A Candle for Alexander

[Fiona]

The date rendered by those whose task it was to note these things - amongst others - in the "Astronomical Diaries" would be June 11 323 BC.

It's not that important so I'd just pick a comfortable date and go with it.

That's true - well, we'll stick with 10th for this year, as it's already been arranged, and maybe go for a more accurate date next time.
Thanks Paralus.
Fiona

[Phryne]

Hello there!Is it the 10th of June when the candle for Alexander will take place this year?I think I am going to join you guys

[Tantalus]

Just to join in -

On this page, http://parthian-empire.com/articleListPage.php you will find this article,

The Calendar of the Two Death-Dates of Alexander III by G. R. F. Assar, Oxford, UK (2 October 2008).

I've had trouble getting back to the web page so here's the direct link:

http://parthian-empire.com/articles/Cal ... dates3.pdf

The content goes beyond the title and gets a little complicated and tedious when correlating the Attic and Macedonian Months in the Metonic Civil Calendar, and Callippic Civil Calendar, with those in the Babylonian Lunisolar Calendar.

But some may find it interesting.

In short it says what has already been posted:

"We may, therefore, combine the astronomical data in the BM 45962 and 34075 cuneiform fragments with the above reference to Alexander’s demise and conclude that the Macedonian ruler died sometime between the sunrise and sunset (16:02 UT) of 11 June 323 BC."

(Note - after downloading 3 different pdfs I couldn't get any more. And then I couldn't get back to the web page. The server was either having a problem then or there is a limit on how much you can download per a time period. So try later if you can't get it.)



In reading around, the following article seems to be given credibility by others. Heckel references the article in his book The Conquests of Alexander the Great. I've been looking for the article for a while but can't find a copy:

Leo Depuydt, "The Time of Death of Alexander the Great: 11 June 323 BC, ca. 4:00-5:00 PM" in: Die Welt des Orients 28 (1997) 117-135.


Addendum - FYI, I just found that you can order the article here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2462756

It's 14.59 Euros and they only send you a paper copy, not any kind of digital document.

Articles are slowly, drop by drop, making me broke.

[Phryne]

Hey Tantalus!Thank you!I downloaded the first article you recommended. I am going to read it just now Btw, its mentioned at the webite(homepage) that its under construction at the moment and this could be the reason you cannot get more than 3 articles, idk. As for the second article, it is very interesting given the credibility and all , but I am afraid I cannot spent more money on Alexander at the moment. My obsession is draining my budget slowly too *feels like a helpless vampire victim*
-No offense meant, dear Alex-

[Fiona]

Hello Phryne, it would be great if you could join in too. I will send you a pm with the details.
Cheers,
Fiona

Hello there!Is it the 10th of June when the candle for Alexander will take place this year?I think I am going to join you guys

[marcus]

"We may, therefore, combine the astronomical data in the BM 45962 and 34075 cuneiform fragments with the above reference to Alexander’s demise and conclude that the Macedonian ruler died sometime between the sunrise and sunset (16:02 UT) of 11 June 323 BC."

4.30pm was the last time I read, based on the astronomical data.

ATB

[Taphoi]

We may, therefore, combine the astronomical data in the BM 45962 and 34075 cuneiform fragments with the above reference to Alexander’s demise and conclude that the Macedonian ruler died sometime between the sunrise and sunset (16:02 UT) of 11 June 323 BC.

With respect to Assar we may not quite reach that conclusion, because we are actually considering three different events, which need not (and probably could not) have been simultaneous:

1) The death of Alexander the Great
2) The pronouncement of the death of Alexander the Great (e.g. by his doctors)
3) The public announcement of the pronouncement of the death of Alexander the Great

The Babylonian tablet and Aristobulus were probably eyewitnesses of the public announcement. They seem to agree that this took place on 11th June - Julian Calendar (=30th Daisios in the Macedonian Calendar and approx 6th June in the Gregorian Calendar, i.e. today). I see no reason to disbelieve them.

Eumenes, the author of the Ephemerides, was probably an eyewitness to the pronouncement of Alexander's death within the palace. He wrote that it happened towards evening on 28th Daisios, which is 10th June (Julian). The authority of this statement is also extremely good: for example, I have shown in my Ancient History Bulletin article on the subject that Plutarch used an antique Athenian formula for expressing the dates that he quoted from Eumenes, which fell out of fashion in the last quarter of the 4th century BC.

