Bactrian Documents from Ancient Afghanistan

http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html

New Findings in Ancient Afghanistan

--- the Bactrian documents discovered from the Northern Hindu-Kush

Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams (University of London)

Bactrian, the ancient language of Bactria in northern Afghanistan, is unique among the Iranian languages in being written by means of the Greek alphabet --- a legacy of the conquest of Bactria by Alexander the Great in the 4th cent. B.C. From this period onwards the Greek language, written in the Greek script, was for a long time the exclusive language of culture and administration in Bactria. When Bactria was overrun by nomadic peoples from the north, its new rulers, the Kushans, at first continued the use of the Greek language for administrative purposes, but soon they came to use the Greek script to write the local language, Bactrian. A crucial moment in the history of this language was the decision of the Kushan ruler Kanishka to adopt Bactrian as the language of his coinage. After the first issues of Kanishka, Greek disappears from the coinage once and for all, to be replaced by Bactrian.

During the first centuries of the Christian era, Bactrian could legitimately have been ranked amongst the world's most important languages. As the language of the Kushan kings, Bactrian must have been widely known throughout a great empire, in Afghanistan, Northern India and part of Central Asia. Even after the collapse of the Kushan empire, Bactrian continued in use for at least six centuries, as is shown by the ninth-century inscriptions from the Tochi valley in Pakistan [Slide 1 9KB] and the remnants of Buddhist and Manichean manuscripts found as far away as the Turfan oasis in western China. (This slide, for instance [Slide 2 12KB], shows the unique fragment of a Bactrian text written in Manichean script, which forms part of the Turfan collection in Berlin.) The career of Bactrian as a language of culture thus lasted for close to a thousand years.


Until forty years ago virtually nothing was known of the Bactrian language except for the legends on the coins of the Kushans and their successors. The Kushan coins are inscribed in Greek letters of an angular type, apparently imitating a style of writing used for monumental inscriptions. In principle these legends are not particularly difficult to read, but their content is limited to the names and titles of kings and deities. The coins of the later rulers of Bactria --- Kushano-Sasanians, Kidarites, Hephthalites, Turks, and so on --- are written in a cursive script, imitating manuscript styles, which has proved much more difficult to decipher. Some tiny scraps of manuscripts in a similar cursive script were also known, but they were too few and too incomplete to offer any realistic prospect of interpretation.

These prospects were transformed in 1957 by the discovery at Surkh Kotal near Baghlan of the first substantial Bactrian inscription [Slide 3 23KB]. The text, written in the monumental script already known from the Kushan coins, could be read without much difficulty; its interpretation was much more problematic, since the names and titles known from the coins provided only a minimal vocabulary and hardly a hint of the grammatical structure of the language. Nevertheless, the essential points were immediately recognized by W. B. Henning: the text refers to the foundation of a sanctuary by the emperor Kanishka, its abandonment as a result of problems with the water-supply, and its re-establishment by a high official named Nukunzuk in the year 31 of the era of Kanishka, that is, early in the reign of his successor Huvishka.

Several further Bactrian inscriptions have been discovered since that of Surkh Kotal, but most of them are too poorly preserved to add significantly to our knowledge of the language. However, in 1993 a new inscription of fundamental importance was discovered by chance at a site named Rabatak, not far from Surkh Kotal [Slide 4 18KB]. The inscription of Rabatak describes events of the first year of Kanishka in words strikingly reminiscent of those of Darius the Great in the inscription of Bisitun. Since Joe Cribb and I have already published a detailed study of this inscription in the most recent issue of Silk Road Art and Archaeology, I will limit my remarks to a few of the most important points.

The opening lines refer to Kanishka as "the great salvation, the righteous, just autocrat, worthy of divine worship, who has obtained the kingship from Nana and from all the gods, who has inaugurated the year one as the gods pleased". Then comes the significant statement: "He issued(?) an edict(?) in Greek and then he put it into the Aryan language". In principle, any of the Indo-European languages of Iran or India could be called "Aryan"; but when Kanishka refers to "the Aryan language" he surely means Bactrian, the language of this inscription, just as Darius meant Old Persian, the language of his inscription, when he wrote: "By the grace of Auramazda, I made another text in Aryan, which previously did not exist". It is difficult not to associate Kanishka's emphasis here on the use of the "Aryan language" with the replacement of Greek by Bactrian on his coinage. The numismatic evidence shows that this must have taken place very early in Kanishka's reign, quite possibly in his very first year.


Lines 4-7 of the Rabatak inscription give a list of the chief cities of north India which were controlled by Kanishka. Four of the five names can be identified: Saketa, Kausambi, Pataliputra, andChampa. [Slide 5 12KB] The wording of the inscription does not make it clear whether Champa is mentioned as belonging to the area ruled by Kanishka or as the first city beyond his eastern border. Even in the latter case, the statement that he ruled northern India as far as Pataliputra is sufficiently striking.





The major part of the inscription concerns the foundation of a temple, perhaps at Rabatak itself, which seems to have been an extensive site. Lines 9 and 10 name the divinities who are to be worshipped in the temple. This list is very intriguing. On the one hand it includes two Zoroastrian deities who are never portrayed on the Kushan coinage. On the other hand, it omits many names which are well attested on these same coins, such as Ma, the moon, and Ardukhsh, the goddess of plenty. Above the list of Iranian divinities some words have been added in smaller letters [Slide 6 22KB], which seem to identify some or all of them with Indian equivalents such as Mahasena and Visakha.

Apparently the temple was intended to contain statues of kings as well as gods. Kanishka lists four kings: Kujula Kadphises his great- grandfather, Vima Taktu his grandfather, Vima Kadphises his father, and himself, Kanishka. This list is extremely informative. In the first place, it bears witness to the existence of two kings named Vima, rather than one. Several inscriptions previously attributed to Vima Kadphises, notably the Bactrian inscription of Dasht-e Nawur [Slide 7 9KB], can now be ascribed to his father Vima Taktu. In all probability the coins of the anonymous king Soter Megas "the great saviour", which come between Kujula and Vima Kadphises in the numismatic sequence, should also be attributed to this newly-discovered Vima the First. Moreover, the indication that Kujula Kadphises was the great-grandfather of Kanishka evidently has a bearing on the oft-debated issue of the date of Kanishka. The fact that Kanishka belongs to the third generation after Kujula clearly imposes certain limits on the manner in which the early chronology of the Kushans may be reconstructed. Although I would not go so far as to say that the new facts are only compatible with a single chronological system, it is clear that the solutions previously proposed will now have to be reconsidered.

Lines 14-17 mention the officials charged with executing the orders of Kanishka. Amongst them is a certain Nukunzuk who is probably the same person who was later responsible for the works described in the Surkh Kotal inscription. At Rabatak, 30 years earlier, he does not yet bear the title karalrang "margrave" and seems to occupy a subordinate position. The last part of the inscription in which a continuous text can be read contains a wish for Kanishka's health and happiness and perhaps also --- if my reading is correct --- expresses the hope that his reign may last for a thousand years.

It goes without saying that neither the reign of Kanishka nor that of the Kushan dynasty approached 1000 years. In about 2Z4 A.D. the Sasanians came to power in Iran [Slide 8 9KB].Within a few years the Sasanians had also conquered Bactria, which they ruled during part of the following period through a viceroy known as the Kushan-shah 'king of the Kushans", who was often a prince of the Sasanian royal family. Subsequently Bactria was invaded several times by nomads from the north. At different times the invaders are referred to under various names --- Chionites, Kidarite Huns, Hephthalites --- though it is not entirely clear whether all these names refer to the same or to different peoples. The next arrivals were theTurks, who in the middle of the sixth century allied themselves with the Sasanians to defeat the Hephthalites; and then finally all the local dynasties were swept aside by the coming of Islam and the Arabs.

The history of the period from the Sasanian Kushan-shahs to the arrival of the Arabs is illustrated by a second discovery. In December 1991, I was shown photographs of a newly discovered Bactrian document on leather. The document was inscribed on both sides with 28 lines in cursive Bactrian script, making it by far the most substantial example of cursive Bactrian so far known[Slide 9 12KB]. The document was clearly a letter, beginning with conventional phrases of address and greeting almost identical to those used in Sogdian letters: "To your lordship 1,000 and 10,000 times greeting and homage from so-and-so your servant. Having heard that your lordship is healthy I am happy; but I should be still happier if I myself might see your lordship in good health and pay homage ...". To judge by personal names such as Ohrmuzd and Khwasraw, the document belonged to the Sasanian period. Another striking name was Purlang-zin, evidently meaning "the man with the panther's skin" --- a clear reference to the zin-e palang of Rustam, one of the heroes of the Persian epic.

