This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East / Classical Stub‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Iran Stub‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I've gone through all the English-language translations of the full text of the Nabonidus Chronicle back to 1925 (there's an earlier translation of 1882 that I've not been able to locate yet). Here's how they treat the disputed line - the formatting is exactly as in the originals:

A few points:

• There are obvious similarities between the translations of Grayson, Brosius and Kuhrt. However, they're not simply copying each other. Brosius and Kuhrt agree with Grayson's translation of this particular line but disagree on other lines. Many lines elsewhere in the translations are markedly different.

• All of the translations published since 1925 agree on three points: that (1) there was a battle between Babylonians and Persians, (2) that the Persians won, and (3) that there was a mass killing at Opis. Lambert's recently published paper appears to be the only published source that disputes point 3.

• Every post-1925 translation apart from Oppenheim puts the blame for the massacre on Cyrus. Oppenheim stands out as the only one to blame Nabonidus.

• The key changes between Oppenheim and the later translations appear to be that:

• All later translators definitively blame Cyrus for the massacre;
• The word that Oppenheim translates as "revolted" is interpreted by all later translators (including Lambert) as "retreated";
• The later translators (including Lambert) all reject Oppenheim's translation of a word as "confused" (Smith seems to think this is "burnt with fire") and translate it as "plundered" or "pillaged" instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the so-called "translations" by Brosius and Kuhrt, neither of whom are linguists, are nothing but word-by-word copies of Grayson's translation. Also, if anything, Smith's translation proves Lambert's interpretation that "people" here means "people of Akkad" (as in his entourage and soldiers). Khoikhoi 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That struck me immediately. Also I have seen in some of Kurht's works that she clearly attributes Grayson. Why would she attribute Grayson if she did her own translations? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's funny; I think that I have at least several ounces of common sense, and I doubt that Brosius and Kuhrt's translations are "word-by-word copies" of Grayson's translation. (You seem to be alleging that they're plagiarists!) ChrisO mentions that Brosius and Kuhrt differ from Grayson in other passages; clearly, they're translating the Akkadian themselves, but it's inevitable that the translations are going to be similar in most passages and identical in some. If you took a relatively unadorned ancient Greek or Latin text, like the Parian Marble or something, and had several people translate it, I imagine that there would be a lot of similarity in the results.

Also, I don't see the point of saying that Brosius, Kuhrt, or anyone else isn't a linguist. You don't need to be a linguist to be able to understand and translate an ancient language. Nor do you need to be a linguist to dispute the reading of a text, or the meaning of individual words within a text. You just need to be conversant with the relevant languages. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Kurht's book in Googlebooks and did a search on Grayson: [1] In fact she seems to credit him as a source. Also Brosius. I have seen the same in other of her works. There is no clear indication to me that she translated the works herself. Can ChrisO provide a book and page number where Kurht says specifically that she has translated the whole of the Chronicle (or at least the disputed section) herself? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In her book "The Ancient Near East" she references Grayson fully 16 times. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Kuhrt's translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle appears on pp. 50-51, and Google Books tells me "Pages 50-51 are not part of this book preview." However, p. 53 is a commentary upon the translation, and there, Grayson is cited as follows: "Translation of ll.24-8 follows the new reading, after collation, of Andrew George (1996:379-80); it is preferable to the rendering of the lines by Grayson (ABC, no.7). The passage indicates that Cyrus, wearing Persian (= 'Elamite') robes, installed his designated successor, Cambyses..." Here we have Kuhrt disagreeing with the reading of Grayson, so it should be fairly obvious that she's not reproducing his translation. Nor is there anything here, or in anything else anyone has said on this page, that suggests that Kuhrt is not translating the text herself. ChrisO has already quoted her statement that she retranslated everything herself. There's nothing ambiguous about that statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the "(re)translation" line here:

"I have (re)translated everything although inevitably my translations rely heavily on existing ones to which reference is made. pg xxx The Persian Empire. [2] Nor is it surprising that the passage sounds just exactly like Brosius' translation as well, whom she thanks in the introduction: "I owe a debt of gratitude to many people ... I should like to thank ....Maria Brosius...advice and correcting sections of the manuscript," -- and whose translations she credits at least 24 times. My guess? Kurht "relied heavily" on Brosius' translation, and Brosius relied on Grayson's. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, all this speculation is kind of amusing. You don't have all the translations in front of you, do you? I do, and I can tell you that if you put them side by side there are very substantial differences. It's true that Grayson, Brosius and Kuhrt translate the disputed line in the same way. But that merely means that they all agree on how that particular line should be read. There are plenty of other places where they present different translations. So it's obvious that they're not copying each other; they're reviewing previous translations, using the same interpretation where they agree with it, and using different interpretations where they disagree. As for "why would she attribute Grayson?", are you serious? Grayson is widely regarded as the standard translation of the Babylonian Chronicles. Of course she's going to reference Grayson, as do Brosius, Glassner, Tavernier (a Dutch translation from 2003 that I haven't included here) and of course Lambert. Historians don't operate in a vacuum. Incidentally, Grayson references his own predecessors, Oppenheim and Smith. Does this mean he's merely relying on them? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again the fact of the matter is Kuhrt relies on Glassner and she is not an Akkadian expert. We can take a look at google books[3].

She is referencing Glassner, Tavernier, and Brosius. She could have retranslated it from French (Glassner) or another language.

Those are her sources. You have failed to prove that Kuhrt is a notable figure in Akkadian studies. She has not produced a single journal paper on the matter of Akkadian and thus her translation/reliance upon past translations can not be put in the same league as people that know Akkadian . Until you prove that Kuhrt is an Assyrologist and is an expert in matter of Akkadian studies, she simply is not reliable. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the comment: "You don't need to be a linguist to be able to understand and translate an ancient language. Nor do you need to be a linguist to dispute the reading of a text, or the meaning of individual words within a text. You just need to be conversant with the relevant languages.". You can not be really converstant in an dead language. And a scholar of Latin/Greel languages is more reliable with its translation than a non-scholar in Latin/Greek. In very well known history departments (say university of Toronto or Harvard..) there are experts in Old Akkadian. It is a sub-field by itself. The bottom line is that the book of Kuhrt has Latin, Greek, Old Persian, Hebrew, Assyrian, Akkadian and etc. translations. It is a very general book and she is not an expert in any of these languages, so it can not be put in the same league as Grayson or Lambert. I do think for a such controversial matter, it is important to have experts in Akkadian language to decide which translation is correct.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Smith, Oppenheim, and {Grayson, Brosius, Kurt} translations: it is obvious there is enough doubt in the original to allow quite different translations. Oppenheim points at Nabonidus, one talks of "fire" and burning.... Glassner adds a place name not in any of the others. If the interpretation can vary so, how is it that at least three are totally identical? Kurht acknowledges "relying heavily on others" for her translation. If you are "(re)translating" something, why would you need to rely on anyone? You simply look at the original work and translate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepahesgar, why do you keep ignoring that the issue is not 'which translation is correct', as though it was some sort of mathematical or logic problem, but 'which is more likely to be historically accurate' since key words involved have more than one meaning? Hasn't that been made clear by a couple of experts so far? Same thing for Tundrabuggy, that isn't the way translation works, even with modern languages. Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that the understanding of the signs being translated has developed over the last 82 years, as you would expect. Cuneiform is extremely complex - there are anything up to 1,500 separate recognised signs. It's not like Latin, where the identity of a character is unambiguous (and Akkadian doesn't work in the same way anyway). The word translated by Smith as "burnt" is clearly being interpreted a different way by all the subsequent translations, most likely because the sign itself is being recognised differently. First you have to transliterate the line from cuneiform to identify the words being represented. You then have to work out the most likely translation of those words.

