1In archaeology and historical scholarship, chronologies are used to date archaeological finds and/or events a) relative to each other, or b) absolute, which means with a specific date.[1] Thus, they belong to the most important tools for researchers who deal with our past, because in this field it is pivotal to relate things to each other – as well as to the present. In addition to this purpose, regional as well as thematic chronologies also serve to generate a context for the objects studied. Archaeological chronologies can rely on different types of sources and/or findings, as well as scientific methods. The use of a particular pottery chronology, for example, shows that finds assigned to it are of a specific genre, have a geographic relationship to other areas, or belong to a specific time period.[2] To emphasise the socio-political context, archaeological and especially historical scholarship tends to use political chronologies, which are arranged by officials, priests, rulers or whole dynasties belonging to a social and/or ethnic group.[3] Accordingly, the use of an ancient ruling dynasty for dating clearly indicates that, in addition to the epoch, possible objects can also be assigned to the cultural or regency area and that historical events were related to this particular empire.

2The DFG-funded priority program (SPP) 2143 Entangled Africa [4] of the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), which aims to explore intra-African relations and networks of the last 6,000 years up to the beginning of the colonial period, uses several such specialised chronologies that overlap thematically and geographically with the research projects of the SPP. In order to bring them up to date with the latest research and make them accessible to a broad audience of researchers and the interested public, the FAIR.rdm project of the SPP revises relevant chronologies and maintains them in the open access data portal ChronOntology .[5] Chronological data and classifications are therefore interpreted and treated as archaeological research data. All datasets are created and processed by specialists (data scientists, computer scientists and archaeologists) according to precisely defined rules and have detailed metadata. Furthermore, they are hyperlinked with the other offerings of iDAI.world [6]. The curated and deposited chronological data therefore meet scientific standards, and are available to all researchers; consistent with the FAIR principles.[7] In the best case, this creates a reference collection of chronological datasets that can be applied by as wide an audience as possible, thus contributing to a more uniform use of such data.

3The inspiration for the discussion presented here was work on the chronological arrangement of northeastern African for the SPP. The Nile Valley and its adjacent areas, as a contact zone, with their multitude of social groups and material cultures offer interesting insights into networking both within the continent as well as from there to the Mediterranean region and the Arabian Peninsula. In historical times, the large empires based in those areas played a particularly influential role in trade and exchange relations. Thus, they are often used for dating specific events, monuments or objects which share the same time and space configuration (Fig. 1). This usage is not restricted to scholarship and research. Content created by non-professional historians or enthusiasts often uses such chronologies, too.

4While working on the chronological-political classification of Ptolemaic Egypt (306–30 BCE) – the period in which the initially Hellenic successors of Alexander the Great ruled the empire on the Nile[8] – the question arose about the political significance that female rulers possessed. There were many influential Ptolemaic queens with a large amount of power, including the most famous, Cleopatra VII. Should not a chronological classification based on the political significance of the rulers, established according to modern standards, also include all for which such significance can be inferred from the sources? The possibility that their influence did not necessarly match the power of their male spouses should not be a selective criteria. Indeed the influence possessed is often hard to measure and therefore a matter for interpretation. Furthermore, there have also been Ptolemaic kings, as well as male rulers in general, who were not the most powerful deciders in their own empires – due to legal guardians, a strong elite or other circumstances. Nonetheless, they were and still are used for chronological arrangement.[9]

5Thus, the traditional political chronology of Ptolemaic Egypt can be contrasted with a revised version that takes account of the role of Ptolemaic female rulers. The present article develops and applies a concept of such a revised version, which will be referred to below as the Counter-Chronology. The data portal ChronOntology offers the possibility to map different interpretations of time concepts or periodisations at the same time and to link them with each other.[10] In this way, the current research discourse can be reflected with the current emphasis on data processing and gender awareness. To implement this endeavour, a separate research group entitled (In)Visible Women was established within the SPP.[11] Visibility and availability are important aspects for establishing and promoting new ideas, especially in our digital age.[12]

6The following discussion is divided into four parts. First, in the next section, the paper takes a brief look at the perception of ancient women in research. Above all, the historical sources give the impression that men only used to be in superior positions in ancient times. This circumstance, coupled with the structures in research and society that have emerged since the 19th century, is responsible for a systematic marginalization – though which need not have been intentional – as well as active suppression of female questions and topics, which has only been actively scrutinised in recent decades. In the following section, therefore, a short look at the research history of Ptolemaic chronology from the turn of the 20th century until today is presented. In this way it can be made clear which deficits and inconsistencies continue to characterise it until today. Thereupon, a direct look at the sources is undertaken, and the question is pursued as to whether the female Ptolemaic rulers are really as difficult to identify as traditional approaches suggest. The practical-technical elaboration of the Counter-Chronology with the help of research data and computer code then follows in the subsequent section. The conclusion of the study is an outlook on what can be achieved by this work, what still remains to be done, and to which areas the basic approach can still be applied.

