Ptolemy VI Philometor1 king of Egypt, son of Ptolemy V by Cleopatra I2, probably born in Pharmouthi year 19 (Eg.) of Ptolemy V = 7 May-5 June 1863, possibly on 28 Hyperberetaios year 19 (Mac.)= c. 26 May 1863.01, possibly victor in the Panathenaia of 1823.1, succeeded c. Mesore year 25 (Eg.) of Ptolemy V = September 1804, ruler under Cleopatra I as senior ruler till her death between 9 Mesore year 3 = 20 September 178 and 9 Thoth year 5 = 14 October 1775, then under the regency of the eunuchs Eulaios and Lennaios till declared of age in about January 1696, incorporated in the dynastic cult with Cleopatra II in c. March 175 as the Mother-loving Gods, Qeoi FilomhtwreV7, took Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII as corulers probably on 1 Thoth year 12 = year 1 = 5 October 1708, then fled Alexandria (after considering or attempting flight to Samothrace) in early 169 to join Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his maternal uncle, who at that time was occupying Egypt outside Alexandria, theoretically in defence of his interests, and was crowned in Memphis9, returned to Alexandria on the withdrawal of Syrian forces and rejoined the joint regime around September/October 16910, temporarily deposed with Cleopatra II by Ptolemy VIII between 21 Thoth and 6 Hathyr Year 7 (of the joint regime) = between 23 October and 7 December 16411, restored by the Alexandrian mob in summer 163, deposing Ptolemy VIII12, victor in the Panathenaia in (most probably) 16212.1 and 15812.2, briefly accepted then repudiated the role of king of Syria at Antioch c. June 14513, died c. July 145 from head injuries suffered when attacked after a fall from his horse in the battle of Oinoparas against Alexander Balas14, succeeded by Ptolemy VIII15.
Ptolemy VI's titles as king of Egypt were:16
Horus Tnj-m-xt snsn-@pw-AnX-msxn(t).sn17
Two Ladies m-MAat sxaj.n-sw-jt.f18
Golden Horus wr-pHtj nb-HAbw-sd-mj-PtH-&ATnn-jt-nTrw jty-mj-Ra19
Throne Name jwa-n-nTrwj-prwj stp-n-PtH-#prj jrj-MAat-Jmn-Ra20
Son of Re ptwlmjs anx-Dt mrj-PtH21
Ptolemy VI married his sister Cleopatra II, queen of Egypt22, by whom he had at least four children23: Ptolemy Eupator24, Ptolemy25, Cleopatra Thea26 and Cleopatra III27, and possibly Berenice28.
 PP VI 14508. Gr: PtolemaioV Filomhtwr. He is sometimes numbered as Ptolemy VII in older works, when it was supposed that Ptolemy Eupator was an ephemeral predecessor. "Philometor" = Mother-loving. The title is first attested in pAmherst II.42, dated 20 Pachon year 2 = 23 June 179, includes the QeoV Filometwr amongst the titles of the eponymous priest, though not in the name of the king. First attestation as kin[g Ptolemy Philomet]or is pFreiburg 3.12 dated 14 Mesore year 3 = 15 September 178, a few days after the last known attestation of Cleopatra I. Ý
 The evidence from the Greek sources is based on two statements in Polybius. The first is that king Ptolemy (assumed from context to be Ptolemy VI, though Ptolemy VIII is possible) celebrated his anaklhthria (coming of age) in early 169. Polybius 18.55.3 remarks that the anaklhthria of Ptolemy V, held when he was 13, was not pressing at that time, while for Ptolemy VI he merely remarks (Polybius 28.12.8) that the festival was usually held upon a king's coming of age. Thus it is likely that Ptolemy VI held his at a normal age, which was greater than 13. Nevertheless, he was said to have been still a youth when Antiochus IV invaded Egypt later in 169 (Polybius 30.26.9). For this reason, and to allow sufficient time for the births of Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII, W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers 7, concluded that the classical data best fits a teenager of about 14, giving a birth year of c. 184/3. In support of this may be cited pBremen 30.113 which sets the age of majority at 14. Against this reasoning, L. Koenen (AfP 17 (1960) 11) notes (a) that the rules for deciding the majority of private citizens are not necessarily those for kings (b) that the private rules could in any case vary, guardianship being possible up to age 20 and for control of property up to 25 (pOxy 3.491, 3.495 -- two Roman-era papyri) and (c) that Philip V, who succeeded to the Macedonian throne at age 17 (Polybius 4.5.3) was likewise called a "youth" by Plutarch (Aemilius 8.4), and that Polybius himself says he was not fully adult (Polybius 4.24).
