Facts, Propaganda, or History?
Shaping Political Memory in the
Nabonidus Chronicle
Caroline Waerzeggers (Leiden University)*
he Nabonidus Chronicle has proven invaluable for writing the early history of the Persian Empire.1 Historians derive from it the “only chronologically ixed data” for Cyrus’s reign and an indispensable framework
for understanding the fall of Babylon and the emergence of the Persian
Empire in the wider context of the Near East.2 In a year-by-year review
of events, this unique cuneiform tablet discusses the reign of Babylon’s
last independent king Nabonidus (r. 556–539 b.c.e.), the international stir
caused by the rise of Cyrus, the fatal confrontation between the armies of
Persia and Akkad in 539 b.c.e., and the irst months (or perhaps years) of
* his article was written within the framework of ERC StG project Babylon. I
am grateful to Mathieu Ossendrijver for his advice on the epigraphic inds from “late”
Babylon, to Jacqueline Albrecht for discussing the issue of women in the Babylonian
chronicles with me, to Reinhard Pirngruber for his information about the ind spot
of the Astronomical Diaries, to John MacGinnis for his collation of Nbn. 1054, and to
Jason Silverman and Bert van der Spek for their comments on earlier drats.
1. he most recent editions of the text are A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5; Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975), no. 7, and Jean-Jacques
Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (SBLWAW 19; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), no. 28. A translation by R. J. van der Spek is available on www.livius.org.
2. he quote is from Amélie Kuhrt, he Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from
the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2007), 47. he Nabonidus Chronicle is
the key source in many reconstructions of the early history of the Persian Empire;
among many examples: A. Leo Oppenheim, “he Babylonian Evidence of Achaemenian Rule in Mesopotamia,” he Cambridge History of Iran 2 (1985): 529–87 (537–
45); Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard,
1996), 50–53.
-95-
96
WAERZEGGERS
Persia’s rule over the territory formerly held by Nabonidus. Most historians use this text as a neutral witness of events as they happened, quarrying
it for historical data. hose who recognize a political bias in it nonetheless believe that its apologetic distortions can easily be peeled away from
a factual core. Both sides situate the Chronicle’s value in its reliability as a
source of historical fact, compiled at the time or in living memory of the
events it reports.
Despite this conidence, it is a well-known (but barely acknowledged)
fact that the only surviving manuscript of the Nabonidus Chronicle dates
from the Hellenistic or perhaps even Parthian period.3 his means that
our witness is at least two hundred years younger than the reality it is
thought to relect so adequately. Despite the enormous lapse of time, no
unease about the text’s reliability as a source on sixth-century history is
expressed. his is because the Chronicle is held to be a “copy” of an “original” dated to the time of the events. As the copy is usually treated as if it is
the (putative) sixth-century original, there is an implicit assumption that
the transmission process happened smoothly and faithfully. Yet, Achaemenid historians have found at least one element in the text that calls for
caution. In ii:15 Cyrus is called “king of Parsu” while this title only came
into use under Darius I, some twenty years later.4 As this title is “of course
not contemporary,”5 the relationship between copy and original might be
more complicated than assumed.
In this paper I propose a diferent approach to the Nabonidus Chronicle. Instead of reading this text either as a factual report or as a piece of
propaganda, I argue that the text is more suitably read as historical literature, or “history.” As such, the text allows us to study irst and foremost
the practice of historiography, and only on a secondary level the historical course of events. he practice of historiography behind the Chronicle
should be situated in Hellenistic Babylon. his is the cultural and histori3. As pointed out already by the irst editor of the text: Sidney Smith, Babylonian
Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen,
1924), 98.
4. Peter R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (Leiden: Brill,
2001), 120–21; Matt Waters, “Cyrus and the Achaemenids,” Iran 42 (2004): 91–101;
Daniel T. Potts, “Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan,” in Birth of the Persian
Empire (ed. V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart; he Idea of Iran 1; London: Tauris, 2005), 7–28;
Matt Waters, “Parsumaš, Šušan, and Cyrus,” in Elam and Persia (ed. J. Álvarez-Mon
and M. B. Garrison; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 285–96.
5. Kuhrt, Persian Empire, 50.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
97
cal context that supplies the framework for understanding the text’s meaning and function.
Neutral Witness or Propaganda?
So far, discussions of the Nabonidus Chronicle have focused on the question of its historical reliability. How do the facts presented in the text relate
to history as it happened? Two diametrically opposed answers have been
formulated to this question: one group of scholars considers the Chronicle
as a neutral witness of history while others discover in it an attempt to
distort it. Both views, however, share the belief that the Chronicle gives
access to reliable information, because it was drated from observation or
within living memory of the events. Before proposing a diferent approach
to this text, I will review these perspectives on the Chronicle, starting with
the most pervasive one.
It is striking how oten and how easily historians insist on the Chronicle’s status as an objective account of historical facts. Such statements usually serve to validate larger decisions of source criticism. he orthodoxy is
that the Chronicle is a beacon of truth and clarity in a mineield of otherwise tricky and deceptive sources on Cyrus and Nabonidus.6 On the one
hand, there are the so-called “propaganda” texts allegedly written in cuneiform by priests of Babylon eager to collaborate with the Persian conqueror
and discredit Nabonidus’s reign; the Cyrus Cylinder and Verse Account are
the principal products remaining of this efort. On the other hand, there
6. E.g., Amélie Kuhrt, “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes,” in Cambridge Ancient
History (2nd ed; vol. 4; Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1988): 112–38 (120,
122); Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “Nabonidus the Mad King: A Reconsideration of His Stelas
from Harran and Babylon,” in Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from
Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Heinz and M.
H. Feldman; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 137–66 (138); Amélie Kuhrt,
“Cyrus the Great of Persia: Images and Realities,” in Representations of Political Power:
Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East (ed.
M. Heinz and M. H. Feldman; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 169–91 (176);
Matt Waters, “Cyrus and the Medes,” in he World of Ancient Persia (ed. J. Curtis and
S. Simpson; London: Tauris, 2010), 63–71 (69); R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great,
Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject
Nations,” in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (ed. M.
Kozuh et al; SAOC 68; Chicago: he Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
2014), 233–64 (254–55).
98
WAERZEGGERS
are accounts about the fall of Babylon in Old Testament and Greek historical literature, written long ater the facts by communities with their own
cultural and political agendas. he Chronicle is usually contrasted to these
ideological writings as serving no other purpose than the objective recording of events as they happened. As a result, the Chronicle gives access to
“reality,” whereas the other sources give access to an “image.” Among
many authors, we can cite Amélie Kuhrt, who states that the Chronicle is
“the sole reliable, indeed crucial document” on the period, “not written at
the behest or in the interests of any political agency.”7 David Vanderhoot
embraces the idea of the Chronicle’s reliability to the extent that he classiies it as “documentary evidence.”8
Two sets of arguments instill this level of conidence in the Chronicle’s reliability. Firstly, there is a good match between certain sections
of the Chronicle and evidence from contemporary sources, in particular
archival texts and royal inscriptions of Nabonidus and Cyrus. Archival
texts help to corroborate the chronological outline of the Persian takeover of Babylonia. his is thanks to the fact that archival texts mention,
in their dates, the king who reigned on the day, month and year of the
deed. he information obtained in this fashion is almost perfectly in
tune with the Chronicle in relation to the establishment of Persian rule
in Babylonia.9 Another area where archival texts match the Chronicle is
7. he irst citation is from Kuhrt, Persian Empire, 47. he second citation is from
Kuhrt, “Cyrus the Great of Persia,” 176.
8. David Vanderhoot, “Cyrus II, Liberator or Conqueror? Ancient Historiography concerning Cyrus in Babylon,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period
(ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 351–72
(352). Earlier, Ronald Sack situated the Nabonidus Chronicle and archival texts on the
same level of historical reliability, cf. Ronald H. Sack, “he Nabonidus Legend,” RA 77
(1983): 59–67 (63–64).
