The Chronology of the Aramaic Pa pyri from Elephantine Author(s): O. Neugebauer Source: Isis, Vol. 33, No. 5 (Mar., 1942), pp. 575-578 Published by: The University of Chicago Presson behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330666 . Accessed: 10/10/2011 10:50 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Pressand The History of Science Societyare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIsis. http://www.jstor.org
Transcript
8/13/2019 Chronology of the Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine
The Chronology of the Aramaic Papyri from ElephantineAuthor(s): O. Neugebauer
Source: Isis, Vol. 33, No. 5 (Mar., 1942), pp. 575-578Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330666 .
Accessed: 10/10/2011 10:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
P. A. MATTIOLI: Operaquae exstant omnia (Basel 1598). Copy kindly lent by the ArnoldArboretum, Boston.
DIOSCURIDES: CodexAniciae Iulianae picturis illustratus nune Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1
phototypiceeditus (2 large folio vols. Leyden 1906). Our figures 4 to 7 are reproduced from
that work.
h e Chronology o t h r a m a i c
P a p y r i f r o m Elephantine
(Remarks about a new Chronology proposed byA. Kenney-Herbert)
By 0. NEUGEBAUER
1. In Isis 29 (1938)p. 393-97 appearedan articleentitled"TheElephan-
tine Aramaic Papyri" by Lt. Col. A. KENNEY-HERBERTn which this authorinvestigated the famous double datings (Jewish and Egyptian calendar)found in some of the Elephantine papyri. He came to the spectacular result
that all conclusions previously drawn from these texts were erroneous and
that the Achemenian kings ruled about 60 years earlier than is usually as-
sumed. The aim of the following remarks is to show the source of errorwhich
led K.-H. to his chronology, which contradicts, e.g., the astronomically de-
termined Ptolemaic canon-not to speak of general history. The way fol-
lowed consists in restating clearly the arguments used by K.-H. which are
only very incompletely represented in his article.2. It is for this purpose sufficient to consider the following coincidences:
Vol. 2 includes (p. 288-91) a full bibliography of all the editions, 27 in number.
Articles by GACHARD in Biog. nat. de Belgique (vol. 3, 180-91, 1872). FERDINAND VAN DER
P. A. MATTIOLI: Operaquae exstant omnia (Basel 1598). Copy kindly lent by the ArnoldArboretum, Boston.
DIOSCURIDES: CodexAniciae Iulianae picturis illustratus nune Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1
phototypiceeditus (2 large folio vols. Leyden 1906). Our figures 4 to 7 are reproduced from
that work.
h e Chronology o t h r a m a i c
P a p y r i f r o m Elephantine
(Remarks about a new Chronology proposed byA. Kenney-Herbert)
By 0. NEUGEBAUER
1. In Isis 29 (1938)p. 393-97 appearedan articleentitled"TheElephan-
tine Aramaic Papyri" by Lt. Col. A. KENNEY-HERBERTn which this authorinvestigated the famous double datings (Jewish and Egyptian calendar)found in some of the Elephantine papyri. He came to the spectacular result
that all conclusions previously drawn from these texts were erroneous and
that the Achemenian kings ruled about 60 years earlier than is usually as-
sumed. The aim of the following remarks is to show the source of errorwhich
led K.-H. to his chronology, which contradicts, e.g., the astronomically de-
termined Ptolemaic canon-not to speak of general history. The way fol-
lowed consists in restating clearly the arguments used by K.-H. which are
only very incompletely represented in his article.2. It is for this purpose sufficient to consider the following coincidences:
No.l Regnal year Jewish cal. Egypt. cal.
5 Xerxes 15 VI 18 IX 28
6 Xerxes 21 IX 18 I 142
(1) 10 Artaxerxes I 9 IX 7 I 4
13 Artaxerxes I 19 IX 3 XII 10
14 Artaxerxes I 25 V 14 IX 19
1Numbersaccordingo A. COWLEY,AramaicPapyriof the Fifth CenturyB.C. Oxford,1923.2K.-H.chooseswithoutdiscussion hisreadingrom he threepossibilitiesmentionedbyCOWLEY.17.
No.l Regnal year Jewish cal. Egypt. cal.
5 Xerxes 15 VI 18 IX 28
6 Xerxes 21 IX 18 I 142
(1) 10 Artaxerxes I 9 IX 7 I 4
13 Artaxerxes I 19 IX 3 XII 10
14 Artaxerxes I 25 V 14 IX 19
1Numbersaccordingo A. COWLEY,AramaicPapyriof the Fifth CenturyB.C. Oxford,1923.2K.-H.chooseswithoutdiscussion hisreadingrom he threepossibilitiesmentionedbyCOWLEY.17.
57575
8/13/2019 Chronology of the Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine
We now modify this list in such a way that all dates in the Jewish calendarbecome equal, say 18:
No. Regnal year Jewish cal. Egypt. cal.