As to the birthdate, L. Koenen (AfP 17 (1960) 11, 13 n. 2) points out that Cleopatra I underwent a major increase in status between the decree Philensis II, giving thanks for the victory over the Theban rebels, dated 3 Mesore year 19 = 6 September 186, where she simply shares the king's honours, and the Decree Philensis I, a declaration of the Alexandrian Synod for year 21 = 185/4, where she is granted extraordinary honours in her own right, and draws the conclusion that this was due to the birth of an heir between the two synods, resulting (in effect) in her taking on the role of Isis.
Koenen proposed to further restrict the birth date based on Ptolemy VI's Horus name, which calls him "twin of the living Apis upon their birth stone", appearing to relate his birth to that of an Apis Bull. The corresponding bull, calf of the cow Tiranni II, was born on 13 Choiak year 19 = 19 January 186 (E. Brugsch ZÄS 22 (1884) 125f. no. 6; ZÄS 24 (1886) 27), and installed as the Apis on 22 Thoth of year 21 = 29 October 185 (J. D. Ray, JEA 64 (1978) 113, 118 n. 11). While the stele also gives the length of the bull's life to be the same as the length of the bull's reign, this is a straightforward scribal error and no reason to doubt the basic data. Similar potential synchronisms between the Horus names of: Ptolemy IX ("distinguished through his birth together with the living Apis; twin in his birthplace with the son of Isis"), possibly associating his birth with that of the Apis bull calf of the cow Kerka II born in February 142; and Ptolemy VIII ("distinguished by birth because he appears with the living Apis"), possibly associating his accession to sole role in 164 and the likely installation of the bull calf of the cow Tahor, born the year before in 165/4.
A number of scholars, most recently, D. Kessler, Die heiligen Tiere und der König I 80, and G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire 281, have argued that these titles simply reflect and affirm the theological relationship between the king and the Apis, and therefore have no value as chronological indicators. However, L. Koenen (AfP 17 (1960) 11, 13 n. 2) argues that such theological associations were understood in very concrete terms by the Egyptians, and therefore they are more likely to be associated with historical events than not. W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers 6f., implicitly takes the same view when he argues that the title implied that Ptolemy VI was born in the same place as the Apis, though not necessarily associated in time. I think this is right. The Horus name of Ptolemy X ("who is associated with the living Apis upon his birthbrick"), which also claims a birth association with Apis, but conspicuously does not mention twinning, and is generally much vaguer than the Horus name of his brother, even though it is clearly modelled upon it. Even more clear is the Horus name of Ptolemy XII ("Horus, the strong bull, the ruler, who lights up Egypt as does the living Apis"), which is clearly a purely theological association.
Supposing the association to be in same way factual, one must decide whether it is in time or space. Against Otto's assertion that the Horus name of Ptolemy VI simply reflects a shared birthplace, Koenen argues that this is not sufficiently close to allow twinning, citing Egyptian depictions of babies and calves being fed together at the mother cow's udder. Indeed, the Horus name of Ptolemy X, with its total absence of references to twinning, probably does refer at most to an association in space. Nevertheless, just as the king was certainly not literally born in the manger beside the Apis, it is very unlikely that both Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy IX are twinned with the Apis by being literally born on the same day, rather the same month or the same year should be sufficient. Since the Apis born to the cow Tiranni II was born in Choiak whereas the Philensis II inscription implies a birthdate after 4 Mesore of year 19, Koenen reasonably concluded that only the year is shared, in short that Ptolemy VI was born between 4 Mesore and 5 Epagomene = 7 September - 8 October 186. This reasoning would make Ptolemy VI about 16 years old when he celebrated his anaklhthria in early 169.
Other evidence comes from a Cypriote inscription (T. B. Mitford, AJA 65 (1961), 93 at 129, no. 29 = SEG 20.311), which records a dedication to Hermes and Herakles by the boy's lampadarch in connection with the birthday celebrations in Pharmouthi year 35. Mitford dates it to the mid second century on epigraphic grounds. He claims to be able to assign it to Ptolemy VI rather than Ptolemy VIII on the same grounds. However, the years 35 of the two kings are only 11 years apart, and I am sceptical that epigraphic considerations alone are sufficiently accurate to justify this restriction. Mitford's secondary argument is more convincing, though not completely conclusive: while several substantial statues and inscriptions for Ptolemy VI have been found in Cyrprus, virtually none have been found for Ptolemy VIII. The other potential difficulty is that the birthday of the king was often celebrated monthly, but Mitford notes, correctly, that these celebrations were cultic, while the type of celebration implied in this inscription is not. He therefore concludes that Ptolemy VI was born in Pharmouthi.
This indication of the month of birth is rather more concrete than Koenen's inference from an apparent change of status for Cleopatra I. That could be due to other factors -- it is not obvious that her status would be elevated in the eyes of the priesthood at the moment she gave birth to an heir. However, Koenen's argument that year 19 = 187/6 was the year of birth seems to me to be quite reasonable. Accordingly, his birth is here taken to be, most likely, Pharmouthi year 19 = 7 May-5 June 186. The argument is accepted here.
