Neo-Babylonian period

This article focuses on the spellings of the 3 sg. pres. form of Gtn-stem of the verb apālu(m) «to pay» in one of the legal formulas from the Neo-Babylonian texts. This form in some documents from the archives of the city of Ur has a spelling with an unusual realization of Iʔ that when in contact with -t- of the infix gives sometimes the spelling of imtanappal.

A dolgozat fő kérdése, hogy milyen volt a mezopotámiai vallási felfogás, mennyire volt kizárólagos ez a világkép? Voltak-e olyan konfliktusok a környező népekkel, melyek vallási alapúnak tekinthetőek, azaz két eltérő vallási rendszer ütközéséből adódtak volna. Még egyszerűbben: megpróbálták-e a különböző mezopotámiai birodalmak ráerőltetni szomszédjaikra saját isteneiket és kultuszaikat, a politikai bekebelezést követte-e vallási elnyomás? A kérdést lezárhatnánk egy egyszerű nemmel, hiszen a gondolat is idegen volt a mezopotámiai kultúrától, nem azért, mert különlegesen toleráns lett volna, hanem egyszerűen az adott kulturális keretek között nem lett volna értelme egy másik népre vallási szokásokat vagy isteneket erőltetni, hiszen ők éppen a saját hatalmat erősítették. 1 Ugyanakkor az utóbbi idők szakmai vitái világossá tették, hogy a mezopotámiai vallásosság lényegét érintő kérdésről van szó. A vallási türelem vagy türelmetlenség kérdése egy olyan végletesen politeista pantheon esetében, mint a mezopotámiai, egyszerűen nem releváns. A Folyóköz istenvilága egy többnyelvű, etnikailag összetett kulturális térben alakult ki, és változott folyamatosan -a kisugárzás és a befogadás egyaránt jellemezte. Ha részletesebben szeretnénk körüljárni a kérdést, és meg szeretnénk érteni a nemleges válasz hátterét, akkor mezopotámiai vallás alapvető jellegzetességei mellett azt is látnunk kell, hogy milyen módon reagált más kultúrákra és vallási szokásokra.

The ancient Mesopotamian society, having been extensively recorded, has proved to be a treasure of information that has allowed historians to make sense of how mankind has reached where it belongs now. It has helped us comprehend why some social norms affect mankind significantly leading to the evolution of certain practices and principles of this era.
The subject matter of this essay deals with exposing readers about how the Mesopotamian society existed during a few remarkable periods in its history- namely the Early Dynastic Period and the Old and Neo-Babylonian period, which experienced some of the highest periods of prosperity and creative documentation.

The chief aim of this essay is to posit a well-known Mesopotamian royal and divine epithet, ušumgallu "great dragon," as the source behind Ezekiel's enigmatic description of Pharaoh in 29.3, hattannīn haggādôl, "the great dragon." This relationship sheds new light and meaning on an old problem: why does Ezekiel refer to Pharaoh as a dragon? Rather than viewing this prophetic expression as a pejorative, the cognate evidence argues for the converse by rooting it in an enduring tradition of regal titles. Replicating Akkadian ušumgallu (Sumerian UŠUM.GAL) as efficiently as possible and drawing upon Israelite cosmological history (viz. Gen 1.21a), Ezekiel feigned including Pharaoh within a venerable, long line of Mesopotamian kings and deities to receive this title. Instead, and as is characteristic of Ezekiel's rhetoric, he upended the putative associations of the "great dragon," thereby exposing its true subordinate position under the hegemony of YHWH

The Hebrew Bible is one of the preeminent media that transmitted the intellectual heritage of the ancient Near East to later periods. The contributions of this workshop will investigate specific expressions of ancient Near Eastern intellectual traditions within the Hebrew Bible, which influenced, through its subsequent wide dissemination, later developments in cultural history.
The workshop includes contributions by David Vanderhooft (Boston College), Jeffrey Cooley (Boston College), Ilona Zsolnay (University of Chicago), Avi Winitzer (University of Notre Dame), Georg Fischer (University of Innsbruck), Peter Dubovský (Pontifical Biblical Insitute), Eckart Otto (LMU Munich), Dominik Markl (Pontifical Biblical Institute) and Cornelia Wunsch (Freie Universität Berlin).

