, the textual traditions of the neighbouring states span periods of five hundred years at most. Egypt, despite the fact that its chro­ nology is generally well-established, is of lesser importance for the reconstruction of the chronolo­ gies of the Levant, Syria and Asia Minor, because its connections with other areas of the ancient Near East were limited. 3 . 1 . K i ngli sts ,

c h r o n i c l e s , y e ar dates and

astronomi cal diaries

3 . 2 . T he

c h r o n o l o g y of

A ssyria:

eponym

lists

3 . 3 . A stronomi cal 3 . 1 . K ingli sts ,

observations

c h r o n i c l e s , year dates and

astronomi cal diaries

The particular elements useful for the reconstruc­ tion of the chronology of Mesopotamia may be listed as follows: The cuneiform tradition includes, both for Babylonia and for Assyria, kinglists (-► Kings’ lists). These record successive rulers and the length of

2

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I NTRODUCTI ON

their individual reigns and continue until the middle of the first century BC. Many lists also document synchronisms between Babylonia and Assyria and therefore allow for an additional confirmation of chronological data. Legal and economic documents, dated by day, month and year, confirm almost all the dates from the lists for the period from the sev­ enth to the middle of the second century BC. For the time from 747 onwards, several chronicles (-► Chronicles B) offer exact dates for the reigns of individual rulers as well as for historical events dur­ ing their reigns. Astronomical diaries (-*■ Astronomy B) record dated observations of the celestial constellations. These observations are combined with information on the water level of the Euphrates at Babylon, prices of staple goods and, occasionally, historical events. The astronomical diaries span the time from 652 to 61 BC, i.e. until year 2 5 1 of the Seleucid Era or year 18 7 of the Arsacid era (-* Eras; cf. BNP 16, pp. III). They report on historical events in the Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid, Greek-Hellenistic and Arsacid periods (including, e.g., -* Alexander [4] the Great’s entrance into Babylon). The Babylonian and Assyrian kinglists, not sur­ prisingly, stop some time before the final downfall of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian dynas­ ties in 609 and 539 respectively. Consequently, the transition to the chronology of the Achaemenid rul­ ers depends on, and is in fact reliably established by, dated legal and economic texts. Of particular relevance, however, for the chronology of the Achaemenid period is the so-called Ptolemaic Canon by Claudius Ptolemaeus [65] (cf. Wachsmuth 1895: 305). The Canon documents the reigns of Babylonian rulers from Nabonassar (Nabu-nasir, 747-734 BC) onwards. It includes, with their regnal years, the kings of the so-called Chaldaean dynasty (from Nabupolassar to Nabonidus), their successors the Achaemenids and the Greek rulers of Babylonia. As such it constitutes a reliable link with the chro­ nology of the Graeco-Roman world.1 3 . 2 . T he c h r o n o l o g y of A s s y r i a : EPONYM LISTS In Assyria, ever since the reign of Eri$um I, the first king whose regnal years are documented in the Assyrian Kinglist, dates were indicated by eponymous magistrates (Assyrian limu, or limmu; -*■ Eponyms in chronology I). The limu, as the lead­ ing official of the city of Assur, gave his name to the year. In response to bureaucratic requirements lists of such eponymous officials were drafted. A recently published eponym list from -► KaneS, the centre of the Old-Assyrian trade colonies in Anatolia, opens

with the statement that the institution of epony^ mous years was founded by EriSum (Veenhof 2003: 6). In the first millennium BC, there was a fixed sequence of year eponyms, always starting with the monarch, who held the office during his first regnal year. Next, the empire’s administrative elite took the position, followed by, again in fixed order, the ‘governors’ of the provinces. The continuity of the institution of eponymous years until the downfall of the Neo-Assyrian empire toward the end o f the seventh century BC attests to its stability and endur­ ing symbolic value - despite all the changes that the office of limu underwent during its history o f more than 130 0 years. 3 . 3 . A stronomical observations Astronomical observations, which sometimes appear in omen collections (-+ Divination I), where they are related to historical events, have been used in different ways for the reconstruction o f the chronologies of Assyrian and Babylonian kings. For various reasons, however, these astronomical observations are not fully reliable and thus not applicable.2 4. E g y p t and the S udan ( K u s h ) 4 . 1 . P haraonic E gypt 4 .2 . T he k i n g d o m of K ush

4 . 1 . Pharaonic E gypt Egyptian chronology is essentially based upon the data from the Turin papyrus of kings from the thirteenth century BC and from the kinglist of Manetho [1]. The latter was composed from older Egyptian traditions and provides the names and length of individual reigns of the Pharaohs from the first down to the thirtieth (or thirty-first, i.e. the Persian) dynasty. The division into dynasties is based upon the Turin papyrus. The periodisation, on the other hand, of Egyptian history into the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms and the Late Period is a modern construct. The data from Manetho and the Turin kinglist are supplemented and confirmed by monu­ mental inscriptions and other contemporary docu­ ments (see, generally, von Beckerath 1998). In so far as legal and economic documents are dated, they are dated, from the Middle Kingdom onwards, by reg­ nal years. Earlier, in the Old Kingdom, more com­ plex dating systems were used, including one with names for individual years (Quack 2002: 4 if.). As to absolute chronology in the second millennium BC, we have two Sothis dates at our disposal (such dates mark the heliacal rising of -»• Sothis (= Sirius)). They are attested for the seventh year of -► Sesostris III (178 2 BC) and for the fifth year of Amenophis [1] I

1 Also important are several cuneiform kinglists (Grayson 19 80-83: 9 8-100) and Chronicles (idem 19 7 5 : no. 8, nos. io -i3 b ) that relate to the Hellenistic period. Additional, unedited texts are currently being prepared for publica­ tion. See provisionally www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chronoo.html. 2 Hunger 2000; Pruzsinsky 2004: 49; Reiner 19 75: 2 3 -2 5 ; Sassmannshausen 2004: 65.

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I NTRODUCTI ON

(probably 1 5 1 7 BC). Furthermore, various lunar and solar eclipses have been invoked as fixed points for the absolute chronology of Egypt. 4 . 2 . T he kingdom of K ush The reconstruction of the sequence of rulers of the kingdom of Kush depends almost exclusively upon the archaeological assessment of the necropolises near the residences -► Napata and -♦ Meroe. Links with Egyptian history are rare.

5. A sia M inor 5 . 1 . T he H ittite E mpire 5 .2 . T he H ittite successor L ydia

states ;

Phrygia;

5 . 1 . T he H ittite E mpire No kinglists, records of the length of individual reigns or dated economic and legal documents are available for the reconstruction of the chronology of the Hittite kings. The sequence of Hittite rulers was, until recently, established by ten fragments from six tablets with ritual texts and lists of offerings (Often 19 5 1). The so-called Landschenkungsurkunden (land-grant documents) have now revealed that rul­ ers with the names ^iantili, Zidanta and Huzziya reigned, in that order, both during the Old Kingdom and the Empire periods (Wilhelm 2004: 7 1 fn. 2). 5 . 2 . T he H ittite successor s t a t e s ; P h r y g i a ; L ydia Following the fall of the Hittite Empire at the end of the twelfth century BC, a series of Hittite succes­ sor states existed in Asia Minor which continued into the first millennium. On the chronologies of these states cf. -► Asia Minor III. C. Synchronisms with Neo-Assyrian rulers are not known before the ninth century BC. Knowledge of Lydian history is almost exclusively dependent on classical authors (Herodotus, Ctesias; cf. -► Lydia). Only in the case of Gyges [1] can a link with the Neo-Assyrian Empire be established. The reconstruction of the history of the Phrygians (-* Phryges) is entirely dependent on classical sources (Herodotus, Ctesias). It is doubtful whether the Midas mentioned by Greek authors is identical with the Mita of MuSki mentioned in accounts of Neo-Assyrian campaigns. 6. T he L evant and S y r i a ; P alaestina 6 . 1 . T he L evant and S yria in the second MILLENNIUM BC 6 . 2 . I srael and J udah ; P alaestina in the POSTEXILIC PERIOD 6 . 1 . T he L evant and S yria in the second MILLENNIUM BC Excavations at Ugarit and Alalal} have yielded numerous texts in which the names of local rulers are mentioned. These textual corpora include legal

3

and economic documents, international correspon­ dence and treaties. No kinglists comparable to those from Mesopotamia have been found. The same is true of -♦ Ebla and -♦ Emar, whose rulers have not been included in the present volume. As for Aleppo (Halab), the most important power in northern Syria during the Old Babylonian period, one must rely on the evidence from the international correspondence found at -► Mari. Thus far no textual sources have been unearthed at Aleppo itself. 6 . 2 . I srael and J udah ; P alaestina in the POSTEXILIC PERIOD For the history and chronology of the royal houses of Judah and Israel the principal sources are 1 - 2 Kings and 1 - 2 Chronicles. The postexilic period is covered by the books of Ezra [1] and -► Nehemiah as well as 1 - 2 Maccabees {-* Bible B). For the Herodian period one has to rely on the testimony of Iosephus [4] Flavius. 7. I ranian E mpires and their 7 . 1 . T he M edes 7 . 2 . T he A chaemenids 7 . 3 . A rsacids and S assanids

vassal states

7 . 1 . T he M edes According to Graeco-Roman historiography the Medes and their supposed Median Empire were the precursors of the Achaemenid Empire. This view has turned out to be highly problematical - a Median Empire may in fact never have existed. Herodotus [1] and -► Ctesias look back on Median history from a much later period; their contradictory accounts are presented in separate lists. Contrary to the classical sources, the contemporary Neo-Assyrian reports of military campaigns mention a series of rulers of small Median territorial states and tribal chiefs in western Iran (Zagros region). 7 . 2 . T he A chaemenids The chronology of the Achaemenid dynasty is based on the so-called Ptolemaic Canon (Wachsmuth 1895: 305; cf. Grayson 1980-83: 10 1). In addition, there are numerous dated documents from Babylonia that allow a precise dating of the death or assumption of power of individual rulers (Dubberstein & Parker 1956: 14; Stolper 1988; idem 1999). Normally a deviation of only a few days has to be reckoned with, to allow for the delay in the news of the decease or assumption of power of a ruler reach­ ing Babylonia from Susa. To give one example: the last document dated to Cyrus [2] is from August 12 th, 530 BC; the first document dated to Cambyses [2] is from August 3 1 st 530 BC. Of special interest are the recorded dates for the conquest of Babylonia. The so-called Nabonidus Chronicle (Grayson 1975: 1 0 4 - 11) dates the taking of -► Sippar by Cyrus to October 10 th 539, the taking of -► Babylon to October 12 th and the victorious entrance of Cyrus

4

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I N T R O D U C T I O N

into Babylon to October 29th. The latest document dated to the last Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus (October 1 3 th 539), comes from Uruk in southern Babylonia.

8 . 3 . E a r l y C hina In contrast to the situation in the ancient N ear East, the chronological order and date o f rulers in the various Chinese dynasties is, by virtue o f a native historiographic tradition, considered as certain.

7 . 3 . A rsacids and S assanids No dynastic lists exist for the chronology of the 9. P r o b l e m s in the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE CHRONOLOGIES Arsacids (-+ Arsaces, -♦ Parthians) or -► Sassanids. The same is true for the dynasties of the vassal states The following sections discuss the problems in the -♦ Characene, the Elymais and the -► Persis. involved in the reconstruction o f relative and abso­ Establishing the sequence of rulers is in these cases lute chronologies for the ancient N ear East. The largely based on numismatic evidence. The obverse scholarly debate on these issues is far from settled, of a coin regularly depicts the ruler and mentions his and continuing it here would exceed the limits set to name; many are dated or refer to military victories. this introduction to the dynastic lists. The reverse typically has a symbolic image. The dies for these images (-► Coin production) were often re­ 9 . 1 . M e s opot ami a used for the minting of the coins of one or several 9 . 2 . E g y p t succeeding rulers. From characteristic signs of wear 9 . 3 . A n a t o l i a ( H i t t i t e E m p i r e ) resulting from the use of the same dies over longer 9 . 4 . S y r i a and t he L e v a n t in t h e s e c o n d periods, a relative numismatic chronology can be MILLENNIUM B C ; PALAESTINA deduced. This chronology is supported by the find contexts (stratigraphy) of coins, to the extent that 9 . 1 . M esopotami a 9 . 1 . 1 . T he c u r r e n t s t a t e of k n o w l e d g e they originate from controlled excavations. Numismatic evidence can be related to textual 9 . 1 . 2 . D a t i n g s y s t e m s in M e s o p o t a m i a sources that yield, in the case of the Arsacids, 9 . 1 . 3 . E ras in M e s o p o t a m i a synchronisms with the Roman tradition. For the 9 . 1 . 4 . C a l e n d r i c a l c o n v e r s i o n t o C h r i s t i a n E ra dates Sassanid period numerous textual sources exist with which the numismatic evidence can be linked. 9 . 1 . 5 . A bsolute and r e l a t i v e c h r o n o l o g y in B a b y l o n i a These sources include Syro-Christian, Byzantine and Manichaean texts, but also the reports by later 9 . 1 . 6 . D a t i n g t h e F i rs t D y n a s t y of B a b y l o n : t h e h i g h , m i d d l e o r low Arabic historians (such as -► Tabari, who based his CHRONOLOGY? works on the Middle Persian tradition). 9 . 1 . 7 . T he c h r o n o l o g y of A s s y r i a 8. T he successor states of the S eleucids in 9 . 1 . 1 . T he c u r r e n t s t a t e of k n o w l e d g e I ran and C e n t r a l A si a ; the d y n a s t y of In a number of academic surveys o f Mesopotamian the M a u r y a s ; C hina history (such as Kuhrt 1995: 1 1 ) the presentation of 8 . 1 . I ndo - G reeks and I n d o - P a r t h i a n s ; historical events is preceded by rather brief remarks K ushanians on the chronology and the problems involved in it. 8 . 2 . T he dynasty of the M auryas Occasionally these problems are treated more fully 8 . 3 . E arly C hina (Nissen 1999: 1 5 - 1 0 ) , but a truly detailed exposition of the problems, including a listing o f the basic facts, 8 . 1 . I ndo - G reeks and I n d o - P a r t h i a n s ; is still wanting, since some o f the crucial questions K ushanians The dates of the Indo-Greek, Indo-Parthian and are still in flux. This is particularly true for questions Kushanian dynasties are largely based on the inter­ that emerge from the links between Mesopotamian pretation of numismatic evidence. Since the corpus history and that of neighbouring regions, particu­ of coins is not extensive enough, many uncertain­ larly Asia Minor, Syria, and the Levant. A well-founded and balanced survey o f the exist­ ties remain, which have led to extremely divergent chronological hypotheses by various scholars of this ing chronological problems is given by Rowton (1970) in a study based on what was known at field. the time. Its findings are still valid, since no new, decisive facts have yet emerged. Equally detailed is 8 . 2 . T he d y n a s t y of the M auryas The sequencing of the kings of the dynasty of the Tadmor’s contribution (19 70 ), a publication that Indian -♦ Mauryas is, in the first place, based on the takes positions on many questions of ancient Near native Indian sources. Their position on the time-line Eastern chronology. In more recent years, there can be deduced from the work of -► Megasthenes, have been several attempts to re-open the discussion who connects -* Sandracottus, the first king of the of these questions on the basis o f newly-discovered dynasty, with Seleucus [2] I Nikator. In addition, details and with a critical examination o f the pres­ there are the names of Hellenistic rulers mentioned ent state of knowledge. The results are published in three congress volumes (Astrom [ed.) 19 8 7 -8 9 ; in an edict from -► A$oka.