Kuhrt evidently relies on Glassner because he gives a transliteration of the entire chronicle from the original cuneiform; he renders the disputed line as bala.ki sar sar un^meš gaz. Only a few sources - Smith, Oppenheim, Glassner - provide transliterations; Glassner's is the most recent. (Lambert cites basically the same transliteration, so that isn't in dispute.) Brosius and Kuhrt clearly agree with Grayson's translation of this line. If a translator thinks a particular translation is correct, why change it? This doesn't mean that they are simply copying. There are plenty of other places in the text where they disagree with Grayson's translation. Complicating things further, as Dougweller notes, Akkadian words can have multiple meanings. Note that Oppenheim translates a particular word as "revolted". All the other later translations render the same word as "pillaged" or "plundered". The transliteration doesn't appear to be different between Oppenheim and Lambert, but the later translators evidently agree that the appropriate translation for the word in question is some kind of synonym for "looted" / "plundered" / "pillaged".

As for the place name, Tundrabuggy, Upû is Opis. "Opis" is merely a Greek rendering of the name Upû, just as "Babylon" is a Greek rendering of the name Babilu. See the very first sentence of Opis. Glassner has merely chosen to use the Akkadian name rather than the better-known Greek name. Both are correct. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see my error with the place name. But I still have serious problems with the differing translations, "the people" "the population" "the confused inhabitants" one translator believes that Nabonidus is the culprit...the population (people, confused (?) inhabitants...) leave, and then they are slaughtered or massacred by Cyrus or (possibly) Nabonidus...? and why isn't Lambert's translation on your chart? It is a valid translation by a highly respected translator and Akkadian expert.

Now Chris, Help me to understand this: "my translations rely heavily on existing ones." When I translate (or re-translate) a manuscript, I have the manuscript in front of me, not other peoples' manuscripts. And if I am translating myself, and expect credit for my translations, then the translations are totally my own and I should not have to "rely heavily" on others' translations. In fact I would not rely on them at all. Now it is possible that Kuhrt looked over a number of versions and decided which one she most approved of. She cites Brosius' translations at least 2 dozen times, and says that Brosius corrected her manuscript.

To Akilleus I would add that if we are going to make a judgment regarding Cyrus based on a few words in an ancient text, it is important for those words to be "correct" -- or at any rate demonstrate consensus among translators. That is one reason Nepah's point regarding the specific look that Lambert took of this particular passage is so important. Lambert is a highly respected authority in the field. If he sat down and (re) translated that particular passage and came up with a different interpretation, we have to sit up and take notice. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Dougweller has said, the same word can have different meanings, and different translators have interpreted the contexts differently. Don't forget that words in one language may not map precisely onto words in another language. What our translators are doing is looking at the different meanings of the Akkadian words and trying to work out from the context which one is the most appropriate.

Why do you suppose that your personal experiences in a different language are relevant to those of our translators? We're talking about a very specialised field here. I've found only eight published translations, published in English and Dutch, from the last 125 years of research. Is there any reason why Kuhrt shouldn't draw on previous translations or acknowledge Brosius's help? We know already that she's not merely copying Grayson, since her translation of the full text is significantly different, even if a few individual lines may be the same. I find it very strange that people seem to be implying (per Nepah) that she must be lying about translating it or (per you) must be a plagiarist.

Lambert's paper doesn't appear in that table because it isn't a translation of the full text of the Nabonidus Chronicle, unlike all the other items I've listed. I've listed all the items that three reliable sources (Smith, Grayson and Kuhrt) list as translations of the Chronicle.

Nepah's entire argument about Lambert is an appeal to authority, a classic logical fallacy. Yes, Lambert is an expert in Akkadian. But this does not mean that he is correct. We have no business deciding whether he's correct! It's not up to us to "sit up and take notice". Our undue weight policy relies on the prominence of differing POVs, not on the "authority" of the person making a statement. Right now, the only source advocating Lambert's POV is Lambert himself. It's literally a tiny-minority viewpoint - you can't get much smaller than one man. Also, we are not making a judgment about Cyrus. We are simply reporting the judgment that mainstream historians have made. And as the table shows, every full-text translator since 1925, bar Oppenheim, have made a consistent judgment about Cyrus's actions at Opis, even if they disagree on some of the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tundrabuggy, there needs to be a source to show that there is a consensus among translators and there is a majority and minority POV about the specific line. On Kuhrt, we have had this discussion and she is not a noted linguist of Akkadian and has relied on other translators and has indicated so. She is simply not in the same class as Lambert or Grayson when it comes to the Akkadian language. She is tertiary source. Again, unless we mention the complexity of Akkadian and that there is no correct translation (per Doug Welter I agree)(there never will be because it is a dead language and we do not know its context and symbols 100%) in the introduction of the section, the mediation should go on. I have proposed actually that we mention this fact. Furthermore, to claim a majority POV or minority POV with regards to this line needs a source by itself that says majority of scholars say this and minority say that. The fact is only few scholars have translated this line of Akkadian(among thousands of line) and only one of them has actually written an article solely for this line and delved into linguistic/historical arguments. I would be more flexible obviously if the recommendations of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz with regards to the nature of the source itself is included in the introduction of the section. Yesterday and Today, I have e-mailed two scholars in Akkadian from two major universities. (I have CC'ed admins as well and what they say will have a large effect on my POV). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are other translations for Tundrabuggy: "In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The people of Akkad raised a revolt ; people were killed;" Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, Published by Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1903.

(does not say who did the killing).

Another POV: "In the month of Tesri(October), says the chronicle, 'Cyrus did battle at Opis on the Tigris against the troops of Akkad' One battle broke the Babylonian king's paid army; and there was no popular resistance anywhere. Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels'" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984

Another POV by Pierre Briant, a world famous achaemenid scholar: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously).

