Schools Of Oriental Studies And The Development Of Modern Historiography

SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL STUDIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY MELAMMU SYMPOSIA IV SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL STU...

Author: A. PANAINO A. PIRAS (Editors)

348 downloads 2557 Views 8MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL STUDIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY

MELAMMU SYMPOSIA IV

SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL STUDIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Ravenna, Italy, October 17-21, 2001 Edited by A. PANAINO A. PIRAS

UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA & ISIAO MILANO 2004

FOREWORD

T

he Fourth Annual Symposium of the M ELAMMU Project held in Ravenna (October 13th-17th 2001), one month after 11th September, was a very special event and not only from a scientific point of view, as on the one hand it was an important occasion to put together scholars engaged in different fields of research in a friendly and warm context of collaboration and debate and on the other hand it was a crucial moment for reflections and considerations about the humane side of this cultural project and its peculiar target, beyond scientific and academic researches, to promote dialogue among different cultures, languages and frames of mind. The results of those debates during this Conference caused the general assembly to decree the foundation of the “International Association for Intercultural Studies of the M ELAMMU Project” that was officially and legally established and provided with its own statutes in those days, as already documented in the Proceedings of the Third M ELAMMU Symposium (Milano 2002, pp. 257-264). The Fourth M ELAMMU Symposium of Ravenna, whose subject was “Schools of Oriental Studies and the Development of Modern Historiography,” was organized with the important support of the Assyrian American National Federation and the partnership of the “Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna,” more specifically its Office of International Relationships, the Faculty of Preservation of the Cultural Heritage and the Department of Histories and Methods for the Preservation of the Cultural Heritage, the latter two being located in Ravenna, where the sessions took place. We also would like to thank the Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO) and its President, Professor Gherardo Gnoli, the Fondazione Flaminia and the Municipality of Ravenna for their precious collaboration; it is also our pleasure to mention here Dr. Claudia Leurini for her efficient activity in the organizing management of the Conference and Col. Ermanno Calderoni for his kind help too. The editors are also pleased to express their deep gratitude to Dr. Gian Pietro Basello and to Dr. Federica Crabu (“L’Orientale” University, Naples) for their informatic competence and skilfullness in tidying this fourth volume of proceedings of the M ELAMMU Symposium for pubblication.

Ravenna, June 2004

Antonio Panaino

Andrea Piras

“Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna”

v

C ONTENTS

CONTENTS

F OREWORD – Antonio Panaino & Andrea Piras

.......................................

v

Symposium Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

G. P. B ASELLO , Elam between Assyriology and Iranian Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

W. B URKERT , Gyges to Croesus: Historiography between Herodotus and Cuneiform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 A. C ARILE , Political Thought in Byzantium as Seen by 20th Century Historians . . . 53 E. C AVALLINI , From Mazzarino until Today: Italian Studies between East and West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 S. M. C HIODI , Eracle tra Oriente e Occidente . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 S. D E M EIS , A Modern Approach to Assyrian-Babylonian Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 R. N. F RYE , Truth and Lies in Ancient Iranian History

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

A. G ARIBOLDI , Monete dell’Iran preislamico dal Medagliere del Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna: catalogo e considerazioni in margine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 K. K ARTTUNEN , Expansion of Oriental Studies in the Early 19th Century . . . . . . . . . . 161 B. A. L EVINE , The Jewish Ketūbbāh as a ‘Dialogue Document’: The Continuity of a Cuneiform Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 E. Y. O DISHO , Assyrian (Aramaic): A Recent Model for its Maintenance and Revitalization

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

P. O GNIBENE , The Ossetic Studies in 17th and 18th Centuries: from the Travel Notes to the First Ossetic Grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 A. P ANAINO , Trends and Problems concerning the Mutual Relations between Iranian Pre-Islamic and Jewish Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 S. P ARPOLA , Back to Delitzsch and Jeremias: The Relevance of the Pan-Babylonian School to the M ELAMMU Project . . . . . . . . . . 237 A. P IRAS , Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage and Pre-Islamic Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 M. V IDALE , Growing in a Foreign World: For a History of the “Meluhha Villages” in Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 J. G. W ESTENHOLZ , The Good Shepherd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 A. A NNUS , S. P ARPOLA & R. M. W HITING , The M ELAMMU Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Addresses of the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

vii

B ASELLO

G IAN P IETRO B ASELLO

E LAM BETWEEN A SSYRIOLOGY AND I RANIAN S TUDIES

Napoli

Elam between Assyriology and Iranian Studies Mais ce que l’esprit humain a créé, l’esprit humain peut le déterrer, le retirer de l’oubli de la tombe, quand même son œuvre aurait été ensevelie pendant des milliers d’années 1

Saith Darius the King: tuvam k , haya aparam im m dipim patip s hi, taya man k tam v navat m !uv m, m taya draugam maniy hai. Thou who shalt hereafter read this inscription, let that which has been done by me convince thee; do not thou think it a lie. 2

Are modern historians convinced by Darius’ words? What is your opinion about Gaum ta and Bardiya, Smerdis and Cometes 3 ? In any case we are neither ancient Persians nor subjected to them, neither friends nor enemies. We are not directly involved in Darius’ message and royal propaganda. We cannot read the Bisotun inscription the way we read today’s newspaper, neither can we understand its text as its ancient composers did. 4 We lost the context, so at most we can appreciate the monumental environment as art and skilful deed of ancient men. Otherwise we have to study it, try1

Oppert 1851: 256. DB OP IV 41-43 (§56). Phonetic transcription according to Schmitt 1991: 69; translation according to Kent 1953: 131. 3 “Among the classical authors, only one, Justin, applies the name Cometes to Gaum ta (1.9.7)” (Briant 2001: 334), “mais le mage de ce nom (Cométès), chargé par Cambyse lui-même de mettre à mort le vrai Smerdis, pousse sur le trône son frère Oropastès!” (Briant 1996: 112). 4 Rossi 1981, especially pp. 187-191 (§§ 6.1-2). See also Cardona 1981: 178-179. 5 For example, Predari 1842: 1; Rawlinson 1876: 19; 2

A. Panaino & A. Piras (eds.) M ELAMMU S YMPOSIA IV (Milano 2004) ISBN 88-88483-206-3

ing to reconstruct ancient history, ideology and society, but, since there are square meters of inscriptions, furthermore trilingual, the first step was, and still partly is, to reconstruct ancient writings and languages. Did Darius foresee all that? Well, I think he was so aware of the greatness and freshness of his political establishment that he knew that its memory would have survived its fall. However, modern historiography is something unexpected to ancient peoples. From an internal point of view, it is usually said that Oriental studies were born in the Middle Ages from the study of the holy scriptures, 5 which were not only history or art, but first of all object of faith. It was the Bible which preserved the name of most ancient Eastern civilizations from complete oblivion. Then the 17th and 18th centuries came, and it was the age of the long journeys to the East which brought back accounts of fabulous ruins and mysterious scripts. 6 Later on, De Gubernatis 1876: 18, 21 and following pages; Guidi 1935: 538. Cf. Said 1995; Schwab 1984. 6 See Sancisi-Weerdenburg & Drijvers 1991. About the Italian traveller Pietro della Valle, see more recently Invernizzi 2001 and Vitalone 2003. According to Hinz & Koch 1987: 1332, the first drawings of Elamite texts were published in de Bruyn 1711 and Chardin 1711; Teloni 1903: 32 referred only to the latter; the inscription in Chardin 1711 is DPa according to Hinz & Koch, DPc according to Giovinazzo 1990 and Hachard & Hourcade 1999: 162 (“the first copy of one of the Persepolis inscriptions of Darius”). About Jean Chardin, see Emerson 1992. 1

B ASELLO


in the 19th century, the first pioneering archaeological excavations began. 7 In the meanwhile, the trilingual Achaemenid inscriptions from Persepolis and Bisotun attracted the attention of Orientalists. As soon as the inscriptions became an object of study, the scholars’ first need was to find a name 8 for the languages. So, long before understanding them, the three 9 languages were sorted out according to the top-bottom order in which they generally appear on the walls of Persepolis, followed by such labels as ‘column, kind, range, species’ in English, 10 ‘Gattung, Art, Columne’ in German, 11 ‘colonne, sorte, type, système, espèce’ in French 12 and ‘genere, maniera’ in Italian. 13 Saith again Darius the King: ada xšn s hi, adatai azd bav ti: P rsahy martiyahy d"rai štiš par gm ta.

Then shalt thou know, then shall it become known to thee: the spear of a Persian man has gone forth far. 14

When Darius ordered to write that, he certainly did not imagine that not only his spear, but also the stylus of his scribes would have gone forth far, so far in space and time that by writing the Babylonian version of his inscriptions, he had put a seed which would give birth to our Assyriology at the beginning of the 19th century AD. Not satisfied, having ordered to write the inscriptions in Old Persian, too, 2500 years ago he contributed, together with the compilers of the Avesta corpus, to the birth of Iranian studies. 15 What about the remaining version? Which academic subject did it originate?

A Name for Elam At the very beginning of the deciphering adventure, when G.F. Grotefend, N.L. Westergaard and F. de Saulcy 16 wrote about the language of the so-called second kind, they did not know they were

dealing with Elamite. They named it ‘Median.’ In this section I would like to elucidate why Elamite was called ‘Median’ and how ‘Median’ became today’s Elamite. In a wider perspective, the

7

225 and 242, quoted in Teloni 1923: 230). 14 DNa OP 43-46 (§4). Phonetic transcription according to Schmitt 2000: 29; translation according to Kent 1953: 138. 15 According to Gignoux 1999: 167a (Iranian studies in France), Eugène Burnouf (1801-1852) was “the founder of Iranian linguistics.” The deciphering of the Old Persian cuneiform script was completed in 1851 by Oppert, who identified the sign l(a) (Schmitt 1999: 534a; Lecoq 1997: 28). Schmitt 1999: 530a (Iranian studies in German): “The first Iranist in the literal sense of the term was Friedrich Carl Andreas (1846-1930), professor of Western Asiatic philology at the University of Göttingen from 1903 to 1920.” See also Pagliaro 1935. 16 The first scholars who dealt with Elamite are: Westergaard, de Saulcy and then Norris (Oppert 1876: 136; also 1879: p. VII); Westergaard, de Saulcy, Norris and Oppert (Lenormant 1877: 217);

See Gran-Aymerich 1998 for a detailed account. Cf. Genesis 2,19-20; see also Cardona 1982: 7. 9 According to Weisbach 1890: 5, Niebuhr (1778) “erkannte [.] zuerst die 3 Arten der Inschriften”; see also Rossi 1985: 191-192. 10 For example, ‘column’ in Norris 1855; ‘species’ in Westergaard 1844. Also ‘idiom’ in Sayce 1874. 11 For example, ‘Columne’ in Winkler 1896. 12 For example, ‘colonne’ and ‘sorte’ in Scheil 1909: 528; ‘systême’ in Lenormant 1875: 314 and 316; ‘espèce’ in Oppert 1856: 173. Also ‘écriture’ in Löwenstern 1850a and 1850b. 13 For example, ‘genere’ in Finzi 1872: 2-3; Teloni 1903: 29-35; Teloni 1930: 37; ‘maniera’ in Teloni 1903: 32 and 1930: 37; Basevi 1850: 246. Luzzatto, already in 1848, preferred ‘persiano,’ ‘medo’ and ‘babilonese’ (Luzzatto 1848: 466-467). Jannelli similarly wrote in Latin about “scriptura cuneoformis Chaldaeorum, Medorum et Persarum” (Jannelli 1830: 8

2

B ASELLO


focus is on the link between a written language and its name, 17 and the people who spoke it. As soon as the language of the first kind was connected to the language of Avesta, which was known since the second half of the 18th century and supposed at that time to be located in Bactria, 18 it was named (Old) Persian and therefore located in Persia. Then the languages of the second and third kinds could be related to “the neighbouring countries of ancient Media and Susiana.” 19 As to the language of the second kind, the name ‘Median’ was preferred, even if the Danish scholar Niels Ludvig Westergaard (1815-1878), was aware that by so doing, he disregarded the testimony of Strabo 20 “who plainly tells us that the Medes and Persians spoke nearly one and the same language.” 21 It was in 1844, and Westergaard referred to Rawlinson as an ‘oriental scholar.’ 22

In 1846, sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1810-1895), although not worried at all by Strabo’s wording, emphasized the Scythic character of this language. According to Rawlinson, the name ‘Median’ had been assigned to this language on a ground which was “irrespective of all internal evidences.” 23 In fact, “in many of the essential characteristics of language, the so-called Median organization is of the Scythic type.” 24 However, he conceded that “the Scythic or quasi-Scythic character which it presents should be recognised as a secondary development”25 because only the Median, i.e. the language of a people “admitted to a certain degree of participation in the political rights of the Persians,” 26 could precede the ancient and revered Babylonian language on the inscriptions. The great number of Old Persian loan words attested in Achaemenid Elamite misled Rawlinson. However, he was perfectly

Westergaard (1845) and then Norris, Oppert, later Weissbach (1890) (Furlani 1929: 4); Grotefend, Westergaard, Hincks and de Saulcy (Teloni 1930: 37, ‘Il secondo genere di Persepoli’); Westergaard (Lecoq 1997: 28); Westergaard and Norris (Schmitt 1999: 541b). According to Teloni (1903: 32), “gli studi più importanti intorno al [secondo] «genere» medesimo furono editi dal Westergaard (1845), dall’Hincks (1848) tanto segnalatosi nelle ricerche assire, da De Saulcy (1850), Oppert (1851-52), Holtzmann (1862-65), Fr. Lenormant (1871), Sayce (1874), Delattre (1883), Weissbach and Foy (1890 e sgg.).” As Luzzatto wrote, Westergaard was a “dotto indianista” (Luzzatto 1848: 467). 17 On this topic throughout the article, see the relevant contributions in Rossi 1981, especially pp. 152153 (§2.3) with footnote 37, also p. 163 (§4.1.1.2), and Rossi 1984, especially p. 39, footnote 2. 18 Westergaard 1844: 272. 19 Westergaard 1844: 272. 20 Strabo, !"#$%&'(), XV 2,8 (cited in Weisbach 1890: 11 and, as “XV, II, 14,” in Delattre 1883: 5, footnote 3): *+!(,!-.!,%'/ 01/ ,23.24%/ ,56/ 7$'%.56 489$'/ 48$2:6/ ,'.;6/ (%?./ (%'N/ ,!,,)$"./Q.,"./ JR>,$'(?./ *S.?.N/ T./ @)$02' 41./ =8$>%'6/ +$2>!9!U6/ V>%.N/ W3X'2'/ 01/ (%< YJ:4%U2'/ ,2Z,2'6/ ,!/ (%-2'6N/ [2>>%U2'/ 01 @A02'6. This passage is not clear: “settled between 90

10

B ASELLO

In the end, who was the first scholar proposing ‘Elamite’? According to the comprehensive Bibliographie by W. Hinz & H. Koch, in 1874 Sayce “erwägt erstmals die Bezeichnung ‘elamitisch,’ gibt sie aber für ‘amardisch’.” 100 A small doubt arises skimming through a report printed in 1876 but given as a lecture in 1873 at the 1st International Congress of Orientalists, where Oppert said that “on a même voulu donner au second système des inscriptions trilingues le nom d’élamite.” 101 Actually Sayce was perhaps the first who put the word ‘Elam’ in the title, since in 1850 Isidore Löwenstern (1810-1858 or 1859) did not dare to entitle his article ‘Remarques sur la deuxième écriture de Persépolis’ more explicitly. Its first lines deserve a full quotation: S’il était de mode de nos jours d’employer le style moins réservé des savants du dernier siècle, je changerais mon titre en celui de: Mémoire dans lequel on prouve, que la deuxième écriture de Persépolis, dite mède, est celle du peuple primitif de la Perse, les Élamites. Ce serait imiter de Guignes, qui avait in-


titulé un célèbre opuscole: Mémoire dans lequel on prouve que les Chinois sont une colonie égyptienne. Mais quand on n’est point prince de la science, comme l’illustre historien des Huns et des Tartares, il est bien mieux d’adopter des allures moins altières et de se contenter de soumettre humblement ses idées dans le texte. 102

‘Élamite’ as the name of the language was consequently used in the last pages of the article, which was enriched by a lot of references to contemporary and classical authors and by a strong confidence in the Bible. Moreover, according to the final ‘note de l’éditeur,’ the first French cuneiform font was employed there; it was made by A. Lucas and property of the author. 103 However, although the alleged title is correct as a statement, by guessing the name Löwenstern missed its meaning: arguing against the name ‘Median,’ 104 he deemed to have found Semitic elements in Elamite; then finding the same elements in Pahlavi (misled by heterograms), he assumed a relaxed connection between them. 105

Elamite Studies in Italy The first scholar in Italy who dealt, even if incidentally, with Elamite was probably Cataldo Jannelli (Brienza, Potenza 1781 – Naples 1841), royal librarian in Naples. Writing in Latin, in 1830

he devoted 67 pages to cuneiform writings, which he called ‘scriptura cuneoformis Chaldaeorum, Medorum et Persarum.’ 106 Jannelli rejected Grotefend’s decipherment because his main assump-

100

105

Hinz & Koch 1987: 1335; also Lecoq 1997: 29. Oppert 1876: 136. The speech does not seem to have been subsequently updated, except for the few words put in the few footnotes, regarding the intervened death of Finzi and the regular chair of Assyriology (see below). 102 Löwenstern 1850b: 687. 103 Löwenstern 1850b: 728. 104 See also Löwenstern 1850a, an open letter to de Saulcy which, rejecting ‘Median,’ did not make further proposals. 101

Löwenstern 1850b: 696 and following pages. Cf. also de Saulcy 1849: 211, no. 2 (affinities with ‘zend’ and ‘persan moderne’). See the progress in Pahlavi studies attested in Finzi 1870b and Darmesteter 1883: I 14-42. 106 Jannelli 1830: lib. II, sect. V, pp. 225-282. On this subject, see the remarkable essay by Teloni (1923: 229-231, ‘Un avversario dimenticato di G. F. Grotefend (1930)’). Regarding Jannelli’s studies on ancient Egypt, see De Salvia 1991.

11

B ASELLO


tion was that the cuneiform writing “in sacris et mysticis rebus fuisse adhibitam.” 107 On these matters, the first to write in Italian was Filosseno Luzzatto (Trieste 1829, July 10 – 1854, January 25 108 ). In 1848, he published a brief memory on the Bisotun inscriptions, dealing mainly with Old Persian words. 109 Two years later, in an essay written in French and devoted to the Babylonian language, 110 he identified 24 ‘Medic’ signs with Babylonian ones. 111 He must not be confused with his father, the well-known scholar Samuel David Luzzatto (Trieste 1800 – Padua 1865), teacher of Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew in Padua. 112 His Jewish origins 113 and a short life span are the two elements which connect Luzzatto with the first Italian Assyriologist, Felice Finzi (Correggio, Reggio Emilia 1847 – Florence 1872, September 3). At the age of 20, he took a degree in law at the University of Bologna 114 and began his scientific researches as an Ethnologist: he was the editor of the anthropological and ethnological section of the journal Archivio per l’antropologia e la

etnologia edited by Paolo Mantegazza 115 ; a letter by Finzi sending a publication to C.R. Darwin is dated 1871, February 9. 116 From ethnology, his interest for ancient peoples, their origins and the development of races (as understood at that time) grew. 117 Following Oppert’s example in Paris (where a special course of Assyrian language was inaugurated in December 1868 118 ), Finzi taught Lettere e antichità assire at the Regio Istituto di Studii Superiori of Florence since 1869. 119 Despite his young age, Finzi suddenly entered the exclusive club of international Assyriology. In 1870, Oppert presented him to the Société asiatique. 120 Moreover Finzi was the only Italian cited by Oppert in the Rapport sur les progrès du déchiffrement des Écritures Cunéiformes presented at the 1st International Congress of Orientalists held in Paris in 1873: Oppert spoke of him as of a young and promising scholar. 121 Again Finzi was the only Italian who “also joined our band of Assyriologists” according to the address by Rawlinson at the 2nd International Congress of Orientalists held in London

107

report about the excavations in Cyprus (Finzi 1870a). 118 Oppert 1876: 148, and footnote 1. The first chair of Assyriology was created in 1874; see the few lines devoted to this event in Labat 1973: 33, despite Oppert’s fame in his own time. It should be noted that Jules Oppert was German, naturalized French (‘Julius,’ among the German-speaking scholars, in Schmitt 1999: 541; see also Furlani 1935, André-Salvini 1999: 332, Gran-Aymerich 2001 for further references). 119 Amari 1873: p. VI; de Gubernatis 1876: 426, and footnote 1; Furlani 1928: 59, 1929: 14-15 (‘libero docente’) and Furlani 1932a; ‘Finzi Felice,’ in Lessico universale italiano, Roma 1968-1986 (“etnologo e assiriologo, libero docente a Firenze”). Till 1872, Finzi managed to hold three courses (Finzi 1872: p. III, ‘Prefazione,’ dated 1872, March 27; cf. Furlani 1932a: “due corsi liberi”). 120 As results in Journal asiatique, vol. 16 (1870), p. 294: “M. Finfi [sic!], professeur, à Florence, présenté par MM. Mohl et Oppert”; the name was rightly written in the index published in 1872. 121 Oppert 1876: 144.

Jannelli 1830: 225, cited in Teloni 1923: 230. De Gubernatis 1876: 96 and 97. 109 Luzzatto 1848. 110 Luzzatto 1850; see also the critical and (today) odd review by Basevi (a lawyer of Jewish family), written in Italian (Basevi 1850). 111 As written in Weisbach 1890: 7 (no. 27 in the bibliography on p. 3). 112 De Gubernatis 1876: 86-87. See also the story Un letterato ebreo and the related notes by U. Saba (1956). 113 On the origin of Finzi’s family, see Colorni 1983b. 114 Amari 1873: p. VI; Finzi R. 1983: 274. 115 Casati 1934: “filologo ed etnologo, assiriologo. Fondò con Paolo Mantegazza l’Archivio di Etnologia e di Antropologia e fu tra i promotori della Società Orientale in Italia”; Furlani 1932a. 116 Recorded in The Darwin Correspondence Online Database (), where Finzi appeared as “Ethnologist and Assyriologist.” I ran into this reference by chance and it was my first encounter with Finzi. 117 See for example the ethnological glimpses in the 108

12

B ASELLO

in 1874. 122 Oppert’s omen proved sadly unfulfilled, since Finzi was already dead at the young age of 25, leaving his wife and two sons 123 ; neither did Rawlinson seem to be aware of it two years later. Finzi’s main work is Ricerche per lo studio dell’antichità assira, with an extended introduction on Akkadian language and long sections about Mesopotamian ethnology and religion. 124 M. Amari wrote the following waggish sentence about his work: talchè se il Finzi nella breve sua vita non arrivò all’onore di grande assiriologo, veggiam che s’era messo in via e che lasciò un’opera utile e scoprì qualche fatto nuovo. Così il suo libro fosse scritto in buon italiano! Ma chi mette il piè in questa torre di Babele di tante favelle antiche e moderne e sente suonar all’orecchio ogni altra lingua fuorché la nostra, merita perdono s’egli talvolta la sciupa. Finirà cotesto pericolo, quando la letteratura nazionale risalirà in tanto onore che non ci occorra studiar sempre le scienze in idiomi oltramontani e che un giusto orgoglio ci muova a serbar puro il nostro, ancorché viva e si sviluppi a seconda dell’incivilimento. 125

122

Rawlinson 1876: 21-22. Finzi R. 1983: 274. 124 Finzi 1872. Furlani 1932a: “la prima [in Italy, I would add, but in Furlani 1928: 59-60 Finzi is placed in front of all other authors and followed by Lenormant!] trattazione sistematica della religione babilonese e assira, basata su un’estesa conoscenza di tutta la letteratura sull’argomento”; after so much laud and praise, Furlani concluded: “Per il tempo in cui fu scritto il libro è ottimo; al giorno d’oggi non ha più che pochissimo valore” (Furlani 1928: 60). Cf. Bassi 1899: p. X. 125 Amari 1873: p. VI. 126 De Gubernatis 1876: 426. It is still accessible in the Biblioteca della Facoltà di Lettere e filosofia of the Florence university: “Il fondo, acquistato su richiesta di Pasquale Villari nel luglio 1873, rappresenta il primo esempio di acquisto di una intera raccolta da parte dell’Istituto di Studi superiori. Comprende 250 volumi dal XVI al XIX sec. (di cui 8 cinquecentine) di argomento archeologico, assiriologico e linguistico, e inoltre volumi di particolare interesse 123


Finzi’s library was the first acquisition of the Istituto di Studii Superiori in Florence, and it became the core of the first Italian university library with an Assyriological section. 126 He was one of the founders of the Società italiana per gli studii orientali 127 in September 1871 and he also knew Hebrew and Sanskrit. 128 In a review of The old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary edited by Hoshangji Jamaspji Asa and M. Haug, he proved his acquaintance with Iranian matters, as well. 129 The premature death of Finzi was a hard stroke to the rising Italian Assyriology. In 1876, A. de Gubernatis wrote: “Les langues touraniennes et l’assyriologie, par exemple, sont presqu’entièrement négligées chez nous.” 130 Actually, Finzi is forgotten today, and the first Italian Assyriologist is generally considered to have been Giulio Cesare (but he preferred to be called Bruto) Teloni (1857-1942). 131 In 1803, Teloni premised his book on Assyrian literature with a detailed account of the history of Assyriology, 132 probably because of its divulgatory aim 133 and because it was one of

per la letteratura e la storia della tipografia ebraica” (, with further references; the birth year is wrong). 127 Amari 1873: p. VI-VII; de Gubernatis 1876: 428. 128 Finzi R. 1983: 274. 129 Finzi 1870b. 130 De Gubernatis 1876: 14. Also Teloni 1903: p. VIII: “Gli studi assiri fino ad oggi non fecero in Italia che rare e fugaci apparizioni; questa nobilissima scienza resta da noi pressoché sconosciuta.” 131 So Castellino (1971: 38), in his essay on Assyriology in Italy, is wrong in defining Teloni the first Italian Assyriologist (‘primo assiriologo italiano’); somehow he did not cite Finzi. 132 Teloni 1903: 1-35. 133 The book appeared in the series Manuali Hoepli (from the name of the publisher, Ulrico Hoepli) which provided hundreds of handbooks devoted to the practical needs of common people, although they had a high concept of common knowledge.

13

B ASELLO


the first Assyriological works in Italy. 134 He wrote that “Nel vasto regno elamitico si parlarono diversi dialetti che vengono espressi con caratteri cuneiformi, ma la loro reciproca relazione non si conosce esattamente,” and he was still in doubt about the second kind of Persepolis belonging to this Elamite group. 135 This doubt disappeared some thirty years later, since in the entry Assiriologia of the Italian encyclopaedia Treccani he assured that “oggi si preferisce chiamarlo (come dialetto dell’antico elamitico) neoelamitico.” 136 In this entry, Teloni referred to Elamite in three different ways: ‘susiano,’ 137 ‘neo-elamitico’ and ‘elamico.’ The first two referred to the Achaemenid inscriptions; the third seems to point to linear and Middle Elamite. Moreover he considered the ‘Cassitico’ as “in sostanza un dialetto elamico del N[ord].” 138 He was also in touch with Weissbach. 139 During the first years of the last century, Elam was attracting a growing interest in Europe. Various scholars were involved in Elamite studies (see for example the articles following one another on the pages of the Orientalistische Literaturzeitung) while people could see beautiful Elamite artefacts in the Louvre

exhibitions. 140 So we are not astonished by that Italian scholar who called Hüsing “dotto e geniale Elamista” 141 (i.e. skilled and ingenious Elamologist 142 )! Someone in Italy was dealing with Elam and he was not an Assyriologist but an eclectic Linguist. Alfredo Trombetti (Bologna 1866-1929), of humble birth, learned French, German, Greek, Hebrew and Latin by himself. He was fluent in these languages when he was 14 years old. 143 No surprise that, when he was an adult, he knew nearly all the languages of the world, Elamite included. In fact, in 1913 he wrote an essay (22 pages) entitled La posizione linguistica dell’Elamitico. He referred to Achaemenid Elamite as “una forma seriore del neo-elamitico” 144 and quoted texts in ‘nuovo’ and ‘medio Elamitico’ as we employ today these designations. He upheld the theory of the monogenesis of languages, and to him Elamite was the ‘connecting link’ between Nilotic (today Nilo-Saharan family, Chari-Nile sub-group 145 ) and Dravidian languages through Brahui, while being a collateral branch of Caucasian languages. 146 His main references were the German scholars, first of all Hüsing, 147 then Winkler, Weissbach and Bork. 148 He also referred to Caldwell for Dravidian

134 Preceded by Brunengo 1885, Teloni 1887, Bassi 1899. Bassi, being a scholar of Greek studies (Furlani 1929: 15), apologized to Assyriologists (Bassi 1899: p. VII). 135 Teloni 1903: 19 and 20, footnote 3. 136 Teloni 1930: 37a. 137 Teloni 1930: 36a; also Teloni 1903: 28. 138 Teloni 1930:38a, ‘3. Cassitico.’ 139 In Teloni 1903: 21, footnote 3, a letter dated 1899, August 19, is cited. 140 Benoit 1997; see especially pp. 144-145 on the 1905 exhibition with paintings and plans. See also Potts 1999: 444 for further references. 141 Trombetti 1913: 21. 142 ‘Elamologist’ after McAlpin 1981: 13. 143 Trombetti 1902: p. XXXVIII and following

pages. 144 Trombetti 1913: 3/117. 145 Cf. Trombetti 1923, §28 (see also §52) with Ruhlen 1975-76: 64-65 and Sim 1994. 146 Trombetti 1913: 18-19/132-133 and 1923, §§ 137 (cf. Trombetti 1913: 4/118), 147 and 242 (quoting Trombetti 1913: 18-19/132-133). Cf. the remark on Caucasian family in Meriggi 1966: 560. 147 See the remark on Hüsing and the German school in Meriggi 1966: 562. 148 For example, Winkler 1896 and Hüsing 1910 in Trombetti 1913: 3/117; Weissbach 1911a on p. 19/133 and Weissbach 1913 on p. 21/135, note 2; Bork on p. 18/132; Bork 1905b is cited as the first essay on linear Elamite on p. 22/136, note 3; also Oppert on p. 17/131.