One such document was a revelation in itself. But it was as nothing compared to what was to come. Within five years the corpus of Bactrian documents had grown to a hundred, most of which are now in London, in the collection of Dr David Khalili. These documents have passed through the hands of many different dealers and collectors. In most cases there is no record of their original provenance, though a couple of them are said, quite plausibly, to have been found in Samingan. From internal evidence, especially the recurrence of the same names in several documents, it seems clear that most if not all of them ultimately derive from a single source.

Many of the documents are letters, some of them still sealed and therefore perfectly preserved. This slide [Slide 10 4KB] shows a letter sealed with a clay bulla, with a few words of address written on the outside; and here [Slide 11 10KB] is the same letter after opening, from which you can see the standard layout of the text, with a wide left-hand margin, and the way the seal is attached to a strip of leather cut along the bottom edge of the letter without being completely detached from it.




One of the less well-preserved letters is particularly interesting because it mentions a Kushan-shah [Slide 12 12KB]. This letter can hardly be later than the latter half of the fourth century, when the rule of the Kushan-shahs came to an end. The Kushan-shah here seems to be named as Warahran, though the reading of the name is not quite clear [Slide 13 10KB]. Since Warahran (or Bahram) was the name of the last Kushan-shah --- or the last two Kushan-shahs --- known from the coins, the letter probably belongs to the very end of the Kushano-Sasanian period. The sender of the letter was the daughter of a princess named Dukht-anosh, a Middle Persian name which is attested on a seal in Paris. The contents are not yet clear, but concern a eunuch with the remarkable name Dathsh-mareg "servant of the Creator" --- a compound of the Bactrian mareg "servant" and the Avestan genitive dathusho "of the Creator", which was probably used in the Zoroastrian calendar of Bactria to refer to a day dedicated to the Creator.



The letter illustrated on the next slide [Slide 14 9KB] is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is written by a representative of the Shahan-shah or "king of kings", the ruler of Iran, and must therefore belong to one of the periods when Bactria was under Sasanian control. Secondly, it is dated, though the era is not specified.



It seems very likely that the era used here is the same as that of the Bactrian inscriptions of the Tochi valley in Pakistan [Slide 15 11KB]. These inscriptions, written in Arabic, Sanskrit, and Bactrian, contain dates expressed in three different eras. The vital evidence for determining the starting-point of the Bactrian era is provided by two bilingual inscriptions, the first being in Arabic and Sanskrit [Slide 16 13KB]. The Arabic text is naturally dated by means of the Hijri calendar, which is blessedly unambiguous and enables one to complete the date of the Sanskrit version, which is expressed in an abbreviated form omitting the thousands and hundreds. The second bilingual is in Sanskrit and Bactrian. Again the Sanskrit date is abbreviated; but, if one assumes that this inscription belongs to the same century as the Arabic-Sanskrit bilingual, the missing figures can be reconstructed, giving a date which can be computed as 863 A.D. The Bactrian version is dated with Greek numerals. Helmut Humbach, the first editor of the Bactrian texts, read these numerals as 632. On the basis of newly-discovered materials I would interpret the last digit as 1 rather than 2, but a difference of one year is of minor significance. In either case, the Bactrian date indicates the existence of an era beginning early in the Sasanian period, in 232 (according to Humbach) or 233 A.D. (accord to me). I am inclined to follow Humbach in regarding this as a "Kushano-Sasanian" era, whose starting-point was probably the Sasanian conquest of the Kushan empire.

Let us return to the Bactrian letter, whose date can be read as 239. If this era began in 233 A.D., the year 239 will correspond to 471 A.D., during the rule of Peroz, who spent much of his reign fighting the Hephthalites and who eventually perished in battle against them. Is it a coincidence that the word preceding the title Shahan-shah in the letter is in fact Piroz? Unfortunately the Middle Persian word peroz is not only a personal name but also a common adjective meaning "victorious", so that it is difficult to decide whether one should translate "Peroz, the king of kings" or merely "the victorious king of kings".

Only two of the newly-discovered Bactrian documents seem to be religious in inspiration. Both of them are Buddhist texts containing invocations to Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so on. The one illustrated on this slide [Slide 17 16KB] is particularly interesting. Unusually, it is written on cloth rather than leather. As you see, it is illustrated with two drawings, perhaps representing a Buddha and an ascetic. The text begins with homage to "all the Buddhas" and to five or six named Buddhas ending with the historical Buddha Shakyamuni. Then homage is paid to a series of six Bodhisattvas, followed by the kings of the yakshas, rakshasas, kinnaras, nagas, pishacas, etc. and finally Shakra, the king of the gods, and the "greatBrahma". I have not succeeded in deciphering all the names, but the outline of the text is quite clear up to this point. The last three lines are more obscure, but contain a reference to a Buddhist monastery (vihara} and a temple.

Apart from a few tears and small holes, some of which appear to have been made deliberately, the document seems to be complete. I suppose it to be a kind of votive offering, which would have been tied to a pole like a banner and fixed in a holy place, or perhaps an amulet.

After the letters, the largest group of texts consists of legal contracts and similar documents: deeds of sale, leases, guarantees, receipts, and deeds of gift. One particularly interesting document ---in fact the earliest of the dated documents --- is a marriage contract, in which one woman engages herself to marry two brothers at the same time [Slide 18 26KB]. The practice ofpolyandry, discussed by Prof. Enoki Kazuo in his well-known article "On the nationality of the Hephthalites" and here confirmed by first-hand evidence, was apparently typical of the region. Another unusual document [Slide 19 20KB], which now belongs to the Institute of Silk-Road Studies here in Kamakura, is a deed of manumission, recording the freeing of a slave in return for the purchase of a substitute.



Unlike the letters and Buddhist texts, legal documents such as these are always dated. So far I know of more than twenty documents with dates ranging from 110 to 549, that is (if we assume that the Bactrian era began in 233 A.D.), from 342 to 781 A.D. This span of more than four centuries covers the Chionite, Kidarite, Hephthalite, and Turkish periods, and extends well into Islamic times. As we shall shortly see, the contents of the documents provide many details against which one can test this chronological framework.



For example, the next slide [Slide 20 12KB] shows a contract for the sale of land dated in the year 295, which I interpret as 527 A.D., during the period of Hephthalite domination. This agrees well with the statement of the text that the "Hephthalite tax" due on the property has been paid. The format of the document is typical, though this example is exceptionally well preserved. There are two complete copies of the text. One copy is left open to be read. The other is tightly rolled, tied with string, and sealed with five bullae. The first two bear impressions of the fingernails of the vendors; the others are impressed with the seals of three witnesses. Presumably it was intended that the sealed copy should be opened in the presence of a judge in case of a dispute. On the reverse of the document [Slide 21 5KB], the names of the vendors and witnesses are written beside the holes for the seal-strings.


In addition to dates, many of these legal documents contain place-names, including the names of the places where they were written [Slide 22 10KB]. Several documents state that they were written in Samingan, Rob (modern Ruy), Malr or Madr, or Kah (modern Kah-mard). All four places are apparently within the jurisdiction of a ruler who is referred to in many documents as "the khar of Rob". On the other hand, Tarmid (or Termez), to the north of the Oxus, and Bamiyan, which is separated from Kah and Madr by a considerable ridge of mountains, may well have been outside his kingdom. The khar of Rob is no doubt to be identified with the Ru'b-khan, the ruler of Ru'b and Siminjan, who helped Qutayba b. Muslim to defeat the Hephthalite rebel Nezak Tarkhan in the year 91 of the Hijra (710 A.D.), as mentioned by the historian Tabari.



I suspect that the title khar is an Iranian --- but not necessarily Bactrian --- dialect form derived from Old Iranian *xshathriya- "ruler" [Slide 23 11KB]. The true Bactrian form may besher, which is mentioned by Muslim writers as the title of the rulers of Bamiyan, Gharchistan, and other places in the area around ancient Bactria. The ruler of Rob may at times have controlled a wider area than is indicated by the place-names mentioned so far. For instance, in a letter which probably dates from about 480, the khar of Rob is addressed, somewhat bombastically, as the "Hephthalite yabghu, ... scribe of the Hephthalite lords, and judge of Tukharistan and Gharchistan". Tukharistan is the land to the north of the Hindu-kush, including Rob and Samingan, but covering a considerably wider area; Gharchistan usually refers to the mountainous area to the west of Bamiyan, but since the Bactrian form of the name indicates that it means merely "the land of the mountaineers" it is possible that it refers more generally to the mountain areas to the south of Tukharistan.

Yet another document is written in a place named Warnu. This is surely to be identified with the Aornos; mentioned by Arrian as one of the two chief cities of Bactria. According to Paul Bernardand others, Aornos is to be located near Khulm or Tashkurgan, where the valley of the Khulm river, in which Rob and Samingan are situated, opens out into the plain. Since the whole collection of Bactrian documents almost certainly represents the royal archive of the kings of Rob, the mere presence of this document in the archive would suggest that Warnu too formed part of their dominions.