J. D. Ray, The Archive of Hor, 26 (i), suggested that the reference to a birthday festival on 12 Thoth in Hor Text 3 should be understood to date the birth of Ptolemy VI, giving him a birthday of 12 Thoth year 22 or 23 = 19 October 184 or 183, following Otto; or, in Ray's then-held view less likely, 12 Thoth year 20 = 20 October 186. He later noted (JEA 64 (1978) 113) that this date is not consistent with the other Egyptian data discussed above implying a birth in late year 19, and reinterpreted the text as giving the birthday of Ptolemy Eupator.
[3.01] SEG 8.694 = SB 3.7246, published by H. Henne, BIFAO 22 (1923) 191, is an inscription erected by a gymnasium, honouring a certain Boidas son of Demetrios, the Persian (PP X.E1980 = PP VI 17136), with the award, among other things, of an olive crown to be worn on the festival of the royal birthday on 28 Hyperberetaios. The inscription was purchased in Luxor but its actual origin is unknown. The year number is lost, but the surviving traces, as reported by Henne, are consistent with a single character numeral less than i = 10.
Unfortunately, Boidas the Persian is, as yet, otherwise unknown. After consulting the experts of the day, Henne concluded on epigraphical grounds that the inscription must date to the late third or early second century. Since the birthdates of Ptolemy II (12 Dystros), Ptolemy III (5 Dios) and Ptolemy V (30 Mesore (= c. 30 Peritios)) are known and not compatible, Henne concluded that this must be the birthday of Ptolemy IV. He did not consider the possibility that the inscription is early in the reign of Ptolemy VI, although the epigraphic opinion and data he cites would appear to allow it. Subsequently, P. M. Fraser, JEA 47 (1961) 139 at 145 n. 26 asserted that a third century date was impossible and even a second century date unlikely, without explaining why. However, in P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria II 383 n. 345, he settled on the second century.
Ptolemy IV was certainly born in the first decade of the reign of Ptolemy III. At this time, Hyperberetaios = c. December/January. If the analysis of the exedra of Thermos given here is correct, Ptolemy IV was actually born c. May/June 244, though a date of c. January 245 is also possible if he was the eldest child, not Arsinoe III. As for Ptolemy VI, the evidence discussed above shows that his birthday was most probably in Pharmouthi = Hyperberetaios in the 180s. Hence the available evidence seems to fit better with Ptolemy VI than Ptolemy IV. Assuming Ptolemy VI is the king in question, and noting that the date is given as a Macedonian date, the evidence is that the Macedonian calendar was still in use as a lunar calendar by the court at the time of his birth, so it is most probable that this date must be converted to a Julian date on that assumption. If he was born in 186, then, on the model of the Macedonian calendar used here, he was born on 28 Hyperberetaios year 19 (Mac.) of Ptolemy V = c. 26 May 186.
However, Fraser's comments open up the possibility that the king in question is one of the later Ptolemies. If so, we have no data that allows us to determine which one. Although we know the royal birthday remained an important festival until the end of the dynasty, the only later ruler we have any data for is Cleopatra VII (c. Jan. 69 = Dystros (Tybi). Ý
[3.1] IG II2 2314 line 56, as restored by C. Habicht in S. V. Tracy & C. Habicht, Hesperia 60 (1991) 187 at 221, 231, 216 n. 119: [PtolemaioV basilewV] Pt[o]l[ema]iou Makedwn. On the date see discussion under Ptolemy V. This rather remarkable restoration has the prince nominally sponsoring a Panathenian victory when he was most likely 4 years old, if not even younger. Presumably, his father was taking the opportunity to publicise the birth and existence of an heir to the throne; for the same reason, if the restoration and the date is correct it is unlikely to be identifying his younger brother Ptolemy VIII.
The restoration seems to be based on two considerations (1) the number of letters to be restored can be determined almost exactly (2) Livy 41.23.1 notes, in a discussion relating to events of 174 that Athens had declared its territories off-limits to all Macedonians, a ban instituted in 200 (Livy 31.44.6). The proposed restoration explains how this "Macedonian" was able to participate in the Panathenaia: despite the ethnic, Ptolemaic kings were honorary members of the Athenian tribe Ptolemais (IG II2 2314 line 42). Ý
 On Eulaios & Lenaios see O. Mørkholm, Class. et. Med. 22 (1961) 32. Eulaios was a eunuch and Lenaios a Syrian slave. Nothing is known of their families. On the date of the anaklhthria: At a synod of the Achaean League held shortly after the start of the Roman year (Polybius 28.12.8), it was decided to send Polybius to meet the new consul Q. Marcius Philippus in Thessaly, but Philippus had already arrived and moved on. At the same synod, the anaklhthria of king Ptolemy was reported and congratulations were sent. F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius III 322, argued that, allowing for travel time, these events cannot have taken place before March 169, hence concludes that the anaklhthria occurred about January.
This can be crosschecked, since Roman chronology for this period is certain. The consular term of Q. Marcius Philippus started on Id. Mart. A.U.C. 585 = 24 December 170. This is completely consistent with Walbank's analysis. Ý
 First mention: pdem BM 10589 dated 12 Phamenoth year 6 = 15 April 175, from Asyut (A. F. Shore & H. S. Smith, JEA 45 (1959) 52, 55(b)). pdem Boston 38.2063B, dated 1 Mecheir year 6 = 5 March 175 mentions only a single QeoV Filometwr. Ý
 Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 161, states that Ptolemy VI ruled alone for 11 years and then with Ptolemy VIII, and that the first year of the coregency was called the 12th of Ptolemy VI and the 1st of Ptolemy VIII. Porphyry also says that the two brothers ruled together up to the 17th year and that from the 18th Ptolemy VI again ruled alone.
This matches well with the Egyptian data. The highest known date for the coregency is year 7, and dates of Ptolemy VI resume with year 18 (E. Bikerman, CdE 27 (1952) 149, 163). So, either year 7 = year 18 giving year 1 = year 12, or year 7 = year 17 giving year 1 = year 11. But we also have the equation year 36 of Ptolemy VI = year 25 of Ptolemy VIII, which gives year 1 of Ptolemy VIII = year 12 of Ptolemy VI. The earliest certain document from the coregency is pRylands 4.583 dated 9 Phaophi year 1 = 12 November 170 on this reconstruction. pdem BM 10591, dated 19 Mesore year 11 = 18 September 170, mentions rites for "the pharoah, his sister and his brother" (H. Thompson, A family archive from Siut, from papyri in the British museum, 51 n. 22), which has been interpreted as evidence that the coregency was in place even earlier (F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius III 322), but only came into formal effect for dating purposes on 1 Thoth year 12; however, G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire 169, notes that the brother (i.e. Ptolemy VIII) is not called a god and therefore was not yet a king. Thus we can reasonably conclude that the coregency was dated from Thoth year 12 = 1, most likely from 1 Thoth.
This apparently good match to Porphyry conceals a difficulty. A. E. Samuel (Ptolemaic Chronology 141) notes that it is generally held that Porphyry assigns incomplete final years to the preceding ruler (i.e. he postdates the start of a reign to the Olympic year following that of the death of the preceding king) while the Egyptian system is to assign incomplete final years to the succeeding ruler (i.e. it antedates the start of a reign to the Egyptian year of the death of the preceding king). Thus, he holds that we would normally interpret Porphyry to mean that the coregency started in Ptolemy VI's 13th Egyptian year = 169/68 and ended in the 18th, and from the 19th Ptolemy VI ruled alone. Samuel argues that the two systems can be reconciled in a reign begins on the first day of the year, and hence that Egyptian data can be reconciled with Porphyry by supposing that the coregency dating was introduced on 1 Thoth of year 1 = year 12 = 5 October 170. He concludes that this is decisive proof of the date.
This argument depends on the assumption that Porphyry can be treated as an independent source, i.e. that he consistently applied a postdating system. It seems to me that this is rather unlikely. Instead, it seems to me to be much more likely that he simply equated the regnal years of an Egyptian source to Olympic years. That is, if his source used Egyptian dates, then he equated an Egyptian year to the Olympic year in which it began. (Samuel's model requires that he first converted antedated Egyptian regnal years into postdated regnal years and then equated them to Olympic years, or, equivalently, that Porphyry equated antedated Egyptian regnal years to Olympic years and then postdated them.) A consequence of this is that where Porphyry's source used (antedated) Egyptian years, his regnal years were likewise antedated. For the middle Ptolemaic period, including this reign, his sources must ultimately have been based on the Egyptian calendar, or, if the Macedonian calendar, to a calendar that was closely aligned with it. Therefore his testimony cannot be treated independently of the Egyptian evidence and does not allow us to refine the date of the start of the coregency. Ý
 Plan to flee from Alexandria to Samothrace: Polybius 28.21. Friendship between Ptolemy VI and Antiochus IV: Polybius 28.23. Residence of Ptolemy VI at Memphis: Polybius 29.23.4. Coronation of Antiochus IV at Memphis: Porphyry, FGrH 260 F 49a, confirmed by pTebt. 3.1.698, the opening of a prostagma of king Antiochus to the Crocodopilite (=Arsinoite) nome.
