iii Extraction & control StudiES in Honor of MattHEw w. StolpEr edited by Michael Kozuh with Wouter Henkelman Charles E. Jones and Christopher Woods STuDIES In AncIEnT ORIEnTAL cIvILIzATIOn • vOLuME 68 THE OriEnTal insTiTuTE Of THE univErsiTy Of CHiCagO cHIcAGO • ILLInOIS v table of contents list of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # Preface, Author, Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 1. Persepolis fortification aramaic Tablet seal 0002 and the Keeping of Horses Annalisa Azzoni, Vanderbilt University, and Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre, University of Colorado at Boulder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 2. an Episode in the reign of the Babylonian Pretender nebuchadnezzar iv Paul-Alain Beaulieu, University of Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 3. achaemenid Estate(s) near Pasargadae Rémy Boucharlat, CNRS – University of Lyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 4. les tablettes de bois du grand roi (note sur les communications officielles dans un royaume itinérant) Pierre Briant, Collège de France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 5. royal Women in Elamite art Elizabeth Carter, University of California, Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 6. Iddin-nabû sēpir ša gardu Walter Farber, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 7. The Royal-name Seals of Darius I Mark B. Garrison, Trinity University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 8. De vie à trépas Françoise Grillot-Susini, CNRS – Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 9. The Estates of Šamaš on the Ḫābūr Michael Jursa and Klaus Wagensonner, University of Vienna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 10. Elamite and Akkadian Inscribed Bricks from Bard-e Karegar (Khuzistan, Iran) Michael Kozuh, Auburn University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 11. reassessing the reign of Xerxes in the light of new Evidence Amélie Kuhrt, University College London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 12. Cultural Exchange at Kültepe Mogens Trolle Larsen, University of Copenhagen, and Agnete Wisti Lassen, Yale University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 13. The curricular context of an Akkadian Prayer from Old Babylonian ur (uET 6 402) Jacob Lauinger, Johns Hopkins University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 14. Myth, History, Cosmology, and Hydraulics in achaemenid iran Bruce Lincoln, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 15. Biography of a sentence: assurbanipal, nabonidus, and Cyrus Piotr Michalowski, University of Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 16. Periodicities and Period Relations in Babylonian celestial Sciences Francesca Rochberg, University of California, Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 17. On Persons in the Old Babylonian law Collections: The Case of mār awīlim in Bodily injury Provisions Martha T. Roth, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 18. Gilgamesh and the ius primae noctis Gonzalo Rubio, Pennsylvania State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 19. Cyrus the great, Exiles, and foreign gods: a Comparison of assyrian and Persian Policies on subject nations R. J. van der Spek, VU University Amsterdam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 20. Persians on the Euphrates? Material culture and Identity in Two Achaemenid Burials from Hacınebi, Southeast Turkey Gil J. Stein, The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 21. On the Dynasty of Šimaški: Twenty years (or so) after Piotr Steinkeller, Harvard University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # some Thoughts on the ustarbaru Jan Tavernier, Université catholique de Louvain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 22. v Table of Contents vi 23. a statue of Darius in the Temple of sippar Caroline Waerzeggers, VU University, Amsterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 24. Earth, Water, and Friendship with the King: Argos and Persia in the Mid-fifth century Matthew W. Waters, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # 25. Freedom and Dependency: neo-Babylonian Manumission Documents with Oblation and Service Obligation Cornelia Wunsch, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and F. Rachel Magdalene, Leipzig University . . . . # 26. From Lower Land to cappadocia Ilya Yakubovich, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # vii list of abbreviations gEnEral a.d. b.c. ca. cat. no. cf. ch(s). cm col(s). coll. Dn ed(s). et al. e.g. esp. etc. fasc. fig(s). f(f). fn gn ha ibid. i.e. km lit. lo.ed. m n(n). no(s). n.p. nn no(s). obv. p(p). pers. comm. pl. pl(s). Pn rev. rn sg. trans. u.ed. var. vol(s). anno domini before Christ circa, approximately catalog no. confer, compare chapter(s) centimeter(s) column(s) collation diety name editor(s) et alii, and others exempli gratia, for example especially et cetera, and so forth fascicle figure(s) and following family name geographical name hectare(s) ibidem, in the same place id est, that is kilometer(s) literally lower edge meter(s) note(s) number(s) no publisher