Another POV: "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007)

Unless there is a source that states "The majority of Akkadian scholars view the line to be correctly translated this way...", then we can not establish minority and majority POV. What we should do is state the various translations from Akkadian scholars and I believe since Lambert's translation is from 2007 and he is the world's leading expert and his translation has provided linguistic analysis/commentary and historical context and is devoted to the single line that is contested, his point of view should have primacy. Of course I have e-mailed two scholars this weekend and I hope they respond back.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last two quotes aren't translations, they're paraphrases. All of these have a massacre following the battle, which is good evidence that this is the standard interpretation of the meaning of the verb daku. Obviously, they differ about who was responsible for the slaughter. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Who" is responsible for what is the whole issue here. It makes a huge difference whether it is Cyrus or Nabonidus... As for paraphrases, they are paraphrases by scholars and their interpretation of these matters matters. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is sufficient proof but I would like to see evidence of other scholars actually citing a Kuhrt translation, as they do Grayson or Glassner or Oppenheim.... Not simply from her books, because she is very prolific and does muchas interpretation which others do quote as supportive of a view. But something like "From the translation by A. Kuhrt...." etc. I did find an interesting on-line review of one of her books (one she has written with a colleague)(From Samarkhand to Sardis. A new approach to the Seleucid empire.) here: [4] in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review (very prestigious). Waldemar Heckel, from the University of Calgary, takes her to task for "revisionism" and says, what is the crux of the whole matter to me, put much better than I could:

But the "near-easternism" of the authors, like so many new approaches (especially, those which can be labeled "-isms"), is perhaps a little too aggressive. One approach should not replace the other entirely. The "hellenic" contribution, both ancient and modern, to our knowledge of Seleukid history must continue to exist, juxtaposed and yet in harmony with Near Eastern evidence and the interpretations of Near Eastern scholars, just as in the past hellenism found an accommodation with non-Greek culture. "New approaches" are fine, indeed desirable, but they are at the same time little more than new ways of asking the old questions: for the most part, the answers continue to elude us.

Kuhrt's "new approach" in interpreting the Nabonidus Chronicle is to paint Cyrus the Great as Cyrus, just your average Joe tyrant. It is this same intention that would see this article making a claim that is disputed by other respected translators(Oppenheim for one), as well as scholars (see Nepa's list of interpreting scholars above.) As for Lambert's claim, it is new, and their has been no criticism of it as yet. It is clearly different from the others in a major way, but it is within the tradition of Cyrus history, and cannot be dismissed offhand. One cannot say it is a appeal to authority, any more than referencing the authority of Kuhrt or Grayson is such a call. No difference at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misreading of the review (by the way, BMCR isn't a particularly prestigious place for book reviews to appear). The "revisionism" here is the attempt to write the history of the Near East that gives pride of place to Near Eastern sources, rather than giving Greek sources pride of place, as was done in the past. Whether Kuhrt's view of Cyrus is "revisionist" or not, I don't know enough to say, but this has nothing to do with what Heckel is saying in the review. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Tundrabuggy. You actually nailed it. In your review it clearly states:What we get, in fact, is a revisionist view of the empire in the third century: not a tottering colossus destined to collapse, but a vibrant and cohesive unit in which Greek and non-Greek cultures and systems are juxtaposed. and In this case, I have expressed disappointment that this is not a history of the Seleukid empire, at least not in the traditional sense More troublesome is the authors' attempt, unsupported by any evidence, as far as I can see, to restrict the Parthians to the modern border region of northern Iran/southern Turkmenistan, "specifically the area including the two ranges of mountains, the Kopet Dagh range in the north ... and the south Khorasan (or Binalud) range" (p. 84).(Waldemar Heckel of University of Calgary.). You see history once it is written and analyzed and agreed upon, is very boring and there is not much a historian can do except repeat the basic facts. Specially if it is based on few old sources and chronicles and there is nothing left to examine (except perhaps new archaeological finds that might yield something new). Some authors thus have to make a name for themselves, try non-traditional/revisionist approaches and this is the case with Kuhrt where revisionism/non-tradiational viewpoints are proposed. She has not produced a single paper or journal on Akkadian. But based on inconclusive translation of Grayson she came to the conclusion that the bible, herodotus, xenophonon and all classical sources were propaganda tools, and the Cyrus was the average joe tyrant as you pointed out and Xenophon, Herotodus, Bible, Aramaic sources, Plato(who praises Cyrus) were all victims of a propaganda(I presume Cyrus had several Fox news channels so the Greeks who were rivals of Persians would like him and write books in his praise or perhaps has learned to spend $300 million dollar in another country to win heart and minds) and magically, after 2500+, this fact was discovered(and all this reasoning is due to that faulty translation). For example note Plato(A Greek who at the time were rivals of Persians):Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community(Laws). Imagine that now. After 2500+ years, suddenly a revisionist comes and claims everything about Cyrus is propaganda. They won't be able to explain why the city of Opis was flourishing in Achaemenid times and the simple arguments given by Lambert basically will not go well with the revisionist effort. Her view is revisionists and the biggest proof of this revisionism is the one line translation that was debunked by Lambert. Based on this simple one line which is disputed, she basically took Grayson's translation and dismissed all other sources about Cyrus(not only other translations but all other historical sources). In the end, I will again quote the fact that there is no consensus on the disputed line and ChrisO tried to use the fact that Grayson is widely cited (I can say Oppenheim is more widely cited if not the same) to basically minimize all other views and translations. Until there is clear scholarship on the disputed line that says: "The consensus of scholars is X", then we can not claim consensus or majority POV. Kuhrt certainly can be quoted but she is not a linguist/philologist of Akkadian and we know she is no authority relative to Lambert. So she is not even secondary source. To give her primacy over Lambert(known for expertise in Akkadian with many papers/books in the language) is just aggressive POV pushing. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way among the other viewpoints I provided, the one that was from Briant is very significant. Pierre Briant, a world famous achaemenid scholar: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously). If it is a matter of Achaemenid history "bible", then it is Briant's book, not Kuhrt or Wiesehofer. To quote Jona Lendering(which is obviously liked by the other side): Today, Achaemenid studies are dominated by one man: the French scholar Pierre Briant Unfortunately some users here will not differentiate between an Akkadian expert like Lambert and a person who does not have a single journal in Akkadian like Kuhrt. Nor will they themselves differentiate between paraphrases of Pierre Briant in Achaemenid studies and paraphrases of much lesser scholar. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, despite Kuhrt's unambiguous statement in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period that she retranslated all sources herself, we have one editor saying that she doesn't know Akkadian, so she can't have translated this passage, and another saying that she copied her translation from someone else. According to these editors, Kuhrt is either a liar or a plagiarist; either way, her translation is not to be trusted and is of no account for this article. Both of you are saying that she is a dishonest scholar. This is a remarkable accusation, and unless you have some solid evidence, I would advise you to stop making it--among other things, it strikes me as a violation of BLP.

