The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus: The Evidence Reconsidered

BRANKO F. VAN OPPEN DE RUITER T HE D EATH OF A RSINOE II P HILADELPHUS : T HE E VIDENCE R ECONSIDERED aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 174 (2010) 139–150 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 139 TH E D EAT H OF A RSI NOE II P H I LA DELPH US: TH E E V I DENCE R ECONSI DER ED * The date of Arsinoe II Philadelphus’ death, though long held secure, has become a matter of scholarly dispute two decades ago. For many figures of ancient history, not in the least Hellenistic queens, the date of death is often unknown – and is in many cases not particularly important. In the case of Arsinoe II it does matter whether she passed away in 270 or 268 BCE and circumstantial evidence supports the latter date. Before looking into that evidence, though, it is important to first explain why the date of Arsinoe’s death has become a subject of controversy, despite the fact that no new documents directly pertaining to the issue have come to light for over a century. This discussion will focus especially on passages from the Mendes and Pithom stelae. I will additionally examine the date of the foundation of Arsinoe’s official cult. It has commonly been assumed that this cult was posthumous – i.e., that it was established to commemorate Arsinoe’s earthly passing – but evidence proves that she was officially worshipped individually (viz., independent of her brother and husband) within her lifetime. The last part of this article explores the possibility that, shortly before her death, Arsinoe convinced her brother and husband Ptolemy II to appoint her son, also called Ptolemy, as joint ruler, and to join the Chremonidean alliance against Antigonus II Gonatas in an effort to support her son’s claim to the Macedonian throne. The ancient authors are silent about the date of Arsinoe’s death, but a fragment from the Mendes stela found over a century ago seemed to answer the question.1 According to the fragment the ascension of Arsinoe into heaven occurred in the Egyptian month Pachon of the fifteenth year of Ptolemy II: Ìôbt 15 “bd 1 ‡mw nÚr.t tn prμ.s r pt ßnm.s Ì©w n . . . 15th regnal year, 1st summer month: This goddess ascended into heaven and united her body with . . . (I.Cair. 22181, ll. 11–12 = Urk. II: 40, ll. 8–10). The same inscription further stipulated that a ceremony was to be held “every 10th day (tp sw 10 nb)” to commemorate the occasion (I.Cair. 22181, l. 13 = Urk. II: 41, l. 6). It remains unclear whether this means the tenth day of each Egyptian month, the tenth of the month Pachon, or every ten days (viz., every Egyptian week) (Grzybek 1990, 107–108). According to the Mendes stela, then, the death of Arsinoe Philadelphus can be dated to early July 270 BCE – as the first month of the Egyptian summer corresponds to the period from late-June to late-July, and the fifteenth year of Ptolemy II (reckoned from his appointment as joint ruler in 285/4 BCE) corresponds to 271/0 BCE. In 1922 Rudolf Pfeiffer added to this evidence a marginal note (scholion) found on a papyrus containing a fragments of a poem by Callimachus on the Apotheosis of Arsinoe.2 For, the scholion supplied: “…w §n passelÆn(ƒ) ≤rpasm°nhw (that is, she was seized [scil., Arsinoe * This article developed out of my correspondence with Prof. Dorothy J. Thompson (Cambridge), after the symposium on Ancient Alexandria at Columbia’s Center for the Ancient Mediterranean (2002), and I am deeply indebted to her for her generous support, suggestions and references. For additional comments and corrections I wish to thank Elizabeth Carney (Clemson), Lowell Edmunds (Rutgers), and my friend Aileen Ruiz. Special thanks go to another friend, Tiffany Ng, for all her help checking references. Particular gratitude is also due to ZPE’s editor Ludwig Koenen. On a personal note, I dedicate this article to my college mentor, Prof. H. S. Versnel (Leiden), for guiding me in the direction of Hellenistic politics and religion. As ever, I take sole responsibility for the present article’s faults. While wrapping up this article it came to my attention that Chris Bennett has addressed several aspects of the present issue on his website on the Ptolemaic dynasty, http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm [subs. cited as: Bennett, “Arsinoe II”]. Although we often reach similar conclusions, incorporating his article would doubtless have enriched my article. 1 Von Prott 1898, p. 464 n. 1; bey Kamal 1904–05, I, 159–168; ibid. II, pls. 54–55, no. 22181; Sethe 1904, II, 28–54; Roeder 1959, 168–188; de Meulenaere and MacKay 1976, II, 174–177 and 205–206; Grzybek 1990, 103–112. 2 Callim. Apotheosis Arsinoes (F 228 ed. Pfeiffer = P.Berol. 13417 A recto). For which, now see: Austin 2006. 140 B. van Oppen deceased] at the full moon).”3 From this note, Pfeiffer (1922, 8) deduced that Arsinoe’s death occurred on 9 July 270 BCE.4 It is somewhat surprising that this dating soon became communis opinio.5 The first scholar to refer to the fragment of the Mendes stela, H. von Prott (1898, 464 n. 1), had already pointed out that another inscription contradicts its information. The Pithom stela lists among events in the 16th year of Ptolemy II an expedition that embarked in Pachon(?)6 from the Bitter Lakes (Kem-Our) along the Red Sea into the Troglodytes (Ethiopia) and back to the Scorpion Lake (mod. Timsah). With the ships, the captain “delivered everything that the king and his beloved royal sister and wife desired (μn.tw nf mr<w>.n nb<w> nsw Ìn© snt.f Ìmt nsw mr<jt>.f)” (I.Cair. 22181, l. 23 = Urk. II: 101, l. 12). A few lines farther down, for the same year, the inscription mentions the king’s generosity toward Apis, Mnevis and the sacred Momemphite(?) bull,7 when “his majesty and his royal sister were together with them (μw Ìm.f Ìn© Ìmt nsw ≈r.sn)” (I.Cair. 22181, l. 26 = Urk. II: 103, l. 10). In other words, Arsinoe was still alive in her brother’s sixteenth year according to the Pithom stela, while she had already died in his fifteenth year according to the Mendes stela. Erhard Grzybek (1990, 103–112) has taken up this conflicting evidence. To reconcile the chronological contradiction, Grzybek (ibid., 106) has proposed that the Mendes stela reckoned the king’s regnal years from his sole rule (283/2 BCE), while the Pithom stela counted the king’s years from his joint rule with his father (285/4 BCE). He therefore draws the conclusion that the date of Pachon of year 15 corresponds to June/July 268 BCE, rather than 270 BCE (ibid. 107). Additionally, Grzybek offers a different reading of the Callimachus scholion, namely: “…w ¶ti pãs<hw> selÆn<hw> ≤rpasm°nhw (that is, the moon was still wholly seized [scil., invisible])”.8 New moon occurred on the night of 1/2 July 268 BCE, which corresponds to 6/7 Pachon – viz., the four days of the ritual Opening