personal name number(s) obverse page(s) personal communication plural plate(s) personal name reverse royal name singular translation upper edge variation volume(s) vii Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence 163 11 reassessing the reign of xerxes in the light of new Evidence Amélie Kuhrt, University College London introduction Matt stolper and i first met when we were both engaged in composing contributions on achaemenid Babylonia for the revised edition of the Cambridge Ancient History. As the structure of this work reflects its European perspective, volume 4 (for which i was writing) traces historical events between ca. 525 and 479, that is, it stops with the Battle of Plataea.1 volume 5 is devoted exclusively to greek history of the fifth century — essentially athens and sparta,2 while volume 6, although entitled The Fourth Century, in fact picks up the history of various regions under achaemenid rule from 478 onward, to accompany the history of greece and Macedon to alexander, the Mediterranean, Black sea, and Celtic Europe.3 This last is the volume containing Matt’s chapter on Babylonia down to Darius iii.4 He and i thus overlapped somewhat clumsily in the time of Xerxes, whose reign is presented in this segmented fashion. as it happened, a colleague and i were at that time working on a reconsideration of the evidence for Xerxes’ activities in Babylonia, 5 which he was able to take into account in his discussion for volume 6. Our fairly short paper has resulted over the years in what may be called a new “orthodoxy,” which has undermined a traditional image of Xerxes as the destroyer of temples.6 More recently, the work of Caroline Waerzeggers has brought important new evidence to light, which makes it possible to make real progress in evaluating the nature and significance of Xerxes’ reign and its effects in Babylonia, so that it emerges as a key turning point in achaemenid history. 7 unfortunately, her careful study has also led to some confusion, with certain scholars interpreting her work as providing support for old ideas about Xerxes and his sacrileges in Babylonia. One example is andrew george’s meticulous and valuable review of schmid’s report on the archaeology of the ziggurat of Babylon.8 He argues that a nebuchadnezzar ii cylinder recording work on E-temen-anki and found during the french excavations at susa early in the twentieth century, combined with signs of damage to the ziggurat and a story in aelian (to be discussed below), lend “renewed credence to the tradition of Xerxes’ vandalism passed down among classical writers.”9 it seems that such views are gaining a wider circulation, as indicated, for example, by the review of a recent article by Michael Jursa10 in the online journal Bryn Mawr Classical Review, where Xerxes’ actions 1 6 see, for example, Josef Wiesehöfer’s reversal of the images of Cyrus the great and Xerxes in Das Antike Persien: Von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr. (Zurich: artemis & Winkler, 1993), pp. 71–89. 7 Caroline Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian revolts against Xerxes and the ‘End of archives,’” Archiv für Orientforschung 50 (2003/04): 150–78. 8 andrew r. george, “The Tower of Babel: archaeology, History and Cuneiform Texts,” Archiv für Orientforschung (2005/06): 75–95, reviewing Hansjörg schmid, Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon, Baghdader forschungen 17 (Mainz am rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1995). 9 george, “The Tower of Babel,” p. 91. i should like to thank andrew george for sending me a copy of the review article. While i disagree with some of his conclusions concerning Xerxes, i must stress that it is a most stimulating (and lucid) discussion of the history of Etemen-anki, containing a wealth of valuable material. it is obligatory reading for anyone concerned with the history of Babylon’s urban layout. 10 Michael Jursa, “The Transition of Babylonia from the neo-Babylonian Empire to achaemenid rule,” in Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein, edited by Harriet Crawford, Proceedings of the British academy 136 (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2007), pp. 73–94. amélie Kuhrt, “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 4: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., edited by John Bordman, n. g. l. Hammond, David M. lewis, and M. Ostwald, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1988), pp. 112–38. 2 David M. lewis, John Boardman, and M. Ostwald, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 5: The Fifth Century B.C., 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1992). 3 David M. lewis, John Boardman, simon Hornblower, and M. Ostwald, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6: The Fourth Century B.C., 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1994). 4 Matthew W. stolper, “Mesopotamia, 482–330 B.C.,” in lewis, Boardman, Hornblower, and Ostwald, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6: The Fourth Century B.C., pp. 234–60. 