New cuneiform evidence, part 2 (Gaugamela)

[jona]

There used to be two accounts of the battle of Gaugamela.(1) The Greek author Arrian, often seen as the best of our sources, used as his source Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and offers an account that can be summarized as follows: Alexander attacked, Darius panicked, run away, and the Persians followed their king.(2) The other account can be found in the Vulgate sources (Diodorus and Curtius Rufus); they are based on Cleitarchus and state that Darius did not panic, but fought until his position had become hopeless.Making a choice between these versions, or harmonizing them, has been difficult and Gaugamela has become a famous example of an unsolvable riddle. New, religious cuneiform sources, however, help us understand the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries (=AD) better and help us solve this puzzle.The AD, published for the first time about a quarter of a century ago, offer a day-by-day account of celestial phenomena, written by the officials of the Esagila temple complex, the Chaldaeans. The diaries mention other events as well, e.g., the level of the Euphrates, the weather, food prices, incidents concerning Babylon and its cults, and political events. After all, the celestial phenomena were portents of important political changes.A selection of the text of the AD of the month Ululu 331 (picture at http://www.livius.org/a/1/mesopotamia/AD-331.jpg, tablet in the British Museum) runs like this:-----------------------
[Year 5 of Arta+íata who is called Darius, Month Ululu][...]The 13th [20 September 331], Moonset to sunrise: 8-¦. There was a lunar eclipse, in its totality covered. 10-¦ night [lacuna] Jupiter set; Saturn [lacuna] during the totality the west wind blew, during clearing the east wind; [lacuna] during the eclipse, deaths and plague occurred in [lacuna].[...]The 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king he inflicted. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the western lands.-----------------------Notes:
Alexander. His title was "King of Asia", but the Babylonian scribe did not understand this concept, and translated it as "king of the world".
Darius.
The inverted word order is typical for this group of texts.[to be continued in next message]

[jona]

Oops - the link to the picture isn't working. If you remove the comma, you will see the photo.Now, some comments on the fragment of A.D. already quoted.As I said, the A.D. are not a new discovery. This fragment has already been quoted by several authors, who used it to date the battle (1 October 331).However, one problem has until now been ignored: the line "The king, his troops deserted him" contradicts Arrian, our best source. One way to solve this problem is to translate it as "The king deserted his troops". This solution, which flatly contradicts the rulers of Babylonian grammar, has unfortunately been popularized by Michael Wood in his television series / book *In the footsteps of Alexander*. (So much for the quality standards of the BBC...)The only possible conclusion is that the A.D. confirms what is written in the Vulgate (Darius was a hero) is right, and that Arrian is wrong. However, there is a lot more to be said about this text.The A.D. were used to predict the future. The chaldaeans had a giant library of celestial omens, which has recently been published for the first time (by, a.o., Erica Reiner). Now, we can interpret the lunar eclipse of 20 September in the same way an Asian astronomer would have done in 331 BCE. The crucial text is the so-called 29th Ah++ tablet of En++ma Anu Enlil (written in the sixth century BCE): If on either the 13th or 14th day of Ululu [...]
the moon is dark; the watch passes and it is
dark; his features are dark like lapis lazuli; he
is obscured until his midpoint; on the west
(quadrant) as it covered, the west wind blew; the
sky is dark; his light is covered; [the
significance of this omen is:] the son of the
king will become purified for the throne but will
not take the throne; an intruder will [invade the
country with] princes from the west; for eight
years he will exercise kingship; [lacuna] he will
conquer the enemy army; there will be abundance
and riches on his path; he will continually
pursue his enemy, and his luck will not run out.In other words, the eclipse of 20 September predicted Alexander's success, and a happy reign that would last eight years. This is exactly what happened, and eight years later, in 323, the chaldaeans warned Alexander that something terrible was to befall him.The 29th Ah++ tablet of En++ma Anu Enlil is not the only relevant source. Other interpretations were possible too, but they all agree that the king of Baby

[jona]

The 29th Ah++ tablet of En++ma Anu Enlil is not the only relevant source. Other interpretations were possible too, but they all agree that the king of Babylonia and/or Persia was to be defeated by an intruder from the west; the defeated king would be safe when he went to the east.What probably happened at Gaugamela is this. The eclipse was a terrible portent and many soldiers in the army of Darius were afraid, because the science of the chaldaeans was not a secret (the Talmud even mentions a Jew that became a chaldaean). Curtius Rufus mentions that Darius sacrificed to take away the fear, but it was all in vain. When the battle started, the soldiers started to run away, although some offered resistance. Alexander attacked an army that was ready to throw away its weapons.One final remark. This cuneiform also describes the negotiations conducted by Alexander and the Babylonian authorities. The Greek sources state that Alexander approached the city, ready for battle, but the Babylonian texts prove that he was in fact welcome. It is interesting to note that Alexander employed GREEK envoys, not Macedonians -- after all, many Greeks (like those in Miletus and Ephesus) had been living in the Persian empire and were bilingual. This is especially interesting because it proves that the Babylonians believed Macedonians and Greeks to be two nations.