9. here is only a slight mismatch. In Sippar, the scribe of CT 56 55 dated his
record to Nabonidus (15-VII of year 17), while the Chronicle places that city under
Persian control a day earlier (14-VII). As (according to the Chronicle) the Persian army
had not yet reached Babylon, Nabonidus would still have held the kingship, so this
information does not contradict the information in the Chronicle. Somewhat more
problematic is that on 17-VII a scribe in Uruk dated his tablet to Nabonidus while
Babylon had fallen to the Persians a day earlier according to the Chronicle (16-VII). As
suggested by Parker and Dubberstein, this may be due to a communication lag between
Babylon and the southern city of Uruk (Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein,
Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 [Providence, R. I.: Brown University Press,
1956], 13–14). In any event, the Sippar tablet CT 57 717 shows that no later than 19-VII
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
99
in its report about Nabonidus’s collection of divine statues in Babylon in
the months prior to the confrontation with Cyrus’s army in 539 b.c.e.10
Royal inscriptions, a second major source of information on the period,
also contain corroborative evidence. hose of Nabonidus conirm reports
in the Chronicle about military and political events in his reign, including the campaign to Hume in the irst year, his departure to Teima and
his absence from Babylon, the Astyages-Cyrus episode, and the death of
Nabonidus’s mother. he Cyrus Cylinder can also be usefully compared
with the Chronicle, e.g. in its reference to Cyrus’s subjugation of Media
and the peaceful surrender of Babylon. Moreover, besides validating historical “facts,” the royal inscriptions help to authenticate the discursive
framework of the Chronicle, such as the branding of Cyrus as “King of
Anshan,” a practice only known from mid-sixth century texts.11 In a similar vein, the long interruption of the New Year festival under Nabonidus, which was clearly of deep concern to the authors of the Chronicle, is
echoed (and hence validated as a contemporary sensitivity) in the Verse
Account, a cuneiform literary text from the early Persian period.12 Finally,
there is extensive archaeological and epigraphic evidence to support
the Chronicle’s statements about Nabonidus’s stay in Teima.13 All these
Babylonian scribes recognized Cyrus as king of Babylon. his is three days ater the
Chronicle places the capture of Babylon. Based on this evidence, therefore, the chronology of the take-over presented in the Chronicle is reliable (cf. Paul-Alain Beaulieu,
he Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon [YNER 10; New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989], 230–31). Most problematic, however, is Nbn. 1054 which is dated to Nabonidus
on 10-VIII, fully three weeks ater the fall of Babylon, although John MacGinnis, who
kindly collated the tablet, suggests that the year number can be read “16” as well as “17.”
See also Vanderhoot, “Cyrus II, Liberator or Conqueror?” 352 n. 2.
10. he Uruk evidence was discussed by Paul-Alain Beaulieu (Reign of Nabonidus, 220–24 and “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians,” JNES 52 [1993]:
241–61). Stefan Zawadzki recently adduced new evidence from a Sippar tablet about
the dispatch of the god of Bāṣ to Babylon in the same period (“he End of the NeoBabylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’ Order to Send the Statues of
Gods to Babylon,” JNES 71 [2012]: 47–52).
11. See Waters, “Cyrus and the Achaemenids,” 94 for an overview of the royal
titles used by Cyrus.
12. he latest edition of the Verse Account is by Hanspeter Schaudig, Die Inschriten
Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld enstandenen
Tendenzschriten. Textausgabe und Grammatik (AOAT 256; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2001), 563–78.
13. E.g. Ricardo Eichmann, Hanspeter Schaudig and Arnulf Hausleiter, “Archae-
100
WAERZEGGERS
matches between the Chronicle and contemporary evidence instill conidence in the general reliability of the Chronicle as fact-based and true to
the events as they happened.
A second set of arguments in support of the Chronicle’s reliability is
of a generic nature. he Nabonidus Chronicle is usually placed within a
longer series of “Babylonian Chronicles” that, when complete, would have
provided an uninterrupted history of Babylonia from Nabonassar down
to the Seleucids. he Neo-Babylonian chronicles are generally thought
to be “impartial historical documents” written by authors who were “not
trying to convince their readers of some particular idea.”14 his opinion
inds wide acceptance in ancient Near Eastern scholarship, even if in
other areas of history awareness has grown that ideas about the past are
not only shaped by understandings of the present and vice versa, but also
that selecting “facts” of history is in itself an act of interpretation.15 he
conviction that the Neo-Babylonian chronicles constitute history pure
and simple—history written for history’s sake16—seems rather naive in
this light. But despite occasional skepticism,17 this remains the majority
opinion.18 It is fed by the idea that the chronicles were compiled from contemporary notations based on observation.19 According to this idea, the
ology and Epigraphy at Tayma (Saudi Arabia),” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy
17 (2006): 163–76.
14. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 11.
15. See among many possible examples Rosamond McKitterick, History and
Memory in the Carolingian World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
16. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 11.
17. John A. Brinkman, “he Babylonian Chronicle Revisited,” in Lingering over
Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (ed. T.
Abusch et al; HSS 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 73–104 (74–75); Manuel Gerber,
“Die Inschrit H(arran)1.A/B und die neubabylonische Chronologie,” ZA 88 (1998):
72–93 (78); ibid., “A Common Source for the Late Babylonian Chronicles Dealing
with the Eighth and Seventh Centuries,” JAOS 120 (2000): 553–69 (569); Johannes
Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2013), 133 n. 27.
18. Some examples include Robert Drews, “he Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus,” Iraq 37 (1975): 39–55 (39–40); Robartus J. van der Spek, “Berossus as a Babylonian Chronicler and Greek Historian,” in Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View
and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. R. J. van
der Spek; Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2007), 277–318 (277–84).
19. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 12–13; van der Spek, “Berossus,” 284–287; Kuhrt, “Cyrus the Great of Persia,” 176.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
101
chroniclers excerpted their reports from running accounts, to be identiied as the Astronomical Diaries. hese texts, many of which survive, contain observations of a number of historical phenomena, including astronomical events, market prices, environmental conditions, and signiicant
human activities, such as battles, coronations, festivals, diseases, rebellions
and deaths of kings. he assumed connection with the Diaries enhances
the aura of objectivity of the chronicles, as it anchors them in observation.20
A totally diferent approach to the Nabonidus Chronicle is taken by
a second, smaller group of scholars, who argue that the text was written,
not for history’s sake, but with a deliberate intention to mislead. hese
authors emphasize that the text emerged in a politically complex and
sensitive period, shortly ater Nabonidus lost control of Babylon and at
the time when the Persians were seeking to connect to local power brokers and negotiate a new system of rule. Within this context, priests of
Babylon’s Esagil temple would have felt the need to rewrite the history of
Nabonidus’s reign in order to explain his failure and justify Cyrus’s victory. Not only the Cyrus Cylinder and Verse Account resulted from this
efort, according to these scholars, but also the Nabonidus Chronicle. In
other words, rather than setting up a irm dichotomy between the Chronicle as truthful history on the one hand, and the Cyrus Cylinder and Verse
Account as propaganda on the other, these authors classify all these works
as tendentious.21 his opinion was irst briely formulated by Wolfram
von Soden22 and later taken up by Reinhard Kratz, who insisted on the
literary character of the Chronicle and the need to investigate its ideological premises rather than its historical accuracy, adding that ancient
historical texts were “not composed to inform the modern historian,
but rather to indoctrinate or instruct their contemporary readers.”23 he
20. he dependency of the chronicles on the Astronomical Diaries has been critiqued by Brinkman, “he Babylonian Chronicle Revisited” and Caroline Waerzeggers, “he Babylonian Chronicles: Classiication and Provenance,” JNES 71 (2012):
285–98 (297–98).
21. E.g., Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin, he Culture and
Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 377.
22. Wolfram von Soden, “Eine babylonische Volksüberlieferung von Nabonid in
den Danielerzählungen,” ZAW 53 (1935): 81–89 (82); ibid., “Kyros und Nabonid: Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda,” in Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben (ed. H. Koch and D. N. Mackenzie; AMIE 10; Berlin: Dietrich
Reimer, 1983), 61–68 (61).