5 Xerxes 15 VI 18 IX 286 Xerxes 21 IX 18 I 14
(2) 10 Artaxerxes 9 IX 18 I 1513 Artaxerxes 19 IX 18 XII 25
14 Artaxerxes 25 V 18 IX 23
3. From scheme (2) K.-H. derives the following time differences:
No. Regnal year Eg. cal. Differences3
5 Xerxes 15 IX 28
6 Xerxes 21 = Artax. 1 I 14 6 years +4 months +5 epag. days -14 days= 2301 days
(3) 10 Artax. 9 I 15 8 years+1 day =2921 days13 Artax. 19 XII 25 10 years +11 months +10 days =3990 days14 Artax. 25 IX 23 6 years -3 months -2 days = 2098 days4
These differences are obtained by simple subtraction of regnal years, months,
and days. But this procedure is correct only if the following is true:(A) The beginning of the year "Artaxerxes 1" belongs to the interval from
XII 25 to I 15. If we assume that his regnal years began, e.g., on VI 1, thenwe would have a situation such as indicated in fig. 1, and the time differ-ence between year 9 I 15 and year 19 XII 25 would be only 9 years (+11months+10 days) instead of 10 years (+11 months+10 days). In other
words, regnal years of ARTAXERXES and Egyptian years are assumed to
coincide practically completely.
regnaL yearsof Artax.
9 toA I
E 3. years I IC" 15
18 19
rT 25
FIGURE .
(B) On the contrary, the assumption is made that the regnal years ofXERXESdo not begin between IX 28 and I 14. If we assume the coincidenceof regnal years and Egyptian years, we would have a situation such as de-scribed in fig. 2, and the time difference between
year15 IX 28 and
year3 Years and months in Egyptian style, i.e., 365 and 30 days, respectively.4This numberomittedby K.-H.but certain romhis total.
576
8/13/2019 Chronology of the Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine
21 14 would be only 5 years (+4 months-9 days) instead of 6 years(+4 months-9 days).
regnal yearsof Xerxes
Eg. years-
15 6i
-28
20 21
I - I -t
I o(I 14IZ/4
FIGURE2.
The calculations of K.-H. are therefore based on the tacitly made and to-
tally unproved "assumption 1" of different methods of counting regnal
years during the reign of XERXES and his successor.
4. The resulting chronology proposed by K.-H. is equivalent to the fol-
lowing equations:
No. Jewish cal. Julian cal. Time differences
5 VI 1 -409 Aug. 11 2301 days6 IX 1 -403 Nov. 28 2921 days
(4) 10 IX 1 -395 Nov. 27 3990 days13 IX 1 -384 Oct. 30 2098 days14 V I -378 July 29
where the time differences are the same as calculated in (3) making "as-sumption 1."
The author now explicitly makes "assumption 2" that the Jewish dates
"1" mean astronomically new moons and not first visible crescents, an as-
sumption which is contradictory to all our knowledge of the Babyloniancalendar and its derivations, and affects K.-H.'s calculations by at least one
day. But even if we assume that the dates in (4) represent new moons, we
get the following results:
No. New moon5 Dates(4)
Deviation
5 -409 Aug. 10.4 Aug. 11 -1 days6 -403 Nov. 30.3 Nov. 28 2
(5) 10 -395 Dec. 1.6 Nov. 27 5
13 -384 Oct. 31.3 Oct. 30 1
14 -378 July 29.4 July 29 0
6 According to the tables in GINZEL,Chronologic I p. 547 ff. K.-H.'s calculations are "based on
GRATTAN UINNESS' ublished lunar tables." I owe the librarian of the Brown University Science Li-
brary, Mr. D. A. JONAH,he complete title of these tables: "HENRYGRATTAN UINNESS,Creation cen-
tred in Christ, vol. 2. Tables of vernal equinoxes and new moons for 3555 years. 1. In old style from
B.C. 1622-A.D. 1934. 2. In new style from the English reformation of the calendar A.D. 1752 to A.D.1934; computed from prophetic times in the book of Daniel regarded as astronomical cycles." London
1896. I was unable to obtain a copy of this work.
8/13/2019 Chronology of the Aramaic Papyri From Elephantine
Rudolf von Erhardt and Erika von Erhardt-Sieboldudolf von Erhardt and Erika von Erhardt-Siebold
This shows that the "new moons" according to K.-H.'s chronology are per-mitted to have an age up to 5 days It is hard to understand how this result
can be considered as the basis of a newchronology
of the Persiankingdom.