The composition known as the Verse Account is a polemical poem about Nabû -nā <id's (Nabonidus') evil reign composed after Cyrus' conquest in 539 BC. In a well-known passage, the text mentions two local dignitaries by name: Zēria, the administrator (šatammu) of the Esagil temple of Marduk in Babylon, and Rēmū t, the royal secretary (zazakku). The current interpretation of this passage holds that these two men are despised by the author(s) of the Verse Account for having supported Nabû -nā <id's heretical policies. This article challenges this interpretation and argues that Zēria and Rēmū t are pictured positively, as collaborators of Cyrus, the conqueror and liberator of Babylon.

Babylon was one of the biggest and greatest cities of the Ancient Near East. At present the ruins of Babylon extend over an area of 850 ha and constitute the largest ancient settlement in Mesopotamia.
The Report compiled in November 2004 on the state of the major relics in Babylon at that time, together with documentation of the modern infrastructure erected on the site during the 24-year rule of the late Saddam Hussein.
The use of substantial part of the Babylon archaeological site as a Coalition military base ("Camp Alpha") between April 2003 and December 2004 involved the placement of a major military facility, some 150 hectares in extent, directly on the center of the archaeological site.
The Report was prepared by the three Polish archaeologists (Mirosław Olbryś, Tomasz Burda and Agnieszka Dolatowska) stationed with Multinational Division Central South at Camp Alpha, for the occasion of the return of the site to Iraqi authorities. It reflects the condition of the site on the day of the hand over by the Multinational Forces in Iraq to the Iraqi Ministry of Culture.
The Report  has 107 text pages and over 1037 photographs and is a kind of conservation inventory. It assesses the condition of all the historical buildings erected on the ancient foundations and monuments located within the boundaries of the Camp Alpha. The document consists of two parts: (I) a catalogue divided into eleven zones established inside the Camp and (II) a second catalogue comprising fifteen historical buildings and monuments also located inside the Camp. Each catalogue item includes textual description and photographs. The part I and the entries of the part II have their own pagination and numbering of photographs.
A separate “Real Estate Inspection Report” on the fifty-two buildings (including the former palace of Saddam Hussein on an enormous artificial earthen hill) built on the site in the 1980s and 1990s was also prepared and joined.

The period between the accession of Nabonasser, in 747 B.C.E., and the accession of Nabopolasser, in 625 B.C.E., was a period of renewed stability for Babylonia, due in large part to the projection of Assyrian power in the region. During this transitional period, increased economic activity throughout Babylonia resulted in an increase in the amount of written evidence. And the legal and administrative texts that have thus far come to light are, in the works of J. A. Brinkman, “a mine of information for researchers interested in demography, social institutions, economic history, and even ancient technology.” In this volume, John Nielsen provides an index of the personal names found on these texts from this period. As such, the index is a valuable supplement to the Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire project (Helsinki). Information presented in the book is modeled on the Helsinki project’s publications. The index includes comprehensive cross-references to the CAD, Stamm’s Namengebung, the Helsinki PNAE indexes, Hölscher’s Personennamen, and Knut Tallqvist’s Neubabylonisch Namenbuch.Nielsen’s prosopographical index adds a major new resource to the study of the Neo-Babylonian period.

The article explores an unusual literary phenomenon in both biblical and Mesopotamian traditions: a consecutive order of clauses in a law collection serves to structure the plot of a later, narrative composition. The plot of Ruth follows the list of
commandments in Deut 24:16-25:10, while a portion of the Neo-Babylonian work, “Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice” follows the order of LH 1-5. Strikingly, these narrative compositions invoke the venerated law codes of their respective traditions, and yet, at the same time, the practice of those very same laws invoked, is seen to be at variance with the prescriptions of the earlier codes. The implications of the phenomenon for understanding processes of legal revision in the ancient Near East are explored.

