Talk:Nabonidus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Assyria This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I accidentally sent before finishing the Summary, while removing this addition from "See also" (where it didn't belong):

Biblical Viewpoint

Belshazzar was not the son of Nabonidus. He was the son of Nebuchadnezzer - Daniel 5:2

The British Museum makes the following notes on the Cylinder of Nabonidus.

"Nabonidus came to the throne after the assassination of two of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar" This lines up with the Biblical account - Dan 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

The kingdom was them conquered by Darius.

The Lion's Den Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree.

Nabonidus could have been one of these presidents or princes.

Daniel himself is also referred to by Nebuchadnezzar as "Belteshazzar" a slight variation of Belshazzar.

Dan 4:19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar

Aside from being in the wrong section, it does not reflect research into the oldest (pre Theodotion Greek & Dead Sea) versions of Daniel, that demonstrate that much scribal confusion of names took place by copyists and translators in the later Masoretic text. Nabonidus (Nabu-na'id) is nowhere mentioned by name in Daniel, but somewhere along the line his person seems to have been confused or conflated with Nebuchadnezzar (Nabu-kudurri-utsur); however Nabonidus (N-B-N-'Y) and his seven year sojourn are mentioned on one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, this is not the right place for a discussion of all the various forms, in versions of Daniel, of Belshazzar's and Daniel's similar or identical names (eg, Balthasor, etc.)... -- ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

--ericlpearl Mon Mar 10 18:15:06 PDT 2008 Hope this goes here. I noticed above what appears to be a Biblical quotation regarding Darius the Mede. "The kingdom was them conquered by Darius." Not sure which version this was but:

KJV: 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, ....

NIV: 5:31 and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, ...

Cyrus has always been known as the conqueror but it seems Darius became the eventual administrator.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlpearl (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This page on Nabonidus is rather horrifying for its lac of useful content about Nabonidus, who was a strange and interesting king.

Daniel is rather inconsequential to the life of this ruler except for the fact that he was a model for the later portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar.

The article needs to have all the Daniel stuff either herded into a small corner or eradicated totally. There is next to nothing about Nabonidus.

Working from memory, as I don't have the texts available now, Nitocris is not a connection that anyone in Assyriology holds as a historical connection with Nabonidus. It is merely overworking Herodotus, whose knowledge of Mesopotamia was never particularly good. The mene mene tekel stuff should be omitted as dross in the article. Instead the material about his mother is useful, because she is given such an elevated position, that it must have been a means to elevate his own position. Also, some effort has been taken to understand the stay in Teyma to be efforts to establish alternate trading directions with Persia taking trade that once went to Babylon.

The stay in Teyma and its effect on the Babylonians is important, because it seem sthat Babylon wasn't conquered but opened its doors to Cyrus's representatives.

Please, someone with the relevant literature at hand do something about this page!


--Ihutchesson 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I am ready to work on this article, but I won't be able to do anything before February. I went to a seminar on Nabonidus and the cult of Sin and I have sufficient data and bibliography to write a longer article. I just need some time, if you can leave me the right to update this, I'm very interested in Nabonidus and I have a lot of information which is hard to find normally.

This article is disappointing indeed. Especially the first paragraph; it's a total misenterpretation of the role of this great King.

The relief in the picture is attributed to Nabonidus, but we are not yet sure (since there is no name on it) if it really represents this King.

Keltica - 16/01/2007


--Keltica 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] cleanup tag?

There's a lot that could be done to improve this article - there's a huge chunk in the middle about Belshazzar for some reason, and there's a distressing lack of sources being cited. I think this could benefit from a "needs cleanup" tag, or a "needs sources" tag, or both, but I'm hesitant to add either before I start looking into this a bit further (and looking more into the usual WP protocols for tagging articles). Fumoses 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page completely revised

I have now completely re-written the page (sorry for the typo in the revision summary). I am not completely knowledgable on Nabonidus, but I thought that these were some basic assyriological essentials that should have been said (instead of the traditional stuff that was there before). I do not know much about his reign in detail (I am working on the capture of Babylon by Cyrus) or of relevant reliefs and iconography, and my bibliography is obviously incomplete too. Nonetheless, as I said, I do think that my revision is basically in line with current scholarly opinions - but feel free to add and/or edit, and please supply further bibliographical references if you have them.

