From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details. Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

Nabonidus (Akkadian Nabû-nāʾid) was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, reigning from 556-539 BCE. His reign has long been misunderstood, because of strongly coloured accounts by the Persians and Greeks and in the Hebrew Bible, but is becoming more clear now thanks to new studies and finds.^[1]

Contents 1 Historiography on Nabonidus 2 Coming to power 3 Reign 3.1 Traditional view 3.2 Updated view 3.2.1 Religious policy 3.2.2 Nabonidus at Tayma 4 The Persian conquest of Babylonia 4.1 Traditional view 4.2 Updated view 5 The death of Nabonidus? 6 Trivia 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

More than with others, our perception of Nabonidus' reign has been badly coloured by later accounts, notably by the Persians and the Greeks, as well as in the Hebrew Bible. These stories have been widely believed in the past, not only because there was nothing else, but also because they fitted in with a set of views on the Near East which are now known as Orientalism. In the present day, not only has Orientalism been exposed for what it is, but we also possess additional texts from within Babylonia, dating to the final days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the early Persian Empire. In combination with renewed studies of the aforementioned accounts, our views on Nabonidus and the events that happened during his reign have been significantly altered. Therefore, where relevant, both the traditional and the new view will be presented below.

Nabonidus' background is not completely clear. However, because of later activities during his reign (for example his referring repeatedly to Ashurbanipal, the last great Neo-Assyrian king, in his royal propaganda and imagery, as well as his special interest in Harran, the last stronghold of the Neo-Assyrians after the fall of Nineveh), it has been proposed that he was an Assyrian.^[2] He certainly did not belong to the previous ruling dynasty, the Chaldeans, of whom Nebuchadnezzar II was the most famous member. He came to the throne in 556 BC by overthrowing the youthful king Labashi-Marduk. It is possible that he substantiated his claim to the throne by his marriage to Nitocris, who was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II and the widow of Nergal-sharezer.

In most ancient accounts, Nabonidus has been depicted as a royal anomaly. He is supposed to have worshiped the moongod Sin beyond all the other gods, and to have paid special devotion to Sin's temple in Harran, where his mother was a priestess. This should have reached almost henotheistic heights, which would have been a particularly bad thing in Babylon, where at least since the time of Hammurabi, this position had been reserved for Marduk. Because of the tensions that these religious reforms generated, in 549 BCE, he had to leave the capital for the rich desert oasis of Tayma in Arabia, from which he only returned in 540 BCE. In the meantime, his son Belshazzar ruled from Babylon, supposedly in the typical fashion of an oriental despot.

While it cannot be disputed that Nabonidus had a personal preference for Sin, it cannot be said that he downplayed or even neglected the other cults in his kingdom to the extent that has been proposed. All of them reserved the attention they deserved and there is no sign of the civil unrest that would have been indicative of the opposite. In fact, even during his absence, there is nothing that points at attempts to overthrow Nabonidus, either by his son or by others, which is also shown by the fact that even after his prolonged stay outside Babylon, Nabonidus could return to his throne without a problem.

One misunderstood topic for example, is Nabonidus' gathering of the most important cultic statues from all over southern Mesopotamia in Babylon, just before the Persian attack. This was not a sign of blasphemy of some sort, but part of his defense of Babylonia: by gathering the statues (of which good care was taken, which must have involved a huge administrative effort), Nabonidus tried to ensure the support of the gods in the upcoming war against the Persians.^[3] The Babylonian Chronicles report on this:

"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."

—Babylonian Chronicles on the 17th year of the reign of Nabonidus.

And as P.-A. Beaulieu has written (see the footnote):

"One of the most powerful illustrations of the strength and conviction of image worship in ancient Mesopotamia is probably the treatment of cult statues in times of war. Assyrian and Babylonian sources of the first millennium frequently allude to the removal of divine statues from the temples as the result of a city being conquered. Spoliated statues were usually carried off to the land of the victorious power (Assyria in most known cases) where they remained in captivity until a turn of events would allow them to be restored to their shrines. (...) Rather than incur the capture of their gods and the resulting implications of such capture, namely, that the gods were abandoning the city and calling for its destruction, cities often tried to prevent the transfer of the statues to enemy territory, since continued possession of them in the face of adversity proved that the gods were still protecting and supporting their people and native land. (...) [D]uring the months which preceded the invasion and conquest of Babylonia by the Persians in 539 B.c., King Nabonidus ordered a massive gathering of the gods of Sumer and Akkad into the capital. Unlike previous attempts, the gathering ordered by Nabonidus is documented by a number of historical and archival sources." [after this, Beaulieu goes on to discuss these sources in detail]

—P.-A. Beaulieu, JNES 52 (1992), 241-2

It is hardly surprising that Nabonidus' enemies, notably Cyrus, who was trying to show why he was a better king than Nabonidus had been, later explained as a sign of Nabonidus unfitness to rule.^[4] In the words of, again, Beaulieu:

"The returning of the statues to their sanctuaries provided Cyrus with one of his many propagandistic anti-Nabonidus themes. Not content with re-establishing the gods in their residence, he charged the deposed king with having brought them to the capital against their will."

