1

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

Hermann Hunger - Vienna Robartus J. van der Spek - Amsterdam An astronomical diary concerning Artaxerxes II (year 42 = 363-2 BC): Military Operations in Babylonia1 Introduction- The document discussed here is a small

pieceofanastronomicaldiary in thecollectionof theBritishMuseum. It is part of the corpus of texts published byHermann Hunger in three volumes containing the datedastronomical diaries from Babylonia (Sachs & Hunger 1988;1989; 1996). The document studied here was not included inthe corpus since it previously could not be dated. Now,however, we are confident that we have established its date.Thehistoricalpartofthetabletwasstudied,transliteratedandtranslated in London in December 2005 by Van der Spek,with the help of Irving Finkel; the astronomical part hassubsequently been the subject of a renewed study by Hunger.Following the convention of the edition of the diaries, this

1 ADno.-362;BM36742(=80-6-17,475)+37478(=80-6-17,1235).

2

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

diary can be added to Volume I (1988) under No. -362. Wethank the Trustees of the British Museum for the possibilitytostudythetextandpresentitinanon-linepublication.

Description of the tablet - The fragment as it is

preserved is the upper part of a larger tablet and consists oftwo pieces, joined by the late Abraham Sachs in 1957. Theobverse contains astronomical observations; the preserved partof the reverse contains historical information. The text endswithacolophonontheupperedge.

The text of the obverse is written both on BM 37478 (leftpart)and BM 36742 (rightpart).Theheight of the obverse is8.5cm.Sinceareconstructionoflines1andr.9'-10'ispossible,we can calculate the lost part of the beginning of the tablet.The loss at the right end side is more difficult to gauge,butcomparisonwith,e.g.,ADI,p.142,no.-346indicatesthatc.15signsarelostattherightendsideofline1.OfthereverseonlyBM 36742containswriting.The lengthof liner.7' is4.8cm;thedividinglineontheloweredgeis4cm.Theheightofthetablet from the upper part up to and including line 7' is 4cm.2

2 The photographs presented below were taken by Van der Spek; the British

Museumisnotresponsiblefortheirquality.

3

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

Transliteration

obverse1. [MU 42 KAM mÁr-⌃]ú ⌃á mÁr-tak-⌃at-su LUGAL KUR.KUR

MU-⌃úna-bu-˹ú˺[GAN..........]2. [.. .. .. .. ..] GE6 2 DIR AN ZA 2 ina KIN-SIG ⌃amá⌃ TÙR

NÍGINGE63[..........]3. [.. .. .. .. ..] ˹x˺ni-di par-pi ina IGI ⌃amá⌃ ùár-ki ⌃amá⌃ id

KURu[..........]4. [.. .. .. .. ..] ˹x˺ DUL TIR-AN id SI GIB GE6 7 SAG GE6

[……….]5. [............]anaNIMDIBGE69SAGGE6sinSIGMÚLKUR

⌃aDUR[nu-nu.............]6. [.. .. .. .. .. ..] 10 ⇧Ú-⇧Ú GE6 11 SAG GE6 sin TÙRNUKÁD

NÍGIN[…………]7. [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..] GE6 13 SAG GE6 sin ina IGI ⌃ur GIGIR ⌃á

˹ULÙ?˺[….......]8. [..............]˹x˺DIRNUPAPAN⌃e-niDUH[..........]9. [................]˹xx˺[….......]

BM36742obverse

4

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

reverse1' [..................]xx[……….]2' [..............D]UMU.ME⇧-⌃úlúx[……….]3' [...... ........ ..]x inaITIAPINa-naURUUD.KIB.N[UN.KI

……….]4' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] x UGU IM ù! ⌃u-pal IM ⇧UB.ME⇧

[……….]5' [..................]xTI-úDUMULUGAL⌃áa-nama-ap-par-

t[ú……….]6' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x BAD5.BAD5-⌃ú-nu GAR-un hu-bu-

«hu-»us-su-n[uih-tab-ta……….]7' [..............lúERÍN?].ME⇧LUGAL⌃áa-napal-tuminamuh-

hiKUR-ú[……….]8' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ]x ⇧UII-su-nu ik-ta-⌃ad URU

GAZ[.ME⇧?……….] ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––9' [MU 42 KAM mÁr-⌃ú ⌃á] mÁr-tak-⌃at-su LUGAL KUR.KUR

˹MU.⌃ú˺[na-bu-ú]

BM36742reverse

5

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

10' [EN.NUN ⌃á gi-né-e ⌃á T]A GAN EN TIL ⇧E ˹«..»?˺ ˹MU˺

40[+2KAM]11' [⇧UII mG]I?-dEN DUMUx⌃á ˹mMU.dEN DUMU m«lú?»˺Mu-⌃e-

zi-b[u……….] Translation obverse

1 [Year 42 of Ars]es, who is called Artaxerxes, king of thelands.[MonthIX(29Nov.–28Dec.363BC).....…..]