of the Mouth before the funerary rites that were stipulated for the 10th day of Pachon, year 15.9 Grzybek’s conjecture has received the support of such eminent scholars as Hans Hauben and Ludwig Koenen.10 Three scholars have, nevertheless, rejected Grzybek’s interpretation. In her review of his monograph, Lucia Criscuolo (1991, 282–289) criticizes Grzybek above all for not addressing the issue of retroactive dating – nor, one may add, how it can be that priests in Mendes early in 264 BCE did not date documents retroactively, as their colleagues apparently did in Pithom, some 42 miles (ca. 70 km) to the southeast, at approximately the same time.11 Criscuolo, furthermore, objects that Arsinoe is not mentioned explicitly by her full title on the Pithom stela in the passages for year 16, while her full titulature is given for year 12. Her alleged appearance in the sixteenth regnal year may be less real, Criscuolo argues, and more spiritual. Furthermore, she disputes that an Apis bull was enthroned in year 16, on the basis of the list of Apis bulls published by Dorothy J. Thompson.12 This last point can immediately be answered, for neither the Pithom 3 H. Diels ap. v. Wilamowitz, Neues von Kallimachos [2], Sb. Preuß. Akad. (1914) I, p. 222 n. 1; also, see: Austin 2006, pp. 60–61, with n. 24 for further lit. 4 Goldstine 1972, p. 61 no. 9047 (10 July, at 3:06 a.m., in Babylon). 5 Macurdy 1932, 117; Bevan 1968, 386; Longega 1968, 92; Pomeroy 1984, 18; Huß 2001, p. 310 and n. 41. For further lit., see: Grzybek 1990, pp. 103–104 n. 65. 6 I.Cair. 22183, l. 22 = Urk. II: 100, l. 15: only gives signs for “First Month (“bd 1)” without indication of the season; since the last mentioned date (l. 16) was Mecheir (second month of winter, “bd 2 prt), this first month could either be the first month of summer (Pachon) or the first month of the new year (Thot). 7 Grzybek 1990, p. 104 n. 66; cf. Strabo 17, 1, 22; Roeder 1959, 126 (“der Stier mit buntem Fell (?)”). 8 Ibid. 111 (“c’est-à-dire: toute la lune était encore dérobé”). 9 I.Cair. 22818, l. 12 = Urk. II: 40, ll. 12–13: “after the Opening of the Mouth had taken four days for this goddess (μr m-≈t wp r n nÚrt tn r hrw fdw prμ.s m b“)”. Grzybek 1990, 108 and 112. 10 Hauben 1992, 160–162; Hölbl 1992, 117–122; Koenen 1993, p. 51 and n. 61; Hazzard 2000, 50, 55 and 99. Through personal correspondence, Ludwig Koenen has informed me that his opinions have changed on the matter, which he may hopefully be able to publish eventually. 11 For a discussion of Criscuolo’s arguments, also see: Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17. 12 D. J. Thompson, Memphis Under the Ptolemies (Princeton, 1988), 284. Moreover, work is still in progress on the Apis bulls; see, e.g., D. Devauchelle RE 1994, 83–88. The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus 141 stela nor Grzybek say that an Apis bull was enthroned that year, but rather that Ptolemy II and his “royal wife” Arsinoe showed their piety toward the sacred animals by their benefactions.13 In her contribution to the Festschrift for Erich Winter, Martina Minas (1994, 207–209) rejects the notion that the priests of Mendes and Pithom used different dating systems – one calculating the regnal years from Ptolemy II’s sole rule, the other from his joint rule with his father.14 Her chief argument is that both stelae were erected after the reform of the Egyptian calendar in 267/6 BCE. Minas assumes that subsequently Egyptian priests throughout the country dated all events retroactively to accord with this new chronology. Additionally, she questions whether all events mentioned on the Pithom stela were, in fact, listed in chronological order, and particularly if the events mentioned in lines 16–23 all refer to the sixteenth regnal year. Rather, Minas suggests that the list of the king’s achievements was ordered rhetorically and thematically. Finally, she maintains that the death of Arsinoe Philadelphus should be dated to the new moon of Pachon, year 15 (retroactively reckoned since joint-rule), viz. 25 July 270 BCE.15 In the acts of the international colloquium on Ptolemaic ruler-cult, published in memory of Jan Quaegebeur, Hélène Cadell-Charpentier (1998, 1–3) addresses anew the question regarding the exact date of Arsinoe II Philadelphus’ passing.16 She points out that the inauguration of the “canal of Ptolemy” listed on the Pithom stela under year 16, in the month of Mecheir, is mentioned on the Mendes stela after the apotheosis of Arsinoe in year 15.17 Cadell takes this as proof of the inscriptions’ essential parallel chronology. Furthermore, from papyrological evidence she believes that the Arsinoeia, the annual festival commemorating Arsinoe’s apotheosis, were celebrated on 27 Mesore, rather than on 10 Pachon.18 Additionally, she argues that Arsinoe’s canephorate, the eponymous priesthood established at Alexandria in honor of the queen, is already documented for the year 269/8 BCE. In short, Cadell confirms the traditional date of Arsinoe’s death in the summer of 270 BCE. To take the papyrological evidence first, it is important to stress that neither the annual date of the Arsinoeia nor the establishment of Arsinoe’s canephorate can be taken as unequivocal proof for the date of the queen’s death. Françoise Perpillou-Thomas (1993, 155–158) shows, in her study of Ptolemaic festivals, the difficulty of dating the Arsinoeia. The date of 27 Mesore, which is given for year 36 (250/49 BCE), corresponds to 6 Loios on the Macedonian calendar (P.Cair.Zen. III: 59312.26).19 Considering that the Egyptian calendar would fall behind one day every four years in modern terms,20 and that the Macedonian calendar would leap ahead by fifteen days in the same period,21 the two calendars would shift away from each other by eight days every two years.22 Thus, according to Grzybek’s reconstruction, in 268 BCE 10 Pachon would actually correspond to 4 Loios. It may be possible to deduce that the Arsinoeia was a three-day festival, lasting from the 4th to the 6th of the Macedonian month of Loios. As for Arsinoe’s canephorate, it is not the case that the term of office of Eukleia, daughter of Aristodikos, can only be assigned to year 17 (i.e., 269/8 BCE) as Cadell argues.23 Since the canephore of year 20 13 Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17, discusses the issue of the Apis bull at length. 14 For a discussion of Minas’ arguments, also see: Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17. 15 Note that Minas thus accepts Grzybek’s reading of the Callimachus scholion as indicating that Arsinoe’s death occurred at the time of the new moon, and not the full moon. 16 For a discussion of Cadell’s arguments, also see: ibid. 17 Also, see: Diod. 1, 33, 11–12; Strabo 17, 1, 25 and 45; Pliny HN 6, 165–167. 18 Also, see: P. W. Pestman, A Guide to the Zenon Archive, B (Leiden, 1981), 514. 