DOCSLIB.ORG

Ancient History: Near East

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ancient History: Near East ANCIENT HISTORY: NEAR EAST Cyrus II It is difficult to accurately assess the reign of Cyrus II due to the limited, fragmentary and biased nature of the sources available. However, with these limited sources, historians believe that Cyrus the Great was a successful man who had a cohesive reign and empire. He established the Persian Empire, the largest empire at that time. During Cyrus II’s reign of approximately thirty years, it is possible that the reason why there were no major revolts and numerous conquests was because of his effective administrative system and policy of tolerance. Cyrus II’s use of propaganda provides historians an insight of his personality and how he conducted his great empire. Monumental buildings, scripts, texts and art reflect his power, reign and wealth. Many respected historians still consider Cyrus as one of the greatest Persian kings of all time. Cyrus II was an excellent military strategist who was a part of a powerful dynasty, but his rise to power is unclear. The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great. Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, claimed that Cambyses, Cyrus II’s father, was not a king at all. In fact, Herodotus argues that he was a Persian who belonged in the middle class. He also claimed that he knew of three other versions of Cyrus’ ancestry. Although Herodotus is respected by many, the fact that there are different accounts of Cyrus’ heritage means that there is doubt about Cyrus’ family history and it is possible that Herodotus’ version may be inaccurate. In addition, Herodotus did not live during the time of Cyrus II’s reign and is in fact considered a secondary source. A Greek historian named Xenophon argues that Cyrus II came from the old royal dynasty of the Achaemenids. Like Herodotus, Xenophon did not live during the time of Cyrus II’s reign and is also a secondary source. Sources such as the Cyrus Cylinder emphasis Cyrus’ royal ancestry, but he never refers to himself being an Achaemenid. The Achaemenids controlled and expanded the Persian Empire for over 200 years. However, T. Cuyler Young suggests that Cyrus was not an Achaemenid and that Achaemenids was probably invented as an ancestor by Darius, Cyrus’ son’s successor, to legitimise his usurpation to the throne. Cyrus the Great actively accompanied his army on military campaigns and the outcome was a stable empire. The reign of Cyrus II included numerous conquests and no major revolts. Cyrus II is also known as Cyrus the Great because of his contribution to the expansion of the Persian Empire. Unlike Xerxes, who was one of the Persian kings who succeeded him, Cyrus the Great was actively involved and fought with his men in major conquests. Cyrus’ inventive military strategies helped him establish a powerful empire which continued to grow stronger. The conquest of Media was Cyrus’ first major conquest. It was a war between the Persians, led by Cyrus, and the Medes, led by Astyages, the king of Media. One of Herodotus’ versions of Cyrus’ ancestry declares that Astyages was Cyrus II’s grandfather. Sources, such as the Nabonidus Chronicle, The Histories and the Dream Text of Nabonidus, differ on who initiated the conflict and the events of the war, but they agree on the Persians defeating the Medes which resulted in Cyrus II becoming the king of the Medes. It is believed by many historians that Cyrus the Great led a small army. This may be likely because the war broke out at the beginning of the Persian Empire and he therefore did not have as many soldiers as the Median Empire, which existed from 728 BC to 549 BC. However, if he did have a smaller army, this would emphasise Cyrus’ military strategic and strength. The next major achievement of Cyrus II was the conquest of Lydia. The Persians, led by Cyrus, and the Lydians, led by Croesus, battled at Pteria in Cappadocia. At first, the result was uncertain. Croesus, the king of Lydia, dismissed his troops because he believed that the Persian army would not come back until the spring. However, Cyrus did not wait until spring and marched toward Sardis and defeated Croesus. The Histories states that Cyrus’ camels on the front line confused the Lydian cavalry and their horses. Not only does this show that Cyrus II was a clever military strategist, it also shows that he effectively utilised unorthodox military strategies and available resources to his advantage. Cyrus the Great continued his conquests and this demonstrates his determination to advance his new empire. Following the Lydian conquest, smaller states were subjected and integrated into the Persian Empire. The smaller states included the Ionian Greeks, who resided on the Asian Minor coast line. In the east, Cyrus the Great and his army of men also defeated Parthia, Drangiana, Margiana, Sogdia, Bactria and many other smaller states which were also incorporated into the mighty Persian Empire. These smaller states may not have been as powerful, important or wealthy as other countries and empires, but collectively these smaller states provided Cyrus additional men for his army as well as a larger, more impressive empire. With the inclusion of numerous smaller states, the surrounding countries and kingdoms would have feared of Cyrus and his unpredictable, unusual ways of seizing countries and including them into his great empire. The fourth major conquest achieved by Cyrus and the Persian army was the conquest of Babylon. Babylon was one of the wealthiest cities of the Near East. Herodotus described Babylon as ‘surpassing in splendour any city of the known world’. The city itself was heavily fortified and the Babylonian kingdom was vast and included Palestine, Phoenicia, Syria