Cheimoon 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undone revision redone

EliasAlucard wrote the following (17:34, 23 October 2007):

"revert, totally original research and POV representation, while you may be right, I do take Parpola's opinion as a higher authority at the moment"

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. I suppose 'original research and POV representation' refer to my revision. If so, and also in general, it should be clear that my revision is not connected to my personal ideas on this subject, but to the current communis opinio in the scholarly world. The original version however (with EliasAlucard restored) represents the traditional view on the subject, based solely on the Old Testament and Herodotus. As usual, the layman's/public's view adhere to traditional ideas. While academics go on, it takes a long time before the progression they achieve reaches the general public. Since the Neo-Babylonians (apart from the Jewish Exile) and the Persians do not find much general interest, this applies especially to Nabonidus. However, scholarly views did change, and indeed quite a lot, to the extreme of now being almost the opposite of the traditional stories. To find out about that, consult the currently most used handbooks in universities (limiting myself to English here):

  • P. Briant (2002), From Cyrus to Alexander: A history of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns).
  • A. Kuhrt (1995), The ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC (2 vols.) (London: Routledge).
  • M. Van De Mieroop (2007; 2nd edition), A history of the ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC (Oxford: Blackwell).

Of course, being handbooks, these cover the relevant period only cursorily. But this subject has received quite some attention in the last two decades, for which see mainly the following studies (I cannot help it if these are not all available to you, but I am referring to these nonetheless, as one cannot possibly form an opinion about this subject without being up to date with the latest scholarly literature!):

  • P.-A. Beaulieu (1989), “Agade in the Late Babylonian period”, in NABU 1989/66.
  • P.-A. Beaulieu (1992), “An episode in the fall of Babylon to the Persians”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52, 241-61.
  • M. Jursa (2007), “The transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian empire to Achaemenid rule”, in H. Crawford (ed.), Regime change in the ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 73-94.
  • A. Kuhrt (1983), “The Cyrus cylinder and Achaemenid imperial policy”, in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25, 83-97.
  • A. Kuhrt (2007), “‘Ex orient lux’: How we may widen our perspectives on ancient history”, in R. Rollinger, A. Luther and J. Wiesehöfer (edd.), Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der alten Welt (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike), 617-32.
  • R. Rollinger (2008), “The Median “empire”, the end of Urartu and Cyrus’ the Great campaign in 547 B.C. (Nabonidus Chronicle II 16)”, in Ancient West & East 7 (forthcoming).
  • H. Schaudig (2001), Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
  • H. Schaudig (2006), “Der Einzug Kyros’ des Großen in Babylon im Jahre 539 v.Chr.”, in E. Rehm and H. Externbrink (edd.), Pracht und Prunk der Großkönige: Das persische Weltreich (Speyr: Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyr), 30-39.
  • G. Tolini (2005), “Quelques éléments concernant la prise de Babylon par Cyrus (octobre 539 av. J.-C.)”, in Arta 2005/003 (freely available on http://www.achemenet.com/; regarding this study, note that Tolini's starts off with a newly discovered/identified tablet, dating from just after the Persian taking of Babylon, which can therefore not yet have been taken into account by earlier studies).

As you see: my version has got absolutely nothing to do with 'POV'; it is based on what is being written on the subject nowadays by academics. And regarding your point on Simo Parpola: I am afraid that the opinions of the people listed above will have to be valued higher than his in this matter. All of these are specialists in the relevant fields, either in Neo-Babylonian or in Persian history and culture (you can look them up online to check this if you wish). Simo Parpola on the other hand is a Neo-Assyriologist, whose views on the post-Neo-Assyrian history and culture of Mesopotamia are contested in academic circles, because they have - sometimes - a tendency towards Assyriocentrism (which, again, is not just my personal opinion, but can be gleaned from reading the relevant literature). However, there's no real need to discuss Simo Parpola's credentials in this matter, as all his article refers to regarding the older version of this page which you restored, is Nabonibus' possible Assyrian descend. Even though this is not quite as certain as Parpola says, it has got nothing to do with the entire rest of the old version.

Because of all this, I am now restoring the version that I wrote. If you are going to restore yours again, then I really do expect some argumentation for this, referring to modern scholarly literature (and not just Parpola, whom I just showed hardly discusses Nabonidus). I suppose that is what this discussion page is for.

