pothos.org

Taphoi wrote:Goralski considers that the Roos version of the Greek is superior to others (the Roos text of Arrian is generally considered the best). Goralski says nothing about the quality of his own translation.

That is what you meant, Andrew, but I had to read it three times to see that that was your meaning. I can see why Amyntoros thought you meant that Goralski considered his translation to be the best. (Just clarifying before anyone accuses anyone of further editing of posts or changing of position post factum!)

Taphoi wrote:I never said the hijacking was Perdiccas' sole reason. But it was clearly a major reason and probably decisive, since the fragment also makes clear that Perdiccas immediately started the army on the journey to Egypt at precisely the point in time when the loss of the body was confirmed to him.

You're quite right, Andrew, you never said the hijacking was Perdiccas' sole reason, sorry. We've been going back and forth on this for a while now (with a little more "forth" from some and not so much "back" from everyone!) and I should have looked over the earlier posts before replying. However, although the fragment, when ammended, does indicate that Perdiccas started the army immediately, I'm wont to ask why Perdiccas and the kings and a large army were in Damascus at the time? Photius clearly states "Perdiccas, setting out from Damascus to make war upon Ptolemy the son of Lagus, reached Egypt with the kings [4] and a large force." If he was in Damascus when he received the news about the loss of the body, doesn't that mean he was already on the way to Egypt? (My geography is terrible and I don't mind at all if I'm wrong about this.)

Goralski considers that the Roos version of the Greek is superior to others (the Roos text of Arrian is generally considered the best). Goralski says nothing about the quality of his own translation.

Thankfully, Marcus already explained my confusion here, however, I have another question which is off-topic but shouldn't take more than a brief post to answer. Regarding the text, you said earlier "It is the authoritative version (e.g. Goralski states that he considers it superior to other versions)." In an instance like this, who decides what is the "authoritative" version? I can understand when we're discussing say, a latin document of Curtius, that there would be an early version which could be considered authorative without argument. But who decides when it's something like the palimpsest? Why does the opinion of one man, Goralski, make this the authoritative version? Is his judgement of the text accepted by all other academics without question? You said above that it is "generally considered the best". Does "generally considered the best" literally translate into authoritative? The text is a copy of the palimpsest, with ammendations as discussed, so for anyone to judge a particular version surely they must also have seen it or own a copy of it? So who looks at the Roos text and makes it "authoritative"? I'm really not trying to appear obtuse here. I genuinely would like to know.

Best regards,

Taphoi wrote:I never said the hijacking was Perdiccas' sole reason. But it was clearly a major reason and probably decisive, since the fragment also makes clear that Perdiccas immediately started the army on the journey to Egypt at precisely the point in time when the loss of the body was confirmed to him.

There clearly is no contortion you won't endure to defend an incorrect stance. Your original claim was that "Ptolemy's seizure of the corpse was influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater". Thus Perdiccas, because the body had been stolen, decided not to defend the Hellespont. This is incorrect. Diodorus (18.25.6) plainly places the council which made this decision during the winter of 321/20. The body is stolen in the spring of the following year. It thus can have had no bearing on whether Perdiccas marched on Macedonia or Egypt for the decision had been made. Justin too (13.6.10-13) associates this decision with the exact same events as Diodorus (likely working from the same source) though he does not even mention the body snatch.

Your reliance upon Photius' summary of Arrian and the palimpsest is increasingly desperate. We have no idea what preceded the first words we have; none whatsoever. There is no firm timing indicated. The only rock solid evidence is that the seizing of the corpse confirmed Perdiccas' in a decision he'd already made ("made him even more determined" or "Then, even more"). This is about as plain as it gets and your refusal to see it can only be considered willful. It is clear as a bell that the seizure of the corpse played no part in the decision of Perdiccas and his philoi to march against Egypt firts rather than Macedonia. Justin's strategic reasons ("while they were gone into Macedonia, Asia should be seized by Ptolemy") are absolutely practical and there is no reason to ignore them (or summarise them out as Diodorus seems to have).