Let me draw everyone's attention to Kuhrt's article "Nabonidus and the Babylonian priesthood", in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, eds. Mary Beard and John North (Cornell 1990), pp. 117-156. This article covers Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in some detail, and has a 2-page section on the Battle of Opis (longer than Lambert's article). Kuhrt compares translations of the disputed passage by Smith, Oppenheim, and Grayson, and argues that Grayson's interpretation of the text is correct (based on the historical context, rather than textual or linguistic considerations). So the assertion that Lambert is the only scholar to write specifically about this passage is incorrect; Kurht has written about it in more detail than Lambert.

In addition, I observe that this article covers some Akkadian texts in extensive detail, down to the meaning of specific lexical items (e.g. sange, mar bane). Therefore, Nepaheshgar's assertion that Kuhrt is not a scholar of Akkadian is false. I assume that Nepaheshgar made this error because he was unfamiliar with Kuhrt's work, rather than through deliberate omission, but it is not a good idea to make blanket statements about a scholar's work unless you are familiar with everything they've written.

(Another, much more minor problem with Nepaheshgar's statements is that we're not dealing with "Old Akkadian" in this text--this is from a later period, Old Akkadian is from the Bronze Age.) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again as I said, Kuhrt is not a noted Akkadian linguists. I knew she has done analysis on the battle of Opis but she is not a linguistic expert in Akkadian and she does not claim to be one. My claim is based on the notability of her in publishing papers/journals in Akkadian and I called for the other side to provide sources where she has published journals on the Akkadian language. Lambert has the added advantage that he is an Akkadain expert where-as Kuhrt is not. Grayson, Lambert, Oppenheim are Akkadian experts, Kuhrt is a historian but she is not an Akkadian expert and she is not noted in the scholarly community to be an Akkadian expert. That is easily provable if you look at her publication. By "Old Akkadian" I meant Old in the historic sense. I know this is relatively new Akkadian. But sometimes not only me but others have referred to it as "old Akkadian". The Old is to emphasize it is dead/ancient rather than its various stages. And you are misinterpreting our word on Kuhrt. We have said that Kuhrt has referenced Glassner and several others and her translation is exactly like theirs for that line and she has said she based her translation on others. But she is not known as an expert of Akkadian like Lambert or Grayson. Her book has quotes in Old Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin but she is not a linguist and not noted for contributing to the linguistic knowledge of any of these old languages. So the accusation of "dishonesty" needs to stop, she has quoted and relied upon several older translations and she is not a noted expert on the level of Lambert. Her translation for the disputed line is exact as her sources which she relies heavily upon (as she noted). Her knowledge on Akkadian is just like her knowledge in Old persian, Hebrew, Aramaic and etc., she is not a noted linguist/philologist in those languages. For example, I know enough again on Old Persian to say that although her book has lots of Old Persian quotes, she has never written journals or made contribution to better linguistic understanding of Old Persian. it is the same with Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Old Greek which are quoted by her book. Sure anyone can use dictionary and Old Persian 101 to tweak it little, but she relies heavily upon all the sources, and she is not a noted linguist/philologist. If I am wrong and she is a noted linguist/philologist of Akkadian and other ancient languages (and her personal webpage does not claim it to be so), then please show us the journals she has conributed to in these old Languages.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue remains the same - the translation depends upon the historical context, and the above is a red herring. Take it to the RSN. Doug Weller (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a referenced sentence in the article which reads > But other historians regard the second part of the account factual, while the first part contains a an earlier timeline, or as most agree Herodotus (based on his accurate description of Babylon) may have ment a two-week semi-siege after Opis.

It is referenced to a page in a book which says:

long attracted interest in terms of its reliability. No doubt elements of folklore infuse the narrative, and the modern historian should retain a healthy skepticism about its details. On the other hand, Herodotus shows a frequent interest in military tactics designed to exploit or overcome river and water barriers and can dismiss those that seem improbable to him (e.g., 1.75). In fact, Herodotus states that Darius I attempted Cyrus's strategy of lowering the Euphrates to capture Babylon, but Babylonian vigilance prevented the success of such an assault on the city (3.152). In any case, the historian should ask whether Herodotus's reconstruction represents merely a colorful tale. He was fairly well informed about defenses and building techniques at Baby-Ion and connects them plausibly to Cyrus's strategy. He offers a detailed description of the construction of the quay walls along the river in his description of the reign of Queen Nitocris. His description rests on precise knowledge about Babylonian building techniques (e.g., 1.186). We know from the inscriptions of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar, and Nabonidus that the Neo-Babylonian kings exerted massive energies in constructing quay walls of baked bricks set in bitumen, particularly along the cast bank of the Euphrates (Cole 1994: 93-95)." The main reason for these construction projects was the high water table at Babylon and the danger that the Euphrates, which bisected the city, would shift out of its channel or erode the fortifications (Ber-gamini 1977: 111-52; Koldewey 1990; Cole 1994). Herodotus also accurately notes the existence of a bridge over the Euphrates, which the German excavations at the city uncovered (Koldewey 1990: 155-57). Herodotus knew that the builders in Babylon had the ability to reduce the water level of the river to construct the quay walls. This too is confirmed by excavations, which reveal that Nabonidus's quay wall "was built almost entirely in the river bed" (Bergamini 1977: 128).

Herodotus then explicitly states that Cyrus adopted the procedure of lowering the river as a prelude to investing Babylon:

he posted his army at the place where the river enters the city, and another part of it where the stream issues from the city, and bade his men enter the city by the channel ot tin- Euphrates when they should see it to be loidable.... He himself marched away ... and when he came to the

1. Herodnius had exact knowledge of the Neo-Babylonians' use of bitumen and reed meshing in the baked brick walls: "using hot bitumen (or cement and interposing layers of wattled reeds at every thirtieth course ot bricks, they built first the border of the fosse and then the wall itself in the same fashion" (1.179). MacGinni* notes i hat the reeds generally were interposed at smaller intervals (1986:75).

I'm not clear how the sentence is derived from the source, or what a 'semi-siege' is. Doug Weller (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the fault of the user who put the two sentences before I put my last sentence, they said Herodotus' description of how Babylon(city) was taken is wrong, I say NOT;

1. Herodotus cannot be proven wrong, because no source says how the CITY of babylon was taken (that is against the description of Herodotus) he is therefore our only source.

2. As said in the book, Herodotus probably went to Babylon himself because he had an accurate perception of it.

3. He does not exactly say the city of Babyon was besieged, so as a counterattack to that wrong sentence I posted the last sentence in the battle section to rebute or neutralize that earlier sentence about Herodotus' description.