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I NTRODUCTI ON

Hunger and Pruzsinsky [eds.| 2004; Tanret led.] 2000). In addition, there is a separate monograph on the subject (Gasche et al. 1998). Only abstracts of the papers read at the Sixtieth Anniversary Symposium o f the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago in October 1979 have been published (Brinkman 1980). In conclusion, definitive state­ ments on the problematic areas of ancient Near Eastern history still remain impossible. 9 . 1 . 2 . D ating systems in M esopotami a 3 Identifying and, by extension, counting years occurred at an early stage in Babylonia by means of the so-called year names (-► Chronography II). A year was named after an important religious or secular event such as the construction of a temple, the dedication of cultic objects, the building of city walls, the completion of canals, victorious battles, etc. Until the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur ( 2 1 1 2 2004 BC in the middle chronology: see 9.1.6 below), the year was named after an event occurring at the beginning of the current year. For as long as that name had not been given, the formula of the previ­ ous year was used: “ year after the year [name of the previous year].” Later, in the Old Babylonian period (2000-1595 BC), a year would be named after an event in the previous year. For bureaucratic purposes lists of such year names were compiled and these were, in turn, collected in extensive lists of entire “ dynasties.” Such documents are among the sources upon which the Babylonian kinglists are based. From the Middle Babylonian period (starting around the middle of the second millennium BC) onwards dates were given according to the reg­ nal year of the ruler. The dating formula was MU.x .KAM + royal name (“ the nth year of king N N ” ), used until the end of Achaemenid rule over Babylonia. 9 . 1 . 3 . E ras in M esopotamia After the Achaemenids, dates were, at first, during the reign of Alexander [4) the Great, given according to the king’s regnal years. On the first of Nisan (the first month of the Babylonian calendar, i.e. April 3rd according to the Julian calendar) of the year 3 1 1 BC the Seleucid Era (-♦ Eras) came into force in Babylonia. In other regions under Macedonian-Seleucid rule, the Era started six month earlier, on the first of Artemisios (October i st 3 1 2 BC according to the Julian calendar; cf. also DNP 16, 539-579). Seleucid dates include the name of the ruler, e.g., Antiochus [5] III Megas, his son and co-regent Antiochus [6] IV Epiphanes, and the year accord­ ing to the Seleucid Era: “ 108th year (of the Seleucid Era, under the reign of) the kings Antiochus III and

5

Antiochus IV, his son (and co-regent)” = 203 BC (Renger 2000: 8 fn. 1). Dates according to Seleucid Era are also found in the Aramaic inscriptions from -► Hatra in northern Mesopotamia. Under Parthian rule, dates were given accord­ ing to the so-called Arsacid Era, which was used in Babylonia from the first of Nisan (= April 14 th according to the Julian calendar) of the year 247 BC. In the Iranian regions the Era started with the first of Farwadln (= January 22nd according to the Julian calendar) of the year 248 BC. The fixing of the starting point of the Arsacid Era in 248 was only arrived at post factum (Bickerman 1943-44). The dates name only Arsaces [ 1) I, the first ruler of the Parthian dynasty after whom the Era was named, for example: MU.x .KAM ArSaka4 (= Arsaces), “ the nth year of the Arsacid Era.” Interestingly, the few dated documents from contemporary Mesopotamia date to both the Seleucid and the Arsacid Era, as in M U .151.K A M fa ft M U .215.K A M Arsaka4 (= Arsaces), “ 1 5 1 st year of Arsaces (i.e. the Arsacid Era), which corresponds to the 2 1 5 th year (of the Seleucid Era)” = 95 BC (Oelsner 1986: 275L). The latest dated cuneiform text is from 75 AD. The existence of a genuine Mesopotamian Era, the Nabonassar Era, is postulated by Hallo (1988). This era never served for the dating of documents, however, but was restricted to the milieu of schol­ ars. As -► Berossus reports (Burstein 1978: 164), Nabonassar [747=743 BC] collected and destroyed the records of the kings before him [i.e. probably the existing copies of the Babylonian kinglists; J.R .|, in order that the list of Chaldaean kings might begin with him.” It is noteworthy that the Ptolemaic Canon, the list of Babylonian kings through the death of Alexander I4) the Great (323 BC), starts with Nabonassar (Wachsmuth 1895: 305). Other arguments for the existence of an era starting with Nabonassar are advanced by Hallo (1988). One is the possibility that the metonic cycle (Meton [2]), an intercalation cycle of nineteen years, was introduced under Nabonassar.4 In addition, the so-called Chronicle o f Market Prices ends in the year 748 BC (Grayson 19 75: i8 f. no. 23), and the socalled Babylonian Chronicle starts with Nabonassar (ibid. 69-87 no. 1). How strong these hypotheses really are, however, has yet to be demonstrated. 9 . 1 . 4 . C alendri cal conversi on to C hristian E ra dates Two factors should be taken into account when converting Babylonian dates to those of the Gregorian calendar. Firstly, the year’s beginning in Babylonia was in spring (Nisan, the first month of the Babylonian calendar, corresponding to March/ April). Secondly, the Babylonian calendar was based

3 For more details cf. Renger 2000. 4 On this subject, see below. According to Dubberstein & Parker 1956: 2, the metonic cycle was in use only from 367 BC (or 383 BC).

6

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE A N D FAR EAST - I NT RODUCT I ON

on a lunisolar year. The twelve months of either 29 or 30 days necessitated the regular intercalation of an additional month. The conversion to Julian dates for the period from the seventh century BC onwards has already been undertaken (Dubberstein Sc Par­ ker 1956: 25-47). The conversion tables drafted for the preceding centuries are still being debated {ibid. 25). Another noteworthy factor is that the year’s beginning occurred six months earlier according to the Macedonian calendar than it did according to the Babylonian calendar. Consequently, a single Macedonian year partly overlaps two Babylonian years (cf. above and general introduction). A second complication is that the assumption of power by a new ruler normally did not coincide with the calendrical beginning of the year, yet the regnal years were counted starting only from the first year’s beginning in his reign. This problem was addressed in the Neo-Babylonian period, if not before, by calling the current year in which a ruler assumed power the accession year; the following year was then counted as the first regnal year. 9 .1.5. A bsolute and relative chronology in Babylonia Babylonian kinglists allow for the reconstruction of an unbroken, absolute chronology of Babylonia only from the first millennium back to the 14 th century BC, i.e. to the reign of Kada£man-Enlil I (Brinkman 1976: 30-4). For the preceding periods, i.e. before 1374 BC, only a relative chronology is possible because the archaeological evidence, and with it the inscriptional evidence, for the period after the First Dynasty of Babylon and prior to the reign of Kadasman-Enlil I is modest and does not suffice to continue the absolute chronology back to the Old Babylonian period. In Babylon, the foremost place where decisive finds could be expected, the layers from the second millennium are under the current groundwater level. Moreover, the excavations at Dur-Kurigalzu, the important Kassite residence (-♦ Kossaioi), yielded just as few informative inscriptional sources for the reconstruc­ tion of the chronology as other Babylonian sites did. Moreover, the later memory of this period is incomplete, as reflected in the fragmentary tradition handed down in Babylonian kinglist A. For these reasons the period following the First Dynasty of Babylon is called a “ dark age.” Its length is vari­ ously estimated (between two hundred and less than one hundred years). The adherents of the low and ultra-low chronologies strive to fill in the presumed chronological gap. The relative chronology for Babylonia during the end of the third millennium and the first half

of the second millennium — more precisely the period from the rise of the Third Dynasty of Ur to the fall of Babylon in the last year o f Samsuditanas (the last ruler of the First Dynasty), a total o f 5 17 years - is ascertained by complete lists of year dates and dated documents. By contrast, the period from the fall of the Akkad dynasty under king $uTurul to the rise of the Third Dynasty o f Ur under * Urnamma is obscure. The relative chronology of the Akkad dynasty is, in turn, secured by the Sumerian kinglist and dated documents. The length of the hiatus between the end o f this dynasty and the rise of the Third Dynasty of Ur can not be calculated on the basis of the sources that are currently avail* able. Nowadays a tentative estimate o f 48 years is assumed (cf. list I.i).5 The chronology of the earlier periods o f the third millennium can be only partially reconstructed from textual sources. Not only are the lengths o f the reigns of many rulers unknown, but there is no complete record of the names of the rulers of the numerous Sumerian city-states that co-existed independently* This defective tradition is reflected in the selective­ ness of the relevant list “ Southern Mesopotamia” ( I.1.1) . Archaeological observations, principally from stratigraphic research, are the foundation for the reconstruction o f a relative chronology of the fourth and first half of the third millennium. 9.1.6. D ating the F irst D ynasty of B abylon : the HIGH, MIDDLE OR LOW CHRONOLOGY? In those volumes of BN P that deal with the ancient world the so-called middle chronology is used for dates before the 16 th century BC. This chronology is the result of a lively discussion that started at the beginning of the 20th century (for a detailed and clear survey see Weir 19 7 2 : 1- 15 ) . The nub of this debate is the date o f the dynasty of -* Uammurapi, the pivot point for both Mesopota­ mian chronology well into the third millennium and for the chronology of Assyria and Syria. The central issue is an astrological omen (preserved in 7thcentury copies) which claims that the planet Venus disappeared before sunrise on the 25th day of the month Addaru (February/March) of the eighth year of king Ammisaduqa of Babylon (the penultimate ruler of the First Dynasty o f Babylon): “ If Venus disappears at sunrise on the 25th of Addaru: ‘ Year of the Golden Throne’ ” (Reiner Sc Pingree 19 7 5 : 33). The astronomical phenomenon referred to can be calculated and appears every 64 years. This yields a number of possible dates, at intervals o f 64 years, for the assumption of power by Ammisaduqa: 17 10 , 1646 or 15 8 2 BC. This, in turn, implies 18 5 6 , 179 2 or 1728 BC for the first regnal year o f fdammurapi and 1659, 159 5 or 1 5 3 1 BC for the fall of

5 According to Brinkman 1977: 336 the hiatus amounts to no more than 42 years, but this is, again, a tentative estimate.

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I NTRODUCTION

Babylon and the end of its First Dynasty under Samsuditana. The choice among these dates thus determines whether one uses the high, middle or low chronology. The arguments in favour of the middle chro­ nology are presented in detail by Rowton (1970: 2 3 if.). For him and others it is the archaeological evidence from Alalah (level VII) in northern Syria that becomes the critical evidence for rejecting both the high and the low chronology. The exca­ vations at that site, carried out in the late 1930s, had yielded archaeological facts that could not be reconciled with either the high or the low chro­ nology (Tadmor 1970: 78). Further, the ‘internal’ synchronism between Alalah and -► Aleppo via the ruler Jarim-Lim I of Aleppo (the father in law of Zimrilim of * Mari who, in turn, was a contempo­ rary of Hammurapi of Babylon) yields an indirect synchronism for fdammurapi. In addition, there is a synchronism between £Iammurapi and SamSI-Adad I of Assyria, whose reign can be placed approximately at the end of the 19 th or the beginning of the 18 th century BC on the basis of the Assyrian Kinglist. Of decisive importance, however, is a legal document from the tenth regnal year of Hammurapi, in which the contracting parties take an oath by hammurapi and $am$I-Adad (Ranke 1906: no. 26). Recently, the reliability of the aforementioned observation on the movement of Venus has been called into question. It has been suggested that the data in the omen series Eniima Anu Enlil are fictitious in the sense that the link between the astronomical observation and the eighth year of Ammisaduqa could be the result of a late editorial process (Reiner 6c Pingree 1975: 25; cf. above). As a result, regardless of preference for the high, middle or low chronology, the Venus dates mentioned above can no longer serve as an absolute chronological fixed point for the reign of Ammisaduqa and the relative chronology (internally secured by other sources) of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Apart from the doubts regarding the astronomical and philologi­ cal foundations of the hypothesis, it has also been questioned whether the identification of the year name - cited in abbreviated form in the text - with that of the eighth year of Ammisaduqa is justified (Sassmannshausen 2004: 65). This had in fact been generally assumed ever since the editio princeps of the text of the 63rd tablet of the astrological omen series Eniima Anu Enlil (Weir 1972: if.). For all of these reasons, there have been various attempts to re-establish a solid basis for the abso­ lute dating of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Both Huber (2000, as a mathematician and statistician) and Gurzadyan (2000, as an astronomer), the latter subjecting the conclusions of the former to a search­