14

B ASELLO


and Bray for Brahui. 149 Trombetti died untimely in 1929, drowning in the Venice lagoon. Afterwards some Elamite studies were conducted in Italy by Assyriologist Giuseppe Furlani (1885-1962) whose main interest was Mesopotamian religion and mythological texts. He compiled the clear and exhaustive entry Elam in the Italian encyclopaedia Treccani and the section La religione degli Elamiti in a book on the history of religions. 150 Like Trombetti, he cited the German scholars 151 ; moreover he knew the recent essays by König and the catalogue of the famous Susa exhibition in the Louvre Museum in 1913. 152 Treading in Teloni’s wake, Furlani named Achaemenid Elamite ‘neoelamico’ 153 (in Italy, too, there was disagreement about the adjective derived from Elam 154 ) and considered Cassite as northern Elamite. 155 In 1936, he published an essay entitled Divinità gemelle nel Pantheon Elamico, which he concluded somehow triumphantly writing: “Inoltre mi pare di aver fatto vedere che siamo ancora molto ignoranti in fatto di religione sumera o elamica o accàda.” 156 Next came Piero Meriggi (1899-1982), who was a Linguist like Trombetti, and as such 157 he dealt with Elam, especially with Proto-Elamite. In 1965, he pre-

sented a collection of some scattered notes about the Elamite language to Italian scholars, 158 recalling everybody’s attention on its possible linguistic kin with Hurrian. At the end, a remark on linear Elamite peeped, preparing the way for his main work, La scrittura proto-elamica, which was devoted to the most ancient scripts of Iran. 159 Since the main interest of Meriggi was for lessunderstood languages of the ancient Near East like Lydian, Hurrian and Urartian, we owe to him the Italian tendency to associate Elamite to the Anatolian languages, in spite of Assyriology. In this ‘desertion,’ he felt comforted by the inclusion of the Elamite grammatical sketch by E. Reiner 160 in the volume Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. 161 This trend is being carried on by Mirjo Salvini, 162 a specialist in Urartian interested in linear Elamite, and to him we owe the publication in Italy of the more recent Elamite grammar, written by Margaret Kha!ikjan for the Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici in Rome. Coming to the present, I would like to remember the late father Luigi Cagni, Assyriologist in Naples, whose disciple Grazia Giovinazzo studied Elamite with François Vallat in Paris. She has been holding a regular course of Elamite language at the ‘L’Orientale’ University of

149 Caldwell 1856 is cited in Trombetti 1913: 3/117 and 16/130; Bray 1908 in Trombetti 1913: 4/118 (as published in 1909) and 16/130. Obviously Trombetti could not take advantage of the third part of the latter, the useful etymological vocabulary published in 1934 (Bray 1934). 150 Furlani 1932 and Furlani 1949; the latter meaningfully not included in further editions of the book. 151 Furlani 1932: 605-606, ‘Bibl.’ Hüsing 1916 in Furlani 1936: 57. 152 Pézard & Pottier 1913 in Furlani 1932: 605-606, ‘Bibl.’ 153 Furlani 1931: 138-139. 154 See also Trombetti 1913: 21/135, note 1: “Oppure «Elamico», come si dice ora generalmente (Elamisch).” Today the adjectives ‘elamico’ and

‘elamita’ are used. 155 Furlani 1932: 603b. See also OED, ‘Kassite’: “Also Cossæan, Kasshi, Kossæan. A member of an Elamite people from the central range of the Zagros mountains, who ruled Babylon from the 18th to the 12th century B.C.; also, their language.” Cf. Potts 1999: 339-340 on the Kissians. 156 Furlani 1936: 65. 157 Meriggi 1971: 49. 158 Meriggi 1966. 159 Meriggi 1971-1974. See also Meriggi 1969a; 1969b; 1971b and 1977. 160 Reiner 1969. 161 Meriggi 1971: 56-57. See also the review of this volume in Meriggi 1971a. 162 Cited also in Meriggi 1971: 56. 15

B ASELLO


Naples since 1999-2000, in which she teaches all the historical developments of Elamite. 163 In the same university, but with an Iranological emphasis, Adriano V. Rossi has been involved in Elamite studies, 164 and Giovanni D’Erme, author

in 1990 of a perhaps less-known but surely very interesting essay about the connections between Old Persian and Elamite scripts, 165 has been teaching modern Persian.

The Name Elam What is the difference between the history of studies and a footnote with a bibliographical reference? Probably it is the aim, but as a matter of fact it could be no more than a chronological gap between referring to an immediate past and reconstructing a past which is a little bit further in the same field of study. Even if you take a short essay on a lessfrequented field as Elamite studies and represent it as a point on a virtual timeline, then connect this point with other points representing, according to the chosen scale, the articles or books cited therein, then you go down to your library and fetch each of these you can, and do the same with them, you will find an uninterrupted chain going back to the half of the 19th century. Making a bibliographical note means keeping track of one’s own path, allowing others to travel more swiftly and going farther. One of the main characteristics of human beings is that we make experiences: this is true both for each individual’s personal story, and for the knowledge passing from master to disciple, from book to reader,

from generation to generation. 166 Bernard of Chartres said that we are dwarves on the shoulders of giants. 167 I prefer to say that we are dwarves perched on other dwarves’ shoulders, being piled up on top of other dwarves, and so on. And the more this building grows and becomes taller, the more, as a reversed Babel’s tower, it is sound. Moreover, as Teloni said negotiating about Jannelli, “nella storia della scienza il racconto degli errori può essere qualche volta d’ammaestramento.” 168 But time ago, a man died and since then no living man was able to read a script or to understand a language which had been the usual way of communication and of thinking for the people. The chain of knowledge had been broken. One of the differences between natural and human sciences is perhaps that the first discovers something in nature which was previously unknown to men, while the second is about what at least some of the men already knew in the past. 169 And paradoxically, while even the most innovative natural discovery relies at least on

163

subvehimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea (Joannis Saresberiensis Metalogicus, liber III, cap. IV, 900C (Patrologia Latina 199), ). As is well known, this sentence was taken by I. Newton: “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants” (sir Isaac Newton, letter to Robert Hooke, 1675/1676, February 5, quoted in Merton 1965: 31). 168 Teloni 1923: 231 (adapted). 169 See also Frye 1974: 57.

Among her articles, see for instance Giovinazzo 1989a, 1994a and 2000. 164 See for instance Rossi 1995, 2000, 2003a and 2003b. 165 D’Erme 1990. See also D’Erme 1983. 166 Cf. Said 2001: 200. 167 Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris incidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum 16

B ASELLO

means conceived by others, the rediscovery of a lost language is a somewhat zero point, even if the developments in linguistics could help deciphering, and it is not the work of a single man, but the endeavour of many people. The only faith of the decipherer, as Oppert wrote, is that what human ingenuity created, can be reconstructed. So, this is the challenge, based on the assumption that we study ourselves, or at least what we would have been, had we by chance been born some centuries ago. 170 The quest for the name of the language of the second kind was a winding path, which had been deserted for a long time, and which has finally been meeting again the main road that it had left long ago. 171 The path and the road were apart for many miles, and the landscape is now heavily changed. While the scholars toiled along the nameless path, the road was more and more unfrequented by that time. The road bears a name, and it is the road travelled by the name ‘Elam’ to come up to us. Luzzatto was treading on this road when, in 1847, he devoted an essay to Gli Elamiti; he did not connect them explicitly with the language of the second kind (it would have been a forerunning short-cut towards the path!), however he justified his attention to such a less-known people saying prophetically: E’ bene adunque, a mio giudizio, che la filologia e la storia non si lascino prendere, dirò così, alla sprovvista, ma, prevedendo quasi la scoperta archeologica, le preparino il campo e le appianino la

170 As prof. A. Panaino is used to saying to his students at the opening lesson of his courses. 171 From the point of view of the intersection (i.e. of a wrong label) with the ‘Median’ road, see Genito 1986: 65-70. Cf. also the present state of the label ‘Tocharian’ with respect to the language conventionally named after it (see Mallory 1989: 56).


via, cosicchè questa non distrugga già, ma sì confermi splendidamente i dati di quelle. 172

Actually, while Persians and Babylonians are mentioned also by Greek authors (revived since the 15th century AD), the name Elam is attested uninterruptedly only by the never forgotten source of the Bible. 173 Otherwise, the only trace of Elam is Elymais, mentioned by Strabo and some other ‘scrittore profano.’ 174 Moreover, like I said during the past M ELAMMU meeting, perhaps the Bible does not concern only ancient and Achaemenid Elam, if ‘Elamites’ as the name of the people from Elam as a geographical area is attested in the Acts of the Apostles (unless some Jews from Elam were in the crowd attending the apostles’ speech on the Pentecost day), more than five centuries after the fall of Elam as a political entity. 175 The Archaeology of Elam by D.T. Potts 176 is, despite its title, a deep and comprehensive historiographic work on Elam. In 450 pages covering 4500 years of history, the author shows us many Elams, from the Elammatum (or Elamtu) attested in Akkadian texts of the 3rd millennium BC to the Nestorian ecclesiastical province of Elam in the 14th century AD. Between these two ends, what was named Elam underwent continuous transformations, even if both the name Elam and a core of identity and perhaps ethnicity were maintained through the ages. 177 When Scheil spoke about Anšan as

172

Luzzatto 1847: 301. Potts 1999: 3. 174 As said in Luzzatto 1847: 303. See Gesenius 1839; Weissbach 1905; also Potts 1999, chapter 10. 175 Acts 2,9. See Basello 2002: 13-14. 176 Potts 1999. 177 Potts 1999, chapter 1, especially pp. 1-5 and 9. 173

17

B ASELLO


being more specific than Elam, the perspective was mainly philological, i.e. unconcerned by the effective geographic location of Anšan. 178 F. Vallat showed how a geographic name must be seen on the background of history according to the point of view of the author who used it. 179 In fact the name ‘Elam’ was attached to different geographic areas in different periods. Moreover, the Elamite civilization was often seen and judged from a foreigner’s point of view, from ancient times onwards. The name ‘Elam’ itself is likely to have originated in Mesopotamia among Akkadians, rather than having derived

from Elamite Hallatamti. 180 In any case, the form which the Bible handed down to us and which we employ today is Semitic. But the most misplaced detour of the name ‘Elam’ is probably in the Babylonian Talmud. As on Pentecost day, Elamites appeared side by side with Medes, but this time the focus is on their languages: rabbis questioned whether the book of Esther can be read in Elamite ( ]^_` a b ^ cd ) or Median. 181 This is not likely to be our Elamite, but what if this passage had been known to Sayce and to the other scholars in 19th century?

The Place and Role of Elam in Ancient Near Eastern Studies Another characteristic of human beings is the need to schematize. Language is the first means of schematization, as language itself is a schema applied to our mind, used not only in our speeches but also in our thoughts. And languages are a very good starting point for schematizing reality. As written evidence marks the

watershed between prehistory and history, at the beginning of the 19th century a language was useful in defining the geographical and ethnic boundaries of an ancient civilization. The language of a text was that of the country where the bulk of texts in the same language were found. The catchword was one country,

178 Scheil 1909. For example, cf. Sayce 1874: 475: “Anzan was properly that part of Elam which bordered upon the Persian Gulf.” For a detailed bibliographical account on the researches about Anšan, see Prášek 1906: 189-191, footnote 1. 179 Vallat 1980 and also 1998: 302. 180 Vallat 1996; cf. Quintana 1996. See also Poebel 1932; Dandamaev 1989: 1; Vallat 1993: pp. CVI-CX; Vallat 1998: 301-302; Potts 1999: 1-4. 181 Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 18a (note also the second list with languages associated to the respective peoples, where Median is not mentioned); see also Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 16, fol. 115a, referred to all the sacred books. “What is meant by ‘Elamite’ to the ‘Elameans’ is by no means clear to me” (Neusner 1966: 77); moreover, “about Judaism in Mesopotamia (Edessa, Nisibis), Adiabene, Armenia, Mesene, Khuzistan, Elam, Khorrasan, and other satrapies of the Western Iranian Empire in Sasanian

times where Jews lived, we know practically nothing. All we know is that there were Jews in these satrapies” (Neusner 1969: 435). “The existence of Iranian language translations of the Book of Esther in use among Jews is indicated by a question raised in the Talmud as to whether is permissible to recite the text of the Book of Esther in the following languages: Greek, Coptic, Elamite, or Median (Bavli Megilla 18a). The meaning of the last two language designations is uncertain, but they seem to refer to two varieties of Iranian. ‘Elamite’ or ‘Median’ could not have meant in the third or fourth century A.D. the ancient languages which used to carry these labels and which had long ceased to exist by this time but local varieties of the current Iranian language, presumably Persian” (Shaked 1990: 206). See also Jastrow 1903: 1070, ‘eab^cd,’ and the analysis of the relevant passages in Colorni 1983a. Giancarlo Lacerenza drew my attention to these occurrences.

18

B ASELLO


one nation, one ethnic group (if not a whole race), one language. 182 Oppert wrote in 1851:

L’aire d’une langue, non plus que celle d’une race, ne se confondent nécessairement avec celle d’un pays. 185

Tout y a passé: mœurs, sciences, arts, lois, même le premier et le dernier critérium de la nationalité, la langue. La destruction de la nation entraînait la perte de l’idiome; avec celui-ci s’effaçait son représentant visible, l’écriture. 183

Also Delattre had conceded that “il n’arrive guère qu’on grand pays soit la propriété exclusive d’une race homogène.” 186 In 1890, Weissbach put forward a detailed and still today most useful synopsis about the quest for the name of the second kind. 187 Even if the only concern was the language, its title is remarkably “Das Volk der Achämenideninschriften zweiter Art.” On this matter, the last words are owed to Scheil:

The royal propaganda of the Achaemenid dynasty, putting three languages together in each inscription, started wavering this argument. So Oppert had changed his mind in 1879: A cette époque [1852], je partageais les idées alors répandues dans le monde savant et surtout parmi les représentants de la philologie comparée, à savoir: que la langue était toujours le critérium de la race, et que les nations étaient toutes, ou indo-européennes, ou sémitiques, ou touraniennes. Depuis cette époque, le progrès des études philologiques a montré la fragilité de ces théories, et je suis un des premiers qui aie soutenu, dans les discours prononcés à l’ouverture de mes cours, que la langue ne prouve que la présence d’un seul élément entrant dans la composition ethnographique d’une nation, sans préjuger pour cela la question de la race à laquelle le peuple doit appartenir. 184

Moreover, the boundaries are never sharp and clear enough, as Scheil noted:

Il serait naïf de compter, pour nous tirer d’embarras, sur des traités de grammaire ou de philologie comparée, exhumés par les fouilles, ou sur la bonne volonté d’un scribe nous avertissant que sa rédaction est ici en telle langue, là en telle autre. 188 Nous serions ravis d’accepter sans discussion ces renseignements. L’arbitraire n’aurait aucun inconvénient: l’usage antique ferait loi, lors mème que ces dénominations pussent nous paraitre inexactes, à nous qui appelons française une langue qui n’est pas du tout franque, et qui n’est pas davantage parlée par une population exclusivement franque. [...] Faute de traditions, force nous est de dénommer les langues qu’on y parlait, ou d’après des caractères intrinsèques les rattachant à des groupes connus, ou d’après la race à laquelle l’une ou l’autre est propre. 189

L’aire d’emploi de la langue anzanite ne se circonscrit pas aisément. Connussionsnous les limites politiques de l’empire élamite, notre embarras resterait grand.

Therefore the quest for the name of an ancient language ends only when the

For example, Rawlinson 1846: 32: “The character which has hitherto been denominated the Median [...] is of a very high degree of interest [...] in regard to the nation to which its language may be assignable.” Compare Rawlinson 1846: 37 (larger quotation in footnote 27) with its French translation in Delattre 1883: 8: “it would become a question of considerable embarrassment to what constituent portion of the Persian empire they might belong”; “de savoir à quelle nation de l’empire cette langue appartenait.” Finzi, Ethnologist and Assyriologist, must be seen on this background. See also Genito 1986: 70. Cf. the

ironical statement in Diakonoff 1970: 111, end of footnote 35. 183 Oppert 1851: 256. 184 Oppert 1879: 3-4. 185 Scheil 1910: 568-569. 186 Delattre 1883: 7. 187 Weisbach 1890: 11-24. 188 Cf. Kha!ikjan 1998: 3 (§2.1) about Elamite: “and, finally, Elamite, as this language and its bearers were called in Akkadian.” See Scheil 1909: 528 about the names of Sumerian and Akkadian languages. 189 Scheil 1909: 527-528.

182

19

B ASELLO


conventional name is confirmed or replaced by the glottonym attested in ancient documents, possibly the name assigned by its own speakers. 190 Since in Elam different languages were spoken, 191 it was more difficult focusing on the Elamite language. Moreover, its uncertain linguistic kin delayed the acknowledgement of Elamite studies as an independent academic subject. In fact, as Oriental studies were born studying the Bible, i.e. a written text, only the deciphering of a script and the identification of the related language could originate a new academic subject. 192 In order to develop Iranian studies and especially Assyriology as distinct branches of Oriental studies, the quick identification of the languages of the first and third kinds in the Achaemenid inscriptions with those spoken by ancient Persians and Babylonians was striking. According to Teloni, in 1903 the situation of Elamite studies was still uncertain if not actually confused: il nome di mediche dato un tempo a queste iscrizioni non pare storicamente giustificabile e vien respinto dai critici odierni: i nomi poi di iscrizioni scitiche, o medo-scitiche, o elamitiche, o Amardiane (v. Strabone XI. 13, 3), che in vario modo vogliono accennare alla posizione geografica o al carattere etnico delle genti le quali parlarono il così detto medo non incontrarono neppur essi una-

190

Rossi 1984: 41-44. For the Achaemenid period, see Rossi 1981. On non-Elamite texts in Elam, see Lackenbacher 1998. 192 In this respect, archaeology was instrumental to the finding of new texts. 193 Teloni 1903: 33. 194 Meriggi 1966: 559 (adapted). 195 Gershevitch 1979 (but elaborated since 1968); see the complete list of references in Gershevitch 1994: 66, footnote 12. The ‘elamography’ represents a drastic solution to a long-known problem; see for instance the following statements: “I have sometimes thought that the relative pronoun may be foreign to the language, as in the Osmanli-Turkish; and that its 191

20

nime approvazione. Invece le iscrizioni del terzo genere di Persepoli già ai primi tempi degli studi cuneiformi si chiamarono assire, e se ne riconobbe il semitismo dal Löwenstern dall’Hincks, dal De Saulcy, dal Longpérier, ecc. 193

In the last hundred of years, this gap has not been bridged. In 1966, Meriggi spoke of Elam as “una componente della civiltà achemenide la cui voce è ancora incerta e oscura,” where Elam was considered as one ingredient in the Achaemenid civilization. 194 The obscurity of its voice, i.e. the Elamite language, led the Iranist I. Gershevitch to an extreme conclusion: Achaemenid Elamite was an artificial language used to record alloglottographically the Old Persian language. 195 From another point of view, in 1981, McAlpin wrote that “Elamite has always been the stepchild of cuneiform scholarship,” while still in 1995 Vallat remarked that “L’élamite demeure la langue la plus mal connue du Proche-Orient ancien!” 196 While even today languages play a basic role in our schematization and teaching of the past, this stepchild shows us how frail the boundaries of our academic subjects are. Ancient Elamites fought against Assyrians and rebelled against Persians, whereas Elamite studies are strictly bound to Assyriology and Iranian studies. As ancient Elam stood and represented a meeting place between Meso-

employment, together with the Anti-Scythic collocation which it necessarily produces, may be caused by the desire of producing a literal translation (in which each individual word shall correspond) of the Persian original” (Rawlinson 1846: 32-39); “I may say that I believe the language to be wholly Scythic, and that any departure from that type which we may find is due to an intercourse with nations speaking Arian tongues, or else to the probable circumstance that the inscriptions were written, not by natives, but by Persians, who, because they were Persians, wrote it with a foreign admixture” (Norris 1855: 3). 196 McAlpin 1981: 13-14; Vallat 1995.

B ASELLO

potamian lowland and Iranian highland, so Elamite studies need to grab and grasp data both from Assyriology and Iranian studies and through many fields of work. 197 As a language officially 198 attested in the Achaemenid period, Elamite attracts the interest of Iranologists. At the same time, the strong relationships between Elamites and Sumerian, Babylonian or Assyrian peoples in the preceding periods, draw the attention of Assyriologists. As an example, one could quote these words by R. Labat: Les études élamites ont toujours été plus étroitement associées que les études hittites à l’assyriologie proprement dite: l’on peut dire qu’il n’est guère un élamitologue français qui ne fût ou ne soit un authentique assyriologue. 199

On the other hand, R. Schmitt included a section on Elamite studies (although at the very end of his detailed account) in the entry about Iranian studies in German of the Encyclopædia Iranica. 200 In Gli studi sul Vicino Oriente in Italia dal 1921 al 1970, a synopsis of the history of Italian studies on Near East, the Elamite language is dealt with properly and more extensively in the Anatolian section (written by Meriggi) than in the Assyriological one. 201 In Italy, at least from a normative point of view, the wavering of Elamite as an academic subject found a more definite position on the brink of the 21st century. Today Elamite is one of the disciplines explicitly grouped under the label ‘Assyriology’:

197

What Salvini says about Hurrian (Salvini 2000: 12-13) can be applied to Elamite, too. 198 Frye 1974: 63-66. Cf. Rossi 1981: 162. 199 Labat 1973: 43. 200 Schmitt 1999: 541-542. 201 Compare Meriggi 1971: 56-58 with Castellino 1971: 40. 202 ‘Rideterminazione dei settori scientifico-


L-OR/03 – ASSIRIOLOGIA (EX: L15A – ASSIRIOLOGIA) Comprende lo studio epigrafico, linguistico e letterario delle testimonianze in scrittura cuneiforme relative alle antiche civiltà della Mesopotamia e dell’Iran sud-occidentale (Elam), in un arco cronologico che si estende tra la fine del IV millennio a.C. ed il I secolo d.C. 202

As A.V. Rossi (who is one of the advisors of the new classification) told me, the present choice (which may not be the final one) was made following the customary habit dating back to the beginning of Elamite studies, though forcibly neglecting the contributions of scholars of Iranian studies. Unfortunately, lacking an independent academic subject, we have little specific teaching of Elamite. As we employ a foreign designation in referring to ancient Anšan and Susiana, Elamite scholars are often Assyriologists, Iranists or Linguists in their academic background, i.e. they have approached Elam later and from an external point of view. 203 At the same time this is an enriching factor, and today, thanks to these scholars, it is much clearer what Elam was. However, the Elam revisited by modern historiography is only the last transformation in the meaning of this name. 204 As digging means unavoidably removal and mouldering, studying means reinventing and recreating the object of our study. Our Elam cannot be ancient Elam. Our Elam is a name, a mere label which we try to stick again to a thing which does not exist anymore and which we need to recon-

disciplinari (decreto ministeriale del 04/10/2000).’ 203 Cf., from an Assyriological point of view, the pressing concern regarding learning cuneiform in Oppert 1876: 147-148 and Sayce 1892: 175-176 (“Copy, copy, copy” and afterwards “translate, translate, translate!”). 204 Potts 1999: 5.

21

B ASELLO


struct according to our data and our speculations. While the history of the name ‘Elam’ shows us that names are labels, the quest for a name to be assigned to Elam teaches us how important the act of giving a name to an object or a concept is, a

22

name which identifies it univocally in our or in ancient minds. I hope that by reviewing both, we can better understand what Elam represents today and what its peculiar place in modern historiography should be. I am quite confident that this stepchild can still grow.

B ASELLO


R EFERENCES References are given in chronological order. An asterisk placed in front of the reference means that I could not see it; ‘E’: reference concerning Elam (till 1986, a plus sign marks references not listed in Hinz & Koch 1987, ‘Bibliographie,’ whose main concern is, however, Elamite language); ‘S’: reference containing an account of the history of studies; ‘B’: reference containing biographical data about scholars; ‘S’: reference which is interesting for the reconstruction of the history of studies. The same non-capital letters point to references by Italian scholars or about the history of studies in Italy; some references representing the first Assyriological studies in Italy are marked with an ‘a.’ DB, DNa, DPa, DPc: Achaemenid inscriptions of king Darius (D) at Bisotun (B), Naqš-e Rostam (N) and Persepolis (P). OP: Old Persian version. See Kent 1953, Schmitt 1991 and 2000. OED: Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition on CD-ROM (version 1.13), Oxford 1994. *E *E *E *E *E

ae

*E

B RUYN , Cornelis de (1711) Reizen over Moskovie door Persie en Indie, Amsterdam. C HARDIN , Jean (1711) Voyages de Monsieur le Chevalier Chardin, en Perse, en autres lieux de l’Orient, vol. 1, Amsterdam. K AEMPFER , Engelbert (1712) Amoenitates exoticarum politico-physio-medicarum fasciculi V, Lemgo. N IEBUHR , Carsten (1778) Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und anderen umliegenden Ländern, 2, Kopenhagen. G ROTEFEND , Georg Friedrich (1805) ‘Über die Erklärung der Keilinschriften, und besonders der Inschriften von Persepolis,’ in A.H.L. H EEREN , Ideen über die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten Völker der alten Welt, I. Teil, I. Abteilung, Beilage I, Göttingen [cited in Teloni 1903: 32, footnote 1. The publishing year is 1815 in Hinz & Koch 1987: 1332. The original 1802 lecture by Grotefend is published in W. M EYER , ‘G. Fr. Grotefends erste Nachricht von seiner Entzifferung der Keilschrift,’ Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 14 (1893), pp. 571-616 (cited in Lecoq 1997: 25)]. J ANNELLI , Cataldo (1830) Fundamenta hermeneutica hierographiae veterum gentium... libri tres, auctore Cataldo Jannellio regio bibliothecario, et Academico Herculanensi, Neapoli: typis regiis, 8°, pp. XLVIIII + 412. B EER , E.F.F. (1838) ‘Über die neuesten Forschungen zur Entzifferung der Keilschrift,’ Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, 1, pp. 1-47. G ESENIUS , Guilielmus [William] (1839) ‘ eab ^ cd , ’ in idem, Thesaurus philologicus 23

B ASELLO


E

*E

*E+ E

e+

*E

*E

ae+

E a E

E

ae

E

24

criticus linguae hebraeae et chaldaeae veteris testamenti, 2, pp. 1016-1017, Lipsiae. P REDARI , Francesco (1842) Origine e progresso dello studio delle lingue orientali in Italia, Milano: P. Lampato. W ESTERGAARD , Niels Ludvig (1844) ‘On the Deciphering of the second Achaemenian or Median Species of arrow-headed Writing,’ Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord (1840-1844), pp. 271-439, Kopenhagen. W ESTERGAARD , Niels Ludvig (1845) ‘Zur Entzifferung der Achämenidischen Keilschrift zweiter Gattung,’ Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 6/2, pp. 337-466, Bonn. L AYARD , A.H. (1846) ‘A Description of the Province of Khúzistán,’ Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 16, pp. 75-79, London. R AWLINSON , Henry C. (1846) ‘The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, decyphered and translated; with a Memoir on Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions in general, and on that of Behistun in Particular,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 10 (1847), pp. 1-52, London [dated 1847 also according to the preface and Delattre 1883: 8]. L UZZATTO , Filosseno (1847) ‘Saggio di critica storica. L’Asia antica occidentale e media,’ Rivista Europea. Giornale di scienze morali, lettere ed arti, pp. 300318, Milano [including a section entitled ‘Gli Elamiti.’ Cited as Luzzatti in Finzi 1872: 99-100, footnote 332]. H INCKS , Edward (1848a) ‘On the first and second kinds of Persepolis Writing,’ The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 21, Polite Literature, pp. 114131, Dublin. H INCKS , Edward (1848b) ‘On the three Kinds of Persepolitan Writing, and on the Babylonian Lapidary Characters,’ The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 21, Polite Literature, pp. 233-248, Dublin. L UZZATTO , Filosseno (1848) ‘Sulla inscrizione cuneiforme persiana di Behistun,’ Giornale dell’Istituto Lombardo, 1 nuova serie, pp. 465-487, Milano [dated “Padova, 17 marzo 1848”]. S AULCY , Félix de (1849) ‘Recherches analytiques sur les Inscriptions cunéiformes du système médique,’ Journal Asiatique, IVe série, 14, pp. 93-213, Paris. B ASEVI , Gioachino (1850) Recensione di Luzzatto 1850, Giornale dell’Istituto Lombardo, 2 nuova serie, pp. 244-249. L ÖWENSTERN , Isidore (1850a) ‘Lettre à M. de Saulcy sur la deuxième Écriture de Persépolis,’ Revue Archéologique, VIe année, seconde partie, pp. 490-496, Paris. L ÖWENSTERN , Isidore (1850b) ‘Remarques sur la deuxième Écriture cunéiforme de Persépolis,’ Revue Archéologique, VIe année, seconde partie, pp. 687-728, Paris. L UZZATTO , Philoxène [Filosseno] (1850) Études sur les inscriptions assyriennes de Persépolis, Hamadan, Van et Khorsabad, par Philoxène Luzzato, Padoue: A. Bianchi, pp. XXI + 214, franchi 5. S AULCY , Félix de (1850) ‘Recherches analytiques sur les Inscriptions cunéiformes du système médique. Deuxième Mémoire,’ Journal Asiatique, IVe série, 15, pp. 397-528, Paris.

B ASELLO

*E E

E

E

E+

E

E

E+ S

E+

*E

E

*


L AYARD , A.H. (1851) Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments discovered by A.H. Layard, London. O PPERT , Jules (1851) ‘Etudes sur les Inscriptions des Achéménides, conçues dans l’Idiome des anciens Perses,’ Journal Asiatique, IVe série, 17, pp. 255296, 378-430 and 534-567; 18, pp. 56-83, 322-366 and 553-584. O PPERT , Jules (1852) ‘Etudes sur les Inscriptions des Achéménides, conçues dans l’Idiome des anciens Perses,’ Journal Asiatique, IVe série, 19, pp. 140213. H OLTZMANN , Adolf (1854) ‘Ueber die zweite Art der achämenidischen Keilschrift. IV.,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 8, pp. 329-345, Leipzig. H OLTZMANN , Adolf (1854a) ‘Neue Inschriften in Keilschrift der ersten und zweiten Art,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 8, pp. 539-547, Leipzig [“Heidelberg im October 1853”]. N ORRIS , Edwin (1855) ‘Memoir on the Scythic Version of the Behistun Inscription,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 15, pp. 1-213, London. N ORRIS , Edwin (1855a) ‘Addenda to the Paper at the Beginning of the Volume,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 15, pp. 431433, London. C ALDWELL , Robert (1856) A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or SouthIndian Family of Languages, 1st edition, London [1913: 3rd edition]. M OHL , Jules (1856) ‘Tableau des progrès faits dans l’étude des langues, de l’histoire et des traditions religieuses des peuples d’orient pendant les années 1855 et 1856,’ Annales de philosophie chrétienne. Recueil périodique destiné a faire connaitre tout ce que les sciences humaines renferment de preuves et de découvertes en faveur du Christianisme, IV e série, 14, pp. 356-375, Paris [including ‘Progrès dans la lecture de l’écriture cunéiforme’ in section 8]. O PPERT , Jules (1856) ‘Premiers déchiffrements de la langue cunéiforme, d’après les grammaires et les dictionnaires de la bibliothèque de Sardanapale, découverte et apportée en Europe, par A. Layard,’ Annales de philosophie chrétienne. Recueil périodique destiné a faire connaitre tout ce que les sciences humaines renferment de preuves et de découvertes en faveur du Christianisme, IV e série, 14, pp. 165-196, 245-257 and 325-355, Paris [see especially pp. 165-196; p. 240 (sic) cited in Finzi 1872: 70, footnote 245, and p. 73, footnote 257]. W ESTERGAARD , Niels Ludvig (1856) ‘Om den anden eller den sakiske Art af Akhaemenidernes Kileskrift,’ in Det kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, Femte Raekke, Historiks og philosophisk Afdeling; Andet Binds, forste Hefte, pp. 39-178, Kopenhagen. L OFTUS , William Kennett (1857) Travels and Researches in Chaldæa and Susiana; with an account of excavations at Warka, the “Erech” of Nimrod, and Shúsh, “Shushan the palace” of Esther, in 1849-52, London. O PPERT , J. (1857) ‘Die Grabinschrift Darius I. in Naksch-i-Rustam,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 11, pp. 133-137, Leipzig. R AWLINSON , G. (1858) History of Herodotus, London [assisted by H.

25

B ASELLO


*E

E

*E+

E E+

ae

b

E

E+ E

E+

26

R AWLINSON and J.G. W ILKINSON . Including ‘On the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians,’ 1, pp. 584-642, and ‘On the geography of Mesopotamia and the adjacent countries’ (3rd edition: pp. 549-605). 3rd edition cited in Delattre 1883: 1, footnote 1, and p. 22, footnote 1; 4th edition (1880) cited in Bassi 1899: p. IX]. L OFTUS , William Kennett (1859) Lithographic Facsimiles of Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from the Ruins of Susa, London (?) [about the publishing year, see the remark in Curtis 1993: 34; 1852 in Weisbach 1890: 4, Hinz & Koch 1987: 1334, ‘1852’]. M ORDTMANN , Andreas David (1862) ‘Erklärung der Keilinschriften zweiter Gattung,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 16, pp. 1126, Leipzig. S PIEGEL , F. (1862) Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, Leipzig [1881: 2nd edition. Cited in Oppert 1879: 11; Delattre 1883: 11 and 34, footnote 1]. F INZI , Felice (1870a) ‘Scavi di Golgos e di Soli. Lettera di F. Finzi a G. Henzen,’ Bullettino dell’instituto di corrispondenza archeologia per l’anno 1870, pp. 22-28, Roma: Salviucci. F INZI , Felice (1870b) Review of ‘An old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary. Edited with an Alphebetical [sic] Index by Destur Hoshangji Jamaspji Asa; Revised and Enlarged with an Introductory Essay on the Pahlavi Language, by Martin Haug. Published by order of the Government of Bombay. Stuttgart 1870,’ Rivista Europea, pp. 3-6. M ORDTMANN , A.D. (1870) ‘Ueber die Keilinschriften zweiter Gattung,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 24, pp. 1-84, Leipzig. L ENORMANT , François (1871) ‘Première lettre. Sur la monarchie des mèdes, son origine et ses rois, d’après les documents assyriens’ (dedicated to M. de Saulcy), in Lettres assyriologiques sur l’histoire et les Antiquités de l’Asie antérieure, pp. 1-112, Paris [cited in Delattre 1883: 24-26, 43 and 162]. F INZI , Felice (1872) Ricerche per lo studio dell’antichità assira, Torino: Ermanno Loescher [the copy in the library of the Archiginnasio in Bologna is a gift of the author, 1872, July]. A MARI , M. (1873) ‘Proemio,’ Annuario della società italiana per gli studi orientali, 1 (1872), pp. III-VI, Firenze: Ermanno Loescher [this journal is cited in de Gubernatis 1876: 240 together with the Bollettino italiano degli studii orientali, Firenze]. L ENORMANT , François (1874a) ‘Inscriptions Susiennes,’ in Choix de textes cunéiformes inédits ou incomplétement publiés jusqu’à ce jour, Deuxième fascicule, pp. 109-141, Paris: Maisonneuve. L ENORMANT , François (1874b) La Magie chez les Chaldéens et les origines accadiennes, Paris 1874 [available in electronic format at <www.etana.org>]. S AYCE , H.A. (1874) ‘The Languages of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Elam and Media,’ Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaelogy, 3, pp. 465-485, London. L ENORMANT , François (1875) La langue primitive de la Chaldée et les idiomes touraniens: étude de philologie et d’histoire suivie d’un glossaire accadien, Paris: Maisonneuve.

