7/27/2019 The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods to …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-the-neo-babylonian-empire-new-data-concerning-naboniduss-order 1/6

The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send theStatues of Gods to BabylonAuthor(s): Stefan ZawadzkiReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 71, No. 1 (April 2012), pp. 47-52Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664452 .

Accessed: 29/01/2013 07:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal

of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

7/27/2019 The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods to …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-the-neo-babylonian-empire-new-data-concerning-naboniduss-order 2/6

[JNES 71 no. 1 (2012)] © 2012 by The University o Chicago. All rights reserved. 022–2968–2012/7101–005 $10.00.

47

The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire:

New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s

Order to Send the Statues of Gods

to Babylon

stefan Z awadZki,  Adam-Mickiewicz University, Poznań 

Despite the use o new data rom administrative andeconomic documents to explain the circumstances o the all o the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the sequenceo events preceding the attack o the Persian army, themain source is still the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle ,1 even though its objectivity has been contested.2 Leav-ing the discussion o the character o the Chronicle ora separate study, this article will only discuss the eventso the last year preceding the attack o the Persianson Babylonia and the all o the Neo-Babylonian Em-

1 For the latest edition o the Chronicle , see A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (ABC) (Locust Valley, 1975),104–11; see also  J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Society o Biblical Literature, Writings o the Ancient World 19 (Leiden,2004), 232–38.

2 The main problem concerning the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle 

(almost never discussed by scholars) lies in whether the eventsconcerning the last year(s) o Nabonidus and the ollowing years

 were simply added to the Nabonidus   Chronicle, or whether thatearlier part describing Nabonidus’s reign is the rewritten (biased)

 version prepared by Cyrus’s order. The tendentious character o the Chronicle  was stressed lately by R. Kratz (“From Nabonidus toCyrus,” in Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomenon , ed. A. Panainoand G. Pettinatto, Melammu Symposia III [Milan, 2002], 149),and a careul analysis o the text strongly supports this view. Theanti-Nabonidus attitude o the Nabonidus-Cyrus  Chronicle is seenin the selection o data, stressing Nabonidus’s religious negligence,the result o which was that the Akītu estival was not celebrated.

pire.3 The currently accepted reconstruction suggeststhat in 540 b.c. the rst clash between Babylonia andPersia took place in southern Babylonia.4 These events

3 See S. Zawadzki, “The portrait o Nabonidus and Cyrus intheir (?) Chronicle: when and why the present version was com-posed,” in Petr Charvat and Petra Mařikova Vlčkova, eds., Who Was 

King? Who Was Not King? The Rulers and the Ruler in the Ancient 

Near East (Prague, 2010), 142–54.4

Instead o an earlier reading māt Tam -[tim ], scholars now ac-cept the reading mātPar -[su ], rst suggested by E. von Voigtlander(“A Survey o Neo-Babylonian History,” Ph.D. diss. [University o Michigan, 1963], 206, n. 73). Considering the act that in 540 b.c. aew o the highest ofcers in Uruk were removed and replaced by new ones, L. S. Fried (The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Rela- 

tions in the Persian Empire [Winona Lake, IN, 2004], 24–28) came tothe conclusion that, as early as 540 b.c., the Persians had deeated theBabylonian army near Uruk, and Cyrus appointed new ofcers loyal tohim. But a ew months later, Ištar ed Uruk, arriving—as establishedby Beaulieu (see below)—in Babylon by the end o the 4th month,the 17th year o Nabonidus. Such an interpretation is highly unlikely,rst, because it would mean not only that the newly-appointed ofcials

 were not punished by Cyrus or allowing the goddess to “escape,” but

also that regular contact with Babylon was maintained. Besides, atersuch a success it would be logical to expect the Persian army to attack Babylon rom the south, not rom the north. The evacuation o Ištarin the month Simanu (beginning o Du’uzu 539 b.c.) demonstratesthat the Persian attack cannot be interpreted as a capture o southernBabylonia. However, it is worth considering  whether such intrusionsby the Persians into the south o Babylonia did not occur earlier. In  

this regard, concerning the 10th year (546 b.c.), we read that ITI.SIG4 

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:16:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/27/2019 The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods to …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-the-neo-babylonian-empire-new-data-concerning-naboniduss-order 3/6

48 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies

perhaps inuenced Nabonidus’s decision at the begin-ning o the next year to order the transerral o thegods to Babylon.