7Since the beginning of their disciplines, archaeological and historical research has paid only limited attention to female rulers and other ancient women in positions of power. Of course, particularly prominent figures such as Cleopatra VII, Livia, or Boudica could not be ignored, but women who were somewhat less represented in the sources were often treated only in passing. Moreover, earlier research tended to portray well-known women either as imperious opportunists or as passive hangers-on. Notable achievements were thus attributed either to their ‘inappropriate’ hunger for power or to their male partners.[13] Women outside the historical elite, most of whom were invisible as individuals, were associated with the prevailing domestic role models of the 19th and 20th centuries, while crafts, arts, and overall seemingly more ‘demanding’ activities were attributed to men.[14]

8It is not only in the public sphere that debates about equality and gender have become a prominent topic in recent years. The same applies to scientific fields. Part of this process is also a critical questioning of workflows, structures, and interpretive approaches, as well as of traditional research perspectives.[15]

9Archaeological and scientific research data are, to a not inconsiderable extent, dependent on interpretation from past and present. Thus, who produced ancient sources, who provides information, and who processes and interprets it plays an important role. Unequal relations in both information science, as well as archaeological and historical studies from the very beginning of these disciplines, have certainly worked to the disadvantage of women in many ways, both ancient actors, and modern researchers. These conditions derive from the power structures of our ancient and contemporary Western societies, most of which were and still are dominated by men. The historical narratives regarding actions and agency of women have been ‘silenced’ more often – to use the words of M.-R. Trouillot (cf. Trouillot 2015). Regarding archaeology and ancient history, R. Günther aptly summarizes these processes, as follows:

“To expose stereotypes [sc.: concerning women in the past] [...] as such makes problems because they are spread in the sources written by men as well as in the research largely dominated by men, although mostly [understated] [...]. If individual assessments and ideals are presented in a reasonably discreet manner, they are soon regarded as true or as established knowledge, even if the methodological approach and one’s own standpoint have not been reflected upon. At times it is difficult to determine whether it is really an ancient tradition or one of the 19 th century. [...] [The] attitude in a male-centered research forces today’s studies on women’s issues to always first subject the older literature to an ideology-critical scientific discourse if they want to be taken seriously.” [16]

10J. Draycott puts it quite similarly:

“The literary, documentary, archaeological and even bioarchaeological evidence that one might attempt to use as source material is highly suspect. It is buried deep under thousands of years of chauvinism, sexism and even outright misogyny, and broad-brushed stereotypes based on ideas about what women should or should not be, and what they should or should not do, not on detailed information about how they were or what they actually did.” (Draycott 2022, 13)

11These quotes from two contemporary researchers illustrate the numerous obstacles that the study of historical women – individuals as well as women as a social group in general – has faced from ancient times to the present;[17] and in some cases still does.[18] Awareness of both the subject matter and the problems surrounding the history of research has, however, only been fostered in recent decades.[19] It is also still not fully present among many researchers as well as the interested public. In the information sciences, which are primarily concerned with the processing of generated scientific data, similar shortcomings prevail. As a heavily male-dominated field of work, a major focus is on the curation of data collected by male researchers, the majority of which reflect the worlds of men.[20] Not always is this done intentionally, but the consequences do not change much. It is only in recent years that there has been an increased rethinking and critical reflection on one’s own discipline, including its methods.[21]

12By creating a Counter-Chronology for Ptolemaic Egypt, the aim of the research group (In)Visible Women was to contribute to further raising awareness of these issues. Chronologies represent a frequently used tool and are therefore particularly pertinent. This is true not only for scientific research literature and data, but especially popular scientific works based on them and other media (film and television, knowledge collections on the Internet,[22] podcasts, videogames etc.). A stronger presence of women in chronologies can help make the move from invisibilty to visibility. The effect is further enhanced if the chronological periods are also searchable, linkable, and citable as open-access research data with a persistent identifier; as is guaranteed by the iDAI.world systems.