B ASELLO

s

S

E+

E+

E+

S

E+

E *E+ E+

E

*E


G UBERNATIS , Angelo (1876) Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire des études orientales en Italie, Paris: Ernest Leroux / Firenze: Loescher. E LLIOT , Walter (1876) ‘The Turanian Section. Address,’ in Robert K. D OUGLAS , ed., Transactions of the Second Session of the International Congress of Orientalists. Held in London in September, 1874, pp. 53-63, London. H UNFALVY , [Paul?] (1876) ‘On the Study of the Turanian Languages,’ in Robert K. D OUGLAS , ed., Transactions of the Second Session of the International Congress of Orientalists. Held in London in September, 1874, pp. 64-97, London. O PPERT , Jules (1876) ‘Rapport sur les progrès du déchiffrement des Écritures Cunéiformes,’ in Mémoires du Congrès International des Orientalistes. Compte-Rendu de la Première Session - Paris - 1873. Tomes I et II, pp. 117148, Paris. O PPERT , Jules (1876a) ‘Les inscriptions en langue susienne. Essai d’interprétation,’ in Mémoires du Congrès International des Orientalistes. Compte-Rendu de la Première Session - Paris - 1873. Tomes I et II, pp. 179216, Paris. O PPERT , Julius [Jules] (1876b) ‘On the Median dynasty; its nationality and its chronology,’ in Robert K. D OUGLAS , ed., Transactions of the Second Session of the International Congress of Orientalists. Held in London in September, 1874, pp. 35-45, London [including a brief ‘Grammar of the Median language,’ pp. 39-45, with paradigms. Being in London, Oppert spoke in English]. O PPERT , Jul. (1876c) ‘Ueber die Sprache der alten Meder,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 30, pp. 1-5, Leipzig [“Nach einem in der zweiten Sitzung der Generalversammlung der D.M.G. zu Rostock am 29. September 1875 gehaltenen Vortrage” (footnote on p. 1; see also p. VII)]. R AWLINSON , Henry (1876) ‘The Semitic Section. Address,’ in Robert K. D OUGLAS , ed., Transactions of the Second Session of the International Congress of Orientalists. Held in London in September, 1874, pp. 19-24, London. L ENORMANT , François (1877) Chaldean magic: its origin and development. Translated from the French with considerable additions by the author, and notes by the editor, London [English translation of La Magie chez les Chaldéens et les origines accadiennes, Paris 1874]. O PPERT , Jules (1879) Le peuple et la langue des Mèdes, Paris: Maisonneuve. S PIEGEL , F. (1881) Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, 2nd edition, Leipzig [1862: 1st edition]. D ARMESTETER , James (1883) Études Iraniennes, Paris [including ‘Esquisse de l’histoire de la langue persane,’ 1, pp. 3-43, and the review of Oppert 1879 (the date printed there, i.e. 1889, is clearly wrong), 2, pp. 3-15; the latter was previously published in Revue Critique (1880, 21 Juin)]. D ELATTRE , Alphonse, S.J. (1883) ‘Le peuple et l’empire des Mèdes jusqu’a la fin du règne de Cyaxare,’ Mémoires couronnés et Mémoires des Savants étrangers publiés par l’Académie des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 45, Bruxelles [on the title-page: “Mémoire couronné par la Classe des lettres, dans sa séance du 8 mai 1882”]. H ALÉVY , Joseph (1883) Mélanges de Critique et d’Histoire relatifs aux Peuples sémitiques, Paris [Hinz & Koch 1987: 1336: “S. 7 ff., 116 ff., hält das DE

27

B ASELLO


*E+

*a

E

a

*E

E

E

E

E

*E E

S

E+ E

28

ach[ämenidisch-]E[lamische] für einen susischen Dialekt”]. D ELITZSCH , F. (1884) Die Sprache der Kossäer, Leipzig. R AWLINSON , Henry Creswicke (1884) The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, 5, London [reprint 1909]. B RUNENGO , G. (1885) L’impero di Babilonia e di Ninive dalle origini fino alla conquista di Ciro descritto secondo i monumenti cuneiformi comparati colla Bibbia, Prato [cited in Bassi 1899: p. XIV]. S AYCE , A.H. (1885) ‘The Inscriptions of Mal-Amir and the Language of the second Column of the Akhæmenian Inscriptions,’ in Actes du sixième congrès international des orientalistes, tenu en 1883 à Leide, deuxième partie, section 1: Sémitique, pp. 637-756, Leiden: E.J. Brill [plus J.N. Strassmaier, S.J., Beigabe zur Abhandlung von H. Prof. Sayce, Oxford, dated 1885, May 14, pp. 754-755]. T ELONI , Bruto [pseudonym for Giulio Cesare] (1887) Crestomazia assira con paradigmi grammaticali (Pubblicazioni della Società Asiatica Italiana), Firenze: Ermanno Loescher. B ERTIN , G. (1888) Abridged Grammar of the Languages of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, London [Hinz & Koch 1987: 1336: “S. 81-94 neue kurze Grammatik des ‘Medischen’”]. S AYCE , A.-H. (1890) ‘Amardian or 'Protomedic' Tablets in the British Museum,’ Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes pour servir de Bulletin à la Mission Française du Caire, 13, pp. 126-131, Paris. W EISBACH [later W EISSBACH ], Franz Heinrich (1890) Die Achämenideninschriften zweiter Art. Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von F.H. Weissbach (Assyriologische Bibliothek, 9), Leipzig [with a useful bibliography on pp. 34]. Q UENTIN , Aurèle (1891) ‘Annexe n° 2 au procès-verbal de la séance du 9 janvier 1891,’ Journal Asiatique, VIIIe série, 17, pp. 150-155, Paris [speaking about some “textes susiens” regarding king Šilhak-Inšušinak]. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1891) Anzanische Inschriften und Vorarbeiten zu ihrer Entzifferung (Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 28, philologisch-historische Classe, 12, 2), Leipzig [manuscript submitted on 1890, November 13; printing completed on 1891, January 10]. W INCKLER , H[ugo] (1891) ‘Zu den altsusischen Inschriften,’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, 6, pp. 317-326, Berlin. J ENSEN , Peter (1892) ‘Elamitische Eigennamen. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der elamitischen Inschriften,’ Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 6, pp. 47-70 and 209-226, Wien [obviously Hinz & Koch 1987: 1337, ‘1892,’ is wrong in reporting the title “...der elamischen Inschriften”]. S AYCE , A.H. (1892) ‘Inaugural Address,’ in Edward Delmar M ORGAN , ed., Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists (held in London, 5th to 12th September 1892), 2, pp. 169-186. A NDREAS , Friedrich Carl (1894) ‘Amardoi,’ in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 1/2, columns 1729-1733, Stuttgart. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1894) Neue Beiträge zur Kunde der susischen Inschriften

B ASELLO

E

*E

E

*E a E

E E E E *S E b

aS *E *E *E


(Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 34, philologisch-historische Classe, 14, 7), Leipzig [manuscript submitted on 1894, May 22; printing completed on 1894, September 3]. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1895) ‘Anzanisches,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 49, pp. 692-694 [wrong “pp. 592-604” in Hinz/Koch 1987]. W INKLER , Heinrich (1896) Die Sprache der zweiten Columne der dreisprachigen Inschriften und das Altaische (Programm des städt. Johannes-Gymnasiums zu Breslau), Breslau. F OY , Willy (1898) ‘Beiträge zur Erklärung der susischen Achämenideninschriften,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 52, pp. 119-131 and 564-605. H ÜSING , G. (1898) ‘Neu-Elamisches,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 1, columns 301-304. B ASSI , Domenico (1899) Mitologia babilonese-assira, Milano [reprint Cisalpino-Goliardica, Milano 1986]. F OY , Willy (1900a) ‘Die neuelamische Inschrift Art. Sus. a.’ [=Weisbach 1890: 84, ‘S,’ Artaxerxes II from Susa], Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 14, pp. 277-300, Wien. F OY , Willy (1900b) ‘Altpersisches und Neuelamisches,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 54, pp. 341-377. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1900) ‘Susische Thontäfelchen,’ Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 4, pp. 168-202, Leipzig. J ENSEN , P. (1901) ‘Alt- und Neuelamitisches,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 55, pp. 223-240. S CHEIL , Vincent (1901) Textes élamites-anzanites, première série (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, 3), Paris. B OOTH , A. John (1902) The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions, London [cited in Teloni 1903: 27, footnote 1] H ÜSING , G. (1902) ‘Elamisches,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 56, pp. 790-795. T ROMBETTI , Alfredo (1902) ‘Notizie autobiografiche premesse dal Trombetti all’opera «Nessi genealogici fra le lingue del mondo antico», presentata, manoscrittta, al concorso per il premio Reale di Filologia e Linguistica del 1902,’ in Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, pp. XXXVIII-XLVIII, Milano 1938 [the birth year is 1866, not 1886 as wrongly written on p. XXXVIII]. J ASTROW , Marcus (1903) A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2, New York [reprint Pardes, New York 1950]. T ELONI , Bruto [pseudonym for Giulio Cesare] (1903) Letteratura assira, Milano: Hoepli. B ORK , Ferdinand (1905a) ‘Elamisches,’ Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 4, pp. 431-433. B ORK , Ferdinand (1905b) ‘Zur protoelamischen Schrift,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 8, pp. 323-330. H ÜSING , G. (1905) ‘Hadamdum,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 8, columns

29

B ASELLO


*E E+ E E *E *E

*E

E+ E E

E *E

*E

E+ E+

e

E E *E

30

248-250. S CHEIL , Vincent (1905) ‘Miscellen V. fapirti ou atamti?,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 8, columns 203-204. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1905) ‘Elymais,’ in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 5/2, columns 2458-2467, Stuttgart. B ORK , Ferdinand (1906) ‘Zur Erklärung der elamischen Briefe,’ Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 5, pp. 401-404, Leipzig. H ÜSING , G. (1906a) ‘Semitische Lehnwörter im Elamischen,’ Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 5, pp. 405-412, Leipzig. H ÜSING , G. (1906b) ‘Halpirti,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 9, columns 601-604. H ÜSING , G. (1906c) ‘Zu Mal-Amir,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 9, columns 605-606. P RÁŠEK , Justin V. (1906) Geschichte der Meder und Perser bis zur makedonischen Eroberung, 1, Gotha [reprint Darmstadt 1968]. W INKLER , Heinrich (1907) ‘Elamisch und Kaukasisch,’ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 10, columns 565-573. B RAY , Denys de S. (1908) The Brahui Language. Part I, Introduction and Grammar, Calcutta [reprint New Delhi 1986]. S CHEIL , Vincent (1909) ‘La langue anzanite,’ Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, pp. 527-635. H ÜSING , G. (1910) ‘Die elamische Sprachforschung,’ Memnon, 4, pp. 5-40. S CHEIL , V. (1910) ‘L’extension de la langue anzanite,’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Année 1910, pp. 564-575, Paris. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1911) Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, Leipzig. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1911a) Die Keilinschriften am Grabe des Darius Hystaspis (Abhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 29, philologisch-historische Klasse, 1), Leipzig. F RANK , Carl (1912) Zur Entzifferung der altelamischen Inschriften (Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften vom Jahre 1912), Berlin. C ALDWELL , Robert (1913) A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or SouthIndian Family of Languages, 3rd edition, London. P ÉZARD , Maurice & Edmond P OTTIER (1913) Catalogue des Antiquités de la Susiane (mission J. de Morgan), Paris (Musées du Louvre) [reprinted with a new appendix in 1926 (Benoit 1997: 148)]. T ROMBETTI , Alfredo (1913) ‘La posizione linguistica dell’Elamitico’ (Memoria presentata il 26 febbraio 1913), in Memorie della R. Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna. Classe di Scienze Morali – Sezione storico-filologica, serie I, tomo VII (1912-13), pp. 117-136, Bologna. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1913) ‘Zur Kritik der Achämenideninschriften,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 67, pp. 271-341. G USTAVS , Arnold (1915) ‘Verbindungs-Linien zwischen dem Mitannischen, dem Elamischen und dem Lykischen,’ Memnon, 7, pp. 228-232. H ÜSING , Georg (1916) Die einheimischen Quellen zur Geschichte Elams. I. Teil:

B ASELLO

a s

e+

E *S a

as

aS e+ E+ e+ b *E

b B S


Altelamische Texte in Umschrift mit Bemerkungen, einer Einleitung und einem Anhang, Leipzig [2nd volume never published]. B OSON , Giustino (1918) Assiriologia, Milano [reprint Cisalpino-Goliardica, Milano 1979]. T ELONI , Giulio Cesare (1923) ‘Precursori italiani degli studi assiri (notizie e osservazioni),’ Bilychnis, 22 (anno XII), fasc. VIII-IX (agosto-sett. 1923, “Fascicolo d’omaggio al Congresso internazionale di storia delle religioni (Parigi: Ottobre 1923)”), pp. 218-231 [cited in Furlani 1929: 15 as ‘Bilychnis, II a ser., no. 114’ and Castellino 1971: 34, footnote 1 as ‘Bilychnis, 1923, II, pp. 218-231’]. T ROMBETTI , Alfredo (1923) Elementi di glottologia (Regia Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, Classe di Scienze Morali), Bologna [see also Vincenzo C OCCO (1938) ‘Indici dell’opera «Elementi di Glottologia», di Alfredo Trombetti,’ in Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, pp. 401-424, Milano]. B ORK , Ferdinand (1925) ‘Elam B. Sprache,’ in Max E BERT , ed., Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, 3, pp. 70-83, Berlin. W ALLIS B UDGE , E.A. (1925) The rise and progress of Assyriology, London. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1928) La religione babilonese e assira, 1, Le divinità, Bologna: N. Zanichelli [cited in Furlani 1932a]. J ONES , Horace Leonard, ed. (1928) The geography of Strabo (The Loeb classical library), 5, London/Cambridge, Massachussets [reprinted in 1961]. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1929) La civiltà babilonese e assira, Roma: Istituto per l’Oriente [including ‘Storia dell’assiriologia’ on pp. 1-15; see pp. 14-15 about Assyriology in Italy]. T ELONI , Giulio Cesare (1930) ‘Assiriologia,’ in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani), 5, pp. 36-38. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1931) ‘Gli dèi dei giorni e dei mesi nell’epoca neobabilonese,’ Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni, 7, pp. 136-143, Bologna. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1931) ‘ !!"#$,’ in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 28, columns 1648-1651, Stuttgart. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1932) ‘Elam,’ in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani), 13, pp. 603-606. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1932a) ‘Finzi, Felice,’ in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani), 15, p. 418. P OEBEL , Arno (1932) ‘The Name of Elam in Sumerian, Akkadian and Hebrew,’ The American Journal of semitic Languages and Literatures, 48 (1931-1932), pp. 20-26. B RAY , Denys (1934) The Br h!" Language. Part II, The Br h!" Problem. Part III, Etymological Vocabulary, Delhi. C ASATI , Giovanni (1934) ‘325. Finzi Felice,’ in Dizionario degli scrittori d’Italia (dalle origini fino ai viventi), 3, pp. 61-62, Milano. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1935) ‘Oppert, Jules,’ in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani), vol. 25, p. 414a. G UIDI , Michelangelo (1935) ‘Orientalismo’ and ‘Orientalismo. Semitistica,’ in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani), 25, pp. 537-541.

31

B ASELLO


S e

B

e+

e+

*

E b

E E

S e

E

*S

32

P AGLIARO , Antonino (1935) ‘Orientalismo. India e Iran,’ in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Treccani), 25, pp. 541-543. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1936) ‘Divinità gemelle nel pantheon elamico?,’ Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni, 12, pp. 51-65, Bologna. B ALLINI , Ambrogio (1938) ‘Alfredo Trombetti,’ in Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, pp. XVII-XXXVII, Milano: Hoepli. W EISSBACH , F.H. (1938) ‘Delattre, Alphonse,’ in Reallexicon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 2, pp. 197-198, Berlin/Leipzig [defined as “Theolog und Philolog”]. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1946) ‘L’Asia Occidentale antica,’ in Nicola T URCHI , ed., Le religioni del mondo, pp. 169-199, Roma [including a section entitled ‘Gli Elamiti,’ pp. 173-175]. F URLANI , Giuseppe (1949) ‘La religione degli Elamiti,’ in Pietro T ACCHI V ENTURI , ed., Storia delle Religioni, 3rd revised and expanded edition, 2, pp. 1-11, Torino [the 4th revised edition (1954) is cited in Castellino 1971: 40 and footnote 20. Not included in further editions]. A SSIRELLI , Odone (1953) La posizione linguistica del Nilotico, Faenza (pro manuscripto). K ENT , Roland G. (1953) Old Persian, Grammar Texts Lexicon, 2nd revised edition, New Haven. P APER , Herbert H. (1955) The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite, Ann Arbor. S ABA , Umberto (1956) Ricordi - Racconti. 1910-1947, Milano [reprinted in Arrigo S TARA , ed., Umberto Saba. Tutte le prose (I Meridiani), pp. 353-511, Milano 2001]. H INZ , Walther (1962) ‘Die elamischen Inschriften des Hanne,’ A Locust’s Leg. Studies in honour of S. H. Taqizadeh, pp. 105-116, London. K ÖNIG , Friedrich Wilhelm (1965) Die elamischen Königsinschriften (Archiv für Orientforschung, 16), Graz. M ERTON , Robert K. (1965) On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript, New York. F RIEDRICH , Johannes (1966) Entzifferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen, 2nd edition, Heidelberg [1954: 1st edition]. M ERIGGI , Piero (1966) ‘L’Elamico,’ in Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Problemi Attuali di Scienza e Cultura, Anno CCCLCIII – 1966, Quaderno 76, Atti del Convegno sul tema: La Persia e il Mondo GrecoRomano (Roma 11-14 aprile 1965), pp. 559-567, Roma. N EUSNER , Jacob (1966) A History of the Jews in Babylonia. II. The Early Sasanian Period, Leiden. % &'()*)+ , ,.-. [Igor M. D’ JAKONOV ] (1967) ‘. /0-1(,2 '34( ,’ in idem, ' 34(, %56+*62 7656%*62 0 3,, , pp. 85-112, - )1(+0 [‘Elamskij jazyk,’ in Jazyki Drevnej Perednej Azii, i.e. ‘The Elamite language,’ in The languages of the Ancient Near East, Moscow, in Russian]. J ÉQUIER , G. (1968) En Perse, 1897-1902. Journal et Lettres de Gustave Jéquier, publiés et annotés par Michel Jéquier, La Baconniére [as in Chevalier 1997: 214] / Neuchâtel [idem, p. 131].

B ASELLO

E e

e

ES

s

s

e

e e

S

e+

e


H ALLOCK , Richard T. (1969) Persepolis Fortification Tablets (Oriental Institute Publications, 92), Chicago. M ERIGGI , Piero (1969a) ‘Altsumerische und proto-elamische Bilderschrift,’ in Wolfgang V OIGT , ed., XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg. Vorträge (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplementa I), 1, pp. 156-163, Wiesbaden. M ERIGGI , Piero (1969b) ‘Zur Lesung und Deutung der proto-elamischen Königsinschriften,’ Bibliotheca Orientalis, 26, pp. 176-177, Leiden. N EUSNER , Jacob (1969) A History of the Jews in Babylonia. IV. The Age of Shapur II, Leiden. R EINER , Erica (1969) ‘The Elamite Language,’ in Handbuch der Orientalistik, I. Abt., 2. Band, 1. und 2. Abschnitt, Lieferung 2: Altkleinasiatische Sprachen, pp. 54-118, Leiden/Köln. D IAKONOFF [D’ JAKONOV ], Igor M. (1970) ‘The Origin of the ‘Old Persian’ Writing System and the Ancient Oriental Epigraphic and Annalistic Traditions,’ in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, pp. 98-124, London. C ASTELLINO , G.R. (1971) ‘Gli studi di assiriologia,’ in Gli studi sul Vicino Oriente in Italia dal 1921 al 1970, 1, L’Oriente preislamico, pp. 33-48, Roma: Istituto per l’Oriente. M ERIGGI , Piero (1971) ‘Gli studi italiani nelle lingue anatoliche,’ in Gli studi sul Vicino Oriente in Italia dal 1921 al 1970, 1, L’Oriente preislamico, pp. 49-58, Roma: Istituto per l’Oriente. M ERIGGI , Piero (1971a) Review of ‘Handbuch der Orientalistik, I. Abt., 2. Band, 1. und 2. Abschnitt, Lieferung 2: Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Leiden/Köln, E. J. Brill, 1969,’ Bibliotheca Orientalis, 28, pp. 71-74, Leiden [‘The Elamite Language’ by E. Reiner is reviewed on p. 72]. M ERIGGI , Piero (1971b) ‘Zu den neuen Inschriften in proto-elamischer Prunkschrift,’ Bibliotheca Orientalis, 28, pp. 171-173, Leiden. M ERIGGI , Piero (1971-1974) La scrittura proto-elamica. Parte I a : La scrittura e il contenuto dei testi (1971); Parte II a : Catalogo dei segni and Parte III a : Testi (1974), Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. L ABAT , René (1973) ‘L’assyriologie,’ Journal Asiatique, 261, pp. 33-45, Paris. E ILERS , Wilhelm (1974) ‘Le texte cunéiforme du cylindre de Cyrus,’ in Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage universel, 2 (Acta Iranica, 2, première série), pp. 25-34, Téhéran/Liège. F RYE , Richard N. (1974) ‘Methodology in Iranian History,’ in idem, ed., Neue Methodologie in der Iranistik (Festschrift Wolfgang L ENTZ ), pp. 57-69, Wiesbaden. G NOLI , Gherardo (1974) ‘Politica religiosa e concezione della regalità sotto gli Achemenidi,’ in Gurur jamañjarik . Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci, 1, pp. 23-88, Napoli [see the relevant reference to Elam on p. 37. Translated in French as ‘Politique religieuse et conception de la royauté sous les Achéménides,’ in Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage universel, 2 (Acta Iranica, 2, première série), pp. 117-190, Téhéran-Liège 1974]. S TEFANINI , R. (1974) Review of ‘Piero Meriggi, La scrittura proto-elamica, Parte 1 a : la scrittura e il contenuto dei testi. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,

33

B ASELLO


e B E e+

S E

E

e

s

E

e b e

34

Roma, 1971,’ Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 26, pp. 122-129 [Stefanini is cited in Meriggi 1971: 54]. R UHLEN , Merritt (1975-76) A Guide to the Languages of the World. M ERIGGI , Piero (1977) ‘Iscrizioni proto-elamiche dell’Iran orientale,’ Kadmos, 16, pp. 1-4. D UCHESNE -G UILLEMIN , J., Pierre L ECOQ & Jean K ELLENS (1979) BioBibliographies de 134 savants (Acta Iranica, Quatrième Série, I), Leiden. G ERSHEVITCH , Ilya (1979) ‘The Alloglottography of Old Persian,’ Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 114-190, Oxford. C ARDONA , Giorgio Raimondo (1980) ‘Etnografia della comunicazione e documenti antichi: il caso dell’antico persiano,’ Vicino Oriente, 3 (Atti del seminario di studi su bilinguismo e traduzione nell’antico oriente. Roma, 20-22 marzo 1980), pp. 277-286. M ECQUENEM , Roland de (1980) ‘Les fouilleurs de Suse,’ Iranica Antiqua, 15, pp. 1-48. V ALLAT , François (1980) Suse et l’Elam (Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, 1, Études Elamites), Paris. C ARDONA , Giorgio Raimondo (1981) Antropologia della scrittura, Torino. M C A LPIN , D.W. (1981) Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: the Evidence and its Implications (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 71, part 3), Philadelphia. R OSSI , Adriano V. (1981) ‘La varietà linguistica nell’Iran achemenide,’ Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione Linguistica, 3, pp. 141-196, Napoli. C ARDONA , Giorgio Raimondo (1982) Nomi propri e nomi di popoli: una prospettiva etnolinguistica (Centro Internazionale di Semiotica e di Linguistica. Documenti di lavoro e pre-pubblicazioni, 119 (dicembre 1982)), Urbino. P IEMONTESE , Angelo Michele (1982) Bibliografia italiana dell’Iran (14621982), Napoli [see in particular sections IV.3 ‘Civiltà elamita’ and VII.2 ‘Elamico’]. V ALLAT , François (1982) Abstract of ‘McAlpin, D.W. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications,’ Abstracta Iranica, 5, p. 47. C OLORNI , Vittore (1983a) ‘L’uso del greco nella liturgia del giudaismo ellenistico e la Novella 146 di Giustiniano,’ in idem, Judaica minora. Saggi sulla storia dell’ebraismo italiano dall’antichità all’età moderna, pp. 1-65, Milano: A. Giuffrè [previously published in Annali di storia del diritto, 8 (1964)]. C OLORNI , Vittore (1983b) ‘Genealogia della famiglia Finzi – Le prime generazioni,’ in idem, Judaica minora. Saggi sulla storia dell’ebraismo italiano dall’antichità all’età moderna, pp. 329-342, Milano: A. Giuffrè. D’E RME , Giovanni (1983) ‘Aspetti grafici e fonetici della scrittura anticopersiana,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 43, pp. 429-477, Napoli. F INZI , Riccardo (1983) Correggio nella storia e nei suoi figli, Correggio: ARCA. F RYE , Richard N. (1984) The History of Ancient Iran, München. R OSSI , Adriano V. (1984) ‘Glottonimia ed etnonimia nell’Iran achemenide,’ Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione Linguistica, 6, pp. 39-65, Napoli.

B ASELLO

S

e

S B e e e e E ES e

e

e e e e

e

e


S CHWAB , R. (1984) The Oriental Renaissance. Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East 1680-1880, New York [English translation of La Renaissance orientale, Paris 1950 by G. P ATTERSON -B LACK & Victor R EINKING ; preface by E.W. S AID ]. R OSSI , Adriano V. (1985) ‘Competenza multipla nei testi arcaici: le iscrizioni di Bisotun,’ Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione Linguistica, 7, pp. 191-210, Napoli. G ENITO , Bruno (1986) ‘The Medes. A Reassessment of the Archaeological Evidence,’ East and West, 36/1-3, pp. 11-81, Rome. B ARNETT , R.D. (1987) ‘Loftus, William Kennett,’ in Reallexicon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 7, pp. 102-103, Berlin/New York. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1987a) ‘na-áš dans les tablettes de Persépolis,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1987/112, Paris. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1987b) ‘Le vin *šap dans les tablettes de Persépolis,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1987/111, Paris. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1987c) ‘Bakabadda, un Egyptien à Persépolis,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1987/110, Paris. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1987d) ‘L’expression appa NG(-ma) hupe(-ma) en élamite achéménide,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1987/90, Paris. H INZ , Walther & Heidemarie K OCH (1987) Elamisches Wörterbuch, Berlin. C ALMEYER , P. (1988) ‘M8lam9r,’ in Reallexicon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 7, pp. 275-276, Berlin/New York. S ORRENTINO , Antonio (1988) ‘Corrispondenze lessicali nell’ipotesi di parentela elamo-dravidica,’ Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione Linguistica, 10, pp. 239-253, Napoli. A NDRÉ , Béatrice & Mirjo S ALVINI (1989) ‘Réflexions sur Puzur-Inšušinak,’ Iranica Antiqua, 24, pp. 53-72 and plates 1-6, Leiden/Gent. D ANDAMAEV , Muhammad A. (1989) A political History of the Achaemenid Empire, translated by W.J. V OGELSANG , Leiden. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1989a) ‘L’expression ‘ha duš ha duka’ dans les textes de Persepolis,’ Akkadika, 63, pp. 12-26. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1989b) Grillot-Susini, Éléments de grammaire élamite, Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 49, pp. 315-316, Napoli. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1989c) ‘«NP hiše» dans les textes achéménides,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 49, pp. 209-217, Napoli. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1989d) ‘Présence babylonienne dans les textes économiques de Persépolis,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 49, pp. 201-207, Napoli. M ALLORY , J.P. (1989) In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth, London. D’E RME , Giovanni (1990) ‘Elamico e antico-persiano; affinità stilistiche tra i due sistemi scrittorii,’ in Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies, 1, pp. 69-83, Rome. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1990, unpublished) Abréviations RGTC: liste fusionnée des Inscriptions Royales élamites et des Inscriptions Achéménides (Tirage Geneva du 11/10/90, en continu international).

35

B ASELLO


e

*b

S

B E ES

S e E

E

E

e e

E

36

P ANAINO , Antonio C.D. (1990) ‘Calendars, i. Pre-Islamic Calendars,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 4, pp. 658-668, London/New York. S HAKED , Shaul (1990) ‘Bible, iv. Middle Persian Translations of the Bible,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 4, pp. 206-207, London/New York. D E S ALVIA , Fulvio (1991) ‘Cataldo Jannelli e gli studi di egittologia a Napoli nella prima metà del secolo XIX,’ in Cristiana M ORIGI G OVI , Silvio C URTO & Sergio P ERNIGOTTI , eds., L’Egitto fuori dell’Egitto. Dalla riscoperta all’Egittologia, pp. 107-119, Bologna. S ANCISI -W EERDENBURG , Heleen & J.W. D RIJVERS , eds. (1991) Through Travellers’ Eyes. European Travellers on the Iranian Monuments (Achaemenid History VII), Leiden. S CHMITT , Rüdiger (1991) The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great. Old Persian Text (Corpus Iscriptionum Iranicarum, part I, vol. I, texts I), London. E MERSON , John (1992) ‘Chardin, Jean,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 5, pp. 369377, Costa Mesa, California. S TEVE , M.-J. (1992) Syllabaire Elamite. Histoire et Paleographie (Civilisations du Proche-Orient: Serie II, Philologie, 1), Neuchâtel/Paris. S TOLPER , Matthew W. (1992) ‘Cuneiform Texts from Susa,’ in Prudence O. H ARPER , Joan A RUZ & Françoise T ALLON , eds., The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, pp. 253-260, New York. C URTIS , John (1993) ‘William Kennett Loftus and His Excavations at Susa,’ Iranica Antiqua, 28, pp. 1-55 [translated in French in Curtis 1997]. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1993) ‘Les šaumarraš dans les textes de Persépolis,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 53, pp. 121-127, Napoli. G RILLOT -S USINI , Françoise, Clarisse H ERRENSCHMIDT & Florence M ALBRAN L ABAT (1993) ‘La version élamite de la trilingue de Behistun: une nouvelle lecture,’ Journal Asiatique, 281, pp. 19-59, Paris. V ALLAT , François (1993) Les noms géographiques des sources suso-élamites (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes, 11), Wiesbaden. C ATFORD , J.C. (1994) ‘Caucasian Languages,’ in R.E. A SHER & J.M.Y. S IMPSON , eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2, pp. 486489, Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo. G ERSHEVITCH , Ilya (1994) ‘An Old Persian Waiting for Godot,’ in P. C IPRIANO , P. D I G IOVINE & M. M ANCINI , eds., Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi, pp. 59-82, Roma. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1994a) ‘Les documents de voyage dans les textes de Persépolis,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 54, pp. 18-31, Napoli. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1994b) ‘Les voyages de Darius dans les regions orientales de l’empire,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 54, pp. 32-45, Napoli. G RAGG , Gene (1994) ‘Elamite,’ in R.E. A SHER & J.M.Y. S IMPSON , eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3, p. 1104, Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo. S IM , R.J. (1994) ‘Nilo-Saharan Languages,’ in R.E. A SHER & J.M.Y. S IMPSON , eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 5, pp. 2804-2808, Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo.