This study shows some of the Egyptian captives who were captured in the Ancient Iraqi, both in the Assyrian and the late Babylonian period. The research starts with the term "captives" in the ancient Iraqi texts, which is close to the current term. Many Assyrian kings followed the policy of Assyrian deportation, we found a lot of Egyptian captives in the period of the kings of Assyria, perhaps the most prominent King Ashurbanipal, who conquered Egypt and occupied - for a short time - as the texts of the Babylonian period late Chaldean, the existence of some Egyptian captives in Babylon, then the research studied the social life of those captives and them works, and we see some of this captives working in Medicine.

The Nabonidus Controversy The controversy among historians concerning the Neo­Babylonian king Nabonidus is one that seems to be impossible to solve, hence the controversy, and yet evidence for either side of the argument is to be found. Within the sources which we can study and analyse, one can turn a sentence here or a sentence there into clear evidence as to why their side of the argument is right, while the other side is wrong. I found myself almost unable to choose which side I was on. Was Nebonidus in Tayma for ten years, as the standard history tells us, or was the story of Nebonidus abandoning Babylon for Arabia simply that, a story fabricated by the priesthood of Babylon and by Cyrus to discredit him and bolster their own power and authority? In the end, I have to say that I side with the revisionist historians I will argue that Nebonidus did leave Babylon, and that he did go to Arabia, but that he did not stay permanently in Tayma during the ten years that the standard history tells us he did. The first source to examine and analyze is the Harran inscriptions, which were discovered by Dr. D.S. Rice in 1956​ 1​. The Harran Inscriptions are found on Babylonian carved stone stelae dating from the 6th century BCE that were found by Dr. Rice when he realized that they had been repurposed as part of the steps of a Middle Ages mosque ​ 2​. These stelae contain the proclamations of Nebonidus and his royal mother Adad­Guppi, written, as the article tells us, likely with the use of scribe. The inscriptions speak of Nebonidus and he and his mother's desire to serve the moon god Sin by rebuilding the temple of Harran ​ 3​. The purpose of the inscriptions on the stelae seem to be religious as well as political in nature.

Excerpted from "Text No. 148, Part III: Late Babylonian Archival and Administrative Texts" by Ronald Wallenfels and Robartus J. van der Spek, in Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol. IV. The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First Millennium B.C. Copyright 2016 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Reprinted by Permission. --

This is the publication of the so-called Lehmann Text, a cuneiform grant of royal land in Babylonia by Antiochus II to his wife Laodice and their sons Seleucus (II) and Antiochus (Hierax), who in turn gave it to the Babylonians, Borsippaeans and Cuthians. It records a declaration by the shatammu (chief temple administrator) and the kinishtu (temple council) concerning ownership rights and tax exemptions granted by Antiochus II, confirmed by his son Seleucus II. --
Attached are two documents: 1) Transcription, translation and commentary by Ronald Wallenfels and myself. I thank the Metropolitan Museum of Art for granting permission to publish this on Academia. See for more texts, copies and photographs the webpage of Ronald Wallenfels on Academia.
2) A somewhat modified translation of my own, with some new comments. Ronald Wallenfels bears no responsibility for this attachment and cannot be blamed for any errors in the translation and comments in this.