13The traditional chronology of Ptolemaic Egypt had already been outlined by the beginning of the 19th century according to the then – still young – scientific rules.[23] The large number of archaeological, papyrological, and numismatic sources, together with the historical texts, provided a wide range of verifiable information. Moreover, researchers of the 18th and 19th centuries were fascinated by Egypt – albeit primarily by the Pharaonic period – and thus placed a special focus on this historical region. The basic source for the dynastic succession of the Ptolemies is the quite ‘simple’ kanon basileion (hereafter simply ‘Canon’) of the ancient astronomer Claudius (Cl.) Ptolemy (Fig. 2). He used the (adjusted) periods of the Egyptian rulers since the Babylonian occupation for the chronological classification of the astronomical phenomena observed by him.[24]

14At the end of the 19th century, M. L. Strack commited himself to the study of the Ptolemaic dynasty, with a strong focus on the chronological ordering, of this era. He revised the Ptolemaic chronology with the designated goal of “producing a family chronicle [...] that would provide the solid ground for new research.”[25] He compared the known dates of the Ptolemaic kings with the lists of the Apis bulls, as well as with funerary inscriptions of a Memphite high priestly family. The latter in particular provided an extremely accurate source of comparison. The priestly family can be traced from the Macedonian conquest of Egypt to the Roman period. In addition to exact birth and death dates, the tomb inscriptions also record the lifespan of each family member to the day. This helps to find and eliminate even the smallest discrepancies, such as those caused by inaccurate calendars in one of the other reference sources. M. L. Strack could show that the reliability of the Canon, related to the inaugural years of the kings, was very high. The exact dates of a change of reign, which the Canon always rounds to the beginning of the year, could be calculated exactly with the help of the mentioned reference sources (cf. Strack 1897, 154–168). Accordingly, the chronology of the Ptolemaic dynasty commonly used today largely maps the Canon of Cl. Ptolemy, which, apart from Cleopatra VII, names only male kings.[26]

15It was recognised already by M. L. Strack that the Ptolemaic chronology could be extended by the addition of other important persons who had a traceable role in the political development of Ptolemaic Egypt: Divisions based purely on the kings and Cleopatra VII was “the simplest, what could be produced from the confused history of the Ptolemies” and offered a “poor picture”, to which it was necessary “to give an increased interest by insertion of new lines” as well as to complete and enliven it in this way by enumerating of the remaining members.[27] Accordingly, the “names of co-rulers, counter-kingdoms and surrogates [...] could enrich these Ptolemaic successions and make them more manifold”. After all, the sources “in fact provided ample material for a finer division of the line of rulers”.[28] Significantly, the queens do not come to his mind for this ‘enrichment’[29] – neither do the presumably indigenous counter-kings from Upper Egypt.[30] Rather, he begins an attempt to incorporate some of the lesser male (co-)rulers into the chronology (Strack 1897, 171).

16M. L. Strack’s conclusions illustrate two important aspects that are of interest in the further course of this work: First, the already early recognised possibility and resulting benefit that an extension of the Ptolemaic chronology could bring. Second, the obvious prejudice in not considering the value of female rulers for such an extension, as R. Günther and J. Draycott also urge.

17Even in the modern research literature that followed the work of M. L. Strack, the predecessors of Cleopatra VII are for the most part subordinated to male rulers – even if in recent decades there have been individual cases of deviation from this practice. A generally accepted consensus on the standard inclusion of female Ptolemaic rulers has not yet been reached; on the contrary, the portrayal of female rulers – especially in important introductory and standard works – is sometimes quite inconsistent. I. Shaw does address the importance of chronologies for archaeological and historical studies in the introduction to The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt and specifically discusses regency lists, however, he too – similar to M. L. Strack – misses the opportunity to point out the possible importance of female rulers in this context (cf. Shaw 2003b, esp. 5–8).

18The aforementioned inconsistency, with a tendency to give greater consideration to male rulers, is also found in other frequently cited works on the Ptolemaic Empire; for example, in the standard work by G. Hölbl, which is especially popular in the German-speaking countries. Although a section there is titled “Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and his Two Queens Cleopatra II and III (145–116)”, thus including two of the most powerful female rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty, the following subsection is simply titled “The reign of Ptolemy VIII until 132” (Hölbl 2010, 194, my italics). J. G. Manning – to cite another exemplary work – also touches on female rulers only in passing in his comprehensive analysis of the political and economic circumstances of the Ptolemaic dynasty, as a glance at the index confirms.[31] The outline of the aforementioned introductory reference by S. Pfeiffer conveys a similar impression: the sections are ordered by the male kings, with the only exception, unsurprisingly, Cleopatra VII. (Pfeiffer 2017).