The exact dating of these events is controversial. At least 9 documents from Ptolemy VI year 12 are known (T. C. Skeat, JEA 47 (1961) 107), ranging in date from pTebtunis 3.2.909 dated 6 Hathyr year 12 = 9 December 170 up to iBucheum II.8 dated 3 Epagomene year 12 = 1 October 169. pRylands 4.583 remains the only document from year 1 of the coregency, and the earliest document of the year. It is dated by two scribes, so the date is unlikely to be an error. Thus, we appear to have a very ephemeral coregency that was subsequently revived. According to Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 161, the coregency was introduced in response to the invasion of Antiochus IV in the 6th Syrian War. However, T. C. Skeat (JEA 47 (1961) 107) proposes that the joint rule was initially a signal of the creation of a government of national unity, and the new regnal dating represented a signalling of a more aggressive policy, in particular a reaffirmation of the Ptolemaic claims to Coele Syria that triggered the war. He proposes that, during the first invasion of Egypt by Antiochus IV, after the initial Egyptian defeats, Antiochus managed to separate Ptolemy VI from the Alexandrian regime and used him as a legitimist pawn, hence the reversion to year 12 of Ptolemy VI, but that after his withdrawal Ptolemy returned to Alexandria and reconciled himself with his brother, leading to the second invasion of Antiochus in the following year. In support of this, he suggests that pLond. Inv. 1974, dated 16 Phamenoth year 12 = 17 April 169, which is an order for a delivery of barley to "the camp with the king", refers to a camp of Antiochus IV. It would follow from this analysis that the initial Egyptian defeats and the Syrian invasion of Egypt took place around November 170.
F. W. Walbank (Commentary on Polybius III 321ff.) thinks this is not possible. The outbreak of the 6th Syrian War is dated to 170/169, since it is described in Polybius 28.18, which is devoted to the events of that year = Olympiad 152 year 3. Polybius 27.19 notes that the war had not started when Antiochus sent his envoys to Rome, but in Polybius 28.1 that it had started by the time they arrived there. However, Walbank notes that the reported content of the speeches of the envoys to the senate implies that it was merely imminent. Such speeches were normally heard at the start of the Roman year (Livy, 39.46), corresponding at this time to late December 170; the consul Q. Marcius would then have left for his province. At an Achaean synod held shortly after (Polybius 28.12), it was decided to send Polybius to meet Marcius, but he had already arrived and moved on. At the same synod, the anaklhthria of Ptolemy VI was reported and congratulations were sent. Allowing for travel time, these events cannot have taken place before March 169, hence Walbank concludes that the course of the war cannot have been known in Achaea before that date. He dates the anaklhthria to about January, and the outbreak of war a month or so later, resulting in the Egyptian defeat. Antiochus' invasion of Egypt (called Meluhha) is then dated to Ab 143 Seleucid = 19 August - 16 September 169 by a cuneiform inscription (T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical records of Assyria and Babylonia (1903) 480, cited in E. Bikerman, CdE 27 (1952) 396, 397 n. 3). Concerning pRylands 4.583, Walbank suggests that the coregency "did not find success in Upper Egypt" or that it was the result of internal faction-fighting and that the anaklhthria represented a reversal of fortune allowing the coregency to be temporarily undone. He even suggests "the triple date in Nov 170 is so anomalous that it must arouse reasonable suspicion" [of] "some original confusion about which year of Philometor was to be equated with year 1 of the three" though he agrees this is unlikely.
Scholars have generally followed Bikerman and Skeat (cf. P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria II 211 n. 212; J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 93), though his proposed motivation for the change in regnal dating is not accepted. I agree. As to the points made by Walbank, the fact that the ambassadors reached Rome after the outbreak of hostilities is a comment of Polybius made at the time he wrote his Histories -- it need not have been known to the participants at the time. The chronology of the movements of Marcius can be compressed a little. It seems clear that Antiochus spent most of 169 in Egypt, thus the record of Ab 143 SE (Bab.) = 19 August - 16 September 169 cited above may well refer to his departure rather than his arrival, which again would be consistent with the dating of the documents. The fact that we have documents spread throughout the year supports Skeat's contention that Antiochus IV posed as a supporter of Ptolemy VI, while presumably claiming superiority through his coronation. However, this does not mean we should date Ptolemy VI's flight from Alexandria as soon as November; it may well be that Antiochus always took this stance, and that Ptolemy took the propaganda bait at some later time. The celebration of his anaklhthria certainly requires that he was in Alexandria at the time, probably very early in 169. Ý
 Polybius 29.23.4, Livy 45.11. The return was presented as the occasion of Antiochus' withdrawal, hence it occurred late in the year, as would be suggested in any case from the existence of documents such as iBucheum II.8 dated to the epagomenal days of year 12.
Documents from the period of joint rule are dated according to a regnal series starting in 170/69; see above. This series was later annexed by Ptolemy VIII as his own. A few dual dates are known that refer to this period; these can all be shown to be retrospective.