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Taphoi wrote:The obvious reason why Perdiccas changed his mind about allowing the corpse to be sent to Egypt would be that Olympias demanded the return of her son's body. Perdiccas needed her support.

That can only be speculation. The scenario is a possibility and Justin's remarks ("where Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was, who would be no small support to their party" 13.6.11) could be seen as some support. Just as likely is that Perdiccas, had he decided to march on Macedonia rather than Egypt, will have done so as husband of Cleopatra (a marriage he clearly intended) and with the dead king's corpse for burial. Olympias' support plays just as much a role in that scenario. He will have done so in any case had he succeeded in Egypt.

Taphoi wrote: Furthermore, the insult to the regent's authority represented by the hijacking had to be dealt with immediately and decisively. Otherwise everybody else would have started to defy him too.

Yes Perdiccas' authority as epimeleten de tes basileias, or regent, had been challenged as Perdiccas wanted the body to go to Macedonia under his care. This challenge to Perdiccas' authority - at the risk of repeating the clearly obvious - came after the decision to deal with Egypt first. Other challenges to Perdiccas' authority were the trigger for that decision: the annexation of Cyrene, the murder of Perdiccas' hyparch Cleomenes and, certainly, the marriage alliance with Antipater which sealed the "anti-Perdiccan" triumvirate with Craterus. These events saw Perdiccas facing two threats: invasion from Macedonia and Ptolemy in his rear. The council with his philoi, over winter 321/20, was called to decide which to deal with first. It chose Egypt. The body snatch was yet to occur.

Why believe Roos? Well the fact that it is the Teubner version lends it some authority. Roos also has a very strong reputation as the top textual authority on Arrian. For example Brunt chose to use the Teubner text of Arrian for his Loeb translation (which is usually considered the best translation from an accuracy point of view.) What I have shown you is from the 1967 Roos revised by Wirth text, which is the same as used by Brunt.

Did Perdiccas take the decision to attack Egypt in Damascus? Emphatically not for two reasons. Firstly, the catafalque travelled via Damascus as Arrian states. If Perdiccas had been there he could have taken control of the corpse before it was diverted. Secondly, Arrian says he set off for Egypt via Cilicia and Diodorus 18.25.6 says that Perdiccas and the Grand Army spent the Winter of 322-321BC in Pisidia, which fits perfectly. Hence Perdiccas was in Pisidia when he took the decision to attack Egypt. Photius is simply taking up the story at a later stage of the journey: such is the nature of extreme epitomisations. The full text must have discussed a stopover of the Grand Army at Damascus, before stating that Perdiccas moved on from there to attack Egypt.

Did the hijack happen in the Spring of 321BC? Of course not. The army appears to have reached Egypt by the late spring of 321BC and it will have taken at least a few months to get it there from Pisidia. Perdiccas initially sent a cavalry detachment under Attalus and Polemon after the corpse. It will have taken another month or more for the news to reach Perdiccas in Pisidia and for them to get to the vicinity of the Lebanon and back again to Pisidia. The hijacking must have happened in the second half of 322BC. There is no inconsistency with the council of Perdiccas in Diodorus 18.25.6.

The concern of Olympias for a proper funeral for her son is shown by Aelian VH 13.30. I believe this probably relates to the period after the corpse had been diverted to Egypt. She complains that the corpse was ataphos (~unburied), because it was kept mummified in a temple complex at the Serapeum near Memphis. It does not seem likely that she would have made such a complaint whilst Perdiccas planned a funeral in Macedonia.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Olympias, Mother of Alexander, understanding that her Son lay long unburied,, grieving and lamenting exceedingly, said, "O Son, thou wouldest have had a share in Heaven, and didst endeavour it eagerly ; now thou canst not enjoy that which is equally common to all men, earth and burial." Thus she, bewailing her own misfortune, and reproving the pride of her Son.

It is surely far more likely that the context is the initial struggles in Babylon where the corpse was fought over and then left untended for several weeks. Ataphos means unentombed so could not describe a body in a tomb.

