Re: The Parian Marble Chronology


"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:DYadnalmze2Yi2PeRVnytw@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:x8SdnRFscKaTbWDenZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I've finally managed to track down a translation if it.

Some times the translator has filled in the gaps incorrectly like in line 27 where he's inserted Menestheus insted of Medon and Neleus insted of Neileus.

In the missing fragment the dates of the events such as the Trojan War are nearly 3 decades out when compared to Diodorus and Jerome who are using the same figures, and even the extant fragments which are mostly within about a decade of Jerome's dates for the same events.

The dates for the Athens Archons have an error margin of atleast +/-1 years since some events which happened in the second half of their reign are being given as if the occurred in the first. For example the date for the Battle of Marathon is given by the translator as 491 BC when it should be 490. The date for [Ph]ain[i]p[pid]es can't be 491 since Pausanius places 491 Hybrilides in that year.

Anther problem is that the inscription claims that the annual Archonship began in 684 BC but Pausanius places Tlesias in 685 BC (4.15.1) and and Jerome says that Creon was the first Archon so that means someone must be at least 2 years out. Also since the Marble places Lysia[des] as Archon 2 years after the author claims the annual Archonship began its not possible to work out the correct order of succession, Creon, Tlesias, Lysiades or Creon, Lysiades, Tlesias.

Pausanius dates the 10 yearly Archons as starting in 758 or 757 BC depending on how you read 4.5.10 and 4.13.7 but this does not work with Diodorus or Jeromes dating of the end of the Trojan War at 1183 BC which causes a 3 or 2 year overlap with the reigns of the last lifetime Archons as given be Jerome.

It could be possible that Pausanius archon list duplicated more than one year when two archons ruled during the same year such as 411/10 when Theopompos and Mnasilochos ruled one after the other when one of them died in office. That would at least knock a year of Pausanius early dates but that would make Tlesias the first annual archon so there must be at least another year that needs to be knocked off. In that case Creon, Tlesias and Lysiades would be the first 3 annual archons in 684, 683 and 682 BC.


Allright let me continue talking to myself.

I've have a read of Aristotle Athenian Constitution and Jerome's Chronicon and have learned that in about 588 and 583 BC there was no Archon elected at Athens according to Aristotle.

Jerome according to the Roger Pearse et al translation says that the Annual Archonship began in 683 BC whereas the Parian Marble says 684 but all the Parian Marble Archons 399 BC that are known from Diodorus are one year too early, thus the Parian Marble dates beffre 399 should be corrected by subtracting one year to give 683 for the Annual Archonship the same date as Jerome.

Now Jerome gives the date for the Capture of Troy as 1181 BC whereas Diodorus gives a date of 1183 BC as does Tatian therefore I propose that Jerome's Archons list is 2 archons too short, ie. two years have not been added for the years Archonship was vacant. If two years are then added to Jerome and the Parian Marble dates prior to all dates prior to 588 BC after subtracting one year from the Parian Marble dates as discussed above the this should bring all of these three chronologies in line. This puts Solons Archonship in 595 BC rather than 593 as given by Jerome and it means that all dates from Jerome between and including 588 and 585 BC should have a year added and those before 588 starting at 589 should have two years added.

Of course there is still the problem with Pausanius who puts Tlesias in 685 BC instead of Creon who he would have placed in 688 BC but he could be counting 3 extra archons if 3 archons died in office and were replaced in the same year. The only trouble is I can't figure out where to correct his dates since the Archon lists are incomplete.

There is another possible solution in that Jerome and the Parian Marble screwed up the Agid Spartan king list (whereas Diodorus does not since he uses the Eurpontid list) and used that as their baseline instead of the Athens Archons and then counted Archons both ways and missed all the archons in the middle but that is too complicated.


The date for the death of Darius is wrong as is his date for Alyattes reign. The missing section on like 682 could be referring to the Battle of the

line 33

Great trench is Pausnius chronology of the Second Messenian War is followed.