2 [..........]Nightof the2nd,cloudswere in thesky.The

BM36742lowerreverseandupperedge(withcolophon)

6

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

2nd, in the afternoon, the sun was surrounded by a halo.Nightofthe3rd,[….......]

3 [.. .. .. .. ..] a dark cloud in front of the sun and behindthesun,ontheeastsideand[……….]

4 [..........]xDUL;arainbowstretchedon thenorthside.Nightofthe7th,beginningofthenight,[……….]

5 [............]havingpassed[…] to theeast.Nightof the9th, beginning of the night, the moon was […] belowEtaPiscium[……….]

6 [.. .. .. .. .. ..] The 10th, very overcast. Night of the 11th,beginning of the night, the moon was surrounded by ahalo,whichwasnotclosed.[……….]

7 [.... .. .... .. ..]Nightof the 13th,beginningof thenight,themoonwas[…]infrontofZetaTauri[……….]

8 [..............]..clouds;Ididnotwatch;rainso that thesandalwasremoved[……….]

9 [................]xx[……….]reverse1' [..................]xx[……….]2' [................]hissons,thex[…]person[s?……….]3' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x in the month Arachsamna (VIII = 31

Oct.–28Nov.363BC)tothecityofSipp[ar……….]4' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] x upstream and downstream they

encamped[……….]5' [..................]xtheytook.Thesonoftheking,who

fortheprotecti[onof……….]6' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x inflictedsg a defeat upon them, [he

plundered]bootyfromthem[……….]

7

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

7' [..................The troop]sof the king,who fordoing

battleoverthemountains?[hadcome,……….]8' [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]xgot hold [of him/the city?]. [They?]

conqueredthecity.[……….] ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––9' [Year 42 of Arses, who is called] ˹by the name of˺

Artaxerxes,kingofthelands.10' [Regularobservationsfr]omKislimu(IX)untiltheendof

Addaru(XII),year40[+2]11' [Hand of Mu⌃al]lim(?)-Bēl, son of Iddin-Bēl,descendant

ofMushezib[u(……….)] Commentary The date - This diary must belong to the later years of

Artaxerxes II. Year number 40 is just preserved on line r.10',the remainder is broken off. The name Artaxerxes is clearlywritten on lines 1 and r. 9’. Hence Artaxerxes I and II, whobothreignedmore than40years,come intoaccount.BecauseafainttraceoftheWinkelhakenofthesign⌃úispreservedonline1,wecanbeprettysurethattheking inquestionwas theArtaxerxes whose personal name was Arshu (mÁr-⌃ú), as weknow fromseveralotherastronomicaldiaries.Inaddition,thecolophonshowsgreatsimilarity todiaryADI,p.138,no.-361,r.1'-3' (Year 43 Artaxerxes II).Unfortunately the scribe of thattablet (Uballissu-Bel, son of Bel-apla-[…]) is not the samepersonasthescribeofthisdiary.

8

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

The astronomical observations concern the months IX-XII,

KislimutoAddaru.Sincethereseemstobenoquestionofanintercalary Addaru, the observation will concern years 41, 42,44 or 46 of Artaxerxes’ II reign, if the list of Parker andDubberstein (1956) is correct. The astronomical informationon the obverse helps us to establish a precise date. It isreported that the moon wasbelow EtaPiscium on the 9thofKislimu. Since only years 41, 42, 44 and 46 are possible, themoon’spositionintheseyearsisrelevant:

41IX9=-363(=364BC)Dec17 7.142IX9=-362Dec6 353.944IX9=-360Dec14 18.646IX9=-358Dec23 39.9

The numbers to the right are ecliptic longitudes at 7 p.m.

Year 42fitsnicely,becauseEtaPisciumhasa longitude ofca.353atthistime.

