Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes

Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes 

Abstract. The pivotal date of 465 BCE for the death of Xerxes is accepted by historians for many 

years without notable controversy. However, according to Thucydides, a historian renowned for his high 

chronological accuracy, Themistocles met Artaxerxes, who had succeeded Xerxes, his father, just after the 

fall of Nexos (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137) which occured after the fall of Skyros dated at the 

beginning of the archonship of Phaedo in 476 BCE, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). 

Thus, the meeting with Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474, not 465/464. 

The present Achaemenid chronology comes mainly from official Babylonian king lists which ignore 

coregents and usurpers. This official version is contradicted by contracts dated in "year, month, day" proving 

the existence of frequent co-regencies and usurpers. In addition, according to the astronomical tablet 

referenced BM 32234 the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V/21 between two lunar eclipses, one dated 

14/III/21 (26 June 475 BCE), which was total, and a second dated 14/VIII/21 (20 December 475 

BCE), which was partial. Thus the death of Xerxes has to be dated 24 August 475 BCE. Likewise, the 

death of Artaxerxes I is fixed precisely by Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War IV:50-52) just before a 

partial solar eclipse (21 March 424 BCE) which would imply an absurd co-regency of Darius II with a 

dead king during at least one year! In fact, Plutarch and Justinus have effectively described a long co-regency 

of Artaxerxes but with his first son Darius B (434-426), not Darius II, and afterward two shorts reigns: 

Xerxes II for 2 months then Sogdianus for 7 months, which occured before the reign of Darius II. 

The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has several anomalies 

especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency, and 

thus two distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) corresponds to 

another cycle ending in year 4 of Xerxes. The titulature of Xerxes (496-475) in Egypt and the data of 

Diodorus confirm the co-regency of 10 years with Darius (522-486), likewise Elephantine papyri with 

many double dates with civil and lunar calendars. 

Lunar dates were supposed to come from a Babylonian calendar, but this is impossible because the city 

of Elephantine, in the far south of Egypt, was largely administered by Egyptian officials who used a civil 

calendar to date theirs documents. Parker (1950) assumed that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with the 

1 st invisibility (day after the new moon and just before the new crescent). As lunar day 1, called psdntyw 

"shining ones", has played a major role in Egyptian religious celebrations, it is regularly quoted in ancient 

documents, which sometimes also date it in the civil calendar. In the papyrus Louvre 7848 containing a 

double date, lunar and civil, in the year 44 of Amasis, the first date (II Shemu 13) is lunar and the second 

(I Shemu 15) is civil and as the civil date fell on 21 September 558 BCE the lunar date fell on 9 (= 21 – 

12) September 558 BCE which was a full moon day according to astronomy, not 1 st invisibility "shining 

ones"! The lunar calendar at Elephantine with its system of double dates used by Persians officials and 

Jewish scribes from 500 to 400 BCE confirms that the Egyptian lunar day 1 was a full moon.

2 SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY 

THROUGH SYNCHRONISMS DATED BY ASTRONOMY 

The death of Xerxes is dated, at the present time, in 465 BCE. This date comes 

mainly from the official Babylonian chronology, however, the testimony of Thucydides and 

from some Egyptian records of Elephantine rather support the dating 475 BCE. A careful 

chronological analysis of Babylonian astronomical tablets allows to fix the precise date of 

Xerxes' death on August 24 th in 475 BCE. The official Babylonian chronology is based on 

the tablet BM 34576 (King List copy dated 99 BCE) 1 : 

This official chronology is partly false 2 (wrong datings are highlighted in orange): 

Year King Date Reign Length Co-regency Coregent Year 

[38] Nebuchadnezzar II 567 605-[562] [43] 

[ 7] Nabonidus 549 556-539 17 attested Bel-shar-usur [4] 

[ 8] Cyrus 531 539-[530] [9] 

[ 9] Darius I 513 522-486 36 

27 Darius I 495 

9 Xerxes I 477 486-465 21 

6 Artaxerxes I 459 465-424 41 

[24] Artaxerxes I 441 

[ 1] Darius II 423 424-405 19 

19 Darius II 405 

18 Artaxerxes II 387 405-359 46 

36 Artaxerxes II 369 

8 Artaxerxes III 351 359-336 23 

3 Darius III 333 336-[331] [5] 

3 Antigonus 315 318-312 6 

15 Seleucus I 297 312-[281] [31] 

33 Seleucus I 279 attested Antiochus I [3] 

There is no coregent and no usurper! The "reality" was more complex 3 (hereafter). 

In addition, the presence of months in some king lists is abnormal, because the length of 

reigns is always given in years. 

1 T. BOIY - Dating Problems in Cuneiform Tablets 

in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001) pp. 645-649. 

2 T. BOIY - Aspects chronologiques de la période de transition (350-300 av.J.C.) 

in: www.achemenet.com/pdf/colloque/BOIY.pdf 

T. BOIY - Dating Method During the Early Hellenistic Period 

in: Jounal of Cuneiform Studies 52 (2000) pp. 115-121. 

S. ZAWADZKI - The Fall of Assyria (...) in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle 

Poznan 1988 Ed. A. Mickiewick University Press. 

3 T. BOIY – Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period 

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

DATING THE REIGNS OF XERXES AND ARTAXERXES 3 

Official chronology Reconstituted chronology Remark 

Philip Arrhidaeus 323-316 Alexander IV 323 - child king 

Antigonus Monophtha. 316-311 -310 murdered in -310 

Seleucus I 311-281 (Alexander IV) (310-305) usurped attribution 

Seleucus I 305-294 11 years of reign alone 

Seleucus I /Antiochus I 294-281 co-regency of 13 years 

Antiochus I 281-261 Antiochus I 281-261 

King King List of Uruk Ptolemy Berosus Eusebius 

Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 21 years 21 years 

Nebuchadnezzar II 43 years 43 years 43 years 43 years 

Amel-Marduk 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 

Neriglissar [x]+2 years, 8 months 4 years 4 years 4 years 

Labashi-Marduk […] 3 months - 9 months 9 months 

Nabonidus [x]+15 years 17 years 17 years 17 years 

This chronology 4 has been reconstructed through the set of Babylonian lists of 

kings and all dated contracts. Since then many tablets have been published (by J. Everling 

and by E. Leichty, A.K. Grayson, J.J. Finkelstein and C.B.F. Walker) 5 which showed the 

frequent occurrence of co-regency: 

King Reign Length 

Nabopolassar 17/05/626–15/08/605 21 years 

Nebuchadnezzar II 07/09/605–08/10/562 43 years 

Amel-Marduk 08/10/562–07/08/560 2 years 

Neriglissar 11/08/560–16/04/556 4 years 

Labashi-Marduk 03/05/556–20/06/556 2 month 

Nabonidus 25/05/556–13/10/539 17 years 

King dated average lowest date highest date tablet 

texts by year 

Nabopolassar 430 21 [13]/II/00 

(P. & D.) 

08/V/21 (P. & D.) 

Nebuchadnezzar II 2322 54 01/VI/00 

(P. & D.) 

21/VI/43 (P. & D.) 

26/VI/43 (P. & D.) 

Amel-Marduk 153 77 5/[IV]/00 

BM 65270 

20/V/00 

BM 75322 

08/VII/2 BM 75106 

[17]/X/2 BM 61325 

Neriglissar 

214 54 01/II/00 

BM 75489 

23/V/00 

(P. & D.) 

01/I/4 (P. & D.) 

06/[I]/4 (P. & D.) 

Labashi-Marduk 12 48 23/I/00 

(P. & D.) 

12/II/00 

(P. & D.) 

09/III/00 (P. & D.) 

12/III/00 (P. & D.) 

Nabonidus 

3317 195 15/II/00 

(P. & D.) 

01/III/00 

(P. & D.) 

17/VII/17 (P. & D.) 

03/VIII/17 (P. & D.) 

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

Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 10-13. 

5 E. LEICHTY - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VI 

1986 Trustees of the British Museum. 

E. LEICHTY, A.K. GRAYSON - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VII 

1987 Trustees of the British Museum. 

E. LEICHTY, J.J. FINKELSTEIN, C.B.F. WALKER - Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets VIII 

1988 Trustees of the British Museum.



TRANSITION AND CO-REGENCY 

Co-regencies were in fact very frequent during transition between two kings: 

562 

561 

560 

559 

556 

555 

1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 

5 II 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 

5 II 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 

5 II 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 

5 II 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

42 Nebuchadnezzar II 

43 

0 

1 

0 Nebuchadnezzar II/ Amel-Marduk 

1 Amel-Marduk 

2 Neriglissar / Amel-Marduk 

Neriglissar 

1 

2 

X 

XI 

3 Neriglissar 

3 XII 

4 I 4 

5 II 0 0 Labashi-Marduk/ Nabonidus 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 

5 II 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

1 Nabonidus


Greek Achaemenid Chronology 

According to Thucydides: Themistocles manifested a desire to visit the king of Persia (...) The 

storm caused the vessel to drift towards the camp of the Athenians who then besieged Naxos (...) 

Accompanied by a Persian coast, then he penetrated into the interior of the country and sent to Artaxerxes, 

who had succeeded Xerxes, his father a letter (The Peloponnesian War I:98;137). Therefore, he 

reports the fall of Naxos after the one of Skyros dated at the beginning of the archonship 

of Phaedo in -476, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36). Thus, the meeting with 

Themistocles would have occurred soon after 475/474. Furthermore, Themistocles died 

under the archon of Praxiergos (in -471) according to Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library 

XI:54-60), and Herodotus situated the transfer of power from Darius to Xerxes at the time 

of the revolt of Egypt (The Histories VII :1-4), four years after Marathon, or -486, and the 

change Xerxes / Artaxerxes shortly after the storming of Eion [dated -476], last event of 

the reign of Xerxes (The Histories VII :106-107). 

epoch 450 BCE 400 BCE 250 BCE 50 BCE 150 CE 200 CE 300 CE 400 CE 

historian Herodotus Ctesias Manetho Diodorus Ptolemy Clement Eusebius Sulpice 

Cyrus II 29 30 9 30 9 [30] 31 

Cambyses II 7 + 5 m. 18 3 / 6 8 19 8 6 

Bardiya 7 months 7 months 7 months 7 months 

Nabu. III* 

Nabu. IV* 

Darius I 36 31 36 36 46 33 36 

Bel-shimanni* 

Shamash-eriba* 

Xerxes I ?? ?? 21 20 21 26 11*/ 20 21 

Artaban [-] [-] 7 months [-] 7 months 7 months 

Artaxerxes I 42 40 / 41 40 41 41 40 41 

Xerxes II 45 days 2 months 2 months 2 months 2 months 

Sogdianos 6 m +15 d 7 months 7 months 7 months 7 months 

Darius II 35 19 19 19 8 19 19 

Artaxerxes II 43 46 42 42 62 

Artaxerxes III 26 23 21 3 21 23 

Greek Achaemenid chronology 6 : 

Cyrus II/ Cambyses II (539-530) 9 years [co-regency of 1 year] 

Cambyses II (530-522) 8 years 

Darius I (522-496) 26 years 

Darius I/ Xerxes I (496-486) [coregency of 10 years] 

Xerxes I (486-475) 11 years 

Artaxerxes I (475-434) 41 years 

Artaxerxes I/ Darius B (434-426) [co-regency of 8 years] 

Artaxerxes I (426/425) 1 year [= "50 th year"] 

Xerxes II/ Sogdianos (425/424) 1 year [= "51 st year"] 

Darius II (Ochos) (424-405) 19 years 

Artaxerxes II (Arsakes) (405-359) 46 years [coregency of 3 years] 

Artaxerxes III (Ochos) (359-338) 21 years 

Artaxerxes IV (Arses) (338-336) 2 years 

Darius III (336-331) 5 years 

6 M.S. KOUTORGA - Recherches critiques sur l'histoire de la Grèce, pendant la période des guerres médiques, in: Mémoires présentés par 

divers savants à l'Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l'Institut de France, 1re série. t. VII Paris 1861. 

E. LEVESQUE - Revue apologétique vol. 68 

Paris 1939, pp. 92-94.



Achaemenid chronology according to synchronisms dated by astronomy 

Year King Co-regent 

525 5 Cambyses II 

524 6 

523 7 

522 8 1 Bardiya Nebuchadnezzar III 

521 1 0 Darius I Nebuchadnezzar IV 

520 2 

519 3 

518 4 

517 5 

516 6 

515 7 

514 8 

513 9 

512 10 

511 11 

510 12 

509 13 

508 14 

507 15 

506 16 

505 17 

504 18 

503 19 

502 20 

501 21 

500 22 

499 23 

498 24 

497 25 

496 26 0 Xerxes I 

495 27 1 

494 28 2 

493 29 3 

492 30 4 

491 31 5 

490 32 6 

489 33 7 

488 34 8 

487 35 9 

486 36 10 

485 11 (1) Xerxes I Bel-shimanni / Shamash-eriba 

484 12 

483 13 

482 14 

481 15 

480 16 

479 17 

478 18 

477 19 

476 20 Fall of Skyros 

475 21 0 Artaxerxes I (Artaban) 

474 1 Themistocles met Artaxerxes 

473 2 

472 3 

471 4 Death of Themistocles 

470 5


469 6 

468 7 

467 8 

466 9 

465 10 

464 11 

463 12 

462 13 

461 14 

460 15 

459 16 

458 17 

457 18 

456 19 

455 20 

454 21 

453 22 

452 23 

451 24 

450 25 

449 26 

448 27 

447 28 

446 29 

445 30 

444 31 

443 32 

442 33 

441 34 

440 35 

439 36 

438 37 

437 38 

436 39 

435 40 

434 41 0 Murashu tablets Darius B 

433 (42) 1 

432 (43) 2 

431 (44) 3 

430 (45) 4 

429 (46) 5 

428 (47) 6 

427 (48) 7 

426 (49) 8 

425 50 (0) (Xerxes II) 

424 (51) 0 Darius II Sogdianos 

423 1 

422 2 

421 3 

420 4 

419 5 

418 6 

417 7 

416 8 

415 9 

414 10 

413 11 

412 12 

411 13



Chronology: Greeks versus Babylonians 

Anchor date (year 7 of Cambyses in 523 BCE) owing to tablet BM 33066 7 : 

19 mu 7 !u ge6 14 1 2/3 danna ge6 gin 

20 sin an-mi til gar i-!i i-ri-hi si gin 

21 ab ge6 14 2 1/2 danna ge6 ana zalàg i-ri-hi 

22 sin an-mi til gar ulù u si dir gin 

19 Year 7 month IV, night 14, 1 2/3 beru (= 50° = 50x4 minutes) after sunset, 

20 the Moon makes a total eclipse, [but] a little is left over, north [wind] went. 

21 month X, night 14, 2 1/2 beru (= 75° = 75x4 minutes) to sunrise are left over, 

22 the Moon makes a total ecmipse. South and north, clouded, went. 

The sentence "a little is left over" is unusual (a guess of copyist for a damaged tablet) 

but the partial eclipse may be dated 523 BCE July 16/17 [mag. = 0.54] and the total eclipse 

522 BCE January 9/10 8 . Claudius Ptolemy had to know the original tablet because he gave 

the right magnitude of 0.50 for the partial eclipse (Almagest V:14). Another astronomical 

tablet (BM 36879) describes eclipses in years 1-4 of Cambyses II, dated by astronomy 529- 

7 M.J. OPPERT – Un annuaire astronomique babylonien 

in: Journal Asiatique (1890) pp. 511-516. 

8 F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation 

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


526 BCE 9 . A diary (VAT 4956) 10 contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 

and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An 

astronomical journal (BM 38462) 11 list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of 

Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE, another one (BM 45640) gives the 

partial lunar eclipse in year 2 month I of "ama!-!uma-ukîn dated 10/11 April 666 BCE. 

! The */II/5 of Cambyses II corresponds to the */V/2 of Psammetichus III (May -525). 

! According to the biography of Adad-Guppi 12 , mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar 

reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 

years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele 13 there were 54 years 

between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign 

of Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901) 14 and Adad-Guppi's 

stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar. The Hillah's 

stele also quotes some events during the 1 st year of Nabonidus and mentions an 

astronomical configuration which happened between 2 and 6 Siwan 555 BCE. 

! After the fall of the Assyrian empire in October 609 BCE, Babylonian domination 

lasted exactly 70 years until its fall in October 539 BCE, according to Jeremiah 25:11,12. 

! The Assyrian period 911-648 is dated owing to its eponyms 15 and the period 648-609 

by a prosopography of its eponyms 16 . 

! Year 1 of Amel Marduk (in 561 BCE) corresponds to year 37 of Jehoiachin's exile (2 

Kings 25:27). This exile began just after the attack on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II 

in the year 7 of his reign (in 598 BCE). 

! The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle 

of Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronisms, since the year of Assur-uballit 

II corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II. 

! Year 6 of Assurbanipal corresponds to year 1 of Psammetichus I 17 . 

! Dating Egyptian chronology exactly from February 663 BCE to April 525 BCE is 

possible because the precise life of the Apis bulls is known 18 . 

Egyptian king Reign Length Highest year Synchronism with: 

Psammetichus I 02/663-01/609 54 years 54 Year 6 of Assurbanipal 

Nekao II 02/609-10/594 15 years 10 months 16 Year 17 of Nabopolassar 

Psammetichus II 11/594-01/588 6 years 1 month 7 

Apries 02/588-12/570 19 years 17 

[Apries/ Amasis] [01/569-12/567] [3 years co-regency] [3] 

Amasis 01/569-10/526 43 years 10 months 44 

Psammetichus III 11/526-04/525 6 months 2 Year 5 of Cambyses II 

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

Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 94-96. 

10 A.J. SACHS, H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. I 

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

11 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. V n° 6 

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

12 J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts 

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

13 P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. 

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

14 J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22 

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

15 S. PARPOLA – Assyrian Chronology 681-648 BC. 

in: Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Part II Winona Lake 2007 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 381-430. 

16 S. PARPOLA – The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire 

Helsinki 1998 University of Helsinki pp. XVIII-XX. 

17 A.K. GRAYSON – The Chronology of the Reign of Ashurbanipal 

in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 0 (1980) pp. 227-245. 

18 H. GAUTHIER – Le livre des rois d'Égypte 

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



year Assyrian eponym Babylonian 

-680 

Egyptian 

Esarhaddon Danânu 1 1 Esarhaddon 

-679 Issi-Adad-anênu 2 2 

-678 Nergal-!arru-u!ur 3 3 

-677 Abî-râmu 4 4 

-676 Banbâ 5 5 

-675 Nabû-ahhê-iddin 6 6 

-674 "arru-nûrî 7 7 

-673 Atar-ilu 8 8 

-672 Nabû-bêlu-u!ur 9 9 

-671 Kanûnâyu 10 10 

-670 "ulmu-bêli-la!me 11 11 

-669 "amash-kâ!id-ayâbi 12 12 

-668 Assurbanipal Marlarim 1 1 A!!urbanipal 

-667 Gabbaru 2 1 "ama!-!uma-ukîn 

-666 Kanûnâyu 3 2 BM 45640 

-665 Mannu-kî-!arri 4 3 

-664 Thebes devastated "arru-lû-dâri 5 4 

-663 1 Psammetichus I Bêl-na’id 6 5 1 

-662 2 Tab-!ar-Sîn 7 6 2 

-661 3 Arba’ilâyu 8 7 3 

-660 4 Girsapûnu 9 8 4 

-659 5 Silim-A!!ur 10 9 5 

-658 6 "a-Nabû-!û 11 10 6 

-657 7 Lâ-bâ!i 12 11 7 

-656 8 Milkî-râmu 13 12 8 

-655 9 Amyânu 14 13 9 

-654 10 Assur-nâsir 15 14 10 

-653 11 Assur-ilâya 16 15 11 

-652 12 Assur-dûru-u!ur 17 16 12 

-651 13 Sagabbu 18 17 13 

-650 14 Bêl-Harrân-!adûa 19 18 14 

-649 15 Ahu-ilâya 20 19 15 

-648 16 Belshunu 21 20 16 

-647 17 Nabû-nadin-ahi 22 1 Kandalanu 17 

-646 18 Nabû-shar-ahhe!u 23 2 18 

-645 19 "ama!-da’’inanni of Babylon 24 3 19 

-644 20 Nabû-sharru-u!ur 25 4 20 

-643 21 Nabû-sharru-u!ur de Marash 26 5 21 

-642 22 "ama!-da’’inanni of Qué 27 6 22 

-641 23 A!!ur-garu’a-nere 28 7 23 

-640 24 "arru-metu-uballit 29 8 24 

-639 25 Mu!allim-A!!ur 30 9 25 

-638 26 A!!ur-gimilli-tere 31 10 26 

-637 27 Zababa-eriba 32 11 27 

-636 28 Sin-!arru-u!ur 33 12 28 

-635 29 Bel-lu-dari 34 13 29 

-634 30 Bullutu 35 14 30 

-633 31 Upaqa-ana-Arbail 36 15 31 

-632 32 Tab-sil-Sin 37 16 32 

-631 33 Adad-remanni 38 17 33 

-630 34 Salmu-!arri-iqbi 39 18 34 

-629 35 A!!ur-etel-ilâni Nabû-!arru-u!ur [40] 1 19 35 

-628 36 ?Nur-salam-sarpi? [41] 2 20 36 

-627 37 Marduk-!arru-u!ur [42] 3 21 Sin-!um-li!ir 37 

-626 38 Sin-!ar-i!kun Iqbi-ilani / Marduk-remanni 0 4 22) Sin-!ar-i!kun 38 

-625 39 Sin-!arru-u!ur 1 1 Nabopolassar 39 

-624 40 Kanunaiu 2 2 40 

-623 41 A!!ur-matu-taqqin 3 3 41 

-622 42 Daddî 4 4 42 

-621 43 Bel-iqbi 5 5 43 

-620 44 Sa’ilu 6 6 44 

-619 45 Mannu-ki-ahhe 7 7 45


-618 46 Nabû-sakip 8 8 46 

-617 47 Assur-remanni 9 9 47 

-616 48 Bel-ahu-u!ur 10 10 48 

-615 49 Sin-alik-pani 11 11 49 

-614 50 Pa!i 12 12 50 

-613 51 Nabû-tapputi-alik 13 13 51 

-612 52 Shamash-!arru-ibni 14 14 52 

-611 53 A!!ur-uballit II Nabû-mar-!arri-u!ur 1 15 53 

-610 54 Nabû-!arru-u!ur 2 16 Temple of Harran wrecked 54 

-609 1 Nekao II Gargamisaiu 3 [0] 17 Stele of Adad-Guppi 1 55 

-608 2 [1] 18 2 56 

-607 3 [2] 19 3 57 

-606 4 [3] 20 4 58 

-605 5 0 21 5 59 

-604 6 1 Nebuchadnezzar II 6 60 

-603 7 2 7 61 

-602 8 3 8 62 

-601 9 4 9 63 

-600 10 5 10 64 

-599 11 6 11 65 

-598 12 7 12 66 

-597 13 8 13 67 

-596 14 9 14 68 

-595 15 10 15 69 

-594 16 1 Psammetichus II 11 16 70 

-593 2 12 17 71 

-592 3 13 18 72 

-591 4 14 19 73 

-590 5 15 20 74 

-589 6 16 21 75 

-588 1 7 Apries 17 22 76 

-587 2 18 23 77 

-586 3 19 24 78 

-585 4 20 25 79 

-584 5 21 26 80 

-583 6 22 27 81 

-582 7 23 28 82 

-581 8 24 29 83 

-580 9 25 30 84 

-579 10 26 31 85 

-578 11 27 32 86 

-577 12 28 33 87 

-576 13 29 34 88 

-575 14 30 35 89 

-574 15 31 36 90 

-573 16 32 37 91 

-572 17 33 38 92 

-571 18 34 39 93 

-570 19 35 40 94 

-569 [20] 1 Amasis 36 41 95 

-568 [21] 2 Tablet VAT 4956 37 42 96 

-567 [22] 3 38 43 97 

-566 4 39 44 98 

-565 5 40 45 99 

-564 6 41 46 100 

-563 7 42 47 101 

-562 8 0 43 48 102 

-561 9 1 Amel-Marduk 49 103 

-560 10 0 2 50 104 

-559 11 1 Neriglissar 51 105 

-558 12 Pap. Louvre 7848 Cyrus II [1] 2 52 106 

-557 13 [2] 3 53 107 

-556 14 [3] 4 54 108 

0 0 Labashi-Marduk



-555 15 stele of Hillah [4] 1 Nabonidus 109 

-554 16 [5] 2 110 

-553 17 [6] [0] 3 Bel-shar-usur 111 

-552 18 [7] [1] 4 112 

-551 19 [8] [2] 5 113 

-550 20 [9] [3] 6 114 

-549 21 [10] [4] 7 115 

-548 22 [11] [5] 8 116 

-547 23 [12] [6] 9 117 

-546 24 [13] [7] 10 118 

-545 25 [14] [8] 11 119 

-544 26 [15] [9] 12 120 

-543 27 [16] [10] 13 121 

-542 28 [17] [11] 14 122 

-541 29 [18] [12] 15 123 

-540 30 [19] [13] 16 124 

-539 31 Fall of Babylon [20] [14] 17 125 

-538 32 Cyrus II 1 [1] Ugbaru 126 

-537 33 2 1 Cambyses II 127 

-536 34 3 [2] 128 

-535 35 4 [3] 129 

-534 36 5 [4] 130 

-533 37 6 [5] 131 

-532 38 7 [6] 132 

-531 39 8 [7] 133 

-530 40 9 [8] 134 

-529 41 Cambyses II 1 135 

-528 42 2 136 

-527 43 3 137 

-526 3 44 4 138 

1 Psammetichus III 

-525 4 2 Stele IM.4187 5 

5 Cambyses II 

-524 6 6 

-523 7 Tablet BM 33066 7 

An accurate chronological reconstitution does not mean one that is historically 

complete (usurpers and co-regencies do not appear). It also does not mean it is the same as 

the official chronology. For example, the official chronology of Kandalanu 19 (below) was 

partly accurate but the reality contains many more facts making it much more complex 20 . 

-630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 Kandalanu 34 

-629 35 40 19 35 

-628 36 41 20 36 

-627 37 42 21 37 

-626 38 43 22 38 

-625 39 Sin-!ar-i!kun 1 1 Nabopolassar 39 

-630 34 Psammetichus I Assurbanipal 39 18 Kandalanu 34 

-629 35 A!!ur-etel-ilâni [40] 1 19 35 

-628 36 [41] 2 20 36 

-627 37 [42] 3 21 Sin-!um-li!ir 37 

-626 38 0 4 22) Sin-!ar-i!kun 38 

-625 39 Sin-!ar-i!kun 1 1 Nabopolassar 39 

19 The word kandalum means "crockery (?)" in Akkadian, probably because Kandalanu was a little bit simple. 

20 S. ZAWADZKI - The Fall of Assyria (...) in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle 

Poznan 1988 Ed. A. Mickiewick University Press. 

G. FRAME - Babilonia 689-627 B.C. A Political History 

1992 Istanbul Ed. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut pp. 302-306. 

F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1 er millénaire avant J.C. 

2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin pp. 102-105.


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

Babylonian king reign # Persian king reign # Median king reign 

Esarhaddon 681-669 12 Deiokes 728-675 53 

"ama!-!um-ukîn 668-648 20 Phraortes 675-653 22 

Kandalanu 648-627 21 Achemenes ? ? ? [Madius? Scythes] 653-625 28 

Nabopolassar 626-605 21 Teispes 635-610 [25] Cyaxares 625 - 40 

Nebuchadnezzar 605 - 43 Cyrus I 610-585 [25] -585 

-562 Cambyses I 585 - 26 Astyages 585 - 35 

Amel-Marduk 562-560 2 -559 

Neriglissar 560-556 4 Cyrus II 559 - 20 -550 

Nabonidus 556-539 17 -539 Harpagus 550-539 11 

Cyrus II 539-530 9 

Cambyses II 530-522 8 

The chronology of Median kings comes from Herodotus (The Histories I:101-108). 

He mentions a total solar eclipse at the end of Cyaxares reign (dated May 28, 585 BCE 

according to astronomy). He wrote that Astyages was defeated by Cyrus after a reign of 35 

years. Cyrus thus became the ruler of Persia and Media with Harpagus becoming a 

coregent (The Histories I:127-130, 162, 177-178). He was called "Lieutenant of Cyrus" by 

Strabo (Geography VI:1) and "Commandant of Cyrus" by Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library 

IX:31:1). Harpagus is called Oibaras by Ctesias (Persica §13,36,45). According to Flavius 

Josephus, Cyrus captured Babylon with the help of Darius the Mede, a "son of Astyages", 

during the reign of Belshatsar, in the year 17 of Nabonidus (Jewish Antiquities X:247-249). 