19 P.Cair.Zen. II.59185.3 seems to suggest the festival fell after 28 Loios (= 14 Mesore) in year 30 (255 BCE), while PSI IV.3645 (+ P.Bat. XXI.A) dates it after 8 Loios (= 10 Mesore) in year 35(?) (251–250 BCE). 20 The Egyptian luni-solar calendar comprised 12 months of 30 days each, with five intercalary days – giving 365 days per year. 21 The Macedonian calendar consisted of twelve lunar month of 29 or 30 days alternately, with a thirteenth month added every other year – giving one year of 354 days and the next of 384, or an average of 369 days. 22 Hazzard 1987, 142–143 and 147–148; Grzybek 1990, 135–156. 23 P.dem.Bryce (= P.dem.Ehevertr. 12) (of the Alexander priest, only his father’s name is partially recorded: [---]”n¡rs – perhaps [Alex]andros?); Clarysse and v/d Veken 1983, 6–7 no. D; Cadell 1998, 3. 142 B. van Oppen (266/5 BCE) was one Berenike, daughter of Athysodotos/Aristodikos(?),24 it may seem tempting to assume that Eukleia and Berenike were sisters. However, the regnal year and the royal titulature are missing in the protocol which records Eukleia’s office, and it should be remembered that no eponymous priests have been transmitted for years 32 and 37 (resp. 254/3 and 249/8 BCE) (Clarysse and v/d Veken 1983, 8–9). Additionally, Cadell believes that a contract from the Oxyrhynchite village Takona dates from the Macedonian month Audnaios of year 18 (viz., November/December 268 BCE), for the dating formula mentions “Ptolemy the Son”, who ruled jointly with Ptolemy II, 268–259 BCE,25 the Alexander priest Lykon, son of Klesias, and another Berenike, daughter of Andromachos, as canephore of Arsinoe.26 Since “Ptolemy the Son” disappears from the dating formulae after year 27 (Hazzard 2000, 22–23), and all canephores are recorded from years 19 to 31, Cadell seems correct to date this document to year 18.27 Still, the establishment of Arsinoe’s canephorate may well have preceded the queen’s death – the eponymous priesthood of the Theoi Adelphoi (the Sibling Gods, viz., Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II) had already been joined to the cult of Alexander the Great at Alexandria in year 14 (272/1 BCE), that is, even before the summer of 270 BCE.28 There are, however, several problems with Grzybek’s alternate reading of the Callimachus scholion that have so far not been addressed.29 From Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s initial reading of “V%ELIPÀ%%ELHN HRPA%MENH%”,30 Heinrich Diels suggested: “…w §n passelÆn(ƒ) ≤rpasm°nhw”.31 Grzybek, however, offered: “V%ETIPÀ% %ELHN HRPA%MENH%”, i.e., “…w ¶ti pãs<hw> selÆn<hw> ≤rpasm°nhw”.32 It is possible to see “ETI”, with a lopsided tau leaning on the iota. Paleographically, though, the scholiast’s ductus must indicate a nu in three strokes, giving “EN”. Furthermore, the rounded mark over “PA%” appears to be a small circumflex rather than a macron or an acute accent. A circumflex would require “pçs<a/-an> selÆn<h/-hn>”, which is grammatically impossible and dubious Greek.33 As for the spacing between the two sigmas, it is unclear whether that is significant, as there is a similar spacing between “HR” and “PA%MENH%” in “≤rpasm°nhw”. But grammar and paleography aside, the real problem with Grzybek’s interpretation is that it makes no sense in the context of Callimachus’ poem. For in the poem Arsinoe herself is snatched away (kleptom°na) by the Dioscuri, who place the queen beneath the Starry Wain (the constellation of the Great Bear) after she 24 O.dem.Brookl. 37.1821E (= Acta Orientalia 25 [1960]: 252–255) (Malinine gives her father’s name as ”tyrsttws, but Clarysse and v/d/ Veken give ”tyrstÈws, while in P.dem.Bryce the father’s name is ”rstytyÈs); Clarysse and v/d Veken 1983, 6–7 no. 25. 25 For this “Ptolemy the son”, see below. 26 P.Sorb. inv. 2440; Cadell 1998, 3. It should be noted that in the protocol the date is missing, and in the contract it is illegible. The matter is complicated by the fact that P.Sorb. 2441 (from the same archive), dated to year 18 (268/7 BCE), has the Alexander priest [Ptolem]aios, son of Agathokles (i.e., not Lykos son of Klesias), but gives no canephore. It may be hypothesized, that the scribe of P.Sorb. 2441 (erroneously or ignorantly?) gave the eponymous priest of year 17. 27 Minas 1998, 43–60; ead. 2000, 93–97. 28 P. Hib. II.199.12; Clarysse and v/d Veken 1983, 4–5 no. 19; Hauben 1992, 161; Koenen 1993, p. 56 and n. 73; also, see: Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17. 29 I am deeply grateful to ZPE editor Ludwig Koenen for requesting Dr. Fabian Reiter (Curator, Berlin State Museums – Prussian Cultural Heritage, Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection) an image of P.Berol. 13417 A recto; I would also like to express my thanks to Koenen and Reiter for their assistance with the interpretation of the scholion. 30 U. von Wilamowitz, Neues von Kallimachos [1], Sb. Preuß. Akad. (1912) I, 524–550. 31 H. Diels ap. von Wilamowitz, Neues von Kallimachos [2], Sb. Preuß. Akad. (1914) I, p. 222 n. 1. The raised nu indicates a scribal abbreviation. 32 Ibid. 111. ETI rather than ELI, with an accent on the alpha of PÀC, and a space between the two sigmas of PÀC CELHN. For the expression “selÆnhw èrpasom°nh”, see: Orph. Hymn. 29, 14 (èrpagima›ow); Phryn. Praep. Soph. p. 6B (èrpagima›ow); Schol. Arat. 735 (èrpagima¤a); P.Mag.Par I: 750 (§n èrpagª selÆnhw). 33 Koenen adds the possibility that the scribe copied a sign he misunderstood. The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus 143 passes beyond the moon (par°yei selãn&).34 Now, Arsinoe could hardly have been said to pass beyond the moon at the time of the new moon (when it is invisible).35 Moreover, the Diegesis and a scholion on kleptom°na both make clear that ≤rpasm°nhw must refer to Arsinoe – and not the moon.36 In short, “…w §n passelÆn(ƒ) ≤rpasm°nhw”37 remains the only possible reading of the scholion, which means that Arsinoe passed away around the time of the full moon. Full moons occurred on 17/18 June and 16/17 July 268 BCE, and the latter date would correspond to 21/22 Pachon, year 15 of Ptolemy II (reckoned since his sole rule).38 This interpretation unfortunately makes it impossible to date Arsinoe’s funerary rites to 10 Pachon as Grzybek suggests, or to synchronize that date with the Arsinoeia. The only incontrovertible evidence for the date of Arsinoe’s death remains the fifteenth regnal year of Ptolemy II, the first month of summer, probably at the night of the full moon. Consequently, it has to be resolved whether this date was reckoned from the king’s ascension to the throne as sole ruler, or from his appointment as joint ruler with his father. In his study of the regnal years of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, R. A. Hazzard (1987, 142–147) has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the king renumbered his regnal years on the Macedonian calendar within