B ASELLO

S

e e

S E

E S

E S S S S ES

E

S E E


Z VELEBIL , K.V. (1994) ‘Dravidian Languages,’ in R.E. A SHER & J.M.Y. S IMPSON , eds., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2, pp. 10631065, Oxford/New York/Seoul/Tokyo. D ANIELS , Peter T. (1995) ‘The Decipherment of Ancient Near Eastern Scripts,’ in Jack M. S ASSON , ed., with the collaboration of John B AINES , Gary B ECKMAN & Karen S. R UBINSON , Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1, pp. 81-93, New York. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (1995) ‘I ‘puhu’ nei testi di Persepoli. Nuove interpretazioni,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 55, pp. 141-157, Napoli. R OSSI , Adriano V. (1995) ‘Antenati regali a Susa,’ in Un ricordo che non si spegne. Scritti di docenti e collaboratori dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli in memoria di Alessandro Bausani, pp. 379-403, Napoli. S AID , Edward W. (1995) Orientalism, 2nd edition (1st edition 1978), New York [Italian translation in Said 2001]. V ALLAT , François (1995) ‘Šutruk-Nahunte, Šutur-Nahunte et l’imbroglio néoélamite,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1995/44, Paris. B RIANT , Pierre (1996) Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Achaemenid History, 10), Paris. Q UINTANA , Enrique (1996) ‘ELAM = halhatamti = high land,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1996/50, p. 43, Paris. T ISSOT , Francine (1996) ‘Délégations Archéologiques Françaises, i. Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 7, pp. 238-240, Costa Mesa. V ALLAT , François (1996) ‘ÉLAM: haltamti/Elamtu,’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires, 1996/89, p. 79, Paris. A NDRÉ -S ALVINI , Béatrice (1997) ‘«Ici commence l’histoire de l’Elam», L’œuvre du père Jean-Vincent Scheil,’ in Chevalier 1997: 110-125. B ENOIT , Agnès (1997) ‘Les antiquités de Suse au musée du Louvre,’ in Chevalier 1997: 140-149. C HEVALIER , Nicole, ed. (1997) Une mission en Perse 1897-1912 (Les dossiers du musée du Louvre), Paris. C URTIS , John (1997) ‘Les fouilles de W.K. Loftus à Suse,’ in Chevalier 1997: 36-45 [translation of Curtis 1993 by Françoise T ALLON ]. L ECOQ , Pierre (1997) Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide (L’aube des peuples), Paris [including chapter 1, ‘Le déchiffrement des cunéiformes,’ pp. 1930]. S TRONACH , David (1997) ‘Anshan and Parsa: Early Achaemenid History, Art and Architecture on the Iranian Plateau,’ in John C URTIS , ed., Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period. Conquest and Imperialism 539-331 BC. Proceedings of a Seminar in memory of Vladimir G. Lukonin, pp. 35-53, London. G RAN -A YMERICH , Ève (1998) Naissance de l’archéologie moderne 1798-1945, Paris. K HA:IKJAN , Margaret (1998) The Elamite Language (Documenta Asiana IV), Roma. L ACKENBACHER , Sylvie (1998) ‘Elam, vii. Non-Elamite Texts in Elam,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 8, pp. 342-344, Costa Mesa.

37

B ASELLO


e E E

S

S S E S e

e

B

e B s

S

38

S ALVINI , Mirjo (1998) ‘Elam, iv. Linear Elamite,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 8, pp. 330-332, London/New York. V ALLAT , François (1998) ‘Elam, i. The History of Elam,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 8, pp. 302-313, Costa Mesa. V ALLAT , François (1998a) ‘Le royaume elamite de Zamin et les «Lettres de Ninive»,’ Iranica Antiqua, 33, pp. 95-106. V OGELSANG , Willem (1998) ‘Medes, Scythians and Persians: the Rise of Darius in a North-South Perspective,’ Iranica Antiqua, 33, pp. 195-224, Leiden. A NDRÉ -S ALVINI , Béatrice (1999) ‘Les débuts de la recherche française en assyriologie. Milieu et atmosphère du déchiffrement,’ Journal Asiatique, 287/1, pp. 331-355. G IGNOUX , Philippe (1999) ‘France, xii(b). Iranian Studies in France: Pre-Islamic Period,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 10, pp. 167-173, New York. H ACHARD , Vincent & Bernard H OURCADE (1999) ‘France, xii(a). Iranian Studies in France: Overview,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 10, pp. 162-167, New York. P OTTS , Daniel T. (1999) The Archaeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, NewYork. S CHMITT , Rüdiger (1999) ‘Germany, iii. Iranian Studies in German: Pre-Islamic Period,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 10, pp. 530-543, New York. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (2000) ‘La parola kassu nei testi neo-elamiti di Susa,’ in Simonetta G RAZIANI , ed., with the collaboration of Maria Cristina C ASABURI & Giancarlo L ACERENZA , Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, 1, pp. 375-382, Napoli. N ICOLAI , Roberto & Giusto T RAINA , eds. (2000) Strabone, Geografia, Caucaso, Asia Centrale e Anatolia, libri XI-XII, Milano. R OSSI , Adriano Valerio (2000) ‘L’iscrizione originaria di Bisotun: DB elam. A+L,’ in Simonetta G RAZIANI , ed., with the collaboration of Maria Cristina C ASABURI & Giancarlo L ACERENZA , Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, 4, pp. 2065-2108, Napoli. S ALVINI , Mirjo (2000) ‘La civiltà dei Hurriti, popolo dell’Asia anteriore antica. Introduzione alla storia degli studi e alla documentazione testuale,’ La parola del passato, 55, fasc. I-VI (310-315 of the series), pp. 7-24, Napoli. S CHMITT , Rüdiger (2000) The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis (Corpus Iscriptionum Iranicarum, part I, vol. I, texts II), London. B ORGER , Rykle (2001) ‘Norris, Edwin,’ in Reallexicon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 9, p. 596, Berlin/New York [defined as ‘Orientalist’]. B RIANT , Pierre (2001) ‘Gaum8ta,’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, 10, pp. 333-335. G IOVINAZZO , Grazia (2001) ‘Les Indiens à Suse,’ Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale, 60-61, pp. 59-76, Napoli. G RAN -A YMERICH , Ève (2001) ‘Oppert, Jules’ in idem, Dictionnaire biographique d’archéologie 1798-1945, pp. 499-500, Paris. I NVERNIZZI , Antonio (2001) In viaggio per l’Oriente. Le mummie, Babilonia, Persepoli, with appendixes by Enrichetta L EOSPO & Fabrizio A. P ENNAC CHIETTI , Alessandria. S AID , Edward W. (2001) Orientalismo. L’immagine europea dell’Oriente, Mi-

B ASELLO

e

S e

e

s


lano [Italian translation of Said 1995]. S CHAUDIG , Hanspeter (2001) Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik, Münster. B ASELLO , Gian Pietro (2002), ‘Elam and Babylonia: the Evidence of the Calendars,’ in Antonio P ANAINO & Giovanni P ETTINATO , eds., Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena (Melammu Symposia, 3), pp. 13-36, Milano. C HEVALIER , Nicole (2002) La recherche archéologique française au MoyenOrient 1842-1947, Paris. R OSSI , Adriano V. (2003a) ‘Echoes of religious lexicon in the Achaemenid inscriptions?,’ in Carlo G. C ERETI , Mauro M AGGI & Elio P ROVASI , eds., Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 24), pp. 339-351, Wiesbaden. R OSSI , Adriano V. (2003b) ‘Archeologia, storia e filologia a Susa,’ in Maria Vittoria F ONTANA & Bruno G ENITO , eds., Studi in onore di Umberto Scerrato per il suo settantacinquesimo compleanno, 2, pp. 681-700, Napoli. V ITALONE , Mario (2003) ‘Il Diario di viaggio in Persia di Pietro della Valle: un confronto con le Lettere,’ in Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 42/3 (Serie orientale, 34), pp. 205-222.

39

B ASELLO


A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank: Graziano Zucchini and Stefano Buscherini for persuading me (silently and loudly respectively) not to talk about another subject; Federica Crabu for her precious editorial care; Angela Morisi (che è mia madre), Maria Simoni and prof. Mario Gandini (Biblioteca comunale Giulio Cesare Croce, san Giovanni in Persiceto, Bologna) for their bio- and bibliographical ‘excavations’; prof. Giorgio Renato Franci (University of Bologna) for his knowledge about Trombetti; prof. Riccardo Contini (‘L’Orientale’ University, Naples), prof. Felice Israel (University of Genoa) and prof. Giancarlo Lacerenza (‘L’Orientale’ University, Naples) for their critical and bibliographical suggestions; prof. Adriano Rossi (‘L’Orientale’ University, Naples) who followed the development of this research both during the spoken and the written stages. I am sincerely grateful to the kind librarians I met in Bologna (Biblioteca Discipline Geologiche e Paleontologiche; Biblioteca Universitaria, especially Miss Parrini; Biblioteca Dipartimento di Archeologia; Biblioteca dell’Archiginnasio), Florence (Biblioteca Nazionale), Naples (Biblioteca del Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, ‘L’Orientale’ University), Turin (Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria) and Rome (Biblioteca del Dipartimento di Studi Orientali). Finally, I would like to mention here the first Assyriologist, Iranist and Elamologist I met: respectively prof. Sergio Picchioni (University of Bologna), prof. Antonio Panaino (University of Bologna, branch of Ravenna) and prof. Grazia Giovinazzo (‘L’Orientale’ University, Naples).

F IGURES 1. Robert Ker P ORTER , Stone relief of Gate R at Pasargadae with inscription CMa (1818) in the first, second and third kinds (from top to bottom) of Achaemenid languages [John C URTIS , Ancient Persia – British Museum, p. 37, London 1989]. 2. The Tomb of Daniel at Susa (Loftus 1857) [John C URTIS , ed., Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period, p. 68, London 1997]. Cf. Daniel 8,2: “And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai” [according to the King James Version]. 3. ‘Cuneiform’ motifs as heading and ornament in Mémoires du Congrès International des Orientalistes. Compte-Rendu de la Première Session - Paris - 1873. Tomes I et II, pp. 117 and 229, Paris. 4. The ‘Scythic’ inscription of Bisotun as published in Norris 1855. Note the reading A far #i on line 10 of the transliteration. 5. Title-page of Oppert 1879. 6. Title-page of Delattre 1883. 7. Jacques DE M ORGAN and Vincent S CHEIL at the Louvre Museum, 1902, February 4 [Chevalier 1997]. On the background, note the stele of victory of Naram-Sin found at Susa. 8. Filosseno L UZZATTO [courtesy of prof. Felice Israel]. 9. Felice F INZI (1847-1872) [Finzi R. 1983: 275]. 10. Alfredo T ROMBETTI (1866-1929) [Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, Milano 1938]. 11. Maps of Mesopotamia with cuneiform names [Finzi 1872]. 12. Books and articles about Elamite language per year [data from Hinz & Koch 1987 (till 1984) and Gian Pietro B ASELLO , Elamite Bibliographical Database, demo available at <www.elamit.net> (1985 onwards)]. 13. Susa, 1901, December – Ravenna, 2001, October. The discovery of the Codex Hammurapi. 40

B URKERT

W ALTER B URKERT

H ISTORIOGRAPHY BETWEEN H ERODOTUS AND C UNEIFORM

Zürich

Gyges to Croesus: Historiography between Herodotus and Cuneiform

his paper is about the impact of cuneiform, or the lack of such impact, on the history of Archaic Greece. Greek history had become part of general education since the very beginnings of the European school system. Father of history was Herodotus, we learned from Cicero (leg. 1,5); so early Greek history kept to Herodotus, with a center on the Persian wars. Herodotus however begins his account with Gyges, king of Lydia, and, coincidence or not: Gyges is the first ‘Western’ personality to emerge from the Assyrian evidence, a contemporary and partner of Assurbanipal at Nineveh. Thus Gyges marks not only the beginning of Greek history in a Herodotean perspective, but also the first meeting of Greek literature with cuneiform documents. Such meetings continue through more than a century down to the catastrophe of the Lydian kingdom, when Cyrus the Persian conquered Sardis in 547 B.C. This conquest made Anatolia part of the Persian empire and a province of the Near Eastern world, including a sizeable part of the people we use to call Greeks; the Easterners had developed the custom to call them ‘Ionians,’ Iauna, Jawan in general – down to Junan in modern Turkish. This paper is about the pre-Persian period; it tries to point out how and when

T

this meeting of Eastern and Western sources become known, how it was received and reflected upon in writing the ‘History of Greece.’ The interactions between cuneiform Mesopotamia, native Anatolian kingdoms and the cities of the Eastern Greeks, and their importance for the economic and cultural history of the pre-Persian world will be in focus. Gyges looms large in Herodotus, but Herodotus is not the only source. There are traces of a rivalling account by Xanthos the Lydian, who was about a contemporary of Herodotus and, as his surname suggests, non-Greek by origin; what survives is a text of Nikolaos of Damaskos, age of Augustus. In addition there is the famous Märchen about the miraculous ring of Gyges in Plato’s Politeia. 1 The Eastern sources are mainly the so-called ‘annals’ of Assurbanipal, which survive in different recensions, as they were rewritten with the course of events; add some texts about the restoration of the temple of the Moon God at Harran and similar documents. The first and basic publication of the pertinent cuneiform tablets was by Rawlinson and Smith in 1870, followed by the History of Assurbanipal by George Smith in 1871. There were two cylinders and one tablet at that time; more evidence has come up later,

1

1956; Herter 1966.

Hdt. 1, 7-14; Plat. Resp. 359d-360b; Xanthos FGrHist 765, Nikolaos FGrHist 90 F 47. See Seel


41

B URKERT


such as the ‘Rassam cylinder,’ found in 1878 and published by Pinches in 1880. The discovery was recognized and brought to the knowledge of classical scholars nearly immediately: In the best known classical periodical of the time, Rheinisches Museum, there appeared the basic and brilliant article “Das Zeitalter des Gyges” by Heinrich Gelzer already in 1875. Heinrich Gelzer was able to deal with the cuneiform evidence directly; he established the chronological sequence of the sources, and he drew the consequences for the history of Lydia and Greece, with critical evaluation of the Greek evidence. In the Assyrian texts, the name of the king is written Gu-gu, his country is mat Luddu; there can be no question about the identification with Gyges, king of the Lydoi, to put it in Greek. The ‘Völkertafel’ of the Old Testament has a country ‘Lud.’ 2 In addition, Kimmerians appear as invaders of Anatolia in Assyrian documents even before the reign of Assurbanipal; these are normally written Gimiraia, which is sufficiently close to Greek Kimmerioi. 3 Gyges had troubles with them, as we know from the Greek side; he was killed by them, the Assyrian documents say. The story told from the side of Assyria is touching: “There arrived envoys from a country of which nobody had heard before, none of the kings who went before me; they said that king Gugu had been told in a dream to do obeisance to the king of Nineveh.” 4 One version, which is evidently later, tells the continuation: Gugu did not conform with the duties of this allegiance, he rather made an alliance with the rebellious king of Egypt;

hence Gugu was cursed by Assurbanipal, and deservedly killed by the Kimmerians; his successor resumed the obeisance to Nineveh. Nothing of this is to be found in Herodotus; nothing, on the other side, is mentioned at Nineveh about Gyges’ usurpation, which gave rise to the very different tales in Herodotus, Xanthos-Nikolaos, and Plato. It is still worth while to state, as against certain trends in modern Herodotean scholarship, 5 that the Eastern contemporary sources do confirm Herodotus as to the existence and importance of king Gyges of Lydia: Whatever about his miraculous ring or his affair with the wife of Kandaules, Gyges is not the product of Greek fantasy or mythology. New as against Herodotus is the alliance of Gyges with the king of Egypt, who must be Psammetichos, and the death of Gyges by the Kimmerians in battle, as well as the renewed ‘homage’ to Nineveh by the successor of Gyges. 6 According to Herodotus, this should be Ardys. As already Eduard Meyer has seen, the Eastern and the Herodotean evidence, if they do not overlap, are still fully compatible. Just because Gyges was a usurper, he was eager to seek recognition from East and from West: He sent his embassy to Nineveh, and he consulted the oracle at Delphi, leaving conspicuous amounts of gold there. We may get an idea about Apollo’s response to Gyges just from the Eastern evidence: We have messages to Esarhaddon from the inspired priestesses of Ishtar at Arbela. These usually have the dull but reassuring message: Hail to the king, do not be afraid, the God is with you. 7 Apollo’s oracle to Gyges will

2

6

3 4 5

Gen. 10,22, beside ‘Aram.’ See Ivantchik 1993. Streck 1916, 20 f.; Luckenbill 1927, §§ 909 ff. Fehling 1989; cf. Pritchett 1993.

42

His name cannot be read in the cuneiform documents; Gelzer 1875, 234 suggested Ardu]su. 7 ANET 449 f.

B URKERT


have been very much like this: The oracle gives reassurance to the king, and the king gratefully retaliates by rich donations. The warnings about the fall of Lydia within five generations, which we find in Herodotus (1,13,2), will probably come from hindsight, after the Persian conquest. Yet the great and scandalous impact of cuneiform evidence concerns chronology: Whereas the list of Lydian kings given by Herodotus would put Gyges in 716678 B.C., Assurbanipal’s reign is about 668-631. Thus the chronology of Herodotus is falsified by some decades, the date of Gyges has to be lowered by about 30 years, with consequences for the length of reigns for all the following Lydian kings as given by Herodotus. Already Heinrich Gelzer discussed the various dates given for Gyges in post-Herodotean Greek sources; he proposed to accept the date given in the chronicle of Eusebius, who evidently used non-Herodotean information: death of Gyges in 652. The dates have remained debatable: Some modern reexaminations of the cuneiform evidence would go down to 648 for Gyges’ death, others keep to 652. 8 At any rate, a basic correction of Herodotean chronology has been established which cannot be contradicted. There are consequences for the whole of early Greek history. Already Herodotus had noticed that Archilochus, the first among Greek poets to present himself in his personal individuality, mentions “Gyges, rich in gold” (Fr. 19 West) and hence should have been his contemporary. The solar eclipse also mentioned by Archilochus (Fr. 122 West) has to be arranged with the Gyges date; one usually accepts 648 B.C.

Heinrich Gelzer’s article drew due attention at his time. Still if Erwin Rohde, in a very learned article in Rheinisches Museum 1878, refers to “the results of assyriology,” 9 while discussing Gelzer’s reconstructions of Eusebius, we see how this field of scholarship is perceived as a foreign continent: ‘die Assyriologie’ in general brings ‘results,’ without detailed documentation or dialogue. Precise information and discussion keeps to the familiar Greek world, from Herodotus to Eusebius. In the following generation it was Eduard Meyer most of all to take full account of all the new materials – still without Hittite. Eduard Meyer needs no praise. He made the first and last great synthesis of Geschichte des Altertums. He knows the Greek sources as well as the cuneiform ones; he discusses the different cuneiform versions. 10 Gyges appears in vol. II (1893) which became vol. III in the new edition. What is surprising: Gyges comes up three times, in the history of Assyria and the Kimmerians, which includes Gyges’ embassy to Assurbanipal; in what Meyer calls ‘Griechisches Mittelalter,’ describing Greek ‘colonization’ thwarted by the Kimmerians; and in a special chapter on Ionia which finally comes to praise the Greek genius. 11 Thus even Eduard Meyer does not succeed in presenting one ‘history of antiquity’ from Mesopotamia to the Aegean; Oriental and Greek persist as different compartments. No decisive new evidence has appeared after Gelzer and Meyer. Additional texts brought some refinements. The main Assyrian text was accessible in transcript and German translation since

8

10

9

11

See Ivantchik 1993. Rohde 1878, 196,1: “den Ergebnissen der Assyriologie.”

Meyer 1936, 84,2; 86. Meyer 1936, 84,2; 86; 131-134; 425-427; 566573. 43

B URKERT


1890, 12 and the whole material was collected, republished, and translated by Maximilian Streck in his Assurbanipal (1916). But I have not found any historian writing on Greece to quote the one or the other publication. The new edition of Eduard Meyer’s work by Hans Erich Stier at least refers to the most accessible English edition of the Assurbanipal texts, George Luckenbill’s Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (1927). Only selections of Assurbanipal’s texts are included in ANET 13 ; the passages about Gyges are missing. In German historiography on Greece after Gelzer and Meyer, Assyria is getting out of focus again. Of course Gelzer and Meyer were not forgotten, but Nineveh remains beyond the horizon. The extensive Griechische Geschichte of Georg Busolt (I 2 1893) has no room at all for non-Greeks. The more original and very critical history of Greece by Julius Beloch (I 2 1912) mentions the “inscriptions of Assurbanipal” for Gyges and his embassy, with explicit reference to Eduard Meyer 14 – no use of Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Here and elsewhere, cuneiform literature appears in the category of “inscriptions” 15 which is absolutely misleading for classicists 16 : They know Inscriptiones Graecae and Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum as totally separated from literature such as Herodotus or Livy; cuneiform tablets however are not ‘inscriptions’ in such a sense, but the form of literacy proper. The Greek History of Helmut Berve (1931), has an impressive chapter on Ionians, their

achievements and their weaknesses; the Lydian kingdom of Gyges comes as an intruder. Gyges, we learn, was fighting the Kimmerians “in an alliance with the Assyrians” – this is correct, but skips the details which had been in Gelzer and Meyer. 17 The Griechische Geschichte by Helmut Bengtson finally, in the Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 18 has no mention at all of the Assyrians. Bengtson still has the merit to call attention to what he thought the first mention of ‘Greeks’ in cuneiform, the vicissitudes of Iamani of Ashdod at the time of Sargon – though it has been argued in the meantime that Iamani could be an epichoric name which has nothing at all to do with ‘Greeks,’ and an earlier text about ‘Ionians’ plundering in Syria has been published in the meantime. 19 It pays to have a look at the relevant articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s RE: There are impeccable articles by competent Near Eastern experts, esp. Franz Heinrich Weissbach on Kyros and Kroisos as well as on Sargon, Sardanapal and Nabonid. 20 But the articles on Gyges and on Kimmerier done by Karl Lehmann-Haupt are problematic. 21 Karl Lehmann-Haupt no doubt was a specialist as to the cuneiform evidence, and he was well at home with the Greek sources too. But he had more ideas than method, let alone didactic ability. His articles, jumping between details of Urartu, Assur and Eusebius, with polemics to various sides, remain baffling. Instead of gaining the confidence of classicists for the new evidence, he rather gave permanence to the impres-

12

Assarhaddons, Graz, 1956. 17 Berve 1951, 142. 18 Bengtson 1950, 67. 19 ANET 286; see Elayi-Cavigneaux 1979; Braun 1982, 15. 20 See bibliography. 21 Lehmann-Haupt 1912; 1921.

Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek II (Berlin, 1890), 173-177. 13 ANET 294-296. 14 Beloch 1912, 343 f. 15 See also Stein 1901, 188; 190. 16 Even if it occurs in original publications such as Rawlinson - Smith 1870; R. Borger, Die Inschriften 44

B URKERT


sion of a foreign continent, unsufficiently explored, to be left to certain specialists but far from archaic or classical Greece. More modern scholarship is rich and dispersed. The chronology of the Lydians has been restudied in a much-quoted article by Kaletsch in 1958. The very learned article of Hans Herter on Lydia is attentive to the Anatolian background – Hittites had made their entrance into classics; but Assyrians are not mentioned. Non-classicists reexamined “Gyges and Ashurbanipal” 22 ; a careful account of the Kimmerian material is due to the Russian Askold Ivantchik. 23 A broad synthesis of ancient history is presented by Cambridge Ancient History; the new edition has a very good article by T. F. R. G Braun on “The Greeks in the Near East” (1982) and by Machteld Mellink on the Lydian kingdom (1991). It is still characteristic that the two sections appear in two different volumes, even if Mellink does stress the impact of Greek style and art on Lydia. It still remains practically impossible to make one history. To get beyond Gyges: The next problematic meeting of Herodotus and Near Eastern evidence is the Eastern king ‘Labynetos’ in Herodotus. Labynetos appears in two unrelated situations, and it has usually been concluded that these must be two different personalities: One Labynetos of Babylon, together with Syennesis king of Cilicia, was mediating the conflict of Medes and Lydians at the time of the famous solar eclipse in which Thales is involved24 ; this is usually fixed to 585 B.C. But Labynetos son of Labynetos also appears as the last king of Babylon,

conquered by Cyrus; he is called tyrannos. 25 Since oriental history has been recovered, we know that in 585 king of Babylon was Nabu-kudurri-uzur, or ‘Nebukadnezar’ of Protestant Bibles, whereas the last king of Babylon was Nabuna’id (556-539), usually called Nabonid today in accordance with the Berossos tradition. 26 !"#$$%&'( is sufficiently close to Labynetos, but comparatively far from Nabu-kuduri-uzur the king of 585, and there are more errors, since the father of Nabonid king of Babylon was Nabûbalassu-iqbi and not another Labynetos, as Herodotus would have it. We see: Confusion has infected the tradition presented by Herodotus. It is tradition nevertheless, modified tradition, but not sheer invention. The events lay 100 years back when Herodotus tried to organize his ‘History.’ Later Greek texts had some additional information, directly from oriental sources, Ktesias first, then Berossos; this material went into the late chronicles, Abydenos, Eusebius. The Hebrew Bible was drawing on a different line of tradition; Qumram has a totally different edifying story on Nabonid recognizing Jahweh, 27 whereas the book of Daniel outdoes Herodotus through total confusion about Babylonian, Median, and Persian kings. As to Labynetos in Herodotus, it seems as if two transmogrifications have taken place: three Nabu-names have been confused, Nabu-kuduri-uzur ‘Nabu guards the son,’ alias Nebukadnezar, Nabu-balassuiqbi ‘Nabu has pronounced his life,’ father of Nabonid, and Nabu-na’id himself, ‘Nabu is exalted;’ in addition there is the

22

IIIC p.408 = Euseb. PE 9,41,4. Xen. Kyrup. 5,4,5; 7,5,30 has no name for the last Babylonian king. ‘Belsazar’ in Daniel 5 is fantasy. See Dandamyev 1998. 27 Meyer 1962; F. García Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden, 1994), 289.

Cogan-Tadmor 1977. Ivantchik 1993; Gyges-texts: 256-270. 24 Hdt. 1,74. On the date cf. Plin. n.h. 2,53. 25 Hdt. 1,77; 1,188. 26 !"#$$%&'( Berossos FGrHist IIIC p.394 = Ios. c. Ap. 1,152; !"'$$)&'*'( in Abydenos, FGrHist 23

45

B URKERT


change of the initial consonant, Nabuna’id to Labunetos. Weidner in his REarticle on Labynetos asserts that this is a ‘graphic variant,’ for which ‘many parallels’ are to be found; he presents none. 28 Nikosia / +,-.'/0! the modern capital of Cyprus would be a very distant parallel. For the Greek philologist the suspicion remains that misreading within Greek writing has occurred: ! and "! are very similar just in Greek letters. This would mean that certain written sources are to be assumed in the chain of information down to Herodotus – an intriguing possibility – still lacking confirmation. The third meeting point of oriental and Greek sources is the end of king Croesus of Lydia in 547. Let us just recall that the most direct testimony to king Croesus is his name on some marble columns from the great Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, evidently sponsored by that monarch. 29 The legendary fame of Croesus rested on his gold at Delphi, squandered by the Phocians in the sacred war 355 B.C. The detailed and impressive tales about Croesus in Herodotus are matched by just one cuneiform tablet, the so-called ‘Nabonidus chronicle’; this tablet is damaged in the decisive line. The tablet became known in 1880, edited by Pinches, it was included in Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek in 1890. 30 A supplement of the decisive passage to bring in Sardes and Lydia was already proposed in 1881; the most promising integration came from LehmannHaupt in 1898, 31 confirmed by Pinches on the original tablet. In this form the text appeared in Sidney Smith’s Edition of 1924, and this went to ANET 305 f. It was contradicted by Santo Mazzarino 32

with the arguments that the geographical indication does not fit, and that we know from Herodotus and Bacchylides that Croesus survived. The new edition by A. K. Grayson (1975), with reexamination of the tablet, remains non-committal: the reading lu-u-du for the country concerned is ‘not impossible,’ but it is not there. Was there more to be seen when Pinches examined the tablet? We have, as Cargill wrote two years after Grayson, “consensus based on crumbling feet of clay.” New was the insight that the tablet really is from the time of Darius, i.e. a nearly contemporary account. Glassner, in 1993, comes back to lu 2 -u 2 -di, “land Lydia.” This text, produced by the priests of Belu-Marduk in Babylon, is mainly interested in the defective rituals Nabonid performed or failed to perform at Babylon, and the piety of Cyrus who restored the Babylonian rituals. In such a context the text mentions, first, the overthrowing of ‘Istumegu’ king of ‘Anshan’ by Cyrus – this must be Astyages king of Media of the Herodotus tradition, overthrown by Cyrus –, and then a campaign of Cyrus to some land beyond the Tigris, with the conquest of a city and the end of a king. In simple translation, the sentence goes: “he killed its king, he took his possessions, his own garrisons he put up.” If this regards Lydia and Sardis, this is in blatant conflict with the Herodotean version. Herodotus has the touching incident of Croesus surviving the pyre on which Cyrus was about to burn him; Croesus, stepping down from the pyre, became the wise and estimated advisor of Cyrus in various situations afterwards.

28

31

Weidner 1924, 311 f. SIG I3 6. 30 Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek III 2 (Berlin, 1890), 128-137. 29

46

Arch. Anzeiger 1898, 122 cf. Lehmann-Haupt 1921, 415. 32 Mazzarino 1947, 156 n. 459.