The next document which I would like to describe [Slide 24 11KB] is a contract for the sale of a slave, which begins: "It was the year 446, the month Ab, the day Wahman, when this sealed document, this purchase contract, was written here in the district of Samingan, at Marogan, the court of the khar of Rob". The year 446 should correspond to 678 A.D. By this time Turkish names and titles are common, as can be seen from the witness-list which follows: "Under the protection of the god Ram-set, the granter of favours, the granter of wishes, the wonderful, who is worshipped here at Marogan, at the court, under the protection of Zhun-lad son of Shabur, the successful, prosperous qaghan, the tapaghligh iltabir, the khar of Rob, and in the presence of Khusaru the tarkhan, and in the presence of Dev-raz, the brave chief justice of the khars of Rob, and also in the presence of the other noblemen who were present there amongst them and who bear witness concerning this matter". This document too was originally sealed with five seals, whose owners are named on the back: remarkably, the seals of the witnesses include that of the god Ram-set, who was presumably represented by his priest. In the same way, other documents include the god Wakhsh, the deified River Oxus, amongst the witnesses.

The text continues: "Now, I, Yaskul, and I, Yezdgird, the sons of Kaw, inhabitants of Khwastu, who are now present here in the district of Samingan, and our brothers and sons, have sold to you, Fanz, and to you, Winamarg, and to you, Pusk, the sons of Bag-mareg, you whose estate is called Gabaliyan, and to your brothers, sons and descendants, a certain boy belonging to us as brothers, this same boy who is called Khalas, for three Persian drachmas, since we are unable to keep him in plenty and famine. So now, may the boy mentioned above belong properly and well to you, Fanz, and to you, Winamarg, with your brothers, sons and descendants hereafter, from now to eternity".

I hope that these quotations may give you a flavour of the legal terminology of these documents --- for which, incidentally, one can find many parallels both in documents written in other Central Asian languages such as Sogdian and Turkish, and in the 5th cent. B.C. Aramaic documents from Elephantine in Egypt.

The next document [Slide 25 11KB] is dated in the Bactrian year 478, that is, 710 A.D., in the month "Second New Year". The document is a deed recording a gift of land and of a slave girl to the god Kamird and his ked or priest, apparently in return for the healing of a member of the donor's family [Slide 26 10KB]. Kamird means literally "head" or "chief"; it is perhaps the god's title rather than his name. The word ked is almost certainly the source of the Chinese term, ji-duo, older kej-ta, mentioned by Xuanzang as the name of the worshippers of Zhun, the god of Zabulistan, to the south of the Hindu-kush. This god was also known in the kingdom of Rob, as we can see from the name of its ruler in the previous document: Zhun-lad, literally "given by Zhun". In that case it is quite likely that Zhun is the god referred to by the title Kamird "the chief (god)". Perhaps he is the mysterious dedicatee of the cave-sanctuary of Nigar (Dukhtar-e Nushirvan) in the mountains south of Rob? [Slide 27 8KB]



The donor in the present document, the queen of a ruler with the Turkish name Qutlugh Tapaghligh Bilga Savug "fortunate, possessing service, wise, beloved", is also referred to as "the princess of the Khalas". Khalas, which was also the name of the slave-boy in the previous document, probably represents the Turkish tribal name Khalach, of which this would be one of the earliest occurrences.

One of the very latest Bactrian documents is a deed of sale dated in the year 525, that is 757 A.D. [Slide 28 13KB] I just want to draw attention to a couple of passages in this contract. The first is the series of clauses which describe the rights of the new owners of the property: "to have and to hold it, to sell it, to give it away, to pawn it, to offer it for rent, to exchange it for another piece of land, to give it for a son's wedding or a daughter's dowry, to make a monastery or temple, to make a *cemetery or *crematorium ...". Here the Indian term for a Buddhist monastery, vihara, is contrasted with the Bactrian word for a "temple", presumably referring to a non-Buddhist shrine. A similar contrast can be seen between the following pair of nouns, both of which may refer to places for disposal of the dead: laxmig would correspond to the Avestan daxma-, Middle Persian daxmag, terms which usually refer to a structure used for the Zoroastrian rite of exposure, but sometimes also to a grave, while laxshatanig, if it derives from the root daxsh- "to burn", would necessarily refer to a non-Zoroastrian, perhaps Indian, rite of cremation. These terms, together with the numerous theophoric personal names found in the documents, give us a glimpse of the variety of religious belief and practice in this area before the coming of Islam.


The independence of the kingdom of Rob was nearly at an end, however. While earlier contracts had expressed prices in gold diners or in Persian silver, the latest texts refer to "Arab silver dirhams", which seem to be specified as 'locally *current". In addition, the present text refers, for the first and last time, to the payment of taxes to the Arabs. Soon afterwards, Arabic must have replaced Bactrian as the written language of the area; and indeed, a small number of Arabic documents have come to light, which appear to form a continuation of the same archive [Slide 29 12KB].

Although I have only been able to describe a small part of an immense new body of material, I hope that I have said enough to show that it will throw new light on many aspects of the history and culture of ancient Afghanistan. But as yet I have hardly mentioned its importance for Iranian historical linguistics, though for me personally this is its chief fascination .


This slide [Slide 30 17KB] shows a small selection of forms which illustrate the position of Bactrian amongst the Iranian languages. In particular I have chosen forms which show the connection between Bactrian and the languages of the surrounding area: medieval Sogdian and Choresmian; modern Pashto, Yidgha-Munji, and Ishkashmi. Such forms support the conclusion which Henning reached on first acquaintance with the new language that it is "in its natural and rightful place in Bactria" and justify his decision to name it Bactrian.


In many cases the new material confirms or contradicts views originally reached on the basis of limited evidence. For instance, Gershevitch's controversial interpretation of lruh-minanin the Surkh Kotal inscription as the plural of a putative *lruh-min "enemy" receives strong support from the contexts in which the later form druh-min occurs. It is particularly impressive that the new texts provide examples of many previously unattested Bactrian words whose existence had already been postulated by Martin Schwartz on the basis of their occurrence as loanwords in other languages of Central Asia. [Slide 31 17KB]


Of course the new texts also attest many forms for which there was previously no evidence at all. For instance, the only verbs in the Surkh Kotal inscription are a few forms of thesimple past tense and the present optative. Now one can quote almost complete paradigms not only of these tenses, but also of the present indicative, subjunctive and imperative, and even a few forms of the perfect subjunctive and optative. Some features of Bactrian are quite unexpected, such as the existence of two types of infinitive as in Sogdian and Khotanese, or the tendency to fuse sequences of conjunctions, adverbs, prepositions, and pronouns into complex words such as o-ta-kald-men "and then when to us". The fact that many texts are dated makes it possible to trace historical developments in the language. For instance, in texts of the 7th century and later, where an "l" and an "r" come into direct contact, the "l" changes to "d", as in the example quoted before: lruh-min "enemy", later druh-min.


Up to now, Bactrian has been the poor relation amongst the Iranian languages --- the one with nothing to give and everything to receive. Now that Bactrian is no longer so obscure, it can start to provide solutions as well as problems [Slide 32 12KB]. For example, the traditional translation of Avestan axvareta- by Pahlavi agrift "not taken", which many scholars have regarded as a mistake, is justified by its Bactrian cognate. Similarly, the meaning of the much-debated Middle Persian term bun-xanag, literally "foundation-house", is clarified by the corresponding expression in Bactrian, which clearly implies "estate", that is, "house and lands". A place-name mentioned by the great Muslim scholar al-Beruni, which modern scholars have emended out of existence, is shown to be correct as it stands. In the infinitive migd "to exchange", Bactrian even attests an Indo-European root which is apparently not found in any language more closely related than Greek.

The complete elucidation of the Bactrian documents and inscriptions will require many kinds of expertise: in palaeography and epigraphy, in history, historical geography, history of religions, numismatics, sphragistics, Arabic, Turkish, Chinese ... Since no one individual could possibly be competent in so many fields, such a task demands collaboration between scholars in several disciplines. The starting-point for this collaboration must be the decipherment of the text and the drafting of a first, tentative translation. This is the business of the philologist, who employs his linguistic instinct and his knowledge of cognate languages to formulate hypotheses about the meanings of words and the grammatical structure of the language. Without his preliminary work there is in fact nothing for anyone else to study. Philology is a branch of scholarship which some regard as old-fashioned; but I am proud to call myself a philologist and glad to have had this opportunity to describe to you a body of material which so well demonstrates both the necessity and the rewards of philological research.

© N. Sims-Williams 1997

---

Larger photos of the documents shown in the text above.