Now that everyone agrees that Perdikkas took the decision to attack Ptolemy before the body was hijacked perhaps we can return to the question of Ptolemy's motivation in collecting the corpse. Is it not a consequence of Perdikkas' decision to attack Egypt? Photios makes the plan to take the body to Egypt Arrhidaios', although it would be unwise to place too much weight on a single word in an epitome; it could be that Ptolemy was merely taking advantage of an offer from him to humiliate Perdikkas, demonstrating the Regent's impotence and making him a laughing stock, as well as accepting a defecting noble would be a worthwhile morale coup. The boost possession of the body gave to Ptolemy's recruiting would be a welcome but unlooked for side-effect. Once the invasion had been defeated the body may have acquired its talismanic reputation,

agesilaos wrote:

Olympias, Mother of Alexander, understanding that her Son lay long unburied,, grieving and lamenting exceedingly, said, "O Son, thou wouldest have had a share in Heaven, and didst endeavour it eagerly ; now thou canst not enjoy that which is equally common to all men, earth and burial." Thus she, bewailing her own misfortune, and reproving the pride of her Son.

It is surely far more likely that the context is the initial struggles in Babylon where the corpse was fought over and then left untended for several weeks. Ataphos means unentombed so could not describe a body in a tomb.

The body lay untended for only a week before being mummified. This is not a long enough period to excite a complaint from Olympias over a thousand miles away. ataphos means literally "without a grave", but its meaning in ancient Greek is simply "unburied". It would be reasonable for a Greek queen used to cremated burials to regard a mummified body in a temple as ataphos.

agesilaos wrote:Now that everyone agrees that Perdikkas took the decision to attack Ptolemy before the body was hijacked perhaps we can return to the question of Ptolemy's motivation in collecting the corpse. Is it not a consequence of Perdikkas' decision to attack Egypt? Photios makes the plan to take the body to Egypt Arrhidaios', although it would be unwise to place too much weight on a single word in an epitome; it could be that Ptolemy was merely taking advantage of an offer from him to humiliate Perdikkas, demonstrating the Regent's impotence and making him a laughing stock, as well as accepting a defecting noble would be a worthwhile morale coup. The boost possession of the body gave to Ptolemy's recruiting would be a welcome but unlooked for side-effect. Once the invasion had been defeated the body may have acquired its talismanic reputation,

Just to be absolutely clear (since you seem to be confused) the sequence of events was:

a) Ptolemy had Arrhidaeus divert the course of the catafalque southwards through Damascus and on towards Egypt when it reached Syria late in 322BC
b) A week or two later Perdiccas received word of the hijack whilst wintering with the Grand Army in Pisidia and sent Attalus and Polemon with a contingent of cavalry in hot pursuit
c) Ptolemy met the catafalque somewhere in the Levant with a large escort from Egypt
d) A couple of weeks later Attalus and Polemon were unable to wrest the corpse from Ptolemy, although there may have been an actual clash of arms and Ptolemy may have separated the corpse from the catafalque as a diversionary tactic
e) A couple of weeks later still Attalus and Polemon returned to Pisidia empty-handed
f) It was now early 321BC: Perdiccas, prompted by the success of the hijack, called a council in Pisidia, which confirmed his view that Ptolemy must be attacked as a priority, rather than Antipater
g) The Grand Army immediately set out via Cilicia and Damascus to invade Egypt and arrived by late Spring

The whole sequence of events was instigated by Alexander's dying wish for his body to be taken to Egypt/Ammon. The corpse did not help Ptolemy to recruit anybody. I do however agree that Perdiccas had probably previously prompted Aristander to issue his prophecy about the corpse conferring success upon the nation where it lay as a way of guaranteeing the support of the Grand Army for diverting the corpse from Egypt (which appears to have originally been agreed in Babylon in June 323BC) to Aegae. But practically all Macedonians at the time would have considered that the prophecy, if true, required that they should ensure that the body went back to Macedonia.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:Did the hijack happen in the Spring of 321BC? Of course not. [...] The hijacking must have happened in the second half of 322BC. There is no inconsistency with the council of Perdiccas in Diodorus 18.25.6.