The beginning o the next year’s report (539 b.c.)in the Chronicle does not oretell any dramatic events;

quite the reverse, the text stresses that the Akītu es-tival “was celebrated as in normal times” (ki šalmu 

ippušu ).5 Some time later the situation changed:

(8) ina ITI.[x dLUGAL-MÁR.DA ki u ]

U4.21.K[AM lúERÍN.MEŠ] šá kurE-lam -mi-ia ina  kurURIki x [DU-ma 

x x  l]úGAR.KUR ina UNUG.K[I . . .]. “On the twenty-rst day o the month Simanu, [the army] o the country Elammiya x [entered]

 Akkad [and x x], the district governor in Uruk [. . .].” Although wedo not know i this inormation was in the original version, or i it wasadded to the later redaction, the second possibility and its connection

 with the Persians seems to me more likely. It should be noted thatbeginning with 550 b.c., the Chronicle gives no inormation about any positive action o Nabonidus and all military data are connected ex-clusively with Cyrus, a strong argument or the idea that this incident

 was also connected with Cyrus’s activity. It thereore seems probablethat Elammiya may be identied with Elam, which was under Persiancontrol. This identication was suggested by Voigtlander (“A Survey o Neo-Babylonian History,” 195–96), but discounted by P.-A. Beau-lieu (The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. [New Haven, 1989], 201), who ound this identication “incorrect” andollowed Grayson’s proposal to identiy it with a city o Elammu, southo Carchemish (Grayson, ABC, 254). But how could the mention o the provincial governor o Uruk be connected with the Carchemishregion? Besides, kurE-lam-mi-ia suggests that a country or region andnot a city/settlement was meant. Nor is there any evidence that anevent o special importance took place in 540 b.c. near Carchem-ish. Perhaps the amine in Uruk or in its vicinity (mentioned in YOS6, 154, and dated to the next, the 11th, year o Nabonidus) was aresult o devastation rom the Persian attack in that region. C. alsoK. Kleber, Tempel und Palast: Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König 

und der Eanna-Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk, Veröentlichungenzur Wirtschatsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend vor Chr.,

 vol. 3 (Münster, 1998), 18, n. 79.5 The month o Ṭebētu (the 9th month) in l. 6 (c. translation o 

lines 6–8): “[. . . In the month] Ṭebētu (9th month) the king en-tered Eturkalamma. In the temple [. . . .]/ [. . .] he made a libationo wine . . . .[. . .]/[. . . . B]el came out. They perormed the Akītuestival as in normal times. . .” (Grayson, ABC, 109, accepted by Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles , 236) is highly doubtul, becausethe rule o Nabonidus had already come to an end in Tašritu (the7th month) and the Akītu estival took place in Nisanu (1st month).For this, we have to go back to earlier editions: see O. E. Hagen(“Keilschriturkunden zur Geschichte des Königs Cyrus,” Beiträge 

zur Assyriologie   2 [1894]: 214–48, plus 2 plates); and S. Smith(Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall 

of Babylon [BHT, London, 1924], p. 113), who recognized in ab 

the last syllable o an unidentiable word.

(9) [DINGIR.ME]Š šá MÁR.DA ki dZa-ba 4-ba 4 u DINGIR.MEŠ šá Kiš ki dNin-líl [u 

DINGIR.MEŠ](10) [šá ḫ ]ur-sag-kalam-ma ana TIN.TIR.KI

KU4.MEŠ-ni EN TIL ITI.KIN DINGIR.

MEŠ šá 

kur

Uri 

ki

[. . . . . . . . . .](11) šá UGU IM u KI.TA IM ana E.KI KU4.MEŠ-ni DINGIR.MEŠ šá Bar-sip ki GÚ.DU8.A.[KI . . . . .]