23. Reinhard Kratz, “From Nabonidus to Cyrus,” in Ideologies and Intercultural
102
WAERZEGGERS
Tendenz of the Chronicle, according to Kratz, lies in its selection of facts
(particularly its insistence on the disruption of the New Year festival
under Nabonidus) and in its narrative structuring of the material. Stefan
Zawadzki recently gave further weight to this argument by pointing out
that the Chronicle omits information favorable to Nabonidus and that it
seeks to set up a contrast with Cyrus on various levels, including military
failure and success, collection and restoration of cult statues, disregard
and respect for the dead, and the interruption and celebration of the New
Year festival.24 hese strategies resulted in a positive portrait of Cyrus
and a negative one of Nabonidus. Zawadzki pays close attention to the
multiple redactions behind the present version of the text, and in doing so
he is the irst to tackle this important issue in any depth.25 He concludes
that authors in the early Persian period modiied and rewrote an earlier
chronicle “undoubtedly on the orders of Cyrus.”26 his rewritten version
distorted the facts of Nabonidus’s reign contained in the original composition to suit the political realities ater his fall. As the distortion took
place only at the level of selecting (true) information and structuring it in
a suggestive narrative format, the Chronicle’s ultimate reliability remains
undisputed by Zawadzki. he report may be selective and incomplete, but
it is not false.
Summing up, two contrasting evaluations presently mark the scholarship on the Nabonidus Chronicle. hese evaluations assign fundamentally
diferent motives to the ancient authors and also draw diferent linkages
between the Chronicle and other literary texts created in the sixth century
b.c.e. Historians, who appreciate the Chronicle as an objective source of
historical facts, emphasize the text’s attribution to the genre of the chronicles, an ailiation that underscores its authority as an eye-witness report
based on observation. hose who are sensitive to possible bias in the text
notice a greater ainity between the Chronicle and propagandistic texts
Phenomena (Melammu Symposia III; ed. A. Panaino and G. Pettinato; Milan: Università di Bologna & IsIao, 2002), 143–56 (145).
24. Stefan Zawadzki, “he Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus in heir(?) Chronicle:
When and Why the Present Version Was Composed,” in Who Was King? Who Was Not
King? he Rulers and Ruled in the Ancient Near East (ed. P. Charvát and P. Maříková
Vlčková; Prague: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, 2010), 142–54.
25. See his comments on the neglect of this topic in the present scholarship:
Zawadzki, “End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire,” 47 n. 2.
26. Zawadzki, “Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus,” 143.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
103
created under the inluence, or even at the explicit request, of the Persians.
Stefan Zawadzki recently pushed the discussion into a new direction by
pointing out that the redaction process behind our present manuscript
may be complex.
Original, Copy, and Transmission
Continuing on this last point, one aspect on which most commentators
agree is that the surviving manuscript of the Nabonidus Chronicle is a late
“copy” of an earlier text. Among the questions that such a label invokes,
the most pertinent are that of the date of its production, its relationship
to the “original,” and the intermittent process of transmission. I will begin
with the irst question: when was the surviving “copy” produced?
Authors following Wiseman date its creation to the reign of Darius
27
I. his is based on Wiseman’s suggestion that the Nabonidus Chronicle
was written by the same scribe who wrote the Babylonian Chronicle in
Darius’s twenty-second year (500 b.c.e.) because of similarities of ductus
and layout.28 his suggestion was rejected by Brinkman who pointed out
that not only do the same signs have distinctly diferent shapes in the two
manuscripts, but that the handwriting of the Nabonidus Chronicle is also
much more slanted than that of the Babylonian Chronicle.29 Even if Wiseman’s idea continues to attract supporters,30 it cannot be seriously upheld.
A much more likely proposal is that the manuscript is late Achaemenid,
Seleucid, or Parthian in date.31 his is based on the manuscript’s location
in collection Sp 2 of the British Museum, a collection made up of materials
coming from the late Babylonian Esagil “library,” dug up in Babylon in the
1870s.32 his “library” was in active use between the reign of Artaxerxes II
27. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 9 n. 7, 14, 21. Zawadzki, “Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus,” 143.
28. Donald J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British
Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), 3.
29. Brinkman, “Babylonian Chronicle Revisited,” 86–87.
30. Zawadzki, “Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus,” 143.
31. his was irst suggested by Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts, 98 and the idea
has since been conirmed on the basis of museological considerations, cf. Philippe
Clancier, Les bibliothèques en Babylonie dans la deuxième moitié du Ier millénaire
av. J.-C. (AOAT 363; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009), 448; Waerzeggers, “Babylonian
Chronicles,” 291.
32. Clancier, Bibliothèques, 192. See also G. van Driel, “he British Museum
104
WAERZEGGERS
and c. 60 b.c.e.,33 which gives us a broad but reliable time frame for situating the production of the present manuscript of the Nabonidus Chronicle.
Few scholars, if any, have relected on the implications of the late date
of our manuscript. An unproblematic process of transmission is imagined,
linking the “copy”—the text that survives today—to its “original.” hat
original text is assigned, mostly without further comment, to the sixth
century and held to be coterminous to, or written in living memory of,
the reported events. he two evaluations of the Nabonidus Chronicle that
I outlined above, while in some points sharply contradictory, share this
basic assumption.
here are indications that the situation was more complex, however.
A irst sign is the Chronicle’s use of the anachronistic title “King of Parsu”
for Cyrus. his should urge us, at the very least, to accommodate room
for change and adaptation in the copyist’s work. Secondly, the use of
“Elam” to refer to Persia34 inds no parallels in contemporary literature
but reminds us of the Dynastic Prophecy, a Hellenistic cuneiform text,
which calls Cyrus “King of Elam.”35 he use of this old geographic name
carried connotations of threat and destruction by Babylonia’s age-old
Sippar Collection: Babylonia 1882–1893,” ZA 79 (1989): 102–17 (109) on the cuneiform materials excavated in Babylon in the 1870s. he tablets were found to the south
of Esagil, near the temple precinct, but details about the indspot are not available. It
is uncertain, therefore, whether we are dealing with the remains of a single collection
of tablets or of a conglomerate of archives. It is clear, however, that the tablets were
produced by persons closely ailiated to the Esagil temple, and in that sense the label
“Esagil library” will be employed here. See Clancier, Bibliothèques, for an extensive
discussion of the texts and their relationship to the Esagil temple.
33. Francis Joannès, “De Babylone à Sumer: Le parcours intellectuel des lettrés de
la Babylonie récente,” Revue Historique 302 (2000): 693–717 (703).
34. hat is if Elammiya in ii: 22 refers to Elam; see lately Zawadzki, “End of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire,” 48 n. 4.
35. First edition by A. Kirk Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto
Semitic Texts and Studies 3; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 24–37. See
also Robartus J. van der Spek, “Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian Scholarship,” in A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg
(ed. W. F. M. Henkelman and A. Kuhrt; Achaemenid History 13; Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2003), 289–346 (311–24); Matthew Neujahr, “When
Darius defeated Alexander: Composition and Redaction in the Dynastic Prophecy,”
JNES 64 (2005): 101–7; Matthew Neujahr, Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East:
Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World
(BJS 354; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2012), 58–63.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
105
archenemy and may thus convey an anti-Persian sentiment.36 Stephanie
Dalley made a similar suggestion about the use of Gutium in relation to
Ugbaru, the general whom Cyrus sent ahead to do the dirty work of capturing Babylon, according to the Chronicle.37 his label evokes negative
connotations: the Gutians were seen as the “archetypal sackers of cities,
«a people who know no inhibitions», «like hordes of locusts».” Transposing this label to the army of Cyrus may thus have constituted criticism of
Persian imperialism.38
hese instances caution us in two ways. First, they suggest that the
text of our manuscript may not be identical to the (putative) sixth-century original. Second, they also suggest that a one-sided categorization
of the Chronicle as pro-Persian propaganda may be too limiting. Several
possibilities should be kept open: ideas about Persian rule might have
been ambiguous already at the time of Cyrus or they might have become
less clear-cut as time moved on. Sentiments about Persian rule did not
remain static during the two hundred years of the Empire’s existence in
Babylonia.39 Authors may well have reworked the text of the Chronicle
to speak to present concerns, especially if one realizes that the surviving manuscript dates from a time when Persian rule had already been
dismantled and replaced. It should not come as a surprise, then, if the
Chronicle contains a subtle, rather than a one-dimensional, judgment of
Persian rule. For instance, it is generally assumed that the authors of the
Chronicle applauded the celebration of the New Year festival by Cambyses
(and Cyrus?) in 538 b.c.e. his idea is indeed supported by the narrative
structure of the Chronicle, which sets up a contrast with the festival’s suspension under Nabonidus. At the same time, however, the authors of the
Chronicle insert a remark that one of the royal protagonists of 538 b.c.e.
appeared in Elamite dress, a gesture that may well have been perceived as
36. See John P. Nielsen in this volume.
37. Stephanie Dalley, “Herodotos and Babylon,” OLZ 91 (1996): 525–32 (527).
38. Ibid., 527.
39. Two double revolts broke out in Babylonia, the irst ater Cambyses’s death
and the second ater Darius I’s death. On the former conlict, see most recently PaulAlain Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Reign of the Babylonian Pretender Nebuchadnezzar IV,” in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (ed. M.
Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: he Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
2014), 17–26 with earlier literature; on the revolts against Xerxes, see Caroline Waerzeggers, “he Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives,’” AfO 50
(2003/2004): 150–73.
106
WAERZEGGERS
inappropriate, insulting, or oppressive in the context of the religious festival—not only because the dress was non-Babylonian but because it was
from Elam, Babylonia’s perennial enemy. Do we need to choose between
a pro- and contra-Persian reading of this passage, or can both readings
be maintained?40
Chronicle or Literature?
he notion of the “Babylonian Chronicle Series” has deeply inluenced
how scholars perceive the Nabonidus Chronicle. his notion originates
with Grayson who selected iteen of the twenty-four then-known Babylonian chronicles (1975)41 and sorted them in a single series ranked according to subject matter, chronicle “1” starting with the reign of Nabonassar
in the mid-eighth century and chronicle “13” ending in the late third century b.c.e.42 Even though big parts of this time span are unaccounted for,
Grayson insisted that the iteen chronicles are the remnants of a once continuous, year-by-year, system of record-keeping begun under the auspices
of the eighth century king. Placed within the context of this “continuous
register of events”43 the Nabonidus Chronicle becomes a natural, even necessary, link anchored in the sixth century through a continual tradition of
record-keeping.
Several objections can be made against this classiication of the
Nabonidus Chronicle. Firstly, and perhaps superluously, we need to recall
that there is as yet no evidence of a sixth-century ancestor of the Chronicle.
he last Neo-Babylonian king whose reign is discussed in a contemporary
40. Indeed, Hellenistic Babylonian audiences who looked back on the Persian
period passed no single positive or negative verdict on the quality of Persian rule, cf.
Caroline Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period: Performance and
Reception,” in Exile and Return: he Babylonian Context (ed. J. Stökl and C. Waerzeggers; BZAW 478; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 181–222. Walter Pohl’s critical remarks
about the tendency in modern historical narratives to identify consistent ideologies
in Medieval texts are instructive, “History in Fragments: Montecassino’s Politics of
Memory,” Early Medieval Europe 10 (2001): 343–74.
41. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles.
42. Chronicle 1 exists in three exemplars according to Grayson, so the total
number of manuscripts selected and included in the Series is iteen (Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles). Brinkman, “he Babylonian Chronicle Revisited,”
questioned whether chronicle 1a, 1b and 1c represent the same text.
43. Van der Spek, “Berossus,” 277.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
107
chronicle is Neriglissar, in ABC 6. It is certainly highly likely that later
chronicles existed, for instance the (missing) continuators of ABC 1A, but
as yet there is a gap in the preservation of chronicles between the reign of
Neriglissar in the mid-sixth century and that of Artaxerxes III in the midfourth century b.c.e.44 As our copy of the Chronicle was produced within
the context of this second batch of texts, the assumption that its authors
(or copyists) had easy access to a sixth-century original chronicle is rather
optimistic. he validity of the over-arching framework of the “Babylonian
Chronicle Series” is thus debatable.45 It is correct that some chronicles
were serialized in antiquity, but Grayson’s reconstruction groups together
a lot of material that (as far as we know) never existed in the same place
and time. he “Series” is a philological construct: it bundles texts from
diferent places and times together into a single sequence based on genre
and subject matter. As the “Series” is a modern construct, the Nabonidus
Chronicle can, and perhaps should, be seen as something diferent than as
a product of sixth-century record-keeping.
A second and, in my opinion, more fundamental objection has to do
with the literary quality of the work. Stefan Zawadzki and Reinhard Kratz
have already argued that the Chronicle is not simply a dry enumeration
of facts but a literary text that was written to serve a particular political
purpose. Because the genre of the “chronicle” is ill-deined,46 we run the
risk of tilting at windmills here: can any of the Babylonian chronicles be
rightfully described as a “data base of historical facts in strict chronological order”?47 In any event, in the case of the Nabonidus Chronicle, such
a deinition is particularly ill-suited. he narrative quality of the text
emerges, irst of all, in the connections it draws and the contrasts it sets
up between Nabonidus and Cyrus. Whereas Nabonidus does not show up
at his mother’s funeral, Cyrus calls for an oicial period of mourning ater
his wife’s death. Whereas Nabonidus disrupts the New Year festival years
on end, Cyrus allows the festival to go ahead. Whereas Nabonidus collects
the cult statues of Babylonia’s provincial deities in the capital, Cyrus sends
44. Waerzeggers, “he Babylonian Chronicles,” 297.
45. See in particular Brinkman, “Babylonian Chronicle Revisited” and Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Chronicles.”
46. On the problematic deinition of the “chronicle” as a separate genre of Babylonian historiography, see in particular Brinkman, “Babylonian Chronicle Revisited.”
47. he quote is from van der Spek, “Berossus,” 280.
108
WAERZEGGERS
them back home.48 Another literary device at work in the Chronicle is the
manipulation of narrative rhythm. Having reviewed events by years and
months so far,49 the authors of the Chronicle switch to a day-to-day mode
of narration for the dramatic climax of Babylon’s fall to the Persians. By
slowing down the release of information, the authors create suspense at
this critical moment of the text. he rhythm stalls even more in the episode about Cambyses and the New Year festival. We now get a gesture-bygesture account of a single ritual act, which has the efect of highlighting
the solemnity of the event. his efect is enhanced by the use of spatial and
plastic descriptions that create a sensory and sensual texture, unlike the
more sober way of reporting that we ind elsewhere in the Chronicle. Cambyses moves into the Sceptre House of Nabû, receives the scepter from
Nabû’s priest, and comes out into the temple courtyard. All these movements take place in sacred areas that are unknown and inaccessible to all
but the most high-placed priests and royalty. he reader of the Chronicle,
allowed to view this hidden space, is treated to a spectacle of the senses
as the authors dwell not only on the gestures but on the implements (the
scepter), the garments (Elamite attire) and the weaponry (lances and quivers) used at the scene.50
In the light of its literary quality and deliberate design, it is hard to
maintain that the Chronicle is a (standard) chronicle. Bert van der Spek
recently said of the Neo-Babylonian chronicles that they “are not narrative; there is no story, no plot, no introduction or conclusion, nor is there
any attempt to explain, to ind causes and efects, to see relations between
recorded events.”51 None of this applies to the Nabonidus Chronicle. It
48. See also Zawadzki, “Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus,” 144 who argues that
the text consciously seeks to contrast Nabonidus’s military passivity with Cyrus’s military success.
49. he exception is, not accidentally, I would say, the episode about the death of
Nabonidus’s mother (ii.13–15) which plays a crucial role as evidence of Nabonidus’s
moral downfall.
50. It is debated whether the Chronicle asserts that some of these gestures were
performed by Cyrus (Andrew R. George, “Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology,”
BO 53 [1996]: 363–95 [380]) or whether it asserts that only Cambyses was present at
the festivities (see lately Gauthier Tolini, “La Babylonie et l’Iran: Les relations d’une
province avec le coeur de l’empire achéménide [539-331 avant notre ère]” [Ph.D. diss.,
Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2011], 135–45 on this interpretation of the
passage of the Nabonidus Chronicle iii:24–28).
51. Van der Spek, “Berossus,” 280.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
109
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. By
suggestively contrasting the protagonists and by playing with rhythm and
detail, the authors structure the materials and assign meaning to it. Not
only what is in the text ofers clues in that direction, also what is let out.
For the eighth year of Nabonidus, the Chronicle supplies a heading but
not an entry. he reason behind this silence is debated, but we may be certain that information only needed to be suppressed because it was considered irrelevant or unwanted within a structured argument.52 In short,
the Chronicle does not simply report facts but it tries to explain them. Von
Soden, Kratz, and Zawadzki already argued in this direction. But what,
then, does the text explain, and for whom? Should we seek its purpose in
propaganda, as von Soden, Kratz and Zawadzki did? Does the Chronicle
address urgent political needs of the emergent Persian Empire? Or does it
speak to an altogether diferent time and place? Above, I already indicated
why an interpretation of the Chronicle as a straightforwardly pro-Persian
piece of propaganda is too limiting. I will now turn to the manuscript and
its environment to formulate an alternative approach to the question of
the text’s purpose and audience.