Transition in 550 BCE: 

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

551 1 

2 

X 

XI 

[7] [33] 4 [1] 

3 XII 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

[8] [34] 5 [2] [A] Cyrus II King of Persia 

[B] Astyages King of Media 

[C] Nabonidus King of Babylon 

[D] Bel!aru!ur Coregent (Babylonian) 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

550 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

[9] [35] 6 [3] 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 

10 

11 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

[0] 

[A] Cyrus II King of Persia (and Media) 

[B] Harpagus Median Coregent 

12 IX 

549 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I [10] [1] 7 [4] 

5 II 

According to the text of Daniel, a ram with two horns appearing in the 3 rd year of 

Bel!aru!ur represents the kings of Media and Persia (Daniel 8:1-6,20). In -550, Cyrus II 

became king of Persia and Harpagus, his coregent, was king of Media.



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

539 4 I** [20] [11] 17 [14] [A] Cyrus II King of Persia 

5 II 

[B] Oibaras Coregent (Mede) 

6 

7 

8 

9 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 


[D] Bel!aru!ur Coregent (Babylonian) 

Fall of Babylon 

538 

10 

11 

12 

1 

2 

3 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

0 [0] [A] Cyrus II King of Lands 

[B] Ugbaru Governor of Babylon (Mede) 

Daniel 5:30-6:1 

[C] Nabonidus Governor of Carmania 

Berossus -Babyloniaca FGrH 680 F10a 

4 

5 

6 

I 

II 

III 

1 [1] [B] Darius the Mede "King" of Babylon 

Daniel 9:1-2 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

537 

12 

1 

2 

3 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

*** 

0 

*** 

[A] Cyrus II King of Babylon, King of Lands 

[B] Cambyses II King of Babylon 

(Double dated contract TuM 2-3 92) 

4 

5 

6 

I** 

II 

III 

2 1 (feast of Akitu)** 

Gubaru satrap of Babylon appeared in 535 

Herodotus actually mentions a co-regency 21 , between Cyrus King of Lands (year 1) 

and Cambyses King of Babylon (accession) (The Histories I:208). The precise chronology of 

the fall of Babylon is given by the Nabonidus Chronicle 22 : 

year month [A] [B] [C] King according to the Nabonidus Chronicle 

539 4 I** 

17 Year 17 of Nabonidus the feast of the New year (Akitu) was celebrated. 

5 II 


6 

7 

III 

IV 

The last tablet of Nabonidus (CT 57, 168) is dated 19/XII/17 

8 V 

9 VI 

538 

10 

11 

12 

1 

2 

3 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

0 [0] month VII when Cyrus attacked Akkad's army, Sippar was taken on 

14/VII, Nabonidus ran away. 16/VII Ugbaru, governor of Gutium and 

the troops of Cyrus entered Babylonia without fight. 3/VIII Cyrus entered 

Babylon. Ugbaru, its governor, installed some governors. From month IX to 

month XII the gods of Akkad came back to their sanctuaries. 

4 

5 

6 

I 

II 

III 

1 [1] [A] Cyrus II (King of Lands) 

[B] Ugbaru Governor (King) of Babylon 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 

12 

VIII 

IX 

11/VIII [king] Ugbaru died. 

537 1 

2 

3 

X 

XI 

XII 

*** 0 [B] Cambyses II (Crown prince) King of Babylon 

Month [XII] king's wife died. From 27/XII to 3/I 

4 

5 

6 

7 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

2 1 there was a mourning in Akkad. 4/I Cambyses, son of Cyrus, came in the 

temple of Nabu according the ritual of enthronement [in order to be officially 

King of Babylon] 

21 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency 

in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale volume XC/2 (1996) pp. 171-183 (172 note 4). 

J. PEAT - Cyrus "King of Lands," Cambyses "King of Babylon", the Disputed Co-regency 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies Vol 41/2 (1989) pp. 199-215 (200-203). 

22 A. KUHRT - The Persian Empire 

London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 50-53.


The name, title and role of Ugbaru is particularly confusing. The Babylonian 

chronicle is biased about him. It says he is governor of Gutium when he assumes the 

kingship (the appointment of governors, or satraps, was only the fact of the king 23 ). 

Gutium, though is a pejorative geographical term used by the Babylonians when referring 

to the former territory of the ‘barbarian’ Medes. This great "governor" Ugbaru is not to be 

confused with the satrap of Babylon (535-525) named Gubaru 24 . How do we know this? 

Year King Ugbaru governor Gubaru satrap of Babylon (attested by dated texts) 

540 16 Nabonidus 

539 17- 0 Cyrus II from 3/VIII/00 

538 1 to 11/VIII/01 

537 2 

536 3 

535 4 from 1/VIII/04 NBRU 43, 45, 46; 

534 5 

533 6 RECC 56, 92; 

532 7 TCL XIII 142 

531 8 RECC 70; NBRU 61 

530 9- 0 Cambyses II GCCI II 103; LCE 169; BIN 114 

529 1 Camb. 96; BE VIII 20 

528 2 TCL XIII 150, 152; GCCI II 120; RECC 127, 128 

527 3 RECC 137, 160 

526 4 RECC 168, 172 

525 5 to 27/VI/05 RECC 177, 178; TCL 168 

524 6 

Ugbaru, died October 26, 538 BCE, so cannot be the Gubaru, the satrap of 

Babylon appearing three years later (in November 535 BCE). In addition, the name Ugbaru 

means nothing in Akkadian (but Gubaru means "neck"), a transcription UG-ba-ru rather 

than ug-ba-ru as might be read in Akkadian 25 uggu-baru "anger of the diviner" or !arru-baru 

"king of the diviner." According to the timeline of the Chronicle of Nabonidus, the [actual] 

king of Babylon was Ugbaru although he was not formally enthroned. Indeed, the presence 

of the [official or formal] King of Babylon was necessary for the ceremony of Akitu 26 , the 

New Year's Day. This celebration was observed in the year 17. Nabonidus was present on 

this occasion (which had not been the case in previous years). Bel!aru!ur, although a coregent, 

was not the official king (necessary for that ceremony). On the other hand, the fact 

that two years later Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, has gone to the temple to celebrate this 

festival proves that he was officially the new King of Babylon. Indeed, among the 

highlights of the Akitu 27 , one can identify the recitation of the Epic of Creation, the coming 

of the statue of Nabu from Borsippa the 4 th day of Nisan [date of the Chronicle], the 

humiliation of the king who, after being slapped by the high priest, swore in front of Bel- 

Marduk that he had not sinned against Babylon, and so on. The analysis of the titulature 28 

in dated documents, which follows, confirms this. 

23 The case of the Roman Emperor is a good parallel because, as governor of the Roman world, he could appoint provincial governors 

who could themselves only appoint their own legates, but not governors. In addition, the emperors did not receive the (legal) title of 

king, however the Roman historians have reckoned their years of (effective) "reign". 

24 W.H. SHEA – An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: IV 

in: Andrews University Seminary Studies vol. X:2 (1972) pp. 147-179. 

25 F. MALBRAN-LABAT - Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne 

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

26 F. JOANNES - La Mésopotamie au 1 er millénaire avant J.C. 

2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 131. 

27 F. JOANNES - Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne 

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

28 W.H. SHEA – An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: III 

in: Andrews University Seminary Studies vol. X:1 (1972) pp. 88-117.



Year Date Nabonidus Cyrus According to the Chronicle reference 

539 10 4/VII/17 King of Babylon REN 189 

7/VII/17 King of Babylon Bertin 1627 

9/VII/17 King of Babylon Bertin 1633 

10/VII/17 King of Babylon CT 55, 191 

15/VII/17 King of Babylon CT 56, 55 

16/VII/17 Fall of Babylon 

17/VII/17 King of Babylon GCCI I 390 

23/VII/00 King of Babylon King of Lands BM 56154 

[-]/VII/00 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 1 

11 3/VIII/17 (Ugbaru) Cyrus Ugbaru appoints governors 

10/VIII/17 King of Babylon (Nabonidus appointed Bertin 1054 

24/VIII/00 - King of Lands governor of Carmania) Cyr. 2 

12 7/IX/00 King of Babylon Cyr. 3 

24/IX/00 - King of Lands Cyr. 4 

[-]/IX/17 King of Babylon Bertin 1055 

[-]/IX/[17] Beginning of gods come back 

538 1 21/X/00 - King of Lands RECC 1 

2 21/XI/00 - King of Lands RECC 2 

3 8/XII/00 - King of Lands RECC 3 

10/XII/00 - King of Lands Cyr. 7 

17/XII/00 - King of Lands RECC 4 

19/XII/17 King of Babylon CT 57, 168 


[-]/XII/[17] End of gods come back 

4 4/I/01 King of Babylon - (Akitu feast) Cyr. 11 

7/I/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 12 

30/I/01 - King of Lands BLC C 1 

5 1/II/01 - King of Lands RECC 10 

8/II/01 - King of Lands BRLM 58 

25/II/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 15 

30/II/01 - King of Lands RECC 10 

6 5/III/01 - King of Lands RECC 9 

7 29/IV/01 - King of Lands RECC 6 

8 1/V/01 - King of Lands TCL XIII 124 

9 1/VI/01 - King of Lands GCCI II 102 

[-]/VI/01 - King of Lands RECC 7 

11 8/VIII/01 - King of Lands TCL XIII 125 

11/VIII/[01] Death of "King" Ugbaru 

12/VIII/01 - King of Lands NBC 4761 

23/VIII/01 - King of Lands CUL 357 

12 20/IX/01 - King of Lands BRLM 57 

537 

Cyrus Cambyses Cambyses replaces Ugbaru 

1 [-]/X/01 King of Babylon - Cyr. 18 

2 16/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 22 

17/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 23 

18/XI/01 - King of Lands NBRU 37 

19/XI/01 - King of Lands NBC 4664 

01 / King of Babylon and of Lands 25/XI/00 TuM 2-3 92 



28/XI/01 King of Babylon King of Lands VAS III 35 


3 2/XII/01 - King of Lands Cyr. 27 

18/XII/01 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 30 


28/XII/01 King of Babylon King of Lands VAS III 60 

4 1/I/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 32 

4/I/[02] Cambyses is enthroned as king 

[King of Babylon] King of Babylon King of Lands 9/I?/01 CT 56, 126 

King of Babylon King of Lands 27/I/01 BM 67848 

5 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 7/II/01 CT 56, 149 

King of Babylon son of King of Lands 9/II/01 Camb. 36 

9/II/02 King of Babylon - Cyr. 36 

King of Babylon King of Lands 18/II/01 CT 57, 345 

King of Babylon King of Lands 20/II/01 BM 63703 

26/II/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 37 

6 2/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 38 

King of Babylon King of Lands 10/III/01 Cyr. 16 

21/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 39 

22/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 40 

24/III/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 41

536 


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

King of Babylon son of King of Lands 7/IV/01 Camb. 42 

8/IV/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 42 


King of Babylon then King of Lands 25/IV/01 Camb. 46 


8 King of Babylon then King of Lands 20/V/01 VAS 6 328 

3/V/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 45 




27/V/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 52 

9 7/VI/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 53 

3/VIb/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 54 






10 King of Babylon son of King of Lands 5/VII/01 OECT 10, 127 

8/VII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 61 

10/VII/02 King of Babylon - Cyr. 62 



22/VII/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 65 

30/VII/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 66 

11 3/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 67 

7/VIII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 68 

King of Babylon son of King of Lands 9/VIII/01 Camb. 72 





12 King of Babylon during King of Lands 25/IX/01 Camb. 81 

King of Babylon King of Lands 25/IX/01 Camb. 426 

1 3/X/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 74 

5/X/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 75 

7/X/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 76 

14/X/02 - King of Lands Cyr. 77 



2 9/XI/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 80 


King of Babylon King of Lands [-]/XI/01 CT 55, 731 

3 2/XII/02 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 83 







4 3/I/03 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 96 

5/I/03 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 97 

11/I/03 King of Babylon King of Lands Cyr. 98 

This reconstruction shows that Cyrus lost his title as King of Babylon just after 

entering the city. This situation continued up to the death of Ugbaru. The only explanation 

for this paradox is to accept the chronological sequence of the Chronicle describing 

Ugbaru as the actual king of Babylon during the period from 3/VIII/00 to 11/VIII/01. At 

the time of the fall of Babylon, Bel!aru!ur (the actual king) is killed and Nabonidus (the 

king in title) is captured. Babylonian scribes dated their documents according to the reign 

of the official King of Babylon. Thus, after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus was the only official 

and actual ruling king, but he was a foreign conqueror. This was not the first time there was 

a co-regency between the King of Babylon and another foreign king. This had already 

occurred in the past with the Assyrian kings 29 . 

29 W.H. SHEA – An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period 

in: Andrews University Seminary Studies vol. IX (1971) pp. 51-67.



Year Date Title of King of Assyria year of reign Title of King of Babylon Reference 30 

-668 Assurbanipal 1 

-667 2 1 "ama!-!uma-ukîn 

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

-650 14/III/19 King of Lands 19 18 King of Babylon RA XV 83 

23/III/19 King of Lands King of Babylon BM 113929 

-649 20/I/20 - 20 19 King of Babylon BR 13 

29/I/20 King of Lands King of Babylon BM 113928 

20/XII/20 King of Lands King of Babylon AnOr IX 4 

-648 25/XII/21 King of Assyria 21 20 King of Babylon 2 NT 19 

-647 20/I/22 King of Lands 22 1 Kandalanu AnOr IX 13 

8/[-]/22 King of Lands King of Babylon 4 NT 19 

-643 [-]/X/26 [King of Lands?] 26 5 King of Babylon BE VIII 1 

-641 10/VIII/28 King of Lands 28 7 King of Babylon 2 NT 288 

-638 9/VII/31 King of the World 31 10 King of Babylon 2 NT 289 

26/XII/31 King of Assyria King of Babylon TCL XII 5 

-635 15/VII/34 King of Lands 34 13 King of Babylon BR 58 

-633 27/I/36 - 36 15 King of Babylon 2 NT 342 

17/VI/36 King of the World King of Babylon NBRVT 2/3 132 

[-]/[-]/36 [King of Lands?] King of Babylon BR 24 

The actual king of Babylon generally bore the title "King of Lands" and the official 

king of Babylon bore the title "King of Babylon." When the city of Babylon surrendered, 

Cyrus became the only official and actual King of Babylon, so he combined the two titles 

"King of Babylon" and "King of Lands." Then, when he entered Babylon, he demoted king 

Nabonidus, captured in his 17 th year, by the Governor of Carmania (some documents have, 

however, retained his old title). He replaced the effectively ruling king Bel!aru!ur, killed in 

his 14 th year, with his commander in chief Ugbaru. This new foreign king (Median) who 

have not been enthroned by the Babylonians was not recognized by them, hence does not 

appearing in their documents. After the death of Ugbaru, the title of "King of Babylon" 

was again attributed to Cyrus, but the replacement of Ugbaru, the actual King of Babylon, 

30 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AnOr VIII-IX = Analecta Orientalia - Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus den Berliner Statlichen Museen (Pohl A., 1933,1934). 

BE VIII 1 = Legal and commercial transactions dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (Clay A.T., 1908). 

Bertin = Corpus of Babylonian Terra-Cotta Tablet, Principally Contracts I-IV (Bertin G., 1883). 

BIN II = Historical, Religious, and Economic Texts (Nies, J. B. & C. E. Keiser, 1920). 

BLC = Bodleian Library Collection, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University. 

BM = British Museum tablets. 

BR = Babylonische Rechts-urkunden des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v Chr (San Nicolo M, 1951). 

BRLM = Babylonian records in the library of J. Pierpont Morgan (Clay A.T., 1912-). 

BRLM I = Babylonian business transactions of the first millennium B.C. (Clay A.T., 1912). 

BRLM II = Legal documents from Erech dated in the Seleucid era (Clay A.T., 1913). 

BSCAS 32/2 = Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences Vol. 32 n°2(Knopf C.S., 1933). 

Camb. = Inschriften von Cambyses, Konig von Babylon (Strassmaier, J.N., 1890). 

CT 55-57= Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian tablets in the British Museum (Pinches T.G., 1982). 

CUL = Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the Libraries of Columbia University (Mendelsohn, I., 1943). 

Cyr. = Inschriften von Cyrus, Konig von Babylon (Strassmaier J.N., 1890); 

GCCI I et II = Goucher College Cuneiform Inscriptions (Dougherty, R.P., 1923, 1933); 

LCE = Letters and Contracts from Erech Written in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Keiser, C.E., 1918). 

NBC = Nies Babylonian Collection (at Yale). 

NBRU = Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus den Berliner Staatlichen Museen (Pohl, A., "Analecta Orientalia" VIII-IX, 1933-1934). 

NBRVT = Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungs- Texte (Kruckmann O. "Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection 

of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der Universitat Jena II/III", 1933). 

NT = Nippur Text. 

OECT 10 = Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (McEvan G.J.P., 1984). 

RA = Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale (Paris, 1884-). 

RECC = Recmds from Erech, Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (Tremayne, A., "Yale oriental series. Babylonian texts" VII, 1925). 

REN = Records from Erech (Dougherty, "Yale oriental series. Babylonian texts VI", 1920). 

TCL XII-XIII = Contrats néo-babyloniens. I-II (Contenau G., 1927-29). 

TuM 2-3 = Texte und Materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of Babylonian antiquities II-III (Kruckmann O., 1933). 

VAS = Vorderasiatische Abteilung Schriftdenkmiiler (Leipzig, 1907-17). 

YOS 7 = Yale Oriental Series: Records from Erech. Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (Tremayne A., 1925).


by Cambyses the son of Cyrus, again complicated the situation. The Babylonians had 

experienced a similar situation with Nabonidus, the official king, and his son Bel!aru!ur, 

the actual king, except that the latter king had not been enthroned (as Ugbaru was). The 

co-regency between an official king, Cyrus, and a new appointed King, Cambyses, brought 

about the need for the appearance of double dated documents 31 as: month I, day 27, year 1, 

Cambyses King of Babylon son of Cyrus King of Lands. The chronological interpretation of these 

documents is controversial because some scholars see that Year 1 refers to Cyrus, not to 

Cambyses 32 , but this would imply an overlap with the 1 st year of Ugbaru. In fact, as Cyrus 

had received the title of "King of Babylon" only after month X of the 1 st year of his reign 33 

(before this date, he was only "King of Lands"), year 1 of Cambyses coincides with year 2 

of Cyrus. So according to the reconstruction of chronologically arranged documents, Cyrus 

chose Cambyses as King of Babylon from [-]/X/01, but he was enthroned by the 

Babylonians only from 4/I/02 (Akitu feast) 2 

months later. The co-regency between Cyrus 

(actual King of Babylon) and Cambyses (official 

king of Babylon) has begun informally from [- 

]/X/01 of Cyrus as confirmed by a double dated 

document (TuM 2-3, 92) 34 : 

Transcription Translation 

11) nippur ki Nippur 

12) ITI !aba"u UD 25 KÀM MU 1 KÀM month XI, day 25, year 1 of [Cyrus] 

13) MU NAM SAG NAM ! LUGAL year of accession of kingship! of 

14) mgan!-zi!-zi-ia !ar babili(E) ki u matati(KUR.KUR) Ganzyse! King of Babylon and of Lands 

This document showing the accession of Cambyses (written Ganzyse!) is also dated 

year 1 [of Cyrus]. From 4/I/01, the day of Cambyses enthronement, the documents are 

dated, either of Cambyses (year 1) or Cyrus (year 2). The co-regency has created problems 

in dating, because the scribes usually dated their documents according to the official reign 

and not by the rule of co-regent. A document (CT 56, 126) is dated, for example, "month 

X, day 9, year 1 of Cymbyse [Ku (!)-Am-bu-zi-ja] King of Babylon." The scribe began by 

writing "year 1 of Cyrus [Kurash]" and then changed his mind by writing Cambyses 

[Kambuzia]. From the 3 rd year of his reign 35 Cyrus turned the former Babylonian kingdom 

into a satrapy, but as his son Cambyses was appointed King of Babylon appearances of 

kingship were saved. It is likely that, following the appointment of Gubaru as governor of 

the satrapy of Babylon and Beyond the River (in 535 BCE), his role as viceroy became more 

honorary than real. The official and effective king is Cyrus once again, not Cambyses. The 

scribes have transferred the title "King of Babylon" to Cyrus. It is unclear whether 

Cambyses retained his honorary title, but it seems not, since a tablet dated 5/VIII/4 of 

Cyrus (Cyr 177) mentioned him only as "son of the King" and not as "King of Babylon." 

Year 4 of Cyrus (in 535 BCE) corresponds to the year when Gubaru appears as governor 

(or satrap) of Babylon. 

31 S. ZAWADZKI - Cyrus-Cambyses Coregency 

in: Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale volume XC/2 (1996) pp. 171-183 (172 note 4). 

32 J. PEAT - Cyrus "King of Lands," Cambyses "King of Babylon", the Disputed Co-regency 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies Vol 41/2 (1989) pp. 199-215 (200-203). 

33 S. ZAWADZKI - Gubaru: A Governor or a Vassal King of Babylonia? 

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

34 O. KRÜCKMANN – Neubabylonische Rechts- und Wervaltungstexte 

in: Texte und materialien der Frau prof. Hilprecht collection of Babylonian antiquities II-III, Leipzig 1933, N°92. 

35 M. JURSA – Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents 

Münster 2005 Ed. Ugarit-Verlag p. 54.



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

to his son Cambyses, to whom he was giving the kingdom, with the charge to honour him and treat him 

well, if something should go wrong with the crossing against the Massagetae (...) Most of the Persian army 

perished and Cyrus himself fell, after a reign of 29 years less one (...) Many stories are told about the death 

of Cyrus, but I think this one is the most convincing (The Histories I:208-214). According to Ctesias: 

On the point of death, Cyrus appointed his eldest son to kingship (...) He pronounced blessings on them, if 

they maintained good will towards each other, and curses, if they acted unjustly. After this speech, he died on 

the 3 rd day after he had received his wound; he had reigned 30 years. The transition between Cyrus II 

and Cambyses II according to the set of dated contracts is as follows: 

an mois Cyrus II Cambyses II 

530 4 

5 

I 

II 

9 3/I/09; 4/I/09; 21/I/09; 

3/II/09; 10/II/09; 21/II/09; 22/II/09; 

[8] 

6 III 2/III/09; 17/III/09; [-]/III/09; 

7 IV 7/IV/09; 16/IV/09; 25/IV/09; 27/IV/09 

8 V 12/V/09; 13/V/09; [-]/V/09; 

9 VI 

VIb 

23/VI/09 (VS 5, 42) 0 12/VI/00; 16/VI/00; 19/VI/00; 20/VI/00 

6/VIa/00; 4/VIb/00; 4/VIb/00; 

10 VII 1/VII/00; 3?/VII/00; 29/VII/00; [-]/VII/00; 

11 VIII 19/VIII/09 (OECT 10, 123) 10/VIII/00; 

12 IX 2/IX/00; 5/IX/00; 17/IX/00; 20/IX/00; 

529 1 X 3/X/00; 10/X/00; 12/X/00; 30/X/00; 

2 XI 26/XI/09 (YOS 7, 84) 6/XI/00; 17/XI/00; 21/XI/00; 29/XI/00; 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 

The previous reconstruction may be interpreted in two ways: 

1) Cyrus gave his son the kingdom (on October 530 BCE) and died 7 months later 

(around February 529 BCE). Thus, there was a new co-regency of 7 months between 

Cyrus and Cambyses. 

2) Cyrus gave his son the kingdom just before the battle against the Massagetae (on 

October 530 BCE) then he died during the battle. As most of the Persian army 

perished, the moment and the place of his death remained ignored during several 

months. 

The second possibility is the most convincing, because a battle of 7 months long 

seems unlikely. In addition, during the first co-regency in 538 BCE, Cyrus was "King of 

Lands" and Cambyses was "King of Babylon", but during this short new co-regency 

(month VI) Cyrus and Cambyses were both "King of Babylon, King of Lands". 

year month year of reign King 

530 1 

2 

X 

XI 

8 [7] Cyrus II King of Babylon, King of Lands 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

9 [8] 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 0 Cambyses II King of Babylon, King of Lands 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

529 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII


Chronology of usurpers and co-regencies 

TRANSITION CAMBYSES II/ DARIUS I 

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

were several usurpers and co-regencies involved. The reconstruction, according to the 

dated tablets of Bardiya 36 , may be interpreted in two ways: 

year month year of reign (choice 1) 

522 1 

2 

X 

XI 

7 

11/X/07; 14/X/07; 24/X/07; 30/X/07 

1/XI/07; 28/XI/07; 30/XI/07 

3 XII 

3/XII/07; 4/XII/07 

4 I 8 2/I/08; 5/I/08; 23/I/08 

5 

6 

II 

III 

0 

xx/II/00 

3/III/00; 6/III/00 

7 IV 

15/IV/00; 25/IV/00 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

521 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 1 

19/I/01 

5 II 

6 III 23/III/01; 26/III/01 

7 IV 19/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 23/IV/01; 27/IV/01; 28/IV/01 

8 V 1/V/01; 3/V/01; 6/V/01; 9/V/01; 20/V/01; 21/V/01 

9 VI 

3/VI/01; 6/VI/01/; 10/VI/01; 13/VI/01; 15/VI/01; 19/VI/01; 20/VI/01 

10 VII 0 1/VII/01; 10/VII/01; 14/VII/00; 17/VII/00; 20/VII/00 

11 VIII 

20/VIII/01; 7/VIII/00; 10/VIII/00; 24/VIII/00 

year month year of reign (choice 2) 

522 1 

2 

X 

XI 

7 

11/X/07; 14/X/07; 24/X/07; 30/X/07 

1/XI/07; 28/XI/07; 30/XI/07 

3 XII 0 3/XII/07; 4/XII/07; 14/XII/00 King of Babylon, King of Lands 

4 I 8 1 2/I/08; 5/I/08; 23/I/08; 19/I/01 King of Lands 

5 

6 

II 

III 

0 

xx/II/00 King of Babylon, King of Lands 

3/III/00; 6/III/00; 23/III/01; 26/III/01 

7 IV 

9/IV/01; 15/IV/00; 19/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 23/IV/01; 25/IV/00; 28/IV/01 

8 V 1/V/01; 3/V/01; 6/V/01; 9/V/01; 20/V/01; 21/V/01 

9 VI 

3/VI/01; 6/VI/01/; 10/VI/01; 13/VI/01; 15/VI/01; 19/VI/01; 20/VI/01 

10 

11 

VII 

VIII 

0 

1/VII/01; 10/VII/01; 14/VII/00; 17/VII/00; 20/VII/00 King of Babylon 

20/VIII/01; 7/VIII/00; 10/VIII/00; 24/VIII/00 

521 

12 

1 

2 

IX 

X 

XI 0 

0 7/IX/01; 20/IX/00; 21/IX/00; 26/IX/01; 19/IX/01 

2/X/01; 6/X/00; 14/X/00: 15/X/00: 19/X/00: 26/X/00: 

9/XI/00; 15/X/00; 20/XI/00; 27/XI/00 King of Babylon, King of Lands 

3 XII 

4/XII/00; 13/XII/00; 19/XII/00; 21/XII/00; 22/XII/00; 23/XII/00; 24/XII/00; 

Choice 2 agrees with the dates (underlined) coming from the trilingual inscription 

on the rockface of Bisitun 37 : A magus, Gaumata by name, rebelled in Paishiyauvada. A mountain, 

by name Arakadri, from there 14/XII had gone when he rebelled. He lied thus to the people: ‘I am 

Bardiya, son of Cyrus, brother of Cambyses.’ Then all the people became rebellious against Cambyses; they 

went over to him, both Persia and Media, as well as the other peoples. He seized the kingship; 9/IV, then 

he seized the kingship. After that Cambyses died his own death (no date!). 10/VII, then I, with a few 

men, killed that Gaumata the magus, and his foremost followers. 

36 S. ZAWADZKI Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription and Babylonian Sources 

in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27 (1994) pp. 127-145. 





Choice 1 is not possible because there were two lunar eclipses, correctly described 

by Ptolemy, the first one dated 28 Epiphi year 20 of Darius I and the second one 3 Tybi 

year 31 (Almagest IV: 9.11). They are respectively dated by astronomy on November 19, 

502 BCE and on April 25, 491 BCE which confirms an accession in 522 BCE. In addition, 

the 8 months gap in Bardiya chronology with choice 1 is an unlikely choice. 

year month year of reign King 

523 1 

2 

3 

X 

XI 

XII 

6 Cambyses II 

King of Babylon, King of Lands 

4 

5 

I 

II 

7 

6 III 

7 

8 

IV 

V 

(Lunar eclipse dated July 16, 523 BCE) 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

522 1 

2 

X 

XI 

(Lunar eclipse dated January 10, 522 BCE) 

3 XII 

0 Cambyses II / Bardiya King of Lands 

4 I 1 8 1 

5 

6 

II 

III 

2 

3 

0 Bardiya King of Babylon, King of Lands 

7 IV 4 

8 V 5 

9 VI 6 

10 

11 

VII 

VIII 

7 

8 

0 Nebuchadnezzar III King of Babylon 

521 

12 

1 

2 

3 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

9 

10 

11 

12 

0 0 

[0] 

Darius I King of Babylon, King of Lands 

Nebuchadnezzar IV King of Babylon 

4 

5 

I 

II 

13 

14 

1 1 

6 III 15 

7 IV 16 

8 V 17 

9 VI 18 

10 VII 19 

11 VIII 20 

12 IX 

520 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 I 2 

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

Cambyses reign of 7 years and 5 month (Herodotus would include the 4 months of 

Nebuchadnezzar III); Bardiya reign of 7 months (The Histories III:66-67); or a total duration 

of 20 months for the revolt (The Histories III:152-153). 

The whole reconstitution is surprising, since it involves two co-regencies: one of 2 

months with Bardiya at the end of Cambyses reign, and another of 10 months with 

Nebuchadnezzar IV at the beginning of Darius reign. As noted by Zawadzki, we are facing 

an extremely paradoxical fact: the scribes in the same city would have recognized both rival 

kings as they have simultaneously dated their documents of these two sovereigns 38 . 

Bardiya 39 was regarded both as a coregent of Cambyses (The Histories III:61-63) and also as 

a new king (but regarded as an usurper by Darius I). 

38 S. ZAWADZKI Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun Inscription 

in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27 (1994) pp.127-145. 

39 Bardiya is called Mardus by Aeschylus (in -472), Smerdis by Herodotus (in -450), Tanyoxarkes by Ctesias (-400), Artaxerxes by Esdras 

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


TRANSITION DARIUS I / XERXES I 

For his part, Xerxes made explicit reference to the previous choice of his father 

Darius. According to an inscription (XPf §4), recalling the arrival of his father, while his 

brothers and Hystapes Arsames were still alive: King Xerxes says: Darius had other sons, the good 

pleasure of Ahuramazda was that Darius my father made me the greatest after him. When Darius my 

father left the throne, with Ahuramazda, I became king on the throne of my father 40 . 

According to Herodotus, Darius established his son Xerxes as king (and his coregent) 

at the end of his reign: Now, as he was about to lead forth his levies against Egypt and 

Athens, a fierce contention for the sovereign power arose among his sons; since the law of the Persians was 

that a king must not go out with his army, until he has an appointed one to succeed him upon the throne. 

Darius, before he obtained the kingdom, had had three sons born to him from his former wife, who was a 

daughter of Gobryas; while, since he began to reign, Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, had borne him four. 

Artabazanes was the eldest of the first family, and Xerxes of the second. These two, therefore, being the 

sons of different mothers, were now at variance. Artabazanes claimed the crown as the eldest of all the 

children, because it was an established custom all over the world for the eldest to have the pre-eminence; 

while Xerxes, on the other hand, urged that he was sprung from Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, and that it 

was Cyrus who had won the Persians their freedom. Before Darius had pronounced on the matter, it 

happened that Demaratus, the son of Ariston, who had been deprived of his crown at Sparta, and had 

afterwards, of his own accord, gone into banishment, came up to Susa, and there heard of the quarrel of the 

princes. Hereupon, as report says, he went to Xerxes, and advised him, in addition to all that he had urged 

before, to plead that at the time when he was born Darius was already king, and bore rule over the 

Persians; but when Artabazanes came into the world, he was a mere private person. It would therefore be 

neither right nor seemly that the crown should go to another in preference to himself. "For at Sparta," said 

Demaratus, byway of suggestion, "the law is that if a king has sons before he comes to the throne, and 

another son is born to him afterwards, the child so born is heir to his father's kingdom." Xerxes followed 

this counsel, and Darius, persuaded that he had justice on his side, appointed him his successor. For my 

own part I believe that, even without this, the crown would have gone to Xerxes; for Atossa was allpowerful 

(The Histories VII:2-5). This indicates that Xerxes was appointed king (basileus), not 

just a crown prince, during the reign of his father Darius. 

Even using the official chronology of royal lists there was a co-regency (of at least 7 

months) between Darius and his son Xerxes as we can see by compiling contracts dating 

from this period. 

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

4 I 13/I/36; 27/I/36 

5 II 7/II/36 

6 III xx/III/[00] 

7 IV 16/IV/36; 

8 V 5/V/36; 9/V/36; 27/V/36 11/V ?/00 

486 

9 VI 22/VI/36; 24/VI/36 

10 VII [2]7/VII/36 

11 VIII --/VIII/36; 15/VIII/36 22/VIII/00 

12 IX 10/IX/36; 10+x/IX/36 13/IX/00 

485 1 X 06+x/X/00; 7/X/00; 22/X/00 

2 XI 09/XI/00; 27/XI/00; 27/XI/00 

3 XII 11/XII/36 ? 12/XII/00; 21/XII/00; 24/XII/00; 27/XII/00 

4 I 5/I/01; 7/I/01; 15/I/01; 16/I/01; 22/I/01; 23/I/01 

5 II 3/II/01; 8/II/01; 10/II/01; 17/II/01; 28/II/01 

6 III 3/III/01; 14/III/01; 21/III/01; 24/III/01; 26/III/01 

7 IV 13/IV/01; 15/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 21/IV/01; 23/IV/01 

40 P. LECOQ - Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide 

Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 255.



CO-REGENCY DARIUS I / XERXES I 

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

4 I 13/I/36; 27/I/36 

5 II 7/II/36 

6 III xx/III/[00] 41 

7 IV 16/IV/36 

8 V 5/V/36; 9/V/36; 27/V/36 11/V ?/0042 9 VI 22/VI/36; 24/VI/36 

10 VII [2]7/VII/36 

11 VIII --/VIII/3643; 15/VIII/3644 486 

22/VIII/00 

12 IX 10/IX/3645; 10+x/IX/3646 13/IX/00 

485 1 X 06/X/00; 7/X/00; 22/X/00 

2 XI 09/XI/00; 27/XI/00 

3 XII 12/XII/00; 21/XI/00; 27/XI/00 

There are many variants of reading among cuneiform signs to represent months 47 : 

41 J.N. STRASSMAIER - Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum, (8. Kongr.) 

Christiania 1892. EKBK 21 (BM 60599) 

42 M. SAN NICOLÒ, A. UNGNAD -Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden übersetzt und erläutert, Vol. I, part 4 

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

43 G.J.P. MCEWAN –Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum 

in: Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts vol. X (Clarendon Press, 1984) pp. 12, 72 n° 159. 

44 J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period 

Poznan 1995. Letter Orders n80 (BM 77850). 

45 J. MACGINNIS, Letter Orders n81 (BM 71941). 

46 BM 72574 

47 L.-J. BORD, R. MUGNAIONI –L'écriture cunéiforme -syllabaire sumérien babylonien assyrien 

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

F. MALBRAN-LABAT - Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne 

Paris 1999 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner.


The cuneiform signs ITI SIG4 meaning "month III" appear in the boxed part which 

is enlarged below: 

Tablet BM 60599 dated xx/III/[00] of Xerxes 

The accession year [00] is deduced from the prosopography of the scribes of 

Sippar, Marduk-mukîn-apli and Marduk-bêl-!unu, who only appear in contracts under 

Xerxes 48 dated 7/X/00 and 27/XI/00. In addition, the titulature 49 "King of Babylon, king 

of Lands" appears only in the year 00 (10 times) and 01 (15 times), then disappears until the 

year 12 (once). 

48 S. GRAZIANI - I testi Mesopotamici datati al regno di Serse (485-465 a. c.) 

in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 4-9, 14-17, 124. 

49 R. ROLLINGER - Xerxes und Babylon 

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



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

Xerxes 0 0 

Xerxes 1 


? 1 




















[1] King of Persia 

[2] King of Persia (and) Media (crisscrossed) 

[3] King of Persia (and) Media and (King) of lands (hatched) 

[4] King of Persia (and) Media, King of Babylon and lands 

[5] King of lands 

[6] King of Babylon and (King) of lands 

[7] No titulature 

(each square represents 1 dated document) 

Two possible readings of date: xx/III/[00], the more likely, or xx/III/[01] (in grey): 

Date of contract 1 st scribe of Sippar 2 nd scribe of Sippar 3 rd scribe of Sippar 

Xer xx/III/[00] Marduk-mukîn-apli Bêl-ittanu Marduk-bêl-!unu 

Xer 7/X/00 Marduk-mukîn-apli Marduk-bêl-!unu Iddin-Nabû 

Xer 27/XI/00 Marduk-mukîn-apli Marduk-bêl-!unu Iddin-Nabû 

Xer xx/III/[01] Marduk-mukîn-apli Bêl-ittanu Marduk-bêl-!unu 

The prosopography of the officials of Ebabbara's administration 50 shows that 

Marduk-mukîn-apli and Marduk-bêl-!unu were scribes ("up!arru) from year 28 of Darius to 

year 2 of Xerxes, without co-regency (or from year 0 of Xerxes to year 36 of Darius with 

co-regency, with the synchronism: year 28 of Darius = year 2 of Xerxes). Furthermore, Bêlittanu 

was not a scribe, but the chief of the temple administration (!angû). He was used as a 

scribe only for the accession of Xerxes, afterwards he made the receipt for the offering of 

Xerxes in his letter dated [-]/III/01 of Xerxes (VS 6, 179). He is always !angû in a contract 

dated 21/III/01 of Xerxes (BM 65378) and one dated 17/III/29 of Darius (BM 64022). 

50 J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period 

Poznan 1995. Ed. BONAMI pp. 114-134. 

A.C.V.M. BONGENAAR – The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar 

Istanbul 1997 Ed. Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Institut pp. 78-81.


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

The full date is: ITI NE ? UD ! 11 KAM MU SAG meaning "month V ?, [day] 11, accession 

year" (the word "day" UD ! is missing). The month X is unlikely because it has always 4 

horizontal nails (there are at least 5 visible in the photo) and the month IX never has any 

vertical nail at the end of the sign. The cuneiform signs ITI NE meaning "month V" appears 

in the boxed part which is enlarged below (grey areas replace scratched parts):



It is easy to see that the representation of the kings on the Assyrian and Babylonian 

bas-reliefs is conventional. They are always bigger than all other officials. For example, 

Marduk-zakir-!umi I (left), king of Babylon and Salmanazar III (right), king of Assyria, are 

both greater than their officials. 

According to the conventional representation of kings, it was obvious that, among 

Persepolis bas-reliefs, the king on his throne, was Darius in front of Xerxes, the Crown 

prince 51 . The king on his throne can not be Xerxes 52 , because he is mentioned explicitly on 

some inscriptions as "son of Darius" (XPk), face to "Darius the king" (DPb) 53 . 

51 E.E. HERZFELD - A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis 

in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations n°5 Berlin (1932) p.8. 

52 A. SHAPUR SHABAZI – The Authoritative Guide to Persepolis 

Tehran 2004 Ed. Sanaye Farhangi Iran pp. 99,145-146. 


Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 100, 127, 259.


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

building of a house for Xerxes 54 as early as 498 BCE. Some scholars (very few) dispute this 

obvious evidence which support a co-regency between Darius and Xerxes 55 . Yet this fact 

was known since ancient times. Herodotus (The Histories VII:2-5), for example, knew that 

Xerxes was appointed king (basileus), not just crown prince, during the reign of his father 

Darius [the same term "appointed king" is used by Herodotus (The Histories I:208) to 

describe the co-regency between Cyrus and Cambyses]. The main opponent of this 

identification is Briant 56 and his arguments are dogmatic. He writes that the new palace in 

Babylon that appears in the year 26 of Darius (in 496 BCE) can not be linked with the 

accession of Xerxes because « The king never shares power »! His claim is unfounded, it 

reflects only his personal concept of power (The power should not be delegated). He does 

not address any chronological evidence. He also claims that it is difficult to draw 

chronological conclusions from the inscription of Xerxes (XPk). This is difficult for him 

because he never used any chronological analysis, but for scientific historians, whose 

chronology is considered as the eye of history, there is no difficulty because they consider 

more of the evidence. 

The Persepolis Fortifications 57 (PF) are dated from years 13 to 28 of Darius and the 

Persepolis Treasury 58 (PT) from year 30 of Darius to year 7 of Artaxerxes I. Irshena was 

treasurer from years 14 to 22 of Darius as !aramana "Responsible" (PF 280, 239), and 

Shuddayauda from years 19 to 26 (PF 490, 642). These two names never appear together in 

the same document. Then, in years 27 and 28, Baratkama was "Responsible [of Treasury]" 

(PF 864-868, 879, 1120). From year 32 two names appear at the beginning of documents 

(but not systematically), with or without their titulature, the first one is considered as 

treasurer and the second one as vice-treasurer. Thus in year 32, Baratkama is still treasurer 

because his name is placed at the beginning of documents dated IV/32 and XII/12 (PT 2, 

9). But at the end of year 32 (beginning of year 33) the first name is Shakka (PT 1), who 

became the new treasurer. Baratkama's name is sometimes written with its title kan!abara 

"Treasurer" (PT 12, 21, 22). Shakka's name appears in a document dated year 7 of Xerxes 

(PT 24). The second name (Baratkama) is mentioned with its title "Responsible", but 

Shakka had a more prestigious title sadabati! "Chief of hundred". For example, Haradkama 

the "Chief of hundred" is before Vahauka the "Responsible" and Bakuradathe the "Chief 

of hundred" is before Shiraz the "Responsible" (PT1, 42). When the two titles appear in the 

same time, "Chief of hundred" is always written before "Responsible". 

54 A. FARKAS - Achaemenid Sculpture 

Istanbul, 1974 EEd. Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch Instituut pp. 51-54. 


London 2010 Ed. Routeledge p. 304. 

56 P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre 

Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 983-984. 

57 R.T. HALLOCK - Persepolis Fortification Tablets 

Chicago 1969 Ed. The University of Chicago Press p. 74. 

58 G.G. CAMERON - Persepolis Treasury Tablets 

Chicago 1948 Ed. The University of Chicago Press pp. 14-17, 33 

G.G. CAMERON - New Tablets from the Persepolis Treasury 

in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies XXIV (1965) p. 186.



PROSOPOGRAPHY OF TREASURERS 

Without co-regency 

year Reign First name Second name Reign 

date 

509 13 Darius I 

508 14 Irshena R. 





503 19 Shuddayauda R. (Irshena R.) 




499 23 Shuddayauda R. 




495 27 Baratkama R. 

494 28 Baratkama R. 

493 29 

492 30 

491 31 

490 32 Baratkama Appishmanda IV 32 

Baratkama Appishmanda XII 32 

489 33 Shakka Baratkama XII 32 

488 34 

487 35 

486 36-0 Xerxes I 

485 1 

484 2 Baratkama Darkaush VI 2 

Shakka Baratkama R. XII 2 

483 3 Baratkama T. Aspathines IV, VII 3 

Baratkama Darkaush VI, XII 3 

482 4 Baratkama Darkaush III 4 

Shakka Baratkama R. IV 4 

Baratkama Darkaush VI, VII 4 

Shakka Baratkama R. X 4 

481 5 

480 6 Baratkama T. Artataxma IX 6 

Shakka Baratkama R. XII 6 

479 7 Shakka C. Baratkama R. II 2 

478 8 

477 9 

476 10 Shakka Vahush R. IX 10 

475 11 

474 12 Vahush T. Artataxma XII 12 

473 13 

472 14 

471 15 Vahush T. Ciçavahush X 15 

470 16 Vahush T. Ciçavahush IV, VII 16 

Vahush R. XI 16 

469 17 

468 18 Vahush T. Ciçavahush XII 18 

467 19 Vahush T. Megadates IX 19 

Vahush R. X 19 

Vahush T. Artataxma XI 19 

466 20 Ratininda T. Artataxma XII 20 

465 21-0 Artaxerxes I 

464 1 Uratinda R. IV 1 

463 2 

462 3 Barisha R. 

461 4 

460 5 

459 6 

458 7 Barisha T. Marezza X 7

With co-regency 


year Reign Treasurer Vice treasurer 

509 13 Darius I 

508 14 Irshena 

507 15 

506 16 

505 17 

504 18 

503 19 Shuddayauda Irshena 




499 23 

498 24 

497 25 

496 26-0 Xerxes I 

495 27-1 Baratkama 

494 28-2 Darkaush or Shakka 

493 29-3 Darkaush or Aspathines 

492 30-4 Darkaush or Shakka 

491 31-5 

490 32-6 Appishmanda or Artataxma 

489 33-7 Shakka Baratkama 

488 34-8 

487 35-9 

486 36-10 Vahush Shakka 

485 11 

484 12 Artataxma 

483 13 

482 14 

481 15 Ciçavahush 


479 17 


477 19 Megadates or Artataxma 

476 20 Uratinda Artataxma 

475 21-0 Artaxerxes I 

474 1 

473 2 

472 3 Barisha 

471 4 

470 5 

469 6 

468 7 Marezza 

The fact that there was a coregency explains the following: 

! Building of Xerxes palace in year 26 of Darius 59 . 

! There is a normal succession of treasurers who have worked 6 years on average. 

! Baratkama was appointed as Treasurer at the time of building of Xerxes palace (at 

Persepolis). 

! Vahush was appointed as Treasurer by Xerxes on xx/X/10 just after the death of 

Darius on 10/IX/36. 

! The number of texts during year 26 of Darius fall drastically 60 because of the accession 

of Xerxes. 

-498 -497 -496 -495 -494 

Year of Darius 24 25 26 27 28 

Number of texts 167 67 8 30 61 

59 A.T. OLMSTEAD -History of the Persian Empire 

Chicago 1970 Ed. University of Chicago Press pp. 214,215. 

P. BRIANT - Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre 


60 R.T. HALLOCK - Persepolis Fortification Tablets 

Chicago 1969 Ed. The University of Chicago Press p. 74.



DOUBLE DATED CONTRACTS 

A letter (BM 42567) dated 24/[-]/00 of Xerxes (lines 6’ and 7’) is also dated year 26 

of Darius (line 2). In his transcription Jursa 61 choose to read "year 36" but in his drawing 

we can read MU 26 "year 26" (2 heads of nail and 6 vertical nails). 

BM 42567 

61 M. JURSA – Das Archiv des Bel-Remanni 

in: Uitgaven van het Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 86 (1999) pp. 138, 206-207, Tafeln VII, XLIV.


The sign for the word "year" (MU) appears in the lines 2, 4 and 5' of this tablet. It is 

formed by one horizontal nail and by four heads of nail. From the photo (below), we can 

read MU 26 on the drawing (right), the figure 2 is formed by 2 heads of nail and 4 chips (in 

grey) and the figure 6 is formed by 6 vertical nails and 2 chips. A large zoom is needed to 

distinguish chips from nails. 

The reading "year 26 [of Darius]" is also confirmed by the prosopography of some 

officials. For example, the career of Ribâta son of "ama!-iddin of Ma!tukata family, as head 

of bakers (chef), of Bêl-rêmanni son of Mu!eb!i-Marduk family of "angû-"ama!, a scribe of 

the temple, and of Itti-"ama!-balâtu, as inspector of the canal, can be dated. This 

chronological reconstruction is based on a career progression (knowing that the lucrative 

activity of prebendary was reserved for the leaders): 

Personage Date of the letter Responsibility Tablet 

Ribâta 05/ X/24 of Darius Delegate of the chef BM 64067 

20/IX/26 of Darius (Delegate of the chef) BM 79514 

25/IX/26 of Darius Delegate of the chef BM 49999 

26 of Darius; 24/[-]/00 of Xerxes (Delegate of the chef) BM 42567 

07/ X/00 de Xerxes (Chef) BM 75070 

27/XI/00 de Xerxes Chef BM 75396 

07/IX/30 of Darius Prebendary and witness BM 74644 

02/IV/31 of Darius Prebendary and witness BM 74636 

Bêl-rêmanni 22/IV/07 de Cyrus Scribe CT 56, 194 

[-]/ I/02 of Darius Scribe VS 5, 60 

18/VII/06 of Darius Scribe BM 74605 

[-]/[-]/18 of Darius Scribe BM 70233 

08/ X/24 of Darius Scribe VS 3, 135 

24/[-]/26 of Darius Scribe BM 42567 

07/V/26 of Darius Prebendary VS 3, 138-139 

16/VII/26 of Darius Prebendary BM 74560 

15/III/32 of Darius Prebendary BM 75232 

22/VII/33 of Darius Prebendary VS 3, 154 

06/ X/34 of Darius Prebendary BM 74569 

4+/XII/34 of Darius Prebendary BM 74549 

23/XII/35 of Darius Prebendary VS 5, 109 

Itti-"ama!-balâtu 24/[-]/00 de Xerxes Canal inspector BM 42567 

11/IX/00 de Xerxes Canal inspector EKBK 22:3 

Without the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius from the year 26, the careers of 

several top officials become implausible. Ribâta, for example, has overseen the bakers from 

year 24 to 26 of Darius and then would stop for 10 years before returning to service only 

for the accession of Xerxes. Similarly, Bêl-remanni officiated as a scribe from year 7 of 

Cyrus to year 26 of Darius, and would have, too, stopped for 10 years before returning to



service for the accession of Xerxes. Furthermore Ribâta who was a prebandary from 

07/IX/30 of Darius would be demoted as chef for Xerxes accession and Bêl-remanni who 

was prebandary from 07/V/26 of Darius would also be demoted as scribe for Xerxes 

accession. As Bêl-remanni was scribe up till 24/[-]/26 and then prebendary from 07/V/26, 

the month [-] of that letter must be between I to IV. 

Another letter (BM 75396) 62 dated 27/XI/00 of Xerxes relates a settlement of 

accounts for the following year dated year 27 (of Darius): 

(1) [Letter of Marduk-mu]kin-apli and Marduk-bêl-!unu, 

(2) the scri[bes], to [Birûqâya], 

(3) [master of] the sûtu-taxe [of "ama!-(temple)]. Bel and Nabu 

(4) health [and (long) life to] our brother, may they ordain 

(5) 9 kur of emmer, (as offering) for the month of Addaru 

(6) 10 kur of emmer in kupputu and [kupputu] of Addaru month 

(7) 2 kur of emmer, (as offering) to the temples 

(8) 9 kur of emmer, (as offering) for the mon[th ..] 

(9) [or a] total of 30 kur of emmer to 

(10) [Ribâ]ta, the chef, give (him). 

(11) Until there is a settlement of accounts, that you will do 

(12) as you (always) done, 

(13) on (the payment of) the sûtu-taxe of year [2]7 we will count it. 

(14) Month of Shabatu, day 27, accession year 

(15) of Xerxes King of Babylon, King of lands. 

When Strassmaier published this letter, he translated: "year 27 [of Darius] 63 " but 

Stolper 64 preferred to read "year 37" because that reading would have involved a 10-year 

co-regency. Graziani 65 preferred to correct 37 into 36 assuming an error of scribe. This last 

assumption is unlikely because there was an important contract in which the figures 

indicating the quantities and dates were crucial and, therefore, carefully checked. 


in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 6-9. 

J. MACGINNIS -Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period, 

Poznan 1995. Letter N° 85 pp.63-64 plate 23. 

63 J.N. STRASSMAIER -Einige kleinere babylonische Keilschrifttexte aus dem Britischen Museum 

(Actes du 8e congrès), EKBK18 1889 pp. 20-21. 

64 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I 

1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 p. 229 note 33. 


in: Annali 46 sup. 47 (Rome 1986) Ed. Herder pp. 9 note 7.


In any case the two readings, 36 or 37, are illogical since at the supposed epoch of 

writing of that letter, at the 27/XI/[36], king Darius had been dead for two months and a 

half (he died around the 10/IX/36) and therefore could no longer rule. Furthermore, 

Ribâta who was a prebandary from 07/IX/30 would be demoted as chef at the last year of 

Darius! Despite his reading ("37"), MacGinnis published a drawing where the reading MU 

[2]7 "year 27" (line 13) is more likely. The number "27" appears also in line 14, the number 

"30" in the line 9, and the sign MU "year" appears in lines 10 and 14 (see boxed parts). 

BM 75396 

On the photo of the boxed part (below), the number [2]7 looks badly damaged, but 

4 vertical nails out of 7 appear clearly and 3 vertical nails (at the right side in grey) may be 

guessed. The first "7" in line 13 is bigger than the second one in line 14. 



ABSOLUTE DATES FROM ASTRONOMY 

An astronomical tablet (BM 32234) 66 contains two lunar eclipses dated [14/III] and 

14/VIII in addition the death of Xerxes is dated 14/V. 

1' at 18° ? [...] 

2' 40° onset, ma[ximal phase, and clearing]. The "garment of the sky [rain-clouds]" was there. 

3' In the area of the 4 rear stars of Sagittarius it was eclipsed. Month VI was intercalary 

4' Month V, the 14 ?, Xerxes —his son killed him. 

—————————— 

5' Month VIII, the 14 th, 13° after 

6' sunset, [the moon] came out of a cloud, 

7' 1/4 of the disk on the [...] 

8' and west side was covered. 8° ? [onset ? and] 

9' clearing [...] 

66 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V 

Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 20-21, 396.


year [14 III] eclipse 14 V eclipse 14 VIII eclipse 

(Sivan) (Ab) (Heshvan) 

476 6-Jul. OK 3-Sept. _ 1-Dec. _ 

475 26-Jun OK 24-Aug. _ 20-Dec. OK 

474 15-Jul. _ 12-Sept. _ 9-Dec. OK 

473 3-Jul. _ 31-Aug. _ 28-Nov. _ 

472 23-Jul. _ 20-Sept. _ 17-Dec. _ 

471 12-Jul. _ 9-Sept. _ 6-Dec. _ 

470 1-Jul. _ 29-Aug. _ 25-Nov. _ 

469 19-Jun _ 17-Aug. OK 14-Nov. _ 

468 9-Jul. _ 6-Sept. _ 3-Dec. _ 

467 28-Jun _ 26-Aug. _ 22-Nov. _ 

466 16-Jul. OK 13-Sept. _ 11-Dec. _ 

465 5-Jun OK 4-Aug. _ 29-Nov. OK 

464 25-Jul. _ 22-Sept. _ 19-Dec. _ 

The 1 st onset point out the beginning of the penumbra, the 2 nd one the beginning of 

the eclipse, the 3 rd one the end of the eclipse and the 4 th one the end of the penumbra. The 

full length of the eclipse is given by the time between the 1 st and the 4 th onset.



Total eclipse dated December 13, 317 BCE 

5' Month IX, the 15 th. When it began on the south and east side, 

6' in 19° all was covered. 5° maximal phase. 

7' In 16° it cleared to between north and east. 

8' 40° onset, maximal phase and clearing. During onset (and) maximal phase 

9' it was slow, during clearing fast. 

10' Its eclipse was red. 1 1/2 cubits 

11' in front of ! Geminorum it was eclipsed. At 44° after sunset. 

According to astronomy, this eclipse 67 , dated December 13, 317 BCE, began at 

20h36 (local time) or 3h34 after sunset, which was at 17h02 in Babylon. This length of 

3h34 corresponds to 54° (one Babylonian degree equals to four minutes time). 

Description of the eclipse (total) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference 

1 st onset [beginning] 44° after sunset 54° after sunset 10° (40 min.) 

1 st onset – 2 nd onset [penumbra] 19° 17° 2° (8 min.) 

2 nd onset – 3 rd onset [maximal] 5° 21° 16° (64 min.) 

3 rd onset – 4 th onset [clearing] 16° 17° 1° (4 min.) 

1 st onset – 4 th onset [length] 40° 55° 15° (60 min.) 

Partial eclipse dated April 5, 397 BCE 

2' Month XII2, the 14 th 

3' it began on the south side, 

4' 1/4 of the disk was covered. 

5' It cleared to the west. 27° 

6' onset, maximal phase, and clearing. 

7' The "garment of the sky" was there, the south wind blew. 