5 Published as amélie Kuhrt and susan M. sherwin-White, “Xerxes’ Destruction of Babylonian Temples,” in Achaemenid History 2: The Greek Sources (proceedings of the groningen 1984 achaemenid History Workshop), edited by Heleen sancisi-Weerdenburg and amélie Kuhrt, achaemenid History 2 (leiden: nederlands instituut voor het nabije Oosten, 1987), pp. 69–78. 163 164 Amélie Kuhrt in Babylonia are characterized as “a savage repression.”11 This is a gross distortion of the careful analysis presented by Jursa himself, but suggests that such crude interpretations of the dense and complex Babylonian material are likely to gain ground.12 in order to promote clarity on this issue, and as a tribute to Matt’s own work on it, i propose to reexamine it here. i shall first consider how the image of Xerxes’ devastation of Babylonian shrines has been created, summarizing the evidence on which it is based and how the work of Waerzeggers and others has shed new light on this period of the regions’s history and fundamentally expanded our understanding of Xerxes’ reign. That will be followed by a brief analysis of the classical material, which lies at the heart of the picture of Xerxes as a sacrilegious vandal. is that what the greco-roman writers are saying? if so, what or whose views are they reflecting? The Creation of the image of Xerxes as the Destroyer of Babylonian Cults in 1941, george Cameron published an article on Darius i and Xerxes in Babylonia using Babylonian documentary evidence.13 franz de liagre Böhl presented, in 1962, additional arguments and more evidence strengthening and amplifying Cameron’s article.14 from then on it was accepted as an established fact that Babylonia revolted twice in Xerxes’ reign: in 484 (= regnal year 2) and 482 (= regnal year 4) respectively, and that Xerxes’ response to the revolts was to destroy the great Marduk sanctuary in Babylon along with looting its cult statue. This meant that the annual new year’s festival of Babylon, which had become a crucial element in the legitimization of those claiming power there in the preceding 250 years, could no longer be performed.15 This loss of legitimacy by the Persian kings in Babylonian eyes was marked by the omission of the title “king of Babylon” from the royal Persian titulary from 482 on. a further humiliation for Babylonia was an administrative rearrangement whereby the huge neo-Babylonian imperial territory, previously a single province, was divided into two — “Babylon” and “across-the-river.” This modern-day narrative (there are only dated documents from Babylonia for this period, no chronicles or similar accounts) has been constructed on the basis of deep-seated assumptions about Xerxes’ character,16 derived from his greek campaign. His reputation as a destroyer of temples there has been transferred to Babylonia and combined with a superficial reading of the accounts of classical writers, beginning with Herodotus 1.183. into this scholarly creation, Babylonian and Persian evidence has been forced to fit — to which it has been, indeed, subordinated. The argument is obviously circular. in the paper published in 1987 by Kuhrt and sherwin-White,17 it was demonstrated that not a single element of the evidence used to construct this picture stands up to scrutiny and that the Cameron-Böhl presentation of the fate of Babylon and its temples must be rejected. Over the last fifteen years, this has become the established view. in her recent important study, Caroline Waerzeggers18 has presented an analysis of Babylonian archives (primarily from Borsippa) and shown that a major administrative, social, and economic restructuring, inevitably involving temples and cults given their central role in Babylonian life,19 took place in the years immediately following 484. in the light of Waerzegger’s work, i have (as noted above) become aware of a tendency to label the new orthodoxy of the last fifteen years or so as a “revisionist” view of achaemenid rule in Babylonia. The implication is that we should now return to the pre-1987 position and put our trust once again in the primarily greek accounts of Xerxes’ destruction of temples in Babylon. But do any of the classical writers in fact say this? 11 see gary Beckman’s review of Crawford, ed., Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.04.39, available online at http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/2008-04-39. html. 12 for the complexities, see now the detailed review of O. Pedersen’s publication of the excavated archives from Babylon (Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon: Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917, abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-gesellschaft 25 [saarbrücken: in Kommission bei saarländische Druckerei und verlag, 2005]), by Heather Baker, “Babylon in 484 B.C.: The Excavated archival Tablets as a source for urban History,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 98 (2008): 100–16, describing the uncertainties, problems, as well as rewards to be encountered in trying to use this material. (i am most grateful to Dr. Baker for sending me an advance copy of her review article.) 13 george g. Cameron, “Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia, iv: Xerxes and the Babylonian revolts,” American Journal for Semitic Languages and Literatures 58 (1941): 319–25. 