(12) u Sip-par ki NU.KU4.MEŠ-ni 

In the month o [x, Lugal-Maradda6 andthe god]s o Marad, Zababa and the gods o Kiš, Ninlil and the gods o Hursagkalamma,entered Babylon. Until the end o themonth Ulūlu, the gods o Akkad [. . . .]

 who are above the IM and below the IM7 

6 The restoration (suggested already in an earlier edition o the Chronicle , see Hagen, (“Keilschriturkunden,” 220) is basedon the comparison with two other cities where the main god orgoddess o the city is mentioned rst, ollowed by the phrase “andthe gods o the city GN.” The same rule can be observed in otherchronicles, see S. Zawadzki, Garments of the Gods: Studies in the Tex- 

tile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar According to the Texts from 

the Ebabbar Archive , Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 218 (Fribourg-Göttingen, 2006), 148. C. the personal names Šar-Marad-šar-uṣur(mdLUGAL-MÁR.DA-LUGAL-ÙRU) in BM 60279: line 12 andŠar-Marad-tukultu (mdLUGAL-MÁR.DA-tu-kul-tu 4) in F. E. Peiser,Babylonische Vorträge des Berliner Museums (Berlin, 1890), no. 5:3,examples which  clearly demonstrate the highest position o Šar-Marad in the pantheon o the city o Marad.

7 For an earlier discussion, see A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal In- 

scriptions (ARI ), vol. 1 (Wiesbaden, 1972), § 464, n. 140. Grayson, ABC, 109 let the term without translat ion. Glassner’s translationo the passage—UGU IM u  KI.TA IM, “upstream and down-stream rom Isin(?)” (Mesopotamian Chronicles , 237)—is not basedon any parallels and is, thereore, doubtul. C. Beaulieu, Reign of 

Nabonidus , 223, note 54, and Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fallo Babylon”: 242, “above the wall and below the wall,” based onthe idea that IM might be an abbreviation o IM.DÙ.A =  pitiqtu ,“brick wall”. The problem is that i the “Median Wall” is meant,all cities enumerated in the Chronicle were below the wall; or itslocation, see H. Gasche et al., “Habl-aṣ-ṣahr, nouvelles ouilles,”Northern Akkad Project Reports  2 [1989]: 23–70 and Fig. 7. Aninteresting translat ion and comments were given by B. van der Spek in his internet edition o the Nabonidus Chronicle  (http://www.livius.org/cg cm/chronicles/abc7/abc7_nabonidus3.html), which Icite here: “‘above the wind’ and ‘below the wind’ probably means‘rom everywhere’ (rom directions upstream and downstream).The word IM = šāru = ‘wind’ also means ‘direction.’ C. CAD Š 2,s.v. šāru , p. 137.” This interpretation is supported now by an impor-tant observation o E. Payne, “New Evidence or the ‘Cratsmen’sCharter,’” Revue d’Assyriologie 102 (2008): 103, noting the phrasešu-pal šá-a-ru in ABL 281: 9, and e- ˹li ˺ šá-a-ri u  šu-pa- ˹al ˺ šá-a-ri šá  Unugki, “above the wind and below the wind o Uruk (i.e., upwind

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:16:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/27/2019 The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods to …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-the-neo-babylonian-empire-new-data-concerning-naboniduss-order 4/6

The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire F 49

entered Babylon. The gods o Borsippa,Cutha [. . . . .] and Sippar did not enter(Babylon).

 Although the meaning o IM is not ully clear, it israther improbable that the composer o the Chroni- 

cle  wanted to divide the cultic centers between those which were inside and outside the deense system,because it would have been impossible to place in onegroup Marad, Kiš, and Hursagkalamma, and in an-other Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar. It is more probablethat he was thinking about the Median Wall, whichstill dominated the landscape at that time.