This study examines the position of slaves in private ownership in Babylonia during the sixth and early fifth centuries BC, one of the best documented episodes in the history of ancient Mesopotamia. Drawing primarily on the records kept by a single family living in Babylon, it aims to provide a coherent picture which can then be compared with the evidence from other times and places. Slaves were usually born into the household, and transition, both into and out of servitude, was relatively rare. While the wealthiest families living in Babylon at this time owned considerable numbers of slaves, some of them skilled in craft production, they were not involved in factory-style production, and their manufacturing output did not contribute significantly to household income

Background. Over the last century, scholars have deciphered cuneiform texts on mathematics and astronomy (Neugebauer & Sachs 1955) associated with Mesopotamia's religious architecture, calendars and iconography (Curatorla 2007). However, no systematic investigation of possible astronomical orientation has been made of Mesopotamia's many ziggurats and temples. The availability of geo-referenced/sub-meter resolution satellite imagery now makes such analysis feasible; despite the region's ongoing military conflicts preventing Ground Truth field survey.

This volume is the edited collection of the papers from a conference we hosted in Oxford in 2017, drawing together specialists from the United Kingdom, continental Europe and the United States, to examine afresh the relationship between early Greece and the civilisations of the ancient Near East. This is one of the most controversial and rapidly developing research topics in Classics, and the aim of the conference was to bring together Classicists and non-Classicists in a truly interdisciplinary environment, in which specialists from several different fields could observe and draw upon one another’s discoveries and knowledge. It was the first time that all major scholars who have so far contributed to the debate were assembled at a conference, a fact that was reflected by large crowd of over seventy participants at the Ioannou Centre in Oxford, over two full days. Our hope was that the resulting interchange would reflect on the disparate methodologies which have developed in these distinct fields, and move towards a new consensus. In order to achieve this, we limited the papers to the presentation of narratives to do with the gods; this led to a clear cross-fertilisation between papers (both in the general discussion and in the presentations), and a movement away from a narrow concern with the question of direct influence towards a more truly comparative perspective, in which the individual dynamics of the Greek and Near Eastern traditions help to illuminate what is distinctive about each of them. This represents a paradigm shift in a field once concerned solely with collecting literary parallels and letting them ‘speak for themselves’ (in Martin West’s famous words), and this is one of the major reasons why we think the resulting volume will cohere both thematically and as articulating a crucial moment in the history of scholarship on this question.

The volume serves two interconnected purposes. The first is that the book is an illustrative, handbook-like overview of the history and current state of the discussion, an aspect to be supported by an extensive Introduction to the volume, to be written by the editors. The second is that it offers new material and fresh approaches formulated by the leading scholars in the field. The volume will thus capture the state of the current discussion and shape the future debate. In keeping with the theme and discoveries of the conference, the chapters are not simply lists of parallels, but attempts to consider the processes of interaction and their significance for the texts being discussed.

The cast list of contributors is, as one should expect in a volume with this kind of ambition, international: Angus Bowie (Oxford), Yoram Cohen (Tel Aviv), Bruno Currie (Oxford), Andrew George (SOAS), Amir Gilan (Tel-Aviv), Johannes Haubold (Durham), Adrian Kelly (Oxford), Andre Lardinois (Nijmegen), Carolina Lopez-Ruiz (Ohio State), Christopher Metcalf (Oxford), Bernardo Petrella (Oxford), Fran Reynolds (Oxford), Ruth Scodel (Michigan), Robert Rollinger (Innsbruck), Ian Rutherford (Reading), Sylvie Vanséveren (Brussels), and Mark Weeden (SOAS).

This is a presentation I gave in October, 2018.  There is a man on Nebuchadnezzar's Prism named Ea-Dayyan.  By comparing 6 identifiable characteristics between him and the Daniel of Bible, I conclude that Ea-Dayyan is the Daniel of the Bible, listed as his Hebrew name of Daniel.  A formal paper will follow with more discussion.  Here is the outline form.