the first year after his father’s death (282/1 BCE), and it can be taken from the absence of years 17 and 18 on the Egyptian civil calendar that its dating was reformed in 267/6 BCE to conform with the Macedonian system.39 As no edict has been transmitted that records this royal order or its rationale, only hypotheses may be offered to explain this chronological reform. Likewise, it remains unclear whether the king ordered subsequent retroactive dating for all official documents, or if it was left to individual preference whether or not to re-date past events. It would be less cumbersome for Egyptians to retain Ptolemy’s regnal years 1–16 (282–267 BCE), omit years 17–18, and continue from year 19 onward (266 BCE). Moreover, it would have infringed on the autonomy of the Egyptian temples if they had been forced to re-date all events.40 However, it may have pleased the king more to date his reign from 285 rather than 282 BCE. Let us, then, review whether the Mendes and Pithom stelae do indeed list the same events in the same order and for the same years, as Cadell argues – or if they are listed thematically, as Minas contends. If the former, the parallel chronology would testify that both inscriptions were dated according to the same system. The Mendes41 stela records, after introductory praise of Ptolemy “Osir-ka-Re Mery-Amun”, that the king visited the ram-god of Mendes42 first of all the sacred animals (lines 7–9), inspected the construction of the god’s temple (lines 9–10), and then returned to Alexandria (line 10). The text then seems to leap in time to the king’s marriage to his sister Arsinoe and her appointment as high-priest of the Ram of Mendes (lines 10–11). The stela then mentions Arsinoe’s apotheosis in year 15 and the divine honor granted to her in the nome of Mendes (lines 11–13), as well as the stipulations of the cult of Thea Philadelphus established in the native shrines (lines 13–14). The text continues with references to the king’s benefactions (14–18) as well as the cutting of a canal to protect the eastern border (18–19).43 The stela does not give any dates 34 Callim. F 228 ll. 5–6 (nÊmfa, sÁ m¢n éster¤an Íp’ êmajan ≥dh | [ÉAnãkvn Ïpo kleptom°n]a par°yei selãn&); Austin 2006, 60–61 (who seems to be unaware of Grzybek). 35 I owe this observation to Ludwig Koenen. 36 S ad Callim. F 228 l. 6 (kleptom°na: ≤rpasm°nh); Dieg. 10.10.2–3 (énhrpãsyai ÍpÚ t«n DioskoÊrvn); Austin 2006, 60–61. 37 Although the preposition §n is unnecessary with pans°lhnow (LSJ s.v.), see: Hdt. 2, 47, 3 (§n tª panselÆnƒ). 38 Goldstine 1973, p. 62 nos. 9071–9072; Grzybek 1990, p. 109 n. 81; Koenen 1993, p. 51 n. 61. 39 A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1963), 26–28 and 66–67; P. W. Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne (Leiden, 1967), 18–19; Hazzard 1987, 147–148. 40 As Ludwig Koenen stressed (in personal correspondence). 41 Per-Banebdjedet/Thmousis (mod. Tell el-Rub‘a). 42 The hieroglyph representing the ram-god, Î, obscures his name. 43 “Bei einem anderen schönen Mal (Ereignis), das Seine Majestät veranstaltete, wurde ein Flußlauf auf der Ostseite von Kêmet (Ägypten) gegraben, um seine Grenze gegen die Fremdländer (Wüsten) zu bilden, und um die Tempel zu [schützen]”; trans. Roeder 1959, 184. 144 B. van Oppen in this passage. Next the text recounts that in year 21 the king’s son (Ptolemy)44 attended the great festivities celebrating the completion of the temple dedicated to the ram-god and Arsinoe Philadelphus (lines 19–21), as well as that representatives visited the king and his children at court to mark this occasion (lines 21–22). Later (the date is lost) a new ram was enthroned with the king’s permission and on his order statues of the god and of Arsinoe Philadelphus were erected in Mendes (lines 22–28). A final greeting closes the inscription. The Pithom45 stela similarly opens with introductory praise of Ptolemy “Osir-ka-Re Mery-Amun”. The inscription chronicles how the king visited Pithom after the completion of the Atum-temple on 3 Hathyr of year 6 (lines 6–8), after which he traveled to another nearby Atum-temple (lines 8–10), then journeyed to Syria and returned sacred effigies to Egypt in Pharmouthi (lines 10–15). In his twelfth year Ptolemy II paid a visit to Pithom with his sister and wife Arsinoe Philadelphus (lines 15–16). In Mecheir of year 16 the king ordered that the canal from Heliopolis via Pithom to the Scorpion Lake be made operational again, and ordered the construction of a wall along the eastern border (line 16).46 The stela then lists royal benefactions bestowed upon Pithom (lines 17–20). The text continues recounting the foundation of a city (Port Berenices?)47 on the Bitter Lakes, the construction of a temple dedicated to Arsinoe Philadelphus there, and the erection of statues of the Sibling Gods on its precinct (20–21). Then it speaks of a royal expedition to the Red Sea (21–23) and the foundation of Ptolemaïs on the coast there (23–24). The stela further sings praise of the country’s well-being (24–25), the honor the king and his wife paid to three sacred bulls (25–26), and the royal offerings made to the Egyptian shrines on the occasion of the first festival of his divine father Atum in late Hathyr (26–27). Finally, in Choiak of year 21 Ptolemy sent more gifts to the Egyptian shrines (line 27). The inscription closes with a final exaltation. The main events recorded on the two stelae can be summarized according to the following tabulation: Mendes Stela Ptolemy visits Mendes Ptolemy’s marriage to Arsinoe Arsinoe’s Apotheosis Canal dug along Sinaï Year 15: Pachon 10? (later) Year 21: Son’s attendance at ceremony New Ram’s enthronement Yr. 22 or later (flooding season) Pithom Stela after 283 280/79 (Dec/Jan) [Spring] (May/Jun) after 280 274/3 (Oct/Nov) 270/69 (Mar/Apr) [May] (Jun/Jul) [Aug?] (Jan) 269/8 (Jun/Jul) after 268 265/4 (May/Jun) after 264 [Nov–Jan] Year 6: Hathyr 4 (later) Pharmouthi 10 Year 12: Thot 3 Year 16: Mecheir later Pachon later Hathyr 30 Year 21: Pharmouthi Ptolemy visits Pithom Expedition to Syria Return of sacred effigies Ptolemy and Arsinoe visit Pithom Canal cleared via Pithom Foundations of cities Red-Sea expedition Ptolemy and Arsinoe honor Bulls Ptolemy’s donations More royal gifts 44 About this “Ptolemy the son”, more below. 45 Per-Atum/Tjeku (mod. Tell el-Maskhuta). 46 “Der Anfang war der Kanal im Norden von Onu (Heliopolis), sein Ende war der See der Skorpione”; trans. Roeder 1959, 122 (at the Scorpion Lake Roeder erroneously added “heute Bittersee” instead of Lake Timsah). 