The Manuscript and Its Environment
he manuscript of the Nabonidus Chronicle was produced in one of the
archives or libraries connected to the Esagil temple of Babylon, roughly in
the period between Artaxerxes II and 60 b.c.e.53 As it is uncertain whether
these texts were part of a physical collection of works, held at a single location, I will use the label “library” with some reservation, to refer to the body
of literature that was produced in the margins of Esagil by its ailiated staf
and deposited in its immediate vicinity. his literature ofers a rich textual
context for reading and interpreting the Chronicle within its own social and
cultural setting. Rather than ixing our eyes on a putative, unrecovered and
uncertain, sixth-century source, I propose to look at the environment of the
manuscript for clues about its function and its audience. I will draw diferent
intertextual circles around the Chronicle than those proposed so far. Neither
sixth-century chronicles, nor sixth-century pro-Persian propaganda, but
52. On this issue, see Zawadzki, “Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus,” 148–50.
53. Joannès, “Babylone à Sumer,” 703.
110
WAERZEGGERS
texts produced in the manuscript’s present (however broadly this present is
deined) will constitute my frame of analysis. Every act of copying, however
mechanical we imagine it to be, is also an act of actualization and appropriation. If we want to know why the manuscript was produced, we need to
understand the concerns and interests of the copyists (or, indeed, authors).
he “library,” or libraries, of the Esagil temple were discovered in
the 1870s during unregulated digs at the site of Babylon. Not much is
known about the place and the context of the ind, except that it produced a very large amount of cuneiform texts (ca. 10,000). hese texts
were sold in Baghdad and then shipped to the British Museum in London,
where they can still be consulted today. Recent studies of the collections
of the British Museum have revealed that most of the ind consisted of
astronomical tablets and other scholarly texts.54 Although only a minority in quantitative terms, historical texts are fairly well represented in the
“library” and these provide a irst context for understanding the production of the Nabonidus Chronicle. he Babyloniaca of Berossus is the bestknown example of this historical literature, but several compositions in
Babylonian cuneiform survive on clay tablets recovered in excavations in
the nineteenth century c.e.55
What emerges clearly from this textual environment is that there was
a lively interest in Nabonidus and Cyrus among scholars of Esagil. Several texts in their “library” deal with this historical episode. Some of these
works visit Nabonidus’s downfall and Cyrus’s victory in the context of a
long-term overview of Babylonian history, such as Berossus’s Babyloniaca
54. See in particular the detailed study by Clancier, Bibliothèques.
55. Berossus’s social identity as a Babylonian scholar of the Esagil temple is discussed by van der Spek, “Berossus”; Geert De Breucker, “Berossos and the Mesopotamian Temple as Centre of Knowledge during the Hellenistic Period,” in Learned
Antiquity: Scholarship and Society in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman World, and
the Early Medieval West (ed. A. A. MacDonald et al; Groningen Studies in Cultural
Change 5; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 13–23; Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “Berossus on Late Babylonian Historiography,” in Special Issue of Oriental Studies: A Collection of Papers on
Ancient Civilizations of Western Asia, Asia Minor and North Africa (ed. Y. Gong and
Y. Chen; Beijing: University of Beijing, 2006), 116–49; Geert De Breucker, “Berossos
between Tradition and Innovation,” in he Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture
(ed. K. Radner and E. Robson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 637–57; Geert
De Breucker, “De Babyloniaca van Berossos” (Ph.D. diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2012); Geert De Breucker, “Berossos: His Life and His Work,” in he World of
Berossos (ed. J. Haubold et al; CLeO 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 15–28.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
111
and the Dynastic Prophecy, both written under Seleucid rule.56 Others ofer
a more focused discussion, such as the Royal Chronicle and an unidentiied fragment of a literary text.57 It is quite possible that a copy of the Verse
Account was available as well.58
A irst conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that the topic
of the Nabonidus Chronicle was alive in this environment: it was written and rewritten multiple times and in multiple formats. hese texts all
deal with the same historical period, but they focus on diferent aspects
of that history, and they express diferent opinions about it, in diferent
genres.59 his was a past that mattered in the present—and not only to the
learned community of Esagil. he Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran, the
Shulgi Chronicle from Uruk, and the book of Daniel all speak of a similar,
and widely shared, interest in this crucial turning point in history, when
mighty Babylon was integrated in an even more powerful empire. How
inadequate, then, is the idea that the Nabonidus Chronicle was the product
of an unimaginative Babylonian scribe, mechanically copying out an old
and obsolete text? Clearly, the Chronicle spoke to actual, contemporary
concerns that were widely shared within the learned community of Esagil
and beyond. Might it not be more fruitful, then, to give credence to the
creative imagination of this audience and entertain the possibility that the
Chronicle was actually produced in Hellenistic Babylonia?
his possibility does seem to hold a certain attraction. Inquisitive
historians in Hellenistic Babylon had access to a lot of source materials
that would have informed them about events that happened at the time of
Nabonidus and Cyrus. Many royal inscriptions of Neo-Babylonian kings
had long since been buried in walls and foundations, but some were still
around and could be consulted. We know that Berossus reworked content from surviving inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in
56. For the Dynastic Prophecy, see n. 35 above.
57. See for an edition of the Royal Chronicle and the fragmentary literary text
Schaudig, Inschriten, 591–95 and 474–75.
58. he manuscript is located in a collection of the British Museum (80-11-12)
that holds signiicant amounts of material produced by Esagil’s learned community
(Mathieu Ossendrijver, personal communication), but overall the collection is mixed
in content and also includes texts from other sites, cf. Julian E. Reade, introduction to
Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, vol. 6: Tablets from Sippar
1, by Erle Leichty (London: British Museum, 1986), xx–xxi.
59. On the multivocality of these texts, see Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Kingship
in the Persian Period.”
112
WAERZEGGERS
his book;60 it is not at all unreasonable to assume that more historians in
his circle did so. In fact, when we put this idea to the test, it appears that
much of the Chronicle’s account about Nabonidus could easily have been
culled from authentic monuments of this king that were still present in
Babylon’s cityscape. he march to Hume in Nabonidus’s irst year (i:7ˊ),
for instance, is mentioned in the Babylon Stela (ix:32ˊ).61 his original
inscription of Nabonidus also inspired Berossus’s account of Nabonidus’s
rise to power. he stele stood near the Ishtar Gate and the North Palace,
where those curious about the past could have read it. he text is, in fact,
a treasure trove of historical information: it starts with a long preamble
to Nabonidus’s reign—from Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon and the
fall of Assyria, to the troubled succession of Neriglissar—and it ends with
an extensive report on the major events in his irst year(s) of rule.62 Besides
the march to Hume, authors of the Chronicle may have taken other information about Nabonidus’s irst year from this source, but the manuscript
is too badly broken to pursue this thought any further. Another original
inscription from Nabonidus’s reign available in Hellenistic Babylon was
the Ehulhul Cylinder.63 his text could have taught the authors of the
Chronicle about the authentic title “King of Anshan,” which disappeared
from Persian royal self-representation ater the reign of Cyrus.64 It is strik60. Notably in his account of Nabonidus’s rise to power, which is based on the
Babylon Stela (also known as the Istanbul Stela; cf. Stanley M. Burstein, he Babyloniaca of Berossus [Sources from the Ancient Near East 1.5; Malibu, Ca.: 1978], 28; William Gallagher, “he Istanbul Stela of Nabonidus,” WZKM 86 [1996]: 119–26 [123];
Beaulieu, “Berossus,” 141; De Breucker, De Babyloniaca, 110, 556; Haubold, Greece
and Mesopotamia, 82) and in his assertion that Nebuchadnezzar built his palace in
iteen days, which was taken from (a copy of) the Basalt Stone Inscription (van der
Spek, “Berossus,” 296).
