Re: The Parian Marble Chronology


"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Fq6dnbgbRfHY3J_ZRVnygQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:C46dnW381YGNoZ_ZRVnysQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:75KdnYhQNaVMXJzZRVnyhg@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Sa2dnQYA48OoJmLenZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:O-idnUkjltpXGGLeRVny0Q@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"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.


Yes why not.

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.

I think I've solved it.

In 4.23.10 Pausanius places Miltiades 668 and in 8.39.3 he places Miltiades in 659 BC 5 years earlier. This 5 year gap is the error in Pausanius Archon date for the first Annual Archon when compared with Jerome so all of Pausanius dates before 659 BC need to be lowered by 5 years so Tlesias belongs in 680 BC instead of 695.

Now all that remains is solving the problem with Diodorus and Tatian who date the Trojen War 2 years before Jerome does. I might be able to say who

I might have found the solution.

According to the Parian Marble inscription the Greeks marched againt Troy in the 13th year of Menestheus and Troy was taken in the [2]2nd* Year of Menestheus thus the Trojan War is reckoned at 9 rather than 10 years. Since Menestheus reigned for 23 years according to Jerome if Diodorus is using the same figues 1 year of the 2 year discrepancy can be accounted for since Jerome reckons the length of the war as 10 years but says " Menestheus dies in Melos returning from captured Troy, after whom Demophoon reigned at Athens." Thus the was probably 9 years (which is when Homer begins) and 3 to 6 months and then they spend about 2 months arguing on what day to return.

Now in Book 13.1.1 Diodorus says this "eis hon apo Troias halôseôs estin etê heptakosia hexêkonta oktô: " After Troy was taken up untill now there is 768 years.

From the Archons and Olympiads he gives next the year Diodorus is talking about is 415 BC so if you add 768 you get 1183 but that is not the way the Ancient Greeks counted. The Ancient Greeks counted the first year as one thus Diodorus is counting from 1182 BC and this is the 22nd Year of Menestheus as given by Jerome (see Roger Pearse et al.)

Problem solved !

The Parian Marble inscription seems to have duplicated the 27 year reign of the Archon Thespieus which is why all the recoverable dates prior to Aeschylus are too early even though the events when compared to Jerome are in the reign of the correct king.

So if anyone wants to know when Troy was taken it was on the 7th day before the end of the month Thargelion 1182 BC about 16 May 1182 BC** !

Oh dear dear dear.... I've made a stupid error. Athenian years began in July so 16 May 1182 is actually in the Athenian year 1183/2 and cannot by the correct year. We need 1182/81 so the capture of Troy has to be around about 5 June 1181 BC instead which means if the war began in July 1191 BC it lasted 9 years and 11 months.



Ain't I cleaver......!

Too cleaver by half.



*The 20 part of 22 is an insertion in a lacuna by the translator but since the next event in the chronology happens one year later it is impossible for 22 to have been a mistake for 23 or another number greater than 22.

**Taking into account the Total Solar Eclipse of Jan 12 1183 meaning that the following day was 1 Gamelion and going back to the previous year to find Thargelion.

Someone check the positions of the moon on 5 June 1181 BC to make sure.


11 June 1181 works out better for the above and explains why Jerome says Troy fell in 1181/80 but Diodorus says 1182/81 and the Parian Marble puts the length of the war at 9 years since there were only 19 days before the Athenian years changed and 10 years had not yet expired. It also explains why other writers say Troy fell in Scirophoron.

Parian Marble

"24) From when Troy was taken, 945 years, in the <2>2nd year that [Menesthe]us was king of Athens, on the 7th day before the end of the month Th[argelio]n. "

Eusbius Preparation of the Gospel book 10

"'And in the eighteenth year of the reign of Agamemnon Troy was taken, in the first year of the reign in Athens of Demophon son of Theseus, on the twelfth day of the month Thargelion, as Dionysius the Argive says.
'But Agius and Dercylus in their third Book say, on the eighth day of the last decade of the month Panemus: Hellanicus says, on the twelfth of Thargelion; and some of the writers of Athenian history say, on the eighth of the last decade, in the last year of the reign of Menestheus, at the full moon. The poet who wrote The Little Iliad says:

"At midnight, when the moon was rising bright." 47

But others say, on the same day of the month Scirophorion. "

So the other dates for the above would be in order 11 June 1181 (Parian Marble), 31 May 1181 (Dionysius), Panemus ? (Agius and Dercylus), 31 May 1181 (Hellanicus), 16 June 1181 (Athenians 28 of month) or 3 June 1181 (Athenians full moon) (there's no way there can be a full moon on the 28th day of the month so there must be an error in translation), 3 June 1181 (Little Iliad), 15 July 1181 (Scirophorion) (unless they mean at the full moon in which case 1 July 1181).




is right or wrong if someone can tell me where Robert Graves gets the age of Aegisthus (7 years) in 111j of his Greek Myths. He claims its from Hyginus or Apollodorus but its not in any copy of these texts that I have so has he made it up ?


Right then don't talk to me.



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.

I've changed my mind after reading Aristotle in the Greek and I'm going for the above explanation instead.

XIII. tên men oun apodêmian epoiêsato dia tautas tas aitias. Solônos d' apodêmêsantos, eti tês poleôs tetaragmenês epi men etê tettara diêgon en hêsukhiai: tôi de pemptôi meta tên Solônos arkhên ou katestêsan arkhonta dia tên stasin, kai palin etei pemptôi dia tên autên aitian anarkhian epoiêsan. [2] meta de tauta dia tôn autôn khronôn Damasias hairetheis arkhôn etê duo kai duo mênas êrxen, heôs exêlathê biai tês arkhês. eit' edoxen autois dia to stasiazein arkhontas helesthai deka, pente men eupatridôn, treis de agroikôn, duo de dêmiourgôn, kai houtoi ton meta Damasian êrxan eniauton. hôi kai dêlon hoti megistên eikhen dunamin ho arkhôn: phainontai gar aiei stasiazontes peri tautês tês arkhês.

593 Solon Jerome+0
592
591
590
589 <suspended>
588
587
586
585 <suspended>
584
583
582
581 Damasias PM -1



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
    ... 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. ...
    (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. ... 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)
  • 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)