B URKERT


And behold, cuneiform has proved incapable to withstand Herodotus. LehmannHaupt himself, the originator of the decisive reading which makes the passage refer to Lydia, came to the rescue of Herodotus 33 : the verb idûk (written GAZ) in the sentence quoted should not mean ‘he killed,’ but something like ‘he defeated.’ No doubt ‘to kill’ is the central meaning of this word, but ‘to smite,’ ‘to conquer’ is possible. 34 Hence Grayson translates, even without question mark: “He defeated,” whereas Glassner has “Il mit a mort son roi” (203), again without question mark. Lehmann-Haupt had even proposed that the next sentence, “Afterwards his garrison and the king remained in the midst of...,” should not refer to King Cyrus but to Croesus remaining at Sardes, and thus definitely confirm Herodotus; this is nonsense: Even Herodotus does not say that Croesus remained at Sardes, where of course a Persian satrapes took up residence, and Croesus, had he ever survived a ‘defeat,’ would no longer have been a ‘king’ for Babylonian writers. But Lehmann-Haupt succeeded to soothe classical scholars, happy with Herodotus. An article of 1985 35 has pointed out that in fact the Greek pre-Herodotean evidence indicates the death of Croesus at the conquest of Sardis: A redfigure vase painting of about 490 B.C. which shows KROESOS on the pyre, and the poem of Bacchylides of 468. If Bacchylides has Croesus transported by Apollo from the pyre to the land of the Hyperboreans, this leaves him as dead as any martyr at the place of his execution, even if he should be transferred to

heaven by angels. There is no need to depart from the simple translation of the Akkadian text. The lesson to be learned is rather a critical position as against Herodotus’ alluring tales – he is ‘fourth grade as against the facts,’ as he presents a rationalization of Bacchylides’ poetic imagination. Yet Herodotus is to survive. Even Weissbach, when writing on Croesus and Cyrus in the Realencyclopädie, felt ravished by the story of Cyrus and Croesus 36 : “Man denkt unwillkürlich an Napoleon III. und Wilhelm I. bei Sedan,” the vanquished emperor and the victorious king, performing the impeccable etiquette of monarchs above the slaughter of war in 1870. Who would like such a story to be annihilated by cuneiform GAZ? Coming back from stories to history, some remarks about the historical importance of the Gyges embassy and the Lydian kingdom in general: The earlier Greek connection with the East had mainly been by the sea route, via Lycia, Cyprus, and Syria, with Crete, Rhodes, and Euboea as the active centers of commerce and interactions. Writing spread to Greece by this route in the eighth century, Al Mina, Chalkis, and Ischia being decisive steps. 37 It must have been on this line too that the name Iawones-Jawan-Iauna established itself with the Easterners, which from the Eastern side is first attested in Syria about 734. 38 There are two glimpses at that situation, one from West, one from East: The poet of the Odyssey has Poseidon returning from the Eastern Aethiopians and beholding the raft of Odysseus, as he comes from the far West, from the “Mountains

33

37

Lehmann-Haupt 1929. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1965) 152: “töten; schlagen.” 35 Burkert 1985a. 36 Weissbach 1931, 462. 34

Burkert 1992; probably Cyprus is to be added, even if so far there is no evidence of Greek writing from Cyprus. See Woodard 1997. Writing came to Lydia from Ionian Greeks. 38 Burkert 1992; 1998; cf. n. 19. 47

B URKERT


of the Solymoi,” that is from Lycia at the Southern coast of Anatolia 39 : This is where the far East, Aethiopia, and the far West, from Kalypso to Phaeacia, will meet. From the other side, Assurbanipal’s record of Gyges’ embassy has the strange indication that these people came “from the other side of the sea,” sha nibirti tamti 40 ; Heinrich Gelzer found this “schwer zu erklären,” because a look at the map shows there is no sea to pass between Mesopotamia and Sardis. But there were no maps at the time. It must have been the presupposition of the Assyrians at Nineveh that ‘Western countries’ meant Cyprus and beyond, so that even the Aegean coast was “beyond the sea.” The Anatolian continent had not been permeable before Gyges’ embassy. Thus the real benefit that came to the Greeks from Gyges was not his gold at Delphi, but rather the new connection of Ionia, in the wake of Lydia, with the Near East. Lydia became a central connecting link between Assyria and Greece. Lydia had been a country “which nobody had known before” at Nineveh; but from that embassy onwards regular interrelations were developing. A new route had been opened, the land route from Aegean Anatolia to Mesopotamia, later known as ‘the king's road.’ This road must have had its beginnings with the Phrygians before Gyges, because, as described by Herodotus, it takes the striking detour via Gordion. 41 But it was Gyges who, after the collapse of the Phrygian kingdom through the attack of the Cimmerians, established the definite link from the Aegean to the Eastern route. Since then, this road definitely extended as far as Sardes and was open to the Ionian

Greeks, from Smyrna to Miletus. The rise of Ionia has often been commented upon. It now appears that Ionia takes its real start only in the 7th century, that is, in the ‘Age of Gyges.’ The colonial activities in the Black Sea, too, only begin in the seventh century, in contrast to the Chalkidian and Corinthian colonisation in the West which belongs to the eighth century. In other words: The flourishing of Ionia is later than the advent of Gyges, it is to be seen in connection with the new route opened up at that time. Ionia was thriving through symbiosis with Lydia. Four details of cultural transfer to Greece from the East via Lydia should be considered in this context: First, the Great Goddess KubabaKybebe. The name of Kubaba is attested at Karkemish. Kubaba is related to, but linguistically different from the Phrygian name of the Mother Goddess, Matar kubileya. For the image of the goddess, an Anatolian road can be traced from Cilicia to Phrygia. But Lydia has the name of the goddess in the form derived from Karkemish, kuvav. She is Kybebe in Ionia with Hipponax (Fr. 127 West), possibly already with Semonides of Amorgos (Fr. 36 West). Greeks later have both forms of the name, preferably Kybele, but Kybebe too. 42 Secondly, more practical and more ubiquitous, a new form of luxury behaviour that spread from Assyria via Lydia to Ionia and to the Greeks in general: The use of klinai, of couches for ‘lying’ at the symposium. The key piece of evidence is a relief from Nineveh, termed ‘Assurbanipal’s garden party’; it became a type of iconography directly copied by the Greeks. 43

39

43

40 41 42

48

Od. 5,283. Gelzer 1875, 231,4; Streck 1916, 20 f. See Burkert 1998. The evidence is collected in Burkert 1985b, 177 f.

London, Brit. Museum; Strommenger 1962, fig. 241; cf. Dentzer 1982; Matthäus 1993, 177-179. The pattern is copied in the well-known vase of Andokides, Munich, LIMC IV s.v. Herakles Nr. 1487.

B URKERT


Thirdly, more of a problem, the yearly magistrates. We are so used to lists of archons and consuls as the backbone of bureaucracy and chronology in ancient history that we may forget that this is a very special institution – it is not found in the Middle ages – and that in the East it appears first and only in Assyria, since 911 B.C. The Assyrian term is limu. 44 In the system of Eusebius ephors start with 754/3 B.C., Athenian archons with 683/2. 45 It seems that the Assyrian parallel has never been discussed in the context of Greek history. Had the Greek institution to do with the introduction of writing, the development of economy, or some progress in politics? Is there anything to connect it with Lydia, or rather with Phoenicians and Carthaginians? 46 At any rate, independent development seems quite unlikely, and the priority of Assyria is indisputable. Fourth, the word tyrannos which somehow goes together with Gyges. A Hellenistic scholar-poet in fact says Gyges was the first to be called tyrannos. 47 In Greek literature, the word appears with Archilochus in connection with Gyges. 48 The word has been suspected to be of Asian derivation. Thus the Assyrian term turtanu will come to one’s mind 49 :

turtanu is a title of the highest official after the Assyrian king, it is used also for the kings of Urartu, Elam and Egypt, it would equally fit the king of Lydia. Linguists will still forbid us to delete one consonant to get from turtanu to turannu. The question remains open. The reign of Lydia was not oppressive. The first big marble temple of Greece, that of Artemis at Ephesus, was built by king Croesus. The impressive rock façades of the Phrygian Mother Goddess too belong not to the time of Midas, but to the later period of Lydian dominance. It has been usual to comment on Lydians as foreign conquerors subduing free Ionian cities; it seems more to the point to see the symbiosis of Ionians and Lydians that evolved in the generation following Gyges ‘rich in gold,’ in spite of ongoing diversity and quarrelling. No native Lydian literature, 50 and very few inscriptions survive. The big tumulus not far from Sardis, at Bin Tepe, was thought to be the tomb of Gyges; tunnels dug in this mound by George Hanfmann in the Sixties brought to light graffiti which Hanfmann read as Gugu; but no burial chamber was discovered, and the archaeological date seems not to fit. 51 Gyges still keeps his secret.

44

47

45

48

See Ungnad 1938. Cf. Samuel 1972, 195-245; archons are used for chronology in Hdt.8,51,1, archons and ephors in Thuk.2,2,1. 46 Carthage had eponymous officials at least in Hellenistic times, see Ehrenberg “Suffeten” RE IV A (1931) 645 f.

Euphorion 1,23456,-7&8$494Clem. Str. 1,117,9. Fr. 19 West cf. Fr. 23. Hippias (Diels - Kranz 86 B 9) stated that the word become known “at the time of Archilochus.” See Jeffery 1976, 46; 211. 49 See Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 1322. 50 See also Burkert 1995. 51 See Ratte 1994; Arch. Rep. 1998/9, 145. 49

B URKERT


B IBLIOGRAPHY ANET = J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, 1969 3 ). J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte I (Berlin, 1893); I 2 (Strassburg, 1912). H. Berve, Griechische Geschichte (Freiburg, 1931); I 2 (Freiburg,1951). T. F. R. G Braun, “The Greeks in the Near East,” in: The Cambridge Ancient History III 3 2 (Cambridge, 1982), 1-31. W. Burkert, “Das Ende des Kroisos. Vorstufen einer Herodoteischen Geschichtserzählung,” in: Catalepton, Festschrift B. Wyss (Basel, 1985), 4-15 (= Burkert 1985a). W. Burkert, Greek Religion Archaic and Classical (Oxford, 1985) (= Burkert 1985b). W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1992). W. Burkert, “Lydia between East and West or How to Date the Trojan War: A Study in Herodotus,” in: J.B. Carter, S.P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer. A tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (Austin, 1995), 139-148 = Kleine Schriften I (Göttingen, 2001), 218-232. W. Burkert, “La via fenicia e la via anatolica: Ideologie e scoperte fra Oriente e Occidente,” in: Convegno per Santo Mazzarino (Roma, 1998), 55-73 = Kleine Schriften II (Göttingen, 2003), 252-266. G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaeroneia I 2 (Gotha, 1893). J. Cargill, “The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Fall of Lydia. Consensus with Feet of Clay,” American Journal of Ancient History 2 (1977), 97-116. M. Cogan, H. Tadmor, “Gyges and Ashurbanipal. A study of Literary Transmission,” Orientalia 46 (1977), 29-54. M. A. Dandamayev, “Nabonid,” RlAss IX (1998), 6-12. J. M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche Orient et le Monde Grec du VII e au IV e siècle (Paris, 1982). J. Elayi, A. Cavigneaux, “Sargon II et les Ioniens,” Oriens Antiquus 18 (1979), 59-75. D. Fehling, Herodotus and his Sources (Leeds, 1989). H. Gelzer, “Das Zeitalter des Gyges,” RhMus 30 (1875), 230-268. J. J. Glassner, Chroniques Mésopotamiennes (Paris, 1993). A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, 1975). H. Herter, “Lydische Adelskämpfe,” in: O. Wenig., ed., Wege zur Buchwissenschaft (Bonn, 1966), 31-60 = Kleine Schriften (München, 1975), 536-563. A. Ivantchik, Les Cimmériens au Proche-Orient (Freiburg, 1993). 50

B URKERT


F. Jacoby, “The Date of Archilochus,” CQ 35 (1941), 97-109 = Kleine Philologische Schriften I (Berlin, 1961), 349-367. L. H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece. The City States c. 770-500 B.C. (London, 1976). H. Kaletsch, “Zur lydischen Chronologie,” Historia 7 (1958), 1-41. R. Kratz, “From Nabonidus to Cyrus,” in: Melammu Symposia III (Milano, 2002), 143156. C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, “Gyges,” RE VII (1912), 1956-1966. C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, “Kimmerier,” RE XI (1921), 397-434. C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, “Der Sturz des Kroisos und das historische Element in Xenophons Kyropädie,” Wiener Studien 47 (1929) 123-127. G. Luckenbill, Ancient records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago, 1927). H. Matthäus, “Zur Rezeption orientalischer Kunst-, Kultur- und Lebensformen in Griechenland,” in K. Raaflaub, ed., Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike (München, 1993), 165-186. S. Mazzarino, Fra oriente e occidente (Firenze, 1947; repr. 1989). M. Mellink, “The Native Kingdoms of Anatolia: The Lydian Kingdom,” in: The Cambridge Ancient History III 2 2 (Cambridge, 1991), 643-655. E. Meyer, “Das Gebet des Nabonid,” Sitzungsber. Leipzig, phil.-hist.Klasse 107,3 (1962). E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums II (Stuttgart, 1893); III 2 ed. H.E. Stier (Stuttgart, 1936). Th. G. Pinches, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia V (London, 1880). W. K. Pritchett, The Liar School of Herodotus (Amsterdam, 1993). C. Ratte, “Not the Tomb of Gyges,” JHS 114 (1994), 157-161. G. Rawlinson, G. Smith, The cuneiform inscriptions of Western Asia III, (London, 1870). RlAss = Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie (Berlin, 1932 ff.). E. Rohde, “:;?!:',5;&3I,“J?K9&3&L7;”,3(1971) 1-25. — , The Missionary Task of the Byzantine Emperor. “EFG;3$>3H” 3 (1971) 279-286. A. C HRISTENSEN , L’Iran sous les Sassanides (Annales du Musée Guimet. Bibliothèque d’Etudes 48), Copenhague 1936. Aikaterine C HRISTOPHILOPOULOU , M5?&NOP, Q3;N"9!F#>', 5;', $&T, =FG;3$>3&T ;U$&59H$&9&'I, “V9;NL;$!7;>, W5;XKL7;', W K323” 22, 2. Athen 1956. !, 238 pp., 1 Pl. cfr. BZ 50 (1957) 467-474 (J. Karayannopulos). — , YC, =H#!>', $&T, =FG;3$>3&T, %&?>$!@L;$&', “M%>#$KLI, M%I, Z>?&#&[I, +\&?]' V;3!%>#$>L7&F,W K323P”,%!9I,=P,22 (1971/72) 201-223. — , ^,Q3$>=;#>?!7;,!D',$6,EFGH3$>&3I,“+@LL!>5$;” 2 (1970) 1-144. — , V!95;, %;9I 9). Athen 1956, 404-415 (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 193-205). — , The Government and Administration of the Byzantine Empire. II: Government, Church and Civilisation, ed. By J.M. Hussey – D.M. Nicol – G. Cowan. Cambridge 1967, 1-54. — , Zur Frage nach der ersten Kaiserkrönung durch den Patriarchen und zur Bedeutung dieses Aktes im Wahlzeremoniell. BZ 42 (1943) 101-115. 369-372 (reprinted Würzburg 1947). — , Zur Torqueskrönung und Schilderhebung bei der Kaiserwahl. “Klio” 35 (1942) 268-298. E. E WIG , Das Bild Constantins des Gro en in den ersten Jahrhunderten des abendländischen Mittelalters. “Hist. Jahrb.” 75 (1956) 1-46 (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 133-192). — , Zum christlichen Königsgedanken im Frühmittelalter, in: Das Königtum. Seine geistigen und Rechtlichen Grundlagen. Mainauvorträge 1954 (Vorträge und Forschungen 3). Darmstadt (reprint) 1965, 7-73. R. F ARINA , M%7#5&%&', $23, 45$6' (Eusebio, De Vita Const. IV 24). “Salesianum” 29 (1967) 409-413. 71

C ARILE

P OLITICAL T HOUGHT IN B YZANTIUM AS S EEN BY 20 TH C ENTU RY H ISTORIANS

— , L’impero e l’imperatore cristiano in Eusebio di Cesarea. La prima teologia politica del cristianesimo (Bibl. Theol. Salesiana, ser. I [Fontes], 2). Zürich 1966. 381 pp. E. F ENSTER , Laudes Constantinopolitanae (Misc. Byz. Monac. 9) München 1968. 379 pp. J. F ERLUGA , La ligesse dans l’empire byzantin. ZRVI 7 (1961) 97-123. — , Lista adresa za strane vladare iz knjige o cerimonijama (L’elenco dei regnanti stranieri nel Libro delle cerimonie) (with an Italian summary). ZRVI 12 (1970) 157178. A. F OURLAS , Der Ring in der Antike und im Christentum. Der Ring als Herrschaftssymbol und Würdezeichen (Forschungen zur Volkskunde 45). Münster 1971. 148 pp., 38 Pl. J. G AGE ’, De Rome à Byzance. Le cérémonial monarchique, les insignes et le costume des empereurs romains. “Byzantion” 11 (1936) 325-340 (review of Alföldi, Monarchisches Zeremoniell und Insignien und Tracht). G.P. G ALAVARIS , The Symbolism of the Imperial Costume as Displayed on Byzantine Coins. “Americ. Numism. Soc. Museum Notes” 8 (1958) 99-117. A. G ASQUET , De l’autorité impériale en materie religeuse à Byzance, Paris 1879. — , L’empire byzantin et la monarchie franque, Paris 1888. — , L’empire d’orient et l’empire d’occident. De l’emploi du mot dans les actes de la cancellerie byzantine, “Revue historique” 26 (1884) 281-302. J. G AUDEMET , Le régime impérial. “Studia Doc. Hist. Iuris” 26 (1960) 282-322. — , Société religieuse et monde laïc au Bas Empire. “Iura” 10 (1959) 86-102. D.J. G EANAKOPLOS , Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism. “Church History” 24 (1965) 381-403. — , Church Building and Caesaropapism. “Greek, Roman and Byz. Studies” 7 (1966) 167-186. R.E. G IESEY , Le roi ne meurt jamais. Les obsèques royales dans la France de la Renaissance, Préface de F. Furet, Paris 1987. M. G IGANTE , Sulla concezione bizantina dell’imperatore nel VII secolo, in: Synteleia Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz, II. Napoli 1964, 546-551. — , e"L&',=;#>?!@', Napoli 1956, rist. 1979, pp. 311. V. G LOETZNER , Das Moskauer Cartum und die byzantinische Kaiseridee. “Saeculum” 21 (1970) 393-418. I. G OSEV , Zur Frage der Krönungzeremonien und der zeremoniellen Gewandung der byzantinischen und der bulgarischen Herrscher im Mittelalter. “ByzantinoBulgarica” 2 (1965) 145-168. A. G RABAR , God and the “Family of Princes” Presided over by the Byzantine Emperor. “Harvard Slavic Studies” 2 (1954) (Essays … dedicated to F. Dvornik) 117-123.

72

C ARILE


— , L’archéologie des insignes médiévaux du pouvoir. “Journal des Savants” (1956) 5-19, 77-92 ; 1957, 25-31 (review of Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik). — , L’empereur dans l’art byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’empire d’Orient (Publ. Fac. Lettre univ. Strasbourg 75). Paris 1936 (Nachdruck London 1971). VII, 296 pp., 40 tavv. – Cf. “Gnomon” 14 (1938) 202-210 (F. Dölger). — , Pseudo-Codinos et les cérémonies de la cour byzantine au XIVe siècle, in: Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du colloque… à Venise en septembre 1968 (Bibl. Inst. Hell. d’Ètudes Byz. et Post-Byz. de Venise 4). Venise 1971, 193221. — , Un médaillon en or provenant de Mersine en Cilicie. “Dumb. Oaks Papers” 6 (1951) 27-49. — , Zur Geschichte von Sphaira, Globus und Reichsapfel. “Hist. Ztschr.” 191 (1960) 336-348 (notes to Schramm, Sphaera – Globus – Reichsapfel). I. G RADEL , Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford 2002. N. G RASS , Königskirche und Staatssymbolik. Begegnungen zwischen griechischem Osten und lateinischem Westen im Bereich von Staatsrepräsentation und Sakralkultur, in: Gedächtnisschrift Hans Peters. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 1967, 66-96. H. G REGOIRE , *pN;', =;#>?!q', in: Michel III et Basile le Macédonien dans les inscriptions d’Ancyre. “Byzantion” 5 (1929/30) 344-346. Ph. G RIERSON , Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337–1042). With an additional note by C. Mango and I. Sevcenko. “Dumb. Oaks Papers” 16 (1962) 1-63. N. G RIMAL , Les termes de la propagande royale égyptienne. De la XIXe dynastie à la conquete d’Alexandre, Paris 1986. R. G UILLAND , Autour du Livre des Cérémonies de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète. “Rev. Èt. Gr.” 59/60 (1946/47) 251-259 (reprinted under the title: La cérémonie de la %9@3K#>', in: Recherches sur les institutions Byzantines I 144-150). — , fC,=FG;3$>3&9!7;', EFG;3$>323 +%&FX23” 24 (1954) 37-66 (reprinted in: Ètudes Byzantines. Paris 1959, 1-32). — , La noblesse de race à Byzance. “Byzantinoslavica” 9 (1947/48) 307-314 (reprinted in: Recherches sur les institutions byzantines I 15-22). — , Le droit divin à Byzance. “Eos” 42 (1947) 142-168. — , Recherches sur les institutions byzantines. Avec trois index par Manfred Nauenburg. 2 voll. (Berl. Byz. Arb. 35). Berlin-Amsterdam 1967. XVI. 607 pp. 2 vol. 397 pp. Rh. H AACKE , Rom und die Cäsaren. Geschichte des Cäsaropapismus. Düsseldorf 1947. 124 pp. G.H. H ALSBERGHE , The Cult of Sol Invictus (Ét. prelim. Religions orient. Dans l’Empire rom. 23). Leiden 1972. XI, 175 pp., 1 Pl.

73

C ARILE


J. H ANDSCHIN , Das Zeremonienwerk Kaiser Konstantins und die sangbare Dichtung (Rektoratsprogramm Univ. Basel 1940 u. 1941). Basel 1942. 112 pp. – cfr. BZ 42. (1943) 218-227. F. H EIM , Virtus. Idéologie politique et croyances religieuses au IVe siècle, Berne et alias 1991. A. H EISENBERG , Staat und Gesellschaft des byzantinischen Reiches, in: Staat und Gesellschaft der Griechen und Römer bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters (hrsg. von U.v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, J. Kromayer und A. Heisenberg) = Die Kultur der Gegenwart II,IV, 1. Leipzig-Berlin 1923, 364-364. T. H ENTSCH , L’Orient imaginaire. La vision politique occidentale de l’Est méditerranéen, Paris 1988. I. H ERKLOTZ , Gli eredi di Costantino. Il papato, il Laterano e la propaganda visiva nel XII secolo, trad. it. di N. Giovè Marchioli, Roma 2000. A. H ERRMANN , (Art.) Edelsteine, in: Reallex. f. Ant. u. Christent. 4 (1959 [1958]) 505552. O. H ILTBRUNNER , Die Heiligkeit des Kaisers (Zur Geschichte des Begriffes Sacer). “Frühmittelaltrl. Studien” 2 (1986) 1-30. H. H UNGER , Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, Herausgegeben von H.H., Darmstadt 1975. — , Die Schönheitskonkurrenz in „Belthandros und Chrysantza“ und die Brautschau am Byzantinischen Kaiserhof. “Byzantion” 35 (1965) 150-158. — , Kaiser Justinian I. (527-565). “Anz. Österr. Akad. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl.” 102 (1965) 339-356 (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 333-352). — , Prooimion. Elemente der byzantinischen Kaiseridee in den Arengen der Urkunden (Wiener Byz. Studien 1). Wien 1964. 260 pp., 1 Pl. — , Reich der Neuen Mitte. Der christliche Geist der byzantinischen Kultur. GrazWien-Köln 1965. 472 pp., 29 Pl. — , Zur Humanität Kaiser Andronikos’ II. ZRVI 8/1 (1963) (Mélanges G. Ostrogorsky I) 149-152. H.U. I NSTINSKY , Bischofsstuhl und Kaiserthron. München 1955. 124 pp. — , Offene Fragen zum Bischofsstuhl und Kaiserthron. “Röm. Quartalschrift” 66 (1971) 79-87. N. I ORGA , Rélations entre l’Orient et l’Occident, in Id., Ètudes Byzantines, I, Bucarest 1939, pp. 165-298. R. J ANIN , L’empereur dans l’église byzantine. “Nouv. Rev. Théol.” 77 (1955) 49-60. — , Les processions religieuses à Byzance. “Rev. Ét. Byz.” 24 (1966) 69-88. — , Rôle des commissaries impériaux byzantins dans les conciles. “Rev. Ét. Byz.” 18 (1960) 97-108. E. J ERG , Die “sustentatio” in der römischen Liturgie vor dem Hintergrund des Kaiserlichen Hofzeremoniells. “Ztschr. Kath. Theol.” 80 (1958) 316-324. E. J UNGER C. S CHMITT , Il nodo di Gordio. Dialogo su Oriente e Occidente nella storia del mondo, con introduzione di C. Galli, Bologna 1987. 74

C ARILE


J. K ABIERSCH , Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian (Klassisch-philolog. Studien 21). Wiesbaden 1960. X, 96 pp. E.H. K ANTOROWICZ , Constantinus Strator. Marginalien zum Constitutum Constantini, in: Mullus. Festschrift Th. Klauser (Jahrb. Ant. u. Christent., Erg.-Bd. 1). Münster 1964, 181-189. — , Kaiser Friedrich II. und das Königsbild des Hellenismus, in: Varia Variorum. Festgabe f. K. Reinhardt. Münster-Köln 1952, 169-193. — , Laudes Regiae. A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Medieval Ruler Worship. With a Study of the Music of the Laudes and Musical Trancsriptions by M.F. Bukofzer. Berkeley-Los Angeles 1958. XXI, 292 pp., 15 Pl. — , Oriens Augusti – Lever du roi. “Dumb. Oaks Paper” 17 (1963), pp. 117-177 (partially reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, pp. 258-280). — , The King’s two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theology, Princeton 1957, reprinted 1981. J. K ARAYANNOPOULOS , Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser. BZ 49 (1956) 369-284 (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 235-258). — , Konstantin der Gro e und der Kaiserkult. “Historia” 5 (1956) 341-357 (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 109-132). F. K ERN , Der Rex et Sacerdos in bildlicher Darstellung, in: Forschungen und Versuche zur Geschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Festschrift, D. Schäfer zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht. Jena 1915, 1-5. — , Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter (Mittelalterliche Studien I/2). Leipzig 1914. XXXII, 444 pp. Th. K LAUSER , (Art.) Akklamation, in: Reallex. f. Ant. u. Christen. 1 (1950 [1942]) 216232. — , Aurum coronarium. “Mittlg. Deutsch. Archäol. Inst., Röm. Abtlg.” 59 (1944/48) 129-153. L. K NABEN , Die gelasianische Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturstreits (Historische Studien 292). Berlin 1936, 174 pp. L. K OCH , Christusbild – Kaiserbild. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lösung der Frage nach dem Anteil der byzantinischen Kaiser an griechischen Bilderstreit. “Bened. Monatsschr.” 21 (1939) 85-105. B. K OETTING , (Art.) Euergetes, in: Reallex f. Ant. u. Christent. 6 (1966 [1965]) 848860. E. K ORNEMANN , Die römische Kaiserzeit (= J. Vogt u. E. Kornemann, Röm. Geschichte, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft hrgb. v. A. Gercke u. E. Norden, 3, Aufl., Bd. III. H.2), Leipzig und Berlin 1933. I. K OTSONES , ^, R#>',$&T,;U$&59H$&9&',$&T,EFG;3$7&F,43,$s, !7t,?;$9!7tI,“M%>#$KLI +\&?]', e&LI, 5;#$OL`3, V;3!%>#$I, n!##;?&375K'” 8 (1960/63) (u3KL"#F3&3,VI,E>G&F57X&F) 109-120. R. K RAUTHEIMER , Tre capitali cristiane. Topografia e politica, Torino 1987 (ed. or. 1983).

75

C ARILE


O. K RESTEN , Zur sogenannten Pertinenzzeile der byzantinischen Kaiserurkunde. “EFG;3$>3H” 3 (1971) 55-68. Ph. K OUKOULES , EFG;3$>323, =7&', 5;$>#L"'. I. Athen 1984. 231 pp., 4 Pl. + 290 pp., 2 Pl.; II. Athen 1984. 283 pp., 237 pp., 5 Pl.; III. Athen 1949. 403 pp., 8 Pl.; IV. Athen 1951. 499 pp., 19 Pl.; V. Athen 1952. 467 pp., 12 Pl.; V, V;9H9$KL;. Athen 1952. 118 pp.; VI. Athen 1955. 575 pp., 2 Pl. (Collection de l’Institut Franç. 10.11.12.13.43.73.76.90). — , 1g,5;$g,$h3,$;[h3,$23,=FG;3$>323,=;#>?R`3. 15 (1983) 52-78. St. K YRIAKIDES , 8#$&9>5g, #KL!>aL;$;I, YP, J`3#$;3$73&', B, uRN;', 5;5h,?;$9!7;I,“r??K3>5H” 17 (1960) 219-249. D. L ASSANDRO , Sacratissimus Imperator. L’immagine del princeps nell’oratoria tardoantica, Bari 2000. V. L AURENT , Les droits de l’empereur en matière ecclésiastique. L’accord de 13801382. “Rev. Ét. Byz.” 13 (1955) 5-20. — , Le serment de l’empereur Andronic II Paléologue au patriarche Athanase I, lors de sa seconde accession au thrône œcuménique (sept. 1303). “Rev. Ét. Byz.” 23 (1965) 124-139. — , L’ unité du monde vue de Byzance et son expression dans les concilies genéraux des neuf premiers siècles. “Divinitas” 2 (1961) 252-269. — , Notes de titulature byzantine. “Échos d’Or.” 38 (1939) 355-370. — , Une lettre dogmatique de l’empereur Isaac l’Ange au primat de Hongrie. “Échos d’Or.” 39 (1940) 59-77. H. L ECLERCQ , Constantin Porphyrogénète et le livre des cérémonies de la cour de Byzance = F. Cabriol et H. Leclercq, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de la liturgie, III, 2 col. 2695-2713. E. L EPORE , Il princeps ciceroniano e gli ideali politici della tarda Repubblica, Bologna 1999. A. L IPINSKY , L’evoluzione del diadema imperiale da Augusto a Maurizio Tiberio, in: Atti Congr. Intern. di Num., II. Roma 1965, 457-463. E. L OHMEYER , Christuskult und Kaiserkult (Sammlungen gemeinverständl. Vorträge u. Schriften aus d. Gebiete d. Theologie und Religionswiss.). Tübingen 1919. 58 pp. H.P. L’O RANGE , Expressions of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World, in: Studies in the History of Religions. The Sacral Kingship (Suppl. to Numen, 4). Leiden 1958, 481-492. — , Sol invictus inperator. “Symbolae Osloenses” 14 (1935) 86-114. — , Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic King in the Ancient World (Instit. Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Ser. A: Forelesninger 23). Oslo 1953. 205 S., 140 Abb. P. M AAS , Metrische Akklamationen der Byzantiner. BZ 21 (1912) 28-51. Sabine M ACCORMACK , Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity. The Ceremony of Adventus. “Historia” 21 (1972) 721-752.