61. Edition by Schaudig, Inschriten, 514–29.
62. It is debated how far into Nabonidus’s reign the text reaches; see the discussion by Schaudig, Inschriten, 515.
63. Edition by Schaudig, Inschriten, 409–40. A copy of the cylinder was found
together with other antiquarian epigraphic materials (including Nabonidus’s Babylon
Stela) near the North Palace and the Ishtar Gate of Babylon. On this collection of monuments and inscriptions, see most recently Francis Joannès, “L’écriture publique du
pouvoir à Babylone sous Nabuchodonosor II,” in Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und
Okzident (ed. E. Cancik-Kirschbaum et al.; Topoi 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 113–20
(118) with earlier literature. his assemblage used to be known as the “museum” of
Nebuchadnezzar’s palace, but this notion has been revised.
64. he title is used in ii:1, 4 of the Chronicle and i:27 of the Ehulhul Cylinder. See
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
113
ing, moreover, that the title occurs in the same episode in both texts, that
is, in the context of Cyrus’s victory over the Medes. Even if the Chronicle
places this event in a diferent year than the Cylinder, the use of this title
in this speciic context is signiicant because elsewhere the Chronicle uses
the anachronistic title “King of Parsu” (ii:15). Such inconsistency could
have resulted from a cut-and-paste adaptation from sources of diferent
genres and from diferent times. At least one more royal inscription of
Nabonidus was available in the Hellenistic period: a copy of the Harran
Stela, which was reused during the renovation of the temple of Larsa at the
time.65 Members of Esagil’s learned community could easily have traveled
there to consult the text.66 It would have provided its readers with knowledge of Nabonidus’s decade-long exile in Teima, a piece of information
that is basic to a large part of the Chronicle’s second column. Finally, if a
library copy of the Cyrus Cylinder was around—a distinct possibility67—it
could have served as a source for the Chronicle’s report about the collection and return of cult statues and the peaceful surrender of Babylon.
Besides original source materials available in Hellenistic Babylonia,
there were a number of literary texts with which the Chronicle could
engage. For instance, in contrast to (sixth-century) Neo-Babylonian
chronicles, which rarely include other actors besides the king, the Nabonidus Chronicle assigns a prominent place to the ahu rabû or šešgallu as the
dutiful priest who protects the continuity of cultic life in the absence of
Nabonidus. here is only one other chronicle that allows the same igure
into its narrative, even in the same context of interruptions to the New
Year festival. his is the so-called Religious Chronicle, a text that—not inci-
on the role of Anshan in early Persian royal ideology Potts, “Cyrus the Great and the
Kingdom of Anshan” and Waters, “Parsumaš, Anšan, and Cyrus.”
65. Schaudig, Inschriten, 532.
66. Babylonian scholars traveled widely in pursuit of knowledge, see Eckart
Frahm, “Headhunter, Bücherdiebe und wandernde Gelehrte: Anmerkungen zum
altorientalischen Wissenskultur im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr.,” in Wissenskultur im
Alten Orient: Weltanschauung, Wissenschaten, Techniken, Technologien (ed. H. Neumann and S. Paulus; CDOG 4; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 15–30.
67. Recently, two fragments of a Neo-Babylonian library copy were discovered,
showing that the text of the Cyrus Cylinder circulated more widely than previously
assumed; see Irving J. Finkel, “he Cyrus Cylinder: he Babylonian Perspective,” in
he Cyrus Cylinder: he King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon (ed. I. J.
Finkel; London: Tauris, 2013), 4–34.
114
WAERZEGGERS
dentally in my opinion—was available at Esagil.68 Besides their manner of
reporting on the akītu festival,69 both texts share an interest in the E-gidrukalamma-summa shrine of Babylon. Another text to which the Chronicle
seems to speak is the Verse Account. Both compositions refer to Amurru
in the context of the king’s departure to Arabia.70 Like the Babylon Stela,
the Verse Account is rich in historical detail. Today, much of the text is
lost because the only surviving manuscript is heavily damaged, but in
what remains one inds signiicant overlap with the Chronicle: Nabonidus’s
departure from Akkad to Teima in the third year, the subsequent interruption of the New Year festival, the delegation of power to his unnamed
irst-born son, the entrustment of the army to this son’s command, a military confrontation with Cyrus (unfortunately badly broken in the Verse
Account), a lengthy discussion of the New Year festival of 538 b.c.e., the
use of exact days to structure key parts of the narrative, and Cyrus’s return
of the statues of the gods to their shrines ater reestablishing peace in Babylon. It is thus within the limits of the possible that the authors of the
Chronicle used the Verse Account as one of their sources. Most unfortunate
are the breaks in columns iii–iv–v of the Verse Account as it would have
been interesting to know whether it delivered as meticulous an account
of the conquest of Babylon as did the Chronicle. hough less focused on
chronological detail, the Verse Account does supply indications of time
and duration (ii:17ˊ; iii:2ˊ; v:28ˊ). A third literary text available in the Esagil
“library” (or libraries) that we can connect to the Chronicle is the so-called
Royal Chronicle. Besides the general topic of Nabonidus’s reign, this text
notes in the third year of this king the same event in Ammananu (iv:29) as
does the Nabonidus Chronicle (i:11).
hese literary contacts are part of a larger web of intertextuality. he
Royal Chronicle, for instance, entertains an argumentative relationship
with the Verse Account in proposing a completely diferent evaluation
68. ABC 17. On its provenance, see Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Chronicles.”
69. he akītu festival was of course a common topic in the Neo-Babylonian
chronicles (A. Kirk Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akītu Festival,” in Actes de la XVIIe
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale [ed. A. Finet; Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge
de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970], 160–70) but the particular manner of reporting on the interruptions and the role of the ahu rabû are unique to the Nabonidus
Chronicle and the Religious Chronicle.
70. Nabonidus Chronicle i:16 and Verse Account i:23.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
115
of Nabonidus’s use of the series Enūma Anu Enlil.71 Like the Nabonidus
Chronicle, it also has a connection to the Harran Stela of Nabonidus, a
copy of which was available in contemporary Larsa as we have seen.72
he interest in the E-gidri-kalamma-summa shrine of Babylon that we
observed in the Religious Chronicle and the Nabonidus Chronicle is also
in evidence in the Babylon Stela (vii:23ˊ). he Babyloniaca of Berossus
engages with several of these texts, including the Babylon Stela, the Dynastic Prophecy and the Nabonidus Chronicle, though with various degrees of
contrast and agreement.73
It is senseless to try to untangle which text served as a source for which
other text within this intertextual web. What we can say, however, is that
the literature spun from this web seems at its most vibrant in the Hellenistic period, when at least two new historical works saw the light of day (Berossus’s Babyloniaca and the Dynastic Prophecy). I suggest that other narratives about Nabonidus, including the Chronicle, emerged at the same time.
It cannot be excluded that sixth-century chronicles somehow survived,
but this remains unproven—and moreover, I would argue, such originals
would be insuicient to explain the Chronicle’s existence. here was an
active pool of historical “facts” which authors tapped, plied, and integrated
in new works. hese facts derived from a variety of sources including original inscriptions and literary works. hat pool constituted the raw material from which Esagil’s intellectual community shaped its memory of the
past, not once but through multiple literary creations. In my opinion, the
Chronicle should be seen as a product of that efort, whether or not parts
of it derive from a sixth-century source.
Before looking more closely at this process, one more issue remains to
be addressed: If the Nabonidus Chronicle is a Hellenistic Babylonian text,
can it have been inluenced by Greek literature? he Nabonidus Chronicle
is now oten used as a yardstick to measure the reliability of authors like
Xenophon and Herodotus on the fall of Babylon, but if we take the possibility of a post-Persian date for the Chronicle seriously, as I think we should,
71. Peter Machinist and Hayim Tadmor, “Heavenly Wisdom,” in he Tablet and
the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C.
Snell, and D. B. Weisberg; Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1993), 146–51 (149).
72. Both texts mention the king of Dadanu, cf. Royal Chronicle v.20 and Harran
Stela 2.I.25 (Schaudig, Inschriten, text 3.1).
73. De Breucker, Babyloniaca, 546–56.
116
WAERZEGGERS
this procedure is of doubtful legitimacy. Could it be that the Chronicle is
not independent from these Greek texts, but in dialogue with them?
Recent work on the social and intellectual milieu of Berossus shows
that this Babylonian “priest” of Esagil was versed in two historiographic
traditions: that of the cuneiform world and that of the Greek world.74 He
was able to draw from both traditions in his own work, eloquently and
creatively, through processes of adoption, transformation, and rejection.