8' At 48° after sunset. 

According to astronomy, this eclipse 68 , dated April 5, 397 BCE, began at 21h34 

(local time) or 3h09 after sunset, which was at 18h25 in Babylon. This length of 3h09 

corresponds to 47°. The "garment of the sky" = "rain-clouds 69 ". 

Description of the eclipse (partial) according to the tablet according to astronomy difference 

1 st onset [beginning] 48° after sunset 47° after sunset 1° (4 min.) 

Covered surface of the disk 0.25 0.08 3x 

1 st onset – 2 nd onset [length] 27° 16° 11° (44 min.) 


Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 6-7, 395. 

F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation 

Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 176-177. 

68 H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V pp. 12-13, 395. 

F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation pp. 169-170. 

69 A. PARPOLA -The Sky-Garment. A Study of the Harappan Religion and Its Relation to the Mesopotamian and Later Indian Religions 

in: Studia Orientalia vol. 57 (1985).


Huber 70 compared the dates given by the astronomical tablets with those obtained 

in astronomy today. According to his analysis, indications concerning the beginning and 

end of the eclipse with respect to sunrise and sunset can reach a maximum deviation of 

+/- 20° (marked with a •) or +/- 1 hour 20 minutes (1° = 4 minutes), and indications of 

duration of the eclipse can reach a maximum deviation of +/- 10° time (marked by a +) or 

+/- 40 minutes. Huber explains the origin of these differences by copying errors in the 

tablets, misinterpretation of a poorly preserved text, false identifications of eclipses, 

especially when an eclipse predicted an eclipse replaced missing or not observed. Finally 

the concept of 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th contact may be slightly different from the present 

astronomical concept. 

For example, the astronomical tablet BM 71537 fixes the death of Artaxerxes III 

(birth name: Ochos) 71 , after the solar eclipse of 29/IV (dated March 11, 358 BCE) 72 : 

[year] 21, month IV, (after) 5 month, the 29 [...] not observed 

month VI, Umaku! [Ochos] went to his fate. 

Ar!u, his son sat on the throne. 

King Name according to astronomical tablets Greek name 

Artaxerxes I [] Artak!atsu Artoxerxes 

Darius II Umaku!, whom name is Darawu!u Ochos 

Artaxerxes II Ar!u, whom name is Artak!atsu Arsakes 

Artaxerxes III Umaku!, whom name is Artak!atsu Ochos 

Artaxerxes IV Ar!u, son of Umasu, whom name is Artak!atsu Arses 

Darius III Artak!atsu, whom name is Dariyawu! Darios 


Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis pp. 3,22,28-31. 

71 F. JOANNÈS - La Mésopotamie au 1 er millénaire avant J.C. 

2000 Paris Ed. Armand Colin p. 145. 


Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften p. 45.



Stolper 73 dated August 4, 465 BCE the death of Xerxes (14/V/21) as there were 

actually two eclipses in that year. However, the astronomical description of these two 

eclipses does not match that indicated on the tablet (BM 32234) because 1 st eclipse was 

total and 2 nd eclipse was partial. A comparison of all the data from the tablet with those of 

astronomy gives the following results: 

Year Date of eclipse 

according 

to the tablet 

Type of 

eclipse 

mag. 

according 

to the tablet 

agreement 

475 BCE June 26 14 III Total 1.82 total OK 

December 20 14 VIII Partial 0.62 [1/4] OK 

465 BCE June 05 14 III Partial 0.94 total ## 

November 29 14 VIII Total 1.45 [1/4] ## 

First eclipse start 

1 

2 

3 

end 

4 

mag. 

sunrise sunset 

June 26, 475 BCE 4:05 5:02 6:42 7:39 1.82 5:02 19:06 

June 5, 465 BCE 21:51 0:55 0.94 5:00 18:59 

Second eclipse start 

1 

2 

3 

end 

4 

mag. 

sunrise sunset 

December 20, 475 BCE 20:24 23:20 0.61 7:02 17:00 

November 29, 465 BCE 14:25 15:31 17:05 18:11 1.46 6:47 16:55 

Partial eclipse eclipse not observed at Babylon total eclipse 

According to the 

According to astronomy: 

First eclipse tablet BM 32234 June 26, 475 BCE June 5, 465 BCE 

1st onset [-] 13° before sunrise 43° after sunset 

1st – 2nd onset [-] 14° 

2nd – 3rd onset 

3 

[-] 25° 

rd – 4th onset 18° 14° ## 

1st – 4th onset 40° 54° 46° 

Second eclipse December 20, 475 BCE November 29, 465 BCE 

1st onset 13° after sunset 51° after sunset 38° before sunset ## 

17° 

24° ## 

17° 

1st – 2nd onset [8°] 44° 57° 

According to astronomy, only the beginning of the first eclipse (June 26) could be 

observed, in addition, the weather was rainy. Observations have therefore been difficult, 

thus the two durations of eclipse (40° and 8°) were probably due to a guess. In 30% of 

cases (on average), the Babylonians completed their observations with values calculated 74 

according to some theories poorly understood 75 

73 M.W. STOLPER - The Evidence of Cuneiform Texts for the date of Xerxes' Death 

in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol CVIII (1988) pp. 196-198. 

M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology 

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


Milano 2004 Ed. Mimesis p. 7. 

75 N.M. SWERDLOW - The Babylonian Theory of the Planets 

1998 New Jersey Ed. Princeton University Press pp. 44,45.


As Bardiya, Xerxes began his reign on two occasions, first as co-regent his 

accession is dated III/00 and again as true king after the death of Darius dated 10/IX/10. 

year month year of reign 

496 1 

2 

X 

XI 

25 Darius I 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

26 

6 

7 

8 

III 

IV 

V 

*** 0 Darius I / Xerxes I 

BM 42567 dated 24/[III?]/00 year 26 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

495 1 X 

2 

3 

XI 

XII 

*** BM 75396 dated 27/XI/00 to 01/I/27 

4 

5 

I 

II 

27 1 


486 1 

2 

X 

XI 

35 9 Darius I / Xerxes I 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

36 10 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

485 1 

2 

X 

XI 

10 [0] Xerxes I / [Xerxes as new king] 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

11 1 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 0 Xerxes I / Bel-!imânni 

9 

10 

VI 

VII 

0 Xerxes I / "ama!-erîba 

11 

12 

VIII 

IX 

(Esther 2:21-3:7) 

484 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

12 

Babylonian revolts that took place early in the reign of Xerxes (year 11), after the 

death of Darius, can not have occurred when he was co-regent (year 1). Indeed, from the 

Battle of Marathon (in -490), Herodotus describes a climate of insurrection in the Persian 

Empire: So the men published his commands; and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of 3 years, 

while everywhere, as Greece was to be attacked, the best and bravest were enrolled for the service, and had to 

make their preparations accordingly. After this, in the 4 th year [in -486], the Egyptians whom Cambyses 

had enslaved revolted from the Persians; whereupon Darius was more hot for war than ever, and earnestly 

desired to march an army against both adversaries. Now, as he was about to lead forth his levies against 

Egypt and Athens, a fierce contention for the sovereign power arose among his sons (...) Darius, when he 

had thus appointed Xerxes his heir, was minded to lead forth his armies; but he was prevented by death 

while his preparations were still proceeding. He died in the year following the revolt of Egypt and the



matters here related, after having reigned in all 36 years, leaving the revolted Egyptians and the Athenians 

alike unpunished. At his death the kingdom passed to his son Xerxes (The Histories VII:1-4). 

Ctesias said after the death of Darius: Xerxes decided to make war upon Greece, because the 

Chalcedonians had attempted to break down the bridge as already stated and had destroyed the altar which 

Darius had set up, and because the Athenians had slain Datis and refused to give up his body. But first he 

visited Babylon, being desirous of seeing the tomb of Belitanes, which Mardonius showed him. But he was 

unable to fill the vessel of oil, as had been written. Thence he proceeded to Ecbatana, where he heard of the 

revolt of the Babylonians and the murder of Zopyrus their satrap (Persica F13§§25-26). Arrian 

situated also the Babylonian revolt at the time of his campaign against the Greeks 

(Anabasis of Alexander III:16:4; VII:17:2), which began in the spring of -485 according to 

Herodotus (The Histories VII:20). Strabo says that Xerxes razed the temple of Bel Marduk 

(Geography XVI:1:5), probably in retaliation for these brief Babylonian revolts 76 . 

Herodotus says only that Xerxes robbed the temple of Marduk and killed the priest who 

tried to prevent (The Histories I:183). These two brief rebellions at the beginning of the 

reign of Xerxes confirm the co-regency because during his accession and his first year of 

reign, Xerxes was welcomed by the Babylonians and the two Babylonian revolts, just after 

the death of Darius, imply that the Xerxes' accession could not take place at that time. 

Plutarch, who confirms the story of Ctesias, said after the death of Darius the 

kingdom of Xerxes was challenged in a climate of insurrection (very different from the 

period of accession 10 years earlier): Arimenes came out of Bactria as a rival for the kingdom with 

his brother Xerxes, the son of Darius. Xerxes sent presents to him, commanding those that brought them to 

say: With these your brother Xerxes now honours you; and if he chance to be proclaimed king, you shall be 

the next person to himself in the kingdom. When Xerxes was declared king, Arimenes immediately did 

him homage and placed the crown upon his head; and Xerxes gave him the next place to himself. Being 

offended with the Babylonians, who rebelled, and having overcome them, he forbade them weapons (Sayings 

of kings and commanders 173c) 77 . If Arimenes challenged the kingdom of Xerxes that 

means he (Xerxes) was already king. In addition, the Babylonian revolt early in his reign 

had visibly worried Babylonians, since we read of a trilingual inscription at Persepolis: King 

Xerxes says: When I became king, among the nations that are written above, it is one that rebelled, then 

Ahuramazda gave me his support and thanks to Ahuramazda I beat these people and I put it back in its 

place 78 . Xerxes does not name the Babylonians probably because this old people constituted 

a prestigious historical foundation of Achaemenid power, thus it was embarrassing to 

admit such an insurrection. The translation of the Babylonian inscription is also indicative 

of the awkwardness as it replaces the offending people by "these countries have rebelled," 

combining the revolt that had taken place at the time of Darius with the rebels, which were 

the two Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar III and IV. 

The information from Ctesias and Plutarch overlap, making it possible to locate the 

two brief reigns of Bel-!imânni and "ama!-erîba in the year -485 or early in the effective 

reign of Xerxes after the death of Darius. According to the book of Esther 79 there was a 

plot to kill Xerxes which was thwarted in the 11 th year of his reign, we read: Bigthan and 

Teresh, two officials of the king's court — the porters — were outraged and sought to lay hands on King 

Ahasuerus. But the thing came to be known to Mordecai, and he soon revealed to Esther the queen. Then 

76 Herodotus wrote: one year after Darius death (in -485), Xerxes attacked the [Babylonian?] rebels (The Histories VII:7). 

77 Ctesias states that Megabyzus who suppressed the revolt and took Babylon. 


Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard p. 257. 

79 Esther, Abigail's daughter, was the wife of Xerxes from the year 7 of his reign in -489 (Esther 2:15-17), and his name is like Amestris 

Amiy-stâra "I'm Esther" in Old Persian. Amestris would be Esther (ZAW 119:2 [2007] pp. 259-271). Although portrayed as a cruel 

woman (Otanes' daughter) several points of Herodotus coincide with that of the Bible: 

1) When he is king, Xerxes has only one wife (The Histories VII:61; Esther 2:17), 2) during a royal banquet the queen asks a special favor 

(The Histories IX:110 -111; Esther 7:1-10), and 3) this request, not good for the Persians, leads a war that the Jews won, again, a dozen 

young Persian of noble family were executed in retaliation (The Histories VII:114; Esther 9:12-14).


Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. The case was therefore sought and finally discovered, and 

both were hanged on a pole (...) Shortly afterwards (...) In the 1 st month, that is the month of Nisan, of the 

12 th year of King Ahasuerus (Esther 2:21-3:7). We also note that Mordecai appears as debtor 

of U!tanu in a contract (dated -485 by Ungnad through prosopography) 80 . The biblical text 

also mentions the presence of Tattenai (Ezra 4:24-6:15), the governor beyond the river, 

only from year 2 of Darius I, which is consistent with his early peaceful reign at the end of 

year 1 (Tattenai, U!tanu's assistant, the governor of Babylon and beyond the river, appears 

in a contract dated in the year 20 of Darius 81 ). 

Destruction (maybe partial?) of the famous sanctuary of Marduk had to destabilize 

the Babylonian administration and may explain, in part, the disappearance of the 

Babylonian archives 82 recorded since that time. Unlike Cambyses who "started again" his 

reign after the death of Cyrus, Xerxes continued his dating from the beginning of his coregency 

(as Bardiya did). After the death of Darius, Xerxes was then in his 10 th year of 

reign. For example, the serious accusation against the Jews is dated in the 12 th year of the 

legal reign of Xerxes (Esther 3:7-10), at the beginning of his effective reign (Ezra 4:6). 

Cameron 83 notes that the 1 st year and the accession of Xerxes are well represented 

in Babylon, it does not place the revolt over the two years since the Babylonians had clearly 

recognized Xerxes in his early steps. Waerzeggers 84 notes that the tablet BM 96414, dated 

the accession of "ama!-erîba mentions the 1 st year of Xerxes, but as the legitimate king was 

"ama!-erîba, for the scribe, Xerxes was an usurper in his 1 st year of reign, not a legitimate 

king in his 11 th year. Indeed, Xerxes was challenged after the death of Darius, not during 

the first two years of his reign. The last text of Xerxes (CBS 10059) is dated 20/V/21 85 . 

King Tablet Year of 

Xerxes 

Date Place Titulature 

BSCAS 32 n2. 11 2/I/11 [Ur?] 

AfO 19 n°23 14 +/V/00 Bel-!imânni 

Borsippa King of Babylon and of lands 

VS 6 331 1 01/VI/00 Dilbat King of Babylon 

BM 87357 04/VI/00 Harru-mîlû King of Babylon 

BM 3630486 [11?] 15/[VI]/x Babylon? King of Kings 

"ama!-erîba LB 1718 04/V/00 Sippar(!) King of Babylon and of lands 

BM 25897 22/VI/00 Borsippa King 

BM 96414 1 24/VI/00 Borsippa King of Babylon, king of lands 

VS 3 178 25/VI/00 Borsippa King of Babylon 

BM 67297 25/VI/00 Sippar King of Babylon and of lands 

BM 94878 09/VII/00 Kish King of Babylon, king of lands 

VS 5 116 21/VII/00 Borsippa King of Babylon 

ZA 3, 157f. 22/VII/00 Babylon King of Babylon and of lands 

VS 6 173 

BM 22072 

23/VII/00 

24/VII/00 

Borsippa 

Borsippa 

King of Babylon, king of lands 

King of Babylon 

VS 6 174 29/VII/00 Borsippa King of Babylon 

OECT 10, 176 11 05/IX/11 Hursag-kal. King of Babylon, king of lands 

JCS 28 n38 11 24/XI/11 Sippar - 

80 A. UNGNAD - Neubabylonische Privaturkunden aus der Sammlung Amherst 

in: Archiv für Orientforschung XIX (1959-1960) pp. 80-81. 

81 M.W. STOLPER – The Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River 

in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48 (1989) pp. 290-291. 

82 According to the biblical text (Ezra 5:17-6:2; Esther 6:1), the archives were located mainly in Babylon in rolls. 

83 G.G. CAMERON – Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia 

in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58 (1941) pp. 314-325. 

84 C. WAERZEGGERS – The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes andthe ‘End of Archives’ 

in: Archiv für Orientforschung 50 (2003/2004) pp. 150-172. 

85 M.W. STOLPER - Late Achaemenid Babylonian Chronology 

in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1999) pp. 6-7. 

86 K. GRAYSON – Texts from Cuneiform Sources Volume V Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles 

Winona Lake 2000 Ed. Eisenbrauns pp. 24, 112-113.



After Xerxes had been killed (14/V/21 that is August 24, 475 BCE) there was no 

king any more because Artabanus was only his legal representative. Herodotus wrote: Have 

no fear, therefore, on this score; but keep a brave heart and uphold my house and empire. To thee, and thee 

only, do I intrust my sovereignty (The Histories VII:52), but Artabanus is never mentioned as 

coregent: For in the three following generations of Darius the son of Hystaspes, Xerxes the son of Darius, 

and Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes (The Histories VI:98). Justinus and Aristotle even suggest 

clearly that Darius, the eldest son of Xerxes, was the designated heir 87 . 

A contract under Artaxerxes I, refers to a previous arrangement dated IX/21 of 

Xerxes 88 , or 4 months after his death, and not to Artaxerxes accession, which had just been 

recognized. An Elephantine Papyri (B24) is dated: [17] Thoth, year 21 (of Xerxes), 

accession year of Artaxerxes 89 . As the 17 Thoth corresponds to January 5 (that is 

10/IX/21), the accession year of Artaxerxes must have been dated around 1-10/IX/00 

(between December 25, 475 BCE and January 5, 474 BCE). Xerxes must be dead because 

after the 1 st Thoth he would begin his 22 th year of reign in Egypt. 


475 1 

2 

X 

XI 

20 

3 XII 

4 

5 

6 

I 

II 

III 

21 Xerxes I 

(Total lunar eclipse of June 26, 475 BCE) 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 

10 

VI 

VII 

(21) (Xerxes I) / Artabanus 

11 VIII 

(Partial lunar eclipse of December 20, 475 BCE) 

12 IX 

474 1 

2 

3 

X 

XI 

XII 

0 Artaxerxes I / Artabanus 

(met by Themistocles) 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 Artaxerxes I 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

According to this chronological reconstitution the accession of Xerxes is dated -475 

(instead of -465) which involves shifting 10 years all years of Xerxes, for example: 

! Mardonios died in 479 BCE (= year 17 of Xerxes). A batch of tablets on the domain of 

Mardonius is dated 3-10 years of Xerxes, in addition, according to Herodotus, the 

general died in August 479 BCE at the Battle of Plataea (The Histories IX :81-84). 

Stolper 90 suggests that one continued to talk about him posthumously a few years after 

his death (up till -476) as if he were still alive, but his explanation defies common sense! 

! War preparations are dated 485 to 481 BCE (= year 11 to 15 of Xerxes). The book of Esther 

describes some events in the 12 th year of Ahasuerus (Esther 3:7). According to this text, 

Xerxes makes a corvée on earth and the islands of the Sea (Esther 10:1), which refers 

to the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean and the maritime regions of the empire. 



88 H.H. FIGULLA - Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period 

London 1949 Ed. Harrison & sons p. 15 text n° 193. 

89 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English 

Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 164-165. 

90 M.W. STOLPER - The Estate of Mardonius 

in: Aula Orientalis Vol. X 1992 pp. 211-221.


The Hebrew word mas can be translated as "tribute" or "forced labour", but since the 

regions in question were already paying tribute, the translation "forced labour" is more 

appropriate. Xerxes prepared his expedition against Greece for 4 whole years, creating 

storage and building an impressive fleet of about 1,200 fighting ships and 2000 

transport vessels. These preparations are to be linked with the passage from the Book 

of Esther. The expedition of Xerxes is dated 480 BCE. Yet Herodotus states: From the 

date of submission of Egypt, Xerxes took 4 whole years to assemble his army and supplies needed and 

he took the field at the end of the 5 th year [spring 480 BCE], with immense forces (The Histories 

VII:20). A document called “customs registry” contains accounts of maritime traffic 

from the port of Memphis 91 (or Naucratis) showing the amount of customs duty 

payable to the "king's house." These important contributions which are sent to the 

Persian king are dated from 11 th to 15 th year of Xerxes 92 . A royal receipt dated year 13 

of Xerxes 93 (10/I/13) also mentions these requisitions. 

! Succession Xerxes / Artaxerxes (= year 21 of Xerxes) is mentioned just after the siege of Eion (The 

Histories VII:106-107; The Peloponnesian War I:98,137), which is placed during the 

archon Phaedon, according to Plutarch (Life of Theseus §§35,36), dated 476/475 BCE. 

year King Historical event 

502 Darius 20 

501 21 

500 22 

499 23 

498 24 

497 25 

496 Darius / Xerxes 26- 0 Building of Xerxes palace 

495 27- 1 

494 28- 2 

493 29- 3 

492 30- 4 

491 31- 5 

490 32- 6 Battle of Marathon 

489 33- 7 

488 34- 8 

487 35- 9 

486 36-10 0 

485 Xerxes 11 1 (1) War preparations 

484 12 2 (2) " 

483 13 3 (3) " 

482 14 4 (4) " 

481 15 5 (5) " 

480 16 6 Battle of Salamis (September -480) 

479 17 7 Battle of Plataea (August -479) 

478 18 8 

477 19 9 

476 20 10 Siege of Eion, battle of Skyros 

475 Artaxerxes I 0 - 21 11 Battle of Naxos 

474 1 12 Themistocles met Artaxerxes 

473 2 13 

91 E. BRESCIANI – L'Égypte des satrapes d'après la documentation araméenne et égyptienne 

in: Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres (1995) pp. 97-108. 

92 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3 

1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. 195-203. 

93 M.W. STOLPER – "Fifth-Century Nippur: Texts of the Murasus from their Surroundings" 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53 (2001) pp. 26-35.



DID THEMISTOCLES MEET ARTAXERXES ? 

Diodorus (Historical Library XI:54-60) mentions the death of Themistocles: when 

Praxigerus was archon [471/470]. If Artaxerxes began his reign in -465, Themistocles, who 

died in -471, could not meet him. Aware of this aberration, many historians today reject the 

death of Themistocles in -460 or even in -450. But this choice comes up against a problem: 

the life of Themistocles is well documented. This paradox is not new, as already evoked by 

Cornelius Nepos: I know most historians have related that Themistocles went over into Asia in the reign 

of Xerxes, but I give credence to Thucydides in preference to others, because he, of all who have left records of 

that period, was nearest in point of time to Themistocles, and was of the same city (Life of Themistocles 

IX). Plutarch says: Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that 

Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, 

write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet 

neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest (Life of Themistocles XXVII). 

Cicero relates: Who was more eminent in Greece than Themistocles, who more powerful? But 

he, after having saved Greece from slavery by his leadership in the war with Persia, and after having been 

banished because of his unpopularity, would not submit to the injustice of an ungrateful country, as he was 

in duty bound to do: he did the same thing that Coriolanus had done among our people 20 years before. 

Not one single supporter could be found to aid these men against their country; therefore, each took his own 

life (Laelius on Friendship XII§42). Livy (Roman History II :34-39) dates precisely the life 

of Coriolanus, indicating that he betrayed in the consulship of Marcus Minucius and Aulus 

Sempronius (in -491) and died 3 years later when Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius were 

consuls (in -488). The parallel between these two famous men who have had a similar 

purpose would involve a death of Themistocles around -468. Plutarch also says that 

Themistocles ended his days in the city of Magnesia, having lived 65 years (Life of Themistocles III; 

XXXI). According to Cornelius Nepos, Themistocles and Aristides were about the same 

age (Aristides I:1). Elien says: Themistocles, and Aristides Son of Lysimachus, had the same 

Governours, they were also brought up together, and taught by one Master, but whilest yet Boyes, they were 

alwaies at variance ; and this emulation continued from their childhood, to extreme old age (Various 

History XIII:44). Plutarch wrote: Aristides being the friend and supporter of that Clisthenes (...) had 

Themistocles, son to Neocles, his adversary on the side of the populace. Some say that, being boys and bred 

up together from their infancy, they were always at variance with each other in all their words and actions 

(Aristides II:1). Now, to be part of the Boule (Senate), you had to be at least 30 years old 94 . 

So Aristide had to be born a little before -538, for the constitution of Cleisthenes is -508. 

With an estimated birth around -538, the death of Themistocles (65 years later) would be 

around -473. Ælian wrote: On a time Themistocles, yet a boy, returning from School, his Master bade 

him, meeting Pisistratus the Tyrant, to go a little out of the way. Whereto he generously answered, "Is not 

here way enough for him?" So much did something ingenious and generous appear in Themistocles at those 

years (Various History III:21). As Pisistratus died in the archonship of Philoneos (in -527), 

according to Aristotle (Constitution of Athens XVII:1-2), Themistocles had to rise about 

537/536, as being a pais (boy) at this meeting he was at less 10 years old. If Themistocles, 

who died at the age of 65, was born in -536, his death is therefore in -471. He must have 46 

years at the Battle of Marathon (in -490). Stobaeus supports this testimony by saying that 

Themistocles was already old (which means to have around 50 years or more) when he 

took the head of the Athenian forces during the Median wars 95 . 

94 C. ORRIEUX, P. SCHMITT PANTEL - Histoire grecque. 

Paris 1995 Ed. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 165,197. 

95 J. STOBAEI - Florilegium CXVII:9 Vol. III 

1824 Lipsiae Ed. Thomas Gaisford p. 392.


TRANSITION ARTAXERXES I / DARIUS II 

According to the conventional chronology, mainly from Ptolemy's Royal Canon, 

supplemented by information from the ancient historians (Herodotus, Manetho, etc.), the 

following scheme was accepted (Artaxerxes accession is supposed to be in 465 BCE): 


424 1 

2 

X 

XI 


3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 

2 

(41) Xerxes II 

6 

7 

III 

IV 

1 

2 

Sogdianus 

8 V 3 

9 VI 4 

10 VII 5 

11 VIII 6 

12 IX 7 

423 1 

2 

X 

XI 

0 Darius II 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 

Statistical spreading of tablets 96 

Because of the small number of tablets the chronology of Artaxerxes reign was 

hard to verify. However, the discovery of the Murashu archives 97 completely changed the 

previous reconstitution since a co-regency of several months (up till month XII) 98 appeared 

between Artaxerxes I and Darius instead of a period ruled by two usurpers 99 . 

424 

423 

month Artaxerxes I (year 41) Darius II (accession) 

4 I 

5 II 

6 III 

7 IV 25/IV/00 

8 V 5/V/41; 20/V/41 

9 VI 1/VI/41; 25/VI/41 

10 VII 4/VII/41; 16/VII/41 

11 VIII 6/VIII/41 

12 IX 1/XI/41; 12/IX/41 14/IX/00; 29/IX/00 

1 X 

2 XI 17/XI/41 4/XI/00; 15/XI/00 

3 XII 14/XII/41; 20/XII/41 9/XII/00; 22/XII/00 

96 J. EVERLING – Materials for the Study of First Millenium B.C. Babylonian Texts 

2000 Paris Bibliothèque du Collège de France (Assyrie) cote: TP-Everling. 

97 M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive 

Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 13-24. 

98 V. DONBAZ, M.W. STOLPER – Istanbul Murasu Texts 

in: Pihans 79 (1997) Leiden-Istanbul. 

99 L. DEPUYDT - The Date of Death of Artaxerxes I 

in: Die Welt des Orients XXVI (1995) pp. 86-96.



Some scholars have suggested that scribes who had dated contracts in the year 41 

of Artaxerxes were unaware that Darius had begun to reign 100 , but this is unlikely 101 . Aware 

of this difficulty some have proposed to reduce the duration of the coregency by reading 

XI instead of IV, but Stolper 102 acknowledges: Leichty (1974) as Walker (1979) observed that 

although the sign of the month is more like that "U than ZIZ, it is partially broken, damaged along the 

bottom and right edge. Thus, the reading 25/IV/41 accession of Darius (on tablet BM 33342 

below) seems most likely. He added that since Artaxerxes died around -424 in March at the 

end of his 40 th year of reign, the Babylonian scribes were well aware of his death on the 12 th 

month of this year. Stolper thought that Darius II was immediately admitted to Babylon 

along with Xerxes II, Sogdianus being only recognized in Persia before being assassinated. 

Chronological reconstitution currently accepted is as follows: 


424 1 

2 

X 

XI 


3 

4 

5 

6 

XII 

I 

II 

III 

41 

1 

2 

1 

2 

[Artaxerxes I] / / Xerxes II 

[Artaxerxes I] / / Sogdianus 

7 

8 

IV 

V 

0 3 

4 

[Artaxerxes I] / Darius II / Sogdianus 

9 VI 5 

10 VII 6 

11 VIII 7 

423 

12 

1 

2 

IX 

X 

XI 

[Artaxerxes I] / Darius II 

3 XII 

4 I (42) 1 Darius II 

5 II 

100 F.X. KUGLER - Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel 11 

Münster 1907, 1912 p. 312. 

101 D.M. LEWIS - Sparta and Persia 

Leiden 1977 Ed. E.J. Brill pp. 70-72. 