For the Greek text go to
http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/ash/faqs/q004/q004007.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Parian Marble Chronology
    ... In the missing fragment the dates of the events such as the Trojan War are nearly 3 decades out when compared to Diodorus and Jerome who are using the same figures, and even the extant fragments which are mostly within about a decade of Jerome's dates for the same events. ... The dates for the Athens Archons have an error margin of atleast +/-1 years since some events which happened in the second half of their reign are being given as if the occurred in the first. ... Anther problem is that the inscription claims that the annual Archonship began in 684 BC but Pausanius places Tlesias in 685 BC and and Jerome says that Creon was the first Archon so that means someone must be at least 2 years out. ... Jerome according to the Roger Pearse et al translation says that the Annual Archonship began in 683 BC whereas the Parian Marble says 684 but all the Parian Marble Archons 399 BC that are known from Diodorus are one year too early, thus the Parian Marble dates beffre 399 should be corrected by subtracting one year to give 683 for the Annual Archonship the same date as Jerome. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: The Parian Marble Chronology
    ... Some times the translator has filled in the gaps incorrectly like in line 27 where he's inserted Menestheus insted of Medon and Neleus insted of Neileus. ... In the missing fragment the dates of the events such as the Trojan War are nearly 3 decades out when compared to Diodorus and Jerome who are using the same figures, and even the extant fragments which are mostly within about a decade of Jerome's dates for the same events. ... The dates for the Athens Archons have an error margin of atleast +/-1 years since some events which happened in the second half of their reign are being given as if the occurred in the first. ... Jerome according to the Roger Pearse et al translation says that the Annual Archonship began in 683 BC whereas the Parian Marble says 684 but all the Parian Marble Archons 399 BC that are known from Diodorus are one year too early, thus the Parian Marble dates beffre 399 should be corrected by subtracting one year to give 683 for the Annual Archonship the same date as Jerome. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: The Parian Marble Chronology
    ... Some times the translator has filled in the gaps incorrectly like in line 27 where he's inserted Menestheus insted of Medon and Neleus insted of Neileus. ... In the missing fragment the dates of the events such as the Trojan War are nearly 3 decades out when compared to Diodorus and Jerome who are using the same figures, and even the extant fragments which are mostly within about a decade of Jerome's dates for the same events. ... The dates for the Athens Archons have an error margin of atleast +/-1 years since some events which happened in the second half of their reign are being given as if the occurred in the first. ... Now Jerome gives the date for the Capture of Troy as 1181 BC whereas Diodorus gives a date of 1183 BC as does Tatian therefore I propose that Jerome's Archons list is 2 archons too short, ie. two years have not been added for the years Archonship was vacant. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: The Parian Marble Chronology
    ... In the missing fragment the dates of the events such as the Trojan War are nearly 3 decades out when compared to Diodorus and Jerome who are using the same figures, and even the extant fragments which are mostly within about a decade of Jerome's dates for the same events. ... The dates for the Athens Archons have an error margin of atleast +/-1 years since some events which happened in the second half of their reign are being given as if the occurred in the first. ... Anther problem is that the inscription claims that the annual Archonship began in 684 BC but Pausanius places Tlesias in 685 BC and and Jerome says that Creon was the first Archon so that means someone must be at least 2 years out. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: The Parian Marble Chronology
    ... Some times the translator has filled in the gaps incorrectly like in line 27 where he's inserted Menestheus insted of Medon and Neleus insted of Neileus. ... In the missing fragment the dates of the events such as the Trojan War are nearly 3 decades out when compared to Diodorus and Jerome who are using the same figures, and even the extant fragments which are mostly within about a decade of Jerome's dates for the same events. ... The dates for the Athens Archons have an error margin of atleast +/-1 years since some events which happened in the second half of their reign are being given as if the occurred in the first. ... Jerome according to the Roger Pearse et al translation says that the Annual Archonship began in 683 BC whereas the Parian Marble says 684 but all the Parian Marble Archons 399 BC that are known from Diodorus are one year too early, thus the Parian Marble dates beffre 399 should be corrected by subtracting one year to give 683 for the Annual Archonship the same date as Jerome. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)