If it is possible to find a way for all three of these excellent references to agree upon this matter, then that is what we should believe. In fact it is not only possible, but also easy: Alexander probably was pronounced dead on the evening of 10th June, but the Friends and Bodyguards delayed the public announcement until the following morning. That they were capable of keeping the matter secret for a while is shown by the fact that the army had suspected they were doing so a couple of days earlier, which is what led to the famous audience with the troops. That they were motivated to do so is shown by the same event: they knew that the army might riot at the news, so they would hardly have wished to make it known as darkness was falling.

Therefore 10th June Julian is the preferable date, but it remains possible that actual death occurred days later, if Alexander had entered a profound terminal coma - the scenario indicated by malaria, which is the most likely cause of death.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Alexander probably was pronounced dead on the evening of 10th June, but the Friends and Bodyguards delayed the public announcement until the following morning... they knew that the army might riot at the news, so they would hardly have wished to make it known as darkness was falling.

Anything is possible. His death may indeed have been kept secret amongst the Friends overnight for fear of the army. We cannot know that for certain though.

The Astronomical Diaries are the nearest we have to an "official record". These were not necessarily written (or commited to tablet) on the day of the observation. Hence the information on AD 1-322B (obv 8) that squarely dates the death to June 11 may well have been (and most likely was) written after the events and observations described upon it.

The death occurred Babylon and the Chaldeans responsible for recording these tablets will have been well informed. If the date was different than the "announcement" it is likely to have been found out subsequently. Unless the Friends were exceptionally good at keeping a secret after it no longer mattered.

I'm personally happy to take the word of the Babylonian "births deaths and marriages" (the Astronomical Diaries) in this regard.

[marcus]

The death occurred Babylon and the Chaldeans responsible for recording these tablets will have been well informed. If the date was different than the "announcement" it is likely to have been found out subsequently. Unless the Friends were exceptionally good at keeping a secret after it no longer mattered.

I'm personally happy to take the word of the Babylonian "births deaths and marriages" (the Astronomical Diaries) in this regard.

I agree; and I would imagine that the people who recorded the events in the astronomical diaries were keen to make as accurate a record as possible, so would have verified the exact time of death when they came to write it up later (or "inscribe it up", if you prefer - or, I suppose, "punch it up" is even more accurate, considering the fact that the writing is in cuneiform).

So I work on the basis that, if the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries say 4.30pm on 11 June ... I ain't gonna argue with them!

ATB

[Taphoi]

So I work on the basis that, if the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries say 4.30pm on 11 June ... I ain't gonna argue with them!

Hi Marcus,

Unfortunately the rather grandly named notes known as the Astronomical Diaries did not say that Alexander died at 16:30 or even at 16:02. Those times are for the Babylonian sunset in Universal Time (UT) - which is essentially the same as GMT. So the modern chronologists are merely trying to say that the sunset in Babylon was just after 19:00 local time in Babylon that day.

The tablet only said that the king died that day. It has been inferred by modern chronologists that the king must have been Alexander (he is not named) and they have inferred that the tablet was referring to daylight hours (hence the significance of the time of local sunset). I think some people have used the mention of "towards sunset" in the Ephemerides to focus upon the sunset point on the tablet date of 11th June Julian. But that is curious - if the time of day is correct in Eumenes' acount, why would the date itself be wrong?

In arguing that the king must have died on 11th June, because that was the date mentioned by the Astronomical Diaries, you are implicitly asserting that Eumenes, who was keeping the official Royal Journal for Alexander, was wrong about the date, even though he is stated to have been present in Babylon by many sources. Perhaps you would like to explain how you think Eumenes could have been wrong about the date, when he was recording it every day in his Royal Journal entry? Because I find it far easier to believe that the Friends waited ~10 hours to announce Alexander's death the next morning. The Friends would obviously not have been keen to reveal to the irascible troops that they had delayed the announcement, so I imagine they probably never mentioned it. I expect that the Astronomers were keen to record the official announcement and not unofficial rumours - there had been other rumours of Alexander's death before it actually happened. Why should they have taken the last rumour any more seriously?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

So I work on the basis that, if the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries say 4.30pm on 11 June ... I ain't gonna argue with them!