Johannes Haubold situates his work in an archival “contact zone,” where
Greek and Mesopotamian views were forged into a “new synthesis.”75 For
instance, Berossus would consciously have reworked Greek traditions
about the Hanging Gardens of Babylon to meet the expectations of a Greek
audience while integrating these views within a framework informed by
cuneiform sources.76 He subtly but irmly rejected Herodotus’s idea that
the Persians diverted the Euphrates in order to take Babylon by surprise.77
He would have engaged with Ctesias’s scheme of the succession of empires,
but turned it on its head to suit local sensibilities about the primacy of
Babylonian history.78
Berossus’s intimate knowledge of Greek literature did not exist in a
vacuum. Other members of his circle must have shared his level of access
to these traditions. If one member of Esagil’s intellectual community
engaged with Greek historical writing, it cannot be too fanciful to assume
that more will have done so. As Berossus combined Greek and Babylonian
knowledge in a work addressing a Greek audience, the possibility should at
least be considered that authors writing for a Babylonian audience might
have combined these two traditions as well. I would like to point to one
feature in the Nabonidus Chronicle that may indeed have spoken to ideas
circulating in a Greek cultural background.79 he Chronicle’s concern with
74. Van der Spek, “Berossus”; Beaulieu, “Berossus”; De Breucker, Babyloniaca;
Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia.
75. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, 167. See also Johannes Haubold, “Berossus,” in he Romance Between Greece and the East (ed. T. Whitmarsh and S. homson;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 107–16 for a discussion of Berossus’s
intimate knowledge of Greek historical iction.
76. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, 173–76.
77. Van der Spek, “Berossus,” 297 n. 36.
78. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, 177.
79. he rise of Cyrus’s empire in three crucial battles (in Media, Lydia, and Babylonia) is a scheme that the Chronicle possibly shared with Herodotus (Zawadzki,
“he Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus,” 146–47), but the reading of the place name
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
117
the death of royal women its Hellenistic interests at least as much as Babylonian ones, if not better. Mesopotamian chronicles make little mention
of queens and princesses. hey are given brief tablet space as mothers in
notices of royal pedigree, as brides in Assyrian-Babylonian negotiations,
and in reports of their deaths.80 his last issue is taken up rarely; besides
in the Nabonidus Chronicle it only occurs in two chronicles about Esarhaddon’s reign. In those two chronicles, the death of the Assyrian king’s
wife is mentioned in passing, between battle reports. In comparison, the
Nabonidus Chronicle is much more intensively interested in the topic. It
treats the deaths of Nabonidus’s mother and Cyrus’s wife in detail, assigning over two lines of texts to each event (ii:13–15 and iii:22–24). Moreover, these stories occupy key positions in the narrative structure of the
text. Both deaths are placed immediately before the New Year festival, and
given moral weight: the death of Nabonidus’s mother served to further
illustrate her son’s immorality, while the death of Cyrus’s wife served to
enhance his credibility as legitimate king of Babylon. Within the wider
argument of the text, the deaths also seem to accompany major turning
points in the history told by its authors: the downfall of Nabonidus and
the victory of Cyrus. he importance assigned to these royal women is
uncommon in the Mesopotamian chronicle tradition, but it does it the
interests of Hellenistic literature. Johannes Haubold suggested that Berossus’s digression on princess Amyitis might have been inspired by this
cultural background.81 It is striking that, like in the Chronicle, this episode
precedes a world-changing event in the Babyloniaca (the fall of Nineveh).
Comparing Berossus and the Chronicle thus reveals a third interlocutor:
these texts share a narrative strategy with each other and with Greek literature on Oriental kingship. More speciically, the Nabonidus Chronicle
may have interacted with Herodotus’s account of the death of Cyrus’s wife
Cassandane (2.1).82
where Cyrus achieved his second victory according to the Nabonidus Chronicle
remains contested.
80. Women in royal genealogies: ABC 21 i:9ˊ–10ˊ, ABC 22 i:6, 12, ABC 1 i:40,
Shulgi Chronicle line 10 (Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, no. 48 with
previous literature); women in Assyrian-Babylonian relations: ABC 21 ii:33ˊ–37ˊ and
iii:17; Esarhaddon’s dead wife: ABC 1 iv:22 and ABC 14 26. I would like to thank Jacqueline Albrecht for these references.
81. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia, 174.
82. Muhammad Dandamaev, “Cassandane,” Encyclopaedia Iranica 5/1 (1990): 62;
Kuhrt, Persian Empire, 106.
118
WAERZEGGERS
Memory in the Nabonidus Chronicle
Much remains uncertain about the Nabonidus Chronicle, but it does
seem sensible to conclude that the manuscript that survives today is an
instance of Hellenistic Babylonian historiography. he rich intertextual
web between the Chronicle, other historical writings about Nabonidus and
Cyrus produced by Esagil’s learned community (including the Babyloniaca), original epigraphic materials in cuneiform available in Hellenistic
Babylonia, and Greek historical texts, indicates that the Chronicle belongs
in an active, living literary ield. Of course, it remains entirely possible
that some parts, big or small, were based on a sixth-century chronicle. But
even so, its topic, its narrative structure, its explanatory pretentions, and
its contact with other texts (Babylonian and Greek) all indicate that we are
looking at a product of creative engagement, not at the result of a passive
act of copying.
In order to understand the function of the Chronicle, this text should
be read neither as a factual report, nor as a piece of propaganda, but as history—that is, in the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga’s famous deinition,
as “the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself
of its past.”83 Put within its proper context, the Chronicle ofers a window
on how one particular community in Hellenistic Babylon constructed its
past. his is not a polished, authoritative account; rather we should see the
Chronicle as one voice among many. When we look beyond our individual
text and into its wider context, we discover that it was one of multiple
attempts at structuring history in meaningful sequences and in convincing
formats. he meaning that these texts tried to convey should not be sought
in how well these texts succeeded in reporting “actual” sixth-century
events, but in how these texts mattered in the contemporary, Hellenistic
Babylonian, world. he Nabonidus-Cyrus episode and the emergence of
the Persian Empire may have raised interest among Esagil’s learned community in view of that more recent global transformation, the one brought
about by Alexander, which equally redrew the political map and Babylon’s
place therein. As the priestly community of Esagil found itself once again
in the position of renegotiating its position within a new set of power relations, the past may have served both as a source of exempla for the present
83. Johan Huizinga, “A Deinition of the Concept of History,” in Philosophy and
History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer (ed. R. Klibansky and H. J. Patton; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1936), 1–10.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
119
and as a means to forge community bonds and group identity. hey did
not only write about Nabonidus and Cyrus, but also about other historical “royal pairs” whose confrontations had resulted in signiicant power
shits in the past.84 It is reasonable to explain this concern as a product of
hopes and realities in the present. his was a community that saw its history intimately linked to the history of royalty, and it wished to maintain
that legitimizing bond also in the future. he rich web of texts that these
scholars wrote on the topic of Nabonidus should be seen as a conscious
attempt to shape memory of this event in a world where native Babylonian
kingship had vanished since the time of this very king.
Works Cited
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “Berossus on Late Babylonian Historiography.”
Pages 116–49 in Special Issue of Oriental Studies: A Collection of Papers
on Ancient Civilizations of Western Asia, Asia Minor and North Africa.
Edited by Yushu Gong and Yiyi Chen. Beijing: University of Beijing,
2006.
———. “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians.” JNES 52 (1993):
241–61.
———. “An Episode in the Reign of the Babylonian Pretender Nebuchadnezzar IV.” Pages 17–26 in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor
of Matthew W. Stolper. Edited by Michael Kozuh et al. SAOC 68. Chicago: he Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2014.
———. “Nabonidus the Mad King: A Reconsideration of His Stelas from
Harran and Babylon.” Pages 137–66 in Representations of Political
Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in
the Ancient Near East. Edited by Marlies Heinz and Marian H. Feldman. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
———. he Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon. YNER 10. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989.
Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Leiden:
Brill, 2001.
Briant, Pierre. Histoire de l’empire perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris:
Fayard, 1996.
84. Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period.”
120
WAERZEGGERS
Brinkman, John A. “he Babylonian Chronicle Revisited.” Pages 73–104
in Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature
in Honor of William L. Moran. HSS 37. Edited by Tzvi Abusch, John
Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Burstein, Stanley M. he Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient
Near East 1.5. Malibu, Ca.: 1978.