19All these examples are not intended to criticise the authors directly, but rather to show how deeply rooted the chronological divisions according to male rulers are, as well as the fact of their modern use. On the other hand, this classification seems to be more inconsistent than suggested by chronological tables. This is at least indicated by the partly inconsistent use of rulers and also female rulers for classification in the running texts and headings of the research literature. This approach – especially in introductory standard works, which are particularly often used by students, young researchers, as well as interested amateurs as a first source of information – solidifies the prevailing view, and makes it more difficult to differentiate it more precisely afterwards. Only in some works of recent years is this practice being actively overturned.[32]

20Historical sources concerning the female Ptolemaic rulers, are by far not as bad as older research might suggest. They appear as women with great financial means, architects or priestesses. In numerous documents they are explicitly mentioned as rulers, with official functions as well as decrees attributed to them. They also left their mark in military affairs and on ancient battlefields. Cities were named after them, they have been honoured in literature and art objects, and they were also active as authors themselves.[33] Nevertheless, some of the predecessors of Cleopatra VII have been treated in detail only in the last decades.[34] In most introductory and standard works they are usually discussed only rather briefly. This may be due in part to the limited space available in this genre of literature, but it also illustrates once again the often subordinate importance of royal women in scholarship up to the last decades.

21The first recorded mention of a female Ptolemaic ruler in a political context is found on an Attic inscription from the year 269/68 BCE, which records an alliance of the Greek poleis against Macedonia. Part of this alliance is also Ptolemy II, who, however, pledges his support only in agreement with his ancestors and his sister, Arsinoë II.[35] Although no official title for Arsinoë II has survived, the mention on the inscription can be understood as a sign of some influence.[36] In the cultic sphere, meanwhile, she had a prominent role during her lifetime, as part of the newly established theoi Adelphoi (‘sibling deities’).[37]

22Her successor Berenice II is the first Ptolemaic queen to be given an official title. In total, she is explicitly referred to as female pharaoh – with a female Horus name – in nine demotic papyri. The papyri come mostly from Elephantine in Upper Egypt and date to both the beginning and end of her reign. She appears in each case in the opening protocol of the documents together with her husband Ptolemy III, designated as ‘Pharaoh’ (pr-ꜥꜣ.t).[38] In addition, she also appears on some hieroglyphic inscriptions with a long female horus title. On the Canopos decree, for instance, she is referred to as ‘female Horus; ruler, born by a female ruler’.[39] Since Ptolemy III went off to fight the Third Syrian War against the Seleucids shortly after his enthronement, Berenice II ruled Egypt alone in his absence, which some scholars see as the reason for the transfer of the title of pharaoh.[40] The interpretation is supported by the coins which Berenice II had minted during that time, as well as later on (see Fig. 3, I.e ANS. 1967.152.563). Another interesting indication of Berenice’s prominent role is provided by a mosaic originating from Thumis by the artist Sophilos. In this mosaic, the ruler is depicted in military clothing. She is wearing a typical Greek cloak, a so-called chlamys, over metal armour (Fig. 4). This can be interpreted as an indication that Berenike's prominent position was also acknowledged by parts of the Greek population.[41]

23However, this whole interpretation is in parts not completely certain. It is also possible that the Horus name of Berenice II was only given by the Egyptian priests to transfer her role in the representation of the Ptolemies into an Egyptian reading. In this case, actual governmental functions could not be derived from it.[42] This would explain, why she is not mentioned in Greek documents bearing such a title. But in the end, these mentions and ommissions may only reflect the different perceptions of Berenice II by her contemporaries, who did not necessarily share the same socio-cultural background, and, therefore, should not lead towards too quick and general conclusions. Certainly she was an important and powerful queen, at least for a significant part of the population.

24In the case of her successor Arsinoë III, the sources show similar uncertainties about her official role. Great deeds and a certain influence are attributed to her. She is said to have personally encouraged the Egyptian troops before the Battle of Raphia and, after the victory, is addressed as pharaoh in the Decree of Raphia, which was displayed in temples throughout the country. In addition, she and her brother consort Ptolemy IV donated a large sum to the Boiot sanctuary of the Muses and the associated Mouseion Festival. However, evidence of official Egyptian documents in which she appears in the opening protocol is lacking.[43]

25With her successor, the Seleucid princess Cleopatra I, who married Ptolemy V in 196 BCE, not only the famous name enters the Ptolemaic dynasty. She also becomes the first queen to whom the sources clearly assign a primary position of power compared to the king. When Ptolemy V died unexpectedly in 180 BCE, their son Ptolemy VI was only six years old. Cleopatra took over the guardianship and thus de facto the regency in Egypt. Her superior position becomes clear in the protocol of a papyrus from the same year:

basileuonton basilisses Kleopatras

kai basileos Ptolemaiou tou huiou theon

Epiphanon etous a.