47 I.Cair. 22183, ll. 20–21 = Urk. II: 100, ll. 4–6: “He [Ptolemy II] founded a big city, called after the great name of the daughter (s©t) of King Ptolemy.” Sethe (1904: II, 100) believed it was called Ptolemaïs and was located on the Isthmus; Roeder (1959, 124) thought Arsinoe, along the canal; Grzybek (1990, p. 74 n. 17) suggests Berenike Hormos. The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus 145 Both inscriptions, by and large, list events in chronological order: on the Mendes stela Ptolemy’s honor of the Ram of Mendes, his wedding to Arsinoe, her decease and deification, the participation of Ptolemy’s son in the ceremony at Mendes, and the enthronement of the new Ram all follow chronologically; on the Pithom stela, too, Ptolemy’s honor of Atum at Pithom, his subsequent visit to Pithom with Arsinoe, their honor of the sacred Bulls are listed explicitly chronologically – the notice of succeeding months in particular (Mecheir, Pachon, Hathyr) specifically demonstrates the chronological order of the listed events – digging of canal, expedition to Red Sea, royal donations – for the sixteenth regnal year. Cadell’s belief that the references to canals dug or cleared on Ptolemy’s order on both inscriptions prove their essential parallel chronology, is in fact based on a misunderstanding. The Mendes stela records that the king ordered the digging of a canal along the eastern border of Egypt (at the site of the modern Suez canal), while the Pithom stela informs that a canal was dug (or rather, cleared) according to the king’s wishes, beginning to the north of Heliopolis and ending in the Scorpion Lake (which connected the Nile to the Red Sea).48 In other words, the inscriptions actually record two different canals that may or may not have been ordered by the king at different times. Moreover, the latter canal would not be of interest for Mendes, which is as said some 42 miles (ca. 70 km) to the northwest of Pithom (TAVO B V 21, p. 225). It is safe to assume that the stelae’s references to canals cannot be taken as evidence for the date of Arsinoe’s death. Yet the evident chronological order refutes Minas’ suggestion that events were grouped together rhetorically and thematically. This leaves the two references to Arsinoe during Ptolemy II’s sixteenth regnal year on the Pithom stela. To be certain, Arsinoe is not mentioned by name, but is referred to as the King’s Sister and Wife, just as Ptolemy II is usually referred to as His Majesty. It is inconceivable that any other woman is meant by Ptolemy II’s sister and wife than Arsinoe Philadelphus. The idea that a priestess, or even one of the king’s many mistresses acted out the role of Queen Arsinoe is similarly implausible. In short, only two explanations remain: either the two references to Arsinoe in year 16 were out of courtesy toward the recently deceased queen (who was thus believed to be present with the king in spirit, as goddess, as Criscuolo contends), allowing her death to be dated to the summer of 270 BCE; or the two stelae used different dating systems, leading to the conclusion that Arsinoe Philadelphus passed away in the summer of 268 BCE. The inscriptions do not provide enough evidence to decide the matter conclusively. It may be noted, however, that on the Pithom stela the queen does not appear after the sixteenth regnal year. There is, however, circumstantial evidence that might render the later date of her death more likely. It has so far gone unnoticed that the Pithom stela (lines 20–21) records that a temple of Arsinoe Philadelphus, viz., “mr.t ôn.t (Who Loves Her Brother)” was established in Ptolemy’s sixteenth regnal year (270/69 BCE) at the city (Port Berenices?) founded on the Bitter Lakes.49 It need not surprise us that statues of the Sibling Gods were set up there, since their eponymous priesthood dates back to 272/1 BCE. However, it is commonly understood that Arsinoe II received the title “Philadelphus” upon her posthumous deification, because the Mendes stela states that after her apotheosis, “her title was established as ‘Beloved of the Ram, Goddess Who Loves Her Brother, Arsinoe’” (I.Cair. 22181, l. 14 = Urk. II: 42, l. 1). Nevertheless, the Pithom stela gives her royal titulature as “Mistress, Magnanimous, Lady of Loveliness, Sweet in Love, Royal Wife, Queen of the Two Lands, Arsinoe, Royal Daughter of the King of the Two Lands, Ptolemy, Goddess Who Loves Her Brother”, while she was still alive (viz., year 12 = 274 BCE) (I.Cair. 22183, l. 15 = Urk. II: 94, ll. 8–11).50 It could still be maintained that the foundation of a temple of Arsinoe Philadelphus in year 16 proves that she had already died, and that the titulature for year 12 is either imprecise or retroactively honorific and anachronistic. It should be noted, though, that the inscription is based on documents 48 For the canal through the Wadi Tumilat via Pithom (Tell el-Maskhuta) to the Scorpion Lake, see: Carol A. Redmount, The Wadi Tumilat and the ‘Canal of the Pharaohs’, JNES 54.2 (1995): 127–135. 49 Now, see: Hölbl 1992, 120; Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17 (who interprets mr.t ôn.t as referring to Philotera). 50 Compare, I.Cair. 22181, l. 11: “Her titulature was established as: ‘Mistress, Magnanimous, Belonging to the Lord, Sweet in Love, Beautiful of Appearance, Who Has Received the Cobras of the Two Crowns, Who Fills the Palace with Her Beauty, Beloved of the Ram, Who Serves the Ram, Royal Sister and Daughter, Great Wife of the King, Beloved of Him, Queen of the Two Lands, Arsinoe’.” 146 B. van Oppen maintained by the priests of the temple, which makes it unlikely that a posthumous title was retroactively inserted into the text.51 From this passage it nevertheless appears Arsinoe was deified in her own right as Thea Philadelphus (c.q., nÚr.t mrj.t-ôn.t) and was worshipped in her own temples within her lifetime – perhaps even before the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi was established. Furthermore, if a cult was founded in her lifetime it is very likely that Arsinoe was personally involved in its creation. Numismatic evidence may substantiate the claim that Arsinoe was deified as Thea Philadelphus within her lifetime. About a century ago Joannos Svoronos, suggested that Arsinoe’s portraiture coinage, bearing the reverse legend ARSINOHS FILADELFOU, were dated to an era that started in 271/0 BCE (Svoronos 1904–1908, 83–95). Significantly, the silver decadrachmae are marked on the obverse left field (behind divine Arsinoe’s portrait) with alphabetic series, running from alpha to omega, then from double alpha to double omega, and finishing with triple alpha and beta.52 According to Svoronos these alphabetic series correspond to a chronology spanning 50 years: A–V corresponding to years 1–24; AA–VV to years 25–48; and – (i.e., AAA–BBB) to years 49–50. Svoronos placed unmarked coins at the beginning of this series and dated these to 271/0; he equated A with 270/69 and V with 247/6, i.e., the year of Ptolemy II’s death; AA through would thus run from 246/5 through 221/0, viz., the full reign of Ptolemy III. Most scholars now seem to believe that the letters represent issue numbers, rather than dates. Hyla Troxell (1983, 35–70) has been most outspoken in challenging Svoronos’ dating system.53 In her study of about 400 coins, Troxell tries to correlate Alexandrian issues (deca-, octa- and pentadrachmae) with series from Phoenicia and Palestine, which are dated according to the traditional chronological reverse marks. She distinguishes four stylistic groups to which she tentatively assigns the following dates: (1) ?