Hi Marcus,

Unfortunately the rather grandly named notes known as the Astronomical Diaries did not say that Alexander died at 16:30 or even at 16:02. Those times are for the Babylonian sunset in Universal Time (UT) - which is essentially the same as GMT. So the modern chronologists are merely trying to say that the sunset in Babylon was just after 19:00 local time in Babylon that day.

Hi Andrew,

I will make no pretence at knowing all the data, etc. As I mentioned in my earlier note, I'm just going by the last date that I read, which is in:

Wheatley, P., "The Diadochi, or Successors to Alexander", in Heckel, W. and Tritle, Lawrence A., Alexander the Great: A New History, Blackwell (2009), page 53 (and n.1).

Beyond that, I am unable to discuss the minutiae of the various source traditions. So you might well be right, and I am certainly not qualified to argue the point ...

ATB

[Paralus]

Unfortunately the rather grandly named notes known as the Astronomical Diaries did not say that Alexander died at 16:30 or even at 16:02. Those times are for the Babylonian sunset in Universal Time (UT) - which is essentially the same as GMT. So the modern chronologists are merely trying to say that the sunset in Babylon was just after 19:00 local time in Babylon that day.

The tablet only said that the king died that day. It has been inferred by modern chronologists that the king must have been Alexander (he is not named) and they have inferred that the tablet was referring to daylight hours (hence the significance of the time of local sunset).

Chaldeans, in Babylon, clearly did not need to name Alexander as the king who died. They are clearly noting the death of the "King of Asia" who happened to have died in Babylon.

The tablet (AD 1-322B obv 8) indicates a daylight observation and not night, hence the the acceptance that Alexander died during the day (night observations having a different indicator). "Grandly named notes" or not they are an important primary source and crucial (along with the "Successor Chronicle") in the chronology of the early (323-308) Diadoch period. Indeed, were it not for these tablets we would be almost totally unaware of the major campaign by Antigonus (over 310-308) where he lost the "upper" satrapies to his ultimate nemesis Seleucus

In arguing that the king must have died on 11th June, because that was the date mentioned by the Astronomical Diaries, you are implicitly asserting that Eumenes, who was keeping the official Royal Journal for Alexander, was wrong about the date, even though he is stated to have been present in Babylon by many sources.

The corollary of that logic is that the Ephemerides are unimpeachable as a source for these events in Babylon. I'd suggest that a source which includes an episode, relating to death of the king, taking place in an anachronistically located temple to Serapis might be far from that. There remains considerable doubt about just when this document was written. The clear implication is not at the time of the events.

[Taphoi]

I don't really disagree with most of Paralus' remarks. I too regard the tablet as an important source despite its brevity and imprecision. I hope the latter are now clear to anyone who was misled by the mentions of specific times into thinking that the tablet was precise [and should therefore be regarded as a precise record of the time of death.] That is a fallacy: it is only the Ephemerides that give specific information on the time of day of the pronouncement of Alexander's death.

The corollary of that logic is that the Ephemerides are unimpeachable as a source for these events in Babylon. I'd suggest that a source which includes an episode, relating to death of the king, taking place in an anachronistically located temple to Serapis might be far from that. There remains considerable doubt about just when this document was written. The clear implication is not at the time of the events.

My stance is that no source is ever "unimpeachable", but I can assure Pothosians that the authority of the Ephemerides is extremely good - at least as good as any other source on Alexander that I know including the Babylonian tablet.

Paralus: you might like to note that the mention of Serapis is not necessarily anachronistic. The name is a contraction of Osiris-Apis, which is the divine manifestation of the Egyptian Apis bull after its death. Alexander sacrificed to the Apis bull at Memphis and the temple of Osiris-Apis (usually known as the Serapeum) had existed at Saqqara since at least the New Kingdom of the pharaohs. Hence Marduk, the bull-god of Babylon, might have been referred to as Serapis by Eumenes.

Personally, I think it is more likely that an Alexandrian scribe translated the name of the healing bull-god of Babylon into the name of the healing bull-god of Alexandria, in the context of one of the inevitable transcriptions of the document.