14 f. M. Th. de liagre Böhl, “Die Babylonischen Prätendenten zur Zeit des Xerxes,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 19 (1962): 110–14. 15 for recent discussions of the festival, see Beate Pongratz-leisten, “neujahr(sfest) B.,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9.3/4 (1999): 294–98; Julye Bidmead, The akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimization in Mesopotamia, gorgias Dissertations, near Eastern studies 2 (Piscataway: gorgias Press, 2002). 16 see sancisi-Weerdenburg’s important article on the assumptions made about Xerxes’ personality and how this has affected interpretations of the relevant Old Persian evidence: Heleen sancisiWeerdenburg, “The Personality of Xerxes, King of Kings,” in Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellanea in Honorem Louis vanden Berghe (gent: Peeters, 2002), pp. 549–62, reprinted in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, edited by Egbert J. Bakker, irene J. f. de Jong, and Hans van Wees (leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 579–90. 17 Kuhrt and sherwin-White, “Xerxes’ Destruction.” 18 Waerzeggers, “Babylonian revolts.” 19 see the discussion by Michael Kozuh, “Temple, Economy, and religion in first Millennium Babylonia,” Religion Compass 2/6 (2008): 929–48. Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence 165 The Evidence a fundamental point to make is that the 1987 article cannot be described as a “revisionist” view of achaemenid history. it did not try to approach Xerxes’ actions in Babylonia from a fresh angle thus creating a new hypothesis to set against, and test, the prevailing one — it was simply a demonstration that the evidence that had been used to delineate his actions either did not exist or was deficient. let me run briefly through the main points: a) nowhere does Herodotus say that Xerxes removed the cult statue (gr. agalma)20 of Bel-Marduk, even less that he destroyed any temple in Babylon. Xerxes is described as guilty of an act of pillage from the temple — removal of a precious statue (greek andrias) — but nothing else.21 in fact, Herodotus describes Esangil, E-temen-anki, and the Marduk statue intact and personally viewed by him, using the present tense. We may have our doubts as to whether Herodotus actually ever visited Babylonia, 22 but, inasmuch as his account has been the linchpin of the portrait of Xerxes as the destroyer of Babylon’s central and most prominent cult, we have to acknowledge the inescapable fact that he never said anything of the kind. in fact, he describes the regular cult sacrifices (animal and material) performed on the various altars. b) support for Xerxes’ drastic action was sought by Cameron, followed by Böhl, in the omission from dated documents of the “king of Babylon” element in Xerxes’ titulary after 482. There was, in fact, at the time one text in Berlin23 that did not fit his reasoning, dated as it is to Xerxes’ regnal year 6+x, which should probably be emended to regnal year 8, that is, 478. This Cameron dismissed as a scribal error24 — although it is not a particularly easy one to explain. in the 1980s, two important groups of Babylonian texts were published, one in the Oxford ashmolean Museum,25 the other from the german excavations at uruk.26 Both contained documents dated to the reigns of Xerxes and his successor, artaxerxes i. Examination of the titulary showed that Xerxes had continued to be assigned the “king of Babylon” element sporadically throughout his reign. Three artaxerxes I documents showed that his successor, too, had still used it occasionally. The latest document known so far in which it appears dates from 441.27 The evidence shows, quite incontrovertibly, that while there was an evolution in the formulation of achaemenid royal titles in Babylonia,28 there is no abrupt, decisive change that could be linked with a known political event. c) as the Marduk cult statue continued to be in Esangil, there is no reason to assume cessation of the new year’s festival in Babylon. What is likely is that royal participation was rare after the end of the neo-Babylonian empire, if indeed it was ever performed by any Persian ruler. The only documented instance of an achaemenid king taking part in the ceremony is its rather unusual performance by both Cyrus and Cambyses five months after the Persian conquest of Babylonia.29 although there is some (slight) evidence for continuation of the fes- 20 for a recent study of the use of this term to specify “cult statue,” see Pierre Briant, “Droaphernès et la statue de sardes,” in Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, edited by Maria Brosius and amélie Kuhrt, achaemenid History 11 (leiden: nederlands instituut voor het nabije Oosten, 1998), pp. 217–20. 21 Herodotus’ story runs that Darius had planned the theft of the statue previously, but his nerve failed him, with Xerxes completing his father’s action. This fits a recurring pattern in Herodotus’ account of Xerxes’ behavior: Darius repeatedly foreshadows his son’s actions, paving the way for his future dealings (a good example is the case of Darius’ scythian campaign; see Thomas Harrison, “The Persian invasions,” in Bakker, de Jong, and van Wees (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, pp. 551–78; cf. amélie Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, 2 volumes (london: routledge, 2007), p. 182. 