Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker2000
Then they go on to mention another document, "a cuneiform tablet found in the excavation campaign of 1930-31 in Ur, dealing with the rearrangement of land parcels among four brothers. The agreement [...] states that the original arrangement had been signed in the month Kislimu of the 21st year of Xerxes." Kislimu 1 in the 21st year of Xerxes is Dec 17 of 465 BC, as one can see in the tables of Parker and Dubberstein, making this the earliest date on which this document could have been written. They argue that the people in Ur must have regarded King Xerxes as still alive on that date, Dec 17 of 465 BC, because otherwise they would have mentioned the accession year of Artaxerxes I in the document's date.
However, the papyrus AP 6 is dated to Jan 3rd of 464 BC and in that papyrus Artaxerxes I is already mentioned as the successor of Xerxes. Because of this it follows that Xerxes must have died between those two dates, at some point between Dec 17 of 465 BC and Jan 3rd of 464 BC.
|
I have found further discussion of this part of Horn and Wood's reasoning. In "From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentecontaetia" by E. Badian the following is mentioned on page 188:
http://books.google.de/books?id=nj5O...page&q&f=false
Quote:
|
[...] About the same time, it was reported that in an unpublished tablet the scribe still dated by the 21st year of Xerxes in Kislimu (December-January) 465/4; while at distant Elephantine Artaxerxes' accession was known by January 2-3, 464 (see JNES 13 [1954] 8-9 [Oxford 1923] no. 6). M.W. Stolper, JHS 108 (1988) 196-97, has now published the relevant part of the eclipse text that dates Xerxes' death within a few days in August 465 and has shown that the supposed reference to Xerxes as alive by Kislimu (December 465) rests on a misreading of a contract, which in fact does not mention a month or day at all.
|
The cited text by Stolper is available online. Stolper argues that Horn and Wood misinterpreted the writing on the tablet from Ur which would invalidate their argument for a December death date of Xerxes. Stolper sounds convincing but of course I don't have any knowledge of cuneiform myself so that I can't comment on the cuneiform reading.
You can find M.W. Stolper's arguing at Archive.org:
"Stolper, M, 1988, Some Ghost Facts from Achaemenid Babylonian Texts, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 108: pp. 196-198"
http://archive.org/details/SomeGhost...abylonianTexts
02-09-2013, 04:49 AM