W. Clarysse & G. van der Veken, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt 26 n. 125 assign the eponymous priest Pwl... named in pdem Cair. 2.31042 under a year 16 to year 16 of Ptolemy VI, even though this year was actually year 5 of the joint regime and an eponymous priest Melagkomas is already known for this year from pTebt. 3.1.811. Their reasoning is not given. M. Chauveau, BIFAO 90 (1990) 135, 148 n. 37 simply states that pdem Cair. 2.31042 must be assigned to another reign. A candidate is easy to find. Year 16 = 190/89 of Ptolemy V is vacant, and W. Clarysse & G. van der Veken, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt 21 n. F notes that pdem Cair. 2.31015 names an unplaced eponymous priest Pwl... in his reign. Ý
 The expulsion of Ptolemy VI and his flight to Rome: Diodorus 31.18.2. UPZ 1.110 dated 24 Mesore year 6 = 21 September 164 opens with a statement that the king, his brother and the queen are all well; it later includes a reference to 21 Thoth year 7 = 23 October 164. Unless this is official disinformation, the expulsion must have occurred shortly after this date. E. Lanciers, Proc. 18th Congress of Papyrology 405, 410, published the dating protocol of pdem Munich 4, dated 6 Hathyr year 7 = 7 December 164, assignable to 164/3 through the names of the eponymous priest [Herakleitos son of] Philoxenos and the canephore Nikaia, which preclude year 7 of any other king. This document names king [Ptolemy] Euergetes. Hence the expulsion occurred between the two dates. Ý
 Diodorus 31.17c for the course of events. UPZ 1.111 refers to the amnesty decree of 25 Mesore year 18 = 22 September 163, which declared an amnesty for crimes committed before 19 Epeiph = 17 August 163; this presumably marked the effective completion of the restoration. However, the earliest document of year 18 (E. Bikerman, CdE 27 (1952) 149, 163) is dated 29 Pharmouthi = 29 May 163, from the Thebaid, so Philometer's actual return probably occurred several weeks before this. The last clear document of Ptolemy VIII from this period is oBodleian 1.152 dated 28 Payni year 7 = 27 July 163. This ostracon is not explicitly tried to a particular king, and the dating is inferred. It is one of a series of tax ostraca signed in demotic by Petiesis son of Portis (oBodleian 1.149-1.153) dated to years 6, 7 and 19. While the name of Pete[isis son of Portis] is incomplete on oBodleian 153, it also names a certain Panas, who is named in oBodleian 1.154-1.160, covering years 20 to 24. Thus we have a sequence in which we jump from year 7 to year 19, which exactly corresponds to the transition from Ptolemy VIII back to Ptolemy VI, making oBodleian 1.152 a document of Ptolemy VIII.
A number of dates have been reported that are given as dual dates during or after the joint reign, or as dates of Ptolemy VIII but after the restoration of Ptolemy VI. These are briefly discussed in M. Chauveau, BIFAO 90 (1990) 135, 148 n. 37; M. Chauveau, BIFAO 91 (1991) 127, 133; E. Lanciers, Simblos 1 (1995) 33, 34 n. 6:
iii) pErasm. 1.3: Refers to year 4 = 15, and dated on this basis by P. J. Sijpesteijn, ZPE 40 (1980) 119, 120, to 166/5. M. Chauveau, BIFAO 91 (1991) 127, 133 notes that even though no other date is present, the context of the reference makes it clear that it is retrospective.
iv) pdem Mallawi inv. 602/11 is dated to 14 Mesore year 8 and refers to the current rulers as the Theoi Euergetai. On this basis, El H. Zaghloul, Proc. 18th Congress of Papyrology 139, dated the document to Ptolemy VIII, equating 14 Mesore year 8 = 11 September 162, i.e. well after the expulsion of Ptolemy VIII by Ptolemy VI. It was published by El H. Zaghloul, BIFAO 91 (1991) 255 at 259. M. Chauveau, BIFAO 91 (1991) 127 at 133 notes that the context clearly establishes the date as from the joint reign of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX, despite the reference to the Theoi Euergetai; thus it should be dated to 14 Mesore year 8 = 28 August 109.
v) Stele JdE 55941, the votive stele of the Panopolite nomarch Haremefi, published by E. Bresciani, SCO 9 (1960) 119, apparently contains a date of 2 Epeiph year 20 = year 9 (= 30 July 162), which represents a continuation of the dating of the joint regime after the restoration of Ptolemy VI. However, M. Chauveau, RdE 50 (1999) 272, proposes to read 2 Epeiph year 20 = year 5, which would represent 28 June 32 under Cleopatra VII.
vi) gr Medinet Habu 48 is dated to year [21?] = year 10 and refers to the duty cycle of the first phyle as lasting from 1 Phaophi to 14 [Hathyr]. It refers to king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra in that order. H. J. Thissen, Die demotischen Graffiti von Medinet Habu 45f. notes that the work cycle corresponds closely to the dates given by year 22 of the pCarlsberg 9 lunar cycle, which matches year 21 of Ptolemy VI. However, while the dating of this graffito is still not fully resolved, it seems more likely that it dates from year 9 = 12 = 106/5 in the reign of Ptolemy X and Cleopatra III.