22 see robert rollinger, Herodots babylonischer Logos: Eine kritische Untersuchung der Glaubwürdigkeitsdiskussion an Hand ausgewählter Beispiele; Historische Parallelüberlieferung, Argumentationen, archäologischer Befund, Konsequenzen für eine Geschichte Babylons in persischer Zeit, innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, sonderheft 84 (innsbruck: verlag des instituts für sprachwissenschaft der universität innsbruck, 1993); amélie Kuhrt, “Babylon,” in Bakker, de Jong, and van Wees (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, pp. 475–96. 23 arthur ungnad, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, vol. 5 (leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908), no. 118. 24 Cameron, “Darius and Xerxes in Babylonia,” pp. 323–25. 25 gilbert J. P. McEwan, Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). 26 Karlheinz Kessler, “Duplikate und fragmente aus uruk, Teil ii,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 15 (1984): 261–72. 27 robert rollinger, “Überlegungen zu Herodot, Xerxes und dessen angeblicher Zerstörung Babylons,” Altorientalische Forschungen 25/2 (1998): 339–73; idem, “Xerxes and Babylon,” Notes assyriologiques brèves et utiles 1999, no. 8. 28 note the occasional use of an expanded title by Xerxes (as well as artaxerxes i), “king of Persia and Media, king of Babylon, king of lands”; see further francis Joannès, “la titulature de Xerxès,” Notes assyriologiques brèves et utiles 1989, no. 37. 29 a. Kirk grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform sources 5 (locust valley: J. J. augustin, 1975), no. 7, col. iii, lines 24–28. note the important new reading of these lines, based on collation, by andrew r. george, “studies in Cultic Topography and ideology,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 (1996): 365–95. His proposal (pp. 379–80) would show Cambyses being installed as sub-king of Babylon in the course of the festival, under the aegis of his father Cyrus. 166 Amélie Kuhrt tival itself,30 the next certain instance of royal participation in the ceremony occurs in 205 (i.e., over 300 years later), when antiochus iii celebrated it on completion of his triumphant eastern campaign.31 Clearly, royal participation in Babylon’s new year’s festival had ceased to be the decisive barometer of social and political well-being that it had become in the centuries of contested control over the country by assyrians, Chaldaeans, and Babylonians. But that change in emphasis seems to have begun already in Cyrus’ reign and continued right through into the Hellenistic period — there is no evidence of any subsequent achaemenid king or alexander (the much vaunted “restorer”) ever performing it. all, however, without exception were recorded and remembered in Babylonia as recognized, legitimate kings of the region. d) When exactly the reorganization of the Babylonian province took place, we do not know. The latest evidence for the territory undivided is, at present, 486, the final year of Darius i.32 The earliest evidence for a governor of the separate province of Babylon is gubaru (gobryas) in 420, although he was probably preceded in this position by artareme, attested in 431.33 This, in summary, is the evidence — no more. it is not an alternative approach to, or revisionist image of, Xerxes. it is a correction of earlier work, which was based on a careless reading of Herodotus combined with incomplete Babylonian evidence and an implicit wish to make very disparate types of material harmonize with a presumed “knowledge” of Xerxes’ actions, policies, and character.34 The methodological faultiness of such a procedure cannot be subject to argument. revolt and reorganization in Babylonia and this is not changed by Waerzeggers’ brilliant article — as she herself would be the first to admit. What her study shows, most valuably, is that a fundamental change in Babylonia’s social and political framework took place in Xerxes’ second regnal year, 484. in that year there were two overlapping revolts in Babylonia (including Babylon itself): one was very short-lived, perhaps no more than two weeks, the other lasted three months. They were confined to the north of the region. after 484, the archives of the long-established urban elites, who had controlled the highest positions in city government and the temples (including uruk in the south), cease. The archives that continue belong, in Waerzeggers’ words, to individuals from “a different stratum of society, one that may be described in political terms as pro-Persian and in economic terms as dependent on the presence of the Persian nobility,” people like the members of the Murashu family attested a little later. in other words, what the evidence shows is not a destruction of cults — there is sufficient evidence to show that they continued35 — but a breaking by the achaemenid authorities of the concentration of power in the hands of a powerful, traditional elite group. This would, of course, have necessitated a thoroughgoing re-staffing of temples, although the scanty evidence does not allow us to be more