The Thrust of an Argument

Sometime in the sixteenth year of Xerxes great king (circa 468/7 BCE in our calendar), someone at Persepolis turned a tablet with Elamite writing on end and rolled his seal along it. A conversation with Josho Brouwers of Karwansaray BV recalled it to memory. Because this seems to show the style of body armour with a tall neck-guard and flaps over the shoulders which is often understood as distinctively Greek and said to have been invented about a hundred years before Xerxes based on its appearance in Greek vase paintings. But there is no hint of the Aegean in this scene, and this armour is missing the skirt of pteryges around the waist which usually appear in depictions of armour with this cut from the Aegean.

Showing where this style of armour was invented and how it spread and changed is more difficult than it sounds. It is true that the earliest evidence is painted pottery from mainland Greece in the early sixth or perhaps the late seventh century BCE. But in the sixth century BCE, it happens that we have much more evidence for arms and armour from the Aegean than from anywhere in the neighbourhood. The people there painted armoured men on their pots with durable glazes and carved them on stone, and they deposited large amounts of armour and weapons in graves and especially temples. So it is very dangerous to say that the Greeks invented an object just because it is first depicted in the Aegean, especially if that object is one which does not survive well in the ground. It is usually thought that the first armours with this cut were of cloth or felt or hide, and none of those materials survives 2500 years in the ground unless the conditions are just right. Although by the second century BCE armour with this cut was being worn all around the Mediterranean and made in every possible material, not a single fragment made from cloth or hide has been identified. So while this style of armour was probably invented somewhere in or near to the Aegean around the sixth century BCE, its hard to say for sure that it was invented by Greeks.

Whoever invented this style of armour, from the fifth century onwards it seems to have spread east and west with Greek and perhaps Etruscan and Phoenician sailors and soldiers and artisans. Yet its a bit harder to say how the people who borrowed it understood what they were doing.

If we look at the Darius Mosaic from Pompeii, an incredibly good copy of a painting made circa 300 BCE, we see this style of armour on both sides. The Persians desperately defending their king mostly wear armours with this cut but with a blocky shape and red surface. The king of the Macedonians who are pushing into the scene from the left as Darius’s driver turns away also wears this style of armour, but his is different in almost every detail. Clearly Macedonians and Persians adapted the basic form of this armour to their own taste. While Greeks liked to boast that Philip of Macedon had borrowed his phalanx from Homer, and Darius and his men had copied Greek swords and lances, no Macedonian or Persian has left us their words to tell us whether they saw their armour as Greek. And the soldier on the seal above was happy to wear close-fitted Iranian clothing under his armour, thrust a very Iranian axe behind his shoulder where he could grab it quickly, and leave aside the large round shield which warriors from the Aegean favoured for hand-to-hand combat.

Further Reading: Duncan Head, The Achaemenid Persian Army (Montvert: Stockport, 1992) p. 27 fig. 14a, John Curtis and Nigel Tallis eds., Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2005) pp. 210-217. The Oriental Institute Publications on Persepolis are free and well worth the reading (link).

Edit 2022-03-12: Fixed formatting broken when WordPress introduced the block editor

Edit 2023-09-27: fixed broken image elements

#AchaemenidArmy #AlexanderTheGreat #ancient #armour #DariusIII #DariusMosaic #IronAge #JarvaTypeIVArmour #methodology

Stepping into 2023 like...

#HexAndCounter #Wargames #Wargaming #AlexanderTheGreat #DariusIII #Arete

Two Perspectives on the Astronomical Diary for Gaugamela, Part 1: Background

It is notorious that few stories about Alexander the Great written during his lifetime survive. The embroidered narratives by Greek and Latin writers which form the basis of most modern accounts were written 300 to 500 years later. A few of Alexander’s coins and inscriptions have been preserved, but they naturally give his point of view. A few chance references in Greek literature give a sense of the shock which many contemporaries felt that the king of a land on the edge of civilization suddenly overthrew the greatest power which had ever existed and conquered places which were little more than legends. One of the few long stories about Alexander which does survive in a version written during his lifetime is a cuneiform text, the Astronomical Diary for Gaugamela. This week I thought that I would write an introduction to the Diary and what is involved in reading such a text. Next week I will talk about two different ways of reading them as represented in articles by R.J. van der Spek (English: Darius III, Alexander the Great, and Babylonian Scholarship) and by Robert Rollinger and Kai Ruffing (German: ‘Panik’ im Heer: Dareios III, die Schlacht von Gaugamela, und die Mondfinsternis vom 20. September 331 vor Christ). I hope that the second will be helpful for readers who are interested in ancient history but not comfortable reading German.