Historical relevance - Thehistorical sectionyieldsnew

historical information.Certainpeople (“his sons”?)encampedaround thecityofSipparon theEuphrates inNovember363BC.Afterwards“they took” thecity.Some time later(possiblythe same month,orperhapsmonth XII [27Febr.–27March262 BC]; the information comes from the end of the tablet),the son of the king set out to defend the city, inflicted adefeaton theattackers.Then,“[troop]sof theking”arrived todo battleandgotholdof someone or something. Were theseadditionaltroopssenttobringaboutthecaptureofSippar?

9

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

We should like to know who the “son of the king” was.

Artaxerxes II had three sons who were possible successors. AtfirstArtaxerxesappointedDariusashisheir(Plut.Art.26.4-5),but he rebelled against his father. The conspiracy was dis-covered and Darius was put to death. Another candidate isArsames, but Briant points out that Ochos, later to beenthronedasArtaxerxesIII,wasthedestinedsuccessor.Duringthe lifetime of his father, he was the head of a campaignagainst Tachôs of Egypt (Syncellus,p.486,20) and, accordingto Diodorus XV.93.1, Artaxerxes III succeeded without anymajorproblemtohisfather’sthroneafterthelatter’sdeath(cf.Briant2002:681).

The enemies are even more difficult to determine. Onemight think ofgovernors,oralso to“sons,”hencebrothersofthesonoftheking justmentioned.Inthecaseof“governors”one might think of satraps who revolted in the so-called“Great Satraps’ revolt,” in the case of “sons” of the king,onemight think of the struggle for the position of crown princedescribedabove.Itmightaswellhavebeenamountaintribe.

Let us first consider the so-called “Great Satraps’ Revolt.”AccordingtoDiodorusXV.93.1,“the inhabitantsoftheAsiaticcoast revolted from Persia, and some of the satraps andgeneralsrising in insurrectionmade waronArtaxerxes.At thesame time Tachôs, the Egyptian king, decided to fight thePersiansandpreparedshipsandgathered infantry forces.”Thekinghadtofightatthesame timeagainst“theEgyptianking,theGreekcitiesofAsia, theLacedaemoniansand thealliesofthese: satraps and generals who ruled the coastal districts andhad agreed upon making common cause (koinopragia).”

10

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

Diodorus mentions the following rebels in person: Ariobar-zanes,satrapofPhrygia,Mausolos,overlordofCaria,Orontes,satrap of Mysia, and Autophradates, satrap of Lydia. Inaddition: “Apart from the Ionians were Lycians, Pisidians,Pamphylians,andCilicians,likewiseSyrians,Phoenicians,andpracticallyallthecoastalpeoples(ethne)”.

The summary (prologus) of book X of the histories ofPompeius Trogus has it that the Great King “pursued hisdignitaries (purpurati) who had defected (defectores) in Asia:first of all Datames, satrap (praefectus) of [Paphlagonia] – theorigin of thePaphlagonians is presented – then the satrap ofthe Hellespont, Ariobarzanes; and next in Syria the satrap ofArmenia, Orontes; how he conquered them all and died,leavingthethronetohissonOchus.”

Other sources of importance are the life of Datames byCornelius Nepos and some “Stratagems” by Polyaenus con-cerning Datames (Polyaenus VII.21.1-7), Orontes (VII.14.2-4),Ariobarzanes (VII.26) and Autophradates (VII.27.1-3). It isstriking that Plutarch does not find the affair interestingenoughtoincludeitinhislifeofArtaxerxes.

Is it possible to link the information of this diary to whatwe know about theGreatSatrap’sRevolt(366-360 BC)? Thisrevolt has been the subject of an extensive discussion on itschronologyand itsnature.Oursourcesaremeagreandcontra-dictory,andourknowledgeofthechronologyispracticallynil.Moreover, the main interest of the Greek and Roman his-toriansis inthewesternpartsofAsia.Diodorusexplicitlysaysthat the revoltconcernedwesternsatrapiesand“all thecoastalpeoples.” Babylonia is not mentioned. The rebels operating

11

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

most closely to Babylonia are Datames, who is said to haveinvadedMesopotamia(PolyaenusVII.21.3),andOrontes,satrapof Armenia, is finally defeated in Syria (Pomp.Trog. Prol. X).OrontesmayhaveattackedMesopotamiaaswell.

In an earlier discussion of the other astronomical diariesconcerning Artaxerxes II Van der Spek (1998: 253) defendedthe idea that this invasion was recorded in AD I, p. 130, no.-366 A Col. II: 2-5 (diary concerning month II, year 38Artaxerxes II = 20 May – 19 June 367 BC). This idea wascriticized by Pierre Briant (Briant 2000: 93-4). We mustindeed admit that it is possible to combine this informationofPolyaenuswiththisnewdiary,assumingthatDatamesmayhave reached Sippar. A similar reconstruction is possible asregards Orontes. Hence the more prudent position is not tomakeconnectionswiththesatrap’srevoltatallcosts.

The revolt (or revolts) has been the subject of a greatnumberofpublications, thoroughlydiscussedbyPierreBriant(1996: 695-694 = 2002: 656-675; 1997: 57-61; 2000: 92-97).Thedebatehascentredabout thequestionwhether therevoltwas a concerted action or a more or less contiguous numberofuprisings.Concomitanttothis issueisthequestionofhowserious the revolt was. Was the revolt a clear sign of thedecadence of the Achaemenid empire which brought themonarchy to thebrinkofdownfall,orwas itsimplyanormalfeature of largeempires whichhaveonoccasion todeal withrevolts? The traditional view has been simply to followDiodorus and consider the events as the near collapse of theempire. Weiskopf (1989) tried to reduce the importance ofthe events and stressed the lack of coordination, followed in

12

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

this by Briant. Debord (1999: 302-74) seems to return to thetraditional view. Can this diary help us any further in thisdiscussion?

Letusstartwith thenegativeanswers.Itgivesnoanswer tothe question whether or not the revolt was a coordinatedaction.Itgivesnoclearindicationwhotheattackerswere.Noname of a rebel or satrap or whoever is preserved. The onlyhints we have is the phrase “his sons” and the determinativeLÚ, followed by traces of two horizontal wedges and onevertical wedge indicating the name of a people or tribe or acertaincategoryofpeople(e.g.officials).AnyconnectionwithDatamesorOrontesisthereforespeculative.

What we do learn is that unrest was not restricted to thecoastal area of the Persian empire. An attack on Sippar wasserious enough to send an army under the leadership of thesonof theking.Itcannothavehappened in theyear that theson of the king launched an attack on Tachôs, the king ofEgypt.What wealso learn is that theattack wasabortiveandin this the story is in line with the reports about the otherrevolts: inallcases theking (in thiscase the sonof the king)was successful.So,on theonehand there isevidence that therevolts were more widespread than assumed before; on theotherhand,it isnotevidence foradownfallofthemonarchy:orderwasrestored.Itistobenotedthatthediariescannotbeinterpreted as pro-Persian propaganda, rather as a fairlydetached data base of facts. The report alsogives evidence ofthe lack of interest of Greek andRoman historians of eventsthathappenedinthecentreofthePersianempire.

13

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

The second option is to disregard the Great Satrap’s Revolt

altogether and to focus on the struggle for the succession ofthe old king Artaxerxes II. The diary may report an insur-rectionof some sonsorofficialsof the king whogotholdofSippar.The“sonof theking,”thedesignatedcrownprince, isable to re-capture the city. The role of the “[troop]s of theking” is unclear: they may have arrived in order to help theson of the king, but it cannot be excluded that he was thevictimoftheiraction.Thelacunaearetantalizingindeed.

Textual notes obverse1.,r.9' Artaxerxeshasthetitle“kingofthelands,”atitleoftenusedin

the Achaemenid and early Hellenistic period. In fact, this isthe only diary of Artaxerxes II that mentions the title. Otherdiarieshavenotitleatall,orlugal,“king,”only.

reverse2' D]UMU.ME⇧-⌃úlúx[...,“his[s]ons,thex-persons” Few tracesarepreserved: twoverticalwedges(theupperonea

bit longer),andaverticalone.It isdifficult tosuggestwhat itistobereadhere;lúGAL.UKKIN,“satrap,”seemsimpossible.

3' ITIAPIN,“themonthArachsamna(VIII)” It is curious to note that reference is made to month VIII,

while the diary concerns months IX-XII. We assume thatreference is made to anattack in monthVIII, which led to a

14

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

campaigninmonthIX-XII=29Nov.363–27March262.

4' Cf. Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7), III.11 ⌃á UGU IM u KI.TA

IM, lit. “who were above the wind and below the wind.”Glassner (CM no. 26, p.236/7) translates: “upstream anddownstream from Isin (?).”Cf. CAD ⇧III,p.316,s.v. ⌃upalu2d).NotethatGlassner’saddition“fromIsin”isincomprehensible.