Scholars never doubted that Nabonidus orderedthe gods be sent to Babylon, but it was only in 1989,almost exactly twenty years ago, that P.-A. Beaulieudemonstrated that the king’s order was also ullled by the city o Uruk, and was also addressed in the same

 way to other cities not enumerated in the Chronicle .8 Based on data in the economic and administrativetexts rom Uruk, Beaulieu came to the convincingconclusion that the divine statue o the Lady o Uruk reached Babylon by the teenth o Du’uzu (ca. 15tho July). Assuming that the Chronicle presented eventsin strict chronological order, Beaulieu suggested thatthe gods o Marad, Kiš, and Hursagkalamma reachedBabylon even earlier, at the beginning o Du’uzu oralready by the end o Simanu (ca. the end o June orbeginning o July). This is doubtul, however, as theChronicle states only that the gods o Akkad enteredBabylon by the end o Ululu, that is, it is only certainthat the gods o Marad, Kiš, and Hursagkalamma ar-rived beore this date. In order to better establish thetime o their arrival in Babylon, new data is needed.

The text presented here expands the list o citiesthat sent gods to the capital, and, more importantly, itsheds new light on the relationship between Naboni-dus and Sippar in the last days o his rule because itraises the question o why Sippar (plus Borsippa andCutha) did not send their gods to Babylon.

and downwind)” in BM 114525: 25. The dierence between thedescription in BM 114525 and in the Nabonidus Chronicle shouldbe noted, however. In the rst one, the point o reerence or the“wind” is Uruk, whereas in the second, “wind” is not ollowed by the name o the city to which gods should be dispatched rom theirtowns and cities. Undoubtedly Babylon is meant, however, and thepassage should be translated “above the wind and below the wind(o Babylon).”

8 Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus , 220–24, with more detailedanalysis o this data in Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall o Babylon.”

BM 62925 (82–9-18, 2894)9

6.1 x 4.2 cm(1) 9 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR IGI-ú 1/3

1 [GÍN EGIR-tu 4](2) PAP ½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR TA ir-bi 

(3) a-na a-gur-ru a-na 

md

EN-MU(4) A -šú šá mdŠÚ-NUMUN-DÙ lúGAL 1me 

(5) SUMin 2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ina i-di 

[šá ](6) mSu-qa-a-a lúSIMUG AN.BAR (7) 2 GÍN i-di <šá ?> ˹3˺3 x x(8) šá lúERÍN.ME[Š x x] x

Rev. (9) mIM-dEN-DÙG.GA lú˹TÚG.BABBAR ˺(10) ITI.KIN U4.2.KÁM MU.17.KAM(11) d AG-IM.TUKU LUGAL EKI

(12) 4 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR TA ir-bi i-di šá 

15 [ERÍN.MEŠ](13) a-na šá-da-du šá gišMÁ.GUR 8 šá x [x x](14) ˹

d˺LUGAL.A.TU.GAB.LIŠ ina lìb-bi 

˹1˺(?) [x x](15) [TIN].TIR.KI il-li-ku ˹2˺ (?) [x x x](16) [m]dUTU-BA šá x x x

Note: l. 13. The end o the line might be reconstructed[TA uruBa-aṣ šá ] or similar.

(1) 9 shekels o silver o an earlier (payment) and21 shekels o a later (payment), (2) totaling one

hal mina o silver, rom the (temple) income(6) (was given to) (3) Bēl-iddin, (4) son o Marduk-zēr-ibni, the chie o one hundred; (5)2 shekels o silver, or the idu -wage o Sūqāya,the blacksmith; (7) 2 shekels, the idu -wage o ˹3˺3 [x x] (8) or the workmen . . . (9) (givento) Šar-Bēl-ṭab, the washerman. (10) MonthUlūlu, 2nd day, 17th year (11) o Nabonidus,king o Babylon. (12) 4 shekels o silver, romthe (temple) income or teen [workers] (13)or towing o the processional boat [rom Baṣ](14) o Bēl-ṣarbi, including 1[+x? shekels (paid)]

(15) [ater] they came to Babylon; 2(?) [shekelso silver] (16) [or] Šamaš-iqīša . . .

The text includes, as it seems, our separate entriesregarding disbursements rom the Ebabbar templerevenue or work done by individuals and by groups.