• M 1224R (Slide 2) 80KB
• Surkh Kotal (Slide 3) 199KB
• Rabatak (Slide 4) 159KB
• Doc. 1R (Slide 9) 72KB
• Doc. 70R (Slide 11) 57KB
• Doc. 79R (Slide 12) 64KB
• Doc. 2R (Slide 14) 71KB
• The Buddhist Doc. (Slide 17) 102KB
• Doc. of Year 110 (Slide 18) 162KB
• Doc. of Year 247 (Slide 19) 132 KB
• Doc. 7 (Slide 20) 82KB
• Doc. 113 (Slide 24) 71KB
• Doc. 10 (Slide 25) 72KB
• Doc. 116 (Slide 28) 94KB
• Doc. 11 in Arabic (Slide 29) 65KB

---

To the Japanese Version
Back to Home Page

Archeological findings on identity of the "Xiongnu" recorded by Chinese Historian

13. Xiongnu and the Wusun People

http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dan13.htm

Xiongnu

The Chinese historian Sima Qian described the Xiongnu in Chapter 110 of his "Historical Records", "Shi Ji":

Xiongnu had lived on the eastern plains - always.
"From the King and downward they all ate the meat of their livestock, and clothed themselves with their skins, which were their only dress. The strong ones ate the fat and choose the best pieces, while the old and weak ate and drank, what was left. The strong and robust were held in esteem, while the old and weak were treated with contempt."

That brings our thoughts to the household troops of the ancient Danish king Rolf Krake. They sat at the table after rank; the highest ranking took the best pieces of meat and threw the bones in the head of the frail looking newcomers accompanied by rude laughter.

The "Shi Ji" tells further about Xiongnu: "Early every morning the King, whom they called Shan-ju, went outside the camp in order to worship the sun at sunrise. In the evening he worshipped the moon."

Qilian Mountains - Xiongnu had a religious relation to the Qilian Mountain range.
Almost all the peoples of that time worshipped the Sun and the Moon in one way or another. The Chinese emperor went to special Temples for the Heaven or the Moon, asking for good year and good harvest for his people. Yuezhi worshipped the Moon and the later Sogdians worshipped their sun god, Mithra. It was the kings and the emperor's most important duty to secure the good relations to the mighty powers of Heaven.

If the gods did not live in heaven, then they at least lived up some high mountains. The Greek Gods, for example, dwelt on the mountain of Olympus. The Xiongnu people had a religious relationship to the Qilian Mountains, however we have no knowledge of any details concerning this part of their faith.

The historical museum in Xian exhibits some figures from Tang Dynasty graves. They represent Xiongnu,"the Huns", according the museum's sign. During Tang Dynasty, there were apparently still Xiongnu on the plains. We can see, how they looked like. (Tang Dynasty was from AC 626 to 907 AC).

Left: Xiongnu figure from Xian History Museum 1.
Mid: Xiongnu figure from Xian History Museum 2.
Right: Sculpture representing mounted nomade - from Anpu and his wife's tomb in Longmen Luoyang - found 1981 - Tang dynasty.
They have large round heads, often barrel-shaped bodies, sometimes a potbelly, and most often a strong skipper beard from one ear to another. A bit of paint is left on the head on one of the figures; the hair colour is black. They are usually wearing some sort of cap, similar to the caps of traditional Danish Christmas goblins. They are "Hu" types, which means Caucasian types with sharp nose, deep eye sockets and strong beard. They are standing in somewhat challenging postures as very self-conscious people. This kind of figures was previously labelled as Western traders in China or the like, I remember, but they are really Xiongnu, says the sign behind the glas. The museum could be wrong; the Xianbei people as well played an important role in North China during the Tang Dynasty.

The reminds about Loki in the norse mythologi, he was also dark because he descended from the Jotuns. He also had a type of personality, which made it difficult for him to stay in the background.

Unfortunately, the figures are not in natural size, so they give no direct indication of their absolute size.

However in the vicinity of Xi'an is located General Huo Qubing's tomb. He was the Han Dynasty general, who defeated Xiongnu using the new cavalry on the great horses, they got from the Yuezhi in the Fergana Valley, "The horses who sweat blood", also called "The Heavenly Horses".

Left: One of the heavenly horses trambles on a Xioung Nu - from Huo Qubing's tomb.
Right: Bronze figure found in the Ordos Area, which was Xiongnu Area. Many want to make Xiongnu to a kind of Mongols - but he does not look like that.
In the general's tomb is a figure of one of the "horses, who sweat blood", who is about to trample a Xiongnu to disintegration. We see clearly the characteristic skipper beard from one ear to another. Note, how big the Xiongnu man is in relation to the horse. Even if it is an artistic exaggeration, the Chinese of those days still may have thought, that Xiongnu men were very big.

Many will make the Xiongnu into a kind of Mongols. But a bronze figure found in the Ordos area, which was Xiongnu territory, does not look Mongolian; he has big eyes, powerful beard and big nose.

The Chinese wrote, that Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) were never very numerous. Together they were not as many as the inhabitants of a single Chinese province. "Their advantage lay in their strength," they wrote.

They were not numerous enough for a real conquest of China or even parts of the Empire. Their favourite tactic was rapid raids into Chinese territory. They robbed cattle and abducted countless, women, children and young people as slaves. They withdrew to the steppe before a proper military force could be assembled against them.

The original Chinese nations in "the warring states" period built walls and dykes at their northern borders to prevent the barbarians to access their territory, however apparently with little success. After the Qin had conquered all of China in 221 BC, they linked these local walls together and thus made, what we know as the Great Wall.

Left: Xiongnu head decoration.
Right: Xiongnu banner decoration - also an eagle.
Han Dynasty China was not the only nation, which suffered from the attacks of the Xiongnu. Many people in Asia were exposed to Xiongnu's aggressiveness, especially the city-states in the Tarim Basin. Xiongnu drove the Yuezhi people from their original homeland in northern Gansu.

The Jotuns were the age old enemies of the Aesirs. The god Thor was very often away from home to fight against Jotunss.

There can be no doubt, that the greatest threat to the peoples of Midgaard was the Xiongnu. They may be a possible bid for the Jotuns, or at least some of them.

The Chinese were not very analytical in their description of the surrounding peoples. Sometimes they called them all together for Qiang, other times they were all named Xianbei. They did not go very deep into how they looked like, their cultural habits and what language they spoke. During the Han Dynasty most of the Peoples on the steppe were grouped under the label Xiongnu.

It is obvious, that the Xianbei, Qiang, Di and Jin have been there all the time in one way or another; they have only been seen as a part of the Xiongnu, which was the dominant ethnic group.

The Ivolga fortress.
Russian archaeologists have excavated many Xiongnu settlements in the Ulan-Ude region near Lake Baikal. Here have been Xiongnu settlements until well into the Middle Ages.

The Xiongnu fortress by Ivolga is located 16 km. from Ulan Ude by the Selanga River. It is square with dimensions of 350 x 200 m., and it has a moat all around. Within the ramparts many houses were half dug down in the surface, of which 54 have been excavated. Each house had a stone fireplace in its northeastern corner. This type of house, dug down in earth, is also well known from the time of the Danish Vikings. A large house in the centre of the fortress was the only one, which stood on the ground.

At Ivolga they buried their dead on flat terrain, they were not placed in burial mounds. Many graves were in groups. There was a central grave, with a probably high-ranking person in the middle; which was surrounded by smaller accompanying graves, which in general contained the bodies of women, children and young people.

Xiongnu broche found at Ivolga.
Many of those in the accompanying graves showed signs of a violent death. It looks like that the Ivolga Xiongnu had the practice, that when a high ranking person died, all his wives, mistresses, slaves and apparently also some children had to follow him to the other world.

"Xiongnu" means literally according to the Chinese character something like "Slaves of the Peoples". However, there is no doubt, that this is not their real name, as they called themselves. It is a somewhat condescending name, which the Han Dynasty Chinese gave them, just in the same way as they gave names to many other peoples around their borders.

In "The Silk Road", edited by Susan Whitfield, Etienne de la Vaissiere explains the Xiongnu's real name.

There have been found a sogdian letter from the fourth century, which refers to the Xiongnu's looting in connection with the Jin Dynasty's collapse also in the fourth century. The letter mentions the Xiongnu with the term "Xwn", which is the sogdian spelling of the word "Hun". The author of the letter proves otherwise a first-hand knowledge of events. Therefore, he must be considered as a very reliable source.

Xiongnu written with Chinese characters.
The Kushan monk, Zhu Fahu from Dun Huang, translated "Tahagataguhya-sutra" from Sanskrit to Chinese in 280 AC. In this document he translated the Sanskrit word "Huna" to "Xiongnu". He did it again in 308 AC by the translation of "Lalivavistara". In a not very distant past, these "Huna" had driven away the Yuezhi people from their original land with their ancestors graves. Zhu Fahu was a Kushan and he descended directly from Yuezhi. He may not have been in doubt, as to who was these "Xiong Nu", and what was their real name. The writer of the Sogdian letter may of the same reasons also have had a clear idea of Xiongnu and their real name.