and Assyria. Nevertheless, Cyrus’ strategic plans combined with his manipulation of the unpopularity of Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, were the core of Babylon’s defeat. Nabonidus is ‘something of a political fool and a religious fanatic’ according to Cambridge Ancient History. This particular conquest was a significant triumph for the Persians. Three main sources tell of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon: the Cyrus Cylinder, the Chronicle of Nabonidus and Herodotus. These conflicting and biased sources are only possibilities of the vital features of Cyrus’ battle. Cyrus II used Marduk in his Cyrus Cylinder to legitimise his power, “he [Marduk] searched through all lands, he saw... Cyrus...he appointed him”, in order to limit the number of people questioning his power and authority. The Chronicle of Nabonidus reveals that the “troops of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle”. It is possible that this occurred. The Persian Empire was already dominant at that time and it is probable that Cyrus entered the heavily fortified city without weapons because the Babylonians had accepted him as their king, instead of Nabonidus. Then again, Babylonians were powerful as well and it seemed unlikely that such a grand, powerful and influential empire would surrender. Herodotus, the third source, depicts Cyrus being an exceptional military strategist. He described the brilliant deed of diverting the water of the Euphrates, a river which flowed through the city, into a lake which made the Euphrates shallow enough to allow the Persian soldiers to cross the river and continue their battle. Although, Herodotus stated that someone else may have suggested this creative idea, the unorthodox and original plan shows ancient people and modern historians how shrewd, determined and clever Cyrus was. One of the many reasons why Cyrus’ reign is considered successful is that he had a ‘policy of tolerance’. It is implied in many texts and archaeological findings that he was a very tolerant king who did not enforce any major changes to the lands which he conquered. It is believed by many historians that people noticed little change to their daily lives because of Cyrus II policy of tolerance. Some countries noticed change though. This included the Babylonians. Unlike Nabonidus, Cyrus made sacrifices to Babylon’s chief god, Marduk, and ensured that the important New Year Festival was conducted successfully and enjoyed by all. Cyrus II repeatedly stated that he was made king by Marduk. This meant that most people would have been loyal to him because Marduk favoured him. Throughout the whole Persian Empire, Cyrus II did not destroy temples and other places of worship. Religion was not the only aspect Cyrus II was tolerant of. Customs and traditions, legal systems, coinage and economic systems were subjected to little or no alteration. However in return, Cyrus II expected loyalty, taxes, tributes, allegiances and men during times of war. This shows that Cyrus was a tolerant king who accepted the ways in which a country operated, in order for a smooth transition of power. Even though he allowed countries to carry on as if nothing happened he was also a king who wanted to be known and respected as their ruler. During his lengthy reign, Cyrus the Great devised an effective administrative system which consisted of many satrapies and local people were given important roles. He divided the empire into satrapies, each administrated by satraps. Cyrus would constantly monitor each satrap by personally appointing important officials to each satrap who were under Cyrus II direct orders. It was not unusual that satraps were locals. This shows Cyrus’ policy of tolerance and his strategies. A sign of success of Cyrus’ administration can be judged by the fact that there were no major rebellions during his time in power. It is possible that if more Persians were appointed high ranked positions, there may have been more rebellions. However, because Cyrus gave significant roles to locals the people who belonged to the satrapy were more content, hence they did not rebel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1. the Biblical Data Regarding Darius the Mede
    Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1982, Vol. 20, No. 3, 229-217. Copyright 0 1982 by Andrews University Press. DARIUS THE MEDE: AN UPDATE WILLIAM H. SHEA Andrews University The two main historical problems which confront us in the sixth chapter of Daniel have to do with the two main historical figures in it, Darius the Mede, who was made king of Babylon, and Daniel, whom he appointed as principal governor there. The problem with Darius is that no ruler of Babylon is known from our historical sources by this name prior to the time of Darius I of Persia (522-486 B.c.). The problem with Daniel is that no governor of Babylon is known by that name, or by his Babylonian name, early in the Persian period. Daniel's position mentioned here, which has received little attention, will be discussed in a sub- sequent study. In the present article I shall treat the question of the identification of Darius the Mede, a matter which has received considerable attention, with a number of proposals having been advanced as to his identity. I shall endeavor to bring some clarity to the picture through a review of the cuneiform evidence and a comparison of that evidence with the biblical data. As a back- ground, it will be useful also to have a brief overview of the various theories that have already been advanced. 1. The Biblical Data Regarding Darius the Mede Before we consider the theories regarding the identification of Darius the Mede, however, note should be taken of the information about him that is available from the book of Daniel.