In either case, this detail does not detract from the authority of the document - its author had presumably encountered a healing bull-god in Babylon, which we know is correct.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

I have read that explanation of the appearance of Serapis in the Ephemerides before and it is possible; the biggest problem I have with them as real extant documents is that they are cited only for the last month of Alexander's life (assuming Aelian to have garbled the month, no great leap of imagination required there). The entries are singularly dull too with an emphasis on partying, ommitted by Aristoboulos and Arrian who only begin with Medius' party. This all makes them look more like a pamphlet in a later propaganda campaign and not a genuine extract from a real Journal. The authorship of Eumenes ought not to be considered necessarily sound either, it being common practice to ascribe works to likely authors rather than the actual ones viz the various debatable speeches of Demosthenes or works of Aristotle, the letter of Isokrates to Antipater too (which may contain a reference to Eumenes' alleged collaborator from Erythrae whose name escapes me, doh!).

I would put more faith in the Babylonians, they were recordingthe deaths of kings in order to discover the astronomical signs portending them, rather than just as matters of interest so they had an interest in the actual date of his death, also the Chaldaeans were in attendance at the Palace and may, if another pamphlet has any worth have numbered among the physicians.

[Paralus]

I don't really disagree with most of Paralus' remarks. I too regard the tablet as an important source despite its brevity and imprecision.

Brevity certainly; imprecision is too strong. The tablets are very precise – astronomically speaking. The notes attached, too, can be detailed (commodity prices, the level of the Euphrates for example). Those notations that we consider “historical” – such as this one – are often as dry as a fossil. For instance we have the not too well preserved tablet (330 I think) which preserves details of what would seem to be Alexander’s negotiations with certain Babylonians wherein he promises to restore the temples and Esagila. This presumably led to the surrender of Babylon without bloodshed.

In the instance under discussion the Chaldeans simply noted the death of the king: this was the king of Babylon (Alexander) and needed little elaboration. They were finicky buggers and I doubt they'd have the date incorrect.

Paralus: you might like to note that the mention of Serapis is not necessarily anachronistic. The name is a contraction of Osiris-Apis, which is the divine manifestation of the Egyptian Apis bull after its death. Alexander sacrificed to the Apis bull at Memphis and the temple of Osiris-Apis (usually known as the Serapeum) had existed at Saqqara since at least the New Kingdom of the pharaohs. Hence Marduk, the bull-god of Babylon, might have been referred to as Serapis by Eumenes.

The Serapeum was above the burial catacombs that stored the interred remains of the Apis bulls. It was from here that the bull made the occasional public “appearance” (for want of a better word). The actual cult to “Serapis” – as a discrete cult with its own temples and later to flourish under Rome – began later under Ptolemy Soter.

I’m not at all certain that we could describe Marduk as a “bull-god”. His name is translated as “the son of the sun” or, sometimes, the “bull calf of the son”. Any representation I’ve seen of this deity is human in form (large) though he has four eyes and four ears. I’ve not seen him rendered as a bull though his temple was guarded by winged bull “cherubs”

Marduk (or “Bel-Marduk”) was the principal god of the Assyrio-Babylonian pantheon – certainly after the Babylonian rise to principal near eastern power. Marduk was, in fact, the patron god of the city of Babylon. The precinct – the Esagila – where Marduk’s temple resided was in the centre of the city and the religious shrine. Hence Alexander’s promised restoration in the vein of Cyrus and Assurbanipal before him.

I don’t think that Eumenes would have confused Marduk and the Apis bull.

Personally, I think it is more likely that an Alexandrian scribe translated the name of the healing bull-god of Babylon into the name of the healing bull-god of Alexandria, in the context of one of the inevitable transcriptions of the document.

In either case, this detail does not detract from the authority of the document - its author had presumably encountered a healing bull-god in Babylon, which we know is correct.

That first is a possibility though I don’t know that Marduk was widely known as a “healing bull god”. More likely as the principal of the gods – a Zeus like figure.

The other possibility is that the document’s author may well have encountered a “healing bull-god” – Serapis – in Babylon (or elsewhere) just not at the time of Alexander’s death. It is possible that this document – like the Leber de Morte was composed at a later date.