P.s.: I see now that I omitted that it is being thought that Nabonidus in his royal propaganda and imagery seems to have been referring to Ashurbanipal, the last great Neo-Assyrian king. I will now add this to my version.

Cheimoon 18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't showed anything. You have only given me a few books on the topic. Your refs in the article, are your own POV opinions and reflections based on [I assume] what you have read. You will have to do a little better than that and cite specific passages, like pages, and perhaps even some minor quotes, and links. I am not going to waste my time reading all that literature. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20 23 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
WHAT?!?! That is not a waste of time! It is called 'reading up on your subject'! Do you know anything about academic practice? I refer to people who did research and wrote on this and can be trusted, and I represented their views. You reflect your own! You have not for a second shown or proven whence your views stem, while I do so continuously. So the point is simple: if you do not have the time or interest to read the relevant literature, you do not know and you should not join in the discussion.
Otherwise: what is your source of knowledge? For it cannot be Parpola's contributions to JAAS, as these do not discuss Nabonidus in any greater detail than mentioning his Assyrian descend (yes, I do have the article here as a pdf; do you?). Oh, by the way: if it is not good enough if I base my opinions on the reading list supplied above, then what do I have to base my opinion on? Instinct?!
But I will try to find a few quotes to add further argumentation to my revision. If after that you still just 'undo' without supplying proper arguments, I will report this case to the administrators (it cannot possible be that you can just undo without supplying arguments, while I supply a list of relevant academic literature and should be in the wrong).Cheimoon 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Look man, I'm not going to wade through 50 hours of literature, just to get your point across that it is uncertain he was of Assyrian descent. If it's such an established fact, it shouldn't be a problem for you to cite the specific passages supporting the theory that he wasn't an Assyrian, or whatever. I will accept it if you can prove it with relevant links (i.e., direct links to the specific points). Listing up 10-20 books on the subject, is not good enough, because A) I do not have those books here, B) it will take me way too much time to read it all, and C) I don't care that much about this subject to waste an entire week just to have a little fact verified. You have to be more efficient in your collaboration here on Wikipedia. And yes, I have Parpola's PDF. I cited it, you know. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:34 23 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Right. So you are saying that you do not care that much and are not going to read up on this topic, while I do and did read all this stuff - and still you think you should completely delete my contribution to this Wiki. Seems odd to me. Even more so, because you seem to only disagree with me on Nabonidus' Assyrian descend. Why then undo everything I did, just because of this minor matter? (Nabonidus' descend is interesting, but ultimately not very influential for our understanding of his reign) I see from your userpage that you are an Assyrian yourself, so perhaps this is somehow personal matter for you; anyway, it certainly isn't to me, so I have now altered my text to make the Assyrian background look securer, and removed the note of doubt to the end of the footnote (which most people probably skip anyway). Is it okay with you in this way?
Regarding all those books [I do not mean to be a pedant here, but there seems to be a misunderstanding, which I hope I can clarify with the following bit]: academic practice is to mention a fact or opinion and then refer to the relevant literature on this topic. Readers who doubt the statement or want to read more about it can then go on to read these references; other will just accept it (or discard it out of hand) and read on. Obviously then, referring to other literature is not a cheap trick to impress others (and in now way intended thusly, not by me either), but it is a way of exposing oneself: if these statements are not confirmed by the other studies, then the author highly discredits himself; it is very bad and foolish academic practice to provide wrong references. My way of referring to others in this tradition. Apparently, that doesn't work out very well on Wikipedia, so I have now provided a host of quotes and additional links and references.
So, what do you think about the current revision? In any case, whatever you do, please stop rejecting everything completely. There is obviously room for discussion on every single (sub)topic in this Wiki, but going back to the old page is just not a valid option (it discredits Wikipedia to have that kind of old-fashioned pages around; it's not the 1910s version of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica!) - which I hope if have sufficiently proven with the current version of the page.
(I have also clean-ed up this talk page a little bit layout-wise, as it had become a little bit messy due to my inexperience with this thing; our discussion should be easier to follow like this - but I now see I stupidly forgot to log-in before doing so :S )
Best wishes, Erik (Cheimoon 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
Okay, so I see you restored the original references to Parpola regarding Nabonidus' descent. I have now added the reference to Mayer's study that is also in Parpola's (see in the page's text), to make it look more NPOV, merged your two footnotes (I don't see the added value of having two separate ones; but split them again if you insist), and corrected two typos of mine - but I have not changed the text at all content-wise (as you can see). It's all okay with me then, as is the current version of the rest of the page. So if there are no differences of opinion left, we might as well remove that neutrality-tag again, right? Cheimoon 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My NPOV dispute is not about his ethnic background. You never actually removed that one. To accuse me of not being NPOV about this simply because I'm Assyrian is not fair. My issue with this article has all along been your own reflections, which you've drawn from the sources you've read. For instance, this. You can't do it like that. You have to for instance, report specifically what the author has written, cite specific passages, etcetera. Also, it would be nice if you could cite more specific sources about the uncertainty regarding his ethnic background. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:29 24 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