7

ing critique, have based their theories on the same elements: astronomical dates. These include lunar eclipses that are connected with historical events during the Third Dynasty of Ur and a calculation regarding an eight-year Venus cycle and the length of months (29 or 30 days). On this basis and with addi­ tional support from statistical arguments, Huber (2000) opts for the high chronology. An ultra-low chronology is adopted by Gurzadyan (2000) on the same grounds; it is also a component in the theory of Gasche et al. (1998: 83L). The latter’s case for an ultra-low chronology (the fall of Babylon being dated to 1499 BC) receives additional support from archaeological evidence, in particular from ceramic sequences. At present, neither the high chronology of Huber (2000) nor the ultra-low chronology of Gasche et al. (1998) is generally accepted. For now, the middle chronology seems most compatible with dates from Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia, even though it should be stressed that the exact fixing of this chronology is open to revision. On the basis of his reflections on the chronology of the Kassite period, Sassmannshausen (2004: 65) places the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon, i.e. the taking of Babylon by the Hittite king Mursili I, “ shortly after the middle of the 16 th century.” The chronological placement of the First Dynasty of Babylon and its downfall is also significant for the Kassite dynasty that followed as documented by Babylonian tradition. From KadaSman-Enlil I (13 7 4 -13 6 0 BC) and his successors onwards the dates are certain. This certainty results in the first place from synchronisms between Kassite rulers and Egypt in the so-called Amarna correspondence (-► Amarna Letters). Secondly, there are also syn­ chronisms, but on a more limited scale, with Assyria (documented in the so-called Synchronistic Kinglist [Grayson 1980-83: 116 - 12 4 ] and the Synchronistic History [idem 1975: 51-6]). The synchronisms with Egypt are those between KadaSman-Enlil I and Amenophis [3] III (Moran 1987: nos. 1 and 2]) and between Burnaburias II and Echnaton (Amenophis [4] IV) and -► Tutankhamon respectively (ibid. nos. 7, 8, 1 1 and no. 9).6 Nevertheless, a number of unsolvable discrepancies remain between the Babylonian kinglist A and the Assyrian Kinglist (Sassmannshausen 2004: 65). The Babylonian kinglist A includes the names of seventeen kings preceding KadaSman-Enlil I. A total of seventy years is recorded for the reigns of the first three kings, GandaS, Agum I and KaStiliaS I. The following passage, with the names of six kings, is in a fragmentary state. Indications of the length of reign are available again only from the 22nd ruler, Kurigalzu II, onwards. In order to calculate the

6 Perhaps Moran 1987: no. 6 pertains to Burnaburias II and Amenophis [4] IV (Echnaton) as well as to Tutankhamon.

8

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE A N D FAR EAST - I N T R O D U C T I O N

chronological length of the hiatus from Kada$manEnlil 1 (the 18 th ruler of the Kassite dynasty) back to BurnaburiaS I (the io fh ruler, whose reign is placed at ca. 15 3 0 -15 0 0 BC (Brinkman 1976: 30; Moran 1987: 207), various ‘average’ lengths of reign have been applied. Yet this method is crippled by too many incalculable uncertainties to be of much help (Brinkman 1976: 3 1 with fn. 87). Moreover, it can­ not be excluded that the rise of the Kassite dynasty has to be placed chronologically parallel to the First Dynasty of Babylon. This in fact has been assumed in list IV. 1, the “ Synchronistic charts of the main states of the ancient Near East in the second millen­ nium BC,” in which the reign of Ganda 3 starts in 1729 BC (Tadmor 1970: 73; Brinkman 1976: 30). 9 . 1 . 7 . T he c h r o n o l o g y of A ssyri a The chronology of Assyria depends on two dif­ ferent kinds of sources. First, there is the so-called Assyrian Kinglist (A K L ), known from several copies from the first millennium. This document gives the number of regnal years for most of the individual rulers (Yamada 1994). In addition, we have the lists of Assyrian eponymous officials (-► Eponyms in Chronology I), again preserved in several copies. The eponym lists enable verification over a long period of the statements in the AKL. Accordingly, the absolute chronology of Assyria from the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 6 12 BC back to the mid­ dle of the second millennium, i.e. the reign of A$$urnerari II (14 14 -14 0 8 BC), can be reconstructed with confidence. For the preceding period a number of uncertainties exist as a result of an inadequate tradi­ tion that omits some of the lengths of reigns. The exact dates given in the “ Synchronistic charts of the main states of the ancient Near East in the second millennium BC” (list IV. 1) go back - with some lacunae - to the 20th century BC and are based on the lengths of the reigns indicated in the A K L. For the dates of the kings from Puzur-Assur III (no. 61) to Ninurta-apil-Ekur (no. 82) a continuous diver­ gence of ten years exists as a consequence of the conflicting information in the preserved copies of the AKL. A variant reading assigns only three, not thirteen, regnal years to Ninurta-apil-Ekur.7 The royal building inscriptions of Assyrian kings from the second half of the second millennium (Salmanassar I, Tukulti-Ninurta [1] I, Tiglath-Pileser [1] I) and from the first millennium (-► Asarhaddon) include claims about the temporal distance between these rulers and earlier kings and their build­ ing activities. Such indications are useful for the chronological placement of those earlier kings in the early second millennium BC.8 Synchronisms with Babylonian history, such as the one between SamSIAdad I of Assyria ( 17 6 9 - 17 12 or 18 3 3 - 17 7 6 BC

(middle chronology)) and Hammurapi o f Babylon ( 17 9 2 - 17 5 0 BC) do not yield absolute fixed points given the uncertainties of Babylonian chronology for this period. 9.2. E gypt A number of uncertainties arise in the assignment of absolute dates in Egyptian chronology (Kuhrt 1995: u f .) , which also affect the synchronisms with the rulers of other regions. Especially during the New Kingdom period there are numerous synchro­ nisms with Hittite rulers (see below). The uncertain­ ties stem from the interpretation o f two astronomical dates, one relating to the reign o f Thutmosis [3) III and one to that of Ramesses (2) II, and from the question of the so-called co-regencies in the 18 th dynasty (see, e.g., Kuhrt 19 9 5: 186). They result in divergences of 1 1 or 25 years (see ibid. 1 5 - 1 7 for details). One example can be seen in the dates for the reign of Ramesses II ( 13 0 4 - 12 3 7 / 12 9 0 - 12 2 4 / 12 7 9 1 2 1 3 BC). In list II. 1 alternative dates are given (e.g., 12 9 0 - 12 2 4 / 12 7 9 - 12 13 for Ramesses II). The results of the divergences are, however, less consequential than the problems in the reconstruction o f the chro­ nologies of Mesopotamia and Hittite Anatolia.

9.3. A natolia (H ittitk E mpire ) The reconstruction of the chronology o f Hittite Anatolia (-* Hattusa II) is likewise hampered by several problems. Hittite sources do not normally allow for an exact dating o f a given event within the reign of a given ruler. In addition, the record of the reigns of the Hittite kings is defective. Finally, in the case of homonymy, the sources provide inad­ equate information for the assignment o f an event to a particular king’s reign. For the same reason, it is, for example, also uncertain whether there were two or three rulers named Hattusili. As there are no kinglists per se, one must turn to ritual texts and lists of offerings in order to determine the succession of Hittite kings. These documents record offerings for deceased rulers and the order in which these rul­ ers are listed reflects their chronological succession (cf. 5 .1. above). A plausible - yet only approximate — fixing of the absolute chronology of the rulers o f the Hittite Empire for the period from the middle o f the 14 th century onwards is provided by synchronisms with the rulers of Egypt and Assyria, whose chronological placement is broadly secure. Sources for the synchro­ nisms are found in the international correspondence (-► Amarna Letters) and treaties (-* International treaties) of this period. Based on these sources the following rulers were contemporaries (dates after list IV .1.): Suppiluliuma I (ca. 1 3 5 5 - 1 3 2 0 BC) and A^ur-uballit of Assyria ( 1 3 5 3 - 1 3 1 8 / 1 3 6 3 - 1 3 1 8 ) ;

7 Cf. Brinkman 1977: 345 with fn. 3 1. The lower dates are generally accepted today. 8 Gasche et al. 1988: 49E; Renger 2002: 2 if.; Tanret 2000: 6 9 -7 1; Wilhelm 2004: 7 1 .

A. THE NEAR, MIDDLE AND FAR EAST - I NTRODUCTION

Burnaburiay Manetho [1]

not attested

rulers from Elephantine*

5th dyn.

According to a le g' endary tradition son of the Sun god a ™ a priestess

32"

2504/24542496/2446

Usercheres (Userkaf)

'lri-M '.t

WJr-k?=f

33-

2496/24462483/2433

Sephres* (Sahure)

Nb-tf.tv

frh.w • -Re

brother of 32?

34-

2483/24332463/24I3

Nephercheres (Neferirkare)

Nfr->Iri-kt-Re

KlkH

brother of j 33, and perhaps of order of 35 anc is debatable

i8 ,h dyn. 74-

39

155°—152-5

rulers from Thebes [1] Amasis [i ] (Ahmose, Amosis)

Nb-ph.tl-R‘

’Vh-mil •

son of 72, brother of 73

75-

I 5i 5_ I S°4

Amenophis [i] (Amenhotep I)

Dsr-ki-R‘

*Imn-htp

son of 74

76.

15 0 4 -14 9 2

Thutmosis [i] I

'i-tfpr-kl-R'

Qhw.tl-mil

son of 75

77*

14 9 2 -14 7 9

Thutmosis [2) II ’l-bpr-n-R ‘

Qhw.ti-mH

son of 76

78.

1479/731458/57

Hatshepsut

Mi‘.t-y-R ‘

W.t-Spi.wt

daughter At first regent for of 76, con­ her stepson (79); sort of 77 later assumed (from her 2nd regnal year onwards?) full royal power

79-

14 7 9 -14 2 5

Thutmosis [3) III

Mn-frpr-Re

Dhw.tl-mil

son of 77 and a con­ cubine

80.

14 2 8 -13 9 7

Amenophis [2] (Amenhotep II)

c?-hpr.w-R‘

yImn-htp

son of 79

81.

1 3 9 7 - 1 3 88

Thutmosis [4] IV

Mtt-bpr.w-h

Uhw.ti-mii

son of 80

0

At first coregent with his father (79) 10

9 Most rulers of the dynasty are not well attested. Only the last rulers, important for the war of liberation they waged against the Hyksos, are listed here. 10 There are synchronisms between 81 and Artatama and Suttarna II of Mittani (see list IV. 1 below).

40

Dynasty/ reign

Greek/conventional name

Throne name

Personal name

Genealogy

Notes

I388-I351/5O

Amenophis [3] (Amenophthis, Amenhotep III)

Nb-Mf’.t-R‘

’ Imn-htp

son of 81

11

•

II. i . E G Y P T I A N R U L E R S U N T I L A L E X A N D E R T H E G R E A T

* 3 5 1- 13 3 4

Amenophis [4] Nfr-/}pr.w-R‘- *Imn-htp (Amenhotep IV, w'-n-R' changed to Echnaton) tb-n-’ ltn

son of 82

the coregency with his father is uncertain111213

84.

* 337-1333

Semenechkare

enb’ bpr.w-R‘

Nfr-nfr.w-’ Itn son-in-law mri- W'-n-R of 83 changed to Smnfr-kt-Redsr-frpr.w

85.

* 333~ * 3Z3

Tutankhamon

Nb-frpr.w-re

Twt-'nfr-’ltn changed to Twt-enf}-3lmn

86.

* 3Z3“ * 3*9

Ay (Eje)

Upr-bpr.w-Rc *y

87.

1 3 19 -13 0 6 or 13 19 - 12 9 2

Armais (Haremhab*)

Qsr-fypr.w-R*stp.n-R*

00

82.

coregency with his father-in-law during a few years

son-in-law (and perhaps also son) of 83

Hr-m-teb

probably lacking family relations with his predeces­ sors; length of reign very much disputed

19 th dyn.

rulers from the east­ ern Delta

88.

13 0 6 -13 0 4 or 12 9 2 -12 9 0

Ramesses [i| I

Mn-ph.ti-Re

R‘-msi-sw

89.