102 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I 

1983 Berlin in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 pp. 223-236.


Although it is generally accepted that reconstitution is absurd because it implies a 

co-regency with a dead king. Indeed, the death of Artaxerxes is fixed precisely by 

Thucydides just at the end of the 7 th year of the Peloponnesian War and before a partial 

solar eclipse in March 424 BCE according to his chronological system (The Peloponnesian 

War IV:50-52). Astronomy confirms the existence of the eclipse (annular eclipse of 

magnitude 94%) 103 dated March 21, 424 BCE. However, as the 1 st of Nisan fell on April 

20 104 in 424 BCE, Artaxerxes I could not begin his 41 st year of reign because the spring 

equinox fell on March 25 in 424 BCE (Julian calendar) 105 and the 1 st Nisan (= 1 st crescent 

appearing after the equinox) fell on April 20 in 424 BCE. As there was an intercalary 

month 106 in the year 40 of Artaxerxes I, year 41 should be synchronized with the equinox. 

Moreover, even if the 1 st Nisan fell on March 22, Artaxerxes I died before that date as 

Thucydides puts his death before the solar eclipse of March 21. Although Artaxerxes died 

in March 424 BCE the co-regency with his son Darius lasted until March 423 BCE. Indeed, 

the tablet CBS 5506 is a contract dated --/VI/41 to take effect the 1 st month of the year 42, 

and the tablet CBS 4986 dated 17/VII/41 is an obligation to pay dates and grain to the 

next harvest, in the 7 th month [current year] and the 2 nd month of the year 42 107 . 

The most logical solution is therefore to consider that Artaxerxes I was still alive 

during his 41 st year. This fits especially since his 41 st year fell to 434 BCE, not to 424. 


434 1 

2 

X 

XI 


3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

41 

6 III 

7 

8 

IV 

V 

0 Artaxerxes I / Darius B 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

433 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

(42) 1 (Artaxerxes I) / Darius B 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

Plutarch and Justinus have effectively described a co-regency between Artaxerxes and 

his son Darius, but as the king is identified with Artaxerxes II, the story of these two 

historians are not taken into account. Although Plutarch has announced in the introduction 

about the life of Artaxerxes II, his description does not match the end of his reign, which 

appears to have happened smoothly according to Diodorus Siculus (Historical Library 

XV:93), but rather that of Artaxerxes I with its fratricidal strife between his sons: Xerxes II, 

Sogdianus and Ochos, the future Darius II, not to be confused with the first Darius (B). 

103 http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0499--0400.html 

104 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php 

105 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/temps/saisons.php 

106 H.G. STIGERS - Art 2. XIIb.11.40 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28 (1976) note 47. 

H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol V 

Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften p. 227. 

107 M.W. STOLPER - The Death of Artaxerxes I. 1983 Berlin 

in: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16 p. 229 note 34.



Confusion of Kings among some historians is due to the frequent presence of 

homonyms and family trees which are close enough 108 : 

Xerxes I choice 1 

I 

Artaxerxes I 

I 

Xerxes II Sogdianus (Ochos) Darius (B) Arsites 

Darius II 

I 

Ostanes Cyrus (Arsakes) 

I Artaxerxes II 

I I 

I Ariapes (Ochos) Darius Arsames 

Arsanes Artaxerxes III I 

I I Arbupales 

I I 

I (Arses) Bisthanes 

I Artaxerxes IV 

Darius III I 

I 

Ochos 

Xerxes I choice 2 

I 

Artaxerxes I 

I 

Xerxes II Sogdianus (Ochos) Darius (B) Arsites 

Darius II 

I 

Ostanes Cyrus (Arsakes) 

I Artaxerxes II 

I I 

I Ariapes (Ochos) Darius Arsames 

Arsanes Artaxerxes III I 

I I Arbupales 

I I 

I (Arses) Bisthanes 

I Artaxerxes IV 

Darius III I 

I 

Ochos 

There was a co-regency at the end of the reign of Artaxerxes II, but his successor 

Ochos (the future Artaxerxes III), ascended the throne without difficulty. By contrast, it 

was not the case of Ochos (the future Darius II) who performs no co-regency with his 

father (Artaxerxes I) and ascended the throne after eliminating Sogdianus. 

According to Plutarch: But Artaxerxes, being now advanced in years, perceived that his sons 

were forming rival parties among his friends and chief men with reference to the royal succession. For the 

conservatives thought it right that, as he himself had received the royal power by virtue of seniority, in like 

manner he should leave it to Darius. But his youngest son, Ochus, who was of an impetuous and violent 

disposition, not only had many adherents among the courtiers, but hoped for most success in winning over his 

father through the aid of Atossa. For he sought to gain Atossa's favour by promising that she should be his 

wife and share the throne with him after the death of his father. And there was a report that even while his 


Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard pp. 586-589, 793, 1029.


father was alive Ochus had secret relations with Atossa. But Artaxerxes was ignorant of this; and wishing 

to shatter at once the hopes of Ochus, that he might not venture upon the same course as Cyrus and so 

involve the kingdom anew in wars and contests, he proclaimed Darius, then 50 years of age 109 , his successor 

to the throne, and gave him permission to wear the upright "kitanis," as the tiara was called (...) 

Accordingly, it was adding fire to fire when Tiribzus attached himself to the young prince and was forever 

telling him that the tiara standing upright on the head was of no use to those who did not seek by their own 

efforts to stand upright in affairs of state, and that he was very foolish if, when his brother was insinuating 

himself into affairs of state by way of the harem, and his father was of a nature so fickle and insecure, he 

could suppose that the succession to the throne was securely his (...) Accordingly, Darius put himself in the 

hands of Tiribzus; and presently, when many were in the conspiracy, an eunuch made known to the king 

the plot and the mention of it, having accurate knowledge that the conspirators had resolved to enter the 

king's chamber by night and kill him in his bed. When Artaxerxes heard the eunuch's story, he thought it 

a grave matter to neglect the information and ignore so great a peril, and a graver still to believe it without 

any proof. He therefore acted on this wise. He charged the eunuch to attend closely upon the conspirators; 

meanwhile he himself cut away the wall of his chamber behind the bed, put a doorway there, and covered the 

door with a hanging. Then, when the appointed hour was at hand and the eunuch told him the exact time, 

he kept his bed and did not rise from it until he saw the faces of his assailants and recognised each man 

clearly. But when he saw them advancing upon him with drawn swords, he quickly drew aside the hanging, 

retired into the inner chamber, closed the door with a slam, and raised a cry. The murderers, accordingly, 

having been seen by the king, and having accomplished nothing, fled back through the door by which they 

had come, and told Tiribzus and his friends to be off since their plot was known. The rest, then, were 

dispersed and fled; but Tiribzus slew many of the king's guards as they sought to arrest him, and at last 

was smitten by a spear at long range, and fell. Darius, together with his children, was brought to the king, 

who consigned him to the royal judges for trial. The king was not present in person at the trial, but others 

brought in the indictment. However, the king ordered clerks to take down in writing the opinion of each 

judge and bring them all to him. All the judges were of one opinion and condemned Darius to death, 

whereupon the servants of the king seized him and led him away into a chamber near by, whither the 

executioner was summoned. The executioner came, with a sharp knife in his hand, wherewith the heads of 

condemned persons are cut off; but when he saw Darius, he was confounded, and retired towards the door 

with averted gaze, declaring that he could not and would not take the life of a king. But since the judges 

outside the door plied him with threats and commands, he turned back, and with one hand clutching 

Darius by the hair, dragged him to the ground, and cut off his head with the knife. Some say, however, that 

the trial was held in the presence of the king, and that Darius, when he was overwhelmed by the proofs, fell 

upon his face and begged and sued for mercy; but Artaxerxes rose up in anger, drew his scimitar, and smote 

him till he had killed him; then, going forth into court, he made obeisance to the sun and said: "Depart in 

joy and peace, ye Persians, and say to all whom ye meet that those who have contrived impious and unlawful 

things have been punished by great Orosmasdes." Such, then, was the end of the conspiracy. And now 

Ochus was sanguine in the hopes with which Atossa inspired him, but he was still afraid of Ariaspes, the 

only legitimate son of the king remaining, and also of Arsames among the illegitimate sons (Life of 

Artaxerxes XXVI-XXX). 

According to Justinus: Artaxerxes, king of Persia, had a hundred and fifteen sons by his 

concubines, but only three begotten in lawful wedlock, Darius, Ariarathes, and Ochus. Of these the father, 

from paternal fondness, made Darius king during his own lifetime, contrary to the usage of the Persians, 

among whom the king is changed only by death; for he thought nothing taken from himself that he conferred 

upon his son, and expected greater enjoyment from having progeny, if he saw the insignia of royalty adorning 

his son while he lived. But Darius, after such an extraordinary proof of his father’s affection, conceived the 

109 Several commentators have corrected the number 50 into 30, as Plutarch says a little later that Darius was a young man during the 

enthronement, which is confirmed by Justinus (Epitome of the Philippic History X:1-3). In fact, it refers to the 50 th year of Artaxerxes age 

(born in -485), who reigned up till 62 years age (in -423) as Plutarch says at the end of his story, and not at the age of Darius.



design of killing him. (...) Artaxerxes, from fondness from his children, said at first that he would do so, 

but afterwards, from a change of mind, and in order plausibly to refuse what he had inconsiderately 

promised, made her a priestess of the sun, an office which obliged her to perpetual chastity. The young 

Darius, being incensed at this proceeding, broke out at first into reproaches against his father, and 

subsequently entered into this conspiracy with his brothers. But while he was meditating destruction for his 

father, he was discovered and apprehended with his associates, and paid the penalty of his guilt to the gods 

who avenge paternal authority. The wives of them all, too, together with their children, were put to death, 

that no memorial of such execrable wickedness might be left. Soon after Artaxerxes died of a disease 

contracted by grief, having been happier as a king than as a father. Possession of the throne was given to 

Ochus (Epitome of the Philippic History X:1-3) 

The length of the reign of Darius B can be deduced from two elements: the 

disappearance of year 9 in Murashu's archives 110 and the appearance of a contract (BM 

65494) dated year 50 of Artaxerxes I. 

436 39 Artaxerxes I 

435 40 

434 41 -0 Darius B Tablets of Murashu 

433 (42)-1 

432 (43)-2 

431 (44)-3 

430 (45)-4 

429 (46)-5 

428 (47)-6 

427 (48)-7 

426 (49)-8 death of Darius B 

425 50 -(9) Tablet BM 65494 

424 Xerxes II, Sogdianus (51) Darius II Thucydide IV:50 

423 1 

110 M.W. STOLPER - Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murashu Archive 

Leiden Istambul 1985 pp. 23-24.


Tablet BM 65494 dated 4/VI/50 of Artaxerxes I 

Stolper reconstituted the prosopography of Murashu's family and has dated it 

according to the chronology accepted 111 . According to this reconstruction (choice 1), length 

of service is 27.5 years for the first two generations, 20.5 years for the third and 11.5 years 

for the fourth, which would be a surprising rejuvenation 112 . By contrast, taking into account 

Darius B (choice 2), we get a more balanced period of activity for four generations with an 

average of 22.5 years respectively for the first two, then 20.5 years and 21.5 years for the 

two following ones: 

Genealogy of Murashu family 

Choice 1 generation 

Artaxerxes !atin (ca. 500) 1 st gap 

(465-424) I 27.5 0 

Mura!u 

(ca. 445) 2 nd 

I I I 27.5 0 

Enlil-"atin Enlil-!um-iddin Naqqitu 

(454-437) (445-421) (436) 3 rd 

I I I 20.5 -7 

Rimut-Ninurta Enlil-"atin Mura!u 

(429-414) (419) (424-416) 4 th 

11.5 -16 

Choice 2 generation 

Artaxerxes !atin (ca. 500) 1 st gap 

(475-424) I 22.5 0 

Mura!u 

(ca. 455) 2 nd 

I I I 22.5 0 

Enlil-"atin Enlil-!um-iddin Naqqitu 

(464-447) (455-431) (446) 3 rd 

I I I 20.5 -2 

Rimut-Ninurta Enlil-"atin Mura!u 

(439-414) (429) (434-416) 4 th 

21.5 -1 

111 M.W. STOLPER - The Genealogy of the Murashu Family 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies XXVIII (1976) pp. 189-200. 

112 27.5 years = (500 - 445)/2; 20.5 years = (454-437 + 445-421)/2; 11.5 years = (429-414 + 424-416)/2.



The death of Artaxerxes I is precisely dated by Thucydides (early March -424) in 

agreement with the account of Diodorus of Sicily who wrote: When Stratocles when archon in 

Athenes [July -425 to June -424] Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians, died after a reign of 40 years, and 

Xerxes succeeded to the throne and ruled for a year (...) King Xerxes died after a reign of 1 year, or, as 

some record, 2 months; and his brother Sogdianus succeeded to the throne and ruled for 7 months. He was 

slain by Darius, who reigned 19 years (Historical Library XII:64:1; 71:1). As Artaxerxes' death 

can be dated xx/XI/50 and as the first tablet of Darius II (PIHANS 79, 22) is dated 

14/IX/00 (December -424), we must have the following chronology: 

an month year of reign 

425 1 

2 

X 

XI 

[49] 8 Artaxerxes I / Darius B 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

50 (9) Artaxerxes I 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 

9 

V 

VI 

Tablet BM 65494 dated 4/VI/50 of Artaxerxes 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

424 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 1 0? (Solar eclipse dated March 21, 424 BCE) 

4 

5 

I 

II 

2 

3 

[1] (51) Xerxes II 

6 

7 

III 

IV 

4 

5 

[0] Sogdianus 

8 V 6 

9 VI 7 

10 VII 8 

11 

12 

VIII 

IX 

9 

10 

Tablet dated 14/IX/00 of Darius 

423 1 

2 

3 

X 

XI 

XII 

0 Darius II 

Tablet CBM 12803 dated 20/XII/51 and accession of Darius 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 

6 III 

The story of Ctesias which is about the hectic transition between Artraxerxes I and 

Darius II seems very reliable, because many names that appear in the archives of Murashu 

are the same as those he mentioned 113 . Furthermore, his story is chronologically very 

detailed: Artoxerxes dies in his turn, having reigned 42 years (...) After the death of Artoxerxes, it was 

the reign of his son Xerxes, who was the only legitimate son he had by Damaspia — the life she had left 

the day Artoxerxès was dead. Bagorazos took into Persia the body of the father and mother. Artoxerxes I 

had seventeen bastards, including Sogdianus, Alogoune son of the Babylonian female, Ochos and Arsita, 

the son of Cosmartidene also Babylonian. Later, Ochos [Darius II] ascended to the throne (...) Concerning 

Ochos, his father, during his lifetime, had appointed him satrap of Hyrcania and gave him a woman named 

Parysatis, who was the daughter of Artoxerxes I and own sister of Ochos. Sogdianus had conciliated the 

eunuch Pharnakyas, who came in the hierarchy, after Bagorazos, Menostanes and others. While Xerxes 

became drunk at a party and he slept in the palace, they come and kill him, 45 days after the death of his 

father. It happened so that their two bodies were transported together into Persia (...) Sogdianus becomes 

king and Menostanes becomes his chief of thousand. Bagorazos was gone, then returned to Sogdianus. As 

an old feud brewing between them, saying that he had left there the remains of his father without his consent, 

Bagorazos was stoned on the order of Sogdianus. The army was deeply distressed. The king gave him gifts, 

113 D. LENFANT - Ctésias de Cnide, la Perse 

Paris 2004 Ed. Les Belles Lettres pp. CVI-CVII.


but the soldiers hated him because he had killed his brother Xerxes and Bagorazos. Sogdianus sends Ochos 

a message that demand. The other promises to come, but does not show up. The incident is repeated many 

times. Finally, Ochos surrounded by a large army and is expected to see him prevail. Arbarios, head of the 

cavalry Sogdianus and Arxan, satrap of Egypt, have defected to Ochos. The eunuch Artoxares comes from 

Armenia to join Ochos and they cause him to wear the crown in spite of himself. Ochos became king and 

changed his name to Darius. He pursues Sogdianus with his betrayals and his oaths, following the advice of 

Parysatis while Menostanes regularly calls Sogdianus not to rely on oaths and not to negotiate with people 

who seek to deceive him. Sogdianus is convincing nonetheless leaves, he falls into their hands, he is thrown 

into the ashes and dies after a reign of 6 months and 15 days. Ochos aka Darius, is only one ruler 

(Persica F14 [46]-F15 [50]). Polyaenus gives another chronological detail: After the death of 

Artaxerxes, his son Ochus [Darius II] realised that he would not immediately have the same authority 

over his subjects, which his father had. Therefore he prevailed upon the eunuchs, the stewards, and the 

captain of the guard, to conceal the death of his father for a period of 10 months. In the meantime, he wrote 

letters in his father's name, and sealed them with the royal signet, commanding his subjects to acknowledge 

Ochus as their king, and to pay homage to him. When this decree had been obeyed by all his subjects, 

Ochus announced the death of his father, and ordered a general mourning for him, according to the custom 

of the Persians (Stratagems of war VII:17). 

Tablet CBM 12803 114 dated 20/XII/51 accession year of Darius II 

Transcription Translation 

1 2 # ma-na kaspu !îmu 5 biltu !ipâtu col 2 # mines of silver, price of 5 talents of wool 

2 mdDan-nu-a"ê-!u-ibni aplu !a Dannu-ahêshu-ibni son of 

3 mBêl-iddina ina qât mBêl-!u-nu aplu !a Bêl-iddina received from the hand of Bêlshunu, son 

4 mMan-nu-ki- dNanâ ina na-a!-pa-a!-tum of Mannu-ki-Nanâ the order 

5 !a mEllil-!um-iddina ma-"i-ir of Ellil-shum-iddina. 

6 u-!a-az-za-az-ma kaspu-’ 2 # [ma-na] He will deliver silver, that is 2 # mines 

7 mdDan-nu-a"ê-su-ibni itti mEllil-!um-iddina Dannu-ahêshu-ibni with Ellil-shum-iddina 

8 ana mBêl-!u-nu i-nam-din paying for Bêlshunu 

(... names of 5 witnesses (... names of 5 witnesses 

15 ...) iti !e ud 20-kàm mu 51-kàm ...) month XII, day 20, year 51 [of Artaxerxes I], 

16 mu sag-nam-lugal-e da-ri-a-mu! lugal kur-[kur] accession year of Darius king of lands. 

114 A.T. CLAY - Legal and Commercial Transactions Dated in the Assyrian (...) Persian Periods 

in: The Babylonian Expedition vol. VIII (1908) p. 34.



TRANSITION DARIUS II / DARIUS III 

The tablet CBS 1714 115 contains year 19 of Darius II and year 1 of Artaxerxes II, 

confirming a planned transition between these two kings. The last tablet of Darius II is 

dated 02/VI/19 (TBER pl. 36; AO 17606): 


405 1 

2 

X 

XI 

18 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

19 Darius II / Artaxerxes II 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 

11 

VII 

VIII 

(0) Artaxerxes II 

12 IX 

404 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 

6 III 

VAS 6186 tablet contains the last known text that is dated in the reign of 

Artaxerxes II. This king probably died shortly thereafter of 10/VIII/46 (November - 

359) 116 because the astronomical tablet BM 71537 connects the accession of Artaxerxes III 

just before the solar eclipse of 28/XI (March 11, -358). Succession Artaxerxes II / 

Artaxerxes III seems to have gone smoothly according to Syncellus 117 . Diodorus of Sicily 

wrote that the Persian king died after 43 years of rule. The kingship came to Ochos who 

took the name of Artaxerxes and reigned 23 years (Historical Library XV:93), period which 

seems to incorporate a co-regency by 3 years in the reign of Artaxerxes III (21 years). 


359 1 

2 

X 

XI 

45 (2) Artaxerxes II / Artaxerxes III 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

46 (3) 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

358 1 X 

2 

3 

XI 

XII 

0 Artaxerxes III 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 

6 III 


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


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


Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 700.


Artaxerxes III death is dated on month VI (September -338) in the astronomical 

tablet BM 71537 118 between the eclipses of July 24, -338 and January 20, -337. The last 

tablet is dated 15/VII/21 (TCL 6,56). According to Diodorus, Artaxerxes IV died shortly 

after the assassination of Philip II of Macedonia 119 , dated 20/XII/02 (March 19, -335) in a 

papyrus from Wadi Dâliyeh 120 . According to the astronomical tablet BM 36761, Darius III 

lost the battle of Gaugamela against Alexander the Great in the 5 th year of his reign, the 

24/VI/5 (October 1, - 331), just after the lunar eclipse of 13/VI/5 (September 20, -331) 121 . 


338 1 

2 

X 

XI 

20 Artaxerxes III 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

21 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 

11 

VII 

VIII 

0 Artaxerxes IV 

12 IX 

337 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 


336 1 

2 

X 

XI 

1 Artaxerxes IV 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

2 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

335 1 X 

2 XI 

3 XII 0 Darius III 

4 

5 

I 

II 

1 


331 1 

2 

X 

XI 

4 Darius III 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

5 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 

11 

VII 

VIII 

Alexander the Great 


Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 45,398. 



120 A. LEMAIRE – Les formules de datations en Palestine au premier millénaire avant J.-C. 

in: Proche-Orient ancien, temps vécu, temps pensé (Paris 1998) Éd. J. Maisonneuve p. 72. 

121 J.A. BRINKMAN - BM 36761, the Astronomical Diary for 331 B.C. 

in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1987) §63.



Achaemenid chronology synchronized 

Date King Actual 

reign 

Coregent Official 

reign 

10-539/ 10-538 Cyrus II Ugbaru (1?) 

11-538/ 08-530 Cyrus II 9 Cambyses II (1) 9 

09-530/ 02-522 Cambyses II 

03-522/ 04-522 Cambyses II 8 Bardiya 8 

05-522/ 09-522 Bardiya Bardiya (1) 

10-522/ 11-522 Nebuchadnezzar III 0 Bardiya 

12-522/ 01-521 Darius I Nebuchadnezzar III (0) 

02-521/ 11-521 Darius I Nebuchadnezzar IV (1) 

12-521/ 04-496 Darius I 

05-496/ 12-486 Darius I 36 Xerxes I (10) 36 

01-485/ 07-485 Xerxes I 

08-485 Xerxes I Bel-shimanni (0) 

09-485/ 10-485 Xerxes I Shamash-eriba (0) 

11-485/ 08-475 Xerxes I 

09-475/ 12-475 [Xerxes I] 11 + (10) (Artabanus) 21 

01-474/ 03-474 Artaxerxes I (Artabanus) 

04-474/ 06-434 Artaxerxes I (41) 41 

07-434/ 03-425? Artaxerxes I (--) Darius B (8) 

04-425/ 03-424 Artaxerxes I 50 

04-424/ 05-424 Xerxes II (1) 

06-424/ 12-424 Sogdianus - 

01-423/ 03-423 Darius II [51] 

04-423/ 09-405 Darius II 19 19 

10-405/ 03-361 Artaxerxes II 

04-361/ 02-358 Artaxerxes II 46 Artaxerxes III (3?) 46 

03-358/ 09-338 Artaxerxes III 21 21 

10-338/ 03-335 Artaxerxes IV 2 2 

03-335/ 09-331 Darius III 5 5


Dating based on intercalary months 

The achievement of the ancient Babylonian astronomers in devising the 19 years 

cycle with its 7 intercalated months was indeed remarkable. How the system worked in 

actual practice may be seen in the first 19 years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II 122 : 

April January 

year cycle I II III IV V VI VI2 VII VIII IX X XI XII XII2 

604 11 29 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 30 30 29 29 - 

603 12U 30 29 29 29 30 30 30 29 30 30 29 30 29 - 

602 13 30 29 29 30 29 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 

601 14 29 30 29 29 30 29 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 - 

600 15U 29 30 29 30 29 30 28 30 30 30 29 29 30 - 

599 16 30 30 29 30 30 29 - 30 29 29 30 29 30 - 

598 17U 29 30 29 30 30 30 29 30 29 29 30 29 29 - 

597 18 30 29 30 30 30 30 - 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 

596 19U 29 30 29 30 30 30 30 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 

595 1 29 30 29 30 30 29 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 - 

594 2A 29 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 29 30 30 29 30 

593 3 29 29 30 29 30 29 - 30 29 30 30 30 29 - 

592 4 30 29 30 29 29 30 - 29 29 30 30 30 29 - 

591 5A 30 30 29 30 29 29 - 30 29 29 30 30 29 30 

590 6 30 29 30 29 30 29 - 30 29 30 29 29 30 - 

589 7 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 29 30 29 30 29 29 - 

588 8A 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 29 29 

587 9 30 29 30 29 30 30 - 30 29 30 29 30 29 - 

586 10 29 30 29 29 30 30 - 30 30 29 30 29 30 - 

This cycle of 19 years was based on observation and not on calculations 123 (the 

computed data in diaries appear roughly 350 BCE) 124 . It was not a theoretical cycle like the 

cycle of Meton but a coincidence which came from the following equivalences: 

19 solar years = 6539.6 days (= 365.24219x365) 

19 lunar years + 7 intercalary months = 6539.6 days (= [19x12+7]x29.530288). 

The presence of four months Elul2 in the period 603-596, instead of only one, 

proves that the Babylonian system of intercalary months was empirical. These months 

(VI 2) were mainly used to calibrate the 1 st Tishri (VII) just after the autumn equinox. 

Historians of Babylonian astronomy have in recent decades come to the conclusion 

that the cycle was known to the Babylonians by about 500 BCE, but it must be admitted, 

however, that there are still problems with the list of intercalary months during the later 

years of the Achaemenid empire. For instance, in the 16 th year of Darius II (408/407 BCE), 

three sources suggest an intercalary Ulul but one an intercalary Adar; in the 16 th year of 

Artaxerxes II, two sources suggest an intercalary Ulul but one an intercalary Adar; and two 

sources (including a contemporary astronomical Diary) suggest an intercalary Adar in the 

20 th year of Artaxerxes II (385/384 BCE) whereas two other sources (including Saros 

canon) attribute the intercalary month to his 21 st year 125 . 

122 J. FINEGAN - Handbook of Biblical Chronology 

Massachusetts 1999 Ed. Hendrickson Publishers pp. 27-28. 

123 J.M. STEELE – Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East 

Oxford 2007 Ed. Oxbow Books pp. 120-123. 

124 F. ROCHBERG-HALTON – Between Observation and Theory in Babylonian Astronomical Texts 

in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50:2 (1991) pp. 107-120. 

125 C. WALKER - Achaemenid Chronology and the Babylonian Sources 

in: Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period Ed. British Museum Press (1997) pp. 23-24.



A table of intercalary months gives the impression that the 19 years cycle was 

standardized from -500 or -483, depending on the way to group periods 126 , with some 

exceptions. However, Parker and Dubberstein assumed, because of these anomalies, the 

Babylonian calendar had really been standardized as from -367 instead of -500 127 . 

In the 19 years cycle there can be only 7 intercalary months. However, during the 

reign of Cyrus to Darius I, two cycles contain 10, which means that multiple calendars 

depended on several Persian capitals (Persepolis, Suse, Ecbatana, Pasargadae), not just on 

Babylon. In the reign of Artaxerxes II we find, for example, an intercalary month in the 

year 40 128 , but also in the years 42, 43, 44 and 45 129 , which is unlikely. Anomalies 

(highlighted) are much more numerous than in the study of Parker and Dubberstein. 

cycle 538 519 500 481 462 443 424 405 386 367 348 

1 U A 

2 537 U A 

3 A 536 A A A a A a A A A a 

4 535 U 

5 534 A A A 

6 A 533 A A A a a a A A A a 

7 532 A 

8 A 531 A A A A a a A a 

9 530 U U U 

10 529 

11 A 528 U A A a A a A a A a a 

12 527 U 

13 526 U 

14 A 525 A A A a a A A A A a a 

15 524 U 

16 523 A 

17 U 522 A U/A U U A A U u U U u 

18 521 

19 A 520 A a A A A A a a a 

total 10 10 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 7 

(A: attested Adar; U: attested Ulul; a: supposed Adar; u; supposed Ulul) 

Assuming that the set of dates came in fact from two Persian capitals (Babylon and 

another city) whose cycle was shifted by one year, all the abnormalities disappeared. 

year City° cycle° Bab. cycle C°+B year City° cycle° Bab. cycle C°+B 

386 2 1 367 2 1 

385 A° 3 A 2 A° 366 a° 3 A 2 

364 4 a 3 A 365 4 A 3 A A 

383 5 4 364 5 4 

382 A° 6 A 5 A° 363 A° 6 A 5 A° 

381 7 a 6 A 362 7 A 6 A A 

380 a° 8 A 7 361 A° 8 A 7 A° 

379 9 a 8 A a 360 9 A 8 A A 

378 10 9 359 10 9 

377 a° 11 A 10 358 a° 11 A 10 

376 12 A 11 A A 357 12 a 11 A a 

375 13 12 356 13 12 

374 a° 14 A 13 355 a° 14 A 13 

373 15 A 14 A A 354 15 a 14 A a 

372 16 15 353 16 15 

371 u° 17 U 16 352 u° 17 U 16 

370 18 U 17 U U 351 18 U 17 U U 

369 a° 19 A 18 350 a° 19 A 18 

368 1 a 19 A a 349 1 a 19 A a 

(A: attested Adar; U: attested Ulul; a: supposed Adar; u; supposed Ulul) 

126 J.P. BRITTON – Treatments of Annual Phenomena in Cuneiform Sources 

in: Under One Sky (Münster 2002) Ed. Ugarit-Verlag pp. 25-35. 