The astronomical diaries are a collection of significant events on earth and in heaven organized by date. In the first millennium BCE some of the temples in southern Mesopotamia paid scholars to observe and record these events. The Babylonians seem to have believed that by correlating events on earth with events in the heavens, scholars could better understand the messages which the gods were sending them and the interrelationships between events. By nature, these diaries needed to be a running account, and they often contain notes such as that the sky was hidden by clouds or that the scholar was unable to watch that night. This suggests that the scholars were concerned with accuracy and not willing to invent observations. Most historians of science are very impressed with these scholars’ ability to take careful observations of the heavens and generate mathematical rules to model them. The diaries survive on a series of broken tablets from roughly the seventh through the first centuries BCE. One pair of tablets devotes about twenty long lines to the events in 331 BCE which we call the battle of Gaugamela, the flight of Darius, and Alexander’s conquest of Babylonia. The left half of these lines is preserved, while the right is broken away. With luck some of the broken part will be found again amongst the tablet fragments in European museums, or another copy will be identified.

The most important thing to know about the Astronomical Diary for Gaugamela is that it exists and can be read. Having a source contemporary with the battle and only a few days’ ride away is very important, because every time a story is retold it changes, and working back from the changed version to reconstruct the original is a slow and subjective process. Most of what can be known about the chronology of Alexander’s career comes from cuneiform sources, because the Babylonian calendar was very regular and Babylonian astronomers were more interested in recording precise dates than Greek historians were. In 1988 A.J. Sachs and H. Hunger printed a transcription and English translation which is widely available in academic libraries, and for some years now a text by two respected scholars has been available online, so scholars who want to tell the story of the battle have a duty to use it and not just rely on Greek and Latin stories. If you already know about this source, however, the question is how to interpret it.

Have a look at the transcription of some of the most controversial lines of the Astronomical Diary for Gaugamela.

(14’) ITU BI U4 11.KAM hat-tu4 ina ma-dàk-tu4 ina qud-me LUGAL GAR-m[a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(15’) ana tar-ṣi LUGAL ŠUB-ú 24.KAM ina še-rì LUGAL ŠÚ za-qip-t[u4 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(16’) GABA a-ha-meš im-ha-ṣu-ma BAD5.BAD5lúERÍN.MEŠ kab-t[u4 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ]
(17’) LUGAL ERÍN.MEŠ-šú ú-maš-šìr-ú-ši-ma ana URU.MEŠ-šú-nu [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(18’) [ana K]UR Gu-ti-i ZÁH-it-u’ (blank)

The numbers in (brackets) count the lines of the tablet. The square brackets enclose sections of the text which are missing, with two dots representing approximately one missing sign. As in most editions of a cuneiform text, this one prints signs which the editors read as words or morphemes in CAPITAL LETTERS and signs which they interpret as syllables in lowercase letters. The accent aigu, accent grave, and numbers in subscript differentiate between the different signs which can be read the same way, so that a reader who knows cuneiform can imagine which signs lie behind the editor’s interpretation into Latin letters and consider other possibilities. As you can see, this text is written in quite a logographic style. The original editors sensibly compared a modern almanac or other concise reference work which presents repetitive, structured information in a small space. Because the text is so concise, scholars today have to think carefully about how to read it.

Line fourteen describes some events two weeks before the battle, just after an eclipse of the moon. As is my custom, I have coded this page so that an explanation of each word will pop up if you put your mouse over it.

ITU BI U4 11.KAM hat-tu4 ina ma-dàk-tu4 ina qud-me LUGAL GAR–m[a …

At first glance, this line is easy to interpret: “same month, eleventh day, panic appeared in the camp in the presence of the king and …” In the Diary LUGAL is Darius III not his Macedonian rival.

The description of the battle was written on parts of lines 15 and 16 which have been lost. Line seventeen describes its end.

LUGAL ERÍN.MEŠ–šú ú-maš-šìr-ú-ši-ma ana URU.MEŠ–šú-nu …

All the signs on the first half of this line are legible, and all the words are common ones. As I will discuss next week, however, turning this line into an Akkadian or English sentence is not so easy.

Edit 2019-09-18: Fixed a broken link (livus.org is in disarray after converting from hand coding to a CMS)

Edit 2025-03-29: block editor

#Achaemenid #AlexanderTheGreat #ancient #AstronomicalDiaries #cuneiform #DariusIII #IronAge #LateBabylonian #methodology