Indian sources also described the Xiongnu as "Huna". (Everything from "Silk Road" page 22).

Then it must be that the Xiongnu people became known in Europe under their real names, as they called themselves, which is "Hun".

"Wei-Shu" is the story of the Wei Dynasty. It was written about the years 437 AC - 457 AC. It says: "Earlier, Xiongnu killed the king (of Sogdiana) and took the land. "King Huni" is the third ruler in the line."

We remember Saxo's tale of King Frode and the war between the Danes and the Huns. Here he wrote: "Two years had "King Hun" devoted to preparations for his campaign against the countries around the Baltic Sea."

When you read this, it is hard not to feel, that it is too simple just to call the king of the Huns for "King Hun." It must be something, the old storytellers have added themselves, we are tempted to think.

But, as one can see, Saxo Grammaticus was very well informed. Some of the Hun kings were actually named "Huni" or perhaps "Hun".

Left: Attila the king of the Huns on a contemporary European coin.
Mid: The Turkish Sultan Suleiman the Great.
Right: Mehmet II - the conquerer of Constantinopel.
Attila on the coin and the turkish rulers actually look like each other.
We remember Priscus' description of Attila, King of the Huns, preserved to our time by Jordanes in his "Getica sive De Origine Actibusque Gothorum (The History of the Goths): "He was short of stature with a wide chest, a large head, thin beard with grey stains, stub nose, and he showed his ancestral traits (originis suae signa restiuens). His personality was such, that he always promoted himself with high self-confidence." ("Attila" page 144)

In Priscus' own description in Greek this description does not occur, although it is very detailed.

The Hun king Attila, has beeen pictured on a contemporary European coin. He certainly does not have stub nose, but he looks actually like the turkish sultans Suleiman and Mehmet.

On Xiongnu's belt buckle ornaments, the depicted persons also seem to have rather big noses, they do not look like mongolid types.

On the Internet can be found an article that describes a genetic survey, which compares the genetic material of individuals from Mongolia's ancient past with modern European and Asian individuals. It is called the "Linzi" survey. (see link below).

Xiongnu ornament in drawing - notice that the person in the middle has a big nose - he cannot be a mongolid type.
Samples have been taken from a burial place at Egyen Gol in the north of Mongolia and from contemporary European and Asian individuals. The Burial ground was from about the time of the Han Dynasty (200 BC - 300 AC), which was the glorious time of the Xiongnu. Two thousand years ago the Xiongnu surely inhabited the Egyen Gol area. The Mongols had not yet migrated from Sirbiria and the concept of Turks did not yet exist.

The genetic material from Egyen Gol showed a good correlation with the genes of modern Asian peoples, especially in northern and central Asia, but a less good correlation with modern European peoples. Xiongnu genes also had many similarities with gene samples taken from a some thousand years younger definitely Turkish funeral ground, also located near Egyen Gol.

The Asian Turks have always claimed that they descended from the Xiongnu. The Linzi genetic study suggests that there is something about it.

The article also describes the genetic correlation between individuals who were buried at Linzi in the Chinese Shandong Province, and modern people in Europe and Asia. The graves at Linzi were from the period of "the Warring States" (500 BC - 221 BC).

There appeared to be a good genetic correlation between ancient Shandong and the West. The ancient Chinese in Shandong seemed to be most related to Iranians and Europeans, especially Icelanders, Finns and Turks from Turkey. The Chinese genes showed a less good correlation with many modern Asian peoples.

Many think that the Ordos plateau is Xiongnu's original homeland.
The ancient populations in Shandong and in the northern part of, what today is known as Mongolia, do not appear to have been much related.

The Yellow River makes a big turn against north into Mongolia. The contained area is called Ordos. It is assumed to be the original homeland of Xiongnu, especially by Chinese archaeologists. Here many Xiongnu animal ornaments have been found .

They remind about schytian animal ornaments, but they do not have the same artistic nervous touch. The ancient Scandinavian grip animal style seems to be a more abstract development.
Below left: The viking figure, the London animal - the Skandinavian grib animal style seems to be an abstract and surrealistic development - Sct. Pauls churchyard in London.
Mid: Schythian animal ornament.
Right: Xiongnu animal ornament - full of fantasy, but it does not have the same nerveous touch as the schytians.

See "Linzi" genetic survey: Reanalysis of Eurasian population history: Ancient DNA evidence of population affinities  See also Xiongnu Archaeology - Silk Road Seattle  Étienne de la Vaissière explains Xiongnu's real name on: Encyclopædia Iranica , edited by himself. Search for Xiongnu and choose the article "Xiongnu". See The History of Chinese Relations with the Hsiung Nu - translatet by Daniel C. Waugh.  Close to all information about the fighting between Goths and Huns we have from "The History of the Goths" by Jordanes: GETICA sive De Origine Actibusque Gothorum - first half and following: GETICA sive De Origine Actibusque Gothorum - second half on vulgar latin and english. See also Priscus' report on his visit to Attila's court: Priscus at the court of Attila - Medieval Sourcebook tranlated from greek to english by J.B. Bury.

The Wusun people

On the plains at the Ili River and the salty Lake, Issyl Kul, lived a people of Caucasian type. We don't know any of their language, but they may have been Indo-Europeans. The Chinese called them Wusun (Usun).

The salty lake with the Turkish name Issyl Kul.
In the ancient book "Han Shu" the scolar Yan Shigu has added a comment about Wusun's appearance: "Wusun in the western areas is the same as the "Rong" people (old name for different tribes and peoples around China). Now a days, these "Hu" people have green eyes, red beard, their appearance is like bearded monkeys, and they are originally of this kind."

Zhang Qian, travelled to the west on behalf of the Han Emperor in order to meet the Yuzhi and create an alliance against Xiongnu. He also met the Wusun and reported that: "The people have "pig heads", they are cunning as wolves and highly unreliable. They are very prone to pillaging, and they are as a nation typically violent."

Pigs have, as one knows, big noses and sometimes blue eyes, so most likely it is true, that Wusun had blue eyes.

Chinese archaeologists have informed, that Wusun was a Caucasian type of people with short skull. They cannot say anything about the colour of their eyes and hair.

Accurate, as always, Zhang Qian reported, that there were 120,000 Wusun families, and their army numbered 188,000 mounted men. The country was cold and rainy, but with extensive pastures. The mountains were covered with pine forest. Wusun raised horses. Rich men could own up to five thousand horses.

Wusun recognized Xiongnu's supremacy, but they had their own king, who bore the title kiun-mo. He named himself as Son of Heaven.

The Chinese sought to create an alliance with Wusun directed against Xiongnu, the Huns. To this end, the Chinese court in 107 BC sent a princess the long way from the imperial capital Xi'an to Wusun's cold rainy country.

The princess wrote a poem:

My family has married me away
Helpless I am, can do nothing
In a distant exotic kingdom
Married to the King of Wusun
My home is simple
The walls covered with felt and not with silk
My daily food is pork
Milk I drink to the food
I am burdened by dark thoughts
My heart is heavy with sorrow
If only I were a yellow stork
So I would fly back to my nest.
The shore of the salty Lake with the turkisk name Issyl Kul.
The new queen was entitled kiun-di. For her pleasure a Chinese palace was built in the camp of the Wusun king. The royal residence was of the Chinese called "The Palace in the Red Valley." It was located in some distance from the salt lake.

The great traveller Zhang Qian was hold as a prisoner by Xiongnu for 10 years. There he heard the following story about Wusun:

"When your servant was a prisoner of Xiongnu, he heard, that the king of Wusun, who bore the title" Kun-mo", and that kun-mo's father was the head of a small state at Xiongnu's western border.

Xiongnu-attacked and killed his father and Kun-mo was at his birth thrown away in the wilderness, where a black bird (a raven?) Brought him meat, and a she-wolf nourished him with milk.

Shan-yu was the title of the king of Xiongnu. He considered this to be a wonder, and after he had brought up the boy, he made him a military leader, in which capacity he distinguished himself on several occasions. Shan-yu re-established his father's people, and made him a governor of the western fortified camp.

As he received tax from his people, the Kun-mo could attack the small neighbouring states with tens of thousands of arcxhers, he collected experience in warfare, and after the old Shan-yu's death, he withdrew to a distant place and refused to show up at the Xiongnu court.

Xiongnu ordered picked troops to attack him, but because they were unable to overcome him, they considered him as a spirit, to whom they did wise to keep a certain distance and not attack him seriously.

Xiongnu's Shan-yu continued to claim nominal supremacy over Kun-mo and his Wusun people."