In case I was somewhat unclear, you have continued the article in the refs. The refs, are simply there for references, notes, and perhaps some quote from an author/person. Not personal reflections supporting your theory. That is why I think it's an NPOV dispute, and that is why I reverted. If you had just changed that his ethnic background was uncertain, I wouldn't have reverted if you added the sources for that. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:36 24 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I see what you mean. That's a funny thing about Wikipedia: if I would have some random worthless source and quote from that abundantly, then it's okay because it's not my POV; but if I would paraphrase/summarise the leading world's leading specialist, then it's not okay for Wikipedia, cause I'm alleged to be putting it in my own words. And I suppose one would say that it's okay like this, because someone will eventually pop up to adjust the page with the worthless quotes and the other will get its quotes at some point. Of course though, that's never going to work with rather obscure topics in non-digital fields, where specialists will not be spending hours behind a pc to put their research results into Wikipedia - like with Nabonidus (ith which I certainly do no not mean to say that Parpola is worthless or what I refer to perfect, but this is just a 'nice' (spot the sarcasm) way of putting this). But I'm used to do doing the opposite: refer to good studies, summarising their findings, preferedly of multiple ones with different approaches - but don't quote them at lenght (or at all, if possible).
Anyway, whining apart: whatever! I made my changes because I was looking for a year and thought I could perhaps find it quickly on Wikipedia - only to be completely appaled by the content of the page I found. Hence my update. So if my version stays, even with that nonsensical neutrality tag above it, I'm perfectly okay, as anybody interested in the topic can value it for himself (which is exactly the benefit of providing references, IMO). But while we're on the topic, just a question: what's the essential difference between this page and that of Ashurbanipal? For in the latter, there's not one single quote, only references to secondary literature. So the one(s) who wrote that page (which contains an error by the way: Gyges was not killed by Cilicians, but by Cimmerians - as the Gyges page correctly states) must have read these secondary works, and summarise/paraphrase those. How is what's been happening there different from what I'm doing here? Cheimoon 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's good that you brought up the Ashurbanipal article; it needs some work. Just to take an example though, the Notes are pretty short and concise. I personally wouldn't mind a quote or two if relevant. The reason why I use the quote feature, is to save YOU, the collaborator, some time, by not having to read through the entire article, or the entire page, when you verify the sources. That is why I also try to my best ability provide links for the sources I cite, as often as possible. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 24 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Heh - I see you added a tag to that page as well now. :D But anyway, as I said, I see your point, but this policy just makes it extremely hard to say anything serious or detailed on Wikipedia about obscure topics (which might then be the reason why most pages on ancient history or culture are quite bad). Because in those cases there is no such thing as 'common knowledge' and good overviews are often lacking as well (see Nabonidus!). So to have some good argumentation, there's no escaping referring to a lot of secondary works, most of those not readily available on the web (as assyriology is not a very popular and/or rich field). And it would be madness to quote all of that in full.
On the notes by the way: three reasons why they are shorter with Ashurbanipal: he is much better researched, so easier to find good coverage in fewer studies; the references there are incomplete (no publisher and place of publishing); I provide information on what can be found in the studies I refer to, not so with Ashurbanipal. I know longer footnotes do not make for beautiful reading, but information-wise, I would much prefer 'mine'. Cheimoon 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, editing Wikipedia is quite complicated (lots of bullshit policies). I'll try to research your references when I have more time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:17 25 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
To user Cheimoon
You have just run into the wikipedia foolishness, which is why I left wikipedia. I just happened here, not because I was looking for expertise, nor accuracy, rather I was looking for the lowest common denominator, politically correct views on the subject. So when I saw the advertisement on the main page calling for an expert to look at the page and correct it, I laughed. Experts do original research! Wikipedia hates original research! NPOV is a joke! Experts are better off writing for a site that appreciates expertise, such as http://www.wikinfo.org than here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.184.66 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have attempted another large rewrite (which is why I am starting this on the left again - and also because this bit would otherwise become very long in number of lines...). I have read some more on Nabonidus, so I could include better information. However, I also see now that my previous version was written too much as a scholarly article, instead of an encyclopedia entry. So I hope it is better this way (re. the comment directly above: I agree on accuracy/expertise vs. political correctness - but nonetheless, regarding the writing style, I could have done much better initially). Some content-related issues: I have deleted the section on the Old Testament. All of this also features in the articles Cyrus (Bible) and The writing on the wall. And it is much more appropriate there, too, as it has little to do with historical reconstructions or common opinion (Wikipedia being a-religious and all that; there are probably some great abbreviations for this!). Then, I have changed the bit on Nabonidus' religous policy, to allow different academic opinions to shine through.