Taphoi wrote:Just to be absolutely clear (since you seem to be confused) the sequence of events was:

a) Ptolemy had Arrhidaeus divert the course of the catafalque southwards through Damascus and on towards Egypt when it reached Syria late in 322BC

Aside from the fact that the "second half of 322BC" covers six months and thus, by definition, "late in 322BC" is quite different...

Whence comes the evidence that the catafalque was hijacked in "the second half of 322BC"? The only ancient testimony to provide any dating evidence, Diodorus (18.28.2), plainly states that "Arrhidaeus had spent nearly two years in making ready" the catafalque. In fact, the theory is an entirely modern notion to be found in A Chugg's "Alexander's Tomb" (p 36):

Remaining at Babylon, Arrhidaeus spent over a year preparing a splendid catafalque for Alexander. Diodorus records that Arrhidaeus 'spent nearly two years in making ready this work' but it seems unlikely. It probably reached Syria in the winter of 322/21 and cannot have travelled much further than a few miles per day, despite being 'accompanied by a crowd of road menders and mechanics'. It may, therefore, have left Babylon as early as the summer of 322 BC. Diodorus gives and exceptionally detailed description of the carriage ....

Indeed Diodorus does give an "exceptionally detailed description of the carriage"; a description (almost) universally agreed to go back to autopsy and which comes from his source (either Hieronymus directly or via an intermediary). As far as the modern theory above is concerned, the "exceptionally detailed description" given by Diodorus is taken as given - aside from the detail relating to the time taken to build it. No argument is presented for dismissal of this detail only that "it seems unlikely". I find it interesting that one who can argue that Lucian should be respected as a source can dismiss a selected detail from Diodorus simply because "it seems unlikely". More likely is that it is an uncomfortable piece of evidence for the thesis and, as such, it must go. It is, I'd suggest, one of the revisions to this modern thinking required by the source material.

That the construction took "nearly two years" clearly means closer to twenty-four months than not. Thus the catafalque had to be ready sometime in 321. This fits with other evidence. The Marmor Parium dates the invasion of Egypt to 320 ("Archippus archon at Athens" - see below) and the Babylonian History of the Successors( BCHP 3: obverse 23-24) also dates the battle between the "king" and the satrap of Egypt to 320. The "king" can only have been Arrhidaeus represented by Perdiccas. Without diverging into a full discussion of the chronology of the early Hellenistic period (a thread to itself) it needs to be realised that Diodorus' framework here (in particular his Athenian archon years) is at its worst and contains a very serious flaw. For a start the 115th Olympiad is missing and the text contains only five years for the time between the 114th and 116th. Into this vacuum disappear two whole Athenian archon years: Archippus (321/20) and Neaechmus (320/19). His chronology for the first part of book 18 is thus seriously compromised.

The "low" chronology for this part of Hellenistic History (until the winter 319/18) far more easily accommodates the events described including the hijacking of the corpse and the near on two years to make the carriage.

Taphoi wrote: ataphos means literally "without a grave", but its meaning in ancient Greek is simply "unburied". It would be reasonable for a Greek queen used to cremated burials to regard a mummified body in a temple as ataphos.

Whether that mummified body be at Babylon for "nearly two years" or in Egypt? Clearly it is ataphos at both places.

Paralus wrote:Whence comes the evidence that the catafalque was hijacked in "the second half of 322BC"? The only ancient testimony to provide any dating evidence, Diodorus (18.28.2), plainly states that "Arrhidaeus had spent nearly two years in making ready" the catafalque. In fact, the theory is an entirely modern notion to be found in A Chugg's "Alexander's Tomb" (p 36):

Remaining at Babylon, Arrhidaeus spent over a year preparing a splendid catafalque for Alexander. Diodorus records that Arrhidaeus 'spent nearly two years in making ready this work' but it seems unlikely. It probably reached Syria in the winter of 322/21 and cannot have travelled much further than a few miles per day, despite being 'accompanied by a crowd of road menders and mechanics'. It may, therefore, have left Babylon as early as the summer of 322 BC. Diodorus gives and exceptionally detailed description of the carriage ....