This is the first study to compare the allusions to scribal culture found in the Aramaic Story of Ahiqar and the Hebrew Tale of Jeremiah and Baruch’s Scroll in Jeremiah 36. It is shown that disguised in the royal propagandistic message of Ahiqar is a sophisticated Aramaic critique on the social practices of Akkadian scribal culture. Jeremiah 36, however, uses loci of scribal activity as well as allusions to scribal interactions and the techniques of the scribal craft to construct a subversive tale. When studied from a comparative perspective it is argued that the Story of Ahiqar, which has long been associated with the well-known court tale genre, is an example of a subgenre which is here called the scribal conflict narrative, and Jeremiah 36 is found to be a second example of or a response to it. This observation is arrived at by means of rigorous manuscript examination combined with narrative analysis, which identified, among other things, the development of autobiographical and biographical styles of the same ancient narrative. This study not only provides new perspectives on scribal culture, Ahiqar studies, and Jeremiah studies, but it may have far reaching implications for other ancient sources.

This article analyzes two major ancient Near Eastern literary, iconographic and religious motifs that have found their way in the vision described in Ezek. 47:1–12. These are the double current flowing from the Temple in Jerusalem in conjunction with the trees of healing growing on the river banks. Ezekiel text uses both motifs combined in the way they are found in ancient Near Eastern texts and iconography which makes it probable to see Ezek. 47:1–12 as the initial point of entry of a Babylonian tradition into the Hebrew Bible. We follow D. Barthélemy, who points out that the original reading in v. 9 is nah. a layˆım " rivers, double current, " and that the versions that transform it into a singular represent an obvious lectio facilior. The double current echoes the iconographic and textual motifs of two rivers encompassing the façade of several Mesopotamian temples. The trees of healing are found in Middle and Neo-Assyrian healing incantations. In Ezekiel's exilic prophecy, these motifs illustrate the vision of the spectacular renewal of nature and life with regained fertility and health inaugurated by the coming of the Messianic age. Joel 4:18 (ca. 400 BCE), and Deutero-Zechariah 14:8 (ca. 300 BCE), make use of one or both motifs with some modifications. Joel combines the tree of healing with the Pentateuchal traditions about the Valley of Shittim (Num. 33:49) and thě sit. t. ˆ ım-acacia wood of the ark and other cultic objects (Exod. 25:10, 23–24; 26:15; 27:1; 30:1). The motifs were adapted in the so-called " intertestamen-tal " literature, as found in the Qumran texts, in the Apocrypha, and found their way in the Johannine literature (John 7:38 and Rev. 22:1–2) and in the Talmud. Before being further employed by other Hebrew prophets, however, these two motifs had their roots in ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography as far back as the 2nd millennium BCE and beyond.

The development of branding and advertising has always been mutually conditioned. The goal of this research is to determine the origin and show historic development of branding and advertising in the ancient civilizations of Africa, Asia and Europe. The historical method of research was used. New evidence on various means of branding, advertising and other promotional activities application in the ancient history is presented. What was found is that social development imposed a need for marking of goods and promotional activities. It was done in a similar manner in all ancient civilizations, regardless of different time span. There were two types of branding and advertising: commercial and personal. The roles of branding and advertising were versatile and similar to their contemporary roles.
Keywords: brand, advertising, branding history, advertising history, old civilizations

ABSTRACT: This documentary response sheet contains 50 sequential questions drawn from the TimeLife documentary, "Mesopotamia: Return to Eden" (episode 1 in the TimeLife series on Lost Civilizations, 1995), and a reflection question at the end.  The question sheet aids in furnishing a summary of the documentary's coverage and sequence of specific topics. The documentary is a little dated, but it does provide an overview of some early exploration, excavation, discoveries (e.g., Leonard Woolley and Ur), and other issues relating to the emergence of Near Eastern Archaeology and some questions and topics of interest to a broad audience (e.g., Eden; Flood Story and Epic of Gilgamesh; Tower of Babel; Hammurabi's Law Code; Moabite Stone; Assyrian siege of Lachish; Dead Sea Scrolls). It looks at Neo-Babylonia, the fall of Jerusalem and Exilic period (586+ BC), the compilation of biblical texts in Babylon, the Assyrians, the Sumerians, and the postulated location of "Eden" (perhaps fitting ancient Dilmun). For a more thorough treatment on this, see Susan Pollock, 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden that Never Was. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tGyQqfXoSw