4. I will take semi-seige, and replace it with a siege, thanks Doug for pointing out my mistake of a reconciliation phrase to the earlier sentences.

5. I will therefore not let the earlier sentences get away with their treachery.

And that is it.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

• Professor. John Huehnergard[5] of Harvard University: I suspect that Prof. Lambert's analysis is preferable; but late Bablyonian is not my area of expertise. You should ask Prof. Paul-Alain Beaulieu of the University of Toronto, who may also be able to supply the email of Prof. Grayson, which is not given in the usual lists of Assyriologists. Or contact Prof. Matthew Stolper at Chicago
• My comments: Two admins were CC'ed. More opinions from recognized Professor's will hopefully be coming.

You are wasting your time and theirs, Nepaheshgar. Unless their views are published in reliable third-party sources - such as a book or journal - they can't be used in this or any other article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The "two admins" who you cc'd would be well advised to tell you this. Also, by your own criteria, you shouldn't be using anyone who isn't "an expert in Akkadian", should you? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not joking! I believe it is very important to see what modern scholars think, irregardless. As per expert, late Akkadian or Babylonian is not the expertise of this Professor. But let us compare the two resumes. "John Huehnergard, Professor of Semitic Philology"His research interests are focused on the historical and comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, especially of their morphology and their dialectology. Among the Semitic languages, he has concentrated primarily on Akkadian, and secondarily on Ugaritic, classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez), ancient Aramaic dialects, and classical Hebrew. He is also interested in the study of modern Semitic languages (especially modern Ethiopian Semitic and Neo-Aramaic), in ancient Egyptian, in the larger Afro-Asiatic language family to which Semitic and Egyptian belong, in theoretical aspects of comparative and historical linguistics, and in the history of writing and literacy. Publications include Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, The Akkadian of Ugarit, A Grammar of Akkadian, and articles such as "Comparative Semitic Linguistics," "Old South Arabian Texts in the Harvard Semitic Museum," "What is Aramaic?," and "Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel." He teaches courses in Semitic linguistics and in various Semitic languages.. Now please compare it to this [6] from Amelie Kuhrt: My areas of expertise lie in the social, cultural and political history of the ancient Middle East (c.3000-100 BC), especially the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Seleucid empires. and just look at the book review mentioned by me and TB above.

:What this exactly proves is that we need people with expertise in Babylonian (very late form of Akkadian). Note the humility of the Professor, with such an impressive CV in semitic languages (he even has a book on Old Akkadian Gammer and Language) and yet refers me to two Professors who are known experts in the field for that era of Akkadian (Babylonian). I believe this point actually helps my case that what counts is expert translators (like Lambert). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a question whose answer depends upon knowledge of the historical context? From what I've garnered, that's the most important thing. You still don't understand what is involved in translation. But we need reliable sources in any case and it is not up to us to decide which one is best. Doug Weller (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct to an extent and I agree. But please note this statement by Lambert:The brevity of the last sentence is characteristic of the style of these late Babylonian chronicles.. So I think experience in translating Babylonian obviously is important and knowledge of the "style of these late Babylonian chronicles" seems to be important along with historical context.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a new approach to resolve this dispute. We've been arguing here about how to present individual translations and quotations from those translations. This has resulted in the description of the battle getting bogged down in a lengthy description of a (really quite minor) difference of opinion between translators. Let's sidestep this by not presenting individual translations or quoting at length from the Nabonidus Chronicle. Instead, let's simplify by summarising what the translations as a whole say, and where they disagree, summarising the disagreement without going into detail about who says what or attempting to endorse any particular version. I suggest the following wording to replace what is currently under "The battle":

The Nabonidus Chronicle records that the battle took place in the month of Tashritu (27 September-27 October) "at Opis on the [bank of the] Tigris." It does not provide any details of the course of the battle, the disposition of the forces on either side or the casualties inflicted, other than that the battle involved a Persian army under Cyrus and "the army of Akkad" (meaning the Babylonians). The outcome was clearly a Babylonian defeat, possibly a rout, as the Babylonian army was forced to retreat and is not mentioned again in the Chronicle. Following the battle the Persian forces "took plunder" from the defeated Babylonians. Most translations of the Chronicle also describe a massacre of "the people", though translators dispute which side was responsible and who was killed - the population of Opis or the retreating Babylonian army.

Also, we should really move the description of events after the battle - i.e. the captures of Sippar and Babylon - into the "Aftermath" section, as they are (obviously) not part of the battle itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisO. Hope it is going well. Okay can you give me a sample of that edit in your talkpage. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly make the edits you are recommending and if we don't agree we can always go back to the disputed version. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to make something clear here first, I am going to change the date of the invasion route on the image, not the date of the battle. As the image itself is not trying to show when the battle occurred, but from when the invasion began to the when the battle begin which is for me January-October 539 BC.

And here is why, A.T Olmstead says in his book, The History of the Persian Empire, on a page I can not remember and can not reference because Google Books will not let me see it, but I have the book, and it is a celebrated book, I am sure you have heard about it before. Okay, lets get to the point, under the section of Cyrus's invasion of Babylon he says Cyrus was at the border which is based on the cuneiform evidence and his insight that Cyrus was on the border before the snows of winter 540 BC, meaning (as he explains later) a month before 539 BC. But then he enters the Babylonian lands in January (which then is the month he begins his march to Opis in October and then Babylon) and fights his first battle in February, and below is the evidence for the first battle.

On Livius.org, it has (as you may know many historical articles) the translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle which says sometime in February Cyrus made an attack on the ill prepared troops of Nabonidus, as even Olmstead mentions in his book, that is why I even knew about it. And Olmstead goes further on to say that Nabonidus (after fleeing the battle) transports the Gods he worshipped to other southern cities for protection, and all this happened before Opis. So just remember this last sentence for the rest of your life, that just because not a lot of people know about something does not mean it is not true, like saying more people say this and that, the battle in February is a perfect example that even the best historians on the subject just copy each other and do not do research, therefore they forget to even mention the earlier battle in their books, you know what I mean, thanks. Scroll all the way down and read the tiny line just before the Battle of Opis.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

OK, now I see where you're getting this from. The line in question is very fragmentary, and the translators all seem to disagree on how to approach it.