⇧UB=nadû,“topitchcamp” Fornadûinthechronicles,cf.Grayson,ABC,no.1III.40(with

commentary). Cf. CAD NI 84, s.v. nadû 2b 4'. The expressionis often, but not always, used with the connotation ofaggression.

7' lúERÍN?].ME⇧LUGAL Atfirstsightonewouldexpect lúERÍN].ME⇧LUGAL,“thetroop]s

of theking.”Otheroptionsshouldbeconsideredaswell,like“sonsoftheking.”

KUR-ú This may be derived from KUR, ⌃adû, “mountain; open

country,steppeland”orfromKUR,ka⌃adu,“toarrive.”Inviewof the phonetic complement ú, a derivation from ⌃adû ismore likely.Itmayrefer to royal troops whohadcome fromPersepolisovertheZagrosmountains.

8' ⇧UII-su-nuik-ta-⌃ad,“theirhandcaught” Cf. CAD K 276 s.v. ka⌃adu 2a, “to conquer a country, a city”

with qatu as subject; p.277 2b, “to defeat an enemy, to be

15

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

victorious;” p.277-8, 2c, “to capture an enemy, to arrest afugitive, a criminal.” The subject “their hand” is technicallysingular, hence the verb, ikta⌃ad, is singular. Nevertheless, thesubjectconcernsmorepeopleandispluralad sensum(“their”).Theobject isunknown;itmaybeacountry,city(Sippar?)orperson(thesonoftheking;arebel?).

9'-11' Similar phrasing in AD I, p. 138, no. -361, r.1'-3' (year 43

Artaxerxes II). Note that this diary (BM 37073 = 80-6-17,818)enteredthe inventoryoftheBritishMuseumonthesamedayasourdiary,17June1880.

11' Theastronomer inquestionbelongstotheMushezibu family.

This family was a well known family of astronomers whichstillpractised their scholarship in theHellenisticandParthianperiods.Cf.,e.g.,Bel-apla-iddin,sonofMushallim-Bel,descen-dantofMushezibu in322BC(ADI,p.228-9,no.-321‘rev.27’)and the collection of judicial documents of the Parthianperiod(c.120BC)ontheassignmentofsalariestomembersofthisfamily(VanderSpek1985:548-56).SeealsoOelsner2000:802-11,whodiscussesthefamilyintheHellenisticperiod.

HermannHUNGER RobartusVANDERSPEK Hermann.Hunger@oeaw.ac.at rj.vander.spek@let.vu.nl

16

ARTA 2006.002

Achemenet Juin 2006

Bibliography

BRIANT,P.1996,Histoiredel’empireperse.DeCyrusàAlexandre,Paris.

––––2002, From Cyrus to Alexander. A history of the Persian Empire, Winona

Lake.

––––1997,Bulletind’histoireachéménideI(TopoiSupplément1),5-127.

––––2000,Bulletind’histoireachéménideII(Persika1),Paris.

DEBORD, P. 1999, L’Asie Mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C.). Pouvoirs et jeux

politiques(Bordeaux).

OELSNER,J.2000,VonIqi⌃âundeinigenanderenspätgeborenenBabyloniërn,in:

SimonettaGraziani(ed.),StudisulVicinoOrienteAnticodedicatiallamemoria

diLuigiCagni,vol.II,Napoli:797-814.

SACHS, A.J. & HUNGER, H. 1988, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from

Babylonia,vol.I:Diariesfrom652B.C.to262B.C.,Vienna.

––––1989,Astronomical DiariesandRelatedTexts fromBabylonia,vol.II:Diaries

from261B.C.to165B.C.,Vienna.

––––1996,AstronomicalDiariesandRelatedTextsfromBabylonia,vol.III:Diaries

from164B.C.to61B.C.,Vienna.

VANDERSPEK,R.J.1985,TheBabyloniantempleunderMacedonianandParthian

domination,BibliothecaOrientalis42:541-62.

––––1998, The chronology of the wars of Artaxerxes II in the Babylonian

AstronomicalDiaries, in:MariaBrosius&AmélieKuhrt(eds.),Achaemenid

History XI: Studies in Persian History. Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis,

Leiden:239-256.

WEISKOPF,M.1989,Theso-called“GreatSatrap’sRevolt”366-360B.C.Concerning

Local Instability in the Achaemenid far West (Historia Einzelschriften 63),

Stuttgart.