Archimedes Sand Reckoner
Aristarchos and Copernicus
By RUDOLFVONERHARDT nd ERIKA VONERHARDT-SIEBOLD
Summary of Principal Contents
T HE present study analyzes the famous heliocentricpassage in theSand-Reckoner (4auATr77s), a short treatise attributed to the greatARCHIMEDES of Syracuse (ca. 287-212 B.C.). This passage has been
regarded the principal and most reliable testimony for the promulgation byARISTARCHOS of Samos (ca. 310-230 B.C.) of a genuine heliocentric as-
tronomy. It will be shown that current interpretations of ARCHIMEDES'ext
cannot claim to be theonly possible ones. In particular, the two proportionsoccurring in it will be given new meanings as a result of a short analysis of
some Greek conceptions of the point, especially of PTOLEMY'S oint proposi-tion. ARCHIMEDES'authorship of the Sand-Reckoner is, for the first time,
questioned, and ARISTARCHOS'resumable line of thought conjecturally re-
constructed. References in other writers to ARISTARCHOS' octrines are
merely touched upon, while PLUTARCHOS'ext in the Quaestiones is subjectedto renewed criticism. Finally, attention is drawn to the almost certain
acquaintance of COPERNICUS ith the Sand-Reckoner.
The HeliocentricPassage in the Sand-Reckoner
For convenience of reference, the following famous passage in the Sand-
Reckonerhas been subdivided by numerals:
(I). KaTexeLs 6b, b6Ltb KaXeCLatK6i0OS V)7O tev rWXVTrXelorWcov0rpoXo0YWv aa4ctpa, as
aOTl KEVTpov JEV TO TaS Yas KEVTpOV,a 6e bK TOV KeV7pOVV a TL EVOeLa Ta /ieTaCv TOV
KEVTpOU TOV CLXLov Kat TOV KVTpOV TaS yas TCavC 'yapEl TCv7aLs ypaoCLOvals apa TWV aC'T-
poXoyoWv 6EItetaL 6tacKovras.
(2). 'AploTapXos 6e o latuos ViroEowvtLv TLVWV eES6WKeV ypaCa4s, Ev atLs EK T V V'trO-
KELt,LVOYVTvJLpaivEL TOV KO6O-OV7roXXa\\arloove[LVOE V vVv Elpr)jiVov. (3). i).trOelrat Yp a
Lev a7rXavea TWv a(aTpowv Kal TOv LaXtovieverLV KvYrT7Jov,Tadv 6E yav 7rEptep(peTOaC repl TO7
aXtov KaTa KVKXOVTrepLtcpeLta, gS TV 'VeLLy C ca 7 p6Ox KEILEVOS, 4). Tav 6E Twv at7XavYOV
This shows that the "new moons" according to K.-H.'s chronology are per-mitted to have an age up to 5 days It is hard to understand how this result
can be considered as the basis of a newchronology
of the Persiankingdom.
Archimedes Sand Reckoner
Aristarchos and Copernicus
By RUDOLFVONERHARDT nd ERIKA VONERHARDT-SIEBOLD
Summary of Principal Contents
T HE present study analyzes the famous heliocentricpassage in theSand-Reckoner (4auATr77s), a short treatise attributed to the greatARCHIMEDES of Syracuse (ca. 287-212 B.C.). This passage has been
regarded the principal and most reliable testimony for the promulgation byARISTARCHOS of Samos (ca. 310-230 B.C.) of a genuine heliocentric as-
tronomy. It will be shown that current interpretations of ARCHIMEDES'ext
cannot claim to be theonly possible ones. In particular, the two proportionsoccurring in it will be given new meanings as a result of a short analysis of
some Greek conceptions of the point, especially of PTOLEMY'S oint proposi-tion. ARCHIMEDES'authorship of the Sand-Reckoner is, for the first time,
questioned, and ARISTARCHOS'resumable line of thought conjecturally re-
constructed. References in other writers to ARISTARCHOS' octrines are
merely touched upon, while PLUTARCHOS'ext in the Quaestiones is subjectedto renewed criticism. Finally, attention is drawn to the almost certain
acquaintance of COPERNICUS ith the Sand-Reckoner.
The HeliocentricPassage in the Sand-Reckoner
For convenience of reference, the following famous passage in the Sand-
Reckonerhas been subdivided by numerals:
(I). KaTexeLs 6b, b6Ltb KaXeCLatK6i0OS V)7O tev rWXVTrXelorWcov0rpoXo0YWv aa4ctpa, as
aOTl KEVTpov JEV TO TaS Yas KEVTpOV,a 6e bK TOV KeV7pOVV a TL EVOeLa Ta /ieTaCv TOV
KEVTpOU TOV CLXLov Kat TOV KVTpOV TaS yas TCavC 'yapEl TCv7aLs ypaoCLOvals apa TWV aC'T-
poXoyoWv 6EItetaL 6tacKovras.
(2). 'AploTapXos 6e o latuos ViroEowvtLv TLVWV eES6WKeV ypaCa4s, Ev atLs EK T V V'trO-
KELt,LVOYVTvJLpaivEL TOV KO6O-OV7roXXa\\arloove[LVOE V vVv Elpr)jiVov. (3). i).trOelrat Yp a
Lev a7rXavea TWv a(aTpowv Kal TOv LaXtovieverLV KvYrT7Jov,Tadv 6E yav 7rEptep(peTOaC repl TO7
aXtov KaTa KVKXOVTrepLtcpeLta, gS TV 'VeLLy C ca 7 p6Ox KEILEVOS, 4). Tav 6E Twv at7XavYOV