13 0 4 -12 9 0 or 12 9 0 -12 7 9

Sethos [1] I

Mn-Mt'.t-R*

Sty

son of 88

90.

12 9 0 -12 2 4 or 12 7 9 - 12 13

Ramesses [2] II

Wsr-MP. t-R‘stp.n-R*

R ‘-msi-s (w)

son of 89

9 i*

12 2 4 -12 0 5 or 12 13-12 0 4 /0 3

Amenephtes (Merenptah)

Bf-n-Rf

Sty-Mri-n-Pth

son of 90

92.

1205/031200/1199

Ammenemnes (Amenmesse)

Mn-mi-R*

>lmn-msi-s(w) uncertain

13

possible usurper; it is uncertain whether his regnal years should be counted separately; assign­ ment o f the Greek name to this ruler debated

11 There are synchronisms between 82 and Kurigalzu I, Kada§man-Enlil I and Burna-BuriaS II of Babylon, and between 82 and Suttarna II und TuSratta of Mittani (see list IV. 1 below). 12 There are synchronisms between 83 and Burna-BuriaS II of Babylon, A££ur-uballit I of Assyria and Tu£ratta of Mittani (see list IV. 1 below). 13 There are synchronisms with Muwattalli, Mursili III Urbitesuba und f^attusili II/III of (iattusa (see list IV. 1).

II. i . E G Y P T I A N R U L E R S U N T I L A L E X A N D E R T H E G R E A T

Dynasty/ reign

Greek/conventional name

Throne name

93-

12 0 5 - 119 8 or 12 0 0 /119 9 1194/93

Sethos [2] 11

Wsr-frpr.w-Re Sty

uncertain; perhaps descendant of 91

94-

1 1 9 8 - 1 1 9 0 or 119 4 /9 31186/85

Siptah

Sf}H.n-Re changed to ib-n-R
na$ir I

Zidanta II

14 5 4 - 14 4 3 (14 6 3 -14 5 1)

63. N ur-ili

14 4 1 (14 5 1 ) 14 4 1-? (14 5 0 -? )

64. Assur-Saduni

P-I42.I ( ? - i 4 3 i)

66. As§ur-nadinah h e I

142.0-1415

67. Enlil-na§ir 11

Quzziya II

Parsatatar

Muwattalli I

Sau&tatar

Tudhaliya I

65. A&sur-rabi I

(14 3 0 -14 15 )

contem­ porary o f Tudfyaliya I:

ca. 14 0 0 - 13 7 5

Sunassura last king of Kizzuwatna*

1414-1408

68. AsSur-nersiri D

(14 15 -14 18 )

Arnuwanda I

1 4 0 7 - 13 9 9 ( 14 18 - 14 0 9 )

69. A£$ur-belni£e£u

Parrattarna II

13 9 8 -13 9 1 ( 14 0 9 - 14 0 1)

70. Assur-rimni£e§u

Artatama I

i) 9 0 -i) S i (14 0 1-13 9 1)

7 1 . AsSur-nadinah h e 11

13 8 0 -13 5 4 (13 9 1-13 6 4 )

7Z. Eriba-A dad I

contem­ Thutmosis IV porary o f of Egypt Artatama I: Suttarna II

contem­ Amenophis II porary o f o f Egypt Suttarna II: ca. 1 3 7 5 13S5/50 contem­ porary o f Tudfyaliya II.

Tudljaliya II

Arta&um ara

Tarfyuntaradu king of Arzawa* • 13 6 5 -

TuSratta

1 3 3 5 / 2 .3

contem­ porary o f Tusratta:

Artatama IP Suttarna IIP Amenophis I4I r v (Echnaton) o f Egypt4 5

4 War of succession: the Hittites and Assyrians supported Artatama II, claimant to the throne; T ulrattas m urdered in 1 335/2.3 BC. 5 Claimant to the throne supported by Assyria.

IV. I. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

Babylonia

Elam

conquest o f southern Babylonia by the Kassites (Cossaei*); end o f the i st dynasty o f the Sealand

Temti-halki

Agum 111

Kuk-Nasur IV

hiatus in the textual record

around 1 4 1 3

K ara’indas

M IDDLE ELAM ITE PERIOD Dynasty of Igi-halki

ca. 14 0 0 -13 8 0

Igi-halki

ca. 13 8 0 - 13 5 0

Pahir-i&an

Kadasman-Harbc I

Kurigalzu I

13 7 4 - 13 6 0

Kadasman-Enlil 1

Attar-kittah may have reigned simultaneously with his brother Pahir-i$$an

69

70

IV. i. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

Syria/northern Mesopotamia

Anatolia

I Assyria M ID D LE A SSY R IA N K IN G D O M

ca. 1355/5 132.0

Suppiluliuma I

13 5 3 -13 18 ( 13 6 4 - 13 2 8 )

73. Assur-uballif I

HITTITE EMPIRE

establishment o f the Hittite secundogeniture o f Karkamissa (Karchemish*) from ca. 13 x 2

SarrikusuhaPijassili son of Suppiluliuma; i st king of Karkamissa

13 2 3 /2

End o f the kingdom o f Mittani*; Mittani becomes a member state o f the Hittite Empire Sattiwaza son of TuSratta

ca. 1 3 2 0 - 1 3 1 8

Arnuwanda II

ca. 1 3 1 8 - 1 2 9 0

Mursili II

13 17 -13 0 8 ( 13 2 .8 - 13 18 )

74. Enlil-nerari

Sattuara I Wasasatta

1 3 0 7 - 12 9 6 (I 3 I 8- i 3o 6 )

75. Arik-den-ili

Mittani largely under Assyrian influence

1 2.9 5-126 4 ( 13 0 6 - 12 7 4 )

76. Adad-nerari I

I2.63- i 234 ( 1 1 7 4 - 1 2 .4 4 )

77. Salmanassar I (Sulmanuasared)

ca. 12 9 0 - 12 7 2 Muwattalli II Alaksandu contemporary o f Muwattalli II: king of Wilusa ca. 12 7 2 - 12 6 5

Mursili III Urbitesuba

ca. 12 6 5 - 12 4 0

I^attusili Q (‘ establishment o f the Hittite secundogeniture o f Tarfyuntassa* KuruntaUlmitesuba son of Muwattalli II; king of Tarljuntassa*

around 1260/50

Sattuara II

IV. I. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

Elam

Babylonia 1359-1333

Burna-Burias 11

13 3 2 - 13 0 8

Kurigalzu 11

13 0 8 - 12 8 2

NazimaruttaS

ca. 13 5 0 - 13 4 0

Humban-numena I

ca. 13 4 0 - 13 0 0

Untas-Napirisa

after ca. 130 0

Unpahas-Napirisa Kidin-Hutran I W

12 8 2 -12 6 4

Kadasman-Turgu

12 6 4 - 12 5 5

Kadasman-Enlil II

12 5 5 - 12 4 6

Kudur-Enlil

Kidin-Hutran II son of UntaS-NapiriSa W

Napiri$a-unta$

71

72

IV. i. S YNCHRONI S TI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

Syria/northern Mesopotamia

Anatolia

ca. 12 4 0 -12 .15

Tudhaliya III (“ IV ” ) after 12 3 3

since ca. 1 2 1 5

Amuwanda m

until ca. 1190/85

Suppiluliuma II

Assyria 12 3 3 -119 7 ( 12 4 4 - 12 0 7 )

78. TukultiN inurta I

119 6 -119 4 ( 12 0 7 - 12 0 3 )

79 - AiSur-nadin-^pli

119 3 -118 8 (12 0 3 -119 7 )

80. AsSur-nerari III son o f 79

end o f Mittani as state

son o f 78

Kuzitesuba contemking of porary of Suppiluliuma II: Karkamissa (Karchemish*)

SUCCESSOR OF THE HITTITE EMPIRE:

KIN GD O M OF TA RtfU N TASSA*/ TABAL

SUCCESSO R OF TH E H ITTITE EM PIRE:

K IN G D O M OF K A R K A M ISSA (K A R ­ C H EM ISH *)

around 1190/85

Hartapu son of Mursili III; Great King

around 119 0 /8 5

118 7 -118 3 Kuzitesuba descendant of ( 1 19 7 - 1 1 9 2 .) Suppiluliuma I; Great King

until around 110 0

precise date uncertain

Jarratarhunza/ Irtisuba

hiatus in the textual record; bridged by the kings o f the secundogeniture o f Malida (Malatya):

around 1 1 8 0

PUGNUSmili I

around 1 1 6 5

Arnuwanti I Runtiya

118 2 -118 0 /7 0 ( 1 1 9 2 - n 79)

117 9 / 6 9 -113 4 (117 8 -113 3 )

8 1. Enlil-kudurfi

u§ur son o f 78 82. Ninurta-apik

Ekur

•

collapse o f the Hittite Empire

00

ca. 1190/85

A$&ur-dan I son o f 82

IV. i. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

Babylonia

73

Elam

1246 12 3 3

Sagarakti-Surias

12 3 2 -12 2 5

Kastilias IV

12 2 5

taking o f Babylon * by Tukulti-Ninurta

around 1 2 2 5 - 1 2 1 5

Kidin-Hutran III

1

12 2 4 - 12 2 3

Enlil-nadin-Sumi Kadasman-Harbe II

12 2 2 -12 17

Adad-suma-iddina

12 16 -118 7

Adad-$uma-u§ur

hiatus in the textual record

118 6 -117 2

Meli-Sipak (Mcli-sthu)

Dynasty of Sutruk-

Nabbunte

117 1-115 9

Marduk-apla-iddina I

115 8

Zababa-suma-iddina

115 7 -115 5

Enlil-nadin-ahi

i i 55

Occupation o f Babylonia * by the Elamites

ca. 1 1 8 5 - 1 1 5 5

Sutruk-Nahhunte I son of (iallutu§-Inu§inak

ca. 1 1 5 5 - 1 1 5 0

Kutir-Nahhunte II W

V

74

IV. i. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

Anatolia

Syria/northern Mesopotamia around 1 1 4 5

Assyria

PUGN USmili II 113 3

precise date uncertain

1 1 . -9 . cent.

84. Ninurtatukulti-Assur son o f 83 85. M utakkilNusku son o f 83

Muksa founder of the secundogeniture of Adana (until the beginning of the 7th century) 113 2 -X 115 (113 3 -1115 )

86. A§sur-re&a-i$i I son o f 85

1114 -10 7 6

87. Tiglath-pileser [1] I (Tukultiapil-E&arra) son o f 86

around 1 1 2 5

Arnuwanti II Great King

around 1 1 0 0 contem­ porary o f Initesuba:

Initesuba Allum ari king of Malida

until ca. 1000

hiatus in the textual record; bridged by the kings o f the secundo­ geniture o f Malida:

I o75” i o 74

88. Asared>apil~ Ekur son of 87

around 1085

Tara

10 7 3 -10 5 6

89. A&ur-bel-kala son o f 87

around 1065

WasuRuntiya

10 5 5 -10 5 4

90. Eriba-Adad II son o f 89

10 5 3 -10 5 0

9 1 . Sam $i-Adad IV son o f 87

( 1 1 1 5- 1 0 7 6 )

hiatus in the textual record

around 10 4 5

IJalpasulubi

10 4 9 -10 3 1

92- Assurna$irpal I (A$$ur-na?irapli) son o f 9 1

around 10 2 5

Suwarimi

10 3 0 -10 19

9 3. Salm anassar II. (Sulmanua&ared) son o f 92

IV. I. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND MI L L E N N I U M BC

Babylonia

Elam

POST-KASSITE BABYLO N IA 2 nd Dynasty of Isin 115 8 -114 0

Marduk-kabit-ahhesu

114 0 -113 2

Itti-Marduk-balatu

113 2 -112 6

Ninurta-nadin-Sumi

112 6 -110 4

Nebuchadnezzar I (Nabu-kudurri-u§ur)

1 1 0 4 - 1 IOI

Enlil-nadin-apli

110 0 - 10 8 3

Marduk-nadin-ahhe

10 8 2 -10 7 0

Marduk-sapik-zeri

Aramaean Dynasty (partly still 2nd Dynasty of Isin?)

(genealogical relations unclear)

10 6 9 -10 4 8

Adad-apla-iddina usurper supported by Assyria

10 4 7

Marduk-ahhe-eriba

10 4 6 -10 3 5

Marduk-zera-

10 3 4 - 10 2 7

Nabu-sumu-libur

ca. 1 1 5 0 - 1 1 2 0

Silhak-In§u£inak

ca. 1 1 2 0 - 1 1 0 0

Huteludus-Insusinak

after ca. 110 0

Silhin-hamru-Lagarmar

•

W

V

V

W

**

Humban-numena II until ca. 1000

hiatus in the textual record

75

76

Anatolia

IV. i. S Y N C H R O N I S T I C OVERVI EW: T H E S E C O N D M I L L E N N I U M BC

Syria/northern Mesopotamia | Assyria

around 1005/00

Mariti

around 10 0 0

...pazidi Great King

10 18 -10 13

94. Assur-nerari IV son of 93

1012.-972.

95

see list I.2..1. for later dates

As§ur-rabi II son of 92.

IV. I. SYNCHRONI STI C OVERVIEW: THE SECOND M I L L E N N I U M BC

77

Elam

Babylonia 2nd dynasty of the Sealand 10 2 6 -10 0 9

Simbar-SIpak (Simbar-slhu)

1009

Ea-mukln-zeri usurper

10 0 8 -10 0 6

Ka§£u-nadin-ahi W

F.S.