    [Show full text]
  • FEZANA Journal Summer 2013
    This special issue of the FEZANA JOURNAL is in recognition of the exhibition “The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning – The Legacy of Cyrus the Great: Iran and Beyond”. The FEZANA JOURNAL, the official publication of the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) has produced this visual delight of memorable images and scholarly articles of our Zoroastrian heritage which we are sharing with you. The 2600 year old Cyrus Cylinder is presently touring North America thanks to the combined efforts of the British Museum, the Iran Heritage Foundation, and Iran Heritage Foundation (America). This little known cylinder, which had resided since 1879 in the British Museum, was the proclamation of the Achaemenian King Cyrus the Great at the time of his conquest of Babylon. The Achaemenians were followers of the Zoroastrian religion and it is a matter of pride and joy to FEZANA that this cylinder has brought recognition to the small but vibrant Zoroastrian community of North America. During the sojourn of the cylinder at the various museums, Washington D.C, Houston, New York, to date, FEZANA organized special commemorative public events which were well attended. These will now be followed by the exhibits in San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Print copies of this special color edition will be mailed to all our subscribers and for the first time we are offering an electronic copy to reach a wider audience. We hope this will encourage you to subscribe at www.fezana.org Dolly Dastoor Ph.D. Editor-in-chief, FEZANA JOURNAL July 04, 2013 FEDERATION OF ZOROASTRIAN ASSOCIATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA www.fezana.org With Best Compliments from The Incorporated Trustees of the Zoroastrian Charity Funds of Hongkong, Canton & Macao PUBLICATION OFFEZANA THE FEDERATION OF ZOROASTRIAN JOURNAL ASSOCIATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA Vol 27 No 2 Summer / June 2013 Tabestan 1382 AY 3751 Z 10 23 26 44 30 Cyrus the Great History’s Step 47 The Cyrus Cylinder and the de- 2 Editorial Forward in Citizens’ Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • IV. a Re-Examination of the Nabonid~S Chonicle I
    AN UNRECOGNIZED VASSAL KING OF BABYLON IN THE EARLY ACHAEMENID PERIOD WILLIAM H. SHEA Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies IV. A Re-examination of the Nabonid~sChonicle I. Comparative Materials Introd~ction.If a solution to the problem posed by the titulary of Cyrus in the economic texts is to be sought, perhaps it is not unexpected that the answer might be found in the Nabonidus Chronicle, since that text is the most specific historical document known that details the events of the time in question. However, there are several places in this re- consideration of the Nabonidus Chronicle where the practices of the Babylonian scribes who wrote the chronicle texts are examined, and for this reason other chronicle texts besides the Nabonidus Chronicle are referred to in this section. The texts that have been selected for such comparative purposes chronicle events from the two centuries preceding the time of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Coincidentally, the chronicle texts considered here begin with records from the reign of Nabonas- sar in the middle of the 8th century B.c., the same time when the royal titulary in the economic texts began to show the changes discussed in the earlier part of this study. Although there are gaps in the information available from the chronicles for these two centuries, we are fortunate to have ten texts that chronicle almost one-half of the regnal years from the time of Nabonassar to the time of Cyrus (745-539). The texts utilized in this study of the chronicles are listed in Table V. * The first two parts of this article were published in A USS, IX (1971), 51-67, 99-128.
    [Show full text]
  • Once More the Nabonidus Chronicle (Bm 35382) and Cyrus' Campaign In
    doi: 10.2143/AWE.18.0.3287212 AWE 18 (2019) 153-176 ONCE MORE THE NABONIDUS CHRONICLE (BM 35382) AND CYRUS’ CAMPAIGN IN 547 BC ROBERT ROLLINGER AND ANGELIKA KELLNER* Abstract This paper sheds new light on the hotly debated question of which country Cyrus attacked in 547 BC, therefore dealing once more with the broken toponym of the Nabonidus Chronicle obv. ii 16. The reading of the sign(s) has been highly influenced by later classical sources, which place Croesus’ defeat against Cyrus somewhere around the corresponding year 547 BC. A collation has made it clear that no reliable reading can be inferred with absolute certainty. Instead of placing a cornerstone of Anatolian and early Persian-Teispid history exclusively on this ambiguous evidence, a new approach to this vexed topic is suggested. The contextualisation of the whole text passage leads to the conclusion that the region of Urartu depicts the most convincing hypothesis so far. Introduction After more than 100 years of intense debate on how to interpret the partly broken toponym in line obv. ii 16 of the so-called Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382), some very recent publications claim to have finally solved the problem by being able to definitely ‘read’ and identify the country that was the object of Cyrus’ campaign in Nabonidus’ ninth year, i.e. 547 BC. Since the debate and the various ‘identifica- tions’ of the toponym have considerable repercussions on the question of how to reconstruct Anatolian and early Persian-Teispid history in the middle and second half of the 6th century BC, it is of utmost importance to clarify what we definitely know and what we do not know with certainty, to highlight the borderline between ‘reading’ and ‘interpreting’ and to make apparent the premises of our reconstruc- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Melammu Project
    THE MELAMMU PROJECT http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/ “From Nabonidus to Cyrus” REINHARD KRATZ Published in Melammu Symposia 3: A. Panaino and G. Pettinato (eds.), Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena. Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Chicago, USA, October 27-31, 2000 (Milan: Università di Bologna & IsIao 2002), pp. 143-56. Publisher: http://www.mimesisedizioni.it/ This article was downloaded from the website of the Melammu Project: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/ The Melammu Project investigates the continuity, transformation and diffusion of Mesopotamian culture throughout the ancient world. A central objective of the project is to create an electronic database collecting the relevant textual, art-historical, archaeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence, which is available on the website, alongside bibliographies of relevant themes. In addition, the project organizes symposia focusing on different aspects of cultural continuity and evolution in the ancient world. The Digital Library available at the website of the Melammu Project contains articles from the Melammu Symposia volumes, as well as related essays. All downloads at this website are freely available for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use is strictly prohibited. For inquiries, please contact [email protected]. KRATZ F ROM NABONIDUS TO CYRUS REINHARD KRATZ Göttingen From Nabonidus to Cyrus 1. Historical Evidence and Ideology he transition from Nabonidus to its peak in the reign of Darius I and there- Cyrus in the year 539 BCE was a after received its ideological foundation Tdate of utmost historical signifi- in the inscriptions of the Persian kings. cance.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyrus and the Achaemenids*
    CYRUS AND THE ACHAEMENIDS* By Matt Waters University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Understanding of early Achaemenid history has him through four generations: “Darius the king undergone significant changes in recent scholarship. proclaims: My father is Hystaspes, the father of Recent research has emphasised the familial distinction Hystaspes is Arsames, the father of Arsames was between Cyrus the Great and Darius I, and it has Ariaramnes, the father of Ariaramnes was Teispes, the become difficult to give credence to the traditional, father of Teispes was Achaemenes. Darius the king modern reconstruction of Darius’ kinship claims that proclaims: For this reason we are called implies a dual descent from Achaemenes via Teispes: ‘Achaemenids’.”2 This lineal descent, in subsequent one line to Cyrus and the other to Darius. With Cyrus’ inscriptions, became simply “Achaemenid” (i.e., minus inscriptions at Pasargadae demonstrated as spurious, the full genealogical progression), used as a dynastic and the “Achaemenid dynasty” demonstrated as marker. This Achaemenid emphasis is consistently Darius’ creation ex nihilo, the relationship between reflected in Darius’ titulary, for example, “I am Darius Darius and his predecessors requires a new assessment. the Great King, King of Kings, King of many countries, Darius has been viewed as an unabashed liar, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid” (DPe §1 — with despite the consistent antipathy toward the Lie (Old minor variations in several other inscriptions).3 Persian drauga) emphasised in his royal inscriptions. The name Achaemenes or title “Achaemenid” does As typical of the genre of royal apologia, the truth not occur in Cyrus’ inscriptions (notwithstanding the therein reflects the truth as the sovereign portrayed it, Pasargadae inscriptions, in fact commissioned and with historical accuracy, as we would define it, not a placed by Darius).4 Cyrus traced his lineage to his priority.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medo-Persian Kings Cyrus and Darius
    BIBLICAL AND BIOGRAPBIOGRAPHICALHICAL SKETCHES OF THTHEE MEDOMEDO----PERSIANPERSIAN KINGS --- DARIUS AND CYRUS JASON HILBURN INTRODUCTION 1 As one studies the history of God’s people recorded in the Bible, he must remember that the world of Bible times was filled with many other peoples and nations besides Israel. Changes were constantly occurring in the world in which God’s people lived—nations were forming and nations were falling as God was working out His will. Secular scholars have marveled at the achievements of men like Cyrus the Great, wondering how such a person could conquer so quickly and dominantly: The violent collapse of the mighty Assyrian Empire after the fall of Nineveh in 612 to a coalition of the Medes and Babylonians has sometimes been called a “scandal of history." The sudden appearance of the Persians in Near Eastern history and the lightning campaigns of Cyrus ll, the Great, pose questions for the historian that are urgent both in their breadth and in their complexity. In two decades (550-530), the Persian armies led by Cyrus ll conquered the Median, Lydian, and Neo-Babylonian kingdoms in succession and prepared the ground for Persian domination of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. How can we explain this sudden outburst into history by a people and a state hitherto practically unknown? How can we explain not only that this people could forge military forces sufficient to achieve conquests as impressive as they were rapid but also that, as early as the reign of Cyrus, it had available the technological and intellectual equipment that made the planning and building of Pasargadae possible? (Briant 13).
    [Show full text]
  • Cyrus the Great, Exiles and Foreign Gods a Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations1
    Cyrus the Great, Exiles and Foreign Gods A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations1 To be published in: Wouter Henkelman, Charles Jones, Michael Kozuh and Christopher Woods (eds.), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. Oriental Institute Publications. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. R.J. van der Spek VU University Amsterdam Introduction Cyrus, king of Persia (559-530 BC), conqueror of Babylon (539), has a good reputation, also among modern historians. Most textbooks, monographs, and articles on ancient history stress his tolerance towards the countries and nations he subdued. It is mentioned time and again that he allowed them freedom of religion, that he behaved respectfully towards Babylon and its temple cults, and that he reinstated several cults, especially that of the god of Israel in Jerusalem. This policy is often contrasted with that of the Assyrian kings, who are presented as cruel rulers, oppressing subdued nations, destroying sanctuaries, deporting gods and people, and forcing their subjects to worship Assyrian gods. Cyrus’ acts supposedly inaugurated a new policy, aimed at winning the subject nations for the Persian Empire by tolerance and clemency. It was exceptional that Cambyses and Xerxes abandoned this policy in Egypt and Babylonia. In the prestigious Cambridge Ancient History volume on Persia, T. Cuyler Young maintains that Cyrus’ policy “was one of remarkable tolerance based on a respect for individual people, ethnic groups, other religions and ancient kingdoms.” 2 1 This contribution is an update of my article “Cyrus de Pers in Assyrisch perspectief: Een vergelijking tussen de Assyrische en Perzische politiek ten opzichte van onderworpen volken,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 96 (1983): 1-27 (in Dutch, for a general audience of historians).
    [Show full text]
  • Greek Perspectives on Cyrus and His Conquests Greek Perspectives on Cyrus and His Conquests
    GREEK PERSPECTIVES ON CYRUS AND HIS CONQUESTS GREEK PERSPECTIVES ON CYRUS AND HIS CONQUESTS By STEPHEN CLOTHIER, B.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts McMaster University ill Copyright by Stephen Clothier, September 1997 MASTER OF ARTS (1997) McMaster University (Classics) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Greek Perspectives on Cyrus and his Conquests AUTHOR: Stephen Clothier, B.A. (McMaster University) SUPERVISOR: Dr. Peter Kingston NUMBER OF PAGES: v, 100 II Abstract The aim of this paper is to examine the figure of Cyrus II of Persia, as it appears in The Histories of Herodotus and Xenophon's Cyropaedia. The author's primary concern is the historical background of the narratives, rather than their literary aspects. An attempt will be made to relate the various episodes in the Greek works to the cuneiform evidence, which is quite substantial with respect to the capture of Babylon. An examination ofthe cuneiform evidence (in translation) will form the main topic ofthe first chapter. Chapter Two will focus on the Herodotean account of Cyrus, which is the most important one to survive from the Classical world. Although the presence of various heroic motifs render substantial portions of the narrative questionable, these will nevertheless be examined in the light of the many parallels that have been found for them in the Near East and Greece itself. Also, an attempt will be made to uncover the historical truths that are quite possibly hidden beneath the mythic fa~ade. Moreover, in the pursuit of reliable traditions, the differences and similanties between the Greek accounts and the cuneiform records will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Memory in and After the Persian Empire Persian the After and Memory in Political
    POLITICAL IN MEMORY AND AFTER THE PERSIAN EMPIRE At its height, the Persian Empire stretched from India to Libya, uniting the entire Near East under the rule of a single Great King for the rst time in history. Many groups in the area had long-lived traditions of indigenous kingship, but these were either abolished or adapted to t the new frame of universal Persian rule. is book explores the ways in which people from Rome, Egypt, Babylonia, Israel, and Iran interacted with kingship in the Persian Empire and how they remembered and reshaped their own indigenous traditions in response to these experiences. e contributors are Björn Anderson, Seth A. Bledsoe, Henry P. Colburn, Geert POLITICAL MEMORY De Breucker, Benedikt Eckhardt, Kiyan Foroutan, Lisbeth S. Fried, Olaf E. Kaper, Alesandr V. Makhlaiuk, Christine Mitchell, John P. Nielsen, Eduard Rung, Jason M. Silverman, Květa Smoláriková, R. J. van der Spek, Caroline Waerzeggers, IN AND AFTER THE Melanie Wasmuth, and Ian Douglas Wilson. JASON M. SILVERMAN is a postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of eology PERSIAN EMPIRE at the University of Helsinki. He is the author of Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian In uence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic (T&T Clark) and the editor of Opening Heaven’s Floodgates: e Genesis Flood Narrative, Its Context and Reception (Gorgias). CAROLINE WAERZEGGERS is Associate Professor of Assyriology at Leiden University. She is the author of Marduk-rēmanni: Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia (Peeters) and e Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten). Ancient Near East Monographs Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Society of Biblical Literature Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA) Edited by Waerzeggers Electronic open access edition (ISBN 978-0-88414-089-4) available at Silverman Jason M.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity One: the Nabonidus Chronicle Introduction the Nabonidus Chronicle Is a Cuneiform Tablet Currently Housed in the British Museum
    Activity One: The Nabonidus Chronicle Introduction The Nabonidus Chronicle is a cuneiform tablet currently housed in the British Museum. It is part of a series of chronicles written on clay tablets by the Babylonian priesthood designed to keep a record of key events. The majority of the surviving documents appear to have been written when the Persians controlled Babylon (probably sometime between 500 and 400 BC), but they cover earlier events. In all likelihood, the texts that survive are copies of earlier documents which were made close to the events that they describe. Indeed, it seems that the priests kept regular records which, every few years, were written up into the more permanent documents that survive to today. The records were kept within the temple, but the extent to which they were read and consulted, or available for public consultation, is unclear. The surviving chronicles cover different periods of Babylonian history; the Nabonidus Chronicle records events that took place during the reign of King Nabonidus. The text describes how the king lived away from Babylon, for a time at least, but also provides information about the rise to prominence of the Cyrus, King of Persia. Like many of the clay tablets from Babylon, the Nabonidus Chronicle is partially broken and the lines which (presumably) described Nabonidus return to Babylon are lost. Note: Both this text and the Verse Account (Text 3) refer to Nabonidus’ son acting as Crown Prince and fulfilling important functions. Other contemporary documents indicate that his name was Belshazzar. Figure 1: The Nabonidus Chronicle, Source - The British Museum Text The text can be found online; http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enigma of Darius the Mede a Way to Its Final Solution,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 74 (1942): 72-98
    Herbert Owen, “The Enigma of Darius the Mede: a Way to its Final Solution,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 74 (1942): 72-98. The Enigma of Darius the Mede: a Way to its Final Solution Herbert Owen [p.72] The time-honoured enigma of the identity of the “Darius the Mede” of the Book of Daniel has more than once been discussed by contributors of papers to the Victoria Institute, as well as by many commentators upon and critics [p.73] of the Book of Daniel, both in ancient and modern times. There has, however, been a lack of conclusiveness about all the various solutions which have, up to the present, been proposed. The ensuing paper is a re-statement of the problem, and embodies suggestions as to the manner in which it may be hoped that a finality of results may be secured. The importance of the subject scarcely needs emphasis. Inasmuch as the great “Seventy Weeks” prophecy of Daniel ix as to the First Coming of Christ is dated by the first year of this king, it may be said that the problem is, apart from purely spiritual convictions, one of the main criteria by which the truth of the Christian religion is to be proved and established. The prophet Micah (v, 2) foretold that it was out of Bethlehem Ephratah that the ruler of Israel “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” should come forth. Various events and phases of our Lord’s life and ministry were foreshadowed by other prophets and Biblical writers in strikingly verifiable terms.
    [Show full text]