9 Published here with the kind permission o the Trustees o theBritish Museum.

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:16:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/27/2019 The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods to …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-the-neo-babylonian-empire-new-data-concerning-naboniduss-order 5/6

50 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Sūqāya, the blacksmith, known rom many texts,10 Bēl-iddin, son o Marduk-šum-ibni, the centurion(rab meʾati ),11 and Šar-Bēl-ṭabi, the ašlāku 12 are allstrongly connected with the Ebabbar temple, andtheir inclusion here makes it certain that the docu-ment was produced in the Ebabbar temple and be-longs to its archives. Though Šamaš-iqīša cannot be

10 C. A. C. V. M. Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar 

Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography , Ned-erlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut (Istanbul, 1997), 383–

84, and Maria Kunert-Zanelli, “Metalurgia i złotnictwo w okresienowobabilońskim w świetle archiwum Ebabbar w Sippar.” PhDdiss., Uniwersytet Szczeciński, 2005. They believe that becauseSūqāya received his payment in silver—as in the text under discus-sion—he was not one o the temple slaves (širku ), but was the slaveo a private person, who rented him out to the Ebabbar temple.Note, however, that in Nbn 976 his payment is described as kurum- 

matu , i.e., ood rations paid to temple personnel.11 Bongenaar, Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple ,  137, known

rom the 10th year o Nabonidus (Nbn 478) until the 2nd year o Cambyses (Camb 195), described sometimes as rab meʾati o Bēl(i.e., most probably Marduk), which suggests (according to Bon-genaar) that he was sent rom outside (Babylon?). Like in previ-ously known texts, where he is active in producing or delivering

the building materials, here he is paid by the Ebabbar temple orbaked bricks.

12 Ibid., 351. The document discussed here is the latest textmentioning this ašlāku . Note that until now the name was writtenas Šar-ṭâb-Bēl or in abbreviated orm as Ṭābiya. The same writ-ing o the name appears in BM 73285: 7′: mIM-dEN-DÚG.GA lúMÁ.[LAH4] and in BM 51287, rev. 5′ (3.7.11), a long list o hire-lings delivering reeds. Concerning lúTÚG.BABBAR = ašlāku , seeC. Waerzeggers, “Neo-Babylonian Laundry,” Revue d’Assyriologie  107 (2006): 93–94.

identied because o his common Babylonian name,he also must have been involved with the Ebabbartemple. The scribe wrote all these operations on onetablet13 because these people received pay (idu ) notood rations (kurummatu ); that is, although they 

 worked or the temple, they did not belong to itspersonnel. Their relationship with the temple was builton a dierent basis than the temple’s relationship withits own personnel.

The reason, as was suggested above, that such asimple administrative document deserves special at-

tention is because o  the third entry. Although it is notully preserved, the main sense seems clear: a group

 was hired to tow the processional boat o the patrongod o the city Baṣ (or Šapazzu) to Babylon. Accord-ing to our text, they acted and were paid on behal o the Ebabbar temple, which was not out o the ordi-nary since the responsibility o the Ebabbar temple orthe cult and saety o the gods o Baṣ/Šapazzu is wellknown.14 We read here that they should transport thegod Bēl-ṣarbi (“Lord o the Poplar Tree”) to Babylon.The reason or this decision can be understood when

 we take into account the date: 2nd Ulūlu, 17th yearo Nabonidus, shortly beore the Persian attack onBabylon. The gods o Baṣ were sent to Babylon tocarry out the king’s order.

13 But the act that two entries ollow the date and that the signsare a little smaller suggests that the scribe had not planned on writ-ing these entries on this tablet.

14 C. J. MacGinnis, “Baṣ‚ continuo,” N.A.B.U. (1997): 135;and Zawadzki, Garments of the Gods , 149 and 182.

Figure 1—BM 62925 (82–9-18, 2894). © Trustees o the British Museum.