78

IV. z. SYNCHRONISTIC OVERVIEW: FIRST MI L L E NNI UM BC

IV. 2. Synchroni sti c overview of the main states of A sia M inor ca . 1 0 0 0 - 5 5 0 BC

Urartu: dates after S alvini 19 9 5 ; for details sec list I. 2.4.

-► Tabal and KarkamiS (-► Karchemish): The dates for the 9th-7th centuries are based on synchro­ nisms with Assyrian kings (cf. the relevant footnotes below and list I. 2 .1. above). The dates for the tenth century are based on supposed average lengths of generations and should therefore be considered as only approximate.

On relevant synchronisms and other details cf. also the lists gathered under I. 2. 1 H. Kaletsch , Zur lydischen Chronologic, in: Historia 7 > 19 58 ,1-4 7 2 M. Salvini, Geschichte und Kultur der Urartacr, 1995* -*• Asia Minor III.C; -♦ -* Urartu

-* Lydia: dates after K aletsch 1958.

Cilicia (Tabal*)

Lydia (Karchemish*)

KINGDOM OF TARJIUNTASSA / TABAL

KIN G D O M OF KARKAM ISSA (Karchemish*)

i ! th-9th cent.

hiatus in the textual record

around 1000

‘ruler* in the same period: around 990/80

1 3th-9th cent.

...-pazidi

Suhi l Uratarljunza

Astuwadammazza

1 ruler* in the same period:

Sufri II

*ruler* in the same period:

Tud^aliya last Great King

Katuwa

Rulers/kings of Karkamissa (Karchemish*) around 920

Lydia;

Armenia (Urartu)

‘ ruler* in the same period:

around 940

Karchemish;

Katuwa (contin ued reign)

hiatus in the textual record

know n in Assyrian sources, from the 1 3 th cent, onwards, as the “ Lands o f Uruatri** or “ Nairi-lands ”

until the m iddle o f the 9th cent, no royal names are docu­ mented

IV. z. SYNCHRONISTIC OVERVIEW: FIRST MILLENNIUM BC

Cilicia (Tabal*)

Lydia (Karchemish*) around 870848

Armenia (Urartu)

Sangara

contemporaries o f Sangara: ca. 880-843

Bar Hadad II king of AramDamascus

8 7 1-8 5 2

Ahab (Ahab*) king of Israel1

ca. 853-845

Urljilina king of Imat (yamat)

Assuma§irpal II and Salmanassar* III, kings of Assyria23

around 840

Tuwatti

79

after ca. 848

858

Kakia king of Nahiri

around 858-844

Aramu

ca. 840-830

Sarduri I

ca. 830-820

Ispuini

ca. 8 20 -8 10

Ispuini and Minua coregency

ca. 8 10 785/80

Minua

contemporaries o f Tuwatti in Syria/ Palaestina*:

contemporaries o f Tuwatti in Asia Minor*:

around 8588 31

Kate king of Adana (Qawa)

ca. 845-820

Uratami king of Imat (tJamat)

after 831

Kirn king of Adana (Qawa)

8 4 1-8 14

Jehu king of Israel*

ca. 840-815

Kulamuwa king of Sam’al

(852-824)

Salmanassar* IIP king of Assyria

around 800

contemporary o f Astiruwa: 8 11- 7 8 3

Astiruwa

Adad-nerari III king of Assyria

1 Cf. list III. 2 Cf. A.K. G r a y s o n (ed.), Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods (RIMA), vol. 2, 19 9 9 1, 2 17 iii 65; vol. 3» i 995» 37 II 55 and \\ 69 (848 and 847 BC respectively). 3 Cf. RIM A (see fn. 2 above) 3, 67: 106 (22nd regnal year of Salmanassar = 834 BC).

80

IV. 2. SYNCHRONISTIC OVERVIEW: FIRST MI L L E N N I U M BC

Cilicia (Tabal*) until around 750

Lydia (Karchemish*)

Armenia (Urartu)

hiatus in the textual record U R A R T IA N K IN G D O M around 790/85

Jariri* prince regent

785/80-7 5

6

ArgiJri 1

Kamani around 750

contemporaries o f Tuwatti: around 750

Tuwatti

Panamuwa I king of Sam’al

755-745

AsSur-nerari V

contemporary o f Wasusarma: 745- 72.7

Sarduri II

Muwabarrani I king of Tuwana

until ca. 745

around 7 3 8 732/29

756-ca. 7 3 0

Wasusarma last Great King

Tiglathpileser [2 ] III king of Assyria

around 7 3 8 7i 7 contem­ poraries of Pisiri: 745- 72.7 722-70 5

Pisiri last king/ ‘ruler’

Tiglath-pile­ ser 2] IIP king of Assyria 1

Sargon IP king of Assyria

around 7 3 8 709

ca. 738-696

M idas * king of Phrygia (Phryges*)

s a A i-

contem­ porary o f Wasusarma and Pisiri: 15 | |

contemporaries o f Wasusarma and Pisiri:

ca. 743-733

Panamuwa 11 king of Sam’al

ca. 733- 72.0

Barrdkub king of Sam’al

around 7 3 8 709

Awariku king of Adana (Que); descendant of Muksa ( 12 th cent.)

4 Cf. H. T admor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria, 1994* index s.v. Pisiru (date of the synchro­ nisms: 738 BC). 5 Cf. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, 1994: 3 16 7 1 ( 7 17 BC). 6 Warbawalla: contemporary of Tiglath-pileser III. (Assyrian Urballa).

IV. 2 . SYNCHRONISTIC OVERVIEW: FIRST MILLENNIUM BC

Cilicia (Tabal*)

Lydia (Karchemish*)

Armenia (Urartu)

Tabal under Assyrian dominion (= Bit-BurutaS) 729-?

Hulli installed by Tiglath-pileser 111

P-7 1 3

Ambaris

contemporary o f Ambaris:

7 13 -7 0 5

contempo­ rary ruler in Tuwana: 709-?

Sargon [3] I f

7i 7

conquest o f Karkamissa by Sargon [3] II; end o f the state o f Karkamissa

7 17 - 6 12

Karkamissa becomes an Assyrian province

king of Assyria

Tabal becomes an Assyrian province and then regains independence

ca. 7 30 7 14 /13

Rusa I (Assyrian Ursa)

7 13 -?

ArgiSti II

Muwahar* rani II

KINGDOM OF LYDIA Heraclid dynasty until ca. 675

contemporary ruler in Adana: 704 -677

hiatus in the textual record

Azatiwadd (Assyrian Sanduarri) king of Kundu and Sissu; regent of Adana after the death of Awariku

from the 1 2 th cent.?

ruled for 5 0 5 years according to Greek tradi­ tion (Hdt. 1.7)

before ca. 696 ca. 696-680

The last two kings: Myrsus [1] Candaules*

7 Cf. A. F u c h s , Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, 1994: 323 194, 207 (714 BC).

81

IV. i. SYNCHRONISTIC OVERVIEW: FIRST MI L L E N N I U M BC

82

Cilicia (Tabal*)

Lydia (Karchemish*)

KINGDOM OF MALIDA AND TABAL

Mermnad Dynasty (Mermnadae*)

ca. 6 75-6 51 contemporary o f Mugallu:

ca. 650-640 contemporary o f ...ussi o f Malida/Tabal and Ardys o f Lydia: around 660-640 after 640

KINGDOM OF CILICIA

Mugallu8

ca. 680-652

Gyges [ 1 1 (Assyrian Gugu)

Santasarma king of L^ilika

...ussi

6 5 1-6 2 5

Ardys [2]

Lygdamis9 (Assyrian Tugdamme) leader of the Cimmerians (Cimmerii*)

end o f the exis­ tence o f the states o f Malida and Tabal as a result o f the Cimmerian invasions 624-607

Sadyattes [1]

around 607561

Alyattes’1'

contempo­ raries o f Alyattes: around 600

Armenia (Urartu)

around 673/72

Rusa II

exact date uncertain

Erimena king?; founder of a new dynasty?

around 652

Rusa III son of Erimena

around 643

Sarduri III son o f Rusa III

exact date uncertain

Sarduri IV

around 6 30/25/10?

collapse o f the Urartian kingdom (cause unknown: Scythians, Babylonians or Medes); rump state under Median con­ trol

Thrasybulus [ 1] tyrant of Miletus [2]

8 Cf. R. B o r g e r , Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Konigs von Assyrien, 1956: 12 3 (675/4 BC) and R. B o r g e r , Be it rage zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, 1996: 2 1 A II 68; cf. J.D . H a w k in s s . v . Mugallu, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8, 1993/97: 406. 9 Lygdamis: contemporary of Assurbanipal; cf. M . Streck, Assurbanipal, 1 9 1 6 (reprint 1 9 7 5 ) : 2 8 0 L 2 0 .

IV. x. SYNCHRONISTIC OVERVIEW:

Lydia (Karchemish*)

Cilicia (Tabal*)

bc:

83

Armenia (Urartu)

after 600

rise o f monar­ chic rule in the former states o f llilika (Greek Kilikta; see Cilicia*) and Adana

ca. 640—560

585-401

kings known by the title syennesis* (Hdt., Xen. Anah.)

585

Battle at the Halys*; Alyattes versus Cyaxares [1] o f Media*

560-547

Croesus*

contem­ porary o f Croesus: 561/60528/27

first m i l l e n n i u m

Solon [1] Archon in Athens

Peisistratus [4] tyrant of Athens

547/46

taking o f Sardis* by Cyrus [2] II; end o f the Lydian kingdom

ACH AEM ENID EM PIRE (Achaemenidae*)

for further dates see list VII. 2 .1.

F.S.

84

V. i. PHRYGIA

V. A sia M inor M IL L E N N IU M

V. V. V. V.

i. 2. 3. 4.

in t h e f i r s t

BC

Ph ryg ia Lydia T he A t t a l i d s T he D y n a s t y

of of

Pergam um the Seleu cid s

V. 1. Phrygia In Graeco-Roman historiography and poetry only three rulers o f the Phrygians (-► Phryges, -► Phrygia) are attested. These are king -► Midas, his father and his son. The latter two both have the eponym Gordius [1] (cf. -► Eponymus), which, however, is also attested for historical individuals (LamingerPascher 1989: 29L). A son of the younger Gordius, Adrastus, is mentioned by -► Herodotus [1) as a contemporary of the Lydian king -► Croesus (-► Lydia), which would place M idas’ purported grandson in ca. 550 BC (Hdt. 1.3 5-45). Yet, the dates given by Apollodorus [7], Sextus [2] Iulius Africanus, and Eusebius [7] for the death of Midas (676 and 696/5 BC) are inconclusive too, as they are based solely on speculation. Moreover, the image of Midas sketched in the Graeco-Roman tradition is shaped by folk-tale motifs and secularised religious elements (Eitrem 19 3 2 : 1 5 2 6ff.; Bichler 2000: 1 1 3 ; Thiel 2000). Likewise, Herodotus’ claim (Hdt. 1. 14) that the Phrygian king Midas gave his throne to the shrine of Apollo at Delphi (-► Delphi I.B) should not be taken uncritically as a historical fact, for this may be mere propaganda designed to promote the fame of the sanctuary. Also debated is the foundation inscription of a certain “ Ates” at the Cybele shrine of Yazihkaya, the so-called “ Midas C ity,” dedicated to a “ M idas” bearing the titles “ laTktas” and “ Tanakt(as)” (Brixhe Sc Lejeune 1984: M -oia). This inscription is problematic with regards both to its precise date (between ca. 720 and > 550; BorkerKlahn 2000: 86, 90; idem 2000b: 47; Berndt 2002: 13 ) and to the interpretation of the titles. The latter could indeed point to a supra-regional regent, but also to a local “ commander of troops” and “ lord.” The same uncertainty surrounds the reference to a “ Border of M idas” on the black stone from -+ Tyana (Brixhe & Lejeune 1984: 264ff., T-o2b; LamingerPascher 1989: 28L). The tradition, recorded by Strabo (I.3 .2 1), that Midas committed suicide in reaction to a Cimmerian invasion pertains to the ruler mentioned by Herodotus; likewise the remarks by Aristotle [6] (Pol. F 6 1 1 .3 7 Rose) and Iulius [IV 17 J Pollux (IX.83) on the marriages of Midas. These notices should not be connected to one or several later, oth­ erwise completely unknown homonymous Phrygian rulers, a theory proposed by Eitrem (19 3 2 : 1 537ff«)