Clancier, Philippe. Les bibliothèques en Babylonie dans la deuxième moitié
du Ier millénaire av. J.-C. AOAT 363. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009.
Dalley, Stephanie. “Herodotos and Babylon.” OLZ 91 (1996): 525–32.
Dandamaev, Muhammad. “Cassandane.” Encyclopaedia Iranica 5 (1990):
62.
Dandamaev, Muhammad A., and Vladimir G. Lukonin. he Culture and
Social Institutions of Ancient Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
De Breucker, Geert. “De Babyloniaca van Berossos.” Ph.D. diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2012.
———. “Berossos and the Mesopotamian Temple as Centre of Knowledge
during the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 13–23 in Learned Antiquity:
Scholarship and Society in the Near-East, the Greco-Roman World, and
the Early Medieval West. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 5.
Edited by A. A. MacDonald et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.
———. “Berossos between Tradition and Innovation.” Pages 637–57 in he
Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Edited by Karen Radner and
Eleanor Robson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
———. “Berossos: His Life and His Work.” Pages 15–28 in he World of
Berossos. Edited by Johannes Haubold et al. CLeO 5. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2013.
Drews, Robert. “he Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus.” Iraq 37 (1975):
39–55.
Driel, G. van. “he British Museum Sippar Collection: Babylonia 1882–
1893.” ZA 79 (1989): 102–17.
Eichmann, Ricardo, Hanspeter Schaudig, and Arnulf Hausleiter. “Archaeology and Epigraphy at Tayma (Saudi Arabia).” Arabian Archaeology
and Epigraphy 17 (2006): 163–76.
Finkel, Irving J. “he Cyrus Cylinder: he Babylonian Perspective.” Pages
4–34 in he Cyrus Cylinder: he King of Persia’s Proclamation from
Ancient Babylon. Edited by Irving J. Finkel. London: Tauris, 2013.
Frahm, Eckart. “Headhunter, Bücherdiebe und wandernde Gelehrte: Anmerkungen zum altorientalischen Wissenskultur im ersten
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
121
Jahrtausend v. Chr.” Pages 15–30 in Wissenskultur im Alten Orient:
Weltanschauung, Wissenschaten, Techniken, Technologien. Edited by
Hans Neumann and Susanne Paulus. CDOG 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Gallagher, William. “he Istanbul Stela of Nabonidus.” WZKM 86 (1996):
119–26.
George, Andrew R. “Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology.” BO 53
(1996): 363–95.
Gerber, Manuel. “Die Inschrit H(arran)1.A/B und die neubabylonische
Chronologie.” ZA 88 (1998): 72–93.
———. “A Common Source for the Late Babylonian Chronicles Dealing
with the Eighth and Seventh Centuries.” JAOS 120 (2000): 553–69.
Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. SBLWAW 19. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5. Locust
Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975.
———. Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto Semitic Texts and
Studies 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975.
———. “Chronicles and the Akītu Festival.” Pages 160–70 in Actes de la
XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Edited by André Finet.
Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970.
Haubold, Johannes. “Berossus.” Pages 107–16 in he Romance between
Greece and the East. Edited by Tim Whitmarsh and Stuart homson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
———. Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Huizinga, Johan. “A Deinition of the Concept of History.” Pages 1–10 in
Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer. Edited by
Raymond Klibansky and H. J. Patton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1936.
Joannès, Francis. “De Babylone à Sumer: Le parcours intellectuel des lettrés de la Babylonie récente.” Revue Historique 302 (2000): 693–717.
———. “L’écriture publique du pouvoir à Babylone sous Nabuchodonosor
II.” Pages 113–20 in Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident.
Edited by Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum et al. Topoi 1. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2011.
Kratz, Reinhard. “From Nabonidus to Cyrus.” Pages 143–56 in Ideologies
ad Intercultural Phenomena. Edited by Antonio Panaino and Giovanni
Pettinato. Melammu Symposia 3. Milan: Università di Bologna &
IsIao, 2002.
122
WAERZEGGERS
Kuhrt, Amélie. “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes.” Pages 112–38 in Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
———. “Cyrus the Great of Persia: Images and Realities.” Pages 169–91 in
Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change
and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Marlies Heinz
and Marian H. Feldman. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
———. he Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid
Period. London: Routledge, 2007.
Machinist, Peter, and Hayim Tadmor. “Heavenly Wisdom.” Pages 146–51
in he Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
W. Hallo. Edited by Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B.
Weisberg. Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1993.
McKitterick, Rosamond. History and Memory in the Carolingian World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Neujahr, Matthew. “When Darius Defeated Alexander: Composition and
Redaction in the Dynastic Prophecy.” JNES 64 (2005): 101–7.
———. Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World. BJS
354. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2012.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. “he Babylonian Evidence of Achaemenian Rule in
Mesopotamia.” he Cambridge History of Iran 2 (1985): 529–87.
Parker, Richard A., and Waldo H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology
626 B.C.–A.D. 75 Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1956.
Pohl, Walter. “History in Fragments: Montecassino’s Politics of Memory.”
Early Medieval Europe 10 (2001): 343–74.
Potts, Daniel T. “Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan.” Pages 7–28
in Birth of the Persian Empire. Edited by Vesta S. Curtis and Sarah
Stewart. he Idea of Iran 1. London: Tauris, 2005.
Reade, Julian E. Introduction to Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the
British Museum. Vol. 6: Tablets from Sippar 1, by Erle Leichty. London:
British Museum, 1986.
Sack, Ronald H. “he Nabonidus Legend.” RA 77 (1983): 59–67.
Schaudig, Hanspeter. Die Inschriten Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des
Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld enstandenen Tendenzschriten; Textausgabe und Grammatik. AOAT 256. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001.
Smith, Sidney. Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and
Downfall of Babylon. London: Methuen, 1924.
FACTS, PROPAGANDA, OR HISTORY?
123
Soden, Wolfram von. “Eine babylonische Volksüberlieferung von Nabonid in den Danielerzählungen.” ZAW 53 (1935): 81–89.
———. “Kyros und Nabonid: Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda.” Pages
61–68 in Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr
Fortleben. Edited by Heidemarie Koch and D. N. Mackenzie. AMIE
10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1983.
Spek, Robartus J. van der. “Berossus as a Babylonian Chronicler and Greek
Historian.” Pages 277–318 in Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World
View and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday. Edited by Robartus J. van der Spek. Bethesda, Md.: CDL,
2007.
———. “Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian Scholarship.”
Pages 289–346 in A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of Heleen
Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Edited by Wouter F. M. Henkelman and Amélie
Kuhrt. Achaemenid History 13. Leiden: NINO, 2003.
Tolini, Gauthier. “La Babylonie et l’Iran: Les relations d’une province avec
le coeur de l’empire achéménide (539–331 avant notre ère).” Ph.D.
diss., Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2011.
Vanderhoot, David. “Cyrus II, Liberator or Conqueror? Ancient Historiography concerning Cyrus in Babylon.” Pages 351–71 in Judah and the
Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred
Oeming. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Waters, Matt. “Cyrus and the Achaemenids.” Iran 42 (2004): 91–101.
———. “Cyrus and the Medes.” Pages 63–71 in he World of Ancient Persia.
Edited by John Curtis and St John Simpson. London: Tauris, 2010.
———. “Parsumaš, Šušan, and Cyrus.” Pages 285–96 in Elam and Persia.
Edited by Javier Álvarez-Mon and Mark B. Garrison. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Waerzeggers, Caroline. “he Babylonian Chronicles: Classiication and
Provenance.” JNES 71 (2012): 285–98.
———. “Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period: Performance and
Reception.” Pages 181–222 in Exile and Return: he Babylonian Context. Edited by J. Stökl and C. Waerzeggers. BZAW 478. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2015.
———. “he Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives.’”
AfO 50 (2003/2004): 150–73.
Wiseman, Donald J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the
British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
124
WAERZEGGERS
Zawadzki, Stefan. “he End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data
Concerning Nabonidus’ Order to Send the Statues of Gods to Babylon.” JNES 71 (2012): 47–52.
———. “he Portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus in heir(?) Chronicle: When
and Why the Present Version Was Composed.” Pages 142–54 in Who
Was King? Who Was Not King? he Rulers and Ruled in the Ancient
Near East. Edited by Petr Charvát and Petra Maříková Vlčková.
Prague: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the
Czech Republic, 2010.