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:16:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/27/2019 The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the Statues of Gods to …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-end-of-the-neo-babylonian-empire-new-data-concerning-naboniduss-order 6/6

The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire F 51

However, the Chronicle states that at least threecenters (Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar) did not sendtheir gods to Babylon. It was suggested that Sipparreused to send its gods to Babylon because o opposi-tion toward the king’s religious policy.15 An alterna-

tive idea—that these cities could have not sent theirgods to Babylon because they were protected by acommon deensive system16—was reuted by Beaulieu,

 who noted, quite rightly, that it would be impossibleto explain why two other cities very close to Babylon,Kiš and Hursagkalamma, did send their gods to thecapital.17 As long as the original text o Nabonidus’sorder is missing, it cannot be excluded that the citiesclose to Babylon elt protected by the Babylonian army stationed there, and that they could send their god toBabylon i they wished to do so. However, in light o the text published here, the idea o hostility between

Nabonidus and Sippar in the period preceding thePersian attack against Babylonia seems improbable.18 It would be difcult to explain why the authorities o the Ebabbar temple sent Bēl-ṣarbi (and probably othergods o Šapazzu) to Babylon i they were in conict

 with Nabonidus. Why Šamaš and other gods o Sippar were not sent to Babylon might be or other reasons;or example, they may have delayed the dispatch o the gods because they wanted to celebrate the com-ing east on the 3rd o Ulūlu, or later, on the 7th o Tašrītu, and the swit progress o the Persian army made a later transer impossible. It cannot be excluded

15 So rst Smith in 1924 (BHT, 103–104), and in similar andeven more dramatic tone, Olmstead almost 25 years later, (A. T.Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire  [Chicago, 1948], 50):“The limit o citizen patience had been reached; the gods o Kutu,Sippar, and even Borsippa did not enter. Ebarra, the temple o thesun-god Shamash in Sippar, had been restored, but the priests weredisgusted when Nabu-naid through one o his requent dreamschanged the orm o the god’s headdress.”

16 S. Smith, Isaiah Chapter XL–LC (London, 1944), 45–47.17 Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus , 223–24.18 Arguments suggesting that there was no hostility between

Nabonidus and Sippar, but rather, a long riendly cooperation, werepresented in my 2006 lecture at the Rencontre Assyriologique In-

ternationale in Münster (orthcoming in the conerence volumeKrieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien , ed. Hans Neumann).

that Nabonidus himsel prevented the gods o Sipparrom leaving their temple. This idea is suggested by the act—as is clear rom the Chronicle —that he in-tended to stop the Persians by ghting a decisive battlein the area north o Sippar. The removal o Šamaš

rom Sippar could have been interpreted as the king’slack o aith in his ability to deeat the Persian army.In addition, an evacuation o Nergal, god o war andpatron deity o Cutha, certainly would have cast doubton the possibility o victory. Other reasons or sucha decision are easible, but this psychological actorshould not be ignored.

One thing at least seems certain: Sippar, by send-ing the gods o Šapazzu to Babylon, demonstrated

 willingness to abide by the king’s order. Thereore,the data rom the Chronicle cannot be treated as proo o tension between Nabonidus and Sippar’s clergy.

The lack o resistance and subsequent all o Sipparto the Persians could indicate a conscious decisionto avoid conict with a new power at the very begin-ning o its rule—and in the ace o the inevitable allo Nabonidus.

In light o the date o the document, 2nd Ulūlu,it is certain that the cities north o Sippar dispatchedtheir gods a little earlier, probably in the month o 

 Abu. The transer o gods near Sippar in Abu seemsmore probable since a ew administrative documentsrom Sippar, dated to Du’uzu, concern building activi-ties in the region north o Sippar. The work in Du’uzu

 was continued as in normal times, suggesting that anenemy attack was not deemed a real threat, at leastduring the ollowing ew weeks. I the Lady o Uruk reached Babylon as early the 15th o Du’uzu, it meansthat the king’s order was proclaimed at the beginningo this month or even a little earlier, in the montho Simanu. This early dispatch o the gods o Uruk might be explained by the longer distance upstreamor by ear that the Persian army might try to conquerBabylonia not rom the north, but quite the opposite,rom the south. Further study o the administrativedocuments might deliver new data that will shed lighton the last days o the independent Babylonian state.

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:16:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions