THE BABYLONIAN EVIDENCE OF ACHAEMENIAN RULE IN MESOPOTAMIA
Abstract
To present the Babylonian evidence, cuneiform texts and archaeological remains, for the Achaemenian rule over the satrapy Babairuš is to write a history of Mesopotamia. To write a history of Mesopotamia during these two hundred years would moreover necessitate the complete and critical utilization of contemporary and later classical sources. The cuneiform evidence of Achaemenian rule not only confirms the sequence of Persian rulers as known from Old Persian inscriptions and from Greek writers, but adds important chronological refinements. The student of Mesopotamian history can also rely on the inscriptions often written or stamped on bricks destined for temples, palaces, city walls, etc. In Mesopotamia as elsewhere historical events have left their imprints on literary creations and, conversely, literary creations have been used for political purposes. This chapter discusses the problems connected with the co-regency of Cyrus and Cambyses. Mesopotamian sources provide very little written evidence for Darius I, apart from the mention of his name in the Uruk kinglist.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
That three of the nine tablets within an extensive and important-looking house in trench TA level I mention the šandabakku of Nippur led Oppenheim to see in it the residence of the same.
“That three of the nine tablets within an 'extensive and important-looking house' (McCown and Haines 1967: 71) in trench TA level I mention the šandabakku of Nippur even led Oppenheim (1985: 569 n. 2) to see in it the residence of the same.”
From Tracing Regime Change during the Transition from the Neo-Babylonian to the Achaemenid Empire at Nippur: Reconstruction of Archives Excavated in 1889 (2023) · cites this paper as Oppenheim 1985: 569 n. 2
Oppenheim provides information about one more text (2NT 93) which mentions a šandabakku, although he does not give any information concerning the precise findspot of the tablet.
“Oppenheim provides information about one more text (2NT 93) which mentions a šandabakku (Oppenheim 1985: 569 n. 2), although he does not give any information concerning the precise findspot of the tablet.”
From Tracing Regime Change during the Transition from the Neo-Babylonian to the Achaemenid Empire at Nippur: Reconstruction of Archives Excavated in 1889 (2023) · cites this paper as Oppenheim 1985: 569 n. 2
Cites
Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.
Oppenheim, A. L. (1967) · Journal of Cuneiform Studies · doi:10.2307/1359373 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schneider, B. (2023) · Asia Anteriore Antica. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures · doi:10.36253/asiana-1576 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oppenheim, A. L.
- Corresponding author
- Oppenheim, A. L.
- Venue
- The Cambridge History of Iran
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1985-06-06
- Pages
- 529-587
- OpenAlex
- W2501313597
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 83.25
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Near East History
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Eurasian Exchange Networks
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
- Keywords
- Achaemenid Persian Empire, Babylon, cuneiform inscription, Cyrus the Great, Cambyses II, Darius I, co-regency, Old Persian inscriptions, Greek sources, Mesopotamian history
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review