The first three dates are clearly retrospective. In year 1, Ptolemy VI actually ruled for most of the year, so there is a clear need to be able to give the correct date while also using the official retroactive date. The next two documents may be explained by the need to refer to a date in the period of joint rule after the restoration of Ptolemy VI as sole ruler. The fourth document appears to be dated to this period in error.
The most interesting cases are the final two documents, which are clearly not retrospective usages, and which are only 3 months apart if correctly attributed as dates of Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII. However, since there are plenty of other documents from these years that are not double dated, it seems unlikely that they represent any actual coregency. M. Chauveau, BIFAO 90 (1990) 135, 148 n. 37, suggested that they reflect a local sentiment only, or a local rumour of a restoration of joint rule, since both documents are from Upper Egypt. However, M. Chauveau, RdE 50 (1999) 272 later convincingly redated JdE 55941 to Cleopatra VII. This leaves gr Medinet Habu 48 as the only possible contemporary example of these double dates. While not entirely satisfactory, an alternate dating, to the reign of Ptolemy X and Cleopatra III, has been found for this, as given above. Ý
[12.1] Panathenaic victor list line III.32 (S. V. Tracy & C. Habicht, Hesperia 60 (1991) 187 at 216). For the date, see discussion under Cleopatra II, who won a victory at the same games. The king is not distinguished from his brother Ptolemy VIII, which is consistent with a date before the latter was firmly established as king of Cyrene. Ý
[12.2] IG II2 2316 line 45, distinguished from his brother Ptolemy VIII, then king of Cyrene, as [pr]esbut[eroV] -- the elder. The date is discussed in S. V. Tracy & C. Habicht, Hesperia 60 (1991) 187 at 218; it is essentially determined by the likely placement of this list compared to the list first published in that article. Ý
 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.4.7, I Maccabees 11.13. Polybius 39.7, in his eulogy for Ptolemy VI, describes him as king of Syria. The timing can be inferred from a double date, year 36 = year 1, which is recorded on a papyrus (pdem Fuad I -- M. Chauveau BIFAO 90 (1990) 135) dated 16 Payni = 10 July 145 and an Alexandrian tetradrachm (J. N. Svoronos, Die Münzen der Ptolemäer No 1509, pl. 52a 11,12; see also the specimen held by Adam Philippidis). These tetradrachms were assigned by Svoronos to year 36 of Ptolemy VIII = 135/4. However, E. T. Newell, Two Egyptian Hoards (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 33 (1927)) 24 showed, by reference to the Keneh hoard, which contained an example of this coin as well as coins dated year 36 and 26 that were struck from the same obverse die, that the coin must date from year 36 of Ptolemy VI. The tetradrachm shows that the double dating was official in character. The double date was long attributed to a supposed coregency between Ptolemy VI and a son Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator (L. Pareti, Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 43 (1908) 509). However, regardless of whether or not Ptolemy VII existed, two considerations make the interpretation of the double date as a coregency rather doubtful. Firstly, O. Mørkholm (ANSMN 20 (1975) 7, 9 and pl II.4 and II.5) pointed out that other tetradrachms dated to year 36 alone are known which were struck with the same obverse die, but that the die shows greater wear than with the double-dated coins, and hence these coins must be later. This is proof that the minting of coins using the "year 1" epoch was suspended before the death of Ptolemy VI. If the epoch is interpreted as referring to his reign over Syria, this action is naturally explained his repudiation of the Syrian crown as reported by Josephus and Maccabees. If, however, the coins reflect a dual-dated coregency, we must now explain why the dual dating was so abruptly terminated, e.g. by supposing that these coins reflect a special commemorative run for the supposed coregency. Secondly, as M. Chauveau (BIFAO 90 (1990) 135, 147ff.) points out, preceding coregencies, including the coregency between Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy Eupator, did not involve a double dating or a redating of the regnal year, except for the joint regime of Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II established in 170, which took place under extraordinary circumstances. Even supposing a coregency was established in 145, there is no obvious reason that a new dating system was required to support it.