I have already said that working backwards from the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt in the late Spring of 321BC the Arrian palimpsest fragment requires the hijack to have happened no later than the end of 322BC

Paralus wrote:The Marmor Parium dates the invasion of Egypt to 320 ...

It does no such thing. The event it dates is the death of Perdiccas, NOT his invasion. It dates his death to the Attic Archon year 321/320 BC, which began at the first new moon after the summer solstice in 321BC (mid-July in that year). Perdiccas was most likely assassinated in late July 321BC in high chronology, which therefore agrees with the Parian Marble in this instance.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

Paralus wrote:The Marmor Parium dates the invasion of Egypt to 320 ...

It does no such thing. The event it dates is the death of Perdiccas, NOT his invasion. It dates his death to the Attic Archon year 321/320 BC, which began at the first new moon after the summer solstice in 321BC (mid-July in that year). Perdiccas was most likely assassinated in late July 321BC in high chronology, which therefore agrees with the Parian Marble in this instance.

The Marmor Parium dates both the invasion and subsequent death of Perdiccas to the archon year of Archippus:

From the time when Antigonus [...] and Perdiccas invaded Egypt and was killed [...] and Archippus was archon at Athens.

As can clearly be seen, the marble dates both the invasion of Egypt and Perdiccas' subsequent death to the year 321/20. In this instance the marble is backed by the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors which also states that the "king" (Arrhidaeus) did battle with the satrap of Egypt and his troops were slaughtered. This is Perdiccas' invasion and it is listed in the fourth regnal year of Philip III (320/19). The evidence of both sources place the disaster in 320.

Proponents of the "high" chronology for the period 323-319/18 have to postulate an error in the Marble, to cleverly re-date the regnal years of Arrhidaeus (most recently Bosworth proposing a co-kingship with Alexander of sorts in 324), or re-date the death of Alexander (S Smith, The Deaths of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidæus, 1928), or propose scribal error. The regnal years of Philip III are not in any doubt. A solar eclipse in Phil.02 mentioned in AD 1-321: rev23 (the Astronomical Diaries), has been absolutely confirmed to September 26th 322BC (see Anson, JCS Vol. 57 (2005), pp. 127-128). Thus Arrhidaeus' first year was 323/22.

An error in the one source is a possibility; an error in both - one Greek and the other Babylonian - is far less likely.

Such inventive arguments, though wrong, at least have the benefit of an academic approach to the evidence. "It seems unlikely", in dismissing Diodorus' note that it took nearly two years to construct the catafalque, is little more than a comforting assertion.

Paralus wrote:The Marmor Parium dates both the invasion and subsequent death of Perdiccas to the archon year of Archippus:

From the time when Antigonus [...] and Perdiccas invaded Egypt and was killed [...] and Archippus was archon at Athens.

As can clearly be seen, the marble dates both the invasion of Egypt and Perdiccas' subsequent death to the year 321/20. In this instance the marble is backed by the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors which also states that the "king" (Arrhidaeus) did battle with the satrap of Egypt and his troops were slaughtered. This is Perdiccas' invasion and it is listed in the fourth regnal year of Philip III (320/19). The evidence of both sources place the disaster in 320.

What the Parian Marble says is "Perdiccas died after marching into Egypt". You can see this online here: http://www.ashmolean.org/ash/faqs/q004/q004017.html

I am not certain whether the "king" in the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors is necessarily Philip-Arrhidaeus. Why could it not be somebody who was king when the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors was written many years later? I believe its entries carried on for at least another decade. More seriously, I am incredulous that you think that this battle has to be the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt. In 320BC Ptolemy attacked and defeated Laomedon in Coele Syria (see Diodorus 18.43 and the Parian Marble for 319/318BC). This happened much closer to the Babylonian focus of this Chronicle than events in Egypt. That Laomedon was seen as fighting on behalf of the kings is shown by Diodorus 18.73.2: "After Eumenes had news of Antigonus' move, he thought to recover for the kings Phoenicia, which had been unjustly occupied by Ptolemy." The Chronicle actually appears to mention Nikanor, who led Ptolemy's army in Coele Syria, a few lines above the slaughter of the king's forces according to the version here: http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/ ... hi_02.html This event therefore fits the High Chronology to the Chronicle, not the Low.