-KD = ante yr. 25 = 261/0 BCE : (2) KE–LB = yrs. 25–32 = 261/0–253/2 : (3) LG–LY = yrs. 33–39 = 253/2–247/6 : (4) A–? = post yr. 39 = 247/6 BCE : 10-dr. = nos. 1–14 A-J 10-dr. O–V = nos. 15–24 8-dr. = nos. 1–7 A–H 4-dr. = nos. 1–6 A–Z 10-dr. AA–PP = nos. 25–40 8-dr. = nos. 8–11 Y–L 10-dr. RR– = nos. 41–50 8-dr. M–J = nos. 12–14 Troxell shows that the decadrachmae stylistically precede the pentadrachmae as well as the gold octadrachmae. Moreover, even if one singles out her proposed chronology for the longest series of the decadrachmae, it becomes impossible to maintain that the alphabetic markings indicate the year the coins were struck: group one includes fourteen issues for a period no longer than ten years (with the kappa issues, no. 10, providing the largest quantity of specimens within entire series); the second group has ten issues for nine years; group three, sixteen issues for seven years; and the fourth group includes ten issues for a period that may last as long as the reign of Ptolemy III. For the present subject, the matter is too intricate to discuss at length. Suffice to say that Troxell’s new chronology has not met with general approval.54 She set out with the assumption that there would be no need to create new dies every single year, only to show that forty 51 P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), I: 217 and II: 367 no. 228; Koenen, Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof, in Egypt and the Hellenistic World, ed. E. van’t Dack, P. van Dessel and W. van Gucht (Louvain, 1983), 157 and 159. 52 U. Kahrstedt, Frauen auf antiken Münzen, Klio 10 (1910), 264–265; Hist. num.2 847; E. T. Newell, Royal Greek Portrait Coins (New York, 1937), 101; id., Standard Ptolemaic Silver (New York, 1941), 7; H. Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (Berlin, 1975), 78–80, pl. 70.1–3; Troxell 1983, 35–70, pls. 2–10; D. Foraboschi, Arsinoe seconda Filadelfo e la monetazione romana, NAC 16 (1987), 149–159; R. S. Bianchi et al. (eds.), Cleopatra’s Egypt (Mainz, 1988), nos. 61c–d; Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins (Toronto, 1995), 4 and 19 n. 12, figs. 7, 109 and 113; M. Rausch (ed.), La gloire d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1998), nos. 40 and 164; S. Walker and P. Higgs (eds.), Cleopatra of Egypt (Princeton, 2001), nos. 69 and 79. 53 Also, see: Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17. 54 See esp.: Foraboschi 1987, 149–159. The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus 147 issues of her first three groups must have been struck within a period of no more than twenty-five years (271–246 BCE). Nevertheless, Svoronos’ interpretation of the alphabetic chronology deserves re-evaluation. Doing so might provide further evidence for Arsinoe II’s deification as Thea Philadelphus from at least 271 BCE onward – and may well coincide with the establishment of the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi. The joint rule of Ptolemy II and “Ptolemy the Son”, recorded in dating formulae from regnal years 18 to 27, viz., 268/7–259/8 BCE, also has bearing on the present subject.55 In fact, the same papyrus that first securely documents the canephorate of Arsinoe is the first to mention this co-regency. From late 259 BCE this “son” disappears from the royal protocol without a trace. The identity of this “son” is disputed and is complicated by references to at least seven other individuals: (1) an inscription from Methymna on the island of Lesbos decrees cultic worship for “King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, and Ptolemy the Son” (ca. 267–259 BCE);56 (2) an inscription from Milesus, also on Lesbos, alludes to a son of King Ptolemy (II), as well as to admiral Callicrates and “other friends” of the king (in 262 BCE);57 (3) Trogus refers to a “son of King Ptolemy” in Asia Minor, who revolted with his ally, the adventurer Timarchus, against his father (in 259? BCE);58 (4) on an inscription, one general Olympichos writes to the Mylasians about the benefactions of “Ptolemy, the brother of King Ptolemy (III)”, toward Labranda in Caria (ca. 242 BCE);59 (5) two inscriptions from Telmessus in Lycia reveal the influence of Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus, in the area (resp. ca. 259–256 and 239 BCE);60 (6) a fragmentary papyrus sketches the life of one “Ptolemy, nick-named Andromachus”, who controlled cities on the Thracian coast (ante 245? BCE), fought on the losing side in the sea-battle off the Cycladic island of Andros (245? BCE),61 and was murdered after a revolt in Ephesus (post 239? BCE);62 and finally, (7) Athenaeus narrates that a “Ptolemy, who commanded a guard at Ephesus, a son of King Philadelphus”, was murdered in the temple of Artemis when the Thracians in Ephesus rebelled against him (post 239? BCE).63 Scholars have long tried to identify several of these Ptolemies as one and the same person.64 It does not seem probable that this Ptolemy was either a son of Ptolemy II and his first wife Arsinoe I, or his (otherwise unattested) bastard son. Since he must have been repudiated as the Lagid heir (or at least have disclaimed his co-regency), it seems improbable that he was, in fact, the later successor, Ptolemy III Euergetes, son of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I. If this son was their child, but not Ptolemy III, Arsinoe I would have borne four children to Ptolemy II in about five years (from their wedding to her banishment, 285/83–ca. 279 BCE).65 It seems even less likely that this “son” was the child of Ptolemy II with his second wife and full sister, Arsinoe II, for a scholion to Theocritus’ Encomium (17, 128) states that Arsinoe died “childless (êteknow)”. Moreover, a child of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II could not have been born before 278 BCE, and would thus be still a child in 268/7 BCE. Werner Huß (1998, 229–250) has re-evaluated the evidence, not only to conclude that “Ptolemy the Son” must be identified with the eldest son of Lysimachus and Arsinoe, but also that all seven above55 P.Sorb. inv. 2440; P.Rev. col. 24, l. 1; Huß 1998, 229–234; Hazzard 2000, esp. 22–23. 56 IG XII Suppl. 115, 8–9 (= EAC 5 [1976]: 57–58): “[ba!¤leo! Ptolema¤v t« | Pt]olema¤v ka‹ Ptolema[¤v t« pa›do! (or ufl« aÎtv?)]”. 57 I.Milet III: 139.9: “˜ te uflÚ! ka‹ Kallikrãth! ka‹ ofl êlloi f¤loi” and 46: “t«i t[e] | [ufl«i k]a‹ aÈt«i [scil. Ptolemy II]”. 58 Trog. prol. 26: “ut in Asia filius Ptolemaei regis socio Timarcho desciverit a patre”. 59 I.Labraunda I: 3.5–6: “Ptolem[a]¤ou toË édelfoË ba!il°v! Ptole|[m]a¤ou”. 60 Clara Rhodos 9 (1939), 138, l. 11: “Ptolema¤ou toË L[u!imãxou]” (since Ptolemy II is referred to as “King Ptolemy son of Ptolemy Soter, Ba!ileÊonto! Pt[olema¤ou toË] | Ptolema¤ou %vt∞[ro!]”, the inscription dates to the period after the former’s co-regency with “Ptolemy the son”; see: Hazzard 2000, esp. 6); TAM II: 1.7–8: “Ptolema›o! ı Lu!imãxou”. 61 Hence the nick-name, “Andromachus (Andros-fighting)”. 62 P.Haun. 6 fr.1, ll. 1–13: “Ptolema¤o[u] | §p¤klh!in | ÉAndromãxou”. 63 Athen. 13, 593a–b: “Ptolema›Òw te ı tØn §n ÉEf°sƒ di°pvn frourån uflÚw toË Filad°lfou basil°vw”. 64 For a discussion of the various hypotheses offered by scholars, see: Huß 1998, 236–239. 65 Apart from this “Ptolemy the son”, Ptolemy III Euergetes, Lysimachus and Berenice Phernophorus. See: Schol. ad Theocr. 17, 128; Polyb. 15, 25, 2; Paus. 1, 7, 3. 148 B. van Oppen mentioned Ptolemies can be identified as one and the same person.66 He assumes that this Ptolemy, the son of Lysimachus and Arsinoe (born 299/8 BCE) joined his mother at the Alexandrian palace when he failed to gain power during the period of anarchy in Macedonia (279–277 BCE).67 The importance for the present argument about the date of Arsinoe’s death is that the queen apparently convinced Ptolemy II, as she had Lysimachus in Thrace, to designate her eldest son as heir, instead of the king’s eldest son with another wife. We may imagine her direct influence in this appointment if she indeed passed away in 268 BCE (Macurdy 1932, 120). Huß (2001, 274 and 311–312) furthermore argues that Ptolemy II appointed Lysimachus’ son co-regent in 268 BCE as a move against Antigonus II Gonatas, who now ruled Macedonia. As heir of Lysimachus, Ptolemy was to replace Antigonus and expand the Ptolemaic sphere of influence in the Aegean – as the inscriptions from Lesbos, dating from the 260s BCE, further corroborate. The disappearance of “Ptolemy the Son” from Ptolemaic dating formulae in 259 BCE may then be explained by Trogus’ allusion to the son’s rebellion in Asia Minor against his father. Since the son’s ally, Timarchus of Aetolia (Polyaen. 26, 25), was killed by Seleucid forces at Miletus in 258 BCE (App. Syr. 65), we have a definite terminus ante quem for their rebellion. Inscriptions from Caria and Lycia indicate that this Ptolemy remained active in Asia Minor, and that Ptolemy II granted him Telmessus as a gift (dvreã). In fact, the descendants of this Ptolemy would govern the domain until the early second century BCE (Livy 37, 56, 4). It need not surprise us that Ptolemy II would reconcile with his (nephew and) rebellious stepson, if we take into account that about the same time the king also pacified his relationship with his half-brother Magas, who had revolted from him in Cyrene (Just. Epit. 26, 3, 2). Around the time of Ptolemy II’s death, Lysimachus’ son Ptolemy apparently continued to expand his power in the Aegean with sporadic success. He was still alive in the early years of Ptolemy III (239 BCE) – his “brother” on account of the former being adopted by Ptolemy II and the latter (posthumously) to Arsinoe II. At some later time he met his death in Ephesus when his Thracian forces rebelled against him. One final point that may substantiate the later date of Arsinoe’s death is her apparent support for the alliance against Antigonus Gonatas.68 According to the decree of Chremonides, the Athenian assembly voted on 9 Metageitnion in the archonship of Peithidemos (viz., Aug. 268 BCE) to form this alliance with Sparta and Ptolemy II. What is important here is the decree’s clause that, ˜ te basileÁw Ptolema›ow ékoloÊyvw te› t«n progÒnvn ka‹ te› t∞w édelf∞w pro[a]ir°sei fanerÒw §stin spoudãzvn Íp¢r t∞w koin∞w t[«n] ÑEllÆnvn §leuyer¤aw. King Ptolemy, following the policy of his ancestors and his sister, shows clearly his concern for the common freedom of the Greeks (Syll.3 434–435 = IG II2 687.16–18). Apart from this remarkable public expression of a woman’s political influence in international diplomacy, if the suggested dating of 16/17 July 268 BCE is correct, the vote would have been passed in the Athenian assembly mere weeks after the queen’s death. If Arsinoe had died two summers before, an allusion to her policy would be merely an act of perfunctory courtesy toward Ptolemy II.69 But if she died just a few weeks earlier, when official news of her passing probably had not yet reached Athens, such an allusion should be 66 Now see: J. A. Tunny, Ptolemy ‘the Son’ Reconsidered: Are There Too Many Ptolemies?, ZPE 131 (2000), 83–92; Huß, Noch einmal: Ptolemaios der Sohn, ZPE 149 (2004), 232–232. (This debate could not be incorporated into the present argument.) 67 Euseb. Sync. FHG III: 696, 7; id. Gr. FHG III: 699, 7; id. Arm. FGrHist 260 F 11. 68 Hauben 1992, 162; Chr. Habicht, Athen in hellenistischer Zeit (Munich, 1994), 144; Huß 2001, 271–281 (with further lit.). 69 Koenen points out (in personal correspondence), that intuitively the order of the phrase te› t«n progÒnvn ka‹ te› t∞w édelf∞w “seems rather to suit the fact that she [scil. Arsinoe] was known to be dead”; also, see: Bennett, Arsinoe II, n. 17 (“the Decree’s statement that Ptolemy II was following the policy of his sister implies that she was no longer instrumental in setting policy at the time of the decree”). My sense is that the verb ékolouy°v together with the dative te› proair°sei should be taken to mean that Ptolemy II was guided by the policy of his ancestors and that of his sister, i.e., that his policy was consistent with theirs, and not necessarily that his was subsequent in time to theirs. It would appear to me that the king’s sister is mentioned after the king’s ancestors because she was of a younger generation, i.e., that she came after his ancestors. The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus 149 understood as a resonant indication of her direct and personal support of the alliance against Antigonus, who (as mentioned above) had taken the throne of Macedonia in 277/6 BCE, over and against her eldest (and only surviving) son Ptolemy. In fact, it might very well have been Arsinoe who not only convinced Ptolemy II to adopt her son and appoint him co-regent, but who also strove to advance his interest and establish him on the Macedonian throne (Macurdy 1932, 120). Perhaps Ptolemy II’s joint ruler seceded from Egypt after he failed to claim his heritage from his father Lysimachus during the so-called Chremonidean War (267–261 BCE), and by his rebellion dragged Ptolemy II into the Second Syrian War (259–253 BCE) against Antiochus II (Huß 2001, 281–283). If Arsinoe had passed away in the early summer of 270 BCE, the allusion in the Chremonidean decree to her policy could only have been to her support for the traditional Ptolemaic policy of promoting the theory of Greek freedom, without immediate reference to the contemporary situation of the alliance against Antigonus. To be certain, the decree does not provide a definitive assessment of the nature of Arsinoe’s policy to which it alludes. Nor can the decree by itself be taken as an indication for the date of Arsinoe’s death. Nonetheless, in the light of the foregoing circumstantial evidence the later date would seem more plausible. In conclusion, the only definitive evidence for the date of Arsinoe II Philadelphus’ death is the statement in the Mendes stela giving Pachon year 15 of Ptolemy II, which is nonetheless complicated by references in the Pithom stela to the queen in the king’s sixteenth year. Until new evidence comes to light, it will remain impossible to determine whether or not the Mendes stela retroactively dated the queen’s ascension according to the calendrical reform reckoning Ptolemy’s regnal years from his joint rule with his father (285/4 BCE), rather than from his sole rule after his father’s death (283/2 BCE). Arguments either way are essentially accumulations of assumptions. Attempts to refute that Arsinoe was still alive in year 16 reckoned from 285/4 BCE seem incongruous, particularly because the Pithom stela does not refer to the queen’s presence in later years. Furthermore, it seems unwarranted to use evidence for Arsinoe’s deification to date her death. It should not be deduced from the Mendes stela that Arsinoe was deified in her own right only posthumously – i.e., independently from the eponymous cult of the Theoi Adelphoi. In fact, the Pithom stela provides a titulature for Arsinoe that includes the Egyptian version of Thea Philadelphus already for 274/3 BCE. The same inscription states that a temple was founded for Arsinoe ca. 270/69 BCE. If Svoronos’ chronology is to be accepted, coins bearing the name Arsinoe Philadelphus on the legend may have been issued since 271 BCE. Therefore, even if documents should come to light giving the canephore for 269/8 BCE it would merely prove the establishment of the priesthood during that year – rather than affirm Arsinoe’s death in 270 BCE. Moreover, the creation of an independent lifetime cult for Arsinoe – in which she may then have had an active hand – further demonstrates her influence at the Ptolemaic court. If we combine circumstantial evidence, the case for the later date of Arsinoe’s death becomes even more likely. It could hardly be coincidence that the allusion to Arsinoe’s policy in the Chremonidean decree, the appointment of her son as joint ruler with Ptolemy II, and the calendrical reform all occurred within the same year (268/7 BCE). It would appear, rather, that it was Arsinoe who convinced Ptolemy II to adopt her son as co-regent and support his claim to the Macedonian throne against Antigonus. Shortly after her death, the Athenians officiated the alliance that would lead to the unsuccessful war against Macedonia. Ptolemy II reformed the Egyptian calendar to reckon his regnal year from his own co-regency with his father, ruled jointly with his sister’s son until 259 BCE, and even after his secession granted him the Lycian city Telmessus. In all of this Arsinoe’s influence seems palpable again and again. In short, although the evidence is inconclusive, I would suggest it is more likely that the death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus occurred in year 15 of Ptolemy II reckoned from the king’s sole rule, in the month of Pachon, around the night of the full moon, viz., 16/17 July 268 BCE. 150 B. van Oppen Literature Austin, Colin, 2006: L’apothéose d’Arsinoé (P.Berol. 13417 A = Callim. Fr. 228 Pf.), in: Callimaco cent’ anni di papiri: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, ed. G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, 57–68, Florence. Bennett, Chris: Arsinoe II, Ptolemaic Dynasty; available from http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/ arsinoe_ii_fr.htm; Internet, accessed 10 September 2008. Bevan, Edwyn, 1968: The House of Ptolemy, Amsterdam. Cadell-Charpentier, Hélène, 1998: À quelle date Arsinoé II Philadelphe est-elle décédée?, in: Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque, ed. H. Melaerts, 1–3, Louvain. Clarysse, Willy – G. van der Veken (with S. P. Vleeming), 1983: The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt, Leiden. Criscuolo, Lucia, 1991: Review of Grzybek 1990, Aegyptus 71, 282–289. Foraboschi, Daniele, 1987: Arsinoe seconda Filadelfo e la monetazione romana, NAC 16, 149–159. Goldstine, Herman H., 1973: New and Full Moons, 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651, Philadelphia. Grzybek, Erhard, 1990: Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque, Basel. Hauben, Hans, 1992: La chronologie macédonienne et ptolémaïque mise à l’épreuve: à propos d’un livre d’Erhard Grzybek, CdE 67, 143–171. Hazzard, R. A., 1987: The Regnal Years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, Phoenix 41, 140–158. – 2000: Imagination of a Monarchy, Toronto. Hölbl, Günther, 1992: Bemerkungen zur frühptolemäischen Chronologie, Tyche 7, 117–122. Huß, Werner, 1998: Ptolemaios der Sohn, ZPE 121, 229–250. – 2001: Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, 332–30 v. Chr., Munich. Kamal, Ahmed bey, 1904–1905: Stèles ptolémaïques, CG 22001–22208, vols. I–II, Cairo. [abbr. as I.Cair.] Koenen, Ludwig, 1993: The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure, in: Images and Ideologies, ed. A. Bulloch et al., 25–115, Berkeley, etc. Longega, Gabriella, 1968: Arsinoe II, Rome. Macurdy, Grace Harriet, 1932: Hellenistic Queens, Baltimore. Meulenaere, Herman de, and P. Mackay, 1976: Mendes, vol. II, Warminster. Minas, Martina, 1994: Die Pithom-Stele, in: Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur, ed. Minas and Jürgen Zeidler, 203– 212, Mainz. – 1998: Die kanefÒrow, in: Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque, ed. H. Melaerts, 43–59, Louvain. – 2000: Die hieroglyphischen Ahnenreihen der ptolemäischen Könige, Mainz. Perpillou-Thomas, Françoise, 1993: Fêtes d’Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine d’après la documentation papyrologique grecque, Louvain. Pfeiffer, Rudolf, 1922: Kallimachosstudien, Munich. Pomeroy, Sarah B., 1984: Women in Hellenistic Egypt, New York. Prott, H. von, 1898: Das §gnk≈mion efiw Ptolema›on und die Zeitgeschichte, RhM 53, 460–476. Roeder, Günther, 1959: Die ägyptische Götterwelt, Zurich. Sethe, Kurt, 1904: Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-römischen Zeit, vols. I–II, Leipzig. [abbr. as Urk.] Svoronos, Joannos N., 1904–1908: Tå nom¤smata toË Krãtouw t«n Ptolema¤vn, vols. I–IV, Athens. [abbr. as Sv.] Troxell, Hyla A., 1983: Arsinoe’s Non-Era, ANSMN 28, 35–70. Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter, 413 Nostrand Avenue, apt. 402, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11216-6119, USA [email protected]