Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T03:49:43.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Note on the Chronology of the Reign of Arkesilas III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

B. M. Mitchell
B. M. Mitchell
Affiliation:
St. Anne's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor I. Noshy, in a paper read to the 1968 conference of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Libya and published in its proceedings, has re-formulated Chamoux's view of the chronology of the reign of Arkesilas III, to which I proposed an alternative in JHS lxxxvi (1966) 99–103. Noshy upholds Chamoux's view that Arkesilas' appeal to Samos (Hdt. iv 162–3) was made to Polykrates before 525 (when he medized during Cambyses' Egyptian expedition (Hdt. iii 13 and iv 165), after which, according to Noshy (p. 73) he could only have appealed to his Persian patrons). He attempts to reduce the awkwardly long interval between these events and Arkesilas' murder by updating Aryandes' Libyan expedition, which followed the murder, to 519. Like Chamoux, he connects Aryandes' rebellion against Darius and his execution with the visit of Darius to Egypt, recorded by Polyainos (vii 11) and fixed to 518 by the date of the death of the Apis bull which Darius mourned. In Noshy's view, Aryandes' Libyan expedition was not authorised by Darius, whose impending visit caused him to recall it before the wider purpose of subduing the Libyan tribes was accomplished (pp. 64–5). He suggests further, that, contrary to the testimony of Herodotus (iv 164.4–5.1), Arkesilas' sojourn at Barka, which he places between 525 and 519, was by his own choice, with the object of subduing aristocratic revolt in western Cyrenaica, and that he never had to take refuge there, but was able to return to Cyrene between expeditions, only handing over the government to Pheretima while he was away on campaigns (p. 69). During this period, Noshy supposes that he founded Euhesperides to serve as an outpost in western Cyrenaica (pp. 70–1).

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 94 , November 1974 , pp. 174 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Arcesilas III’, Libya in History, pp. 53–78.

2 Cyrène sous la Monarchie des Battiades, c. 6.

3 Posener, , La Première Domination Perse en Égypte, no. 5 (pp. 36 ff.)Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Cameron, George C., JNES ii (1943) 307–14, ‘Darius, Egypt, and the “Lands beyond the sea”’Google Scholar. Cameron's argument, based on the lists of Persian subject-peoples (see Roland Kent, ib. pp. 302–6) is supplementary to Herodotus and accepts the synchronism. Noshy (pp. 55–6) objects that Kushiya (northern Ethiopia) is absent from the Behistun and Persepolis lists but present on the Egyptian canal stelae as well as Putaya (Libya) and denies that any conclusion can be drawn that Libya submitted c. 513 (the date of both lists), before the result of the Libyan expedition was known at Persepolis (where the Thracians (Skudra) who submitted after the Scythian expedition are recorded, though they are absent from the canal list). His own explanation, that both Kushiya and Putaya were part of the Egyptian satrapy and so only recorded locally, will not explain their presence at Naksh-i Rustum on the list on Darius' tomb. It is possible that they, like the Libyans, had submitted earlier to Cambyses (Hdt. iii 97.1, cf. iii 13) but made a further submission to Darius after the building of the canal and the movement of Persian ships through the Red Sea (Kent, , Old Persian, DZc, pp. 111 and 147)Google Scholar, i.e. at about the same time as the Libyan expedition. The allegiance of subjects to the Persian king was personal and arrangements tended to be confirmed with each new monarch (cf. the Argive embassy to Sousa to find out whether their standing vis-à-vis Artaxerxes was the same as it had been widi Xerxes (Hdt. vii 151)). In spite of Noshy's doubts about the effectiveness of the Libyan expedition (pp. 57–9), the most natural time for some of the Libyan tribes to have submitted to Darius would surely have been after the Persian army had reduced Barka and advanced as far as Euhesperides.

5 See Wade-Gery's comprehensive note on the chronology of the Scythian and Libyan expeditions and Aryandes' revolt (Essays, ‘Miltiades’, p. 159 note 2) and Cameron's discussion in the article cited in the previous note.

J. M. Balcer (HSCP lxxvi (1972) 99–132) raises the date of the Scythian and Libyan expedition to 519, rejecting the date of the Tabula Capitolina for the Scythian expedition and identifying it with Darius' successful campaign against some Sakai (whose king Skunkha he captured) in his third year, recorded in BI col. v. This preserves Herodotus' synchronism but raises odier difficulties: (1) It gives a very compressed chronology for the early years of Darius' regin, when he seems to have been too active in the eastern part of his empire to have led an expedition into Europe. (2) It results in a surprisingly high date for the Greek tyrants who went with Darius to the Danube. Histiaios, Miltiades and Aiakes were all active in the 490's and Strattis of Chios till at least 480 (Hdt. viii 132). (3) The chronology of events in Samos from the death of Polykrates to the Persian capture of Samos (Hdt. iii 120–149) would also be tight, since Aiakes has succeeded Syloson before the expedition. (4) The Herodotean expedition did not result in the subjection of a Scythian chief and his tribe, as did the action of BI col. v. 5. Darius' commanders in the west have changed by the time of the Scythian expedition: Otanes the conspirator captures Samos (Hdt. iii 149) but Megabazos, Otanes son of Sisamnes, and Artaphernes are on the scene during or soon after the Scythian expedition (Hdt. v 25–6). Generally, without placing much weight on the Tabula Capitolina or even Hippias' marriage-tie with Lampsakos after Hipparchos' murder (Thuc. vi 59), the Scythian expedition seems to belong to a later context than the events of Hdt. iii. which are grouped around the accession of Darius.

6 Olmstead, , History of the Persian Empire, pp. 113 and 142Google Scholar.

7 Egypt is listed among the provinces which revolted from Darius (Kent, Old Persian, DB I col. ii para. 21, where Egypt is restored in the OP from the Elamite version) but appears in the list of peoples subject to Darius in DB I col. i para. 6.

8 Boardman, , BSA lxi (1966) 155–6Google Scholar. Dr M. J. Vickers, in an article to be published in Libya Antiqua vi, which he has kindly shown me, gives a full publication and discussion of the Benghazi material. He corroborates Boardman's early sixth century date for the foundation of Euhesperides and dates the earliest sherds to the first quarter of the century.

9 Hdt. iv 165.1: