#nabonidus

[bagdemagus]

Basalt stelae of Nabonidus (556–539 BCE) from Harran

Şanlıurfa Archaeological Museum

[inspofromancientworld]

The Fall of Babylon

By https://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/obf_images/fc/fc/32d4c8b927dea8bfbf69f55cbd10.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36614814

On 12 October 539 BCE of the Julian calendar, the Persian Empire conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire, according to Biblical scholars William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, with the collapse of the city Babylon to the armies of Cyrus the Great. This is based on chronologies developed from the writings of Haggai and Daniel of the Hebrew Bible as well as contemporary writings such as the chronicles of Nabondius. The fall of Babylon ended the native reign of Mesopotamia, putting it in the hands of the Persians, giving them control over the full Fertile Crescent. It was also done 'without fighting', according to Nabondius' chronicles, as well as by an inscription known as the Cyrus Cylinder.

By Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg) - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=122828697

The Neo-Babylonian Empire began in 626 BCE with the coronation of Nabopolassar as King of Babylon and firmly established with the fall of the Assyrian empire in 612 BCE. It was the first time in nearly 1000 years that Babylon and the wider area of southern Mesopotamia rose to dominance in the ancient Near East after the reign of Hammurabi, who reigned from about 1792-1750 BCE. It also retains a place in western cultural memory because of the 'invidious portrayal of Babylon and its greatest king Nebuchadnezzar II in the Bible', which focuses on his campaign against the Kingdom of Judah, most notably the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 587 BCE. Babylonian sources, in contrast, record 'Nebuchadnezzar's reign as a golden age that transformed Babylonia into the greatest empire of its time'.

By Near_East_topographic_map-blank.svg: Sémhurderivative work: Zunkir (talk) - Near_East_topographic_map-blank.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11633183

Though the old, or First Babylonian Empire, continued about 150 years after the death of Hammurabi, when it collapsed, Babylon remained a small state afterwards, until it fell to the Hittite king Mursili I (about 1595 BCE, and then was controlled by the Kassites, who ruled it for about 500 years before the native Babylonian rulers deposed them and it remained a 'rump state', a remnant, reduced state, a time known as the 'Middle Babylonian period' when the native Babylonians (descendants of Sumerians and Akkadians, as well as the assimilated Amorites and Kassites) and the newly arrived, unassimilated arrivals from the Levant (Suteans, Arameans, and Chaldeans) formed two separate groups within the cities. Over time, by the 8th century BCE, the two groups were beginning to become a single group, so much so that the major Chaldean tribes had produced at least one Babylonian king by 730 BCE. This isn't to say that they were strong kings, though, with the 9th and 8th centuries BCE being a series of weak kings that failed to control all the groups within the empire, much less defeat their rivals or maintain trade routes. This resulted in in the Neo-Assyrian Empire conquering 729 BCE, leading to the century-long struggle for control over Babylon as it struggled against the 'unstable Assyrian rule, including several unsuccessful Babylonian revolts'.

By British Museum. Object Number: 92687., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1748616

In 627 BCE, Sinsharishkun became king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, though a southern official or genera, Nabopolassar revolted against the general instability of Assyrian rule, at that time exemplified by a civil war between Sinsharishkun and Sin-shumu-lishir, a general and usurper who became ruler of some of the northern cities of Babylon for a few months. In 626, BCE, Nabopolassar was able to seize the cities of Babylon and Nippur. Sinsharishkun was able to recapture Nippur and besieged Nabopolassar in Uruk, but failed to capture Uruk or Babylon. In 626 BCE, Nabopolassar became King of Babylon, 'restoring Babylonia as an independent kingdom after more than a century of Assyrian rule'. Nippur and Uruk soon came under Babylonian rule and the Assyrian Empire began to fall apart by 617, when Sinsharishkun was defeated at Nippur and it fell to other enemies, including the Medes who allied with Babylon, so that it had completely fallen apart by 609 BCE.

By Original: User:SzajciEnglish: User:WillemBK - File:Median Empire-hu.svgData:ETOPO1 topographic data from NGDC (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/global.html)., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25835988

Nebuchadnezzar II succeeded his father Nabopolasser in 605 BCE, inheriting one of the 'most powerful [empires] in the world' and he married the Median king's daughter Amytis, for whom he built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, though this is debated. He ruled for 43 years and was king of 'the most powerful kingdom in the Middle East'. He conquered the Levant after a series of wars and campaigns early in his reign. He even laid siege to Tyre, a city in modern-day Lebanon for 13 years, an island about 700 meters off-shore. While he was unable to conquer the city due to not having a navy, he was able to make them agree to be ruled by vassal kings. The city wasn't actually captured until Alexander the Great laid siege to it in 332 BCE. This gave him control over the Fertile Crescent. Nebuchadnezzar might have campaigned against Egypt, as well, in 5568-567 BCE, but the record is fragmentary. Modern research suggests that they were initially successful then repelled by Pharaoh Amasis II.

By Unknown artist - Jastrow (2007), CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2603466

Nabonidus became king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire on 25 May 556 BCE, the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II, taking the throne as the sixth king of the Neo-Babylonian empire, about six years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar II, the second king of Neo-Babylonian empire. He was also the father of Belshazzar, who is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. His assent to the throne was likely the result of his son Belshazzar leading a revolt against his predecessor Labashi-Marduk, to his apparent surprise. He apparently sought to raise the moon god Sin over the national deity Marduk, apparently wanting make Sin the head of the entire Mesopotamian pantheon, though how much religious reform was actually made is debated. While Nabonidius fought against the prince of Tayma and was in self-imposed exile during 552-543/542 BCE, Belshazzar acted as regent in Babylonia. Upon Nabonidus' return to Babylonia, he rebuilt Eḫulḫul, a temple dedicated to Sin in Harran, now a district of Şanlıurfa Province, Turkey, a major city of the northern part of the empire. Based on the inscription left on his mother's, Adad-guppi, grave, he had great-grandchildren early in his reign, given she claimed to have great-great-grandchildren and it's thought that he was her only surviving child, if not her only child.

By Jona lendering (Own work), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2629946

It's thought that Nabonidus was 'mad, on account of his religious policies', an idea that filtered through the Hellenistic and Jewish traditions, with some thinking that the Book of Daniel re-attributed his 'madness' to Nebuchadnezzar II, though no cuneiform sources mention this madness of Nabonidius or Nebuchadnezzar, though one account, known as the Verse Account, critiques Nabonidius' religious reforms and even though this account hails Cyrus the Great as a 'liberator rather than conqueror', it does not question Nabonidius' sanity. Even accounts, such as by Berossus, a Hellenistic-era Babylonian writer and priest of Bel Marduk who wrote around 290-278 BCE, that present Nabondius as a usurper, which Nabonidius admitted himself, but didn't record any negative assessments of him as a king. Had he been considered mentally unstable, it is unlikely that he would have kept the throne, nor would later Babylonian rebels claimed to be his sons.

By Franz Heinrich Weißbach - File:Marduk and pet.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=115156093

As Marduk chief cult center was Babylon, the priests of Mardok became increasingly disaffected with Nabonidus' insistence on elevating Sin above Marduk. The military also became disaffected with him as he preferred his studies, leaving defense of the empire to Belshazzar, who was an 'capable soldier but poor diplomat who alienated the political elite', and spent a great deal of time out of Babylon. In the 6th year of his reign, Cyrus the Great gained the throne of Persia and put down an Assyrian revolt in 547 BCE while Nabonidus was in a camp in Arabia, near the southern frontier of his kingdom, which led Belshazzar in charge of the defenses against Cyrus. By 540, the vast majority of Babylon's eastern territory was under Cyrus and his armies were pressing into Syria, with many of Nabonidus' vassals being placed under Cyrus' authority. When Nabonidus returned to Babylon in 543 BCE, Cyrus was constantly pushing against the border of the Babylonian Empire.

By ChrisO - Derived from Image:Hammurabi's Babylonia 1.svg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5061120

Exactly what happened in 539 BCE is difficult to reconstruct due to inconsistencies between the various records of the time. The Cyrus Cylinder, which is an Achaemenid royal record described Babylon being taken 'without battle' while Herodotus and Xenophon, both Greek historians, record the city was besieged. The Book of Daniel reports that Belshazzar was killed, which was recorded by Xenophon, but not widely accepted by modern scholars. Nabonidus surrendered and was summarily deported while Gutian guards were set at great temple of Bel and the gates of the city. Cyrus arrived either on the 28th or 29th of October and made Gobryas, one of his generals who had been in charge of subduing the city, governor of the province of Babylon.

By Wright, John Henry, 1852-1908Photograph: Pentocelo - This image has been extracted from another file, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77369129

While Babylon moved people from their homelands, a policy known as 'population transfer', Cyrus allowed people to return to their homelands, carrying their sacred items with them. He also allows the priests of Marduk to declare him king of Babylon, portraying himself as the savior and 'legitimate successor of the ancient Babylonian kings', portrayed by the priests of Marduk as the tool used against the 'impiety of Nabonidus who had moved the images of the local gods from their ancestral shrines'.

[tsalmu]

Babylonian Stele of Nabonidus before Moon, Sun, and Venus c. 545 BCE Babylon, Iraq (?) British Museum #90837

Harranian Stele of Nabonidus before Moon, Sun, and Venus c. 545 BCE Harran, Turkey Şanlıurfa Museum, Urfa, Turkey

[wisdomfish]

This stunning verification of the accuracy of Daniel

Many biblical events cannot be corroborated independently because of their nature. Paul's visions of glory in 2 Corinthians 12 were not witnessed by anyone else, so we must take his word for it. On the other hand, there are hundreds of biblical events that can and have been independently verified. The civilizations of Assyria and Babylonia lay forgotten for centuries, recorded only in the Bible and in Greek myths. Many scholars assumed that they were fictitious until nineteenth century archaeologists dug up the palaces at Nineveh, Babylon and elsewhere, uncovering inscriptions, statues and even libraries, with many exact details of the biblical record being confirmed.

One striking example is Daniel's record that Belshazzar was reigning when Babylon fell to the Medo-Persians in 539 BC.[4] Yet Babylonian king lists recorded Nabonidus as the final ruler of Babylon. Even Herodotus, a famous Greek historian (c. 484-425 BC), does not mention Belshazzar. Historians therefore judged Daniel to be in error. However, two inscriptions, now in the British Museum in London, set the record straight. One records that Nabonidus spent the later years of his reign at Tema, an Arabian oasis. The second relates a prayer of Nabonidus for his son Belshazzar. So Belshazzar was in fact the acting monarch, reigning in place of his absent father. It also explains why Daniel was offered the third highest place in the kingdom (Daniel 5:7,29) – Belshazzar himself was only the second! This stunning verification of the accuracy of Daniel is just one example of hundreds of other discoveries that have confirmed Scripture.

~ Mark Pickering, Peter Saunders 

[archaeologicalnews]

Cuneiform inscription from last king of Babylon discovered in Saudi Arabia

A 2,550-year-old inscription, written in the name of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, has been discovered carved on basalt stone in northern Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage recently announced.

An engraving at the top of the inscription shows King Nabonidus holding a scepter alongside four other images that include a snake, a flower and a depiction of the moon, the commission said in a statement, noting that these symbols likely have a religious meaning.

These engravings are followed beneath by about 26 lines of cuneiform text that experts with the commission are currently deciphering. This is the longest cuneiform inscription ever found in Saudi Arabia, the commission said in the statement. Read more.

[imperium-romanum]

Hidden women of history: Ennigaldi-Nanna, curator of the world's first museum | The Conversation

Ennigaldi-Nanna is largely unknown in the modern day. But in 530BC, this Mesopotamian priestess worked to arrange and label various artefacts in the world's first museum.

By Louise Pryke

“It belongs in a museum.” With these words, Indiana Jones, the world’s best-known fictional archaeologist, articulated an association between archaeologists, antiquities, and museums that has a very long history. Indeed, even Jones himself would likely marvel at the historic setting of the world’s first “museum,” and the remarkable woman who is believed to have been its curator, the Mesopotamian princess, Ennigaldi-Nanna.”

“Ennigaldi-Nanna was the priestess of the moon deity Sin, and the daughter of the Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus. In the ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur, around 530BCE, a small collection of antiquities was gathered, with Ennigaldi-Nanna working to arrange and label the varied artefacts.”

Continue reading

[mesopotamiansuggestions]

Instead of getting involved in the politics of your empire, spend most of your reign worshiping a lunar deity and excavating relics of the past 

[aboutanancientenquiry]

The Babylonian “Nabonidus Chronicle” and the ancient Greek historians

The Nabonidus Chronicle. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus_Chronicle

“ The Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7)9 is a different story. It has long been accepted (by me, among others) that this chronicle dates to the years immediately after the Persian conquest. Most scholars treat this as an example of the Babylonian chronicle genre, which is characterized by a detached treatment of historical facts, which I do too. Others consider it to be a part of pro-Cyrus propaganda, a point of view I reject. Caroline Waerzeggers (ch. 5 herein) gives a lengthy status quaestionis. She now offers a very intriguing new view of the chronicle: it is neither contemporary, nor a typical chronicle, nor a piece of propaganda. It is rather a document from the Hellenistic period (probably the period of Berossus), in which  the scribe comes to terms with the Achaemenid Empire, and in particular the founder of that empire, as a response to Greek views on Cyrus. It is written in “an intertextual web” in “dialogue” with other Babylonian and Greek writers. It emerged in the circle of scholars who wrote astronomical diaries and chronicles (see BCHP), and were acquainted, like Berossus, with Greek historiographers such as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias. Although the document is not dated, the script points to the Hellenistic period, as do the circumstances of the recovery of the tablet as part of the late Achaemenid / early Hellenistic Esagil archive. The Esagil archive contained many copied / reworked / composed epics and chronicles of the past when Babylonian kings such as Nebuchadnezzar I and Nabopolassar successfully fought against foreign kings (cf. also ch. 4 by De Breucker). Hence, the Nabonidus Chronicle is not a reliable recording of facts from the recent past, nor is it a propaganda text, but a historiographical view on the Persian conquest of Babylon for a Hellenistic readership. All this is certainly a startling new approach. Waerzeggers rightly observes that the script and some of the points discussed suggest composition or redaction in the early Hellenistic period. The points discussed, such as the death of queens, point to a Hellenistic rather than early Persian interest. The Nabonidus Chronicle may have interacted with Herodotus’s account of the death of Cyrus’s wife Cassandane (2.1). The sequence of Cyrus’ conquests from Media, via Lydia to Babylonia, which it shares with Herodotus, may be intentional as a response to Herodotus (cf. Waerzeggers, n. 79), although it may also be accidental as it simply was the order of the campaigns.

Nevertheless, I have a somewhat different view as regards the nature of this text. Even if I accept that the document was written in the Hellenistic period (of which I am not certain: the queens do get attention in chronicles, as Waerzeggers admits, the particular mention of Nabonidus’s mother is not strange in view of her prominent place in history and in inscriptions of Nabonidus, while other parallels are simply due to the fact that they reflect historical reality), I do not accept that it is a completely new composition of this period. Waerzeggers assumes that the author’s sources were the Cyrus Cylinder, the royal inscriptions of Nabonidus, the “Royal Chronicle” (which is not a chronicle, but a pro-Nabonidus propaganda text),10 and perhaps  the Verse Account, all of which were available to these scholars. This may be true, but that does not account for the numerous specific dates for events, which do not exist in these texts for his entire reign. So I believe that it is a necessary assumption that there was some “proto-Nabonidus Chronicle.” In addition, though the script may be Hellenistic or at least Late Babylonian, as may be assumed from the way the plural sign MEŠ is written, certain signs are certainly not Hellenistic such as the use of ša instead of šá in ABC 7: 2.2 and 21 in the expression DINGIR.MEŠ ša GN, “the gods of GN,” which we also encounter in the Babylonian Chronicle ABC 1: 3.1, 2 and 29, dated to the reign of Darius (I). This chronicle ends with the accession year of king Šamaš-šuma-ukīn (669 b.c.e.). It was written in the twenty-second year of Darius, and it expressly said that it was “the first section,” suggesting that it was followed by a second section, and perhaps even third section, that may have continued into the early Persian period, as Waerzeggers admits. It also explains why Cyrus could be described as “king of Parsu.”

In my discussion of the chronicles with the help of a “ladder” of characteristics classifying historiographical texts in the widest sense, I have argued that chronicles deviate from true historiography in the fullest sense as they are “not narrative; there is no story, no plot, no introduction or conclusion, nor is there any attempt to explain, to find causes and effects, to see relations between recorded events.”11 According to Waerzeggers “none of this applies to the Nabonidus Chronicle. It narrates, it values, it compares, it explains and it argues. Its format may be that of a chronicle, but it breaks free of the limitations of the genre.” This I can hardly follow. It may be a matter of taste, but I still find this a dull enumeration of facts, year-by-year; to call this “narrative” implies a very wide definition of storytelling. I agree, of course, that objectivity does not exist: the selection of the recorded facts is the choice of the author who shapes the information, and the concerns of the Hellenistic period will have shaped the choices, and I agree that omission of facts colors the information. I still maintain that the text gives no value judgments, nor arguments, nor explanations. We do not find any judgments such as “the king brought evil to the land,” nor is any cause given: there are no words such as “because” or “consequently.” Commentators of chronicles  often mistakenly assume that sentences are meaningfully connected, but usually this is not the case. Every new sentence may be regarded as new information with no relation to the preceding sentence. Explicit mention of the anger of a god or king, as frequently used in royal inscriptions, is missing. Though I admit that the chronicle has an interest in comparing Nabonidus with Cyrus, I see no value judgments. Thus the text, even if Hellenistic in final redaction, sticks to the genre of the chronicle by abstaining from value judgments. The reader may make his or her own judgment. It is true that it is reported that the Akītu festival did not take place, but this derived easily from the fact that the king was in Tayma. No value judgment is given that the king was in Tayma. A king on campaign can also be positively evaluated, especially as he had organized the government well in Babylon and had the šešgallu (high priest) oversee the ritual “properly” (kī šalmu12) as far as was possible in absence of the king. When Nabonidus returned, the Akītu festival in its entirety was conducted “properly,” that is, according to the rules (kī šalmu, 3.).

The repetitious recording of the absence of the Akītu festival indeed demonstrates the interest of chroniclers, as this topic is recorded in many other chronicles, such as the Akītu Chronicle (ABC 16), the Esarhaddon Chronicle (ABC 14), the Šamaš-šuma-ukīn Chronicle (ABC 15) and the Religious Chronicle (ABC 17). ABC 7 thus stands in a firm chronicle tradition...”

Text from the study of R. J. van der Spek “ Coming to terms with the Persian Empire: some concluding remarks and responses “ from the collective work  Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire, Jason M. Silverman, Caroline Waerzeggers (editors), SBL Press, 2015.

The study is available on https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/1378318/Coming+to+Terms+Silverman-Waerzeggers+Political+Memory+Persian+Empirech18.pdf

Robartus Johannes (Bert) van der Spek (born 18 September 1949 in Zoetermeer) is a Dutch ancient historian, specializing in the Seleucid Empire. He was a full professor in Ancient Studies at VU University Amsterdam from 1993 to his retirement in 2014, and is currently working on the Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Age (a collection of cuneiform tablets in the British Museum). He is also the author of the best-selling first-year book for ancient history: An introduction to the Ancient World.

Van der Spek studied History beginning in 1967 at Leiden University. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_van_der_Spek )

A translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle on line can be found on https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/ . Its text is badly damaged, but it is clear that it narrates  the reign of the last king of Babylon Nabonidus, the conquest of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus the Great and the immediate aftermath of the Persian conquest.

I am not Assyriologist of course, but the truth is that I always thought that the Nabonidus Chronicle was the product of some Babylonian (priestly) milieus dissatisfied with Nabonidus for religious and other reasons and eager to collaborate with the Persian conquerors, a point of view that is held by not few specialists, but is rejected by Pr. van der Spek. 

I find very interesting and thought provoking the thesis of Caroline Waerzeggers for a much later date of composition of the Nabonidus Chronicle and its character as a response to the Greek historiography, but I don’t think that there is in the text of this chronicle an unambiguously clear Greek influence which would permit to date it with certainty in the Hellenistic era.

I find also very enlightening the remarks of Pr. van der Spek comparing more generally the chronicles of the Babylonians with historiography as invented by Herodotus and the Greeks.