Under the rule of queen Cleopatra

and king Ptolemy, her son, the theoi

Epiphaneis; year one.[44]

26The name of Cleopatra I is listed before that of her son. The order of the names in the strongly formalised protocols mostly reflects the hierarchy among the rulers (Sewell-Lasater 2020, 17. 446). That both are officially likewise in a ruling position is made clear at the very beginning of the paragraph: There it says basileuonton, which can be translated as “under the regency of ...” followed by the names. This is the standardised participle indicating the ruler(s) in the protocols. For Demotic papyri the corresponding term in the protocols, as mentioned above, is pr-ꜥꜣ.t (‘Pharaoh’) (cf. Bielman Sánchez – Lenzo 2016, 158 f.). Another papyrus shows that Cleopatra I was also active in domestic politics and that her guardianship was not merely symbolic.[45] A. Bielman Sánchez and G. Lenzo identify three innovations in the concept of Ptolemaic regency with the reign of Cleopatra I: Introduction of joint rule; Inclusion of the queen; and Listing of Cleopatra I ahead of Ptolemy VI.

27These innovations do not seem to have met with any opposition from the Hellenistic-Egyptian elite or the court.[46] From this point on, the vast majority of female Ptolemaic rulers participated in power in the form of an official joint rule (cf. generally Bielman Sánchez – Lenzo 2016).

28After the death of Cleopatra I, Ptolemy VI married his sister Cleopatra II in 175 BCE. At first, two members of the court assumed guardianship of the rulers. In 170 BCE, an official joint rule was established that included the siblings and their brother Ptolemy VIII. From this point on, the siblings ruled in various combinations. After the death of Ptolemy VI in 145 BCE and the temporary exile of Ptolemy VIII, a joint rule was established between the latter and his sister Cleopatra II. In 140 BCE, Ptolemy VIII eventually married his niece, Cleopatra III, the daughter of his sister-regent, who was also officially part of the joint rule from that point on. The ruling trio appears also on largely formalised reliefs in Egyptian sanctuaries like Kom Ombo in Upper Egypt (Fig. 5).

29Their joint rule was interrupted by a civil war between the siblings in the late 130s BCE. For this period, there is evidence that Cleopatra II ruled parts of Egypt alone for a time.[47] In return, Cleopatra III established a cult of Isis for herself to strengthen her own pretensions to the throne (Gkikaki 2021, 76). After a short period, however, the triple reign was re-established and lasted until the death of Cleopatra II in 116 BCE. In the end, Cleopatra II, together with various joint rulers, had by far the longest regency of all Ptolemies, with almost 55 years of direct participation in power (Bielman Sánchez – Lenzo 2021, 76). When her mother had passed away, Cleopatra III was without question the dominant ruler in charge of power. Similar to her grandmother she appears in different contexts in front of the new co-ruler, her son Ptolemy IX. A relief from the Hathor temple of Deir al-Medina shows her in first position in front of Amun-Re followed by the king (Fig. 6). In the corresponding inscriptions she is also mentioned in the first place with her female Horus-name, only followed by title and name of Ptolemy IX.[48] The same applies to a slightly younger demotic papyrus from the year 107 BCE, on which a grain loan was established. For chronological classification, the text begins with a formalized passage in which Cleopatra III, designated in Demotic as pr-ꜥꜣ.t (female Pharaoh), is named before her son and co-ruler Ptolemy X (pr-ꜥꜣ, Pharaoh).[49] Thus, Cleopatra III seems to have presided both of her sons in their respective joint reign before the younger Ptolemy X had her assassinated in 101 BCE.

30Altogether, the depiction of the female rulers, especially in highly formalised protocols and temple reliefs, but also on coins and other source material, underwent a traceable evolution since the beginning of the Ptolemaic reign.[50] As time went on, the symbols connected with the queens generally depicted them as acting rulers more specific.[51] In the following decades, the Ptolemaic empire was still mainly ruled by several co-rulers until the accession of Cleopatra VII. In the hierarchy within the individual ruling periods, the female rulers in part, and in part the male rulers, took the dominant position.[52]

31This brief overview is intended to show that the roles, actions, and influence of female Ptolemaic rulers go far beyond the passive role assigned to them by most scholars to date.[53] Furthermore, their political participation cannot be simply divided into ‘present’ or ‘absent’. The underlying processes, as well as their echoes in the largely fragmentarily preserved sources were – unsurprisingly – clearly more complex and the role of female rulers went through different stages over time.[54] Thus, the mention in the opening protocol of official Egyptian documents is an important factor in evaluating their role and participation in power, but it is not the only aspect. As shown, the picture is not so clear-cut. Royal women are also present in different kind of sources, like reliefs, coins or inscriptions, which may reflect their reputation among other parts of the people and among other societies.

32The concept of joint rule may only have been officially established with Cleopatra I. Prior to this, in most cases only the king is mentioned, while royal women appear in the protocol only in their role as his mother or sacred functions.[55] Nevertheless, there is evidence that royal women took on important political roles even before 180 BCE. The presentation of these queens differs depending on source category and origin. If, for instance, a queen is mentioned solely in an Egyptian papyrus or only on Greek inscriptions. This may be due against the background of the differing socio-cultural perceptions of the person and her position. Thus, if a single (or a few) source category would be used as an exclusion criterion for the inclusion of royal women in the Ptolemaic Counter-Chronology, personalities such as Arsinoë II, Berenice II, or Arsinoë III, who can be shown to have left a lasting mark, would be left out. Perhaps for some of these women the positive evidence in the sources is simply missing, as it has not survived, or they just acted in a time before the listing in the official protocols had been formalised in such a way. So, it should be possible to define some parameters that include royal women whose position was not as formalised or for whom positive evidence may be missing from the sources.[56]

33How do we filter this information to create a counter-chronology of the Ptolemaic era? The aforementioned evidence in the Egyptian and Greek sources illustrates the important roles that women of the Ptolemaic dynasty played. They were not only active on a private or sacred level, but also intervened directly in daily political business. All this even before they appeared in official documents as equal rulers since the time of Cleopatra I in 180 BCE. In order to include also those royal women before the beginning of the 2nd century BCE into the Counter-Chronology, necessary parameters must be determined.

34The aforementioned chronological table in T. Sewell-Lasater’s work lists all male and female rulers with dates of arrival and departure – regardless of whether they were addressed as official co-rulers in the ancient documents or not (Sewell-Lasater 2020, 439–442). In addition, she defines various categories that describe what specific position each queen held (Fig. 7). For the rearrangement of the chronological periods it makes sense to consider all Ptolemaic women who, following the definition of T. Sewell-Lasater, held at least the position of a ‘basilissa consort’. The use of this modern definition as a criterion of selection ensures that women of the royal household who possessed some influence, demonstrable in the sources – albeit in some cases minor – over the day-to-day political and/or sacral affairs are included in the Counter-Chronology, whereas those who possessed no direct power whatsoever do not appear in the reclassification. The term basilissa by itself, without explanatory addition, on the contrary, is too general.[57] This designation can also be used to name women of the royal household who had no influence or power – for example, other relatives of the ruling couple. The modern Greek-English compositum noun ‘basilissa consort’ from Sewell-Lasater’s work, used here to classify the roles of the Ptolemaic queens, should not obscure the fact that also the depiction in the Egyptian sources were used to determine these roles. Especially the term pr-ꜥꜣ.t, which occurs first in Ptolemaic times during the 3rd century BCE,[58] is an important marker for women of particular status. That does not mean necessarily that woman who were referred to as pr-ꜥꜣ.t always shared the same amount of power as their male spouses (which is vice versa also true for some kings). But at least this can be interpreted as a clear indication that the role of women designated like this went beyond that of a queen perceived merely as a passive wife.

35The data obtained in this way can now be used to contrast the traditional Ptolemaic chronology with the revised and expanded version. The derivation of the new ruling periods can be easily illustrated graphically. The current data from the work of T. Sewell-Lasater can be visualised in the form of a timeline in which each bar represents the ruling period of a regent. The individual periods are separated into male and female regents for better differentiation. The result shows a timeline on which the overlaps of the respective period blocks of the regents make clear when several members of the Ptolemies held a ruling position.[59] From this picture it is possible to create new divided regency periods in a simple way. A new period of Counter-Chronology starts – running from left to right – with the next beginning and ends with the next following end of a single period; regardless on which level (height) it is located and whether it is a female ruler or a male ruler (Fig. 8). In the shown case three new periods are worked out with consideration of the female rulers. The periods differ from the traditional arrangement in the canon of Cl. Ptolemy or the modern version[60] as follows[61]:

Traditional periodisation

Revised periodisation [62]

36The result is a new periodisation of the time span, which was previously grouped under the male kings, namely Ptolemy VI followed by Ptolemy VIII. In the data portal ChronOntology, the differences from the traditional chronology are expressed mainly in three points: The concrete designation of the respective period after all – male and female – regents; the mention of the official role and, where appropriate, actions also of the female rulers in the description of the respective period (Fig. 9); as well as the more detailed arrangement of the time span into several and smaller periods. In the portal, moreover, the time bars of the traditional chronology as well as of the Counter-Chronology can be contrasted on a timeline and thus directly compared.