precise. significantly, no such fundamental change can be documented in the southern cities of uruk and ur. What is striking here is that, whereas previously the top posts in, for example, the uruk sanctuary had been monopolized by old families based in Babylon, they are replaced by local people early in Xerxes’ reign.36 it is tempting to associate these far-reaching changes with other administrative reforms, such as the provincial reorganization.37 all the evidence for these changes clusters around the end of the reign of Darius i and the early reign 30 Possibly in the reign of Darius i: ungnad, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler 5, no. 89; cf. Eckhard unger, Babylon: Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier (Berlin: Walther de gruyter, 1931), p. 155 n. 1 (reprinted in 1970); and during the revolts in the reign of Xerxes: Böhl, “Die babylonischen Prätendenten,” pp. 110–14. 31 abraham J. sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 2: Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C., Österreichische akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschrift 210 (vienna: verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989) no. - 204; cf. Susan M. SherwinWhite and amélie Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, Hellenistic Culture and society 13 (Berkeley: university of California Press, 1993), pp. 130–31. 32 Matthew W. stolper, “The governor of Babylon and across-theriver in 486 B.C.,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48/4 (1989): 283–305. 33 Matthew W. stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašu Archive, the Murašu Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia, Publications de l’institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de stamboul 54 (leiden: nederlands instituut voor het nabije Oosten, 1985). 34 sancisi-Weerdenburg, “The Personality of Xerxes.” 35 see in particular Jursa’s observation that all the important texts of the sippar temple archive had apparently been carefully selected and removed in 484. “Had the temple been sacked and the cult entirely disrupted, no-one would have gone to so much trouble” (Jursa, “The Transition of Babylonia,” p. 91). 36 see the article by Karlheinz Kessler, “urukaische familien versus babylonischen familien: Die namengebung in uruk, die Degradierung der Kulte von Eanna und der aufstieg des gottes anu,” Altorientalische Forschungen 31/2 (2004): 237–62. The growing impression is that the regionalism that marked Babylonian life in the eighth to seventh centuries was temporarily reversed by the neo-Babylonian regime and resurfaced in the subsequent periods; see further francis Joannès, “la Babylonie méridionale: continuité, déclin ou rupture?” in La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, vers 350–300 av. J.-C., edited by Pierre Briant and francis Joannès, Persika 9 (Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 2006), pp. 101–35. 37 But note that, contrary to francis Joannès, “Pouvoirs locaux et organisations du territoire en Babylonie achéménide,” Transeuphratène 3 (1990): 173–89, there is now evidence for the continuation of the old Babylonian office of šakin temi; see Waerzeggers, “Babylo- Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence 167 of Xerxes, although chronological certainty eludes us. as does the precise sequence of events. Were the revolts in 484 sparked by this major bureaucratic reorganization, led by the groups most closely affected in northern Babylonia? Or were they part of the response by the Persian authorities to the revolts? This remains impossible to decide either way at the moment. The Classical Writers The much trumpeted, oft repeated, claim that a whole bevy of classical historians tell us that Xerxes destroyed temples in Babylon is, in fact, false. Their testimony is rather general, often confused and internally contradictory. Herodotus, as we have seen, says nothing of the kind. The Babylonian scholar Bersossus,38 writing in the early third century, has Cyrus destroy Babylon’s walls, which were (according to Herodotus 3.159) destroyed by Darius i at the end of a revolt, although he has described them previously (Herodotus 1.178–81) in the present tense, as though they were still standing in his day — which, indeed, they were and well beyond.39 Diodorus siculus (2.9.4; 2.9.9) once has the ziggurat in Babylon ruined by the passage of time,40 although elsewhere (17.112.3) he says it was destroyed by unspecified “Persians,” while Justin (12.13.6) has alexander restore interrupted festivals, but says nothing about any physical destruction nor when that interruption occurred. Only strabo (Geography 16.1.5), nearly five hundred, and arrian (Anabasis 3.16.4–5; 7.17.2), nearer to seven hundred, years later link Xerxes’ name with a destruction of sacred structures in Babylon, though neither mentions a removal of Marduk’s statue. Moreover, arrian (3.16.5) presents the Babylonian priests anxious to induct alexander, on his entry in 331, into the intricacies of the correct cult of Babylon’s supreme god — impossible if the statue were not in situ and the sanctuaries in ruins,41 while strabo hedges his statement with has phasin “as they say,” suggesting