76

C ARILE


S.G. M AC C ORMACK , Art and Ceremony in late Antiquity, Berkeley-Los AngelesLondon, 1981, H.J. M AGOULIAS , Byzantine Christianity: Emperor, Church and the West. New York 1970. 196 pp. J. de M ALAFOSSE , La monocratie byzantine, in: La monocratie, II. (Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin 21). Brüssel 1969, 31-55. G.A. M ANSUELLI , I mosaici di Giustiniano e Teodora e il problema della rappresentazione iconografica ufficiale, in: Corsi di Cultura sull’Arte Ravennate e Bizantina, Ravenna, 8-21 marzo 1970. Ravenna 1970. 277-284. St. M ASLEV , Die staatsrechtliche Stellung der Byzantinischen Kaiserinnen. “Byzantinoslavica” 27 (1966) 308-343. J. M AURICE , Les pharaons romains. “Byzantion” 12 (1937) 71-103. M. M C C ORMICK , Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in late Antiquity, Byzantium and the early Medieval West, Cambridge Paris, 1986 (repr. 1990); Italian translation by G. Iamartino, Vittoria eterna. Sovranità trionfale nella tarda Antichità a Bisanzio e nell’Occidente Altomedievale, Milano 1993 (from the English edition of 1986). McCormick does not make any use of the Italian bibliography, which he does not quote at all. H. M ELAERTS , Le culte du souverain dans l’Egypte ptolemaique au III e siècle avant notre ére, in: Actes du Colloque international, Bruxelles 1995, Bruxelles 1996. J. M EYENDORFF , Justinian, the Empire and the Church. “Dumb. Oaks Papers” 22 (1968) 43-60. G. M ICHAELIDES -N OUAROS , Les idées philosophiques de Léon le Sage sur les limites du pouvoir législatif et son attitude envers les coutumes. “M%>#$KLI, M%!$I, +\&?]' (&LI,5;#$OL`3,V;3!%>#$I,n!##;?&375K'” 8 (1960/63) (*3KL"#F3&3 VI,x>G&F\7X&F) 27-54. H. M ICHAELIS , Der Thronbaldachin (Zum Verständnis eines Herrscher-symbols), in: Aus der byzantinistischen Arbeit der DDR, vol.. II, hrsg. Von J. Irmscher (Berl. Byz. Arb. 6). Berlin 1957, 110-119. A. M ICHEL , Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche (843–1204). “Ostkirchl. Studien” 2 (1953) 1-35. 89-109; 3 (1954) 1-28. 133-163; 4 (1955) 1-42. 221-260; 5 (1956) 1-32 (gathered in: Darmstadt 1959, 6 Pl., 227 pp.) (partially reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 206-234). — , Papstwahl und Krönungsrecht oder das Papstwahlkonkordat von 1059. München 1936. XVI, 228 pp. D.A. M ILLER , Royauté et ambiguité sexuelle. Symbolique de la monarchie à Byzance. “Annales” 26 (1971) 639-652. — , The Emperor and the Ritual: Magic and Harmony, in “Byzantine Studies/Ètudes Byzantines,” 6, 1-2(1979). T.S. M ILLER , The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, Baltimore and London 1985. M. M ITARD , Le pouvoir impérial au temps de Léon le Sage, in: Mélanges Ch. Diehl I. Paris 1930, 217-223. 77

C ARILE


Anna M ORISI , Ricerche sull’ideologia imperiale a Bisanzio. “Acme” 16 (1963) 119-181. S. M UELLER -C HRISTENSEN , Das Günthertuch im Bamberger Domschatz, Bamberg 1984. D. N ASTASE , L’aigle bicéphale dissimulée dans les armoiries des pays roumains. Vers une crypto-héraldique, in: Da Roma alla Terza Roma, Documenti e Studi, collana diretta da P. Catalano e P. Siniscalco. I, Roma Costantinopoli Mosca, Napoli 1983 pp. 357 ss. H. N EUBAUER , Car und Selbstherrscher. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Autokratie in Ru land (Veröffentl. Osteuropa-Inst. München 22). Wiesbaden 1964. 236 pp. D.M. N ICOL , Byzantine Political Thought, in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350 – c. 1450, Edited by J.H. Burns, Cambridge et alias, 1988, 5182. D. O BOLENSKY , Il Commonwealth bizantino. L’Europa orientale dal 500 al 1453, tr. it. Bari 1974. W. O HNSORGE , W.: Abendland und Byzanz. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geschichte der byzantinisch-abendländischen Beziehungen und des Kaisertums. Weimar 1958 (reprinted Homburg vor der Höhe [= Darmstadt] 1963). VIII, 573 pp., 4 Pl. – Cf. BZ 52 (1959) 387-391 (H.-G. Beck). — , (Art.) Abendland und Byzanz. I. Das abendländische Kaisertum, in: Reallex. d. Byzantinistik, Reihe A, 1 (Heft 3) (1969) 126-169. — , Byzanz und das Abendland im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert. Zur Entwicklung des Kaiserbegriffes und der Staatsideologie. “Saeculum” 5 (1954) 194-220 (reprinted in: Abendland und Byzanz, 1-49). — , Das Kaisertum der Eirene und die Kaiserkrönung Karls des Gro en. “Saeculum” 14 (1963) 221-247 (reprinted in: Konstantinopel und der Okzident, 49-92) (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, 281-332). — , Das Mitkaisertum in der abendländischen Geschichte des früheren Mittelalters. “Ztschr. Savigny-Stiftung f. Rechtsgesch., Germ. Abtlg.” 67 (1950) 309-335 (reprinted: Abendland und Byzanz 261-287). — , Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelalter. Die Bedeutung des byzantinischen Reiches für die Entwicklung der Staatsidee in Europa. Hildesheim 1947. 143 pp. — , Der Patricius-Titel Karls des Gro en. BZ 53 (1960) 300-321 (reprinted: Konstantinopel und der Okzident 1-28). — , Die Anerkennung des Kaisertums Ottos I. durch Byzanz. BZ 54 (1961) 28-52 (reprinted: Konstantinopel und der Okzident, 176-207). — , Die Entwicklung der Kaiseridee im 9. Jahrhundert und Süditalien, in: W. Ohnsorge, Abendland und Byzanz 184-226 (reprinted in Italian with the title L’idea d’impero nel secolo nono e l’Italia meridionale, in: Atti III Congr. Internaz. di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto 1959, 255-272). — , Die Idee der Mitregentschaft bei den Sachsenherrschern. “Mittlg. Osterr. Staatsarchiv” 25 (1972) 539-548.

78

C ARILE


— , Konstantinopel im politischen Denken der Ottonenzeit, in: Polychronion, Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Gebrtstag, hrsg. Von P. Wirth. Heidelberg 1966. VIII, 309 pp., 5 Pl. — , Orthodoxus Imperator. Vom religiösen Motiv für das Kaisertum Karls des Gro en. “Jahrb. Gesellsch. Niedersächs. Kirchengesch.” 48 (1950) 17-28 (reprinted in: Abendland und Byzanz, 64-78). — , Ottos III. Legation an Basileios II. vom Jahre 998. Ein Beitrag zur Frage des byzantinischen Einflusses auf die Metallsiegelpraxis des Westens, in: W. Ohnsorge, Abendland und Byzanz, 288-299. — , Renovatio regni Francorum, in: Festschrift z. 200-Jahrfeier d. Haus-, Hof- u. Staatsarchivs Wien, Bd. II. Wien 1952, 303-313 (reprinted in: Abendland und Byzanz, 111-130). B. O PFERMANN , Die liturgischen Herrscherakklamationen im Sacrum Imperium des Mittelalters. Weimar 1953. 226 pp. with 2 Pl. A.M. O RSELLI , La donna e il sole in Ap xii,1 tra esegesi e iconologia, Bologna 1992, Letture CISEC, I, 1992, n. 3. — , Santità militare e culto dei santi militari nell’impero dei romani (secoli VI-X), Bologna 1993. — , Santi e città. Santi e demoni urbani fra tardo-antico e alto medioevo, in XXXVI Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Santi e demoni nell’alto Medioevo Occidentale (secoli V-XI), Spoleto 1989, 794-795, 822-823. G. O STROGORSKY , Autokrator Johannes II. und Basileus Alexios. “Annales Inst. Kondakov” 10 (1938) 179-183. — , Avtokrator i samdrzac. “Glas Srpske Kral. Akademija” 164 (1935) 95-187. – Cf. BZ 35 (1935) 406-409 (B. Granic) and “Byzantion” 10 (1935) 763-775 (H. Grégoire). — , Bemerkungen zum byzantinischen Staatsrecht der Komnenenzeit. “SüdostForschungen” 8 (1943) 261-270. — , Das Mitkaisertum im mittelalterlichen Byzanz, in: E. Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium Romanum. Leipzig-Berlin 1930, 166-178. — , Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie. “Seminarium Kondakovianum” 8 (1936) 41-61. — , Die Krönung Symeons von Bulgarien durch den Patriarchen Nikolaos Mystikos, in: Actes du IV Congrès International des Ètudes Byzantines, Sofia 1934. “Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Bulgare” 9 (1935) 275-286. — , Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium. “Dumb. Oaks Papers” 25 (1971) 1-32. — , Otnosenie cerkvi I gosudarstva v Vizantii (The rapports between Church and State in Byzantium, with German summary). “Seminarium Kondakovianum” 4 (1931) 121-134. — , recension of O. Treitiger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee. BZ 41 (1941) 211-223.

79

C ARILE


— , The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order. “Slav. and East Eur. Review” 35 (1956) 1-14. — , Urum – Despotes. Die Anfänge der Despoteswürde in Byzanz. BZ 44 (1951)448460. — , Zum Stratordienst in der byzantinisch-slawischen Welt. “Seminarium Kondakovianum” 7 (1935) 187-204. — , Zur Kaisersalbung und Schilderhebung im spätbyzantinischen Krönungszeremoniell. “Historia” 4 (1955) (Festschrift W. Ensslin) 246-256 (reprinted in: Hunger, Das byzantinische Herrscherbild, pp. 94-108). G. O STROGORSKY – E. S TEIN , Die Krönungsurkunden des Zeremonienbuches. Chronologische und verfassungsgeschichtlische Bemerkungen. “Byzantion” 7 (1932) 185-233. – Cf. BZ 36 (1936) 145-157 (F. Dölger). J.-B. P APAPDOPOULOS , Le mitatorion des églises byzantines, in: Mémorial L. Petit (Archivies Or. Chrét. 1) Bukarest 1948, 366-372. D.E.J. P ERL , Symbol, Sacrament and Hierarchy in Saint Dionysios the Areopagite, in “The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,” 39 (1994) 348-349. A. P ERTUSI , Il pensiero politico bizantino, a cura di A. Carile, Bologna 1990 (the book is dated 1968-1978). — , Bisanzio e le insegne regali dei Dogi di Venezia. “Riv. Stud. Biz. e Neoell.” N. S. 2-3 (1965/66) 277-284. — , I principi fondamentali della concezione del potere a Bisanzio. Per un commento al dialogo „Sulla scienza politica“ attribuito a Pietro Patrizio (secolo VI). “Bullet. Istit. Stor. Ital. per il Medioevo e Arch. Muratoriano” 80 (1968) 1-23. — , Quaedam regalia insignia. Ricerche sulle insegne del potere ducale a Venezia durante il Medioevo. “Studi Veneziani” 7 (1965) 3-123. — , Insegne del potere sovrano e delegato a Bisanzio e nei paesi di influenza bizantina, in Simboli e simbologia nell’Alto Medioevo, 3-9 aprile 1975, XXIII Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, II, Spoleto 1976, pp. 481568. E. P ETERSON , Christus als imperator. “Cattolica. Vierteljahrsschr. F. Kontroverstheol.” 5 (1936) 64-72. — , Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Theologie im Imperium Romanum. Lepizig 1935. 158 pp. — , Die Einholung des Kyrios. “Ztschr. f. system. Theol.” 7 (1929) 682-702. — , db+, ndf+. Epigraphische, Formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten u. Neuen Testaments, N. F. 24). Göttingen 1926. VIII, 346 pp., Pl. — , Das Buch von den Engeln, Stellung und Bedeutung der heiligen Engel im Kultus, Leipzig 1935. P. P ICCININI , Costantino toi theoi philos. La lettura eusebiana della monarchia divina, Bologna 1989. — , Costantino servo di Dio, in “Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi,” 6 (1989), pp. 1 ss. 80

C ARILE


— , La regalità sacra da Bisanzio all’Occidente ostrogoto, Bologna 1991. G. P ODSKALSKY , Byzantinische Reichseschatologie. Die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in der vier Großreichen (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem tausendjährigen Friendensreiche (Apok. 20) (München Universitätsschriften, Reihe Phil. Fak. 9). München 1972. X pp., 1 Pl., 114 pp. Colloque du Départment d’Etudes Médiévales de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, L’image et le mythe de la ville au Moyen Age, Textes réunis par D. Poirion, Paris 1986. G. R AVEGNANI , La corte di Bisanzio, Ravenna 1984, pp. 74. J.J. R EISKE , (ed), Costantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo. Bd. I. Bonn 1829. LXII, 807 S. Bd. II: Commentarii. Boon 1830. [IV] 940 pp. G. R OSCH , y3&L;, =;#>?!7;'. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in Spätantiker und Frühbyzantinischer Zeit, Wien 1978. K. R OSEN , Il pensiero politico dell’antichità, trad. it. di F. Ferraresi, Bologna 1999, ed. or. 1986, 1997. St. R UNCIMAN , La teocrazia bizantina, tr. it., introduzione di V. Peri, Firenze 1988, first ed. 1977, pp. 142. J.-M. S ANSTERRE , Eusébe de Cèsarée et la naissance de la théorie «césaro-papiste». “Byzantion” 42 (1972) 131-195, 532-594. J. S CHARF , Der Kaiser in Proskynese. Bemerkungen zur Deutung des Kaisermosaiks im Narthex der Hagia Sophia von Konstantinopel, in: Festschrift P.E. Schramm zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag, Bd. I. Wiesbaden 1964, 27-35. — , Jus divinum. Aspekte und Perspektiven einer byzantinischen Zwei-gewaltentheorie, in: Polychronion, Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag, hrsg. Von P. Wirth. Heidelberg 1966, 462-479. — , Photios und die Epanagoge. BZ 49 (1956) 385-400. A. S CHMEMANN , Byzantine Theocracy and the Orthodox Church. “St. Vald. Sem. Quart.” 1 (1953) 5-22. A.M. S CHNEIDER , Das byzantinische Zeremoniell und der Alte Orient. “Jahrb. f. Kleinasiant. Forschung” 2 (1952) 154-163. P.E. S CHRAMM , Das Herrscherbild in der Kunst des früher Mittelalters, in: Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg, hrsg. Von F. Saxl. II: Vorträge 1922-1923; 1. Teil. LeipzigBerlin 1924, 145-224. — , Die Anerkennungn Karls des Großen als Kaiser. Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte der mittelalterlichen „Staatssymbolik“. “Hist. Ztschr.” 172/73 (1951) 449-515. — , (and others): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte von dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert. I. Stuttgard 1954. XXIV, 376 pp., 5 pictures, 40 maps. II. Stuttgart 1955. XVI pp., pp. 377-688, 15 pictures, 40 maps III. Stuttgart 1956. XXIV pp., pp. 689-1165, 8 pictures i, 48 maps (Schriften der Monumenta Germanie Historica 13/I-III). – cfr. BZ 50 (1957) 405-436 (J. Déer). — , Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio. Studien und Texte zur Geschichte des römischen Erneuerungsgedankens von Ende des karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit 81

C ARILE


(Studien Bibl. Warburg 17). 2 voll. Leipzig-Belin 1929. I: Studien. XIV, 305 pp. II: Exkurse und Texte. VI. 185 pp. (2. ed. with the two parts united: Darmstadt 1957). — , „Mitherrschaft im Himmel“: Ein Topos des Herrscherkults in christlicher Einkleidung, in: Polychronion, Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag, hrsg. Von P. Wirth. Heidelberg 1966, 480-485. — , Sphaera – Globus – Reichsapfel. Wanderung und Wandlung eines Herrschaftszeichens von Caesar bis Elisabeth II. Ein Beitrag zum „Nachleben“ der Antike. Stuttgart 1958. XI, 219 pp., 6 Pl., 160 Pl. in 84 pp. – cfr. BZ 54 (1961) 53-85, 291318 (J. Déer). P. S CHREINER , Zur Bezeichnung „Megas“ und „Megas Basileus“ in der byzantinischen Kaisertitulatur. “EFG;3$>3H” 3 (1971) 175-192. D. S CHUBERTH , Kaiserliche Liturgie. Die Einbeziehung von Musikinstrumenten, insbesondere der Orgel, in der frühmittelalterlichen Gottesdienst (Veröff Evang. Gesellschaft f. Liturgieforschung 17). Göttingen 1968. 155 pp., 4 Pl. K. Fürst von S CHWARZENBERG , Adler und Drach. Der Weltherrschaftsgedanke. WienMünchen 1958. 392 pp., 49 pictures. I. S EVCHENKO , A neglected Byzantine Source of Muscovite Political Ideology. “Harvard Slavic Studies” 2 (1954) (Essays ... dedicated to F. Dvornik) 141-179. W. S ICKEL , Das byzantinische Krönungsrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. BZ 7 (1898) 511-557. B. S INOGOWITZ Die Begriffe Reich, Macht und Herrschaft im byzantinischen Kulturbereich. “Saeculum” 4 (1898) 450-455. A.V. S OLOVIEV , „Reges“ et „Regnum Russiae“ au moyen âge. “Byzantion” 36 (1966) 144-173. B. S PICQ , La philanthropie hellénistique, vertu divine et royale. “Studia Teologica” 12 (1958) 169-191. E. S TEIN , Post-consulat et ;U$&59;$&97;. “Annuaire Inst. Phil. Hist. Orient. et Slaves” 2 (1934) (Mélanges Bidez) 869-912. – Cf. BZ 36 (1936) 123-145. — , Zum mitteralterlischen Titel „Kaiser der Rhomäer“. “Forschungen und Fortschritte” 6 (1930) 182-183. — , Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches, 1., Vom römischen zum byzantinischen Staat, Wien 1928. — , Untersuchungen zur spätbyzantinischen Verfassungs und Wirtschaftsgeschichte = “Mitteilungen zur osmanischen Geschichte” II (1923-1925), Hannover 1925, 1-62. A. S TEINWENTER , efuf+, du.z{f+. Zur Geschichte einer politischen Theorie. “Anzeiger Akad. Wiss. Wein, phil.-hist. Kl.” 83 (1946) 250-268. B.K. S TEPHANIDES , A, Q59;7&', #$; L6', $]', 4_!?7_!`', $23, #\R#!`3, 455?K#7;', 5;< %&?>$!7;', $&T, =FG;3$>3&T, 5;323, +%&FX23” 23 (1953) (J;37#5>&3, ZI, J&F5&F?R) 27-40. — , A, uRN;', J`3#$;3$73&', 5;323,+%&FX23” 25 (1955) 12-27. P. S TOCKMEIER , Konstantinische Wende und kirchengeschichtliche Kontinuität. “Hist. Jahrb.” 82 (1963) 1-21. — , Leo I. des Großen Beurteilung der kaiserlichen Religionspolitik (Münchener Theol. Studien, I. Abtlg., Bd. 14). München 1959. XIX, 226 pp., 1 Pl. — , Zum Problem des sogenannten „konstantinischen Zeitalters“. “Trier. Theol. Ztschr.” 76 (1967) 197-216. N. S VORONOS , Le serment de fidélité à l’empereur byzantin et sa signification constitutionnelle, in: Actes VI Congr. Intern. Et. Byz., I. Paris 1950, 191-197. F. T AEGER , Charisma. Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes, I. Stuttgart 1957. 460 pp. vol. II. Stuttgart 1960. X, 718 pp. Vasilika T APKOVA -Z AIMOVA , L’idee imperiale à Byzance et la tradition étatique bulgare. “EFG;3$>3H” 3 (1971) 289-295. F. T INNEFELD , Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates. München 1971. 205 pp. C. T OUMANOFF , Caesaropapism in Byzantium and Russia. “Theol. Studies” 7 (1946) 213-243. — , Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from Old Sources. “Traditio” 10 (1954) 109-189. O. T REITINGER , Die oströmische Kaiser und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell vom Ostroemischen Staats und Reichsgedanken, II ed., Darmstdt 1956. — , (Art.) Baldachin, in: Reallex. f. Ant. u. Christent. 1 (1950) 1150-1153. — , Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell. Jena 1938 (reprinted Darmstadt 1969). XIV, 246 S. – Reviews: “r%!$K9323, +%&FX23” 14 (1938) 523-528 (D. Xanalatos); “Hist. Jahrb.” 59 (1939) 498-502 (A. Michel); “Deutsche Litztg.” 62 (1941) 170-177 (W. Enßlin); “Jahrb. Gesch. Osteur.” 5 (1940) 468-470 (B. Rubin); BZ 41 (1941) 211-223 (G. Ostrogorsky). — , Review of J.A. S TRAUB , Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike. BZ 41 (1941) 197-210. — , Vom oströmischen Staats- und Reichsgedanken. “Leipziger Vierteljahrsschr. f. Südosteur.” 4 (1940) 1-26 (reprinted: Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 247274). K. T REU , Byzantinische Kaiser in der Schreibernotizen griechischer Handschriften. BZ 65 (1972) 9-34. S. T ROIANOS , Die Sonderstellung des Kaisers im früh- und mittelbyzantinischen kirchlichen Prozeß. “EFG;3$>3H” 3 (1971) 71-80. — , +FL=&?h, !D', $h3, ~9!F3;3, $23, %6, $23, =FG;3$>323, ;U$&59;$"9`3, %;9!\&LR3`3 43"95`3, 4NNFO#!`3I, “M%!$I, JR3$9&F, M9!F3]', i#$I, r??I, >5;7&F” 12 (1965) 130168.

83

C ARILE


C. T SIRPANLIS , Byzantine Parliaments and Representative Assemblies from 1081 to 1351. “J?K9&3&L7;” 5 (1973) 28-72. — , The Imperial Coronation and Theory in “De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae” of Constantine VII Porphyrogennitus. J?K9&3&L7; 4 (1972) 63-91. P. V ACZY , Culte imperial et adoration chrétienne des images. “Studi Biz. e Neoell.” 7 (Atti VIII Congr. Internaz. Studi Biz. Palermo) (1953). A. V ASILIEV , Harun-ibn-Yahya and his description of Constantinople, “Seminarium Kondakovianum” 5 (1932) 149-163. J. V ERPEAUX , Contribution a l’etude de l’administration byzantine:, L!#HG`3. “Byzantinoslavica” 16 (1955) 270-296. — , (ed): Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des offices. Paris 1966. 420 pp. G. V ESPIGNANI , Simbolismo magia e sacralità dello spazio circo, Bologna 1994. — , Il circo e le fazioni del circo nella storiografia bizantinistica recente, in “Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi,” 5 (1985), pp. 61-103. — , Il circo di Costantinopoli Nuova Roma, Spoleto 2001, pp. 230. A. V OGT (ed.), Constantin VII Porphyrogenete, Le livre des cérémonies. I: Livre I, chapitres 1-46 (37). Texte. Paris 1935. XI, 183. Commentaire. Paris 1935. XXXIII, 194 pp., 2 Pl. II: Livre I, chapitres 47 (38)-92(83). Texte. Paris 1939. XI, dopple pages 193. Commentaire. Paris 1940. XVI, 205 pp., 1 Pl. – Cfr. BZ 37 (1937) 126130 and 41 (1941) 453-455. J. V OGT , Bemerkungen zum Gang der Constantinforschung, in: Mullus. Festschrift Th. Klauser (Jahrb. Ant. u. Christent., Erg.-Bd. 1). Münster 1964, 374-379. — , Constantin der Große und sein Jahrhundert. München 1949 (1960). 303 pp., 16 Pl. — , (Art.) Constantinus der Große, in: Reallex. f. Ant. u. Christent. 3 (1957 [1956]) 306-379. — , Konstantin der Große und das Christentum. Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der Forschung (Schriftenreihe des Internationalen Konstantinordens 2). MännedorfZürich 1960. 9 pp. K. V OIGT , Staat und Kirche von Kostantin dem Großen bis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit, Stuttgart 1936; reprinted Aalen 1965, X, 460 pp. – Cf. “Gnomon” 14 (1938) 211-217 (W. Enßlin). D.P. W ALKER , Spiritual and demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella, London 1958, 1969 2a ed. C. W ALTER , The Coronation of a Co-Emperor in Skylitzes Matritensis, in: ResumesCommunications XIV Congr. Intern. Et. Byz. Bucarest. Bukarest 1971, 120-121. T. W ASILEWSKI , La place de l’état russe converti dans l’Europe chrétienne, in Il battesimo delle terre russe. Bilancio di un millennio, a cura di S. Graciotti, Firenze 1991, 56-58. P.R.C. W EAVER , Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge 1972. XII, 330 pp.

84

C ARILE


A. W IFSTRAND , Autokrator, Kaisar, Basileus, in: mYuY, Martino P. Nilsson ... dedicatum. Lund 1939, 529-539. R.M. W OOLLEY , Coronation Rites (The Cambridge Handbooks of Liturgical Study). Cambridge 1915. XVI, 207 pp. F.A. Y ATES , Astrea. L’idea di impero nel Cinquecento, tr. it. di E. Busaglia, Torino 1978. G. Z ECCHINI , Il pensiero politico romano. Dall’età arcaica alla tarda antichità, Roma 1997, pp. 181. A.W. Z IEGLER , Die byzantinische Religionspolitik und der sog. Caesaropapismus, in: Münchener Beiträge zur Slavenkunde. Festgabe für P. Diels (Veröff. Osteuropa-Inst. München 4). München 1953, 81-97.

85

C AVALLINI

E LEONORA C AVALLINI

F ROM M AZZARINO UNTIL T ODAY

Ravenna

From Mazzarino until Today: Italian Studies between East and West

he first edition of Santo Mazzarino’s Fra Oriente e Occidente (published in 1947) contains the last echoes of the contest provoked by the so-called “neo-humanists,” and particularly by the “third humanism,” which had contamined classicism with racism, and substantially denied any influence of the Oriental cultures upon ancient Greece: on the contrary, the neo-humanism (particularly represented, from this point of view, by Helmut Berve’s Griechische Geschichte, 1934) had claimed the originality and purity of the Greek people, as Indo-European and predestined to lay the foundations of modern German culture. This idea is strongly affirmed by Berve, who, in countering Victor Ehrenberg’s objection that the unity of ancient history had to be seeked in the tension between East and West, said that in such a way one would lose the sense of the ‘nordic’ function of Greek history and of its importance in mondial history (“Philologische Wochenschrift” 1937, p. 650). In Berve’s reconstruction, the search of the peculiar values of the Greek people threatened to become a sort of determinism, which assigned fixed and unchanging roles to each people, depending upon their respective, predetermined ‘missions.’ 1 When Mazzarino’s book appeared, the neo-humanists had almost completely lost their battle. The evidence of a clear

T

turnabout is given, for example, by Robert Cohen’s handbook (published 1934). In his Introduction to the Histoire grecque (written with Gustav Glotz and Pierre Roussel), Cohen described the Greek as “a small people… that had come out late of the Balcanic woods” and “settled at the crossing of the roads bound to Europe and Asia, in the very heart of the most ancient cultures in the world. Soon this people – he continues – drew the best from all those cultures.” Cohen’s approach to the study of Greek history is, on the one hand, the aknowledgement of the peculiar Greek talent, but on the other hand it assumes that the Greek culture should be viewed as a ‘melting pot’ of various influences. Nevertheless, another important work of that period (that is to say Victor Ehrenberg’s Ost und West, Prag 1934) still shows the influence of the neohumanist positions, even if it offers a very well-balanced and measured interpretation of the neo-humanist thought. Ehrenberg insists on the differences and the contrasts between Eastern and Western cultures; besides, he does not point out enough the so-called “dark centuries” and the archaic period, but lays stress especially to the Persian Wars, to Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. In 1947, Mazzarino’s book faced quite

1

Jahrhunderts (1930), one of the corner-stones of the Nazi propaganda.

From this point of view, Berve’s vision appears to be influenced by A. Rosenberg’s Der Mythus des 20


87

C AVALLINI


a lot of questions that Ehrenberg’s work had not answered. In particular, Mazzarino identified the two ways of communication and interaction between East and West, that is to say “the Microasiatic way” (Anatolia, Lydia, Lycia, Troas) and the “insular way” (or “the way of the alphabet,” which was introduced into Greece by the Phoenicians during their trades with the islands of the Mediterranean sea). The innovative challenge of the book consisted in analyzing, in a critical and impartial way, a very complicated and disperded documentation, and in elaborating, on the basis of such data, a general definition of the problem and of the ways of discussing it. However – because of the intrinsecal scarceness of the documentary background – interpretative mediation, keen intuition and personal capacity to organize and synthesize the matter played a key role in the various stages of the research. The peculiarity of Mazzarino’s work consisted in going deeply into the analysis of some detailed exegetical questions and then in gathering and connecting the single arguments in a comprehensive overall vision. The author himself was conscious of the methodological problems and difficulties which his work involved. In the Introduction (p. 3), Mazzarino wrote: “These researchs… are not independent from one another, but mean to face the problem of the relations between Orient and Greece on the whole.” Even in the most specialized and erudite treatment of the single subjects, the author never loses touch with his fundamental purpose, but pursues it with constant attention: and his purpose, as said, is to point out the central role of the cultural link between East and West in the development of Greek history. Just by recognizing the connexion and the tension between the

88

two worlds, Mazzarino identified a substantial unity not only in the Greek history, but in the Ancient history as a whole, this unity consisting in an uninterrupted sequence of exchanges and interactions, beginning from the ‘gift’ of the alphabet, introduced by the Phoenicians, to finish with the ‘gift’ of Christianity during the Roman Era. In particular, as regards the period which coincides with the ‘archaic’ Greek history, and which represents the predominant subject-matter of the research, the author identified in the Microasiatic Area the principal scenery of the birth and of the development of the dialogue between East and West: a point of contact and cohabitation, of stimulating encounters, but also of opposition and elaboration of different cultural and political patterns. Here, in the perspective of an ancient, Microasiatic “koiné,” Mazzarino tried to get beyond the old historiographical contrasts between those who asserted the absolute peculiarity of the Greek culture as compared with the Oriental world, and those who, on the other hand, preferred to qualify the Greek experience as a particular moment of a global and unitary historical process. As we have seen, Fra Oriente e Occidente ascribed a particular importance to Minor Asia: but above all to Ionia, which is the mirror and the ensign-bearer of the Anatolic Greek people. Here, in a favourable climate of cultural exchanges, the Microasiatic Greek not only acquired from the Oriental world a lot of important “emprunts”; they realized their most peculiar and exclusive creation, a political pattern which finds no match in the other ancient cultures: that is to say, the polis as independent constitutional entity. Ionia was not a politically weak area, as some neo-humanists claimed; on the contrary, it was the place of birth of the

C AVALLINI

most original political discovery of the Greek people. The research about the “via di terra,” i.e. the Microasiatic way, has a leading role in Mazzarino’s book. However, although in minor terms, the author also refers to the other way, “la via del mare” or of the alphabet, by means of which the Phoenicians could act as mediators between East and West and convey some important artifacts and cultural items from the far and inner East to the Greek islands and to the continental Greece itself. In the following years, Ehrenberg’s position generally found more favour than Mazzarino’s one, especially in some countries, such as Italy, where the ideal of the ‘classicism’ persisted for a long time also after the 2nd World War Era. Nevertheless, in 1951 the University of Pisa published the first issue of the periodical “Studi Classici e Orientali,” with contributions of the Greek historian Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli and other scholars (especially archaeologists), who showed a deep interest in the Aegean archaic cultures and in the links between the Eastern civilizations and the socalled ‘Classical antiquity.’ In the tenth issue (1961), an article by the archaeologist Silvio Ferri, entitled Tracce di una koinè greco-anatolica nel secondo millennio a.C., substantially corroborated Mazzarino’s arguments about the existence of a cultural koiné in the Anatolic region, where the Ahhijawa, i.e. the Homeric Achaeans, could have cohabited with the Hittites about the half of the second Millenium B.C. Starting from the archaeological evidence, Ferri argued that the hypothesis of a historicalethnographic koiné in the Bronze Age could be supported by linguistic elements, in particular by the presence of peculiar Greek (and Italic) toponymes in


the Caucasic region and on the coasts of the Black Sea. In the Seventies, Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli and the other authors of Storia e civiltà dei Greci declared their intent of abandoning the traditional (that is to say, the so-called ‘neo-humanist’) interpretation of classical antiquity. In his Presentation of this important work, which aimed at offering a wide and comprehensive view of Greek culture (including social and political history, figurative art, literature and philosophy), Bandinelli wrote: “The Storia e civiltà dei Greci intends to offer, by means of a systematic exposition of the culture and of the social and economic history, the essential information for the acquisition of an updated knowledge of those themes which still contribute to make ancient Greece a fundamental element of our modern civilization. Although we confirm this acknowledgement, in this work we will not follow the traditional interpretation of the classical antiquity: that is to say, the so-called ‘humanist’ interpretation” (p. VII). Bandinelli also remarked that such an interpretation, generally supported by a thorough knowledge of the philological technique, had been used (sometimes in a very explicit way) to sustain conceptions deriving from the conservative viewpoint that had prevailed in the 19th century. In the Introduction to the first part of the first volume, dedicated to the socalled “Greek Middle-Age,” Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli insisted on the preeminent role of Anatolia in the birth and development of the archaic Greek culture. Pugliese Carratelli reaffirmed the importance of that “melting pot of peoples and civilizations that was Minor Asia in the second Millennium before Christ,” and particularly on the close link between the complex and composite

89

C AVALLINI


Anatolic civilization, dominated by the Hittites, and the Minoic one, which in its turn was destined to influence the Greek insular and peninsular populations around the half of the second Millennium. The fourth chapter of the first volume is entitled L’età orientalizzante, with particular reference to the archaeological and artistic point of view. This section also contains Lorenzo Braccesi’s documented discussion of that political phaenomenon called ‘tyranny,’ which he views as quite different from the Oriental concept of autocratic power, even though the Greek tradition associates the Hellenic tyranny with the Lydian king Gyges. As for Greek Literature, an important contribution is Bruno Gentili’s thorough and original study of some ‘orientalizing’ poets such as Alcman, Sappho and Anacreon. Just few years before (1975), Arnaldo Momigliano had written in English, and published in Cambridge, his book Alien Wisdom, dedicated to Persian culture and religion as seen and interpretated by the Greeks. But just in the same year, in Italy, the “Fondazione Lorenzo Valla” had issued Filippo Cassola’s important edition of the Inni Omerici, where the author illustrated the Oriental origin of most Greek deities. In treating this subject, Cassola often referred to the latest archaeological discoveries and to some specific studies of the Fifties and Sixties, such as the Proceedings of the Colloque de Strasbourg (1958) about Éléments orientaux dans la religion grecque ancienne (published in Paris 1960). An exemplarly case is represented by the goddess Aphrodite, who is denominated Ourania or “celestial” in many places (see Pindar fr. 122,4s., Herodotus I 105, 2-3, Pausanias 1,14,7), “armed” in Corinth, Sparta and Cythera (Pausanias 2,5,1;

90

3,15,10; 3,23,1) but also in Cyprus (Hesychius s.v. !"#$%&), and is surrounded by hierodoulai or sacred prostitutes at least in Cyprus (see Pseudo-Apollodorus III 182, with reference to the myth of Kinyras’ daughters) and in Corinth (see Pind. fr. 122, Athenaeus 573c-574c, SEG XI 145). From these characters, Aphrodite clearly emerges as the Greek interpretation of the Phoenician Astarte: as a matter of fact, Astarte is the “queen of heaven” (see Jeremiah 7,18; 44,17,25), but also a “warrior” and advisor to the king in the administration of the political power. Moreover, the cult of Astarte includes the characteristic custom of the sacred prostitution. But Astarte is the Phoenician counterpart of the Sumeric Inanna and of the Assyrian Ishtar or Mylitta, whose cult was introduced into Greece by the Phoenicians as they crossed the ‘maritime way’ (Cyprus, Cythera), but probably was also conveyed through the ‘Microasiatic way’ and particularly through the Troas, as we can infer from the myth of Aphrodite and Anchyses. As Cassola pointed out, the Anatolic and the Chypriot cult of Aphrodite were independent from one another: in fact, the Greek of Cypros identified their goddess with the Astarte of Ascalon and Byblos, whereas the Ionians identified her with the Mesopotamic, Hittite and Phrygian Kybebe (see Hipponax fr. 125 Degani, where Kybebe is called – with a peculiar syncretistic operation – '$(&) *%+,-, i.e. “daughter of Zeus”; moreover, see Charon of Lampsachus 262 F 5 J.). In this case, and in many other cases, Cassola confirms Mazzarino’s basic idea of a double communication way between East and West. Finally, Mazzarino’s book returned to the limelight: the second edition appeared in 1989, with a strong and provoking introduction by Cassola himself,

C AVALLINI

who shows how Fra Oriente e Occidente continues to be an important, intense, stimulating book. Fra Oriente e Occidente still offers quite a lot of subjects for a discussion; but above all, the book’s general statement of the problems is still valid, also on the basis of the latest archaeological data.


The reprinting of Fra Oriente e Occidente was an important turning point, which could open new horizons to the Italian studies on antiquity, in spite of some rigorously ‘classicistic’ positions which still appear to have quite a lot followers in our country.

91

C HIODI

S ILVIA M ARIA C HIODI

E RACLE TRA O RIENTE E O CCIDENTE

Roma

Eracle tra Oriente e Occidente

L

a doppia natura di Eracle, eroe e dio, ha da sempre appassionato gli studiosi del mondo antico e molto è stato scritto sulle sue origini orientali, ravvisate in Mesopotamia, 1 Fenicia ed Egitto… La spinta iniziale di queste analisi fu data dagli stessi antichi, da Erodoto che, nelle sue Storie, non lo considerò un

eroe e un dio greco, ma uno straniero. 2 Nella ricerca della patria natia di Eracle, gli studiosi contemporanei hanno posto l’attenzione su numerosi aspetti: da quelli propriamente iconografici a quelli, invece, che toccavano la sua natura, la sua ambivalente condizione di dio e di eroe, le sue fatiche, la sua vittoria sulla

1

dimostrerebbero due monete di questo periodo trovate a Tarso in cui è incisa la legenda «Nrgl Trz» «Nergal di Tarso». In ambedue il dio è raffigurato con arco, lancia o scettro ed in una è rappresentato ritto su un leone. Questa iconografia richiama quella contemporanea di Eracle incisa su due monete di Cipro (Lapéthos). Secondo Lipinski, questo parallelismo iconografico e temporale escluderebbe l’ipotesi nel processo sincretistico di una mediazione del dio fenicio Melqart. W. Burkert, Mito e rituale in Grecia, 132, a sua volta ricorda che la morte di Eracle sul rogo del monte Oeta ha il suo corrispettivo a Tarso nell’incendio del dio Santas/Sandas/Sandes, alias Eracle e, aggiungiamo noi, dato che anche di Melqart le fonti ci informano del suo «passare per il fuoco», gli studiosi discutono, anche in questo caso, se sia possibile stabilire una connessione tra Eracle-Melqart-Nergal. Discussa è anche l’ipotesi di un’identificazione di Nergal con Melqart (la versione della Lista di E. F. Weidner in Altababylonische Götterlisten, in Archiv für Keilschriftforschungen 2 (1924-25), 1-18 e 71-82 identifica dma-lik a dU.GUR) in diversi siti fenici: ricordo tra gli altri, oltre Tarso, Palmira e Hatra di cui abbiamo già detto, anche Ibiza, Akko, Cartagine; Tharros, Thasos. Che, in terra Fenicia si praticasse il culto di Nergal non deve certo stupire, in quanto, come testimonia la Bibbia, in II Re 17, 24.30 (ricordato da H. Donner - W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, II (Wiesbaden 1968), 72-73), i cittadini di Khuta furono mandati dagli assiri a Samaria e lì hanno praticato il culto di Nergal, e come si legge in un’iscrizione su sigillo del II millennio, trovato a Tell Ta‘annek, un certo Atna -ili si definisce «servitore di Nergal» (E. Sellin, Tell Ta‘annek 1 (1904) Abb. 22). 2 Le possibili patrie di Eracle sono, secondo Erodoto, Le Storie, II, 43-44, l’Egitto, Tiro e Taso.

Sono state notate, a tal proposito, delle somiglianze, purtroppo mute, in quanto iconografiche, tra le imprese di Eracle e quelle di divinità della terra tra i due fiumi, identificate dagli studiosi come Ninurta o Ningirsu. Sono stati evidenziati, inoltre, dei paralleli tra le fatiche di Ercole con le vicende accorse al re di Uruk, Gilgameš, e che sono narrate nell’Epopea di Gilgameš. Molte di queste attestazione sono riportate da W. Burkert in Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley 1979), trad. it. di F. Nuzzaco, Mito e rituale in Grecia. Struttura e storia (Milano 1992), 128 sgg. Nel chiedersi se Eracle possa essere considerato un’importazione dell’Oriente del VII secolo lo studioso sottolinea, tra le altre cose, che «… la prima e rozza immagine di una lotta col leone, su un piedistallo di tripode del tardo periodo geometrico proveniente da Atene, che è quasi contemporaneo al primo documento di scrittura greca, è di derivazione orientale, sebbene si possa a buon diritto pensare che rappresenti Eracle» (p. 132). Egli ricorda, inoltre, che nel 1939 Frankfort ipotizzò tale migrazione nel III millennio mentre nel 1958 Brudege avanzò l’ipotesi che essa si diffuse, da Tiro alla Lidia, nella prima metà del bronzo (p. 133, n. 28). La menzione di Tiro apre il problema relativo alla possibile mediazione fenicia. Il culto di Nergal in terra greca è, con certezza, attestato nel III secolo a.C. in una iscrizione bilingue, greca-fenicia, trovata nel Pireo, CIS I, 119 = KAI 59, e su cui ci soffermeremo nel prosieguo del lavoro. Tra le tante ipotesi, includenti od escludenti tale mediazione, si ricorda quella avanzata da Lipinski in Dieux et Déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique (Leuven 1995), 242-243. Lo studioso belga, nel soffermarsi sull’assimilazione in epoca greco-romana di Nergal con Eracle – attestata a Palmira, Hatra e a Tarso –, afferma che probabilmente l’identificazione fra i due dèi risale almeno al V secolo a.C., come


93

C HIODI


morte, il suo nome 3 ... In questo lavoro ci si soffermerà su quest’ultimo aspetto e sui rapporti di Eracle con il mesopotamico Nergal, ambedue, seppur in maniera diversa, vincitori del funesto destino di morte.

Come è noto, la divinità di Eracle è affermata per la prima volta nell’Odissea, più precisamente nel Libro XI, dove con queste parole Omero fa narrare ad Ulisse il suo incontro con il mitico personaggio:

E poi conobbi la grande forza di Eracle, ma la parvenza sola: lui tra i numi immortali gode il banchetto, possiede Ebe caviglia bella, figlia del gran Zeus e di Era sandali d’oro. 4

Il passo è stato ritenuto da alcuni studiosi interpolato. Rohde, ad esempio, sottolineò che «chi scrisse questo trattava la teologia a modo suo: né Omero né i Greci posteriori conoscono affatto questa opposizione tra un «se stesso», che vive pienamente ed è quindi costituito dall’unione di anima e corpo, ed un vuoto «simulacro» che non può essere l’anima, confinato nell’Ade», 5 anche se, nota ancora, la «… distinzione tra un eíd lon dall’autos, pienamente vivente, è molto simile ciò che Stesicoro e già Esiodo (v. Paraphras. Antiq. Lycophr., 822, p. 71 Scheer; cf. Bergk, P. Lyr. 4 , III, p. 215) hanno raccontato di Elena e del suo eíd lon. Forse questa favola ha dato la spinta all’introduzione dei versi 602 sgg 6 ». Secondo lo studioso inglese G.S. Kirk quanto si afferma nell’Odissea in merito alla parvenza, all’eíd lon di Eracle ha come scopo quello di «conciliare la versione secondo la quale Eracle era morto e disceso nell’Ade come tutti con l’idea contraddittoria, che non compare altrove

nell’Iliade e nell’Odissea, che era asceso all’Olimpo, aveva sposato Ebe e sarebbe vissuto in eterno. C’è una situazione esattamente simile in una poema frammentario di Esiodo, le Ehoiai o Catalogo delle donne». 7 Di conseguenza «L’idea di trasformare Eracle in un dio non sembra molto antica, non anteriore al VII secolo a.C. … perché i poemi omerici asseriscono due volte specificamente che egli era mortale …». 8 Inoltre «L’Odissea venne composta nella sua monumentale forma primaria intorno al 700 a.C., ma sembra che poco dopo venissero fatte delle aggiunte ai libri XI e XXIV… Ecco perché il VII secolo appare il periodo più probabile per l’emergere di Eracle come dio. Questa idea è universalmente attestata nell’arte e nella letteratura a partire dal VI secolo». 9 Sia che si voglia considerare o meno il passo un’interpolazione – questione questa che tocca il problema relativo a quando Eracle fu considerato dio10 e se divenne tale dopo la sua morte, come attesta poco

3 Secondo l’interpretazione greca Eracle significherebbe «gloria di Era», mentre, per quella orientale, deriverebbe dal nome di un dio mesopotamico: Nergal o Erra. Si veda, a tal proposito, W. Burkert, Mito e rituale in Grecia, 133 e n. 27. 4 Odissea, libro XI, rr. 601-604, trad. it. di R. Calzecchi Onesti (Milano 1976), 199. 5 E. Rohde, Psyche. Seelncult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen (Freiburg im Breisgau 19801984), trad. it. di E. Codignola e A. Oberdorfer, Psyche. Culto delle anime presso i Greci, I (Bari 1982), 63. 6 E. Rohde, Psyche, 63 n. 2.

7

94

G.S. Kirk, The Nature of Greek Myths (Harmondsworth 1974), trad. it. di M. Carpitella, La natura dei miti greci (Bari 1984), 185. 8 G.S. Kirk, La natura dei miti greci, 184. 9 G.S. Kirk, La natura dei miti greci, 186. 10 Secondo E. Rohde, Psyche, 187: «Fra gli dèi venne innalzato dalla fede Ercole, che Omero non conosceva ancora come «eroe», nel senso moderno, e che in parecchi luoghi si continuò anche di poi a venerare sotto forma di «eroe». Esculapio veniva considerato ora eroe, ora dio, ciò che era stato fin da principio (nella nota 3 scrive: «Anche Achille è venerato p. es.

C HIODI

dopo Esiodo nell’Ehoiai, mentre su questo punto vi è il silenzio più assoluto in Omero, il quale si limita a registrare la presenza della parvenza di Eracle nell’Ade 11 – rimane aperto il problema, sottolineato da Rohde di questa estranea opposizione, nel mondo greco, tra «un se stesso» e il simulacro, 12 per cui non è fuor di luogo domandarci se questa sia ravvisabile nella teologia mesopotamica. Come si cercherà di dimostrare, tale dicotomia è rintracciabile nella figura di Nergal, anche se vi sono delle differenze sostanziali ravvisabili, soprattutto, in quella che potremmo chiamare «storia» di Eracle. Ovvero, se Eracle fu, come ipotizza Kirk, nell’ipotetica originaria cultura greca considerato un eroe che dopo la morte, per veleno o sul rogo, divenne dio, si deve, allora, subito ricorda-


re che differentemente da lui Nergal nasce e rimane dio. Le fonti mesopotamiche, che permettono di avanzare tale ipotesi, sono diverse; tra queste, tre sono di primaria rilevanza. La prima si trova in un passo tratto dal poemetto sumerico Gilgameš, Enkidu e gli Inferi, la seconda è la sua traduzione accadica, contenuta nella Tavola XI dell’Epopea classica di Gilgameš, la terza è la versione di Sultantepe e di Uruk di Nergal ed Ereškigal. Esse attestano, a tal proposito e come vedremo, due differente ideologie. Gilgameš, si racconta alle rr. 225-229 del poemetto sumerico, così si rivolse al capo del pantheon, Enlil, quando il suo servo Enkidu venne trattenuto negli Inferi perché non aveva seguito i consigli del re di Uruk:

«[Padr]e Enlil, [mi è scivolato] il pukku negli Inferi, il mekku mi è scivolato negli Inferi! Enkidu, che era andato (per prendermeli), l’hanno trattenuto agli Inferi! Non lo trattiene Namtar, non lo trattiene Asakku, lo trattengono gli Inferi! Non lo trattiene il divino spirito (dgidim) di Nergal, che non risparmia, lo trattengono gli Inferi! Non cadde in battaglia, lo trattengono gli Inferi.

Nell’invocazione ripetuta con identiche parole anche davanti al dio Enki, il dio della saggezza, si afferma, alla r. 228, che nell’aldilà non risiede Nergal in persona, ma «il divino spirito di Nergal», « d g i d i m - d n è - e r i 11 - g á l ». Da ciò si

possono trarre due ipotesi: a) Nergal, come tutti coloro che hanno varcato la soglia degli Inferi, siano essi uomini o divinità, è diventato uno spirito, un fantasma. Egli vive nell’aldilà in una condizione simile a quella di un

ora come dio, ora come eroe»). Ed a qualche altro eroicizzato si cominciò a sacrificare “come ad un dio,” non senza influenza probabilmente dell’oracolo delfico, che almeno per Licurgo pare abbia iniziato il passaggio dalla venerazione eroica alla divinità. I limiti fra eroe e dio cominciarono a confondersi, e non raramente un eroe di autorità locale limitatissima vien designato come “dio,” senza che si debba pensare per ciò ad una vera e propria elevazione al rango divino e alla mutuazione quindi del rito sacrificale, che ne sarebbe dovuta seguire. La dignità eroica pareva manifestamente già un po’ scemata, se pure non era giunto ancora il tempo in cui denominare un morto “eroe” non significava quasi più distinguerlo dagli altri morti». 11 A tal proposito E. Rohde, Psyche, 63 sottolinea «Ulisse getta uno sguardo nell’interno del regno dei morti, cosa propriamente impossibile poiché egli se

ne stava all’ingresso e vi scorge figure d’eroi che continuano l’occupazione cui si erano dedicati una volta in vita, come veri “simulacri” (eíd la) dei viventi: Minosse che giudica le anime, Orione che caccia, Ercole con l’arco sempre teso in mano e la freccia incoccata “simile ad uno che continuamente saetti.” Non è questi Ercole, l’“eroe-dio” dei tempi posteriori: il poeta non sa ancora che il figlio di Giove fu innalzato sulla comune sorte de’ mortali, come il primo poeta del viaggio all’Ade non sa ancora nulla del rapimento di Achille dall’Ade. Il che naturalmente doveva sembrare alla maggior parte dei lettori un’omissione. Ed essi hanno così inserito sfacciatamente tre versi». 12 Per quanto concerne le critiche rivolte all’interpretazione, avanzata da Rhode, della psyche omerica e dell’eíd lon si veda G. Reale, Corpo, anima e salute (Milano 1999), 81 sg. ed, in questo contributo, la n. 17. 95

C HIODI


morto comune, anche se il suo spirito è divinizzato come ci fa comprendere la presenza del d i n g i r davanti al termine g i d i m . Eppure, sappiamo che Nergal era anche considerato un importante dio del cielo e che si muoveva liberamente tra questi due reami. Non ci rimane, allora, che la seconda possibilità. b) In cielo si trovava il dio in persona, mentre negli Inferi vi era solo il suo divino g i d i m. Questa seconda ipotesi, non solo si inserirebbe nella concezione relativa all’aldilà, come luogo di residenza degli spiriti, ma, in un certo qual modo precede, nonostante alcune e per certi versi sostanziali differenze teologiche, quello che la redazione più recente del mito di Nergal ed Ereškigal espone, e di cui parleremo in seguito, e di quanto si evince da un testo, tradotto alcuni anni fa da W.G. Lambert 13 e recentemente ritradotto da G. Pettinato, 14 relativo alla prigionia di Ningizzida nell’aldilà e alla sua liberazione per mezzo di una statua. 15 La dicotomia, purtroppo solo accennata nel testo sumerico, del dio Nergal richiama quella tratteggiata nell’Odissea di Eracle anche se vi è un’importante differenza. Mentre, infatti, nel passo greco prima citato si afferma che negli inferi vi è l’eíd lon, non la psyche di Eracle, in quello sumerico si legge che lì si trova il divino g i d i m, ovvero il divino spirito – che corrisponde per certi aspetti alla psyche omerica –, di Nergal. Questo dato ci conduce a porci le seguenti domande: qual è, in Omero, il rapporto tra l’eíd lon e la

psyche? Vi è, in sumerico, un lemma corrispondente all’eíd lon greco? Secondo Vernant «In Omero esistono... tre modi di apparizione soprannaturale, designati con la stessa parola eíd lon. In primo luogo lo spettro, phasma, creato da un dio a somiglianza di una persona in carne ed ossa, come quello che Apollo fabbrica «uguale allo stesso Enea e identico nelle armi». Il vero Enea si trova al sicuro a Pergamo… In secondo luogo il sogno, l’immagine onirica, oneiros, concepito come l’apparizione durante il sonno di un doppio spettrale inviato dagli dèi a immagine di un essere reale… Infine e soprattutto le psychai dei morti, chiamate eíd la kamónt n, ombre dei defunti. Ci si rivolge alla psyche come ci si rivolgerebbe alla persona in carne ed ossa; la psyche ne ha l’esatta apparenza, pur essendo priva di esistenza reale, il che la rende, nella sua somiglianza con l’essere di cui ha assunto l’aspetto, paragonabile ad un ombra o a un sogno, a un soffio di fumo». 16 La psyche, in quanto eíd lon, si caratterizza, dunque, come il fantasma del defunto, il suo doppio che, «nel momento in cui si mostra presente, rivela anche la sua appartenenza a un inaccessibile altrove, il suo non essere di questo mondo» 17 così, ad esempio, essa viene delineata in un famosissimo passo dell’Iliade (libro XXIII, 72) dove viene magistralmente descritta l’apparizione di Patroclo morto al dormiente Achille:

13

27-28, ed anche, «Mi scusi: qual è la via per l’aldilà», in G. Pettinato (a cura), I miti degli Inferi AssiroBabilonesi (Brescia 2003), 44-45. 16 J.P. Vernant, Entre mythe et politique, 1996, trad. it. di A. Ghilardotti, Tra mito e politica (Milano 1998), 275-76. 17 J.P. Vernant, Tra mito e politica, 277. G. Reale, Corpo, anima e salute, 82, scrive a tal proposito: «La psyche, in verità, non rappresenta affatto un «altro io», come pensava Rohde, bensì … il «non essere più

W.G. Lambert, «A new Babylonian Descent to the Netherworld», in Abusch, T. - Steinkeller, P. (eds.), Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of W.L. Moran (Atlanta 1990), 289-300. 14 G. Pettinato, I miti degli Inferi Assiro-Babilonesi (Brescia 2003), 126-28. 15 Si veda a questo proposito della scrivente, «Introduzione», in G. Pettinato, Nergal ed Ereškigal. Il poema assiro-babilonese degli Inferi (Roma 2000), 96

C HIODI


Ed ecco a lui venne l’anima (psyche) del misero Patroclo, gli somigliava in tutto, grandezza, occhi belli, voci, e vesti uguali vestiva sul corpo; gli stette sopra la testa e gli parlò parola: «Tu dormi, Achille, e ti scordi di me: mai, vivo, mi trascuravi, ma mi trascuri da morto. Seppelliscimi in fretta, e passerò le porte dell’Ade. Lontano mi tengono le anime, fantasmi (eíd la) di morti, non vogliono che tra loro mi mescoli di là dal fiume, ma erro così, per la casa larghe porte dell’Ade». 18 (…) «Perché, testa cara, sei venuto fin qui e mi comandi queste cose a una a una? Sì, certo compirò tutto quanto, obbedirò come chiedi: ma vieni vicino e almeno un istante, abbracciàti, godiamoci il pianto amaro a vicenda!» Tese le braccia, parlando così, ma non l’afferrò: l’anima come fumo sotto la terra sparì stridendo; saltò su Achille, stupito, batté le mani insieme e disse mesta parola: «Ah! C’è dunque, anche nella dimora dell’Ade, un’ombra, un fantasma (eíd lon), ma dentro non c’è più la mente. Tutta la notte l’ombra del misero Patroclo m’è stata intorno, gemendo e piangendo: molte cose ordinava. Gli somigliava prodigiosamente». 19

Non è fuor luogo ricordare che l’espressione usata dall’aedo greco per delineare come l’anima di Patroclo comunicò ad Achille sia analoga a quelle che si trova

nei documenti sumerici, come ad esempio nel Cilindro A di Gudea, governatore di Lagaš attorno al 2200 a.C., dove alle righe 5-6 della Colonna IX si legge:

Per la seconda volta a colui che dormiva, a colui che dormiva, egli (il dio Ningirsu) stette sopra la testa e comunicò con lui. 20

dell’io», la sua negazione: un suo permanere emblematico appunto nella dimensione del «non più», del «non più vivo». Walter Otto indica giustamente nella psyche omerica una rappresentazione dell’«essere dell’essere stato». A ragione scrive: «I morti sono sì soltanto ombre, ma non per questo non sono. Essi hanno un loro proprio modo d’essere e possono perfino … destarsi per qualche attimo, riprendendo coscienza e parola, non però possibilità d’azione. Non si tratta di una prosecuzione della vita, perché, quello proprio dei morti, è l’essere dell’essere stato. I Greci hanno capito che l’essere stato è esso stesso essere nel senso vero e proprio della parola». I Sumeri prima e gli Accadi poi, diversamente dai Greci, non solo concepirono ciò che resta dell’essere umano cosciente, ma anche in grado di agire. 18 Iliade, Libro XXIII, rr. 65-74, trad. it. di R. Calzecchi Onesti (Milano 1977), 421-422. 19 Iliade, Libro XXIII, rr. 94-107, trad. it. di R. Calzecchi Onesti, 422-423.

20 Trad. it. di G. Pettinato, in S.M. Chiodi - G. Pettinato, «Sogni rituali nella Lagaš presargonica» in P. Negri Scafa - P. Gentili (a cura), Donum Natalicium. Studi in onore di C. Saporetti in occasione del suo 60° compleanno (Roma 2000), 201-212. Una simile e più antica espressione si ritrova nella Stele degli Avvoltoi di Eannatum, VI 18 sgg.: A lui che giace, a lui che giace, egli si appressò alla testa; a lui che giace, a Eannatum, il [suo ama]to signore [Ningirsu], si appressò alla testa. (Trad. di G. Pettinato, I Re di Sumer (Brescia 2003), 149-150). Per quanto concerne l’interscambio culturale tra il mondo vicino orientale e quello greco è interessante sottolineare che Omero per descrivere l’aspetto, la figura dell’essere umano utilizza il lemma démas, da lui usato solo all’accusativo di relazione (si veda a tal proposito B. Snell, La cultura greca e le origini del pensiero europeo, 24, J.P. Vernant, «Corps obscur, corps éclant», in L’individu, la mort, l’amour (Paris

97

C HIODI


Diversamente dal passo greco è un dio, non un fantasma, colui che comunica con il governatore, ma interessante rimane il dato che per esprimere il gesto del dio che trasmette il messaggio oracolare venga usata, come in Omero, l’espressione «stare sopra la testa». Il fatto di utilizzare gli stessi stereotipi letterari porta a pensare che l’interscambio tra mondo orientale e mondo greco non si sia fermato alla sola trasmissione del pensiero, ma va ben oltre, per cui non è inverosimile cercare un punto di contatto ideologico tra il concetto di psyche omerica e quella sumerica di g i d i m . La psyche, secondo Omero, dunque, assomiglia prodigiosamente al defunto, ma essa è solo un ombra, un fantasma

privo di mente ed in quanto tale è priva di corpo. Quando, infatti, Achille tese le braccia, essa «come fumo sotto la terra sparì stridendo». Anche il g i d i m , per i Sumeri, è la copia perfetta del defunto, diversamente, però, dalla psyche omerica in esso vi è ancora la mente ed, inoltre, viene delineato, stando almeno ad un passo che sarà fra poco citato, come dotato di un corpo, seppur diverso da quello terreno. 21 Secondo il poema Gilgameš, Enkidu e gli Inferi, rr. 242-254, il dio della saggezza Enki, dopo aver accolto le suppliche del re di Uruk relative ad Enkidu preso prigioniero dagli Inferi, chiese al dio Sole di aprire una finestra degli Inferi:

Ed appena questi ebbe aperto una finestra negli Inferi, il suo servo (Enkidu), come una folata di vento, venne fuori dagli Inferi.

1989), trad. it. di A. Ghilardotti, L’individuo, la morte, l’amore (Milano 2000), 5; demas dal verbo demo “significa innalzare una costruzione a ordini sovrapposti, come si fa per un muro di mattoni.” Per quanto concerne le etimologie «ad assonanze» comuni fra queste due culture si veda Burkert, Da Omero ai magi (Venezia 1999), 14 sgg.). Ora, nelle lingua accadica, per designare «la forma, la sembianza» dell’essere umano viene utilizzato il termine damtu (CAD, D, p. 74, sub voce damtu B), in ebraico damah (si veda G. Pettinato, Il rituale per la successione al trono (Roma 1992), 201 § 21 con i relativi rimandi bibliografici). L’accostamento dei lemmi: démas-damtu-damah viene spontanea. Se si dimostrasse veritiera o almeno plausibile la derivazione di tale termine greco dal semitico, per di più in un ambito così importante in quanto relativo alla persona umana, allora l’influenza vicino orientale sulla cultura greca è più profonda di quanto sospettato fino ad ora. Inoltre, G. Reale, Corpo, anima e salute, 98, sottolinea che «il termine omerico per persona è ‘testa’» ora anche in sumerico e in accadico viene usato lo stesso termine. In questo caso non si può però parlare di derivazione linguistica. Venendo alla suddivisione dei poteri tra Zeus, Poseidone e Ade, delineata nel Libro XV, alle rr. 187-193 dell’Iliade, e messa in parallelo da W. Burkert, in Da Omero ai magi, 21-22 con alcuni passi del poema babilonese Atramkhasis, si veda, della scrivente: «Rapporto cielo, terra, Inferi nel mondo mesopotamico», in S. Graziani (a cura), Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, (Istituto 98

Universitario di Napoli - Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor LXI) vol. I (Napoli 2000), 107-124. Nello stesso contributo sono ravvisati altri paralleli con le opere omeriche. F. Graf, Griechische Mythologie (München-Zürich 1985), trad. it. di C. Romani, Il mito in Grecia (Bari 19882), 6-7, ha posto, inoltre, in parallelo due frammenti, di altrettante opere, uno di Ibico e l’altro di Sofocle, in cui viene menzionata la perdita della pianta della giovinezza – che un asino, incaricato da Zeus, doveva portare agli uomini – a causa di un serpente, con quanto si narra nella XI Tav., r. 259 sgg., dell’Epopea di Gilgameš. Si veda a tal proposito della scrivente: «Immortalità e giovinezza», in Volume in onore di G. Pettinato, in stampa. Vorrei, infine, ricordare che la terminologia usata da Platone, nel Timeo 41c, per designare ciò che il demiurgo fornisce per la formazione dell’essere umano, ovvero “il seme e il pricipio,” si ritrova, pur con le debite differenze, nel prologo sumerico dell’Inno alla zappa; a tal proposito si veda della scrivente: Le concezioni dell’oltretomba presso i Sumeri (Roma 1994), 339 n. 3. 21 Sia la psyche omerica che il g i d i m sumerico, inoltre, vengono generalmente menzionati e descritti solo quando abbandonano il cadavere. Diverso è il caso dell’e#emmu; si veda a tal proposito della scrivente, Le concezioni dell’oltretomba presso i Sumeri, 359371, e della stessa «Il prigioniero e il morto. Epopea di Gilgameš. Tav. X, r. 318-320», in OA, Miscellanea II (1995), 159-171. Sulla psyche omerica si veda, tra gli altri, G. Reale, Corpo, anima e salute, 35 e 75 sgg.

C HIODI


Allora essi si abbracciarono e baciarono l’un l’altro, essi conversarono sospirando: “Hai visto gli ordinamenti degli Inferi?” “Io non te li dirò, amico mio, non te li dirò! Se io infatti, ti dicessi gli ordinamenti degli Inferi, allora tu ti sederesti e piangeresti.” “Io voglio sedermi e piangere.” “Il mio corpo, al cui contatto il tuo cuore gioiva, [ ] ...”: disse: “(il mio corpo) è mangiato dai vermi, come [un vecchio vestito]. [il mio corpo] è come una crepa della terra, pieno di polvere.” “Ahimè!”: il signore gridò, e si buttò nella polvere.

Come si evince dalle rr. 250-253, colui che appare «come una folata di vento» viene indicato come il servo, non come il fantasma, e viene considerato come dotato di un corpo, seppur diverso da quello terreno. Lo scriba accadico, nel tradurre ed in

un certo qual modo reinterpretando il passo, inglobato nella XII tavola dell’Epopea di Gilgameš, afferma che, per esaudire, parzialmente, il desiderio di Gilgameš, il dio della saggezza non si rivolse al dio del sole, ma a Nergal ed appena questi:

(…) ebbe aperto una fessura negli Inferi, lo spirito di Enkidu, come una folata di vento, uscì fuori dagli Inferi. Allora essi fecero per abbracciarsi, me non vi riuscirono; essi conversarono sospirando: “dimmi amico mio, dimmi amico mio, dimmi gli ordinamenti degli Inferi che tu hai visto” “Io non te li posso dire, amico mio, non te li posso dire! Se io infatti, ti dicessi gli ordinamenti degli Inferi che ho visto, allora [tu] ti butteresti giù e piangeresti.” “[Io] mi voglio buttare giù e piangere.” “Il mio [corp]o, che tu potevi toccare e del quale il tuo cuore gioiva, [il mio corp]o è mangiato dai vermi, come un vecchio vestito. [Il mio corpo che tu potevi to]ccare e del quale il tuo cuore gioiva, è come una crepa [del terreno,] piena di polvere.” [“Ahimè”], egli gridò e si buttò nella po]lvere. [“Ahimè”], egli gridò [e si buttò nella polvere].