37Generally, the revised periods appear as separate data sets. On the one hand, these contain information about the period, such as definition, description, temporal and spatial extent, period type, or literature references. The particular content of these informations is linked to other systems of the iDAI.world, if possible. On the other hand, relations of the chosen period to other periods are presented with the help of links to these datasets. This includes information such as subdivisions, superior periods, preceding and succeeding periods, as well as comparable periods and different definitions. In case of the revised Ptolemaic periods, the entries provide an additional permanent link to the datasets that represent the traditional periodisation.

38It is particularly important for direct use that all chronological records have a unique URI. Long-term availability is guaranteed by the DAI within the framework of the iDAI.world. The individual periods are thus citable. This makes it possible to refer to the time terms, for example in scientific works, and to use them for temporal as well as spatial classification of events.[63] Thus, future work on Ptolemaic Egypt could draw on the revised periods of the Counter-Chronology for specific chronological determination of political circumstances,[64] rather than using the traditional periodisation. Because all revised periods also contain a link to the traditional period, no information is lost. Rather, a modern interpretation is added to the state of research in this way.

39Of course, the application possibilities are not limited to purely scientific works. Popular science projects can also use and cite the portals and data of the iDAI.world. Therefore, it is definitely an option worth considering, for example, to update the corresponding Wikipedia articles to cite the data of the Counter-Chronology as an alternative interpretation and to link to the corresponding data sets at the portal ChronOntology.

40The reasons for the revision are inherent mostly in the positive implications mentioned below based on the comprehensive applications provided by the online portal in combination with the traditional use of chronologies.

41In our digital and highly interconnected world, the concept of ‘range’ is becoming increasingly important. This is because the more people that can be reached with a new concept – be it scientific, popular scientific, or entirely non-scientific – the higher the chance that it will be accepted as part of the collective memory and, in the best case, adopted into the fixed body of knowledge. Increased representation of royal women – of their actions, achievements, and accomplishments, as well as of their roles, functions, and powers – can, in this sense, help overcome long-held opinions and prejudices, and thus take into account the social reality in which women have always taken, and continue to take, many and important roles.

42In the scientific sphere of the SPP, the process can be supported by the development of a Counter-Chonology presented here, which focuses on ancient royal women on an equal basis. This is accomplished primarily with the help of the revised periods in the form of datasets provided by the ChronOntology portal. If the revised periods are consulted, this is done primarily by means of their designation. Since the female rulers – together with male rulers – are eponymous of their respective periods, their mere use for a chronological classification of events contributes to the dissemination of the new approach. More detailed information can be obtained by people interested simply by following the reference to the data set with its further information. In this way, awareness could be raised that royal women have at all times taken on important roles in our historical and social development.

43If one imagines this development a little further, this could help, first of all in the community of archaeological and historical studies, to increase the acknowledgment of women and their roles in the past and in the interpretation of the sources that have come down to us. In this way, “a glimpse into an alternative Roman Empire, where women could be empowered and influential”, could be opened up and, in the best case, permanently anchored in scholarly memory (Draycott 2022, 26). The term ‘Roman Empire’ is likely to be replaced here by any other political as well as regional designations of groups and ruling entities – in the presented case probably ‘Ptolemaic Empire’ – or in the best case simply overarching by ‘past’. In order to implement this for the individual disciplines of archaeological and historical studies, appropriate research questions need to be formulated and investigated. Hopefully, a further incentive for this has been created with the present work.

44With regard to the information sciences, this broadening of horizons can reinforce the reflection on one’s own working methods and data models that has already been initiated. Traditional ‘male’ perspectives and interpretations still predominate here. As a result, greater attention is paid to topics and data with this content. Our traditionally patriarchal Western societies further reinforces this effect. This affects women of colour even more, who are thereby subject to intersecting discrimination.[]To identify and name these inequities, as well as the power structures behind it, and then to address those issues, they must be questioned.[65] Increased awareness of this issue, also in other disciplines that rely on information science for their research data management, for example, can certainly help to accelerate this development.