[tino]

Hello,In your previous post on cuneiform evidence:"Alexander and his troops 5 pursued Bessus the rebel king. Alexander with] his few troops with the troops [of Bessus made battle.] 6 [Bessus] killed [Darius the king]. The Hanaean troops, his troops, which [...] 7 [... from Babylon (???) to (?) ] Darius, the king, had gone, [were released."Who are the "Hanaeans"? This sounds similar to the Middle Eastern renderings of Ionians, such as Yunans etc...Secondly, I cannot see by your current post how it is determined that Macedonians and Greeks were viewed as 'seperate'. Please clarify. Thanks,

[jona]

Hanaeans are Macedonians.Originally, the word Hanaeans was used to describe a nomadic tribe living along the Middle Euphrates, but later, the word was used to indicate anyone arriving from that direction.There are parallels for this type of terminology; e.g., the seventh-century Medians are often called Uman-manda, after a tribe that once lived in the Diyala valley. Other parallel: the Gutaeans once lived in the southern Zagros, but in sixth-third century Babylonia, the name Gutium simply meant "the east".As to your second remark, "I cannot see [...] how it is determined that Macedonians and Greeks were viewed as 'seperate'.": I should have been more explicit.The common expression to indicate Greeks in Babylonian is Ia-ma-na-a-a (the "m" is not pronounced); which is of course the same as Greek Ionai and Persian Yaun+ó. The Babylonians, when they met their first Macedonians, perceived differences between the Ia-ma-na-a-a they already knew, and the invaders, so they choose another name.I wrote "perceived", not "recognized", because (a) I simply don't know how real the perceived differences may have been, and (b) I don't know what these differences were.Well, frankly, I can make a guess about the second point: from a Babylonian point of view, the Macedonians were more civilized because they were united and had a king. Calling the invaders Ia-ma-na-a-a meant comparing them to kingless barbarians. There was no reason to insult Alexander, who had, after all, ordered repairs of the Esagila sanctuary.Jona

[yiannis]

Interesting. So calling the Macedonians same as the Greeks (Ia-ma-na-a-a as you say) would be the same as comparing them to kingless barbarians!
I'm not aware that the Babylonians made such distinctions based on the form of government of each nation.

[matz]

Hello Jona,Thanks for sharing this information.I'm sorry to go slightly off the tangent here. Following is a paragraph of your review of the Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation, Waldemar Heckel, J.C. Yardley."Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the spelling of Alexander's name in the cuneiform texts. The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name. Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar. Probably, this only shows that the scribes found it difficult to render a foreign name. On the other hand, it can not be excluded that Alexandar is the Macedonian name by which the conqueror of Asia was known to his courtiers. Cuneiform renderings of Seleucus (Si-lu-uk-ku) and other names may also offer clues for linguists studying the Macedonian language."I was wondering if you know whether there are any other Macedonian names that found in the cuneiform texts, and what would be their rendering.Regards,
Matz

[tino]

Thanks for clearing that up Jona. I see your point now.

[jona]

Dear MatzIn the thread "New cuneiform evidence, part 1", there's a note on my proposal re: Alexander's name, which I no longer believe to be correct.Other Macedonian and Greek names include: Peithon, Harpalus (probably), Seleucus, Antigonus, Philip (Arridaeus), Eumenes, Archaelaus, Antiochus. More interesting is the Macedonian word "peliganes" as name for the governing body of the European community of Babylon; we would have expected something like "boule" or "gerousia".Interesting observation 1: there is not a single cuneiform text that mentions Philip Arridaeus and "Alexander son of Alexander" (the son of Roxane) as joint kings. In my view, this is evidence that Alexander's posthumous son was not recognized as king and co-ruler of Philip Arridaeus, although the Greek and Roman sources state that this was the case.Interesting observation 2: the name Alexander son of Alexander is almost never mentioned without the name of the strategos of Asia, i.e. Antigonus or Seleucus. The strategos was considered to be the real ruler; the boy was not considered the lawful ruler of Babylon - which is logical, because the boy was in Cassander's palace, far away Macedonia.At the moment, Chronicle 8 and 10 are online:http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron8_01.html
http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diadochi/di ... 3.htmlJona

[agesilaos]

Could the Kiddinnu not be Darius? Diodoros and Justin both preserve his given name as Codomannos, which seems too close for coincidence. The astronomer suggested poses problems, we do not know his dates and there seems no reason why an astronomer now in the rear should be executed. Surely, Hanaean ( if this is a variant of Yauna) may equally well refer to DariusGÇÖ Greek mercenaries and this may be a note of their desertion or maybe Bessos' dismissal of Darius' western satrapal forces, upon whose loyalty he could not count. Would line 7 bear the sense that GÇÿDarius the King was gone and he was now Kidinnu GÇÿ(his name as a private citizen)? This would then explain the next entry. Kidinnu would not have a title as he was no longer king and had reverted to his given name, the royal name now no longer applicable.Without knowing the size of the lacunae and cuneiform it is impossible for me to attempt any reconstruction but are these suggestions possible?

[matz]

Hello Jona,Thanks for that, I missed your reply in the thread "New cuneiform evidence, part 1" on Alexander's name, but I found it through the search engine.Regards,
Matz