Thus was the great traveler, Zhang Qian's report to his emperor.

Left: Stone man on the plain at the Ili River 1.
Right: Stone man on the plain at the Ili River 2.
The Chinese princess' grandson was called something like "Ud-zyty". Already in his reign the country has been divided into smaller and bigger areas, and the camp around the Palace in the Red Valley had been abandoned forever.

No one knows what since happened to the Wusun people. In 630 AC the Khan of the Western Turks could receive the Buddhist monk, Xuanzang, on the banks of the salty lake with the turkish name "Issyl Kul".

On the plains near the Salty Lake are the stone men. They can be found many places in Central Asia. Some of them are undoubtedly sat by the Western Turks. Some of them are probably also made by those who lived there before Wusun came. It was customary at some Indo-European peoples to erect stones over brave men and create gods and ancestors in stone - a practice which the ancient Greeks had perfected.

See the book "Nomads on the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Irom Age" all 399 pages: Nomads on the Eurasian Steppes - (pdf) See pictures and descriptions of the Scytian Guld Pectoral found in Ukraine: Perfection embodied in Gold  See also: Scythian treasures, gold decorations and amazing discoveries And on another Ukranian page: Scythian material culture - Olena Fialko Institute of Archaeology, Kiev, Ukraine

Back to top of article

20130210

Chronicle Records of tiglath Piliser, Salmaneser, Sargon during the fall of Samaria

From Nabû-Nasir to Šamaš-šuma-ukin (ABC 1)

Tiglath-Pileser III on a relief in the British Museum.

The Chronicle on the Reigns from Nabû-Nasir to Šamaš-šuma-ukin (ABC 1) is one of the historiographical texts about ancient Assyria and Babylonia. It deals with the resistance of an increasingly stronger Babylon, supported by Elam, against Assyria, beginning with the reign of the Babylonian king Nabû-Nasir (747-734) and culminating in the accessions of Aššurbanipal in Assyria and Šamaš-šuma-ukin in Babylonia in 668. For a very brief introduction to the literary genre of chronicles, go here. The translation on this webpage was adapted from A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975) and Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (Atlanta, 2004). The text is preserved on two copies that are now in the British Museum; one of these copies was written in 499 BCE, the twenty-second year of king Darius I the Great. (It is the only Neo-Babylonian chronicle that is preserved on more than one copy.) The best of these measures 193 mm long and 158 mm wide, which is extremely large; this made it possible to create two columns (cf. ABC 7, the Nabonidus Chronicle, which may have been written by the same scribe). It is from Babylon. The other fragments are from Sippar and may belong to one and the same broken, large tablet. A parallel text that contains variant information can be found here.   Column I Column II Column III Column IV Translation of Column I 1 The third year of Nabû-nasir (745/744), king of Babylon: 2 Tiglath-Pileser [III] ascended the throne in Assyria. 3 In that same year the king of Assyria went down to Akkad 4 plundered Rabbilu and Hamranu 5 and abducted the gods of Šapazza. ------------------------------------------ 6 In the time of Nabû-nasir Borsippa 7 committed hostile acts against Babylon but the battle which Nabû-Nasir 8 waged against Borsippa is not written.[1] ------------------------------------------ 9 The fifth year of Nabû-nasir (743/742): Humban-Nikaš 10 ascended to the throne in Elam. ------------------------------------------ 11 The fourteenth year (734/733): Nabû-nasir fell ill and went to his destiny in his palace. 12 For fourteen years Nabû-nasir ruled Babylon. 13 Nabû-nadin-zeri, his son, ascended the throne in Babylon. ------------------------------------------ 14 The second year (732/731): Nabû-nadin-zeri was killed in a rebellion. 15 For two years Nabû-nadin-zeri ruled Babylon. 16 Nabû-šuma-ukin, a district officer and leader of the rebellion, ascended the throne. 17 For one month and two days, Nabû-šuma-ukin ruled Babylon. 18 Nabû-mukin-zeri, the Amukanite, removed him from the throne and seized the throne for himself. ------------------------------------------ 19 The third year of Nabû-mukin-zeri (729/728): Tiglath-pileser, 20 having come down to Akkad, 21 ravaged Bit-Amukanu and captured Nabû-mukin-zeri. 22 For three years Nabû-mukin-zeri ruled Babylon. 23 Tiglath-pileser ascended the throne in Babylon. ------------------------------------------ 24 The second year (727/726): Tiglath-pileser went to his destiny in the month Tebêtu. 25 For <eighteen>[2] years Tiglath-pileser ruled Akkad. 26 and Assyria. For two of these years he ruled in Akkad. 27 On the twenty-fifth of the month Tebêtu, Šalmaneser in Assyria 28 and Akkad ascended the throne. He ravaged Samaria [the capital of Israel]. ------------------------------------------ 29 The fifth year (722/721): Šalmaneser went to his destiny in the month Tebêtu. 30 For five years Šalmaneser ruled Akkad and Assyria. 31 On the twelfth day of the month Tebêtu, Sargon ascended the throne in Assyria. 32 In the month Nisannu, Marduk-apla-iddina [3] ascended the throne in Babylon. ------------------------------------------ 33 The second year of Marduk-apla-iddina (720/719): Humban-Nikaš, king of Elam, 34 did battle against Sargon, king of Assyria, in the district of Der, 35 effected Assyria's retreat, and inflicted a major defeat upon it. 36 Marduk-apla-iddina and his army, who to the aid of 37 the king of Elam had gone, did not reach the battle in time so Marduk-apla-iddina withdrew.[4] ------------------------------------------ 38 The fifth year of Marduk-apla-iddina (717/716): Humban-Nikaš, king of Elam, went to his destiny. 39 For twenty-six years Humban-nikaš ruled Elam. 40 Šutur-Nahhunte, his sister's son, ascended the throne in Elam. 41 From the accession year of Marduk-apla-iddina until the tenth year 42 Assyria was belligerent towards Marduk-apla-iddina. ------------------------------------------ 43 The tenth year (712/711): Marduk-apla-iddina 44 wrecked and plundered 45 Bit-[...]ri. >> To Column 2 >> Note 1: This means that thee author of the chronicle was unable to find a description that he could include. Note 2: The scribe left a some room unused because he was unable to find the number of regnal years. 'Eighteen' is a reconstruction. Note 3: The Biblical Merodach-Baladan. In fact, his accession took place in the next year. Note 4: In other sources, both the Assyrian king and his Babylonian colleague claim victory.

Translation of the Nabonidus Chronicles by Professor Sayce

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/article/2973?page=8

 

The following is Professor Sayce's rendering of the concluding (decipherable) portion of the Annalistic tablet of Cyrus "On the fourteenth day of the month Sippara was taken without fighting; Nabonidos fled. On the sixteenth day Gobryas (Ugbaru), the Governor of the country of Kurdistan (Gutium), and the soldiers of Cyrus, entered Babylon without fighting. Afterwards Nabonidos was captured, after being bound in Babylon. At the end of the month Tammuz the javelin-throwers of the country of Kurdistan guarded the gates of E-Saggil; no cessation of services took place in E-Saggil and the other temples, but no special festival was observed. The third day of the month Marchesvan (October) Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas his governor proclaim. Governors in Babylon he appointed. From the month Chisleu to the month Adar (November to February) the gods of the country of Accad, whom Nabonidos had transferred to Babylon, returned to their own cities. The eleventh day of the month Marchesvan, during the night, Gobryas was on the bank of the river.

The wife of the king died. From the twenty- seventh day of Adar to the third day of Nisan there was lamentation in the country of Accad; all the people smote their heads. On the fourth day Kambyses the son of Cyrus conducted the burial at the temple of the Sceptre of the world. The priest of the temple of the Sceptre of Nebo, who upbears the sceptre [of Nebo in the temple of the god], in an Elamite robe took the hands of Nebo, . . . the son of the king (Kambyses) [offered] free-will offerings in full to ten times [the usual amount]. He confined to E-Saggil the [image] of Nebo. Victims before Bel to ten times [the usual amount he sacrificed]." The reader’s surprise will naturally be excited on learning that the tablet is so mutilated and defective that the text has here and there to be reconstructed, and that the above, while purporting to be merely a translation is, in fact, also a reconstruction. I will here confine myself, however, to one point of principal importance.
(1 wish to acknowledge my obligation to the Rev. John Uquhart, the author of The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, for placing this letter at my disposal.)

Mr. Theo. G. Pinches, by whom this very tablet was first brought to light, is perfectly clear that the reading "the wjfe of the king died" cannot be sustained. He writes as follows 1 (I omit the cuneiform characters) "Professor Sayce has adopted a suggestion of Professor Schrader. The characters cannot be . ‘and the wife of,’ but must be either . . . ‘and ‘(as I read it at first) or . . . ‘and the son of.’ This last improved reading I suggested about four years ago, and the Rev. C. J. Ball and Dr. Hagen, who examined the text with me, adopted this view. Dr. Hagen wrote upon the subject in Delitzsch’s Beitrage, vol. i. Of course, whether we read ‘and the king died,’ or ‘and the son of the king died,’ it comes to the same thing, as either expression could refer to Belshazzar, who, after his father’s flight, would naturally be at the head of affairs."