Finally (I mention this specifically because we have discussed it before), I have put a slight bit more doubt on Nabonidus' Assyrian account. For having gone to through the relevant primary and secondary sources for my own studies, I have found only one refernce to this, i.e., the one by Mayer (1998). Parpola fully draws upon this without adding new information. But Mayer's reconstruction is completely hypothetical. He says that Nabonidus' mother is a temple priestess of Sîn, important in Babylon and from Harran, so that she must have been royal. And therefore, he links here to the brother of Ashurbanipal, making Nabonidus a nephew of the latter. But there is just no evidence for this. Instead of a priestess, Nabonidus' mother may have been just an important person who payed for temple reconstruction and therefore had a building inscription made, exactly as kings do (Amélie Kuhrt (I think it was) suggests this somewhere, but I can't remember the exact quote). There is also no evidence that she was born in Harran, plus that Nabonidus' reference to Ashurbanipal means nothing, as Cyrus after him does the same (again in Kuhrt, I think 2007, "Ancient Near Easter..."). Of course, there are no other theories concerning Nabonidus' descent, but still, the idea of him being an Assyrian is as valid as anything else anyone can come up with that does not contradict the sources (the scarcity of which makes that there are so many possibilities that no-one attempts this). So I think the matter is unclear enough to express it with somewhat less certainty here. After all, this 'certainty' is just Mayer's personal opinion, followed only by Parpola, but nowhere else.

So perhaps that tag about the need of an expert can go now? Cheimoon (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clearer about that expert tag: I think I have met EliasAlucard's criticism and comments (see above) with my latest revision of the page (20 May 2008). Therefore, I propose to remove the 'page is in need of expert'-tag. I don't know exactly about Wikipedia polices regarding doing that, but I suppose that it is not unreasonable to say that I will remove the tag in two weeks from now, if no good objections have been raised. Positive remarks are also appreciated, by the way. ;-) Cheimoon (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will remove the 'expert'-tag then. Cheimoon (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orientalism?

The line about so-called Orientalism seems misplaced. As the late Prof. Said basically lumped all of the study of non-Western antiquities in with some obscure imperialist project, I guess by definition the study of ancient Mesopotamia is "Orientalist." The author does not show how "Orientalism" has distorted his subject's image. If by "Orientalist," he meant "popular misconceptions based on an over-reliance on Western sources," he should simply say so, if for no other reason than for the sake of clarity. Evan Siegel (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but your alternative is not exactly correct; it's not just the over-reliance on specific sources (not just western; rather Greek + Biblical) which caused this, but also a certain mindset regarding the Near/Middle East, that made these sources credible (although this mindset was of course in part created by the tone of voice of these sources - but anyway). I suppose that this combination might well be called Orientalism; it's popularly known under that name in Ancient History anyway. I don't agree that it's not clear as it is, as there's a direct link to the wiki on Orientalism. But regardless of all that I'm saying now, it's still a rather complicated term, sometimes polemic and always under discussion, so if you can come up with an more directly obvious alternative that covers both this uncritical belief in Greek and Biblical literature, plus that 19th century mindset - be my guest and change it! Cheimoon (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)