he is quoting popular rumor rather than a reliable source. The only contemporary historian, apart from Herodotus, who is likely to have had some access to knowledge of Persian history is Ctesias, a greek doctor at the Persian court who wrote a history of Persia early in the fourth century. He is, notably, the sole writer to mention a revolt of Babylon in Xerxes’ reign. However, there is no hint in his account of any destruction.42 His account is only preserved in a heavily summarized form by the ninth-century Byzantine patriarch Photius, and in a slightly longer version by aelian, writing in the late second–early third century a.d.43 The aelian passage is often cited as an independent source, as done by andrew george,44 although its derivation from the original text of Ctesias is virtually certain. at this point it might be useful to give the two passages, and then consider their import. a) first (i.e., before the invasion of greece), he (sc. Xerxes) went to Babylon and wanted to see the tomb of Belitanas. Thanks to Mardonius he saw it, but failed to fill the sarcophagus with oil, as prescribed. Xerxes went off to Ecbatana and there received news of the revolt of the Babylonians and the murder of their governor Zopyrus. This is what Ctesias says about him, disagreeing with Herodotus. What he (sc. Herodotus) says about Zopyrus, apart from the mule giving birth, Ctesias attributes to Megabyzus, Xerxes’ son-in-law, husband of amytis, his daughter. so Babylon was taken thanks to Megabyzus. Xerxes bestowed many presents on him, in particular a golden millstone weighing six talents, which is one of the most royal gifts among the Persians. (Ctesias, Persika = FGrH 688 f13[26]) b) Xerxes, the son of Darius, having dug his way into the monument of the ancient Belus (gr. tou Belou tou archaiou), found a glass sarcophagus, in which, the body lay in olive oil. The sarcophagus was not full, the oil was perhaps an inch short of the rim. near the sarcophagus lay a small stela on which was written: “for the man who opens the monument and does not fill the sarcophagus, things will not get better!” When Xerxes read this, he was afraid and gave orders to pour in oil at once. But the sarcophagus would not fill. He gave orders to pour once more. But the level nian revolts,” p. 178, addendum. However, Jursa (“The Transition of Babylonia,” p. 91 n. 58) remarks that the šakin temi of Borsippa in Xerxes’ reign is from a previously unknown family. 38 FGrH f680 f10a. 39 see rollinger, Herodots babylonischer Logos, pp. 106–37. 40 Diodorus 2.9.5–9 describes an array of precious cult statues (greek agalmata), which were “later looted by the Persian kings” (gr. alla tauta men hoi ton Person basileis husteron esulesan). 41 On alexander in Babylon, see further amélie Kuhrt, “‘Ex Oriente lux’: How We May Widen Our Perspectives on ancient History,” in Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der alten Welt, edited by robert rollinger, andreas luther, and Josef Wiesehöfer, Oikumene 2 (frankfurt am Main: verlag antike, 2007), pp. 617–29. 42 FGrH 688 f13(26); Dominique lenfant, Ctésias de Cnide: La Perse – L’Inde – autres fragments, Collection des universités de france, série grecque 435 (Paris: Belles lettres, 2004), p. 124. for doubts about Ctesias’ claim to have stayed at the Persian court and hence the possibility of his having access to any independent historical knowledge, see Marco Dorati, “Ctesia falsario?” Quaderni di Storia 41 (1995): 33–52. note a similar approach to the writer by r. Bichler, “Ktesias spielt mit Herodot,” in Die Welt des Ktesias/Ctesias’ World, edited by Josef Wiesehöfer, robert rollinger, and giovanni B. lanfranchi, pp. 21–52. Classica et Orientalia 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011). 43 Varia Historia 13.3 = lenfant, Ctésias de Cnide, f.13 b*. 44 george, “The Tower of Babel,” p. 90. 168 Amélie Kuhrt would not rise, and he gave up after wasting oil (literally: “what was poured in”) fruitlessly. Closing the tomb, he retreated in dismay. The stela did not lie in its prediction: having gathered 700,000 men against the greeks, he came off badly, and on his return he suffered a most shameful death, murdered one night in bed by his son. (aelian, Varia Historia 13.3 = lenfant, Ctésias de Cnide, f13b*) Both texts describe Xerxes performing a divinatory ritual in Babylon, which is unsuccessful. in the Photius summary of Ctesias, the bad omen implies that the future campaign in greece will be unsuccessful, while the immediate consequence is a revolt in Babylonia. The fuller aelian version links the bad omen directly with the disastrous greek campaign and Xerxes’ assassination. The place in which the ritual is performed is, contrary to a widely held assumption, not the Marduk ziggurat in Babylon. as Miglus, lenfant, and Henkelman have argued,45 Ctesias always refers to the temple of Belus, when he is talking about parts of the Marduk sanctuary in Babylon. Ctesias’ “tomb of Belitanas” and the, apud aelian, “tomb of the ancient Belus” is most likely to refer to the tomb of an earlier Babylonian ruler. as Henkelman suggests, it is thus more appropriate to compare Xerxes’ act to that of Darius i’s opening of the tomb of nitocris in