Architectural monumentality in Elam (southwestern Iran) may be defined by a number of variables including material consumption, scale, elevation, and labor input. While little evidence of Elamite palatial architecture survives outside of the cuneiform sources, several examples of monumental religious structures are attested. This chapter looks at the high terrace on the Acropole mound at Susa, dated to c. 4000 B.C., and the Late Bronze Age ziqqurrat built by Untaš-Napiriša at Choga Zanbil (ancient Al Untaš-Napiriša). Each was impressive as a feat of engineering, requiring the mobilization of significant human resources and the production of millions of bricks. In order to appreciate the scale of these structures and the resources required to build them, comparisons are drawn with the much better documented Etemenanki at Babylon.

This issue of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel edited by Yoram Cohen, as
guest-editor, is dedicated to the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II (602–
562 b.c.e). It contains seven papers that deal with the man and his deeds as
documented in contemporaneous records, monuments, inscriptions and
archaeological remains, and as reflected in later sources. The papers are
concerned with the actuality and the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s campaigns
to the West and the political, social and ideological structuring of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire. The following introductory paragraphs highlight
some of their shared issues.
Ran Zadok brings forth evidence regarding foreigners in the Neo-Babylonian
Empire, dealing with diverse population groups, such as the Assyrians
in the southern alluvium and deportees from the Phoenician cities. He
illuminates the role of each community in the imperial economy.
Michael Jursa and Shai Gordin complement Zadok’s paper by offering us
a micro-historical study of a priestly family in Uruk. They demonstrate the
steps undertaken by the imperial administration in order to consolidate and
strengthen the Neo-Babylonian Empire once its borders were established.
Two studies focus on the military activities of Nebuchadnezzar along
the Southern Levantine coast and his interaction with the Egyptians. Dan
Master reconstructs the economic and social status of the mercantile city of
Ashkelon prior to its destruction by the Babylonians. Dan’el Kahn interprets
a variety of Egyptian and other sources to clarify several issues regarding the
military maneuvers of the Babylonians and the Egyptians.
Rocío Da Riva revisits the monuments of Nebuchadnezzar in Lebanon
and offers a novel analysis of their function by looking closely at the way
they were produced: The execution of the monuments involved not only
material aspects, but also ritual procedures that endowed them with special
significance.
Jonathan Ben-Dov argues for an afterlife and reinterpretation of the image
of Nebuchadnezzar – including its plastic representation in the Lebanon
monuments – as propagated throughout the empire. Ben-Dov engages not
only with Neo-Babylonian and later cuneiform texts about the king and his
dynasty, but also with Aramaic and Hebrew sources.
David Vanderhooft likewise considers the image of the Babylonian king,
addressing how it was reflected in the Hebrew Bible. He demonstrates how,
in quite different ways, Jeremiah and Habakkuk viewed the role of Nebuchadnezzar
as the executioner of God’s intentions.
Each paper of this issue treats one or several aspects of Nebuchadnezzar’s
impact on the ancient Near East from the beginning of his reign and
beyond. When considered together they are to be viewed as a substantial
contribution to our understanding of a watershed event in the history of
ancient Israel and a renewed appreciation of one of the momentous periods
in the ancient Near East.
These papers were delivered at a symposium entitled, “Nebuchadnezzar:
History, Archaeology and Memory,” held at Tel Aviv University on 27 April
2017, under the auspices of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology
and the Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient
Near Eastern Cultures.
The symposium was organized by Yoram Cohen and Oded Lipschits. We
wish to thank the Thyssen Foundation, the Office of the Rector, Tel Aviv
University, and the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology for
their generous support, which enabled us to host our international guests
at Tel Aviv.
I sincerely thank the editorial board for accepting the papers for publication
in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel. The assistance and devoted care
of Phillip Michael Lasater during the production of the issue is greatly appreciated.