and recently revived by Bossert (19 9 3 : 288, 2 9 1) and Berndt (2002: 12 , 68). If the tradition of Midas* suicide is based on historical facts, then the event may be one of the Cimmerian invasions of Asia Minor, as attested in Neo-Assyrian sources, in ca. 668, 657 and 644 (-* Lydia; cf. Ivantchik I 993 : 72L). This would mean, however, that the interven­ ing period down to Croesus could not have been spanned by only two generations, as claimed by Herodotus (I.35.1 and 5). As a point o f principle, all the aforementioned testimonia on the Phrygian kings should be treated with caution as long as they remain unconfirmed by sources contemporary to these rulers. Since there is as yet no undisputed document attesting to the historical existence o f a king Midas who ruled over all Phrygia, an identification of the Herodotean Midas with king M ita o f Muski, attested in Assyrian and Urartian sources, is still commonly assumed, despite the practical and meth­ odological problems involved (Eitrem 19 3 2 : 15 3 8 ; Drews 19 9 3: 2of.; Ivantchik 19 9 3: 68ff.; Bossert 199 3: 288, 2 9 1; Lanfranchi 1988: 59ff.; idem 1990: 194; idem 1996: 94ff.; Hogemann & Scherf 2000: 15 4 ; Berndt 2002: 12 , 14 , 68). Mita was already in power during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser [2) III and adopted an aggressive policy toward the Hittite Successor states and Aramaic kingdoms from the upper reaches of the Euphrates well into “ Plain Cilicia” (Que) as well as against Assyria in the period between 7 1 7 and 709 BC, when he finally submitted to Sargon [3) II o f Assyria (LamingerPascher 1989: 16 , 1 7ff.; Ivantchik 19 9 3 : 68f.; Rollig 1993/97: 4 9 3ff.; Hawkins 19 9 3 -9 7 : 2 7 iff.). The fact that the Assyrian Annals from the middle of the 1 2th to the late 8th century BC report a gradual advance of the MuSki from the upper reaches of the ► Tigris (Murat Su) southwestwards to Cappadocia and Que (Laminger-Pascher 1989: 1 7ff.; Rollig 19 9 3-9 7 : 493ff.; Hawkings 19 9 3 -9 7 : 272; Sevin 19 9 1: 87ff.), cannot be reconciled in any way with the notion of Phrygians living in northwestern Central Asia M inor, in the region of -*• Gordium/Dascylium [2.]/ -+ Yazihkaya, who advanced only as far as -♦ Tyana, -♦ Uattusa and Kerkenes Dagi (Rollinger 2003: 326) and who themselves are not mentioned in any Neo-Assyrian text. In addition, the name M ita/M idas is fre­ quently attested in Asia Minor from the 1 5 ^ / 1 4 * to the 7th/6th century and beyond; it must there­ fore be considered a common Anatolian name (Eitrem 19 3 2 : 154 0 ; Laminger-Pascher 19 8 9 : 1 7 , 29; Hawkins 19 9 3-9 7 : 273). Given these consider­ ations and with the presently available evidence, the commonly assumed identification o f the Phrygian king Midas with Mita king o f M uski, appears to be rather unlikely (Laminger-Pascher 19 8 9 : 23ff.; Mellink 19 9 1: 624; Borker-Klahn 2000a: 249L). The identification could only be defended if M ita o f

V. I. P H R Y G I A

Muski’s expansionist policy, starting from the upper reaches of the Euphrates, had eventually resulted in the conquest of the Phrygian territory and if Mita could thus have claimed Phrygian kingship. -► Asia Minor III (with maps); -* M idas; -> Phryges, + Phrygia; Phrygian D. BERNDT, Midasstadt in Phrygien, 2002 2 R. BlCHLER, Herodots Welt. Der Aufbau der Historic am Bild der fremden Lander und Volker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte, 2000 3 J. BORKER-Ki .Ah n , Zur Herkunft der Bezeichnung “ Muski,” in: R. Gusmani et al. (eds.), Frigi e Frigio (Atti del 1* Simposio internazionale, Roma 1995), 2000, 249-260 4 Idem, Zur Altersbestimmung von Midas- und AreyastisInschrift, in: Incontri linguistici 23, 2000a, 85-98 5 Idem , Nachlese zu phryg. Fundplatzen, in: Rivista di Archaeologia 24, 2000b, 35-69 6 E.-M. BOSSERT, Zum Datum der Zerstorung des phryg. Gordion, in: Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 1993, 287-292 7 C l. BRIXHE, M. Lejeune, Corpus des Inscriptons pateophrygiennes, Langues 1984 8 R. DREWS, Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from Europe, in: Klio 75, 1993, 9-26 9 S. ElTREM, s.v. Midas, Real Encyclopadie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 15/2, 1932, 1526-1540 10 J.D. HAWKINS, s . v . Mita, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8, 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 7 * 2.71-272 11 P. HOgf .MANN, J. Scherf, s.v. Midas, DNP 8, 2000, 1 54-155 1

Ph r yg ia n

rulers

according

to

G

raeco

12

85

A.l. IVANTCHIK, Les Cimm^riens au Proche-Orient, 1993

G. LAMINGER-PASCHER, Lykaonien und die Phryger (Osterr. Akad. der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 532), 1989 14 G.B. L a n f r a n c h i , Sargon’s Letter to Assur-sarru-usur: An Interpretation, in: State Archives of Assyria, Bulletin 2/1, 1988, 59-64 15 Idem, I Cimmeri. Emergenza delle Elites militari iraniche nel Vicino Oriente (VIII-VII sec. A.C.), 1990 16 Idem, Dinastie e tradizioni regie d’Anatolia: Frigia, Cimmeri e Lidia nelle fonti neoassire e nell’ attica erodotea, in: A. Aloni, L. de Finis (eds.), DalP Indo a Thule: i Greci, i Romani, gli altri, 1996, 8 9 - 1 1 1 17 M .J. MELLINK, The Native Kingdoms of Anatolia, in: Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3/2, * 19 9 1, 622-643 18 W. R&I.LIG, s.v. Muski/Muski, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8, I 9 9 3 “ I 9 9 7 * 4 9 3 “ 4 9 4 19 R. Roi.I.INGER, Kerkenes Dag and the Median “ Empire,” in: G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, R. Rollinger (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?) - Assyria, Media, Persia, 2003, 3 2 1-3 2 6 20 V. SEVIN, The Early Iron Age in the Elazig Region and the Problem of the Mushkians, in: Anatolian Studies 4 1, 19 9 1, 87-97 21 A. THIEL, Midas - Mythos und Verwandlung, 2000 22 A.-M. WlTTKE, Musker und Phryger. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens vom 12 . bis zum 7. Jh. v.Chr., 2004.

13

-Roman

historiography

(Sources: Hdt. I.14 , 35, 4 1- 4 5 , with additional information from Strab. I.3 .2 1, Aristot. Pol. F 6 1 1 .3 7 |Rose| and Pollux IX .83)

Reign

3*

Genealogy/marriage

Notes

Midas*

son of 1 wife: daughter of Agamemnon, (king of Cyme [3])

committed suicide in the wake of a Cimmerian invasion (possible dates: ca. 66 8, 657 or 644)

Gordius* (II)

Son of 2

Gordius* (I)

1. 2.

Name

i st half 7th cent. BC?

son of 3: prince Adrastus

flees as fratricide to the Lydian king Croesus (ca. 550/540) P .W .H .

86

V. x. LYDIA

V . 2. L y d i a The attempt to reconstruct a historically reliable list of kings of -► Lydia runs up against a series of problems. First, Herodotus [i] gives two contra­ dictory accounts of the earliest Lydian rulers. On the one hand, he provides a non-Heraclid geneal­ ogy (1*7.2; I.94.3; V I.74.1), which is composed of secularised divine names and one eponymous hero ( 1- 3 ; cf. Bichler 2000: 2 2 6f.); on the other hand he mentions a line founded by Heracles [1] (I.7.2), of which he knows only the beginning and end. The fictitious nature of these rulers is revealed by the fact that Herodotus does not give any concrete informa­ tion or length of reigns for the kings from Atys |i] to -* Candaules and only refers to a total period of 22 generations. A similar span of time is mentioned by Herodotus for the series of kings of “ upper Asia” (I.7.4; I.95.2), which underlines the fictitious nature of this chronology (Ivantchik 19 9 3: io8ff.; Bichler 2000: 228ff.). Secondly, while there is no need to question the existence of the -► Mermnadae, the detailed information on individual rulers is contaminated with folktale motifs and presented in a novelised form (Lanfranchi 1996: 89ff.; Bichler 2000: 23 iff., 244ff.). Even the lengths of individual reigns cannot possibly be correct, as is shown by contemporary evidence (see below). Herodotus’ older contemporary, the Lydian his­ toriographer Xanthus [3] of Sardis, also provides a plausible kinglist; the form in which this tradi­ tion has come down to us, however, is the result of reworking in the Hellenistic period and reshaping into novelistic form by Nicolaus [3] o f Damascus. Though Xanthus, in contrast to Herodotus, has a list of names from the so-called Heraclidae dynasty that are, by themselves, not suspicious, indi­ cations of the length of individual reigns are mostly lacking. Also striking is the lack of corresponding information on historical events. It is not clear to what degree this situation may be explained by assuming deletions in the later, reworked tradition. Xanthus and Herodotus agree on the status of Gyges [1] as a usurper and as the founder o f the last Lydian ruling dynasty. In recent publications the names of the last rulers of the dynasty o f the Heraclidae have been interpreted as indicating that “ Candaules” was in fact a title used by a king named Sadyattes [1] (Lipinski 19 9 3: 65L; Bichler 2000: 228 fn. 57). As a point of principle, only those statements by Herodotus and Xanthus that are corroborated directly or indirectly by contemporary sources can be considered as confirmed. The sources that can be used as controls, at least in the case o f indi­ vidual dates, are the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Egyptian annalistic traditions. The foundation inscriptions of the Artemis temple at -► Ephesus

(Artemision D = “ Temple of Croesus” ) are an important source confirming the existence o f the last Lydian king and his building activity in this Greek sanctuary (Kukula 1906: Nos. 1 - 3 ; Schaber 19 8 1: 7L, 12 L ; on the building itself see idem : 3 3 -8 7 ). The comparative examination of available sources is most successful in the case of Gyges (1], whose regnal years can now be reconstructed on the basis of a new edition and recent analysis of the Assyrian Annals and letters of Assurbanipal (Borger 1996: 2 i8 f. and 30L, SS24L; Parpola 19 9 3: No. 100; Hartmann 1962: 2 5 ff.; Cogan & Tadm or 1977: 65ff., 75L , 78ff.; Spalinger 19 7 7 : 40off.; Haider 1986: i6 4 ff., i69ff.), as well as the Egyptian sources (Spalinger 19 7 7 : 40off.; Haider 1988: 1 5 3 ff., 1 6 iff., i6 9 ff., 1 7 sff.; see also Lanfranchi 1990: n o ff.; Ivantchik 19 9 3: 9 sff., 103L). This combined evi­ dence shows that Gyges ascended to the Lydian throne before 668 and died in 644, during the third Cimmerian invasion (--* Cimmerii) known to have taken place during his reign, rather than in 652, as is usually assumed (on the basis of Kaletsch 19 5 8 : 10). In addition, the Assyrian Annals mention Gyges* son, unfortunately without giving his name, as his successor and as an ally of the Assyrians. An important indication of the expansion of the Lydian kingdom, around 560/550 BC, as far as Lycaonia is contained in the short account of the military campaign by the Neo-Babylonian king -► Neriglissar (Nergal-sarra-usur) against AppuaSu, king o f Pirindu (“ Rugged Cilicia,” Grayson 1975: 10 3 L , H .1-27) *n 557 BC. The latter ruler, after the fall o f his old capital Kirsi (Meydancik Kale), fled over the mountains to Lydia (URU./w-«-dw; Grayson 19 7 5 : 10 3 L , 11.2 3 -2 5 ; Glassner 1993: 2 0 if.; Lanfranchi 1996: 10 7; Rollinger 2003: 295^; idem (forthcoming!). His route seems to have been through the Goksu valley up to the plain o f Konya (for the correction of locations proposed for the towns of Ura and Kirsi by Grayson 19 7 5 : 259, 265, Kaletsch 1958: 179 and Zadok 1985: 200, 2 5 1 , cf. the map in Haider 1995: 92ff., fig. 1). Regrettably, the chronicle does not mention the name o f the king who ruled Lydia at the time. p . w . h.

V. 2 . 1 . R H

ulers

in

Lydia

according

to

erodotus

V. 2.2. L y d ia n

kings of the

dynasty

T HE M

e

until

the

H eraclid

beginning

of

RMNAD DYNASTY

V. 2.3. L y d ia n ru lers a c c o r d in g to the N eo -A s s y r ia n , N eo -Ba b y l o n ia n and Egyptian sources V. 2 . 4 . R e v i s e d c h r o n o l o g y o f L y d i a n rulers

V. 1 . L Y D I A

V. i . i . R u l e r s i n L y d i a a c c o r d i n g (Hdt. 1.6-22, 25- 55> 69-92, 94)

Reign

Name(s)

to

H

87

erodotus

Genealogy/marriages

Notes 1- 3 : non-Heraclid genealogy

Manes Atys 11 1

son of 1

L y d u s |1 )

son of 2

4-

Agron [2|

son of Ninus; from the line of Heracles [1]

beginning of the dynasty of the Heraclidae*

5.-X

(no names mentioned)

continuous succession from father to son

Meles, mentioned in Hdt. 1. 8 5, should be placed here, as shown by a comparison with the kinglist of Xanthus I3] of Sardis (see below).

x + 1.

Myrsus [i|

x+2.

Candaules* (Myrsilus)

son of x + i

Murdered by the Mermnad (Mermnadae*) Gyges [ij; end of the dynasty of the Heraclidae. The period from Atys [1] to Candaules reportedly amounted to 22 generations. usurper

3-

x + 3.

38 years

Gyges 11 ]

son of the Mermnad Dascylus [3]; marries the widow of Candaules*

x + 4.

49 years

Ardys 12.]

son of x+3

x + 5.

12 years

Sadyattes [2]

son of x+4

x+6.

57 years

Alyattes*

son of x+ 5; married to an Ionian and a Carian wife

x + 7.