The following extract is from Mr. Pinches’s article "Belshazzar" in the new edition of Smith’s Bible Dictionary

"As is well known, Beishazzar was, according to Daniel v., killed in the night, and Xenophon (Cyrop., vii. 5, 3) tells us that Babylon was taken by Cyrus during the night, whilst the inhabitants were engaged in feasting and revelry, and that the king was killed. So in the Babylonian Chronicle, lines 22—24, we have the statement that ‘On the night of the 11th of Marchesvan, Ugbaru (Gobryas) [descended?] against [Babylon?] and the king died. From the 27th of Adar until the 3rd of Nisan there was weeping in Akkad. All the people bowed their head.’ The most doubtful character in the above extract is that which stands for the word ‘and,’ the character in question having been regarded as the large group which stands for that word. A close examination of the original, however, shows that it is possible that there are two characters instead of one—namely, the small character for ‘and,’ and the character tur, which in this connection would stand for u mar, ‘and the son of’ in which case the line would read, ‘ and the son of the king died.’ Weeping in Akkad for Belshazzar is just what would be expected, when we take into consideration that he was for many years with the army there, and that he must have made himself a favourite by his liberality to the Akkadian temples. Even supposing, however, that the old reading is the right one, it is nevertheless possible that the passage refers to Belshazzar; for Berosus relates that Nabonidos, on surrendering to Cyrus, had his life spared, and that a principality or estate was given to him in Carmania, where he died. It is therefore at least probable that Beishazzar was regarded even by the Babylonians as king, especially after his father’s surrender. With this improved reading of the Babylonian text, it is impossible to do otherwise than identify Gobryas with Darius the Mede (if we suppose that the last verse of the 5th chapter of Daniel really belongs to that chapter, and does not form part, as in the Hebrew text, of chap. vi.), he being mentioned, in the Babylonian Chronicle, in direct connection with the death of the king’s son (or the king, as the case may be). This identification, though not without its difficulties, receives a certain amount of support from Daniel vi. I, where it is stated that ‘it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes,’ &c.—an act which finds parallel in the Babylonian Chronicle, which states ‘that, after Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, Gobryas, his governor, appointed governors in Babylon."

On this same subject I am indebted to Mr. St. Chad Boscawen for the following note :— "Owing to the mutilated state of the latter part of the tablet, it is extremely difficult to arrange the events, and also in some cases to clearly understand the exact meanings of the sentences. As far as I can see, the course of events seems to have been as follows. Sippara was taken on the 14th of Tammuz, and two days later Babylon. Nabonidos had fled, but he was still recognised as king by the majority of the people, especially by rich trading communities such as the Egibi firm, who continued to date their contracts in his regnal years. At Sippara the people seem to have recognised Cyrus as king earlier than at Babylon, as the tablets of his accession year are all, with one exception, the source of which is not known, from Sippara. On the 3rd of Marchesvan Cyrus entered Babylon and appointed Gobryas (the prefect of Gutium) ‘prefect of the prefects’ (pikhat-pikhate) of Babylon; and he (Gobryas) appointed the other prefects. That reading of the sentence is perfectly legitimate. Cyrus seems only to have occupied himself with the restoration of religious order, and on restoring the gods to their temples who had been transported to Babylon. We have then a remarkable passage. Sayce reads ‘the wife of the king died’; but Hagen reads the son of the king, and I have examined this tablet, and find that although the tablet is here broken, the most probable reading is the son, not the wife."

"In Dan. v. we read, and ‘Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years.’ In a second passage, however, this is modified. We read, ‘In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, (ix. I); and again, ‘It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes’ (vi. I). Here we have an exact parallel to the case of Gobryas. Gobryas was a Manda—among whom were embraced the Medes, for Astyages, an undoubted Median king, ruler of the Median capital of Ecbatana, is called . . . a soldier of the Manda, or barbarians. He is appointed on the 3rd Marchesvan B.C. 538— after taking the kingdom on 16th Tammuz—'prefect of the prefects’; and he appoints other prefects over the kingdom. His reign did not last more than one year, terminating in either Adar 538 or early in B.C. 537. The end is rendered obscure by the fractures in the tablet. .
"If, then, Gubaru or Gobryas was prefect of Gutium before his conquest of Babylon in B.C. 538, there is nothing whatever against his being a Mede; and as Astyages was deposed by a revolt, when ‘he was taken by the hands of the rebels and given to Cyrus’ (Chronicle Inscr.), it is very probable that Gobryas was the leader of the conspiracy. Indeed he seems to me to fulfil in every way the required conditions to be Darius the Mede. . . . The appointment of the satraps does not seem exorbitantly large, nor are these to be confounded with the satrapies of the Persian empire."

And finally, in his Book of Daniel (p. xxx) Professor Driver, in citing the foregoing extract from the tablet, reads the crucial sentence thus :—" On the 11th day of Marchesvan, during the night, Gubaru made an assault and slew the king’s son." And at pp. 60, 6i he writes: "After Gubaru and Cyrus had entered Babylon he (Belshazzar) is said (according to the most probable reading) to have been slain by Gubaru ‘during the night,’ i.e. (apparently) in some assault made by night upon the fortress or palace to which he had withdrawn."

I will only add that, in view of the testimony of these witnesses, so thoroughly competent and impartial, it is not easy to restrain a feeling of indignation at the effrontery (not to use a stronger word) of Professor Sayce’s language in pp. 525, 526 of his book.

‹ Appendix 1 - Nebuchadnezzar's Invasion of JudeaupAppendix 3 - The Punctuation of Daniel 9:25 ›

Exodus evidence

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IwnrjU67Dag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tower of Babel Archeology

Description of Babylonian Gods
http://www.livius.org/place/etemenanki/

The Louvre tablet again offers information. There were several cult rooms: Marduk shared his room with his wife Sarpanitum, a second room offered accommodation to the scribe-god Nabû and his wife Tashmetu, and there were rooms for the water god Ea, the god of light Nusku, the god of heaven Anu, and finally Enlil, Marduk's predecessor as chief of the Mesopotamian pantheon. A seventh room was called "house of the bed" and contained a bed and a throne. A second bed was on the inner court of the temple on the highest platform of the Etemenanki. Finally, there must have been stairs to the roof. It is possible that the famous Babylonian astronomers, the Chaldaeans, did their observations at the topmost level of the building.

The story of the Tower of Babel, found in the Biblical book of Genesis, is one of the most famous and beloved legends of mankind.

The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Šin'âr, and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built. And the Lord said, "Behold, the people are one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do. Come, let Us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Bâbel (that is "Confusion") because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.^note[Genesis 11.1-9; tr. King James 21st Century.]

Let's start our discussion of the Etemenanki with some remarks about this Biblical story. The Hebrew word Bâbel, Confusion, is often used for Babylon (Akkadian Bab-ili), but this is not sufficient to prove the identification of the tower with a monument in this big city. (Imagine a legend about the unity of mankind, which is situated by scholars in Union, Connecticut.) Fortunately, the story contains a second geographical clue: the tower was erected on "a plain in the land of Šin'âr". This country is known from other books of the Bible (Isaiah 11.11 and Zechariah 5.11) and is translated as "Babylonia" in the Septuagint. So there is nothing that keeps us from identifying the Biblical building with a monument in ancient Babylon. This must be the building known as E-temen-an-ki, the 'House of the foundation of heaven on earth', a giant mountain of bricks and tiles with, on top, a temple for the god Marduk. He had a second temple in the neighborhood, the Esagila.

Map of Babylon

The ancient Babylonians called these brick mountains a ziqqurratu or ziggurat, which can be translated as "rising building" (Akkadian zaqâru, "to rise high"). This type of temple tower is the oriental equivalent of the Egyptian pyramid and just as old, although there are two differences: the ziggurat was not a tomb, and ziggurats were built well into the Seleucid age, whereas the building of pyramids came to an end after c.1640 BCE. Ziggurats played a role in the cults of many cities in ancient Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have discovered nineteen of these buildings in sixteen cities; the existence of another ten is known from literary sources.