Best wishes,

Andrew

You seem to be confused, the Parian marble clearly dates Antigonos' crossing into Asia and the entombing of Alexander in the same year as Perdikkas died after marching on Egypt. Since you claim that Perdikkas was driven to invade by the seizure of Alexander's body are you claiming now he invaded went away until the body was 'buried' and came back? Your objection has no point.

Similarly, the Chronicle's Year five begins at line 25 after the battle with the Egyptian satrap which occur before month VIII in year Four which is 320 ruling out the defeat of Laomedon in 319/8.

Taphoi wrote:I am not certain whether the "king" in the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors is necessarily Philip-Arrhidaeus. Why could it not be somebody who was king when the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors was written many years later?

You are demonstrably "not certain" about a great many things. The Chronicle dates via a formula denoting the king for the subject year not the year when it was inscribed.

Taphoi wrote:More seriously, I am incredulous that you think that this battle has to be the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt. In 320BC Ptolemy attacked and defeated Laomedon in Coele Syria (see Diodorus 18.43 and the Parian Marble for 319/318BC). This happened much closer to the Babylonian focus of this Chronicle than events in Egypt. That Laomedon was seen as fighting on behalf of the kings is shown by Diodorus 18.73.2: "After Eumenes had news of Antigonus' move, he thought to recover for the kings Phoenicia, which had been unjustly occupied by Ptolemy."

And I am not incredulous that you would make such a stretch. It at least is better than "it seems unlikely". Evidently, since you feel compelled to make such a tenuous argument, you now accept the regnal dating via Arrhidaeus.

The chronicle states that the "king" battled with the satrap of Egypt; not that the satrap of Egypt battled with the satrap of Syria. Perdiccas, in invading Egypt, led the royal army under the king(s) and "his invasion is one of the key events of classical history" (Chugg, Alexander's Tomb, p 45). Laomedon was no "royal general", commanded no royal army and made no campaign against the satrap of Egypt. Further, the chronicle records that the king's troops were slaughtered. Diodorus says that "more than two thousand men were lost, among them some of the prominent commanders" and this matches the chronicle's language. By contrast, Ptolemy annexation of Syria was, as far as the sources are concerned, seemingly bloodless:

Diod. 18.43.2
Accordingly he dispatched an adequate army with Nicanor as general, a man selected from among his friends. The latter marched into Syria, took the satrap Laomedon captive, and subdued the whole land. After he had likewise secured the allegiance of the cities of Phoenicia and placed garrisons in them, he returned to Egypt, having made a short and effective campaign.

App. Syr. 52
To this Laomedon, Ptolemy, the satrap of Egypt, came with a fleet and offered him a large sum of money if he would hand over Syria to him, because it was well situated for defending Egypt and for attacking Cyprus. When Laomedon refused Ptolemy seized him. Laomedon bribed his guards and escaped to Alcetas in Caria. Thus Ptolemy ruled Syria for a while, left a garrison there, and returned to Egypt.

No "king" in sight, no royal army and no "slaughter" of the king's troops to be seen here. You are grasping at straws.

Andrew, I thought that I too would check out your The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great to see if anything written there would clarify this argument about chronology for me (not ever having been too interested in "high" and "low" chronology in itself, but I'm curious when it impacts a discussion). Well, it only made things worse. To begin, we have the following on this thread:

Taphoi wrote:

Paralus wrote:The Marmor Parium dates the invasion of Egypt to 320 ...

It does no such thing. The event it dates is the death of Perdiccas, NOT his invasion. It dates his death to the Attic Archon year 321/320 BC, which began at the first new moon after the summer solstice in 321BC (mid-July in that year). Perdiccas was most likely assassinated in late July 321BC in high chronology, which therefore agrees with the Parian Marble in this instance.

Not bad so far – if I'm following correctly then your statement that Perdiccas was killed in late July means that under the Greek calendar it was the beginning of the next year - 320 BC. Correct? You also categorically state that the Parian Marble (Marmor Parium?) does not date the invasion of Egypt to 320. In your words "It does no such thing".Paralus disagrees and quotes otherwise regarding the marble, as does Agesilaos. However, and here's the crunch, on page 45 of your book you say:

A near contemporary inscription from the island of Paros dates the offensive to July 321 BC, but it probably began with the opening of the campaign season in the spring.

What the …? On this thread you say the marble absolutely does NOT date the offensive to July 321 BC, only the death of Perdiccas. In your book you say that the marble DOES date the offensive to July 321. So which is it to be? You have reached the same conclusion both here and in your book regarding the seizing of the corpse and the campaign of Perdiccas, yet you have disagreed with yourself in doing so.

Best regards,

agesilaos wrote:You seem to be confused, the Parian marble clearly dates Antigonos' crossing into Asia and the entombing of Alexander in the same year as Perdikkas died after marching on Egypt. Since you claim that Perdikkas was driven to invade by the seizure of Alexander's body are you claiming now he invaded went away until the body was 'buried' and came back? Your objection has no point.

Similarly, the Chronicle's Year five begins at line 25 after the battle with the Egyptian satrap which occur before month VIII in year Four which is 320 ruling out the defeat of Laomedon in 319/8.

I believe that Ptolemy conducted the funeral of Alexander after the death of Perdiccas. How indeed could Ptolemy hold the funeral games with an invasion ongoing?

Diodorus also puts Ptolemy's attack upon Laomedon late in 320BC or early in 319BC. The year 320/319BC is missing from the Parian Marble, so it looks as though it put some events from that year into 319/318BC. Clearly the Babylonian Chronicle shows that Diodorus (Hieronymus) is correct.

Best wishes,

Andrew

amyntoros wrote:Andrew, I thought that I too would check out your The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great to see if anything written there would clarify this argument about chronology for me (not ever having been too interested in "high" and "low" chronology in itself, but I'm curious when it impacts a discussion). Well, it only made things worse. To begin, we have the following on this thread:

Taphoi wrote:

Paralus wrote:The Marmor Parium dates the invasion of Egypt to 320 ...

It does no such thing. The event it dates is the death of Perdiccas, NOT his invasion. It dates his death to the Attic Archon year 321/320 BC, which began at the first new moon after the summer solstice in 321BC (mid-July in that year). Perdiccas was most likely assassinated in late July 321BC in high chronology, which therefore agrees with the Parian Marble in this instance.

Not bad so far – if I'm following correctly then your statement that Perdiccas was killed in late July means that under the Greek calendar it was the beginning of the next year - 320 BC. Correct? You also categorically state that the Parian Marble (Marmor Parium?) does not date the invasion of Egypt to 320. In your words "It does no such thing".Paralus disagrees and quotes otherwise regarding the marble, as does Agesilaos. However, and here's the crunch, on page 45 of your book you say:

A near contemporary inscription from the island of Paros dates the offensive to July 321 BC, but it probably began with the opening of the campaign season in the spring.

What the …? On this thread you say the marble absolutely does NOT date the offensive to July 321 BC, only the death of Perdiccas. In your book you say that the marble DOES date the offensive to July 321. So which is it to be? You have reached the same conclusion both here and in your book regarding the seizing of the corpse and the campaign of Perdiccas, yet you have disagreed with yourself in doing so.

Best regards,

I have simply changed my mind on this subtle point. I do not now believe it is strictly necessary to read the Parian Marble as dating the invasion to 321/320BC. The matter is a subtle one because, as you have understood, the invasion straddles the Attic year boundary. Furthermore, the arrival of the body of Alexander in Egypt and its eventual entombment in the Serapeum at Memphis also straddles the same year boundary, so it was somewhat arbitrary which year the Parian Marble assigned these events to. It chose to assign both to their completion rather than their instigation. This is not surprising, since it counts years backwards from its date of creation.

Best wishes,

Andrew