11-28-2005, 09:24 PM
I think you're confusing the Uruk King list with the Babylon King list.
The Uruk King list actually says "25" (dating Seleucus' "real" years as king, not stratêgos). See [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/uruk.html[/url]. The Babylon King list ([url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/babylonian_hellenistic.html[/url]) says "31".
For those following the thread but unfamiliar with the subject matter: ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts, a standard edition of interesting texts from the 1950's. It's a monument that deserves to be in everybody's library. I am very glad to meet here someone who actually checked it.
When ANET was published, many aspects of the eastern chronology were still poorly understood. The translators wanted to show to a larger audience that the ancient near eastern texts really mattered, and choose to ignore chronological details, which were sort of passed over. Instead, they focused on the texts that were important for Old Testament studies. I think this was a sound decision. Another attitude that bedevilled the first scholars who were occupied with the oriental texts, was that they tried to find points of harmony with classical sources. Understandable, but we now know that there are also important contradictions. ANET is to be used as much as possible, but one must be careful, sometimes.
A famous example (not in ANET) is an edition of the Astronomical Diaries ([url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/astronomical_diaries.html[/url]). One of these tablets describes the battle of Gaugamela. Still unfamiliar with the conventions of these texts, they translated "The king abandoned his troops", i.e., Darius ran away. This confirms our classical source, Arrian, who also says that Darius acted as a coward. However, we now know that in the Astronomical Diaries, the word order is often inverted to give the text an archaic look. In fact it says: "The king, his troops abandoned him". The A.D. of Gaugamela contradicts Arrian!
Here's a recent edition: [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-alexander/astronomical_diary-330_01.html[/url]
And here's a translated chapter from my book: [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html[/url]
So, beware of older publications like ANET.
If you are really interested in fourth century dating systems and the beginning of the Seleucid Era, I recommend: T. Boiy, "Dating methods during the early Hellenistic period" in Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52 (2001), 115-121. Cf. the list of publications of the same man on [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron_literature.html[/url]
The Uruk King list actually says "25" (dating Seleucus' "real" years as king, not stratêgos). See [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/uruk.html[/url]. The Babylon King list ([url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/babylonian_hellenistic.html[/url]) says "31".
For those following the thread but unfamiliar with the subject matter: ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts, a standard edition of interesting texts from the 1950's. It's a monument that deserves to be in everybody's library. I am very glad to meet here someone who actually checked it.
When ANET was published, many aspects of the eastern chronology were still poorly understood. The translators wanted to show to a larger audience that the ancient near eastern texts really mattered, and choose to ignore chronological details, which were sort of passed over. Instead, they focused on the texts that were important for Old Testament studies. I think this was a sound decision. Another attitude that bedevilled the first scholars who were occupied with the oriental texts, was that they tried to find points of harmony with classical sources. Understandable, but we now know that there are also important contradictions. ANET is to be used as much as possible, but one must be careful, sometimes.
A famous example (not in ANET) is an edition of the Astronomical Diaries ([url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/astronomical_diaries.html[/url]). One of these tablets describes the battle of Gaugamela. Still unfamiliar with the conventions of these texts, they translated "The king abandoned his troops", i.e., Darius ran away. This confirms our classical source, Arrian, who also says that Darius acted as a coward. However, we now know that in the Astronomical Diaries, the word order is often inverted to give the text an archaic look. In fact it says: "The king, his troops abandoned him". The A.D. of Gaugamela contradicts Arrian!
Here's a recent edition: [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-alexander/astronomical_diary-330_01.html[/url]
And here's a translated chapter from my book: [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html[/url]
So, beware of older publications like ANET.
If you are really interested in fourth century dating systems and the beginning of the Seleucid Era, I recommend: T. Boiy, "Dating methods during the early Hellenistic period" in Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52 (2001), 115-121. Cf. the list of publications of the same man on [url:2g1fn06n]http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron_literature.html[/url]