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

Rhode Island 1956 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 1-6. 

128 H.G. STIGERS - Art 2. XIIb.11.40 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28 (1976) note 47. 


Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 215,217,227,247,261.


The arrangement of the intercalary months in a chronology without co-regency has 

several anomalies especially the presence of two months Ulul in a single cycle, year 30 of 

Darius and year 2 of Xerxes. By contrast, in a chronology with co-regency and thus two 

distinct cycles, the abnormal intercalary month in year 30 of Darius (Persepolis) 

corresponds to another cycle ending in year 4 of Xerxes (Babylon?). 

year cycle 

Reign 

Reign cycle 

X 

with co-regency 

without co-regency D 

522 8A 0A Darius I 0A Darius I 17U 

521 9 1 1 18 

520 10 2 2 19A 

519 11A 3U** 3U** 1 

518 12 4 4 2 

517 13 5A 5A 3A 

516 14A 6 6 4 

515 15 7 7 5 

514 16 8A 8A 6A 

513 17U 9 9 7 

512 18 10 10 8A 

511 19A 11U** 11U** 9 

510 1 12 12 10 

509 2 13A 13A 11A 

508 3A 14 14 12 

507 4 15 15 13 

506 5 16A 16A 14A 

505 6A 17 17 15 

504 7 18 18 16 

503 8A 19U (Persepolis) 19U (Persepolis) 17U 

502 9 20 20 18 

501 10 21 21 19A 

500 11A 22A (Babylon) 22A* Babylon) 1 

499 12 23 23 2 

498 13 24A (Babylon) 24A (Babylon) 3A 

497 14A 25 25 4 

496 15 0 Xerxes I 26 26 5 

495 16 1 27A (Babylon) 27A (Babylon) 6A 

494 17U 2U (Persepolis) 28 28 7 

493 18 3 29 29 8A 

492 19A 4?A (Babylon) 30U (Persepolis) 30U** (Persepolis) 9 

491 1 5 31 31 10 


489 3A 7?A (Persepolis) 33 33 12 

488 4 8 34 34 13 


486 6A 10A (Babylon) 36 36-0 Xerxes I 15 

485 7 11 1 16 

484 8A 12A (Persepolis) 2U (Persepolis) 17U 

483 9 13 3 18 

482 10 14 4?A (Babylon) 19A 

481 11A 15A (Babylon) 5 1 

480 12 16 6 2 

479 13 17 7?A (Persepolis) 3A 

478 14A 18A (Babylon) 8 4 

477 15 19 9 5 

476 16 20 10A (Babylon) 6A 

475 17U 21U-0 Artaxerxes I 11 7 

474 18 1 12A (Persepolis) 8A



473 19A 2A 13 9 

472 1 3 14 10 

471 2 4 15A (Babylon) 11A 

470 3A 5A 16 12 

469 4 6 17 13 

468 5 7 18A (Babylon) 14A 

467 6A 8 19 15 

466 7 9 20 16 

465 8A 10A 21U-0 Artaxerxes I 17U 

464 9 11 1 18 

463 10 12 2A 19A 

462 11A 13A 3 1 

461 12 14 4 2 

460 13 15 5A 3A 

459 14A 16 6 4 

458 15 17 7 5 

457 16 18 8 6A 

456 17U 19A* 9 7 

455 18 20 10A 8A 

454 19A 21A 11 9 

453 1 22 12 10 

452 2 23 13A 11A 

451 3A 24 14 12 

450 4 25 15 13 

449 5 26 16 14A 

448 6A 27 17 15 

447 7 28 18 16 

446 8A 29A 19A* 17U 

445 9 30 20 18 

444 10 31 21A 19A 

443 11A 32 22 1 

442 12 33 23 2 

441 13 34 24 3A 

440 14A 35A 25 4 

439 15 36 26 5 

438 16 37 27 6A 

437 17U 38A* 28 7 

436 18 39 29A 8A 

435 19A 40A 30 9 

434 1 41 0 Darius B 31 10 

433 2 (42) 1 32 11A 

432 3A (43) 2A 33 12 

431 4 (44) 3 34 13 

430 5 (45) 4 35A 14A 

429 6A (46) 5A 36 15 

428 7 (47) 6 37 16 

427 8A (48) 7A 38A* 17U 

426 9 (49) 8 39 18 

425 10 50 (0) Xerxes II 40A 19A 

424 11A [51]-0 Darius II (1) 41-0 Darius II 1 

423 12 1 1 2


Chronology: Egyptians versus Babylonians 

In his collection of hieroglyphic inscriptions 130 , Posener classified the Persian kings 

according to the chronology accepted in his time. However, several anomalies can be 

explained only by assuming a 10 years co-regency between Xerxes and Darius. In these 

inscriptions, Egyptian pharaohs, from Amasis to Artaxerxes, are still called "Lord of the 

Two Lands", except Xerxes who is called "Master of crowns" between year 1 and year 10 

of his reign. He received the title of "Lord of the Two Lands", the official title of the 

Pharaohs of Egypt, only from his year 10. If Xerxes had become pharaoh immediately after 

the death of Darius, he should have received the usual title Lord of the Two Lands used to 

designate the pharaohs, but the title was awarded to him only from his year 10. In addition, 

for no apparent reason, the name Darius changed from year 27 up till year 36 of his reign 

to become inDarius. The hieroglyph in, literally meaning "contribution" in Egyptian 131 , or 

"booster", can not be a phonetic complement, since it deteriorates the pronunciation. 

year 2 

Master of crowns, Xerxes 

year 6, Master of crowns, Xerxes 

year 10, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes 

year 6, Lord of the two lands, Cambyses 

year 36, Lord of the two lands, Darius 

year 12, Lord of the two lands, Xerxes 

King in Babylonia in Egypt 

Cambyses Kambuzia K-n-b-w-d3 

5 th year – 8 th year King of Babylon, King of lands Lord of the two lands 

Darius Dariawush (in)-Ti-rw-y-w-!3 

1 st year – 36 th year King of Babylon, King of lands Lord of the two lands 

Xerxes Khisi‘arsa !-!3-y-rw-!3 

accession – 1st year King of Babylon, King of lands ? 

1st year – 10th year King of Persia and Media, 

King of Babylon and of lands 

Master of crowns 

10th year – 21th year King of lands Lord of the two lands 

130 G. POSENER - La première domination perse en Égypte 

Le Caire 1936 Ed. IFAO pp. 92, 120-124, 162. 

131 This hieroglyph appears in the names some pharaohs like Antef "contribution of his divine father". It could be an abbreviation of the 

Egyptian word inpw "royal child", meaning a pretender to the throne that is a "Crown prince".



The years indicated in those documents were understood to be years of reign while 

they are in fact years of domination (months and days are usually unspecified). The 

administrator Egyptian Atiyawahy, for example, says that he spent "6 years under 

Cambyses and 36 years under Darius". The hieroglyph with an eyebrow above the 

date is used, while the years of reign are typically identified by the hieroglyph . As the 

Egyptian word in# "eyebrow" also means "surround", those years [of reign] were for the 

Egyptians years [of surrender]. 

Diodorus dates the beginning of the Persian domination in Egypt in the 3 rd year of 

the 63 rd Olympiad [in 526 BCE] (Historical Library I: 68:6) and the end in the archonship 

of Euclid [in 403 BCE], or in the year 2 of Artaxerxes II, when Amyrtaeus had become the 

new pharaoh of the XXVIII dynasty (Historical Library XIV:11:1-12:1, I:44:3). Those data 

taken from his Greek chronology are accurate, however, Diodorus wrote in summary: The 

Persians were the masters, after King Cambyses had subjected the nation by force of arms, for 135 years, 

contradicting his own chronological calculations (length of 123 years obtained between 526 

and 403 BCE). In fact, the total period of 123 years corresponds to an amount calculated 

with a 40-year reign for Artaxerxes I, while that of 135 years corresponds to an actual reign 

of 51 years. Diodorus has probably compiled different data from an Egyptian informer 

(Historical Library III:11) without trying to harmonize them. 

Length according to: dates: official reign actual reign 

Cambyses II 526 - 6 years 6 years 

Darius I 36 years 36 years 

Xerxes I 20 years 21 years 

Artaxerxes I 40 years 51 years 

Darius II 19 years 19 years 

Artaxerxes II -403 2 years 2 years 

Total: 123 years 123 years 135 years 

The titulature of Xerxes in Egypt and the data of Diodorus confirm the co-regency 

of 10 years with Darius, but the discovery of the Elephantine papyri with many double 

dates with civil and lunar calendars have cancelled those conclusions. Indeed, the dating of 

these documents was consistent with the chronology from the Canon of Ptolemy 132 , which 

is always in agreement with recent studies 133 . This paradox could be puzzling, but the only 

former study of Parker that was used to validate this work is wrong mainly because of the 

two following reasons: 

! Lunar dates were supposed to come from a Babylonian calendar, but this is impossible 

because the city of Elephantine, in the far south of Egypt, was largely administered by 

Egyptian officials who used a civil calendar to date theirs documents. There was also an 

Egyptian lunar calendar (with the same names as the months of the civil calendar), but it 

was used mainly for religious celebrations organized by the Egyptian priests. Since there 

was never a Babylonian priesthood in Egypt, the occupying Persians and the Jews, who 

were accustomed to use a Babylonian calendar, have therefore used the Egyptian lunar 

calendar but by giving it the well known names of Babylonian months. 

! Parker assumed that the Egyptian lunar calendar began with the 1 st invisibility (day after 

the new moon and just before the new crescent). But the only data that was used to 

validate his revolutionary hypothesis, a double date in year 12 of Amasis, fell to -559 

instead of -558, which is the computed date from astronomy. 

132 R.S. PARKER – Persian and Egyptian Chronology 

in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages 58:3 (1941) pp. 285-301. 

133 L. DEPUYDT – More Valuable than all Gold: Ptolemy Royal Canon 

in: Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47 (1995) pp. 97-117.


DATING BASED ON LUNAR CALENDAR 

The running of the Babylonian lunar calendar is simple, every 1 st day of the month 

coincided with the observation of the new crescent. The running of the Egyptian lunar 

calendar is confusing because, according to Parker 134 , every 1 st day of the month coincided 

with the observation of the 1 st invisibility (day after the new moon and before the new 

crescent)! Despite this absurdity 135 , to begin the month by an observation which is in fact a 

non-observation, his work is always considered as authoritative. Depuydt 136 , for example, 

explains: It is necessary to check, then, whether Day 1 of the lunar month in the double date did indeed 

fall around astronomical conjunction or new moon. It is accepted here on the authority of others that the 

ancient Egyptian lunar day as a rule began in the morning of the day when the last crescent could no longer 

be seen in the eastern horizon. The matter cannot be discussed here (Parker 1950: 9-23). Lunar Day 1 is 

called psdntyw. In determining the beginning of a lunar month by means of observation, variations of one or 

two days are possible due to the vicissitudes of the human factor and the climate. Furthermore the 

pivotal date (I) coming from the year 12 of Amasis, mainly used to prove the functioning 

of the Egyptian lunar calendar, is doubtful: Incidentally, there is a potential weakness in the validity 

of date (I), because the date rests on external arguments. When Parker and Malinine first discovered the 

double date, Year 12 of Amasis was generally believed to be the year lasting from 10 January 558 BCE to 

9 January 557 BCE. This year was obtained by a line of reasoning which cannot be discussed here in 

detail. In brief, there are sources that strongly suggest Amasis’s Year 44 was his last and that this Year 44 

was 526/25 BCE. Counting back from 526/25 = Year 44, one obtains 558/57 = Year 12. But 

Parker showed that, as regards double date (I) lunar II !mw 15 cannot be matched with civil I !mw 13 for 

the presumed Year 12, 558/57 BCE. However, there is a match in 559/58 BCE (October 19 559 

BCE). This is for various reasons the only other year that could be a candidate for Amasis’s Year 12. 

Parker therefore assumed that the civil year beginning in 526 BCE was Amasis’s forty-fifth. There is no 

evidence for a Year 45. Again, the sources strongly suggest that Year 44 was Amasis’s last. Parker’s 

arguments appear convincing and date (I) can therefore be deemed valid. In fact the sole weak point in 

Parker’s analysis, which is the necessity of assuming a Year 45 for Amasis whereas the evidence points to 

Year 44 as his last, can be eliminated. In conclusion, the date that was used to validate the 

Egyptian lunar calendar contradicts all the old Babylonian and Greek sources. But, this is 

not serious. Why? Chronological difficulties are numerous, but unless to admit an unlikely 

collusion of mistakes, the year 44 of Amasis, the last of his reign, should be dated -526, and 

therefore the year 12 to be dated -558. Thus, the dating of the year 12 in -559, obtained by 

Parker with the calculation of the double date of Papyrus Louvre 7848, is unacceptable. 

The solution proposed by Parker of a year 45 of Amasis dated -526 is not possible, 

as recognized by Depuydt 137 who prefers to date the death of Amasis in -527 in his 44 th 

year, assuming that the 4 th year of Cambyses (at -526) was a period of disorder without 

pharaoh! But this choice leads to an implausible result, contrary to the accounts of all the 

ancient historians (Herodotus was close to events, and Manetho, an Egyptian priest, was to 

know the history of his country): the throne of Egypt would have been vacuum for one 

year after the disappearance of Psammetichus III, from May 526 to May 525, when 

Cambyses was recognized Pharaoh. A chronological reconstitution (below) allows to check 

that the year 44 of Amasis must be dated in -526 and not in -527. 

134 R.A. PARKER - The Calendars of Ancient Egypt 

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

135 A.J. SPALINGER – Revolutions in Time: Studies in Ancient Egyptian Calendrics 

Texas 1994 Ed. Van Siclen Books p. 15. 

136 L. DEPUYDT - Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt 

Leuven 1997 Ed. Uitgevers Peeters pp. 164-165, 203-207. 

137 L. DEPUYDT - Egyptian Regnal Dating under Cambyses and the Date of the Persian Conquest 

1996 in: Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson pp. 179-190.



year in King year in according to: 

year month Egypt Persia Egypt Parker Depuydt 

527 1 

2 

X 

XI 

43 Amasis 

44 44 

3 XII 

4 

5 

I 

II 

Cambyses 3 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

1 

12 IX 

526 1 X 44 P. Rylands IX 

4 45 2 

2 XI 

## 

3 XII 

4 I 

4 

5 II 

## 

6 III 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 

12 

VIII 

IX 

1 Psammetichus III 

1 

525 1 X 2 

5 2 

2 XI 

3 

4 

XII 

I 

Egypt defeated 

5 

5 

6 

II 

III 

IM.4187 

7 IV 

8 V 

9 VI 

10 VII 

11 VIII 

12 IX 

(## indicates an improbability) 

The end of the ancient Egyptian empire was an important milestone that has been 

recounted by the following historians: 

! According to Diodorus Siculus: After a reign of 55 years 138 he [Amasis] ended his days at the 

time when Cambyses, the king of the Persians, attacked Egypt, in the 3 rd year of the 63 rd Olympiad 

(Historical Library I:68:6). Thus Amasis died between July -526 and July -525. 

! According to the Egyptian priest Manetho 139 : Cambyses, in the 5 th year of his reign over the 

Persians [in -525] became king of Egypt and led it for 3 years [from spring -525 to spring -522]. 

! According to Herodotus (around -450): On the death of Cyrus, Cambyses his son by 

Cassandane daughter of Pharnaspes took the kingdom (...) Amasis was the Egyptian king against 

whom Cambyses, son of Cyrus, made his expedition; and with him went an army composed of the 

many nations under his rule, among them being included both Ionic and Aeolic Greeks (...) One of the 

mercenaries of Amasis, a Halicarnassian, Phanes by name, a man of good judgment, and a brave 

warrior, dissatisfied for some reason or other with his master, deserted the service, and taking ship, fled 

to Cambyses, wishing to get speech with him (...) Psammenitus, son of Amasis, lay encamped at the 

mouth of the. Nile, called the Pelusiac, awaiting Cambyses. For Cambyses, when he went up against 

Egypt, found Amasis no longer in life: he had died after ruling Egypt 44 years, during all which time 

no great misfortune had befallen him (...) The Egyptians who fought in the battle, no sooner turned 

138 The reign of Amasis is counted from the revolt after the attack of Nebuchadnezzar II in -582. 

139 W.G. WADDELL - Manetho (Loeb Classical Library 350) 

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


their backs upon the enemy, than they fled away in complete disorder to Memphis (...) 10 days after the 

fort had fallen, Cambyses resolved to try the spirit of Psammenitus, the Egyptian king, whose whole 

reign had been but 6 months (...) Psammenitus plotted evil, and received his reward accordingly. He 

was discovered to be stirring up revolt in Egypt, wherefore Cambyses, when his guilt clearly appeared, 

compelled him to drink bull’s blood, which presently caused his death. Such was the end of 

Psammenitus (The Histories II:1; III:1,4,10-16). 

The Egyptian priest Manetho indicates the same values as Herodotus, 44 years for 

Amasis and 6 months for Psammetichus III. By combining this information with data from 

the reign of Persian King Cambyses who became Egypt to in May -525, the death of 

Amasis can be fixed around October -526. Fixing the date of the conquest of Egypt in -525 

is also confirmed since the 5 th year of Cambyses began the 1 st Nisan (March 29) in the 

Persian system, and the 1 st Thoth (January 2) in the Egyptian system. The account of these 

historians is confirmed by several archaeological finds: 

! The narrative of Udjahorresnet 140 , the Egyptian general who led the naval fleet under 

Amasis, then under Psammetichus III and finally under Cambyses, authenticates the 

version of Herodotus. This war probably lasted at least six months because, according 

to the historian Polyaenus: When Cambyses attacked Pelusium, which guarded the entrance into 

Egypt, the Egyptians defended it with great resolution. They advanced formidable engines against the 

besiegers, and hurled missiles, stones, and fire at them from their catapults. (Stratagems of war 

VII:9). These narrative overlap exactly and give the following chronological scheme: 

war of Cambyses against Egypt beginning in the year 44, the last year of Amasis, which 

ends after the brief reign of 6 months of Psammetichus III, his successor or in the 5 th 

year of Cambyses. 

! According to the stele IM.4187 in the Louvre, an Apis bull was born at month 5, day 

29, year 5 of Cambyses, died on month 9, day 4, year 4 of Darius I and was buried 

month 11, day 13, of the same year, covering a total period of 7 years 3 months and 5 

days (reading 8 years less likely). This computation is consistent (between the month9, 

day 4, and the month 11, day 13, there are exactly 70 days for the period of embalming 

bull) gives the following dates in the Julian calendar: May 29, -525, August 31, -518 and 

November 8, -518. This stele proves that Cambyses reigned in Egypt from May -525 

because at the end of this month, an Apis bull is dedicated to him. Thus the conquest 

of Egypt had to be completed in early May -525 as the last text referring to 

Psammetichus III 141 (below) is dated I Peret year 2 (May -525). That Psammetichus III 

was the son of Amasis is confirmed by the stele No. 309 of the Serapeum (Louvre). 

Before his conquest Cambyses was a Persian leader but thereafter he also became 

an Egyptian pharaoh. This new situation has created a dual system of counting the reign. 

! Egyptian documents of the time of Darius I mention the events of years 3 and 4 of 

Cambyses, apparently before the conquest of Egypt. A papyrus dated 9 th year of Darius 

says: In his 2 nd year, therefore, Cambyses conquered Egypt really, and in 5 th year he died. This 

demotic text 142 , entitled Peteisis petition spoke of a conflict in a family of priests of the 

temple of Amon at Teuzoi (El-Hibeh) between the 4 th year of Psammetichus I and the 



141 It is indeed Psammetichus III because one of the contracting parties cited in the text is still alive in the year 35 of Darius I (H. 

GAUTHIER – Le livre des rois d'Égypte. Le Caire 1915 Éd. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale pp. 131-132). 

142 Papyrus Rylands IX 21.



4 th year of Cambyses 143 . It ends with the following dates: Until the Year 44 of Amasis. In 

Year 3 of Cambyses, Hor son of Psammet-kmenempe, the prophet of Amon (...) in Year 4 of 

Cambyses. A second Egyptian papyrus known as the Demotic Chronicle, confirmed the 

year 44 of Amasis as last year 144 . The source said Darius I in the 3 rd year of his reign (in 

-519) would have given the satrap of Egypt the order that together a committee of wise 

men from among the Egyptian warriors, priests and scribes in order: that they put in 

writing that Egyptian law was in force until the 44 th year of the reign of Amasis. 

! Cambyses died in 522 BCE, it was therefore his 5 th year in Egypt, the 2 nd corresponded 

to 525 BCE and the 1 st in 526 BCE. This conquest began in 526 BCE, since Herodotus 

(The Histories III:1,10) states that the war began with the death of Amasis. Years 2 to 5 

of Cambyses refer to his years of domination in Egypt. It is not logical to assume that 

the Egyptians used a counting system reserved for their pharaohs rather than to foreign 

leaders 145 , what was Cambyses before his conquest (though, after 525 BCE, Persian 

leaders will be considered as Pharaohs). 

YEAR 12 OF AMASIS (558 BCE) 

The year 44 of Amasis, the last of his reign should be dated 526 BCE, and therefore 

the year 12 to be dated 528 BCE. Double-dated documents are rare, they are all the more 

valuable since they allow absolute dating, which is the case of the following papyrus (pap. 

Louvre 7848) 146 both dated II Shemu 13 / I Shemu 15, Year 12 of Amasis (line 5): 

Year 12, 1 st month of Shemu, (day) 21 

under Pharaoh Amasis life-prosperity-health (...) 

Has said the choachyte Petosiris son of 

Itourodj son of Inarou, his 

[mother] being Itourou, 

(choachyte = mummies guardian) 

Tacherou and the choachyte Djechy 

son of Tesmont, total 3 men: 

“It is we who have caused the choachyte 

Petosiris son of Itourodj to swear for us 

in the presence of Chonsemwasneferhotep, in 

year 12, 2 nd month of Shemu, (day) 13, 

on the 15 th day of the 1 st month of Shemu, saying: 

‘The place of the mountain, of which I said: «I have received 

Parker assumed that the first date was from the civil calendar and the second from 

the lunar calendar, but it is illogical for the following reasons: 


Paris 1996 Éd. Fayard p. 92. 


London 2010 Ed. Routeledge pp. 124-125. 

145 R.A. PARKER - Persian and Egyptian Chronology 

in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures LVIII/3 (1941) pp. 298-301. 

146 K. DONKER VAN HEEL – Abnormal Hieratic and Early Demotic Texts collected by the Theban Choachytes in the reign of Amasis: 

Papyrus from the Louvre Eisenlohr Lot (Thesis). Leiden 1996 Ed. Rijksuniversiteit pp. 93-99.


! Egyptian lunar dates being exceptional they should be specified in the civil calendar and 

not the opposite. Among the twenty papyrus from Elephantine in southern Egypt, 

which contain double dates, all begin with the date of the lunar calendar followed by 

that of the Egyptian civil calendar, but never the reverse. 

! "It is we who have caused the choachyte to swear for us" refers to the past not to the future ("It 

is we who will cause the choachyte to swear for us"). If this vow was recorded and dated, it is 

logical to assume that it was written relatively soon after having been delivered, 

otherwise one would admit the existence of a "prophetic vow", but the document being 

dated I Shemu 21 in the civil calendar, the vow had to be made on I Shemu 15, actually 

6 days before. 

! As the lunar year is shorter than the solar year (the lunar month being 29 or 30 days 

when the Egyptian civil month is always 30 days), dating in a lunar calendar goes faster 

than in the civil calendar, thus the lunar dates are more advanced (II Shemu) than those 

of the civil calendar (I Shemu). 

According to these logical arguments, the first date (II Shemu 13) is lunar and the 

second (I Shemu 15) is civil. As the civil date I Shemu 15 fell in -558 on September 21, the 

lunar date II Shemu 1 fell on September 9 (= 21 – 12), which was a full moon day according 

to astronomy 147 . However, there are two difficulties in reckoning the days: 

! The Babylonians counted the new day after sunset (around 18 pm) while the Egyptians 

counted it after the disappearance of the stars (around 5 am). If a scribe wrote on 17 

Thoth around 16 pm, for example, he dated his document on 18 Kislev, but if he wrote 

about 20 pm he dated it on 19 Kislev. 

midnight midday midnight 

19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Babylonian computation 

18 Kislev 

19 Kislev 

Julian computation 

4 January 5 January 

6 January 

Egyptian computation 

16 Thoth 

17 Thoth 

! Astronomical observations being made by night, at the beginning of the day for the 

Babylonians, but at the end for the Egyptians. At last, the observation of the first 

crescent can be delayed by one day (due to bad weather, for example) while watching 

the full moon can be shifted more or less one day. 

According to this lunar calendar, the two papyrus double dated years 15 and 21 of 

Xerxes 148 involve an accession in 496 BCE (the full moon of 1 st Elul fell on August 29 in 

481 BCE at Elephantine and the full moon of 1 st Kislev fell on December 20 in 475 BCE): 

Year Xerxes I Civil Egyptian Julian Lunar Egyptian Julian Gap 

1 st Elul 29 August (full moon) 

481 15 28 Pakhons 14 September 18 Elul 15 September 1 

1 st Kislev 20 December (full moon) 

474 21 17 Thoth 5 January 18 Kislev 5 January 0 

When Porten published the Elephantine papyri he wrote: The language, religion, and 

names of the Jews differed from their Egyptian neighbours, but their legal procedures and formulary bear 

striking similarity. Though we cannot explain the phenomenon of “Who gave to whom” we must conclude 

147 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php 

148 B. PORTEN - The Elephantine Papyri in English 

Leiden 1996 Ed E.J. Brill pp. 18, 153-161.



that in matters legal the Jews and Arameans fit into their Egyptian environment rather snugly. Whereas 

the demotic contracts constitute a little over 20% of the thirty-seven demotic texts here published, the 

Aramaic contracts constitute almost 60% of the total Aramaic selection of fifty-two documents. If thirty 

documents are ample material to ascertain schemata and verify formulae, eight may not be, particularly if 

they are of different types. Comparison, nonetheless, shows how much the demotic and Aramaic conveyances 

had in common. Both followed an identical schema (...) Variations were slight. As indigenous documents, 

the demotic contracts noted only the Egyptian calendar, whereas the Jewish/Aramean scribes, writing in the 

lingua franca of the Persian Empire, added for most of the fifth century a synchronous Babylonian date. 

This last remark contradicts what was said at the beginning because the Egyptians never 

used a Babylonian calendar in Egypt. In addition, Porten fails to mention that several 

Babylonian dates have a gap of 2 days (which is difficult to explain by errors of scribes), or 

even a month apart (B32 and B42 for example), and that lunar calendar was closer to the 

Jewish or Aramaic calendar than its Babylonian counterpart 149 . Stern 150 noted: This 

explanation has been fully endorsed by Porten, but it is problematic in more than one respect. In the ancient 

world, where artificial lighting was often expensive and/or inadequate, scribes would have been reluctant to 

write legal documents at night: legal documents, indeed, had to be written with precision and care. Although 

such a practice was possible — as Porter points out, the Mishna refers to legal documents written at night 

(M. Gittin 2:2), and further evidence could conceivably be found — it seems unlikely that the majority of 

contracts at Elephantine would have been written at night (...) In order to account for this high incidence of 

discrepancies, it seems more plausible to argue that the Babylonian calendar at Elephantine was reckoned 

differently from the standard Babylonian calendar. How it was reckoned, however, remains somewhat 

unclear. The inconsistent relationship between document dates and visibility of the new moon (nil, 1 day, or 

2 days) suggest perhaps that at Elephantine, visibility of the new moon was not used as a criterion to 

determine when the new month began. The solution was at hand, but Stern did not know that the 

problem stemmed from the wrong interpretation of Parker. This is particularly more 

regrettable that Parker had given all the elements to find it. 