—P.-A. Beaulieu, JNES 51 (1992), 243

And in the words of Cyrus himself, as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder, found in Babylon in 1879:

"As for the gods of Sumer and Akkad which Nabonidus, to the wrath of the lord of the gods, brought to Babylon, at the command of Marduk, the great lord, I (Cyrus) caused them to dwell in peace in their sanctuaries, (in) pleasing dwellings. May all the gods I brought (back) to their sanctuaries plead daily before Bel and Nabu for the lengthening of my days, may they intercede favorably on my behalf."

—Cyrus Cylinder, 30-34

This is confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicles:

"From the month of Kislîmu to the month of Addaru, the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had made come down to Babylon, were returned to their sacred cities."

—Babylonian Chronicles on the 17th year of the reign of Nabonidus.

All in all then, Nabonidus' reign, at least from a religious point of view, seems to have been largely in line with the examples set by his Mesopotamian predecessors.

As it has now become clear that Nabonidus had no reason to flee Babylon, the discussion about his sojourn at Tayma is open again. One option is that he moved to Tayma because this provided him with a capital less close to his most dangerous enemies, the Persians in Iran. However, the economic, political and symbolic status of Babylon makes this move unlikely; no king could give up this capital so easily. The most plausible explanation is that basing himself at Tayma provided him with the opportunity to dominate some very lucrative Arabian trade routes - which the Babylonians were indeed the first Mesopotamians to gain control of.^[5] During his stay, Nabonidus adorned Tayma with a full royal complex, most of which has come to light during recent excavations.^[6]

In the traditional account of the Persian conquest of Babylonia, King Cyrus the Great could take Babylon without meeting resistance. The population had grown so fed up with Nabonidus, that they opened their gates Cyrus and greeted him as their liberator.

As it has now become clear that Nabonidus was not hated, and that he returned from Tayma in time to organise the defence of Babylonia, it seems unlikely that Cyrus could enter so easily. And indeed, he did not, as has been lucidly made clear recently by A. Kuhrt (2007) and G. Tolini (2005).^[7] When he attempted to march into southern Mesopotamia, he was met by the Babylonians near Opis. In the ensuing battle, the Persians booked a minor victory, not sufficient for Nabonidus to be defeated altogether, but enough for the Persians to be able to massacre the people of Opis, which in turn caused the nearby city of Sippar to surrender. Meanwhile, the Babylonians had withdrawn south to establish a line of defense near the Euphrates that should prevent Cyrus from advancing too far. Cyrus in turn did not try the Babylonian army, but sent a small division south along the Tigris to try and take the capital by surprise. This plan worked: the division could reach Babylon undetected and caught it unawares. Thus, they were not only able to capture Babylon, but also King Nabonidus, who briefly afterwards left his army to return to Babylon, not knowing that the city had already been taken.

This left the Babylonian army in a precarious position, and talks were initiated, which soon resulted in its surrender. In the meantime, Ugbaru, the commander of the division that had captured Babylon, had taken good care that his men would not plunder or otherwise harm the city; he had even made sure that the temple rites continued to be observed.^[8] It was only after all of this had been arranged, and after further talks with representatives from the city, that Cyrus went to Babylon, where he could now have his 'unopposed triumphant entry to the cheers of the people'.

All of this can be read in the relevant section of the Babylonian Chronicles:

"In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.

In the month of Arahsamna, the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors in Babylon."

—Babylonian Chronicles on the 17th year of the reign of Nabonidus.

Obviously, this account is quite confusing. Upon close-reading however, it becomes clear that it does corroborate with modern scholarly view, but not with the traditional account. For example, Babylon was captured by the Persian general Gobryas on the 13th of October, but Cyrus only entered it on the 29th. Also, Nabonidus' actions make much more sense if he flees from his army at Sippar to return to Babylon (not yet knowing that one Persian division had gone there already in the meantime), rather than interpreting him as fleeing from Babylon (unworthy of any king) and then returning there later, knowing that he would be captured and possible even killed (which is decidedly unwise).

The subsequent fate of Nabonidus is uncertain. His life was probably spared, and he may been allowed to retire somewhere in the Persian mainland, but it may also be that he was taken prisoner and died in captivity in 538 BC.^[9]

From Belshazzar 'reign' stems the well-known Biblical story of the writing on the wall (Daniel 5:1–31). The Hebrew Bible tells that in 539 BC, while Belshazzar and the nobles of the empire were feasting and drinking from the chalices from the Hebrew Temple of Jerusalem, a hand wrote an unknown Aramaic text on the wall: mene, mene, tekel, parsin. None of Belshazzar's soothsayers could translate the words written and then Daniel the Hebrew, known for his accurate prophecies was called to translate the text. He said unto the appointed "King of Babylon" : "This is the interpretation of each word. "Mene," "God has numbered your kingdom and brought it to an end. "Tekel," You have been weighed in the balances and are found wanting. "Peres," Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." These words indicated the arrival of the Persian king Cyrus the Great who rode out to conquer Babylon.

• Babylonia
• Cylinder of Nabonidus
• Biblical archaeology (reference to Nabonidus cylinder)
• Nabonidus Chronicle
• http://www.nabonidus.org

• Cylinder of Nabonidus at the British Museum.
• Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar Translation.
• Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur Translation.
• Lihyanite inscription of Nabonidus, at Nat. Museum of Natural History site

Preceded by Labashi-Marduk

King of Babylon 556–539 BC

Succeeded by Nebuchadnezzar IV (self-proclaimed)