14 years

Croesus

son of x+6 and a Carian wife

According to Hellenistic tradition (Xenophiles, FGrH 767 F 1), Sadyattes married his sister Lyde.

taking of Sardis* by the Persian king Cyrus [2] II; Croesus plans to burn himself alive, but is saved and pardoned by Cyrus. P .W .H .

88

V. x . LYDIA

V. 2.2. L y d i a n k i n g s o f t h e H e r a c l i d M ermnad dynasty

dynasty until the b eg in n in g of th e

(Sources: Xanthus [3] of Sardis, FGrH 765 T 1, F 4, 12 - 18 , and the reworked Hellenistic version of his work in Nicolaus [3] of Damascus, FGrH 90 F 44-47; cf. -* Heraclidae; -► Mermnadae)

Reign

Name(s)

I.

Adyattes

2.

Ardys [1] I and Cadys

Geneal ogy/m arri ages

Notes

twin sons of 1, coregency

Damonno kills her husband Cadys and assists Spermus, the king’s cousin, to gain the throne.

3-

2 years

Spermus

usurper; Ardys flees into exile at Cyme

4-

70 years in total

Ardys [1] I

After the murder of Spermus, 1 returns as sole ruler on the Lydian throne.

Sadyattes [4] I (Myrsus I)

5-

6.

3+ x years

9-

Has the Mermnad Dascylus I killed; the latter’s pregnant widow flees to Phrygia and gives birth to Dascylus [3] II Goes into exile at Babylon for three years; until his return a certain Sadyattes [5] from the Tylonid house acts as regent

Meles

Myrsos (1) II

7-

8.

son of 4

3 years

Sadyattes [1] II (Candaules*)

son of 7; wife: Tudo

murdered by the Mermnad Gyges |i], son o f Dascylus [3] II; end of the dynasty o f the Heraclidae

Gyges [ 1 ]

son of the Mermnad Dascylus [3] II; marries Tudo, widow of Sadyattes II

usurper; beginning o f the dynasty of the Mermnadae

The genealogical and chronological place held by the Lydian king Alcimus, mentioned in FGrH 765 F 19 and described by Xanthus as an exemplary and wise ruler, cannot be established. P.W.H.

1

V. z. L Y D I A

V. 2.3 . L y d i a n r u l e r s a c c o r d i n g Egyptian sources

to t h e

N eo -A s s y r i a n , N eo-Ba b y l o n ia n

89

and

(cf. Borger 1996; Cogan 6c Tadmor i 9 77; Glassner 19 9 3; Grayson 19 7 5 ; Haider 1988; Hartmann 1962; Ivantchik 19 9 3; Lanfranchi 1990; idem 1996; Parpola 1993; Rollinger [forthcoming]; Schaudig 2001; Spalinger i9 7 7 )

Reign

Name(s)

before 668

*Gu-gu; *Gu-ug-gu (= Gyges [il)

Events

Notes “ King of Lydia”

between 668 and 664

Alliance with Assurbanipal* in response to the first Cimmerian invasion.

between 668/64 and 661/56

Annual payment of tribute to Assurbanipal*.

664

Psammetichus [1] I assumes power as Assyrian vassal in the Egyptian city of Sai's*.

661

Psammetichus [1] I shakes off Assy­ rian supremacy.

between 661 and 659

Gyges [1] dissolves the alliance with Assurbanipal* and allies with Psammetichus [1] I; the latter supports him with considerable military forces.

beginning of May 657

(second) Cimmerian invasion into western Asia Minor.

644

(third) Cimmerian invasion into western Asia Minor during which Gyges [1] dies.

2.

644

Ardys [2] (“ his son,” i.e. son of 1)

After his assumption of power, Ardys [2] concludes an alliance with Assurbanipal*.

3+x.

557

unknown ruler

The Lydian kingdom stretches as far as Lycaonia.

In recent publications, the date of the capture of Sardis by Cyrus (2) II in the year 547/546, and with it the fall of Croesus and the end of the Lydian kingdom, has almost invariably been taken as a confirmed fact within the reconstructed Lydian chronology (cf. further Rollinger 1993: i88ff.; Schaudig 2001: 23, 25 with fn. 108). This date must, however, be given up once for all: the latest collation of the relevant passage in the Nabonidus Chronicle (II. 16) by Oelsner (1999-2000: 378 ff.) shows that “ U[rartu]” rather than “ L[uddi]” was mentioned. The campaign of the Persian king in 547 thus did not result in the fall of the Lydian

kingdom, but in the end of the kingdom of Urartu, which accords with the crossing of the Tigris near Arbela [1] mentioned in the same context (Rollinger 2003: 3 15 b , fn. 128 ; idem [forthcom­ ing]). The victory over the Lydian kingdom may have occurred in one of the following years, perhaps only after the capture of -♦ Babylon (539). The end of the reign of Croesus may therefore be dated after 547/46 and before 530, the year of Cyrus’ death. On the basis of the evidence that is presently available, the following chronologically fixed series of Lydian rulers can be given:

90

V. z. LYDIA

V. 2.4. R e v i s e d

c h r o n o l o g y of

L ydian

rulers

Genealogy

Reign

Name

I.

before 668-644

Gyges [ 1 1

2.

644-?

Ardys [2]

son of 1

3*

• #

Sadyattes [2]

son of 2

4-

• #

Alyattes*

son of 3

5-

?-after 547/546 and before 530

Croesus*

son of 4

It appears that the lengths of individual reigns of the Mermnadae as given by Herodotus (1. 14 .3 ; I.16 .1; I.25.1; 1.86.1) are too long. For if the pur­ ported 38 regnal years of Gyges are combined with the latter’s last year, 644, the king would have assumed power in 681/680. It follows, from the supposed total of 17 0 years of Mermnad reign, that Croesus would have lost his kingdom only in 5 13 /5 12 , when Cyrus had already been dead for 17/18 years. -► Asia Minor III (with maps); -* Heraclidae; Lydia; -► Lydian; -* Mermnadae; -* Urartu1234 0 9 78 56 1 R. B ic h le r , Herodots Welt. Der Aufbau der Historic am

Bild der fremden Lander und Volker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte, 2000 2 R. B o r g er , Beitrage zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipais, 1996 3 M. C ogan & H. T a d m o r , Gyges and Ashurbanipal, in: Orientalia N.S. 46, 1977, 65-84 4 J.-J. G la ssn er , Chroniques Mlsopotamiennes, 1993 5 A.K. G r a y so n , Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Cuneiform Studies S 5), 1975 6 P.W. H a id e r , Griechenland - Nordafrika: Ihre Beziehungen zwischen 1500 und 600 BC, 1988 7 Idem, Lira - eine hethitische Handelsstadt, in: Miinstersche Beitrage zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte 14/2, 1995, 70-107 8 L.F. H a rtm a n n , The Date of the Cimmerian Threat against Ashurbanipal According to ABL 139 1, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21, 1962, 25-37 9 A.I. Ivan tch ik , Les Cimm6riens au Proche-Orient (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 127), 1993 10 H. K a let sc h , Zur 1yd. Chronologie, in: Historia 7, 1958, i-47 1 1 K. K e s s l e r , Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Nordmesopotamiens nach keilschriftlichen Quellen des 1. Jt. BC (Tiibinger Atlas der Vorderorients Beih. 26), 1980 12 R.C. K ukula , Inschriftliche Zeugnisse iiber das Artemision (Forschungen in Ephesos 1), 1906

Notes usurper

13

G.B. L a n f r a n c h i , I Cim m eri. Em ergenza delle Elites militari iraniche nel V icino Oriente (V III-V II sec. A .C .),

1990 14

Idem, Dinastie e tradizioni regie d’ Anatolia: Frig!a,

Cimmeri c Lidia nelle fonti neo-assire e nell’attica erodotea, in: A. Aloni, L. de Finis (eds.), Dali’ Indo a Thule: i Greci, i Romani, gli altri, 1996, 8 9 - 1 1 1 15 Idem et al. (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?) - Assyria, Media, Persia, 2003 16 E. L i p i n s k i , Gyges et Lygdamis, in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 24, 19 9 3, 6 5 -7 1 17 J. O elsner , Rezension von: R. Rollinger, Herodots baby Ion ischer Logos, in: Archiv fur Orient forsch ung 46/47, 1999/2000, 3 7 3 -3 8 0 18 S. Parpola , Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (State Archives of Assyria 10), 1993 19 R. R ollinger , Herodots babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische Untersuchung der Glaubwiirdigkeitsdiskussion an Hand ausgewahlter Beispiele, 19 9 3 20 /dew, The Western Expansion of the Median “ Empire:** A Re-Examination, in: [15 J, 28 9 -320 21 /dew, The Median “ Empire,” the End o f Urartu and Cyrus* the Great Campaign in 547 BC (Nabonidus Chronicle II 16), in: Proceedings of the i MInternational Conference on Ancient Cultural Relations Between Iran and West Asia, Teheran [forthcoming] 22 W. S c h a b e r , Rekonstruktion des Kroisostempels und des Pythagorastempels in Ephesos. Diss. Innsbruck 19 8 1 2 3 H. S c h a u d ig , Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grofien samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 256), 2001 24 A.J. Spalinger , The Date of the Death o f Gyges and Its Historical Implications, in: Journal o f the American Oriental Society 98, 19 77, 400-409 25 R. Z adok, Geographical Names according to Newand Late-Babylonian Texts, 1985. P .W .H .

V. J . T H E A T T A L I D S OF P K R G A M U M

V. 3. T he A t t a l i d s

of

Pe r g a m u m

The founder of the Attalid dynasty was the son of Attalus of Tius in Paphlagonia, Philetaerus [2], possibly a eunuch, who had served Lysimachus as commander of the citadel of -*■ Pergamum since 301 BC. Around 282 BC he went over to Seleucus [2] I, while keeping the 9000 talents deposited in the citadel. After the deaths of Lysimachus and Seleucus (both died in 2 8 1, the former in battle, the latter murdered), these funds enabled Philetaerus to establish control, under Seleucid supremacy (-*’ Seleucids), over Pergamum and the adjacent region in the Caicus valley. He and his successor, Eumenes [2] 1, did not as yet assume the title of king. Attalus [4] 1 was the first to do so after his victory over the Seleucid king Antiochus 13a) Hierax and the latter’s Galatian allies (ca. 238 BC). At this point, he started counting his regnal years from his assumption of power in 241 BC. The Attalid dynasty ended with Aristonicus [4], who, as cousin

Reign

Name(s)

Genealogy

91

or stepbrother of Attalus |6) III (f 13 3 BC), did not recognise the latter’s testament in which the kingdom was bequeathed to Rome. Aristonicus made his bid for power with the throne name Eumenes III. In 130 BC he was defeated by the Romans, deported to Rome and killed. The former Pergamene territory became the Roman province of Asia |2| in 129 BC. The counting of years in Pergamum was based from the beginning on the Seleucid Era (starting in 3 12 / 3 11 BC), which was widely used in Asia Minor. From 241 BC onwards years were also counted by the regnal years of the Attalid kings. ♦ Attalus [4] (with stemma); -*■ Hellenistic States (with maps); -► Pergamum 1 R.E. A llen , The Attalid Kingdom, A Constitutional History, 1983 2 E.V. H a n sen , The Attalids of Pergamon, *1971 3 D. M a g ie , Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, 2 vols., 1950.

Marriage/children

Notes

wife: Boa (a Paphlagonian woman); sons: Philetaerus 12), Eumenes, Attalus

Macedonian

I.

Attalus

2.

Eumenes

son of 1

wife: Satyra; sons: Eumenes [2] (I), Philetaerus) ?)

3-

Attalus

son of 1

wife: unknown; sons: Attalus [3], Eumenes (?)

4-

Attalus 13 1

son of 3

wife: Antiochis (daughter of the Seleucid Achaeus [4 1); son: Attalus [4] (I)

adopted by his uncle Philetaerus (2) (?); t before 263

5*

2 8 1-2 6 3

Philetaerus

son of 1

ruler

6.

2 6 3-2 4 1

Eumenes [2] I

son of 2

ruler; adopted by 5

7-

2 4 1- 19 7

Attalus I4I I Soter

son of 4

wife: Apollonis of Cyzicus; sons: Eumenes 13] (I), Attalus [5J (II), Philetaerus I4], Athenaeus(2)

assumption of the title of king in 238; regnal years counted from 241 onwards

8.

I 97“ i 59

Eumenes [3) II Soter

son of 7

wife: Stratonice [6] (daughter of Ariarathes [4] of Cappadocia); sons: Attalus [6] (I), Aristonicus I4] (by a concubine)

paternity of both children unclear (cf. 9 and 11)

92

V.

3

. THE a t t a l i d s o f p e r g a m u m

Reign

Name(s)

Genealogy

Marriage/children

Notes

9.

15 9 -13 8

Attalus [5] II Philadelphia

son of 7

wife: Stratonice [6] (for a short period in 17 2 , definitively from 159 onwards); sons: Attalus [5 J (III), Aristonicus [4 1 (by a concubine)

paternity o f both children unclear (cf. 8 and 1 1 )

10.

13 8 - 13 3

Attalus [6] III Philometor Euergetes

son of 8 or 9

genealogy debated; mother: Stratonice

II.