Parker refused to consider a lunar reckoning starting at full moon, as proposed by 

Macnaughton 151 , for three reasons: 

! He felt that Macnaughton was an eccentric 152 (no comment!). 

! This type of calendar was not well known during his time. Parker was unaware that the 

Hindu lunar calendar, for example, is equally divided between amanta versions (8 states 

in southern India) which start on new moon and purnimanta versions (10 states in the 

northern India) starting on full moon. In addition, it is likely that some ancient lunar 

calendars began on the full moon, like the Old Persian calendar whose 30 th day is called 

jiyamna "decreasing", that would be inexplicable if the lunar cycle began on 1 st crescent. 

! Lunar phases being symbolized at Dendera (around -50) by 14 deities climbing stairs to 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

149 S. STERN - The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine 

in: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) pp. 159-171. 

150 S.H. HORN, L.H. WOOD - The Fifth-Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine 

in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies XIII/1 (1954) pp. 1-20. 

151 D. MACNAUGHTON - A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology 

London 1932 Ed. Luzac and co. pp. 145-151. 


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


achieve the filling of the eye Wedjat 153 (safe eye) the 15 th day at the full moon, the lunar day 

1 (psdntyw) must match the 1 st invisibility. But this cycle of 15 days is only a # month, the 

next full month had to begin at the end of this cycle, that is at the full moon. 

Babylonian lunar cycle Egyptian lunar cycle according to: 

astro # month Parker Macnaughton astro 

14 full moon 

15 

16 

1 shining ones [day] 

2 month [day] 

3 

17 4 

18 5 

19 6 

20 7 quarter [day] 

21 last quarter 8 

22 9 

23 10 

24 11 

25 12 

26 13 

27 last crescent 14 perceptions [day] 

28 

29 new moon 

15 subordinate [day] 

16 

30 1st invisibility 1 tp 3bd 1 shining ones [day] ! 17 perceptions [day] 

1 1st crescent 2 3bd 2 month [day] 18 Moon [day] 

2 3 3 19 

3 4 4 20 

4 5 5 21 

5 6 snt 6 22 

6 first quarter 7 dnit 7 quarter [day] 23 quarter [day] 

7 8 8 24 

8 9 9 25 

9 10 10 26 

10 11 11 27 

11 12 12 28 

12 13 13 29 

13 14 14 perceptions [day] 30 Min rise [day] 

14 full moon 

15 !apattu 

16 

15 smdt 15 subordinate [day] 

16 

17 perceptions [day] ! 

17 18 Moon [day] ! 

18 19 

19 20 

20 21 

21 last quarter 22 

22 23 quarter [day] 

23 24 

24 25 

25 26 

26 27 

27 last crescent 28 

28 

29 new moon 

29 

30 Min rise [day] ! 

30 1 

153 E.A.W. BUDGE - Gods of the Egyptian Vol II 

1969 Ed. Dover Publications p. 321.



Parker has compiled and explained the 30 days of the Egyptian lunar month, which 

shows that several days do not fit at all with their Moon phases. 

# month n° Day of the month Moon phase according to: 

Name Meaning Macnaughton Parker 

(15) 1 psdntyw Shining ones Full moon First invisibility 

2 3bd Month After full moon First crescent 

7 dnit Quarter Last quarter First quarter 

14 si3w Perceptions Last crescent Before full moon 

15 smdt Subordinate Before new moon Full moon 

1 17 si3w Perceptions Before first crescent - 

2 18 i‘# Moon First crescent - 

7 23 dnit Quarter First quarter Last quarter 

14 30 prt Mn Min going-forth Before full moon New moon 

In Parker's lunar cycle it is obvious that the meaning of days 1 (psdntyw) and 18 (i‘#) 

has nothing to do and even opposed to the lunar phase that corresponds to them. The 

Egyptian word psdntyw literally means "shining ones" which is opposed to its moon phase 

(after the new moon) called "first invisibility". In addition the day 18 which literally means 

"moon" would have no link with the lunar cycle, which would be the last straw. According 

to Depuydt 154 : There is little doubt as to what ancient Egyptians saw of the moon on the day they called 

psdntyw the first of the lunar month (...) Parker has done the most to consolidate the theory of psdntyw 

outlined above. Yet the view that Egyptian lunar months began with the observation of nothing has met 

with resistance. !erny and Posener believed that the passage from Theban Tomb 57 quoted above “shows 

that it was possible to depict psdntyw ... For the Egyptians, psdntyw was therefore something visible ... 

Indeed, it would be difficult to understand how the Egyptians could have conceived of ‘moon on psdntyw’ 

... if psdntyw was an invisible celestial phenomenon.” This remark disregards the fact, however, that 

“moon on psdntyw” is modified by “whose brightness has illuminated the netherworld” (...) “you set like 

Re on the day of psdntyw”. To summarize his arguments, the Egyptian day 1 (psdntyw) would 

represent both the invisibility of the moon for the living ones and the sun illuminating the 

netherworld, but this explanation is more theological than scientific. 

Year 10 of Amasis (in -560) that began on I Akhet 1 (January 10) coincided with a 

full moon, which involved the starting equivalence I Akhet 1 (lunar) = I Akhet 1 (civil). It 

is noteworthy that the observation of the full moon is more difficult than the 1 st lunar 

crescent, because depending on the time of day or night the 1 st astronomical crescent may 

be seen with a day late (but never in advance) so that the full astronomical moon can be 

seen frequently with one day difference (delay or advance). 

Amasis 

year 

10 -560 

Lunar calendar Civil calendar Julian day Full moon 

(day 1) 

(astronomy) 

I Akhet 1 I Akhet 1 10 January 9 January 

II Akhet 1 I Akhet 30 8 February 7 February 

III Akhet 1 II Akhet 30 10 March 9 March 

IV Akhet 1 III Akhet 29 8 April 8 April 

I Peret 1 IV Akhet 29 8 May 7 May 

II Peret 1 I Peret 28 6 June 6 June 

III Peret 1 II Peret 28 6 July 6 July 

IV Peret 1 III Peret 27 4 August 4 August 

I Shemu 1 IV Peret 27 3 September 2 September 

II Shemu 1 I Shemu 26 2 October 2 October 

III Shemu 1 II Shemu 25 1 November 1 November 

IV Shemu 1 III Shemu 25 30 November 30 November 

I Akhet 1 IV Shemu 25 30 December 29 December 

154 L. DEPUYDT - The Hieroglyphic Representation of the Moon's Absence (Psdntyw) 

in: Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies (1998) Ed. L.H. Lesko pp. 71-89.

11 -559 

12 -558 


II Akhet 1 I Akhet 19 28 January 28 January 

III Akhet 1 II Akhet 19 27 February 26 February 

IV Akhet 1 III Akhet 18 28 March 28 March 

I Peret 1 IV Akhet 18 27 April 27 April 

II Peret 1 I Peret 17 26 May 26 May 

III Peret 1 II Peret 17 25 June 25 June 

IV Peret 1 III Peret 16 24 July 24 July 

I Shemu 1 IV Peret 16 23 August 23 August 

II Shemu 1 I Shemu 15 21 September 21 September 

III Shemu 1 II Shemu 15 21 October 21 October 



II Akhet 1 I Akhet 8 17 January 17 January 

III Akhet 1 II Akhet 8 16 February 16 February 

IV Akhet 1 III Akhet 7 17 March 17 March 

I Peret 1 IV Akhet 7 16 April 16 April 

II Peret 1 I Peret 6 15 May 15 May 

III Peret 1 II Peret 6 14 June 14 June 

IV Peret 1 III Peret 5 13 July 13 July 

I Shemu 1 IV Peret 5 12 August 12 August 

II Shemu 1 I Shemu 4 10 September 10 September 

II Shemu 13 I Shemu 16 22 September 

III Shemu 1 II Shemu 4 10 October 10 October 



According to this table: II Shemu 13 (Egyptian lunar calendar) = I Shemu 16 

(Egyptian civil calendar) = 22 September (Julian calendar). If the full moon was seen on 

September 9, instead of 10, we have: II Shemu 13 (Egyptian lunar calendar) = I Shemu 15 

(Egyptian civil calendar) = 21 September (Julian calendar). 

ELEPHANTINE CALENDARS 

The calendar at Elephantine with its system of double dates (Egyptian and 

Babylonian) was used by Persians officials and Jewish scribes only during a short period 

from -500 to -400. For example, a Persian official erected a votive stele stating: This temple, 

(W)id(arnaga) head of the garrison at Syene was done in the month of Siwan, that is to say Mehir, year 7 

of King Artaxerxes, (to) Osirna#ty, the god. Peace 155 . 

After the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses it became a Persian satrapy but most of 

the scribes were Egyptians or Jews. According to Herodotus (The Histories II:152-154), 

Psammetichus I, dynasts of Sais, called on foreign mercenaries, including Ionians and 

Carians, to consolidate his power in Egypt. The pharaoh then installed these mercenary 

garrisons in Daphne west of Delta, and Elephantine, on the border in the south (The 

Histories II:30-31). The Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates III:13 states that among these 

mercenaries there were Jews. According to the biblical text, the massive emigration of Jews 

into Egypt began shortly after the pharaoh Necho II established King Jehoiakim (in -609) 

on the throne in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:34, Jeremiah 26:21-23, 42:14). After the murder of 

Gedaliah, many of these Jews emigrated to Egypt (Jeremiah 43:7, 44:1) especially in the 

country of Patros (meaning "the Land of the South" in Egyptian) the southern province in 

which Elephantine was the main town. 

155 A. LEMAIRE – Recherches d'épigraphie araméenne en Asie mineure et en Égypte 

in: Achaemenid History V (1991) Ed. Nederlands Instituut Leiden pp.199-201.



Persian officials at Elephantine were familiar with three kinds of lunar calendar 

which appear, for example, in the Behistun inscription 156 (written by Darius I around -515): 

ACHAEMENID CALENDAR 

ELAMITE OLD-PERSIAN BABYLONIAN JULIAN 

1 Zikli Âdukanai!a Nisanu March/April 

2 Zarpakim "ûravâhara Ayyaru April/May 

3 Hadar "âigar#i Simanu May/June 

4 Hallime Garmapada Dumuzu June/July 

5 Zillatam "ûrnabax!i Abu July/August 

6 Belilit Garmabax!i Ululu August/September 

7 Man!arki Bâgayâdi Tashritu September/October 

8 Lankelli Vrkazada Arahsamna October/November 

9 "ibari Âçiyâdiya Kislimu November/December 

10 Sermi Anâmaka Tebetu December/January 

11 Kutmama Zamimâ Shabatu January/February 

12 A!!etkupi Viyaxna Addaru February/March 

Jewish scribes at Elephantine were familiar with different calendars 157 , but they 

mainly used an Aramaic calendar based on the Babylonian calendar after their return in 

Judaea (in -537) from Babylon. At this time there were the following equivalences 158 : 

EGYPTIAN JEWISH CALENDAR 

CIVIL RELIGIOUS HEBREW ARAMAIC JULIAN 

1 I Akhet Thoth I Tebeth December/January 

2 II Akhet Paopi II Shebat January/February 

3 III Akhet Hathor III Adar February/March 

4 IV Akhet Koyak IV Nisan March/April 

5 I Peret Teobi V Iyyar April/May 

6 II Peret Mehir VI Siwan May/June 

7 III Peret Pamenotep VII Tammuz June/July 

8 IV Peret Parmuti VIII Ab July/August 

9 I Shemu Pahons IX Elul August/September 

10 II Shemu Paoni X Tishri September/October 

11 III Shemu Epipi XI Marheshwan October/November 

12 IV Shemu Mesore XII Kislew November/December 

Epagomen 

As the Egyptian calendar had 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 days at the end (called 

epagomenon in Greek), it was not lunar (a lunar year is 11 days shorter than a solar year). 

Among all these calendars the Persians have focused on two: the Egyptian religious 

calendar (not civil) and the Aramaic calendar (not Babylonian). This fact proves that this 

choice was influenced by the Jews who needed to celebrate the Passover, but this religious 

festival was based on a lunar calendar. The Jews of Elephantine being in an Egyptian 


Paris 1997 Éd. Gallimard pp. 171-174. 

157 P. GRELOT – Documents araméens d’Égypte 

in: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°5 (Cerf, 1972) pp. 33-63, 509-510. 




environment, the Egyptian lunar calendar had to be imposed on them. It is worth noting 

that these Jews used only the word yerah "lunation" (implying the [full] moon) 159 , to 

designate the month while at the same time, in Judaea, the Jews of Arad used only the word 

hodesh "new" (implying the new [moon]) 160 . We read for example on the ostracon n°7 of 

Arad, dated around -600: for the 10 th [month], the 1 st of the month to the 6 th of the month 161 . In the 

Hebrew Scriptures 162 , the words hodesh and yerah are often used in the sense of "month". 

But they are not synonymous since some sentences are found in Canaanite inscriptions 163 

like: hodesh yerah Etanim, which can be translated as "new moon of Etanim (1 Kings 8:2)". If 

the two words hodesh and yerah were synonymous the translation would be "month of the 

month of Etanim", which does not make sense 164 . This semantic distinction is important. 

Indeed, in a lunar calendar starting at the new moon, the two words hodesh "new [moon]" 

and yerah "lunation" to refer to one month may be suitable. But in a schedule starting at the 

full moon, only the word "lunation" is appropriate. 

Following the religious reform carried out by Nehemiah in Jerusalem about -440 

(Nehemiah 13:6-9), the Jews of Elephantine would celebrate the Passover again using the 

Aramaic calendar based on a Babylonian pattern 165 , because this festival was to be 

celebrated 14 days after the new [not full] moon. It was indeed a reform of the calendar, 

not a reform of the worship, because the Jews were in contact with the priesthood in 

Jerusalem and they celebrated the Passover since at least 450 BCE 166 . The reform of the 

calendar is dated from the 5 th year of Darius II (in 419 BCE). As often happens, reforms 

are not fully followed. Yefet ben Eli, a Karaite living in Iraq (towards 950 CE) recalled that 

while the Karaites determined the 1 st lunar day according to the observation of the new 

moon and Rabbinites determined it by calculations, those who had determined it in the 

past as the full moon did not exist 167 . By contrast, Jacob Qirqisani, a contemporary of Yefet 

ben Eli, also known Jewish supporters of the full moon: the "Margariya" and Yeshua ben 

Yehuda (circa 1050 CE) mentions them as the "Albedaryah". 

At Elephantine the main system of dating was the Egyptian civil calendar, but as 

numerous religious festivals in Egypt were based on moon phases a lunar calendar was 

used to fix these dates. The Jews, then the Persians, have naturally used this calendar to 

their own festivals based on a lunar calendar (as the Passover for the Jews). The language 

of administration being either Egyptian or Persian, it was necessary to convert the names 

of the Egyptian lunar month in the common language understood by all as Aramaic. For 

example, the Jews have converted into Aramaic the name of the months of their Hebrew 

calendar: It came about that in the 4 th year of Darius (...) on the 4 th [day] of the 9 th month, [that is] in 

Kislev (Zechariah 7:1). The Egyptian name of lunar months being the same as civil months, 

it is clear that if the Jews had only transcribed the lunar date and the current date (for 

example: in year 12, 2 nd month of Shemu, (day) 13, on the 15 th day of the 1 st month of Shemu), it 

159 B. PORTEN A. YARDENI - Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3 

1993 Ed. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities pp. XXXVI. 

160 G.I. DAVIES - Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance 

Cambridge 1991 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 14,15,348. 

161 A. LEMAIRE -Inscriptions hébraïques Tome I, Les Ostraca 

In: Littératures anciennes du proche orient n°9 Paris 1977 Ed. Cerf pp. 168,231. 

162 The word "full moon (Proverbs 7:20)" is kese in Hebrew or lebanah "the white one (Isaiah 30:26)". 

163 H. DONNER, W. RÖLLING - Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften 

Wiesbaden 2002 Ed. Harrassowitzp. 9 N°3. 

164 J.A. WAGENAAR - Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations 

in: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115 (2003) p. 7 note 9. 

165 J. MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI - Les Juifs d'Égypte de Ramsès II à Hadrien 

Paris 1991 Éd. Errance p. 37 

166 A. VINCENT - La religion des judéo-araméens d'Éléphantine 

Paris 1937 Éd. Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner pp. 267-274. 

167 S. POZNANSKI – Les écrits d'Anan 

in: Revue des Études Juives 44 (1902) pp. 171,172.



would have been incomprehensible (except for the Egyptians). They have logically chosen 

to convert the names of Egyptian lunar months into an Aramaic calendar which they were 

familiar (for example: in year 12, Tishri, (day) 13, on the 15 th day of Pahons). 

The scribes of Elephantine have used the Egyptian lunar calendar, in about twenty 

documents (this lunar calendar was especially useful for fixing religious festivals), 

converting the names of these months into Aramaic in order hat they would be understood 

by both Jews as the Persians. These double dates enable us to reconstruct the chronology 

of the Achaemenid kings on the period from -500 to -400: 

Papyrus Calendar year King # 

Lunar Civil Julian 

500 Darius 22 

499 23 

498 24 

497 25 

496 00-26 

495 01-27 

494 02-28 

493 03-29 

492 04-30 

491 05-31 

490 06-32 

489 07-33 

488 08-34 

487 09-35 

486 10-36 

485 Xerxes 11 

484 12 

483 13 

482 14 

B23 18 Elul 28 Pakhons 14 September 481 15 1 

480 16 

479 17 

478 18 

477 19 

476 20 

475 Artaxerxes 0-21 

B24 18 Kislev [17] Thoth 5 January 474 1 0 

473 2 

472 3 

471 4 

470 5 

B25 B26 21 Kislev [21] Mesore 3 December 469 6 0 

468 7 

467 8 

B34 7 Kislev 4 Thoth* 16 December 466 9 0 

*[= epagomenal] 465 10 

464 11 

463 12 

462 13 

B35 20 Sivan 25 Phamenoth 8 July 461 14 1 

460 15 

N°43 18 Tammuz 3 Pharmuthi 16 July 459 16 1 

B36 18 Ab [30] Pharmuthi 12 August 1 

B28 24 Tishri 6 Epiphi 17 October 0 

458 17 

457 18 

B29 2 Kislev 10 Mesore 19 November 456 19 1


455 20 

454 21 

453 22 

452 23 

451 24 

B30 14 Ab 19 Pakhons 29 August 450 25 1 

449 26 

448 27 

B37 7 Elul 9 Payni 17 September 447 28 1 

446 29 

445 30 

B38 25 Tishri 25 Epiphi 1 st November 444 31 0 

443 32 

442 33 

441 34 

440 35 

439 36 

438 37 

B39 20 Sivan 7 Phamenoth 14 June 437 38 0 

436 39 

435 40 

434 Darius B 41 

433 (42)-1 

432 (43)-2 

431 (44)-3 

B40 8 Tammuz 8 Pharmuti 14 July 430 (45)-4 1 

B31 1-30 Elul 1-30 Payni 1-30 September 0 

429 (46)-5 

428 (47)-6 

427 (48)-7 

B42 6 Tishri [8] 22 Payni [8] 25 September 426 (49)-8 1 

425 50 

424 Darius II 0 

423 1 

422 2 

421 3 

420 4 

Calendar reform 419 5 

418 6 

417 7 

B32 3 Kislev [8] 12 Thoth [9] 16 December 416 8 0 

415 9 

414 10 

413 11 

412 12 

B33 24 Shebat [13] 9 Hathyr [14] 10 February 411 13 0 

410 14 

409 15 

408 16 

407 17 

406 18 

405 Artaxerxes II 0-19 

B43 24 Heshvan 29 Mesore 25 November 404 (Amartaeus) 1 1 

403 2 

B44 20 Adar 8 Khoiak 9 March 402 3 0 

401 Amartaeus 4 

400 5


THROUGH SYNCHRONISMS DATED BY ASTRONOMY


Egyptian lunar calendar record 

Very early (at least since the Fifth Dynasty) the Egyptians used two calendars: 1) a 

civil calendar (with a year of 365 days consisting of 12 months of 30 days and completed by 

5 days "in addition") in order to date their documents and 2) a religious schedule to 

determine the days of their numerous festivals linked to the moon 168 . The Egyptians 

distinguished "seasonal festivals", celebrated in their civil calendar, from "sky festivals" 

related to the lunar cycle. A major point has to be noted: the Egyptians were concerned 

only by the increasing part of the lunar cycle, never by its decreasing part. So they 

celebrated their lunar festivals during the 15 last days (half a month) of the full lunar 

month. Obviously, the feast of psdntyw "shining ones" was the starting point, day 1 of the 

full month corresponding to day 15 of the half-month, which was sometimes dated in the 

civil calendar, and also the wag feast (day 18 of the full month, called "day of the moon", 

corresponding to day 2 of the half-month, called "month day"). 

An Egyptian document describes numerous lunar festivals 169 that occurred during 

the 19 years of Sesostris III's reign, followed by the 45 years of Amenemhat III 170 . This 

shows that the lunar days 171 psdntyw which were dated in the civil calendar (dates highlighted 

in dark green) fit together in a cycle of 25 years. Few wag feasts that have been dated 

(highlighted in blue sky) fall on lunar day 17 (instead of theoretical day 18). These dates are 

shifted by one day in relation to those of Parker who translated the word "up to" in an 

inclusive way 172 , not exclusive. This document can be dated precisely thanks to the Sothic 

rising of IV Peret 16 Year 7 of Sesostris III since, according to astronomy 173 , it took place 

on July 11 around -1850 (in Thebes). This heliacal rising of Sirius is dated between -1849 

and -1846 owing to the equality: IV Peret 16 = July 11. The table below checks that the 

first lunar cycle of 25 years (beginning on I Akhet 1) coincided with the full moon of 

November 30, 1857 BCE. In addition, the Sothic rising of IV Peret 16 Year 7 of Sesostris 

III, dated July 11, 1848 BCE, coincided with the first lunar crescent, which may have been 

a remarkable event (IV Peret 1 coincided with the full moon of June 26, 1848 BCE). 

Colour Event 

Lunar day 1 (psdntyw) dated in the civil calendar 

* Lunar day 1 shifted one day compared to the theoretical cycle 

Wag Feast dated in the civil calendar 

Heliacal rising of Sirius dated in the civil calendar 

168 A. SPALINGER - The Private Feast Lists of Ancient Egypt 

Wiesbaden 1996 Ed. Harrassowitz pp. 9-72. 

A. SPALINGER - The Lunar System in Festival Calendars from the New Kingdom Onwards 

in: Société d'Égyptologie N°19 (1995) Genève pp. 25-40. 


in: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization N°26 (1950) Ed. University of Chicago pp. 63-67. 

170 C. OBSOMER - Sésostris Ier. Étude chronologique et historique du règne 

Bruxelles 1995 Éd. Connaissance ancienne de l'Égypte p. 149. 

171 U. LUFT – Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches 

Wien 1992 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 150,151. 

R. KRAUSS - Arguments in Favor of a Low Chronology for the Middle and New Kingdom 

in: The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern (M. Bietak 2003) pp. 175-197 

172 L.E. ROSE – The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom 

in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 53 (1994) pp. 247-248. 

173 Thebes: Longitude 32° 39' East, Latitude 25° 42' North; Arcus visionis 8.5°. 

http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php



Year AKHET PERET SHEMU 

I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5 

1857 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. 

1856 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 

1855 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 

Sesostris III 1854 1 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 

1853 2 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 

1852 3 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 

1851 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 

1850 5 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 

1849 6 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 

1848 7 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 16 30 29 29 28 

1847 8 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 

1846 9 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 

1845 10 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 

1844 11 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 

1843 12 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 

1842 13 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 

1841 14 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 

1840 15 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 

1839 16 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 

1838 17 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 

1837 18 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 17 1 30 

1836 19 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 

Amenemhat III 1835 1 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 

1834 2 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 

1833 3 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 

1832 4 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 

1831 5 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 

1830 6 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 

1829 7 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 

1828 8 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 

1827 9 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 29 12 12 

1826 10 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 

1825 11 7 25 25 *25 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 

1824 12 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 

1823 13 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 

1822 14 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 

1821 15 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 

1820 16 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 

1819 17 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 

1818 18 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 

1817 19 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 

1816 20 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 

1815 21 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 

1814 22 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 

1813 23 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 

1812 24 20 *6 5 4 4 3 3 *3 2 1 1 1 30 

1811 25 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 

1810 26 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 

1809 27 23 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 

1808 28 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 

1807 29 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 *8 7 6 6 

1806 30 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 

1805 31 2 19 *20 *19 *19 18 *18 17 *17 16 15 15 14 

1804 32 3 9 *9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 

1803 33 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 

1802 34 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 

1801 35 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 

1800 36 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20


Lunar dates have not been translated into the civil calendar, except sometimes the 

lunar day 1 (psdntyw), because these dates had no practical value. There were some 

exceptions with the lunar days coinciding with a unique astronomical event such as a helical 

rising of Sirius. We find such an example with the dating: III Shemu 9 "Opening of the Year" in 

the Ebers papyrus (below) 174 dated year 9 of Amenhotep I. 

Year 9, in the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Djoser-ka-Ra [Amenhotep I], living forever. 

Opening of the Year: III Shemu 9 Rise of Sirius 

[festival of] Thoth IV " 9 " 

[festival of] Consent I Akhet 9 " 

[festival of] Hathor II " 9 " 

[festival of] Soul of Horus bull III " 9 " 

[festival of] Honored spelt IV " 9 " 

[festival of] Flare I Peret 9 " 

[festival of] Flare II " 9 " 

[festival of] Cheering III " 9 " 

[festival of] Khonsu IV " 9 " 

[festival of] South I Époque 9 " 

[festival of] Opet's majesty II " 9 " 

It is indeed a lunar date because the Sothic rising is dated July 11 (around -1500) 

and the date in the civil calendar should have been III Shemu 14 (July 11). The number "9" 

in Egyptian (psd) also means "shine", which also explains the connection between the lunar 

day 1 psdntyw "those shining ones", the Ennead of gods (psdt) and the Nine Bows (psdt). 

Note that this date has not been converted into the civil calendar: III Shemu 9 (lunar) 

/ III Shemu 14 (civil) as with the year 12 of Amasis, but was connected with the main 

religious festival called "Opening of the Year" celebrated on this month. The same 

procedure is also applied to other lunar months. Over time all the lunar months will be 

174 A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité 

London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 32-33.



designated by the name of the main festival celebrated during this month 175 (with an 

apparent stabilization from -1100). By a process of assimilation, civil calendar months 

(high-lined) have received in turn the names of their related lunar months 176 . 

Lunar month Ebers festival Civil month Later festival Greek transcription 

1 III Shemu Wp-rnpt Horus 5 days Epagomenon 

2 IV Shemu T" I Akhet D#wty Thoth 1 

3 I Akhet Mn"t II Akhet P3n-ipt Phaophi 2 

4 II Akhet $t-#r III Akhet $wt-#r Hathyr 3 

5 III Akhet K3#rk3 IV Akhet K3#rk3 Khoiak 4 

6 IV Akhet "fb-dt I Peret T3‘3bt Tybi 5 

7 I Peret Rk# [wr] II Peret [P3n]-M"r Mecheir 6 

8 II Peret Rk# [nds] III Peret P3n-imn#tp Phamenoth 7 

9 III Peret Rnnwt IV Peret P3n-Rnntt Pharmouthi 8 

10 IV Peret %nsw I Shemu P3n-%nsw Pakhons 9 

11 I Shemu %nty-hty II Shemu P3n-Int Payni 10 

12 II Shemu ’Ipt-#mt III Shemu Ip-ip Epiphi 11 

IV Shemu Mswtr‘ Mesore 12 

We note that the twelve lunar months (29 or 30 days) are in advance of one month 

compared with the twelve civil months (30 days). This advance arises because the lunar 

year (354 days) is shorter than the calendar year (365 days). According to astronomy there 

were actually several remarkable coincidences during year 9 ("shine") of Amenhotep I: 

Year Astronomical event 

(in 1496 BCE) 

Lunar date Festival of: Civil date Julian date 

9 Full moon III Shemu 1 (Shining ones) III Shemu 6 July 3 

Summer solstice III Shemu 4 III Shemu 9 July 6 

Sothic rising III Shemu 9 Opening of the Year III Shemu 14 July 11 

IV Shemu 9 Thoth IV Shemu 14 August 10 

10 25 years lunar cycle start I Akhet 1 (New Year) I Akhet 1 September 1 

I Akhet 9 Consent I Akhet 9 September 9 

175 L. DEPUYDT - Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt 

Leuven 1997 Ed. Uitgevers Peeters p. 116. 

176 L. DEPUYDT - The Two Problems of the Month Names 

in: Revue d'égyptologie 50 (1999) pp. 107-133.


The reign of Thutmose III can be dated precisely by using astronomy through two 

lunar days 177 psdntyw, respectively dated I Shemu of 21 year 23 (657.2 Urk. IV) and Peret II 

Year 30 24 (IV Urk. 836.1 -3), but also by two other exceptional astronomical events: 

! A helical rising of Sirius, on a stele from Elephantine, dated III Shemu 28 about the 

year 25 of his reign, fixes his accession around -1470 because this Sothic rising is dated 

July 12 at Thebes near -1500, according to astronomy 178 , and it coincided with III 

Shemu 28 only from 1445 to 1442. The accession of Thutmose must consequently be 

around 1470 (= 1445 + 25) +/- 4 years 179 . The regnal year of Thutmose is not 

specified, but it was after II Peret 10 Year 22 because, according to the Stele of 

Armant 180 , he began to reign alone, without Hatshepsut, only after this date. In 

addition, his campaign in Palestine, dated years 23 to 25, is 

mentioned in the stele of Buto: He is a valiant king, who in the 

melee, made great slaughter among Asian allies. He is the one who made 

the leaders of Retenu country, in their entirety, be required to provide their 

tribute. Consequently, Sothic dates appearing on the steles of 

Buto and Elephantine 181 are Year 25 (or shortly thereafter). 

Sothic rising III Shemu 28 

! An astronomical event in year 9 of Thutmose III, dated 1463 by astronomy, fixes his 

accession in 1472 (= 1463 + 9). Senenmut was a very important person since he 

received the prestigious title of "Grand Intendant of Amun" around the 5 th or 7 th year 

of Thutmose III and also had the rare privilege for an individual to arrange a royal 

tomb and hugs to it his own grave. The ostraca of his tomb 182 can fix the year in which 

the ceiling was realized, for they state that masonry and stone cutting began on IV 

Peret 2 in Year 7 of Tuthmosis III and spread out until year 9. As ostracon n°80 

clarifies that the chapel door was opened on III Akhet 27 year 11, work planning as the 

design (drawn from observations) of astronomical ceiling had been executed in year 9. 

The famous expedition to Punt, depicted on a retaining wall of the temple 183 , is also 

dated to year 9. Monuments of Senenmut are difficult to date 184 because they belong to 

a large complex (Deir el-Bahari) including several monuments which were probably 

built in parallel. In addition, the posthumous disgrace Senenmut, and that of Queen 

Hatshepsut (misfortunes which still remain unexplained) resulted in many hammering 

and re-registrations of names, which give rise to conflicting dates 185 . The start date of 

the tomb is Year 7 and as the tomb is only a small part of this vast complex, 2 years of 

construction seem to be sufficient to complete the ceiling in year 9. The astronomical 

ceiling of the tomb of Senenmut gives the position of several constellations and planets 

known at the time, some of which are easily identified as the Big Dipper, Orion, Venus, 

Mars, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter. 

177 K. SETHE – Urkunden der 18. Dynastie 

Leipzig 1907 Ed. J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung pp. IV 657, 836. 

R.A. PARKER - The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II 

in: Journal of Eastern Studies XVI (1957) pp. 39-43. 

178 The Egyptian year of 365 days shifts from one day every four years compared to the solar year of 365.25 days, and one day gap on the 

Sothic rising causes an error of 4 years on the evaluation of date. 

179 Thebes: Long. 32° 39' E, Lat. 25° 42' N; Arcus visionis 8.5° http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php 

180 C. VANDERSLEYEN - L'Egypte et la vallée du Nil Tome 2 

Paris 1995 Éd. Presses Universitaires de France pp. 293-294. 

181 A.S. VON BOMHARD - Le calendrier Égyptien. Une œuvre d'éternité 

London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 41-44. 

182 W.C. HAYES – Ostraka and Name Stones from the Tomb of Sen-mut (TT71) at Thebes 

New York 1942 Ed. Arno Press pp. 7,21-23. 

183 C. GRAINDORGE – Deir El Bahari le temple de millions d'années 

in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (11/1993) pp. 72-75. 

184 P.F. DORMAN – The Monuments of Senenmut. Problems in Historical Methodology 

New York Ed. Kegan Paul International pp. 66-109. 

185 C. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT – La reine mystérieuse Hatshepsout 

Paris 2002 Éd. Pygmalion p. 58.



Astronomical ceiling of the tomb of Senenmut 

On the bottom we recognize 12 circles, appointed by their hieroglyphics, 

representing the 12 Egyptian months. In the centre of the panel, separating all the circles in 

two unequal groups, a long narrow triangle symbolizes the meridian on the tip of which is a 

small circle. It is connected to the schematic drawing of a bull named Big Dipper (Ursa 

major) by a hieroglyph inscribed on his body. The Egyptians believed that the seven main 

stars of this constellation were a bull, or rather its thigh and that the star (!) at the tip of the 

meridian was the Big Dipper. If we extend the spear of the hieracocephalus god featured 

under the Big Dipper and the meridian, the two lines meet at the north pole (declination 

90°), the meridian itself on the equator (declination 0°). The star in the small circle (! Ursae 

Majoris) is precisely located at 68.2° (by measuring its distance from the equator and


knowing that the total distance from the equator to the pole is 90°). When a star is located 

on the meridian, it is in its highest position (if it is a circumpolar star is also its lowest 

position), we say that it culminates. The culmination played a major role among the 

Egyptians, and that of the star ! Ursae Majoris happened on the night of March 18 to 19 at 

midnight with a declination of 68.2° to that time (which confirms that it was culmination of 

the star). In addition, if we extend the spear back it ends in month 8 (Peret IV) which 

began in mid-March at this time (around 1470) which confirms the identification. 

The vertical line represents the meridian, the ground line represents the equator (0°) 

and the ceiling line represents the pole (90°). By extending the downside of the meridian on 

the top, this line cuts the toes of the left foot of Orion (midway between the left and right 

edges), that is to say Rigel (! Orionis). Indeed, the Egyptians identified Orion to the god 

Osiris: its main star Rigel ("foot"in Arabic) gave its name to the whole constellation, s3# 

meaning "Orion" as well as "Toes". The arrangement of 12 months in 3 groups of 4 is used 

to date events. These 12 months of the Egyptian year (which has 360 days plus 5 days 

epagomenal) are divided by the meridian in three equal parts of 120 days. If the boundary 

between the second and the third part is the night of March 18 to 19 (culmination of the 

star " Ursae Majoris), that between the first and the third is 120 days later, the night of July 

16 to 17. This date corresponds to the helical rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, 

linked with the New Year in Egypt. So, the first season of the Egyptian year began in mid- 

July when the Nile began to flood the Lower Egypt. The boundary between the first and 

second part was located 120 days later, the night of November 14 to 15. During this night 

another important astronomical event unfolded: the culmination of Rigel (! Orionis) at 

midnight (the full year was divided into 36 decans each covering a period of 10 days): 

month 8 month 9 month 10 month 11 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

19 Mar. 29 Mar. 8 Apr. 18 Apr. 28 Apr. 8 May 18 May 28 May 7 Jun. 17 Jun. 27 Jun. 7 Jul. 

month 12 month 1 (I Akhet) month 2 month 3 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

17 Jul. 27 Jul. 6 Aug. 16 Aug. 26 Aug. 5 Sep. 15 Sep. 25 Sep. 5 Oct. 15 Oct. 25 Oct. 4 Nov. 

month 4 month 5 month 6 month 7 

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 

14 Nov. 24 Nov. 4 Dec. 14 Dec. 24 Dec. 3 Jan. 13 Jan. 23 Jan. 2 Feb. 12 Feb. 22 Feb. 4Mar.



From the foregoing, it is possible to date the ceiling astronomically because a 

heliacal rising of Sirius on July 17 is only possible at a latitude of 30° N, around Heliopolis, 

and similarly, the simultaneous passage on the meridian of Rigel (! Orionis) and the star of 

the Big Dipper (" Ursae Majoris) also gives a latitude of 30° N 186 . Because of the precession 

of the equinoxes, the value of the declination of the Big Dipper very slightly varied from 

about 0.06' a year, making it possible to date the ceiling in 1460 (thanks to its precise value 

on the drawing) 187 to +/- 10 years, because human eyes can not separate an apparent angle 

of less than 1' (= 17x0,06', these 17 are rounded to be 20 years or +/- 10 years). In the 

upper part of the southern sky, we recognize the god Orion standing in a boat. On its left 

is a woman, also standing up. This is identified with the Isis goddess identified as Sothis. 

Follow two hieracocephalus 188 gods with a star on the head. The hieroglyphics above them 

are intended to identify Jupiter and Saturn. On the extreme left is Venus, the Egyptians 

portrayed it as a heron (bnw). Mercury is also present as a small Sethian figure, above right 

of Venus. Mars, the last of the five planets known in antiquity, is missing 189 . Its absence 

(empty boat) in a celestial map so neat is all the more remarkable, because in all the cards 

later and, without exception, more schematic, Mars followed in a boat Jupiter and Saturn as 

a third hieracocephalus god. The only conclusion is that Mars represented in the tomb of 

Senenmut was not visible at night. Among all the "eras of the Phoenix (when heliacal 

risings of Sirius and Venus coincide)" represented in the tombs of Egyptian kings 190 , such 

as those of Sethy I (in -1299*), Tausert (in -1196*), Psusennes I (in -1056*), Nectanebo II 

(in -343*, below) 191 , etc., Mars always appears in its boat. 

Sarcophagus of Nectanebo II 

! ! 1 2 3 4 5 ! ! ! ! ! 

Phoenix Mercure (last decan) 5 epagonemal days Mars Saturne Jupiter Sothis Orion 

Another detail makes it possible to calculate the year of the astronomical ceiling. 

Note from the figures of Orion and Jupiter small points that determine the exact position 

of the two stars. The line matches near Jupiter on the map at all points with the same 

longitude which have the same rise between 73° and 95°. But among 50 years between 

1505 and 1455 (= 1480 +/- 25), there is only one 192 in which Jupiter was, during the night 

of November 14 to 15, a right ascension between 73° and 95° N and when Mars was not 

visible: this is the year 1463 BCE. 

The previous result is very surprising because it seems that astronomer priests were 

particularly unwise to choose this year when Mars was absent (unique in Egyptian 

representations), or it is not. Indeed, the observation of the shape and the position of the 

constellations of Orion Sirius and Venus explains the reason for their choice. 

186 É. TISSOT – Etude de l'astronomie égyptienne et ses implications dans la symbolique astrale de la constellation d'Orion dans la 

religion égyptienne (Lyon 1990) Mémoire de maîtrise : Histoire de l'art - Maison de l'Orient Université Lyon 2 (Mé - 12/1) pp. 112-114. 

187 http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon 

188 Hieracocephalus means "falcon's head shape". 

189 C. LEITZ – Remarks about the Appearance of Mars in the Tomb of Senenmut in Western Thebes 

in: Centaurus Vol. 44 (2002) pp. 140-142. 

190 O. NEUGEBAUER, R.A. PARKER – Egyptian Astronomical Texts 

London 1969 Ed. Brown University Press pp. 6-11, plates 3, 9, 16, 25, 28. 


London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 72-74. 

192 C. LEITZ – Le premier plafond astronomique dans la tombe de Senmout 

in: Les dossiers d'archéologie n°187 S (Novembre 1993) pp. 116-117.


Constellation of Orion 

If Rigel corresponds to 

Orion's toes and to the three stars 

aligned in its belt, Sirius is therefore 

at the ankles of Sothis, which is at the 

same level as the head of the heron 

representing Venus. This heron, 

called Phoenix by the Greeks, 

inaugurates the beginning of the 

ceiling in the upper left, month 1 

inaugurating the beginning of the 

ceiling on the bottom right. If the 

culmination of the Big Dipper can be 

dated November 14, 1463, this year 

began on the helical rising of Sirius 

July 16, 1464 precisely in month 1. 

Yet during that day occurred an 

exceptional phenomenon that only 

happens every 103 years: the helical 

rising of Sirius, the brightest star in 

the sky, coincided with the heliacal 

setting of Venus, the brightest planet. The coincidence of those two astronomical events 

inaugurated a new era called "great year" or "rebirth of the Phoenix" by the Greeks. 

The earliest Egyptian texts mention Venus [Isis] as "the morning star" and 

"Phoenix" (The Book of the Dead §13), and Sirius [Sothis] "the one which comes out in its 

time" (§110). We read, for example: the day when we look at the companions of Orion (...) in order 

that the Phoenix knows the result of the Duat [the hereafter] (§64), I crossed the phoenix to the East (...) 

I was the second of Isis (§100), I went out in phoenix (...) morning Star, spawning me the way (§122). 

Venus, the morning star, is often associated with the grey heron (bnw) returning to populate 

the waters of the Nile in flood season and rose majestically at sunrise. When the risings of 

Sirius and Venus coincided, the goddesses Isis and Sothis were associated. The Canopus 

Decree, dated year 9 of Ptolemy III Euergetes, on the occasion of a Sothic rising dated 

Payni 1 (July 19, -238), states: So that the seasons follow one absolute rule and it does not happen that 

some of the feasts are celebrated in the winter never fall in summer because of movement of the rising of 

Sothis [Sirius] one day every 4 years (...) the day when Isis star [Venus] rises, the day recognized by the 

writings of the House of Life as the New Year [Sirius]. Diodorus quotes a stele inscription: I am 

Isis [Venus], the queen of the whole country (...) It is I [Sirius] who is the one who rises in the constellation 

of the Dog (Historical Library I:27, X:2). Venus was associated with Sirius because of the 

coincidence of those particular heliacal risings, the grey heron (bnw) characterizing Venus is 

also shown perched on a tripod to accompany the ideogram b‘# of the "flood" whose star 

Sirius was usually the herald. Even if they saw in the phoenix a half-real half-legendary 

creature, ancient authors noted, however, that this particular bird characterized a specific 

era beginning at the time of an astronomical conjunction. 

The heliacal rising of Sirius marked the beginning of the religious year and it 

occurred at a relatively fixed date in the solar year, by contrast, the helical rising of Venus 

occurred on a date which changed each year because Venus has an orbital period of 224.7 

days. The two heliacal risings coincide (almost 1 day) when the number of draconitic years 

(passages to the same ascending nodes) gives the same duration, 8 years for the earth and 

13 years for Venus (8x365.25133 = 2922.01 days = 13x224.69889 = 2921.08 days) or 243 

years for the earth and 395 years for Venus (243x365.25133 = 88756.074 days =



395x224.69889 = 88756.063 days). To know the coincidence dates of the alignment of the 

earth, sun and a third body means determining the date on which these three bodies are 

aligned in a cone having an angle of 0.5° (apparent diameter of the sun). When this third 

body is the moon, we talk about eclipses, otherwise these are transits. The transit of 

Venus 193 has a period of 243 years for the ascending node and a sub-period of 105.5 years 

for the descending node. As there is a pseudo period of 8 years, this gives a complete cycle 

of 243 years decomposed as: 8—105,5—8—121,5 (= 243). The calculation of the date of 

the coincidence of the heliacal risings of Venus and Sirius looks like calculating the "transit 

of Venus in Sirius", which gives a period of 243 years when the two heliacal risings 

coincide and a sub-period of 103 years when the helical rising of Sirius coincides with a 

heliacal setting of Venus 194 . This problem is more complicated than a conventional transit 

because the arcus visionis of Venus and Sirius are different, 8.5° to 9° for Sirius and 4.5° to 

5.5° for Venus, which means that even when Sirius and Venus are in conjunction, Venus is 

seen about 5 days before Sirius (1° shift per day is covered in 4 minutes, because the earth 

rotates 360° in 24 hours and 365 days in 1 year). 

Transit of Venus 

The coincidences between the heliacal rising and setting of Sirius and Venus have 

been calculated by van Oosterhout 195 . The dates (below) with an asterisk are astronomical 

dates (for example -1455* = 1456 BCE) and dates in bold have been reported in some 

Egyptian documents by a heron with a star on its head: 

Heliopolis 

(243 years) -1558* -1315* -1072* -829* -586* -343* -100* 143 

+103 years -1455* -1202* -969* -726* -483* -240* 3 246 

Thebes 

(243 years) -1542* -1299* -1056 -813 -570 -327 -84 159 

+103 years -1439* -1196* -953* -710* -467* -224* 19 262 

The dates of this table can be shifted by plus or minus 8 years because of the 

pseudo 8-year period. An astronomical simulation 196 is used to select the best coincidence, 

for example, the one in -1455* (1456 BCE) is better in -1463* (= -1455* - 8). 

193 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/ephemerides/phenomenes/passages/html/saros.php 

194 http://www.imcce.fr/hosted_sites/vt2004/en/index.html 

195 G.W. VAN OOSTERHOUT – Sirius, Venus and the Egyptian Calendar 

in: Discussions in Egyptology 27 (1993) pp. 83-96. 

196 Héliopolis: longitude 31°20', latitude 30°05'; Thebes: longitude 32°39', latitude 25°42' 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yourhorizon


Astronomy allows us to reconstitute the extraordinary event that occurred at the 

beginning of year 9 of Thoumosis III (number "9" also means "lunar day 1" and "Ennead") 

when there was opening a new era of Phoenix. In 1464 the helical rising of Sirius 197 was 

held on July 16 at 2:06 UT (Universal Time) 198 in Heliopolis. It is possible to see the map of 

the sky as it appeared during this night (astronomically dated -1463*-07-16, azimuth 90°, 

field of view 90°). The image is obtained for a time of 2:15 UT, 9 minutes after the rising 

of Sirius (Venus, bottom left, and Sirius, bottom right, appear about 2 degrees above the 

horizon). 

Venus Sirius 

The star on the head of the Phoenix (left side) represents the setting of Venus 

heliacal coinciding with the heliacal rising of Sirius, located in the ankles (right side) of 

Sothis (associated to Isis representing Venus), Rigel is located in the toes of Orion. 

197 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/sothis/index.php 

198 It should be added 2h10m to the Universal Time UT in order to get the local time LT at Thebes, the sun rising at 2:51 UT or at 5:00 

LT and the solstice being occurred on July 6.



The reign of Thutmose III is fairly well known since its duration is known (53 years 

and 11 months), the date of his death (III Peret 30 year 54), the date of his accession (I 

Shemu 4) and the date of his reign without Hatshepsut (II Peret 10 year 22). The reign of 

Thutmose III beginning in 1472 on I Shemu 4, his year 23 started on April 21, 1450. The 

date I Shemu 21 Year 23 of Thutmose III is dated May 8, 1450 and II Peret 30 Year 24 

February 15, 1448. Both dates coincide with full moons (such coincidences occur only 

every 25 years). The reign of Thutmose III dated according to the lunar cycle of 25 years 

(years of reign at this time are counted from the date of accession not from I Akhet 1): 

AKHET PERET SHEMU 

Year I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV 5 

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. 

Thoutmosis III 1472 1 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 

1471 2 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 

1470 3 1 1 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 

1469 4 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 

1468 5 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 

1467 6 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 

1466 7 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 

1465 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 

1464 9 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 

1463 10 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 

1462 11 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 30 29 29 28 

1461 12 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 

1460 13 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 

1459 14 12 2 1 1 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 

1458 15 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 

1457 16 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 

1456 17 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 

1455 18 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 

1454 19 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 

1453 20 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 

1452 21 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 

1451 22 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 30 

1450 23 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 

1449 24 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 

1448 25 23 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 

1447 26 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 

1446 27 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 

Egyptian date Julian date Lunar phase 

Beginning of the 25-year lunar cycle I Akhet 1 August 26, -1471 Full moon 

Heliacal rising of Sirius and Venus III Shemu [27] year 9 July 16, -1464 Last quarter 

Culmination of Rigel III Akhet [23] year 9 November 14, -1464 Last quarter 

Lunar date of day 1 (psdntyw) I Shemu 21 year 23 May 8, -1450 Full moon 

Lunar date of day 1 (psdntyw) II Peret 30 year 24 February 16, -1448 Full moon 

Heliacal setting of Sirius I Shemu 29 year [25] May 15, -1448 Full moon 

Heliacal rising of Sirius III Shemu 28 year [25] July 13, -1448 Full moon 

The first lunar cycle of 25 years began in 1471 BCE on 1 st Thoth (I Akhet 1) or 

August 26, -1471 in the Julian calendar 199 and coincided with the 1 st lunar day (psdntyw) 

which was a full moon 200 . Note well that all astronomical events dated by the Egyptians 

have coincided with specific lunar phases (usually the full moon). Coincidences with the 

full moon explain why only certain Sothic dates were mentioned on inscriptions. The Buto 

199 http://chronosynchro.net/base.php?dir=conv&page=conv 

200 http://www.imcce.fr/fr/grandpublic/phenomenes/phases_lune/index.php


stele contains, for example, a Sothic setting dated just before I Shemu 30. It is indeed a 

Sothic setting, not a rising, for the following reason: between III Shemu 28 and I Shemu 29 

(year 25 of Thoutmosis III) there are 61 days and the difference between these Sothic dates 

would correspond to a shift of 244 years (= 4x61), which is impossible 201 . Moreover, the 

hieroglyph representing the "rise" actually means "go out" (two legs that walk surmounted 

by a horizontal bar) and not "arrive", confirming the representation (very rare) a Sothic 

setting occurring about 61 day before its rising. 

Sothic setting I Shemu 29 

IV Peret 1 feast of ak-pt (...) 

I Shemu 4, feast of the coronation of King Mn-Hpr-Ra [Thutmose III] (...) 

Going out of Sirius, according to its days of crossing (...) 

I Shemu last day [30], feast of Mrt (...) 

Between the Sothic setting (above) dated I Shemu 29 (day before I Shemu 30) and 

the Sothic rising dated III Shemu 28 there is a period of 61 days of invisibility, not 70 days. 

This discrepancy could be explained by the fact that this period decreases about 1.5 day for 

each degree of latitude towards the south, which gives 67 days at Buto (latitude 31.1°) and 

59 days at Thebes (latitude 25.7°). This period of invisibility is different from the Egyptian 

texts that indicate 70 days. This discrepancy with astronomy shows the religious role of 

astronomy in Egypt. Indeed, at that time 202 , the period of invisibility of Sirius is about 65 

days at the latitude of Buto, 63 days at the latitude of Memphis, etc. Even assuming good 

observing conditions (arcus visionis of 8° for Sothic rising and of 6.5° for setting) a period of 

67 days (by simulation) yields at the latitude of Buto, not 70 days as the Egyptian texts 

indicate. This period of 70 days actually covered 7 symbolic decans 203 , the whole year being 

covered by 36 decans or 360 days (= 12x30). 


London 1999 Ed. Periplus pp. 42, 44 note 15. 

202 M.F. INGHAM – The Lenght of the Sothic Cycle 

in: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 55 (1969) pp. 36-40. 

J. CONMAN – It's About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology 

in: Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Band 31 (2003) pp. 42-47. 

203 A.S. VON BOMHARD – Le livre du ciel. De l'observation astronomique à la mythologie 

in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150 (2007) Ed. Uitgeverij Peeters pp. 202-205.



The Egyptian lunar calendar was not used for the dating of documents contrary to 

its Babylonian counterpart, but it served only to fix the beginning of religious festivals 

related to the moon. Its working was very simple: the 1 st lunar day (psdntyw) was fixed by an 

observation (of full moon) which allowed one to determine the all cycle of festivals during 

this lunar month. The names of the lunar months was the same as the calendar months 

with usually one month advance. When the full moon (lunar day 1) fell in the same civil 

month, or on an epagomenal day, the name of the lunar month remained the same. It 

happened as if the Egyptian calendar had nine intercalary months (highlighted). In the 

Egyptian papyrus Carlsberg 9 (column III lines 9-21), dated 144 CE, there is a list of 9 

“great” years of 13 months and of the 16 “small” years of 12 months 204 . 

Babylonian Egyptian AKHET PERET SHEMU 

cycle cycle I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV (5) 

14A 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 

15 2 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 

16 3 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 

17U 4 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 

18 5 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 

19A 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 

1 7 25 25 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 

2 8 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 

3A 9 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 29 29 28 

4 10 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 

5 11 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 

6A 12 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 

7 13 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 

8A 14 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 

9 15 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 24 24 

10 16 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 

11A 17 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 

12 18 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 

13 19 16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 

14A 20 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1/30 30 

15 21 24 24 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 

16 22 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 

17U 23 3 2 2 1 1/30 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 

18 24 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 

19A 25 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 

This Egyptian lunar cycle of 25 years remained stable over at least 525 years since it 

appears only a slight difference of 0.0483 day at the end of the cycle (which implies 1 day 

more after 21 cycles): 

25 civil years = 25x365 = 9125 days 

25 lunar years = (25x12 + 9)x29.530588 = 9124.9517 days 

Coincidentally the ratio of intercalary years compared to normal years was the same 

in both systems: 0.36 (9/25) for the Egyptian cycle and 0.37 for the Babylonian one (7/19). 

The intercalary years had no role in the Egyptian lunar calendar since it was only a rough 

correspondence with the months of the calendar year which was almost solar (365 days 

instead of 365.24219). From the Ptolemaic era, Egyptian astronomers used a lunar cycle 

starting on the new moon instead of the full moon, but the coincidences have remained 

almost the same as can be seen in the papyrus Rylands Inv. 666 205 (dated October -180). 

204 L. DEPUYDT - The Demotic Mathematical Astronomical Papyrus Carlsberg 9 Reinterpreted 

in: Egyptian Religion the Last Thousand Years (Peeters, 1998) pp. 1277-1297 

205 E.G. TURNER, O. NEUGEBAUER - Gymnasium Debts and New Moons 

in: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Vol. 32 (1949) pp. 80-96.


From the Fifth Dynasty the relationship between years of reign and census seems 

to work 206 . The first years of the reign of Djedkare Isesi reconstructed thanks to several 

livestock census 207 , shows however that intercalary years were, at that time (Fifth Dynasty), 

associated with "years after". This reconstruction (below) also shows that these censuses 

were not biannual, but with a ratio of 1.6 (= 30/19). In addition, the ratio of years "after" 

compared to normal years, for the first 8 years of the reign (those ones attested have been 

highlighted), is 0.37 (= 11/30 which is the value for a cycle with intercalary months. 

Festival 

Djedkarâ number of lunar 13 12 Name of the year 

Year months in the year 

1 12 1 Beginning 

2 12 2 Year of the 1st occasion 

3 13 1 Year after the 1st occasion 

4 12 3 Year of the 2nd occasion 

5 12 4 Year of the 3rd occasion 

6 13 2 Year after the 3rd occasion 

7 12 5 Year of the 4th occasion 

8 13 3 Year after the 4th occasion 



11 [13?] 4 Year after the 6th occasion 



















heb-seb 30 12 19 Year of the 18th occasion 

The theoretical ratio between the number of years of reign and the number of years 

of occasion, or census, is 1.6 (= 25/16). For example, the date of Pepy's first heb-sed (jubilee 

after 30 years of reign) is associated with the year of his 18 th census 208 (1.6 = 30/19). 

According to astronomy 209 Snofru's reign is dated 2526-2480 (= 46 years +/- 7 years) 

which is in agreement with the minimum length of 38 years (= 24x1.6) computed from the 

number of census (24). 

206 G. GREENBERG – Manetho. A Study i Egyptian Chronology. 

Pennsylvania 2004 Ed. MPM8 pp. 147,171,184. 

207 J.S. NOLAN – Lunar intercalations and "cattle counts" during the Old Kingdom: the Hebsed in context 

in: Chronology and Archaeology in Ancient Egypt. Ed. Czech Institute of Egyptology, Prague 2008, pp. 44-60. 

208 M. VERNER – Archaeological Remarks on the 4th and 5th Dynasty Chronology 

in: Archiv Orientalni 69:3 (2001) Ed. Brill pp. 363-418. 

M. BAUD – The Relative Chronology of Dynasties 6 and 8 

in: Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden 2006) Ed. Brill pp. 144-157. 

209 K. SPENCE – Ancient Egyptian Chronology and Astronomical Orientation of the Pyramids 

in: Nature Vol. 408 (November 2000) pp. 320-324.

Dating the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?