45If one looks beyond the boundaries of science, changes in these areas can contribute quite directly to improving the current living conditions of women and girls. That is especially significant because most people do not first come into contact with history in an academic setting. Rather, we encounter historical narratives frequently even in our youth – whether through the multitude of media, school, or people we know (Trouillot 2015, 20. 25). Here, power structures shaped in a more balanced way can contribute to get a little closer to an inclusive society. At first glance, this may seem far-fetched for the mere revision of a chronology on ancient Egypt. And, of course, the tangible part of the approach developed here is rather small. But as part of the big picture, it makes its valuable contribution. Increased visibility of historical women can also lead to support the self consciousness of young girls and women in the present.[66] This applies once again even more to women of colour, who in comparison have even fewer historical female role models to draw on.[67] Of course, this does not mean that ancient royal women should be adopted uncritically as positive role models. Like their male counterparts, the Ptolemaic female rulers also acted in many situations in a way that, from today's perspective, we would judge as ethically questionable or even reprehensible. What is important in the first place – especially for discriminated women, but generally for everybody – is the presence of these queens in our historical perceptions to remind us that women of different origins in powerful positions have always been part of our societies and not only since the late 20th century.

46A further step in regard with the Entangled Africa program could be to expand the general themes discussed here to further northeastern African civilisations such as Kush and Aksum, which, for example, offer many possibilities of similar research questions. During the Meroitic epoch of Kush, there were several well-known queens who shaped the history of their ruling sphere in many ways.[68] And the historical sources about Aksum tell us of a powerful warrior queen who is believed to have terminated the Aksumite dynasty and established a new line of rulers, known as Zagwe dynasty (cf. only Selassie 1972; Andersen 2000). Beyond such elites, archaeology also opens up insights which provide us a look at the every-day lives of the non-elite people in general, as well as women in particular. Moreover, shifting the focus of research towards these socio-historical groups and realms in modern day Sudan, Ethiopia, and other surrounding areas in northeast Africa can give more prominence to the histories of these societies, which are still rather a marginal note in Western historiography, and could improve our perception of their socio-historical development. And this is, after all, one of the main goals of the Entangled Africa priority program as well as the Planet Africa exhibition.

47Shortly after I started my new position as part of the coordination team of the Entangled Africa SPP, I came up with the idea of revising the Ptolemaic chronology with an emphasis on the role of the female members. For me – someone trained in classical archaeology and ancient history – the traditional way seemed inconsistent: in most cases, only Cleopatra VII appeared as important and powerful queen while their predecessors were mostly omitted. Despite my concerns regarding the acceptance of the subject, the idea was very well received and, beyond that, I was granted the opportunity to form a new working group which focuses on the topic. Therefore, first of all, I want to thank Johanna Sigl and Jörg Linstädter, the projects coordinators, for their support. Secondly, I want to thank Eva Reinke, a member of the working group from day one, for her ideas and contributions regarding the (In)Visible Women working group; moreover, the team of the Research Data Management and of the ChronOntology webservice, namely Eymard Fäder, Wolfgang Schmiedle, Lukas Lammers, Mariam Adel and Fernanda Lozada. During our workshop and the annual meetings we received valuable input by scholars from most subprojects of the SPP; thanks for that. Furthermore, I value the upcoming opportunity to present our results at the Planet Africa exhibition, supervised by Gerd-Christian Weniger, Miriam Rothgänger and, once more, Jörg Linstädter. A special appreciation goes to Steven Matthews of our Connecting Foodways project for several linguistic corrections of the English version of the article. I also want to thank the two to me unknown peer-reviewers for their critics, comments and suggestions.

48Last but not least, I owe anything possible to my two powerful women at home, my wife and my little daughter! Thank you for all the support during homeoffice and all the good times I did not have to think about my research.

Chronologies are among the most frequently used tools in archaeological research and related disciplines. Most of the chronological divisions that are considered standard today were developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries on the basis of mainly written sources and have been little changed since then. The authors of the relevant testimonies were mostly men; the research on them was also dominated by men. Accordingly, the results focused on the deeds and dates of historically documented men. In the course of public debates on gender equality, a change in perspective is currently taking place, which, among other things, places greater emphasis on historically attested women and female achievements. Using the example of Ptolemaic Egypt, a new interpretation of the political chronology of this region and time was developed. This Counter-Chronology to the traditional classification fullfils, in addition to the usual tasks of a chronology, the purpose of creating a greater awareness of the work of historical women.