Babylon (see Herodotus 1.187), and receiving an unpleasant message from the dead queen.46 There are, indeed, some similarities between Herodotus’ and Ctesias’ phrasing and, as the former has been shown to reflect Greek oracular idiom,47 the Xerxes’ story in Ctesias seems to be modeled (in part, at least) on the Herodotus passage and so likely to reflect a greek tradition. as indicated above, andrew george proposed that the aelian story, which he sees as representing a separate tradition from that in Ctesias, should be connected with the nebuchadnezzar ii cylinder found in susa and the damage suffered by E-temen-anki. in other words, he argues that Xerxes’ action in Babylon in relation to the “tomb” should be understood as Persian despoliation of Babylon’s ziggurat, with the cylinder providing proof of Xerxes’ looting. Quite apart from the fact that we do not have a date for the removal of the cylinder, is that the only way to understand the migration of Mesopotamian building inscriptions from their original place of deposition? an instructive counter example is provided by the Eanna cylinder of the Chaldaean ruler Marduk-apla-iddina ii.48 This records the restoration by him of part of the uruk sanctuary, but was found in nimrud (ancient Kalhu). it is most likely to have been transported there after sargon ii’s defeat of Marduk-apla-iddina. as sargon’s own recorded work on Eanna echoes the phraseology of his defeated foe’s inscription, the assumption is that it was found during assyrian refurbishments and removed to Kalhu to serve as a model for his own repairs.49 Obviously, this is a hypothesis, but it indicates that there can be a variety of reasons for the removal of an earlier building text, including (as in the sargon-Marduk-apla-iddina ii case) the wish to commemorate rebuilding rather than destruction. To summarize the main points: 45 1. The Ctesias and aelian passages represent the same source. 2. Xerxes’ act is not focused on a sanctuary connected to Bel-Marduk, but most likely on the tomb of an earlier ruler. 3. neither passage refers to the destruction of monuments, only to a divinatory ritual, which produces a bad omen. 4. it is possible that the episode was modeled, in part, on Herodotus’ story of Darius i and the tomb of nitocris. 5. There is no date for the removal of the nebuchadnezzar ii cylinder to susa, nor is the agent known. The assumption that it reflects looting by Xerxes in response to a revolt in Babylon is just that — an assumption. There are other possibilities to explain the appearance of a building inscription away from its original place of deposition. 6. note that, according to Ctesias, who is the sole writer to mention a Babylonian revolt against Xerxes, the revolt occurred after the Persian king’s visit to Babylon. His story of the revolt may itself again be modeled on Herodotus’ account of a Babylonian rebellion against Darius i (see Herodotus 3.150–60). Peter a. Miglus, review of Hansjörg schmid, Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon, Baghdader forschungen 17 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 86 (1996): 294–301 (p. 301); lenfant, Ctésias de Cnide, pp. lxxxviii–ix; Wouter F. M. Henkelman, “Der Grabhügel,” in Wiesehöfer, rollinger, and lanfranchi, eds., Ktesias, pp. 111–39. 46 see Henkelman, “Der grabhügel.” 47 John Dillery, “Darius and the Tomb of nitocris (Hdt. 1.187),” Classical Philology 87/1 (1992): 30–38. 48 see grant frame, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 B.C.), The royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods 2 (Toronto: university of Toronto Press, 1995), Marduk-apla-iddina ii B.6.21.1. 49 frame, Rulers of Babylonia, 8.6.22.3. Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence 169 The one possible conclusion that might be drawn from the episode is that, as in the case of Darius i and nitocris, the story reflects badly on Xerxes, and that this could reflect a Babylonian tradition hostile to him. if so, this opinion was not shared by all in antiquity as is, for example, shown by a passage in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities: Xerxes inherited also (Darius’) piety towards god and his way of honouring him. for he followed his father in all the things which he had done for his service, and he held the Jews in the highest esteem. (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaeorum 11.120) While there is not, and never has been, any evidence whatever for Xerxes (or, indeed, Persian) destruction of Babylonian temples and cults, apart from this ambiguous material, we do now have more material50 that allows us to begin to reassess his reign constructively, as a time of profound change, marked by a considerable tightening of the achaemenid grip on its imperial territories. Xerxes is emerging, more and more, as one of the most important architects of a stable and successful Persian empire.51 abbreviation FGrH 50 felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1923–1959 see Waerzeggers, “Babylonian revolts”; Jursa, “The Transition of Babylonia”; and Baker, “Babylon in 484 B.C.” 51 for a balanced assessment of Xerxes’ reign, see Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: fayard, 1996), ch. 13.