13 3 -13 0

(Eumenes III) = Aristonicus [4]

son of 8 or 9

genealogy: cf. 8 and did not actually rule w.*

V. 4. T he D y n a s t y see section I. 4.

of the

Seleucids

VI. i. ADI A BE NE

VI. P e r i p h e r a l s t a t e s in A s i a M i n o r in the H e l l e n is t ic and R oman perio d s All the kingdoms mentioned below (except the Regnum Bosporanum), most of which were founded in the Hellenistic period, were situated in regions that had once been part of the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire. For this reason, the ruling dynasties could often claim descent from the > Achaemenids, or at least attempted to construct such a connection. Those states that still existed in the first century AD in most cases owed their survival either to their union with the Parthians (cf. Plin. Nat. 4 1), or to a policy of manoeuvre and balance between the empires of the West and East ( ♦ Parthian and Persian Wars). M.S.

V I. V I. V I. V I. VI.

1. A d ia b e n e 2. A r m e n i a 3. B i t h y n i a 4. E m e s a 4.A. A p p e n d ix : E m esa and th e R oman E mpi re V I. 5. G a l a t i a V I. 6. C a p p a d o c i a V I. 6 . A. A p p e n d i x : C i e t i s V I. 7 . C O M M A G E N E V I. 8. O S R O E N E V I. 9 . P ONT US V I. 9 . A. A p p e n d i x : C o m a n a P o n t i c a (p r i e s t -p r i n c e s ) V I. 10 . R e g n u m B o s p o r a n u m V I. 1 1 . P a l m y r e n e E m p i r e

V I. 1 . A d i a b e n e The relatively small, yet stable principality of -♦ Adiabene (Hadjab) emerged as a result of an inva­ sion of the -*• Sacae that brought the early Parthian Empire to the brink of complete collapse (-*• Phraates [2) II). The name originally only referred to the basin of the Greater and Lesser Zab in northern Mesopotamia. In the Roman imperial period it was used, however, to denote Assyria (cf. Amm. X X III.6.20: Adiabena ... Assyria priscis temporibus vocitata). The view, expressed in the older literature, that Adiabene was governed by independent kings only during the first century AD, does not make full use of the available sources. There certainly was an unbroken series of kings in Adiabene from Augustus until the annexation of the territory by Traianus [ 1 ]. Extensive information about these kings can indeed only be found for the decades after 30 AD, during the time of Monobazus [1] I, his sister-wife Helena and their two sons (3-6). Thanks to its border location, Adiabene was of some importance. Its capital was Arbela [1], also the site where its rulers were buried. That Caracalla, after taking the city, would have desecrated the tombs of the Parthian Emperors, as

93

claimed by Cass.Dio L X X IX .1.2 (cf. Herodianus IV. 11.8 ) and reiterated by some modern scholars, does not seem very likely (cf. Kettenhofen 1990: 791 )• Moreover, Zoroastrian rulers like the Arsacids probably insisted on a quick decomposition of the corpses of the dead, including those of deceased kings (as was known to the Romans: cf. Sil. XIII.4 73f.). As a result of the abandonment of the regions conquered by Traianus in the East, Adiabene could continue to exist as a Parthian vassal kingdom. The name of the principality is frequently mentioned as such by Roman authors and later gave rise to the use of the agnomen Adiabenicus as a victory-title by some Roman Emperors. Names of Adiabenian rulers of this period are only recorded by the so-called -► Arbela Chronicle. The historical reliability of this document is so controversial, however, that it will not be invoked as a source here. Under Sassanid rule, Adiabene was ruled by governors from the Sassanid royal house, who had the right to use the title of king (e.g., Ardashir [2] II). -♦ Adiabene; -♦ Arbela [ 1 ]; ► Parthian and Persian Wars; ♦ Traianus [ 1 ] 1 N.C. Debevoise , A Political History of Parthia, 1938 (reprint 1968), Index s.v. Adiabene 2 E. K ettenhofen, s . v . Caracalla, Enclr 4, 1990, 790791 3 I. Pil l -R adem acher et al. Romer und Parther 14 - 13 8 AD (TAVO B V 8), 1988 4 T. R a ja k , The Parthians in Josephus, in: J. Wiesehofer (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse, 1998, 309-324 5 M. Schottky , Parther, Meder und Hyrkanier, in: AMI 24, 19 9 1, 6 1- 1 3 4 , esp. 8 3 - 12 1 6 D. Sellwood, s . v . Adiabene, Enclr 1, 456-459 (faulty) 7 H. Waldm ann , Die hellenistische Staatenwelt im 2. Jh. B C ( T A V O B V 4), 1985.

VI. 2. A R M E N I A

94

Reign

Name(s)

from 129/8 BC

unknown rulers

The principality, founded by the Sacae , in the region of Arbela, was usually a Parthian vassal state; it was temporarily under the rule of Tigranes [2) II of Greater Armenia.

1. after 30 BC

Artaxares

Fled to Augustus (R. Gest. div. Aug. 32)

2. ?-ca. 30 AD

Izates [1] I

Mentioned only by Ios. Bell.lud. V.4.2 as king and father of 4

3. ca. 3 o-ca. 36

Monobazus [1] I Bazaeus

son of 2, brother of 4

4*

Helena

daughter of 2, sister and wife of 3

5. ca. 3 6-59/60

Izates [2] II

son of 3 and 4

6. 59/60-?

Monobazus [2] II

son of 3 and 4, older brother of 5

7. attested 1 1 4

Mebarsapes

Genealogy

116 /7

Notes

“ Queen”

King at the time of Traianus’ Parthian campaign Establishment of the Roman province of Assyria M.S.

VI. 2. A r m e n i a The modern sovereign Republic of Armenia (a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States) comprises only a part of the territories that were considered Armenian in antiquity. The lists below include the attested rulers of the Greater Armenian states east of the Euphrates as well as the Lesser Armenian states west of that river.

V I. 2 . 1 . H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g d o m o f (w e s t e r n ) A r m e n i a / S o p h e n e V I. 2 . 2 . K i n g d o m o f e a s t e r n o r G r e a t e r A rmenia (Armenia M a io r ) V I. 2 . 3 . L e s s e r A r m e n i a ( A r m e n i a m i n o r ) V I. 2 .4 . G o r d y a e a V I. 2 . 1 . H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g d o m o f ( w e s t e r n ) A r m e n i a /S o p h e n e In the Achaemenid Empire, Armina was governed by satraps. By the end of the fifth century BC, Orontes [2] I, a son-in-law of Artaxerxes [2] II Mnemon, came to power. His descendants would play an important role in Armenian history until after the beginning of the Christian Era. These rulers are

known as Orontids (Eruandids) in western sources, Yerwandian in Armenian historiography. Less well known is that the last legitimate Achaemenid king, Darius [3] III, acted for some time as satrap of Armenia (lust. X.3.4). After he ascended to the Persian throne, he returned this position to the Orontids. The latter were able to ward off the Macedonian attempts to install governors (-♦ Mithrenes; ■* Neoptolemus). It was not until the measures taken by Antiochus (5] III Megas against his brother-in-law Xerxes [3] (7) that the Orontid rulership in western Armenia received a serious blow from which it never fully recovered: Zariadris (8), son of Xerxes and nephew of Antiochus, could only regain a reduced territory, more properly called Sophene. Not more than three generations later, this principality became part of eastern Armenia. As part of the Armenian policy of the Emperor Nero, there was a short-lived revival of the kingdom of Sophene under Sohaemus [3] of Emesa ( 11) . -► Armenia; Sophene 1 M. Schottky, Media Atropatene und Grofi-Armenien in hell. Zeit, 1989. M.S.

VI. 1. A R M E N I A

V I. 2 .2 . K i n g d o m o f e a s t e r n o r G r e a t e r A rmenia (Armenia M a io r ) Eastern Armenia owed its origin to Antiochus 15 ] III Megas, who granted the governorship of territo­ ries taken from Artavasdes f5] I (cf. VII.3.4., no.3) to an Orontid (1). Whether Artaxias |i] I (2) was the grandson of this ruler cannot be established, but it can be stated with certainty that the “ founder of the kingdom” was at least a member of the Orontid dynasty (Schottky 1989: 144, fn. 18). Therefore, suggestions of a dynasty of Artaxiads (or even “ Tigranids” ), which would not have had a connec­ tion with the Orontids, should be abandoned. The Artaxiads rather appear to be one of three securely attested Orontid lines. The height of their power was reached under Tigranes [2] (5), who should be counted as the second (rather than the first) ruler of that name, as appears from App. Syr. 48. Though Tigranes lost the territories that he conquered as the ally of Mithradates [6| VI after the latter’s fall, he managed to stay in power, as the ally of the Romans, until his death. After the Orontid-Artaxiad line had become extinct shortly after the beginning of the Christian Era, the Julio-Claudian Emperors installed several foreign client-kings in Armenia. Though these did ward off Parthian attempts to exert influence, they were extremely unpopular in their own kingdom ( 12 - 16 , 19, 2 1, 23). Finally, an agreement was reached in 63/66 AD that members of the Arsacid dynasty would, always with Roman consent, govern the theoretically neutral state of Armenia. Despite several irritations, this arrangement held until the end of the Parthian empire (cf. also list VII.2.2.). The Sassanids (cf. also list VII.2.3.) subsequently attempted to depose the ruling dynasty in Armenia as they had done in Iran. In the years 252-293 the land was successively ruled by two prince-regents, who both later became Great Kings (34, 35). Yet, even before the end of the third century, members of the Arsacid line were once again active in Armenia and, like their ancestors, they pursued a policy of manoeu­ vre and balance vis-a-vis the powers in East and West. The same Theodosius [2] whose death marked the division between the western and eastern Roman Empire, was responsible for similar arrangements in Armenia: in the years 384-389 an agreement was reached that divided the state into a Roman part and a much larger Persian territory. The latter was hence­ forth referred to as Persarmenia in western sources. Three puppet kings ruled in the Persian territory (45-47) until the local nobility requested in 428 that the last Arsacid ruler be deposed. ► Armenia; > Parthian and Persian Wars; + Persarmenia; -► Traianus [i| and [2]

95

1 M.-L. C haumont, s . v . Armenia and Iran II. The PreIslamic Period, Enclr 2, 4 18 -4 38 2 M. Schottky, Media Atropatene und GroG-Armenien in hell. Zeit, 1989 3 Idem , Dunkle Punkte in der armenischen Konigsliste, in: AMI 27, 1994, 223-235 4 C. T oumanoff, s . v . Arsacids VII. The Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia, Enclr 2, 543-546. M.S.

V I. 2 . 3 . L e s s e r A r m e n i a ( A r m e n i a

minor)

The history of the Armenian regions west of the Euphrates has hitherto received little scholarly atten­ tion. Arguments adduced to suggest that an Orontid collateral line ruled this entity (1, 3, 4 are possi­ bilities), are rather inconclusive. The meagre evidence that can be retrieved from the sources from the period before Mithradates [6| (5) seems to indicate that the rulers of that time were vassals (or at least very close allies) of ♦ Pontus. After the fall of Mithradates [6] Eupator in 63 BC, Lesser Armenia was ruled by Roman client-kings (6-12), who usually governed Armenia Minor together with their own ancestral territory. An especially common pairing was that of Lesser Armenia and Cappadocia, a structure that also came to be used in the provincial administration. ♦ Armenia; ♦ Cappadocia; ♦ Pontus I2] 1 R.H. H ewsen, Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography IV, in: Revue des £tudes Armeniennes NS 19, 1985* 5 5“ 84> esp. 60-64 2 J. M arquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung, vol. I, 1 1884 (reprint 1957), esp. 369-374 3 T.B. M itford , Cappadocia and Armenia Minor, in: ANRW II 7.2, 1980, 116 9 - 12 2 8 , esp. 1 1 7 4 - 1 1 8 1 4 R.D. Sullivan , Papyri Reflecting the Eastern Dynastic Network, in: ANRW II 8, 19 77, 908-939, esp. 9 21L M.S.

V I. 2. 4. G o r d y a e a The region of Gordyaea, also known as Gordyene, at the upper reaches of the Tigris and south of Lake Van, was bordered by Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia. It is unclear when the rulers of this area assumed the title of king. One has the impres­ sion that Tigranes [2] II (see V I.2.2. no.5) quietly accepted the claim to royalty of his vassal because it strengthened his own right to style himself as “ King of Kings” (Plut. Luc. 14 ; App. Syr. 48). Contacts between Zarbienus (1) and the Romans led to the end of the ephemeral kingdom of Gordyaea. -► Gordyaea 1 A. Baumgartner, s . v . Gordyene, RE 7 II, 1594L 2 J. M arkwart, Sudarmenien und die Tigrisquellen nach griech. und arab. Geographen (Studien zur armenischen Geschichte 4), 1930, index s.v. Gordyaia; Zarbienos 3 E. O lshausen, J. Wagner, Kleinasien und Schwarzmeergebiet. Das Zeitalter Mithradates’ d.Gr., 12 1- 6 3 BC (TAVO B V 6), 19 8 1.

M.S.

96

VI. x. A R M E N I A

V I. 2 . i . H e l l e n i s t i c

kingdom of

(w e s t e r n ) A r m e n i a / S o p h e n e

Reign

Name(s)

Genealogy

Notes

I.

3 3 6-ca. 330 BC

Orontes [3] II

son of the satrap Orontes [2) I

satrap from 336 , independent ruler from 3 3 1

2.

ca. 330-ctf. 3 1 7

Bardanes

son of 1

3-

c