A Greek funerary stele (iGFayum 198) dated 28 Epeiphi year 36 = year 1, has usually been dated to the same event, i.e. the date is equated to 21 August 145. However, there are difficulties with this assignment. For a possible alternate dating, see discussion under Ptolemy IX. Ý
 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.4.8. Reign-length in the Canon of Ptolemy is 35 years, hence Ptolemy VIII acceded in the year starting 28 September 146. The location of the battle is given in Strabo 16.2.8. It appears that the return of Ptolemy VIII was known, or at least rumoured, in Thebes by 11 Epeiph = 4 August, which is dated to year 36 = year 25 in two demotic grafitti at a tomb Dra Abu'l Naga reused in Ptolemaic times as a catacomb for ibis and falcons (Northampton, W. Spiegelberg, P. E. Newberry, Report on Some Excavations in the Theban Necropolis during the Winter of 1898-1899 21 nos 14c, 15c, pl XXVII, discussed in M. Chauveau, BIFAO 91 (1991) 129 and E. Lanciers, Simblos 1 (1995) 33). This would argue that the death of Ptolemy VI must have occurred a few weeks earlier, in early July or perhaps late June. However, both Lanciers and Chauveau note that this interpretation of the date of these grafitti makes it hard to explain the date on iGFayum 198 of 28 Epeiphi year 36 = year 1, which is normally equate to 21 August 145, over two weeks later. Lanciers ventures no explanation. Chauveau speculates that these graffiti, both commemorating the visit of a certain Chensthothes son of Pasenchons to the catacomb, were written retrospectively by Chensthothes at some later time to commemorate the fact that he had earlier visited the same catacomb with his father, which would eliminate their chronological value, but admits that this cannot be proved. On the other hand, E. Lanciers (Proc. 18th Congress of Papyrology 405, 422) argues that pdem Ox. Griffith 59, dated 20 Epeiph year 25 of king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, children of the manifest gods, must be assigned to Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II since mention is made therein of an earlier agreement dated to year 36; this would date this papyrus to 20 Epeiph = 13 August 145, supporting the view that Chensthothes wrote the correct date. Outside pdem Ox. Griffith 59, the first certain date for Ptolemy VIII is pdem Cairo 30605 dated 28 Mesore year 25 = 20 September 145, based on the name of the eponymous priest. For a possible alternate explanation of the date of iGFayum 198, see discussion under Ptolemy IX. Ý
 Transliterations follow J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (2nd edition) 238 (6). All titles given on a decree dated 1 Epeiph year 24 on the rock below the pylon of the temple of Philae. The throne name limits the choice to Ptolemy VI or Ptolemy VIII; the date restricts it to Ptolemy VI, since Ptolemy VIII's second reign began in his year 25. C. R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien IV 27b = H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 294 XXII. Ý
 "Raised in motherlove, twin of the living Apis upon their birth stone". For the reasoning associating this name with Ptolemy VI, see discussion above. The name probably indicates the year of his birth. Ý
 OGIS 126. Ý
 Justin 38.8.
10 Feb 2002: Added individual trees
22 Feb 2002: Split into separate entry
19 May 2002: Corrected Egyptian date equations as necessary
26 Jan. 2003: Expanded discussion of retroactive joint dates and extensions of the period of the coregency (n. 12) and a possible year 16 (n. 10).
10 Feb 2003: Further elaboration on late joint dates after examination of Bresciani's article on JdE 55941.
16 April 2003: Noted Chauveau's redating of JdE 55941 and looked at possible alternate dates for gr Medinet Habu 48 -- thanks to Andreas Blasius
18 May 2003: Added Xrefs to the Lacus Curtius edition of Polybius
23 Aug 2003: Added Xrefs to online Justin, crosscheck of Walbank's anaysis of the date of the anakleteria
23 Oct 2003: Added Xrefs to the Lacus Curtius edition of Polybius that I missed the first time
22 Feb 2004: Broke out Berenice, fiancee of Attalus III, as a possible daughter.
24 Feb 2004: Updated Xref to LacusCurtius Plutarch.
13 Sep 2004: Add Xref to online Eusebius.
19 Oct 2004: Removed redundant discussion of Roman chronology.
16 Dec 2004: Added notices of his Panathenaia victories in 182(!), 162 and 158.
13 Jan 2005: Consolidated Neos Philopator-related issues under Memphites.
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription, links to DDBDP pOxy 3.491, 495
3 Dec 2005: Rework discussion of Porphyry's evidence on the date of the start of the coregency
14 Sep 2006: Add links to Packard Huimanities DB, Canon at Attalus
26 Oct 2006: Note and adopt Mitford's argument for a birthmonth of Pharmouthi
16 Jan 2007: Add discussion of SEG 8.694 as evidence for the exact birthday of Ptolemy VI
22 Feb 2007: Corrected date of pMallawi 602/11 from 10 Pharmouthi to 14 Mesore (thanks to Mark Depauw)
28 Nov 2010: Fix broken DDbDPlinks, add new BIFAO links
Website contents © Chris Bennett, 2001-2012 -- All rights reserved