The Etemenanki was among the largest of these, and the most important. (The largest was the shrine of Anu at Uruk, built in the third or second century BCE.) According to the Babylonian creation epic Enûma êliš the god Marduk defended the other gods against the diabolical monster Tiamat. After he had killed it, he brought order to the cosmos, built the Esagila, which was the center of the new world, and created mankind. The Etemenanki was next to the Esagila, and this means that the temple tower was erected at the center of the world, as the axis of the universe. Here, a straight line connected earth and heaven. This aspect of Babylonian cosmology is echoed in the Biblical story, where the builders say "let us build a tower whose top may reach unto heaven".
The best description of the monumental tower can be found in a cuneiform tablet from Uruk, written in 229 BCE. It is a copy of an older text and is now in the Louvre in Paris. It states that the tower was made up of seven terraces and it gives the height of the seven stocks - 91 meters all in all. The ground floor measured 91 x 91 meters, and this is confirmed by archaeological excavations conducted by Robert Koldewey after 1913 (91,48 x 91,66 m). Large stairs were discovered at the south side of the building, where a triple gate connected the Etemenanki with the Esagila. A larger gate in the east connected the Etemenanki with the sacred procession road. Seen from the triple gate, the Etemenanki must have resembled a true "stairway to heaven", because the gates on the higher terraces seemed to be standing on top of each other.
Using the archaeological data and the tablet at the Louvre, several reconstructions have been proposed. (The picture shows the most recent one, by Hansjörg Schmid.) However, there is one caveat: it is possible that the Louvre tablet describes not the real temple tower, but an idealized sanctuary - a blueprint for a Etemenanki that still has to be build, comparable to the description of the temple of Jerusalem in the Biblical book of Ezekhiel.

Hypothetical map of the temple on top of the Etemenanki

On the highest terrace was a temple, dedicated to the Babylonian supreme god Marduk. The Louvre tablet again offers information. There were several cult rooms: Marduk shared his room with his wife Sarpanitum, a second room offered accommodation to the scribe-god Nabû and his wife Tashmetu, and there were rooms for the water god Ea, the god of light Nusku, the god of heaven Anu, and finally Enlil, Marduk's predecessor as chief of the Mesopotamian pantheon. A seventh room was called "house of the bed" and contained a bed and a throne. A second bed was on the inner court of the temple on the highest platform of the Etemenanki. Finally, there must have been stairs to the roof. It is possible that the famous Babylonian astronomers, the Chaldaeans, did their observations at the topmost level of the building.

This is the point where another text becomes useful: the Histories by the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (fifth century BCE). Although he probably never visited Babylon, his description of the Etemenanki tells us something about the temple ritual. (Herodotus correctly calls the supreme god of Babylon Bêl ("lord"), because his real name was not pronounced.)

The temple of Bêl, the Babylonian Zeus [...] was still in existence in my time. It has a solid central tower, one stadium square, with a second erected on top of it and then a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running round the outside, and about half way up there are seats for those who make the ascent to rest on. On the summit of the topmost tower stands a great temple with a fine large couch in it, richly covered, and a golden table beside it. The shrine contains no image, and no one spends the night there except (if we may believe that Chaldaeans who are the priests of Bêl) one Babylonian woman, all alone, whoever it may be that the god has chosen. The Chaldaeans also say -though I do not believe them- that the god enters the temple in person and takes his rest upon the bed.^note[Herodotus, Histories 1.181-2; tr. Aubrey de Sélincourt]

Marduk and his snake dragon (from J. Black & A. Green, Gods, demons and symbols ofancient Mesopotamia,1992)

This account contains minor errors (the dimensions of the tower, the number of levels, the shape of the stairs) and belongs to a description of Babylon that contains grave errors. It needs to be stressed, because there are still scholars maintaining that Herodotus visited Babylon, that the Greek researcher does not claim that he has seen the Etemenanki: he merely writes that it "was still in existence" in his time. Yet, this is the only text we have that describes the ritual performed in the temple: a holy marriage, in which the god sleeps with a woman. Unfortunately, there is not a single scrap of Babylonian evidence that can be used to corroborate Herodotus' story.

Probably, we must simply ignore it. He goes on to make a comparison with a similar Egyptian ritual, and this betrays him: on several occasions, Herodotus offers comparisons between Babylonia and Egypt, and in those cases, he is always wrong and may be repeating a story told by Egyptian priests. The story about the woman and the god belongs to this category.
The Etemenanki is mentioned for the first time in the Annals of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who claims that he destroyed the temple tower of his Babylonian enemies in 689 BCE. Although he certainly sacked Babylon, it is impossible that his looting soldiers destroyed the Etemenanki. The wholesale destruction of large-scale structures is the prerogative of the modern age; ancient armies were incapable of destroying a large building.
The fact that Sennacherib could send an army against the Etemenanki, proves that it was older, and it would be remarkable if it was not so by at least 1000 years. During the reign of king Hammurabi (1792-1750), Babylonia was the leading power of Mesopotamia. In his age, there were ziggurats in lesser towns like Qatara, Aššur, Sippar, Kish, Borsippa, Nippur, Uruk, Larsa, Ur, and Eridu. It would be very strange if the capital of the world would be the only city without a ziggurat. It may be noted that the creation epic Enûma êliš with its reference to the building of the Esagila (and the implication of the existence of the Etemenanki), had already been written.
After Sennacherib, Esarhaddon was king of Assyria (680-669). He allowed the Babylonians to rebuilt their city. Another construction phase may have been after the war between the Assyrian king Aššurbanipal and his brother Šamaš-šum-ukin, the viceroy of Babylon (667-648). When Babylonia became independent under Nabopolassar (625-605), there was renewed building activity, and finally, king Nebuchadnezzar (605-562) is recorded as one of the builders. He finished the temple at the top, which was covered with a roof made of cedars from the Lebanon. The two last king have boasted that the tower "reached unto heaven" (cf. the Weidner Chronicle).
The building history suggests that the Babylonians were occupied with the construction of the tower for over a century. It is possible that the ambitious design of a tower of 92 x 92 x 92 meters was too grandiose, so that they needed as much time for their project as the medieval builders of the European cathedrals. For a long time, the tower must have looked unfinished, and this may explain how the Biblical story came into being. It is certainly possible that the sanctuary was never finished at all.
The Persian king Xerxes (r.486-465) has often been blamed for the destruction of the Etemenanki. During his reign, there were indeed two revolts (led by Bêl-šimânni and Šamaš-eriba, both in 484), and Herodotus states that Xerxes took away a large statue of a man from the Esagila. Some six centuries later, the historian Arrian of Nicomedia, the author of an important book on Alexander the Great, expanded this last piece of information to a remark about the destruction of the Etemenanki. After all, Arrian had to explain why Alexander started to rebuild the monument that was by then known as the "tomb of Belus". But his story can not be true. The continuous cult at the Esagila and Etemenanki is mentioned in cuneiform sources form the fifth and fourth centuries, and is confirmed by Herodotus (whatever his merits), who states that "the temple of Bêl [...] was still in existence in my time".

Alexander the Great. Portrait from Delos

The truth must be that by the time of Alexander, the ziggurat had fallen into disrepair. Buildings made of brick easily fall apart and need permanent care in the hot climate of the Near East. There is one badly damaged source, quoted here, that suggests that the Persian king Artaxerxes IV Arses (338-336) had already decided to restore the Esagila and the Etemenanki. Behaving like a Babylonian king was supposed to do, Alexander ordered 10,000 soldiers to remove the remains of the old building. Over a period of two months (April and May 323), tiles and bricks were brought to the eastern part of the city. This time, the tower was not destroyed by an army looking for loot: it was a systematic attempt to clear the building ground.

Although the site was now cleared, the tower was never rebuilt. On 11 June, Alexander died. Civil war broke out between his generals, the Diadochi. During the next years, Babylon saw several armies, and it lasted until 309 until peace conditions were restored by Seleucus Nicator. However, he founded another capital for the new Seleucid empire, Seleucia. Babylon was never restored to its old status, and that meant the end of the attempts to rebuilt the Etemenanki - although one scribe in Uruk was still hoping for its reconstruction and wrote the Louvre tablet. The Esagila remained intact well into the first century BCE and probably even later.

Antiochus I Soter

Interesting detail: the Ruin of Esagila Chronicle mentions that the Seleucid crown prince Antiochus sacrificed on the remains of the Etemenanki, stumbled and fell, and angrily ordered his elephant drivers to destroy the last remains.

Arabian authors were responsible for keeping the memory of the Etemenanki alive, sometimes comparing the greatness of the ancient city with the humble town Bâbil of their own age. However, they thought that the ancient royal palace, which was the largest ruin on the site, was the tower of Babel. The inhabitants of Bâbil told the same to the first Western visitors, in the sixteenth century.
In the nineteenth century, the real Etemenanki was rediscovered by the native Arabian population. People of the nearby village wanted to create a palm garden and discovered ancient bricks when they lowered the groundwater level. German engineers understood the significance and in 1913, Robert Koldewey started the excavation of the Etemenanki. Today, only four channels can be seen; the rest of the site is overgrown with weed. A satellite photo can be found here.