Date	Translator	Text	Source
1925	Smith	"... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..."	Babylonian Historical Texts
1950	Oppenheim	"... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..."	Ancient Near Eastern Texts
1975	Grayson	"... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..."	Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
2004	Glassner	"[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s [...]."	Mesopotamian Chronicles
2007	Kuhrt	"[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia(?) ...]"	The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

So as you can see, none of the translators agree with each other on this line. It's simply not true to say that "the best historians on the subject just copy each other and do not do research" - that's not true generally and not true in this case. Olmstead's book is quite old (1959) and isn't informed by more recent translations or historians - it's unsafe to rely on such an old work without looking at what modern historians and translators say. Because this part of the tablet is so fragmentary, nobody seems to have been able to draw any firm conclusions from it, though several do discuss it speculatively. The only points on which they agree is that it mentions Uruk, it probably mentions the Tigris, it mentions a country (though it's unclear which one) and it mentions some sort of military event. It's unclear whether those separate points are in fact linked, i.e. that there was a Persian attack on Uruk. If you have a look at the last paragraph I wrote in the "Background" section, I've already summarised this: "The chronicle records that prior to the battle, Nabonidus had ordered cult statues from outlying Babylonian cities to be brought into the capital, suggesting that the war had begun possibly in 540 BC; there are possible references to hostile action in the Uruk region in the winter of 540-539, and a possible reference to Persia."

Note also that Uruk is in the far south of Mesopotamia. The map shows Cyrus advancing from the far north from Gutium (per Xenophon), to Opis, Sippar and Babylon (per the Nabonidus Chronicle). Labelling it as the route he took from February is thus not only speculative, since the translators don't agree on that, it's inaccurate. There's no indication that Cyrus's advance from the north took place as early as February - the only date that is attested, as far as I know, is September/October per the Nabonidus Chronicle. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about hypocr...

I hope I am not wrong, but wasn't it ChrisO that disliked the new translation of Lambert over Graysons? And now why would ChrisO like new translations that put Cyrus's first victory against Babylon into a little dispute? I do not get it.

Firstly, I think you are mixing were each translation is coming from, please read below, and do not forget there is a seperate (which I will show near the end) Chronicle which Nabonidus defeats the Sea Country after a short invasion, so it has nothing to do with Cyrus. And the below is from Livius.org.

[Eleventh year (545/544): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.]

[large lacuna, containing years #12, #13, #14, #15]

[... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack.]

(Note, the line above can only belong to year #16 which is 540-539 BC, because it comes after lacuna year #15 which is 541 BC, comman sense. And this is what Olmstead says, and probably others that would now agree with him and do (because based on his writings, his students updated the book and finished it for him (because Olmstead died) and his translation of the text is from 1960 which places it right before Grayson's, and all the other translations you put after Grayson say 'Persia made an attack killed or defeated they did', this is what he says in his book, p. 49, line 20+;)

"Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."

(More evidence of massive support for Cyrus in the Babylon (I can say Babylon and not Babylonia because I can differenciate between city and state), because he brought the statues of the Gods back to their cities, which gained him nearly all the support in Babylon, after he had defeated Nabonidus in Opis. This all happened before the Battle of Opis because someone? (Cyr..) had defeated the Babylonian army in February, and in March Nabonidus desired divine help from Ishtar of Uruk. And then more bad news, a year later (As both Herodotus and Xenophon [Xenophon too talks of other minor battles in Babylon between Cyrus and Nabonidus] agree that Cyrus was diverting and building canals around the Tigris for about a year, so Cyrus was delayed at the Tigris for about a year. Then to make things worse, about six months later in the middle of 539 BC, the Sea Country made a short invasion (Probably from Oman as some historians speculate.)

[Seventeenth year (539/538); Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he [lacuna]. The Sea Country made a short invasion. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]. In the month of [Âbu?] Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants.]

(Note again, now they are refering to the Persian army as Cyrus's army, because of course Cyrus made himself famous in February, and as most historians and I and probably you know (even the small map shows it), Cyrus began his march from Ecbatana, which according to the distance, give or take a month Cyrus began his march in January, and ended his conquest of Babylonia October (not Babylon [city]) you keep mixing them up. Anyways January-October was the how long the whole thing took, which then make the total time of the from invasion to conquest, about 9 months.)

Conclusion

In all its entirety, Nabonidus, (most) of the translations of the historians, ~Herodotus, and Xenophon all AGREE that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis, and it is further more corraberatated by cuneiform evidence. And I will and know, and have more books to cite by more historians who actually mention the February battle, and the Chronicle I promised to put here is too long, just go on the site and look for it, under "Sea Country" Nabonidus has an entirely different account about them. So finally, if you do not agree, or still want to put the accounts of Cyrus's life which you feel to good to be true, into criticism (because Alexander has been criticized enough, which I actually feel sorry for him). Please go settle your dispute with the countless (I hope) historians who agree with this message, I have cited the best evidence for this event, so for once just say 'okay' and we can finally settle this minor (I hope) dispute, if you still disagree, feel free to comment below, thank you very much from the bottom of my heart. Goodbye and God speed John Glenn.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza And please do not make this like the dispute of the Battle of Opis, thanks...[reply]

I'm afraid that timeline of yours isn't corroborated by any source I've seen, and certainly not by any modern sources (again, I repeat - Olmstead's book is nearly 50 years old - it doesn't represent current thinking). It's certainly true that Oppenheim renders the line in question as "The army of the Persians made an attack" but no other translator before or since has accepted this translation. It's simply false to say that "most of the translations of the historians agree that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis." They don't. Look at the table I posted - they refer to some sort of military action, but it's unclear whether this was even in Babylonia or involved the Babylonians. The translators don't even agree that the line refers to the Persians rather than the "Sea Country". No source I've seen refers to a "defeat on the Tigris". Herodotus and Xenophon don't, as far as I know (Xenophon doesn't even mention Opis) - where are you getting those claims from?

I also don't know where you're getting that line you're bolding: "The Sea Country made a short invasion." I've got Oppenheim's original translation in front of me in hard copy and the line doesn't appear anywhere in it. Also, what's this about "Opis [i.e., Baghdad]"? Opis was about 80 km north of modern Baghdad. Frankly, that source is rubbish if it invents lines that aren't even in the translation it's supposed to represent and gets basic geographical details wrong. I'd suggest that you get your own copies of the published translations rather than relying on things you're downloading from the web.

All we can say is essentially what this article currently says - that the events of September/October are clearly described in the Nabonidus Chronicle, but everything before then is very uncertain and that historians don't agree on interpretations. We have to reflect that in the article. As I've said many times before, we can't declare that a particular interpretation is "the truth", especially when the interpretations are so tentative and conflicting. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have to settle this issue with modern sources, because everything I provided, sources that span 2,500 years APPARENTLY is not good enough for you. Tommorow I will list countless books who mention the February battle. THE line that says the Sea Country made a short invasion was first said by the CHRONICLE, I just made it bold, it is on the site and it is an accepted translation. Secondly you did not look for the Sea Country on the livius.org (as I told you to do) site that has gotten awards for being a good historical site. I do not know why (even when the evidence shows it) you have trouble accepting the that their is a difference between Sea Country and Persia, ChrisO what your telling me is like saying the Native Americans made a short invasion of America while the British made small attack on America, we know that the British made a short invasion not the Native Americans. The translations only differ a little bit, don't you find it funny that all the new translations say the Persians made an attack, and if the Persians were defeated why did Nabonidus (according to Olmstead and others) empty the temples of all their gods, and blame it on Cyrus, as he retired south (he was fleeing from Cyrus), this is history, I do not know why it is hard for you to understand. In the other Chronicle Nabonidus defeats the Sea People, so how could the Sea People be the Persians? Whether the translations differ or not, the month/year (Sixteenth year of Nabonidus) put by the battle (if translated is) February. I do not think that you should criticize me for the location of Opis which has nothing to do with this issue, and I do not think it was even me that put that location for Opis. You are [right] we can not say which translations are true, but "defeated" does appear in the translations you put for me. So check your sources before putting more invalid messages for this issue, WHY don't you pretend your me, and research about the February battle (mostly on the Livius.org which you do not even care to look for in) that is it, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

OK, bring your sources here and we can discuss them. But please remember that (1) we can't declare any particular version to be "the truth", per WP:NPOV; and (2) livius.org appears to be a personal website, so it can't be used as a reliable source, per WP:V#Self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more sources to come, but I do not get what your proposal is, frankly I am getting tired of your disputes, forget the neutral dogma, it has nothing to do with what you say now. You are discouraging me from contributing to Wikipedia, because of what your saying, is basically denying all the sources, even the translations you put, which reference a battle whether it be the Sea Country or the Persians, A battle did occur, THAT is undeniable. So why not put it on Wikipedia? Historians do not mention that line a lot in NEW books, because it so obscure they do not even bother talking about it, that is WHY it can be only found in old books about Persia. Which if one reads CONTAINS still valuable information not found in NEW books. It is like saying Herodotus is outdated, and then leaving his whole account of a certain battle out, are you kidding me, this is not how Wikipedia works. Your standards and demandes are nearly impossible to say the least. And creating disputes all over the place waists my time and yours. I am sorry to say this, but your reminding me of the rule-book dogmatic strict lady in the newly DVD released Harry Potter film, look for it, and find the new subsitute for the Hogwarts magic school, you cant miss the character, it is too obvious. Finally go to the link below, which other than Olmstead which is newer, the other one of BEST historians on Persia related subjects agrees that Cyrus's invasion of Babylon took a year and half (as said if one compares all the sources, I was wrong it took more than 9 months) RAWLINSON says Cyrus began from Ecbatana (I do not know why you think I get this info out my a..) but then begins his march with fully armed army in winter, and restarts after being delayed at the Tigris for a year in SPRING time, spring time is around February another coincidence? So go to the link below and R E A D from p.67-72. It says what I say here, further proof of Feb, and do not worry more SOURCES that are together and not seperated will be displayed here soon, and your giving undue weight to minor sources, only 2 out of 4 translations, the 5 total here do not show Olmsteads one, but he believed Persians made defeated the Babylonian army in February, which I cited above, so 4/6 translations say together, The Persian army made attack and fought/defeated Baby... in February, thanks. So here it is, remember what to do when you go to this link, [7] thanks.

Here just shows you that 4 of the 6 translations agree with my assessment;

Date	Translator	Text	Source
1925	Smith	"... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..."	Babylonian Historical Texts
1950	Oppenheim	"... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..."	Ancient Near Eastern Texts
1960	Olmstead	"B[...] was defeated. The Tigris. In the month of Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... [the ...] ... [after]... The army of the Persians made an attack..."	History of the Persian Empire
1975	Grayson	"... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ...the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..."	Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
2004	Glassner	"[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s[...]."	Mesopotamian Chronicles
2007	Kuhrt	"[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia (?) ...]"	The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

So as you can see (sorry the translations became longer for the box, and all the bold is what most agree with eachother) ALL translations agree at least that on Adar/February and where it was said it means it was in 540-539 BC, a battle of the Sea Country/Persians and Babylonians(of course) took place, the Sea Country/Persians killed/defeated their opponents,(But note, here is the main issue, if it was the Sea Country then that means Nabonidus LIED and he did not repel their small invasion, but of course ACCORDING to all accepted history it was the Persians who conquered Babylon NOT the Sea Coutry, so the Sea Country should be quickly ommited from the passage, more comman sense!) on the Tigris, and then Nabonidus seeked divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, which is a statue of a god, unless Ishtar was a real god/evolved human/alien-human hybrid. [Note] even in the story of Cyrus' revolution from Media, Cyrus himself says a god made him revolt (this is an interesting fact but has nothing to do with this issue, so just ignore it).

Also, the oldest translations says Ishtar of Erech, then all other translations say Ishtar of Uruk, Erech and Uruk are not the same, SO as newer translations means they are better, and I can give undue weight to some translations BECause 4/6 agree with my assessment, and thats all it is. Also, Olmstead finds the word [after], which with his whole translations means Babylonians were defeated [after] the army of the Persians made an attack. Just like they as Persians attacked Babylonian army at Opis, [attack] usually means there was a battle. ANd again, do you notice that all the old translations say Sea Country, while all the NEW translations say Persians, more and more reasons(as it is according to all accepted history, again is our only option to consider) to believe it was the Persians, the main branch of the Tigris was to the north, were again, that is where the Persians penetrated Babylon from, hew.

So please review this message carefully and consider all the evidence spanning 2,500 years that agrees that SOMETHING [battle] did take place before Opis, and other details too. I finally do not get how you can just deny all the evidence!? Consider this, just because there is not new books on the hydrualics of a ice-cream machine, DOES not mean that the hydrualics of a ice-cream machine never happened or existed, I know a lot of comman sense stuff, regarding this issue, and if I knew more Wikipedia terms, than by now you would agree with me. Do you understand this last sentence? thanks again(that was just some pshycology for you) lol.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Interpreting these fragmentary sentences is certainly original research. Just to make a demagogical point.... how do you know that the original text resulting in the last translation wasn't "The boat sank, but luckily, the King wasn't killed. The river claimed 100 crew, and the statue of Ishtar of Uruk was recovered from the wreck. This was an omen of the invasion of Persia"? All the words you claim occur in the same sequence, but there isn't a single battle to be found. Let's quote the interpretations, not create new ones. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Quote the intepretations, but don't comment on them or try to analyse them. Of course, you can also use the comments of reliable sources so long as all significant points of view are presented proportionately. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are falling for ChrisO's schemes again, I do not make my own analyzations, few historians that ever talked about the incription agree, please scroll up to where I put a sentence from Olmstead's, you guys may even try to criticize Olmstead, but according to yourselfs you can not choose if they are right or wrong, but just to cite them. Secondly, nearly all the translations say the army of the Persians made an attack, CAN it be more clearer, on the month of Adar or Addaru which is February, and when was it possible, in 540-539 BC. Even if it was the Sea Country that made the attack Nabonidus himself puts in 540-539 BC. You guys LACK the common sense of researching sources and finding connections, this is not original research, I did not interept the inscription myself, I simply stated what the HISTORIANS said, so do not make this like the Opis dispute, it is not worth it! If you do not agree with me your denying a couple of things;

• Your denying historical inscriptions made by Nabonidus himself.

• And denying Other key details to the invasion of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, as said by well known historians, ~Herodotus and Xenophon, who says Cyrus fought one or two battles before getting to Babylon.

• Your also denying 4/6 translations that agree that in the month of Adar on the Tigris a battle was fought between Babylonia and Persia (Sea Country is extremly impossible, because it contradicts the time and day that they invaded according to another inscription by Nabonidus himself) were the Babylonians were defeated/killed.

• Your denying Olmstead and Rawlinson who explicitly say the Persians defeated the Babylonian army before March, which would mean in Febraury (apparently Rawlinson got it right the first time) its undeniable.

• Finally denying that there was even a battle, when the inscription itself says a attack/battle ocurred.

So finally please do not make this like Opis dispute, I am tired Maximus. And I do not make my own anyalzations, because most of the historians who talked about this and have ACCESS to more info agree with my assessemt, which I got totally from their books, so please go argue with them, I am here to present information and use common sense, and finally be open minded, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

You mention 'making connections'. Be careful, WP:SYN says "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.". Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "Rawlinson" you mean this guy, whose translation was published in 1881 - 127 years ago. You can't present such an old source as representative of current historical thinking, any more than you can use the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - which is actually more recent! - in that way. None of the translations apart from Oppenheim say anything about the Persian army attacking, and even then Oppenheim doesn't say who they attacked, where or when. Even the view that the symbol(s) being translated represents "Persia" is disputed. You simply can't draw any firm conclusions from it, and you personally aren't in any position to do so - you're not an expert, and your own interpretations are original research by definition. One thing you might not be aware of is just how fragmentary the text is. Smith's translation of 1925 has the virtue of being formatted in the same way as the original tablet, showing where the lacunae are (other translators just represent the lacunae as [...]). Here's how he renders it, and for comparison the other translations formatted in the same way (text in square brackets is conjectural reconstructions by the translators):

Date	Translator	Text	Source
1925	Smith	(1) ................fought. The river Tigris ............ (2) .................In Adar Ishtar of Erech ........... (3) ..................of the sea-land (?) ............ (4) .........................................................	Babylonian Historical Texts
1950	Oppenheim	(1) ................Tigris ............ (2) .................In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk ........... (3) ..................The army of the Persians made an attack ............ (4) .........................................................	Ancient Near Eastern Texts
1975	Grayson	(1) ................Tigris ............ (2) .................[In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the ........ (3) ..................[the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ............ (4) .........................................................	Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
2004	Glassner	(1) ................was killed. The Tig[ris] (?) ............ (2) .................In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk ........... (3) ..................the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s ............ (4) .........................................................	Mesopotamian Chronicles
2007	Kuhrt	(1) ................killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ............ (2) .................Ishtar of Uruk ........... (3) ..................of Per[sia (?)] ............ (4) .........................................................	The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

So it's a case of literally only a handful of words being translatable in 3 out of 4 lines, the 4th being illegible. It's not surprising that the translators are so uncertain about how to translate it, and that the historians have been very hesitant about drawing any conclusions from it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU forgot I included Olmstead translation, or what he saw fit. That says the Persians made an attack scroll up to the message where I PUT the translations in BOLD. And I notice your nitpicking certain things I am saying, stop waisting time, Olmstead and Rawlinson, and Oppenheium say that the Persians made and attack and defeated the Babylonian army, AND Olmstead even has Ba..... defeated after the army of the Persians made an attack in his tranlsation. HMM I wonder what that means? You guys remind me of moderate muslims who make excuses for the Koran, and deny that in the Koran says to burn double crossing unbelievers, where as muslims say "no it means to throw the unbelievers into the light and show them the right path, STOP wishfull thinking please. Sorry I am not against religion or you guys, I am just making an example in PSHYCOLOGY, it is a matter of thinking, REMEMBER Rawlinson, Olmstead, Oppenheium agree with me, two others are not sure because they think it was the (obviously proven wrong) Sea Country, and the last guy is coming to my side. So do the math. And if I ever make an article about Tigris I will only put what the historians say, okay, Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Olmstead's translation notes that there's a lacuna in between "In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk" and "The army of the Persians made an attack." That's a pretty big gap, and we have no idea what was in it. Thus, the tablet doesn't tell us whether the Persians attacked in the month of Addaru, or later.

However, as many people have noted already, we're not supposed to draw our own conclusions about what the translations mean--we rely on what scholars say about the translations, instead. So far I haven't seen anyone quote what Rawlinson, Olmstead, Oppenheim, etc. say about the timeframe of this attack--just a bunch of assertions about "I saw it in a book once." Some direct quotes might be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong about Oppenheim. Read what he says: "The army of the Persians made an attack..." He doesn't say who they attacked, where, when, how, why, or anything else. He definitely doesn't say they "defeated the Babylonian army". That appears nowhere in Oppenheim's text. For all you know, they attacked someone else (recall that the Nabonidus Chronicle records Cyrus's campaigns outside Babylonia). Olmstead doesn't say that either, if you read his words carefully. The bit you cited says: "Nabu-naid ... suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March." Olmstead doesn't say who defeated Nabonidus. In any case, no other scholar, as far as I know, has supported Olmstead's interpretation. As for Rawlinson, I pointed out that his book is ridiculously out of date - 127 years old! - in fact, it's the very first published translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle, published at a time when knowledge of Babylonian and Persian history and of the Akkadian language was much less advanced than it is now. I don't think you can put a book that old on a par with modern historical writings. Its age alone means that it would probably not qualify as a reliable source for any discussion of modern historical views. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO your killing me hear! Oppenheim may not say who the Persians were attacking, But all the translations say it was on the Tigris on February 540-539 BC, Cyrus was returning from his Eastern campaigns and according to everything I have ever read about these dates, Cyrus was planning the invasion of Babylonia in 540-539 BC, what better evidence do you need. Secondly, you did not SEE Olmsteads book, the HEADING ABOVE THE PAGE OF THE BOOKS says "Conquest of Babylonia under Cyrus the Great"; he refers to Cyrus at first, then later says He was on the Border before the snows... You know the rest, thats when Nabonidus panics and transports all the statues of the Gods he likes to thte southern portions of his empire. When I say connect the dots I do not mean to come up with your own analyzations, I MEAN COMPARE THE GOOD AND BAD, be neutral about it. I have connected the dots and outcome I get is that my assessment did happen, GET Olmsteads book to check what I AM saying. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]