La descrizione del commovente e fallimentare abbraccio richiama il passo omerico. Non è, poi, forse un caso che

qui lo scriba accadico, diversamente da quello sumerico, sottolinei che colui che appare al re di Uruk è il fantasma di 99

C HIODI


Enkidu. Il termine da lui utilizzato, contrariamente a quanto ci si sarebbe aspettato, non è e#emmu, il corrispettivo del gidim sumerico e della psyche greca, ma utukku. Generalmente utilizzato per designare lo spirito, buono o cattivo, di divinità e di uomini, utukku corrisponde al sumerico udug, un segno, quest’ultimo, molto simile a quello di gidim – per cui i due segni sono stati spesso confusi nelle traA C+E F

scrizioni degli studiosi contemporanei. Gli scribi li hanno talvolta usati come sinonimi, come si evince, ad esempio, da un passo sumerico tratto dall’Incantesimo al dio sole Utu. Alla r. 120, relativa alla sezione riguardante gli spettri che, per vari motivi, rendono, a dir poco, difficoltosa la vita dei viventi, lo scriba della fonte A ha utilizzato il lemma «u d u g », mentre quelli della fonte C e E «g i d i m »:

lú-ti-la udug ug 5 -ga-šè b[a-a]n-gi-a lú al-t[i + l]a gidim ú-ga-šè ba-gi 4 (?) x x lul-la-ta […]

l’uomo vivo si è trasformato in un u d u g / g i d i m dei morti

Purtroppo, proprio per la difficoltà di lettura dei due segni, che ha portato alla loro confusione nella trascrizione delle tavolette, è impossibile comprendere se e quali differenze intercorrevano tra i due lemmi. La descrizione che le fonti sumeriche forniscono del gidim non ci permettono, allo stato attuale degli studi, di rintracciare un termine parallelo a quello di eíd lon, anche se, da quanto è possibile comprendere, questi veniva considerato una perfetta replica del defunto, un suo duplicato dotato di un corpo non «terreno». Proprio questo dato porta a considerare il passo in cui si menziona la presenza del divino gidim di Nergal negli Inferi non lontano da quello omerico incentrato sulla presenza dell’eíd lon di Eracle nell’Ade, anche se questi deve essere inteso come un impalpabile fanta-

sma. Idea, quest’ultima rintracciabile, come si è visto, nella tradizione assirobabilonese, che ci fornisce, inoltre, diversi termini relativi alla rappresentazione dello spettro, ovvero dell’e#emmu. Tre sono, a tal proposito, i più importanti e si tratta di: ardan!n m"ti; zaq"qu/ziq"qu; šaru. 22 Il primo può essere considerato un corrispettivo dell’eíd lon omerico. Secondo The Assyrian Dictionary (d’ora in poi CAD), ardan!nu/din!nu 23 ha due possibili valori: 1) sostituto 2) spettro. Il primo lo si trova utilizzato nelle lettere (dove il termine deve essere inteso come il rappresentante, il commissario – spesso del re), e nei rituali magici di sostituzione di una persona (spesso attraverso l’utilizzo di una piccola statua). Il secondo, ovvero quello di spettro, si caratterizza come il «doppio», lo spettro della persona morta come in questo passo:

ár-da-na-an m"ti i$bassu imât Egli è stato afferrato dal «doppio» della persona morta e morità. 24

22 Per gli altri termini si veda J. Bottéro, «La mitologia della morte», in P. Xella (a cura), La mitologia della morte (Verona 1987), 57 sg. 23 Il corrispettivo sumerico di ard!nanu/din!nu è s a g , che significa anche, testa e forma dell’essere

100

umano. Tale termine si trova anche nei testi di creazione dell’essere umano. 24 Labat, TDP 108 IV 20, cfr. TDP 88 r. 6, citato dal CAD, D, sub voce din!nu, 2, p. 150.

C HIODI

Altrove viene specificato che il «doppio» altro non è che il gidim o il cattivo


e#emmu, come ad esempio:

GIDIM ár-da-na-an m"ti [i$bassu] il GIDIM, il doppio della persona morta, lo ha afferrato. 25 ša … ár-da-na-nu mi-tù e#emmu lemnu $abtuš se … il doppio della persona morta, il cattivo e!emmu, lo ha afferrato. 26

Il g i d i m /e#emmu si caratterizza, dunque, come il «doppio» della persona morta e l’espressione «GIDIM ár-da-na-an» come quella «ár-da-na-an e#emmu» ricordano quella omerica di eíd la kamónt n, ovvero di «fantasmi, ombre, repliche dei defunti» che ricorre in Odissea, XI, 476; XXIV, 14 e in Iliade XXIII, 72. Il termine ard!nanu/din!nu, inoltre, viene applicato sia ai vivi che ai morti. Nei rituali magici esso viene associato anche alla piccola statua che ha il compito di sostituire in «toto» la persona che «rappresenta»; in questo caso il lemma copre un arco semantico vicino a quello di eíd lon associato alle immagini artificiali fabbricate dall’uomo, ovvero al kolossós di cui parlano Erodoto e Pausania. 27 Venendo a zaq"qu/ziq"qu, 28 si osserva che tale termine ricopre almeno tre campi

semantici: 1) fantasma, spettro, ma anche nullità, inesistenza e idiozia; 2) posto infestato di spettri; 3) il/un dio del sogno. Tale lemma ricorre nel passo, sia sumerico che accadico, relativo al momentaneo ritorno di Enkidu sulla terra, contenuto, ricordiamo, in Gilgameš, Enkidu e gli Inferi e nella XII Tav. dell’Epopea di Gilgameš. Nella traduzione proposta da G. Pettinato si legge che Enkidu giunse al cospetto di Gilgameš «come una folata di vento», diversamente, secondo il CAD, egli si «materializzò» come un «fantasma», avvicinando, in tal modo il lemma ziq"qu a šaru nel suo quarto significato. 29 Ambedue le rese sono possibili, si deve però sottolineare che, in alcuni casi, tale termine ha valore, appunto, di vento. Venendo alla terza parola accadica, presa qui in considerazione, ovvero, šaru questa ha cinque significati, ovvero quello

25

existence, littéralement: «sont réduits à [n’être plus qu’]un souffle». Le passage est intéressant parce qu’il met l’accent sur le lien que l’on établissait entre le temple et le ou les dieu(x) qui l’habite(nt), comme si la ruine de son siège privait du même coup la divinité concerneé de son existence. Les soldats profanent les bosquets sacrés «où nul étranger n’avait jamais pénétré, ni foulé l’orée» et y mettent le feu». Nella nota 43 a p. 370 scrive: «les dieux et le déesses du pays d’Elam amnâ ana zaq"qi, littéralement: “je comptai comme un souffle.” La traduction que donnent ce passage CAD (1961), Z, p. 59a, et (1977), N1, p. 226b: “I counted [turned] their gods and goddesses as [into] powerless ghosts,” ne me semble pas rendre exactement la signification du passage, qui met plutôt l’accent sur le rôle tout à fait inexistant auquel sont réduits ces dieux chassés de leurs demeures par l’envahisseur, et qui, de ce fait, ont perdu leur efficacité et leurs pouvoir…. La traduction de zaq"qu par «souffle», à laquelle je me tiens, est la plus littérale et exprime bien l’état d’errance propre à ces dieux qui ne peuvent plus se fixer nulle part».

Ibid. 124: 26, citato dal CAD, D, sub voce din!nu, 2, p. 150. 26 ZA 45 206 IV 6 (Bogh. inc.) citato dal CAD, D, sub voce din!nu, 2, p. 150. 27 Erodoto, Le storie VI, 58 e I, 51, Pausania IV, 38. Per quanto concerne il rapporto tra eíd lon e kolossós in Erodoto ed in Pausania si veda J. P. Vernant, Figures, idoles, masques (Paris 1990), trad. it. di A. Zangara, Figure, idoli e maschere (Milano 2001), 35 sgg., dello stesso si veda anche, Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs. Etudes de psychologie historique (Paris 1971), trad. it. di M. Romano e B. Bravo, Mito e pensiero presso i Greci. Studi di psicologia storica (Torino 1978), 343 sgg. 28 zaq"qu/ziq"qu traduce il sumerico l i - i l ; l í l ; s ì g sìg; si-si-ig. 29 Elena Cassin, «Le mort: valeur er représentation en Mésopotamie ancienne», in G. Gnoli - J.P. Vernant (a cura), La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes (Cambridge 1982), 363, afferma che Assurbanipal «... se vante d’avoir anéanti les sanctuaires élamites, de sorte que les dieux e les déesses du pays n’ont plus

101

C HIODI


di: 1) vento; 2) punto cardinale, direzione; 3) aria, afflato; 4) alito, emanazione; 5) vuotezza, nullità, vanità, bugia, etc. Di

questi il valore che qui interessa è il quarto. In KAR 21, alla r. 11 relativa al defunto, si legge:

lu e#emmu ša ina $#ri nadûma IM-šú la edpu šumšu la zukru “Se è lo spirito (di qualcuno) che fu buttato fuori nella steppa, il cui “alito” non ha lasciato il corpo, il cui nome non è stato menzionato (nelle offerte funebri).”

Tre tipi di fantasmi che disturbano i viventi sono qui elencati: lo spirito di una persona non seppellita, quello che non ha lasciato il corpo e, infine, lo spettro a cui nessuno fa offerte. La seconda accezione è la più interessante in quanto si accenna ad un “alito” – IM-šu – che non ha abbandonato il corpo del defunto. Secondo il CAD “alito” deve essere qui tradotto con “spirito” in quanto in alcuni contesti il termine sembra riferirsi ad esseri demoniaci – chiamati “vento,” “vento del deserto,” “cattivo vento” – considerati spiriti di persone decedute private, per i più diversi motivi, delle necessarie cure che permettono al loro spirito di abbandonare il corpo. 30 L’e#emmu, dunque, abbandona, con il sopraggiungere della morte, il corpo del defunto (in altri testi sembra fuoriuscire dalla bocca 31 ), è immaginato come la perfetta replica del vivente ed appare o è

simile ad un vento. In quanto tale non è dotato di un corpo e sembra, sulla base dei significati correlati, relegato al mondo del non essere, questo, chiaramente, rispetto a quello in cui vivono e agiscono gli esseri umani. Tale descrizione lo avvicina alla psyche omerica come alla sua definizione di eíd la kamónt n, anche se i campi semantici ricoperti dai tre termini prima analizzati, sono, senz’ombra di dubbio, più ampi e variegati di quelli omerici. Tornando, dopo questa lunga digressione, al tema che qui ci interessa, ovvero a quello relativo alla presenza di Nergal negli Inferi, osserviamo che il passo sumerico – citato all’inizio di questo lavoro ed in cui si accennava alla presenza, nel regno di Ereškigal del divino gidim del dio – è stato tradotto, ma anche reinterpretato dallo scriba accadico. Inglobato nella XII Tav. dell’Epopea di Gilgameš in cui si narra del viaggio di

30

da-ku5-ru-ne Se sono invece gli spiriti di famiglia che girovagano, fa sì che miele e burro siano recisi, 125 fa sì che il corpo della persona, il figlio del suo dio [non sia avvicina]to, lo spirito vitale del corpo pesante che esce dalla bocca [è uscito?] … che possono recidere. In questa ultima composizione ciò che dovrebbe lasciare il cadavere, non la bocca, è designato con «z i », ovvero lo spirito vitale infuso negli uomini. Tutto da studiare è il rapporto tra «z i », ovvero spirito vitale e «I M », vento, così come il loro rapporto con il lemma g i d i m /e#emmu. Si tratta, però, di uno studio che esula dal presente lavoro. Per una prima analisi del problema rimandiamo della scrivente a: «Il prigioniero e il morto. Epopea di Gilgameš, Tav. X, rr. 318320», in OA Miscellanea II (1995), 159-171. 31 Si veda nota precedente.

E’ interessante, a tal proposito notare che il sumerico [ b ] a - b a r - r a m u - u n - n à è equivalente a e-depu šá GIDIM. KAR 21 richiama un incantesimo (RA 17, 176 i 9') riguardante probabilmente lo spirito di Ardat-Lili in cui si afferma: ša e-#é-em-ma-ša [i]na pî la kuteššû Il cui e#emmu non è stato espluso dalla bocca. Mentre alla r. 11 di KAR 21 si parla di un “alito,” ovvero di uno spirito che non ha lasciato il corpo, qui viene menzionato l’e#emmu che, però, in questo caso, fuoriesce dalla bocca. KAR 21 sembra, avere, inoltre, un corrispettivo sumerico. Si tratta di un difficile brano tratto dall’Incantesimo ad Utu, rr. 124-126, in cui si legge: gidim im-ri-a-ni a-ba-su8-ge-eš "làl#(?) ì-nun a-ba-da-ku5-dè 125 su lú-ulù dumu dingir-ra-"na# [x x] x-e-dè zi su dugud-da ka-ta- "i#(?) x x x [x x] é102

C HIODI

Enkidu verso gli Inferi per cercare di recuperare il pukku e il mekku, lì caduti, del suo imprigionamento – in quanto egli non segue i consigli del re di Uruk su come ci si debba comportare per passare


lì inosservato –, lo scriba con queste parole presenta la supplica di Gilgameš al dio Enlil affinché faccia tornare l’amico sulla terra:

56 «Padre Enlil, oggi, mi è caduto il pukku negli Inferi, il mekku mi è caduto negli Inferi! Enkidu, che era andato per riportarmeli su, lo trattengono gli Inferi. Non lo trattiene Namtar, non lo trattiene Asakku, lo trattengono gli Inferi colà! 60 Non lo trattiene il rappresentante (r!bi$u) di Nergal, lo trattengono gli Inferi. Non cadde in battaglia, lo trattengono gli Inferi.

Come si può leggere, alla r. 60, lo scriba non ha scritto: «Non lo trattiene il divino gidim di Nergal…», ma «Non lo trattiene il r!bi$u di Nergal…», ovvero il rappresentante, l’ambasciatore, l’alter ego del dio. Vi sono a questo punto due possibilità: o affermiano che gli Accadi hanno considerato l’e#emmu – la resa accadica del gidim sumerico – un r!bi$u, ovvero un «rappresentante» della persona deceduta, oppure r!bi$u può, in certi casi, avere un significato simile a quello di ardan!nu precedentemente affrontato. Per quanto concerne la prima ipotesi si deve, innanzitutto, sottolineare che r!bi$u oltre a indicare un rappresentante ufficiale dell’alta autorità, designava anche un demone o un genio protettore, e – dal periodo di Ur III – un giudice. 32 L’e#emmu non ha questi valori, a meno che non si voglia considerare un aspetto: il suo potere benefico e malefico nei confronti degli esseri viventi. In tal caso, però, il suo campo d’azione sembra limitato al mondo umano, differentemente dai demoni, dai geni protettori divini e,

in taluni casi, dai divini gidim che agiscono in tutto il cosmo Lo scriba accadico ha tradotto con r!bi$u proprio il «dingir gidim», ovvero «il divino spirito», non un semplice spirito umano e, nella stessa Tavola XII dell’Epopea di Gilgameš, ha definito Enkidu, tornato momentaneamente sulla terra, un utukku, non un e#emmu; e, come si è già detto, con utukku venivano indicati sia gli spiriti benefici che malefici. A questo punto non ci si può non chiedere quale differenza intercorrava tra utukku e r!bi$u, visto che ambeude indicano, in taluni casi, gli spiriti buoni e cattivi. 33 R!bi$u, differentemente da utukku, ha bisogno, davanti al segno, del determinativo divino, in mancanza di questo generalmente il suo significato cambia. Di conseguenza sembra che con questo termine si volesse indicare un demone o un genio protettivo divino mentre, con utukku oltre a questi anche gli spiriti dei defunti. Non è forse un caso che Enkidu fu definito utukku, egli, infatti, non apparteneva al mondo divino. Nell’Epopea di Gilgameš lo scriba,

32

giuri Udug-hul-a-meš dove compare spesso al posto del demone Asag, Maškim), la qual cosa dimostrerebbe quanto sia sottile la differenza fra r!bi$u e utukku.

Si veda CAD, R, sub voce r!bi$u, p. 20-23. E’ interessante notare che il corrispettivo sumerico di utukku è udug. Ora, gli scribi accadici traducevano r!bi$u non solo il sumerico maškim, ma anche udug (per quanto concerne maškim si veda la serie di scon33

103

C HIODI


però, non ha apposto davanti a r!bi$u il determinativo divino, e veniamo così alla seconda ipotesi. Proprio per tale motivo deduciamo che, in questo caso, non lo si considerava un demone o un genio protettore, ma un rappresentante ufficiale. In quanto tale, la sua funzione non è molta diversa da quella svolta da un sostituto, come si evince dal primo significato del termine ardan!nu/dananu. E’, però, vero che, in questo lavoro, è stato preso in considerazione il secondo valore di tale lemma, ovvero quello di doppio, di sostituto del defunto ed in questo caso non si tratta di un qualcuno che fa le veci di un altro, ma, del fantasma del morto. Come vedremo, nel caso specifico di Nergal colui lo che rappresenta è, e non è, un’altra divinità in quanto ha un diversa persona, ma ha la stessa natura di colui che rappresenta. Proprio per questo motivo, possiamo affermare che, nel racconto che analizzeremo, r!bi$u copre un arco semantico vicino a quello di ardan!nu che, come si è detto, può essere

considerato il corrispettivo dell’eíd lon greco. Proprio questi dati, insieme alla descrizione del fallimentare abbraccio fra Gilgameš ed Enkidu – contenuto nella medesima Tavola – porta a considerare il passo simile a quello omerico relativo alla presenza dell’eíd lon di Eracle nell’Ade. Ma chi era il r!bi$u di Nergal negli Inferi e di cui accenna la Tavola XII dell’Epopea di Gilgameš? Il passo prima citato tace su questo punto ci viene, però, incontro un altro poemetto babilonese, Nergal ed Ereškigal. Si tratta di un testo dagli interessanti risvolti teologici e che conobbe un gran successo nel mondo antico; basti pensare che noi oggi abbiamo a disposizione tre copie di questo racconto provenienti rispettivamente dalla Mesopotamia, dall’Egitto e dalla Turchia e che abbracciano un periodo di tempo che va da circa il 1400 al 500/400 a.C. Come si cercherà di dimostrare, probabilmente dietro al termine r!bi$u si nasconde, in questo caso, il dio Erra.

Versioni di Sultantepe e di Uruk Le versioni che vengono qui prese in visione sono quelle provenienti da Uruk e da Sultantepe. La prima è molto frammentaria, ma è in più punti parallela con quella di Sultantepe, la più lunga e la più completa. Non sarà analizzata, invece, quella proveniente da Tell el-Amarna in quanto incompleta, non tutto il testo è, infatti, riportato come ammette lo stesso scriba alla fine della sua copiatura; ma soprattutto perché non è illuminante sui punti di cui ci stiamo qui occupando. Il racconto, come è noto, narra della I

104

30

discesa agli Inferi del dio Nergal a seguito di un comportamento irriguardoso nei confronti di Namtar, il messaggero di Ereškigal. La narrazione, dopo una lacuna di circa 15 righe di cui 10 sono state integrate dagli studiosi sulla base del racconto di Tell el-Amarna, si apre con la descrizione del viaggio del messaggero celeste Kakka verso la cittadella infera, incaricato dal dio del cielo Anu di comunicare il seguente messaggio alla regina Ereškigal:

«Anu [tuo] padre mi ha mandato [a te] (con il messaggio): “Poiché tu non puoi salire sopra, nel tuo anno non puoi salire al nostro cospetto,

C HIODI


e noi non possiamo scendere giù, nel nostro mese non possiamo scendere al tuo cospetto, 35

possa un tuo messaggero venire (qui) e ripulire il desco ricevendo la tua spettanza; tutto ciò che io gli darò, egli deve consegnarlo integralmente a te”». 34

Seguono fra Kakka ed Ereškigal dei convenevoli ed infine la regina delle tenebre decide di mandare come suo rappresentante al banchetto celeste: Namtar. Che cosa successe nella corte celeste quando questo dio dell’aldilà si presentò r. II

0' …1'

non è subito detto in quanto la narrazione si interrompe; quando riprende troviamo il dio della saggezza Ea intento a biasimare Nergal per il suo comportamento irrispettoso:

[Ea aprì la sua bocca e disse, a Nergal rivolse la parola:] [ ]…[ ] «[Quando il messaggero di Ereškigal] giunse ne[lla corte di Anu] dal suo viaggio [dal Paese da cui non si ritorna]

5

[gli dèi davanti] a lui si inchinarono tutti, [gli dèi grandi], i signori dei destini, poiché da lui emanava l’aura, l’aura (del potere) [degli Inferi], [degli dèi] che abitano nell’Ir[kalla]. E tu perché non ti sei inchinato al suo cospetto? [ ] Con i miei occhi ti guardavo di traverso,

10

ma tu facevi finta di non capire, … I tuoi occhi erano rivolti al suolo».

Quasi nulla, purtroppo, è conservato della risposta di Nergal: S II

12-17 20'

34

(Rotto:) [Nergal aprì la sua bocca e disse, ad Ea rivolse la parola:] [ ] voglio alzarmi [ ] hai detto …il corpo per quanto la mia divinità è… farò in due (raddoppierò) 35

Trad. it. di G. Pettinato, Nergal ed Ereškigal, 77. D’ora in poi sarà citata questa traduzione. 35 S II 17' (Rotto:) 18' [ l u]-ut-bi x 19' [ ] x taq-bi 20' [ ] x ma-la d ingir x ana 2-šú e$-$ep-šú. Diversamente G. Pettinato, Nergal ed Ereškigal, 81, non integra il “corpo,” ma si veda commento ad II 20, p. 112; C. Saporetti, Appunti sul poemetto “Nergal ed Ereškigal,” OA Miscellanea I (1994), 26, così traduce le righe in questione «[…Nergal gli rispose: “… Volevo al]zarmi … tu hai detto … sarà raddoppiato quanto (hanno offerto?) gli dèi(?)”», C. Saporetti, Nergal ed Ereškigal (Pisa 1995), 47: «“[… che io ] mi alzi, [Farò ciò che] tu hai detto, […] quanto … per due lo raddoppierà”»; O.R. Gurney, The Myth of

Nergal and Ereškigal, AnSt 10 (1960), 113: «Nergal opened his mouth to speak and said to Ea:] [“…] I will arise […] you said […] … he/I will twine it double”»; G.G.W. Müller, in K. Hecker et al. (eds.), Weisheitstexte, Mythen und Epen, TUAT III, Mythen und Epen II (Gütersloh 1994) p. 762: «[Nergal tat seinen Mund auf zu sprechen und sagte zu Ea]: [“… ich will mich] aufmachen, […] sagtest du, […] … werde ich verdoppeln”»; M. Hutter, Altorientalische Vorstellungen von der Unterwelt. Literar- und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu “Nergal und Ereškigal,” Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 63 (FreiburgGöttingen 1985), 22 «[Nergal öffnete seinen Mund, er sagte zu Ea und sprach]: [“… ich will mich] aufmachen, [ich will beherzigen, was] du sagtest. … ich will es verdoppeln”». 105

C HIODI


Ci chiediamo se l’ultima frase, purtroppo mutila, sulla base di quello che noi sappiamo del racconto e di altri elementi che verranno in seguito elencati, non possa essere interpretata in questa direzione: il testo sta qui accennando a quello che accadrà nel prosieguo della narrazione. In altri termini, sembra che qui Nergal si proponga di sdoppiare se stesso, di creare un «doppio» di sé, per avere la meglio sulle ferree leggi degli Inferi. 36 Prima di soffermarci su questo aspetto è utile continuare il racconto che via via chiarirà quello che stiamo cercando di dimostrare. Ea, ascoltato il proposito di Nergal,

dopo aver pensato tra sé, dà alcuni consigli al dio per poter portare a buon termine la sua «missione». Innanzittutto, dopo avergli ricordato che la sua sola spada poco può fare nell’aldilà, gli ordina di costruire un seggio per Anu e Ningizzida (nella versione di Sultantepe), o per Ea Ninšiku (in quella di Uruk). Compiuta la prima opera egli gli impartisce alcune raccomandazioni che, quando si troverà nel regno delle tenebre, dovrà eseguire alla lettera per non essere qui definitivamente trattenuto, preso prigioniero. Solo se egli si atterrà scrupolosamente ad esse potrà tornare sano e salvo in cielo:

«Non appena tu arriverai e ti si offrirà un trono 40 non correre a sederti su di esso; quando il cuoco ti porterà del pane, non correre a mangiarlo; quando il macellaio ti offrirà la carne, non correre a mangiarla; quando il birraio ti offrirà la birra, non correre a berla; quando ti si porterà acqua per pulire i piedi non correre a pulirti i piedi; 50 quando essa (= Ereškigal) entrerà nel bagno e avrà indosso come abito solo il suo corpo e ti mostrerà così le sue grazie, tu, non alzare gli occhi su di lei alla maniera di un uomo e di una donna.

Accettare qualsiasi offerta, dividere cibo o bevande con le divinità di questo reame significa creare un vincolo inscindibile con l’oltretomba, per questo Nergal deve fare attenzione. Questo concetto non è esclusivo dei Mesopotamici, lo ritroviamo espresso in altre culture, come ad esempio in Grecia nell’Inno omerico a Demetra, in cui viene narrato il ratto di Persefone da parte di Ade, il dolore della madre e il loro temporaneo ritrovarsi. Proprio quando madre e figlia felice-

mente si rincontrano, Demetra «presa da cupo terrore e interrompendo gli abbracci» 37 domanda con ansia alla figlia se essa ha mangiato qualcosa negli Inferi. Se così fosse stato ella, allora, sarebbe stata destinata a vivere con il re dell’oltretomba per un terzo dell’anno e solo il resto del tempo in cielo con gli immortali. Ma torniamo al mito mesopotamico, dove – dopo una rottura di alcune righe in parte integrate dagli studiosi – ritroviamo Nergal intento a recarsi nell’oltre-

36

toto prigioniero della Terra del non ritorno. 37 Inno a Demetra, r. 391-392, trad. it. di F. Càssola, in Inni omerici (Milano 1997), 69.

Oppure se colui che parla non è Nergal, ma Ea, il dio della saggezza sembra proporre, per salvare Nergal, lo sdoppiamento del dio della guerra, cosicché diventi impossibile renderlo definitivamente e in 106

C HIODI

tomba. Giunto alla porta degli Inferi, il portinaio, da quello che si comprende vista la frammentarietà del testo, gli chiede di attendere, in quanto deve riferire sul viaggiatore. Quando la narrazione riprende troviamo Namtar intento a scrutare il nuovo arrivato; e a questo punto S III

20'

della narrazione lo scriba inserisce un dato: colui che Namtar scorge non viene, come ci si aspetterebbe, chiamato Nergal, ma Erra. Come vedremo, questo elemento sarà molto importante per il problema che stiamo qui analizzando:

Namtar andò e da dietro la porta scrutò Erra. 38

Namtar, impallidì come un tamarisco tagliato, le sue labbra divennero lucide come il bordo di una cannuccia vedendo Erra, il dio che lo aveva offeso e che non si era inchinato al suo cospetto quando

egli era salito in cielo per ordine della regina delle tenebre. Egli, allora, corse verso Ereškigal e le rivelò con queste parole l’identità del nuovo venuto:

S III S III

24' 25'

“Mia Signora, quando tu mi mandasti [da Anu], tuo padre, entrando nel cortile [di Anu]

U III U III S III U III

1' 1'-2' 28-31 3'

si inchinarono davanti a me gli dèi tutti, [ ] si inchinarono tutti gli dèi al mio cospetto [ ] ora sono scesi al Paese del non ritorno.” 39

Il plurale usato dallo scriba di Uruk è problematico. Un gruppo di divinità è sceso negli Inferi – e a questo punto non ci si può non chiedere chi siano e perché colà si siano recati –, o, invece, non si deve forse leggere questa riga alla luce di quanto ha scritto precedentemente il compilatore della tavoletta di Sultantepe alla col. II r. 20' di cui abbiamo parlato prima? Anche qui purtroppo si tratta di

un passo molto mutilo per cui, prima di avanzare una qualsiasi ipotesi, è meglio continuare la narrazione che, come vedremo, chiarirà l’uso apparentemente improprio del plurale. Ereškigal, ascoltate da Namtar le novità, pronuncia inizialmente alcune frasi dal significato incomprensibile e in seguito gli impartisce il seguente ordine:

S III U III

40' 11'

«Va, Namta[r ]». «Va, Namtar e fai entrare al mio cospetto quel dèi».

U III

12'

Namtar andò e fece entrare gli dèi Erra. 40

Nella versione di Uruk, come si può vedere, lo scriba non ha scritto alla r. 11', come ci si sarebbe aspettati, d i n g i r S III 20 dnam-tar il-lik-m[a ina $]i-li giš.ig ippa-la-šú dèr-ra. 39 S III 24 be-el-ti ul-"tú# [ana da-nim a]d-ki tašpu-ri-ni-ma S III 25 ana ki-sal-li [da-nim ina] e-re-bi-ja S III 26 kan-su áš-r[u dingir.meš ina p!ni-ya] U III 1' kan-su áš-r[u dingir.meš ina p!ni-ya] S III 27 kan-su [ ] U III 1'/2' [kan-su] // dingir.meš ina igi-ja "it#38


šá-a-šú, «quel dio», e alla r. 12' d i n g i r e r - r a «il dio Erra», ma d i n g i r m e š šá-a-šú, «quel dèi» spiegato nella

d

[bu-ú] S III 28-31 [ ] ] S III 32 "e#-[nin-na U III 3' e-ni-na it-tar-du ana kur.nu.g[i4.a ]. 40 S III 40 a-"lik#-ma dnam-ta[r ] U III 11' a-lik-ma dnam-tar-ri dingir.meš šá-ašú šu-ri-bi ana mah-ri-ja U III 12' dnam-tar-ri il-lik-ma ú-še-rib dingir.meš dèr-ra. 107

C HIODI


riga seguente con d i n g i r . m e š d e r r a , «gli dèi Erra». Non si tratta di un errore scribale, ma probabilmente di un artificio per far capire all’ascoltatore che un dio, che in realtà è doppio, sta varU III

3'

ora sono scesi al Paese del non ritorno.

e probabilmente anche con quanto riportava «lo scriba di Sultantepe» quando faS II

20'

108

48' 3/

ceva dire a Nergal (o a Ea) il suo intento con queste parole:

[… il corpo per] quanto la mia divinità è … farò in due (raddoppierò).

In altri termini, Nergal per cercare di eludere le leggi dell’aldilà si è sdoppiato, è diventato «gli Erra» anche se apparentemente è sempre uno. Interessante, inoltre, è la scelta che lo scriba fa del nome del dio. Egli poteva benissimo dire che gli «dèi Nergal» varcano la soglia degli Inferi, invece preferisce, proprio in questo momento della narrazione, cambiare nome, come se volesse marcare ulteriormente il cambiamento di status del dio. Inoltre, se Erra fosse semplicemente un altro nome di Nergal non si capirebbe perché il compilatore del mito scambi i due nomi solo in momenti precisi e problematici della narrazione. Ma, ancora una volta, per capire meglio questo gioco delle alternanze è importante continuare l’esposizione del mito. Arrivato al cospetto di Ereškigal, il dio del cielo comunica alla regina delle tenebre che è giunto colà per odine di Anu. Per tutta risposta Ereškigal gli offre di sedersi su un trono, così potrà esercitare la giustizia dei grandi dèi. Il dio non vi si avvicinò. Gli portarono allora il pane, poi la carne, poi la birra, ma egli rifiutò tutti i doni. Ereškigal, allora, entrò in bagno e si denudò, ma egli rimase impassibile. A questo punto il testo diventa frammentario. Da quanto si può capire, Ereškigal, vista fallire la sua tattica, si S IV UV

cando la soglia degli Inferi. Questo è in perfetta concordanza con quanto affermava precedentemente alla r. 3 della col. III la stessa versione di Uruk:

consulta con i grandi dèi dell’aldilà. Sembra che Nergal – nominato al singolare – ascolti le loro discussioni e a causa di ciò cambi repentinamente parere in merito al suo comportamento. Quando il mito riprende la narrazione troviamo ancora una volta Ereškigal intenta a spogliarsi, a questo punto il dio del cielo – non nominato dallo scriba – cede alle seduzioni della regina degli Inferi. Il testo si interrompe nuovamente e quando riprende troviamo il dio che chiede implorante ad Ereškigal di tornare nuovamente, seppur momentaneamente, in cielo. Non conosciamo la risposta della regina, sappiamo però che egli va senza indugi verso la porta degli Inferi ed ordina al portinaio di lasciarlo andare, di liberarlo per ordine di Ereškigal. A questo punto Nergal, nominato al singolare, sale le lunghe scale che portano in cielo e qui suo padre Ea, lo asperge con acqua di fonte per renderlo calvo, strabico e deforme cosicché non lo riconosca il messaggero di Ereškigal che sicuramente verrà a cercarlo. Ereškigal, intanto, ignara di quello che è successo, chiama Namtar e lo incarica di purificare la casa, di portare un seggio e del cibo per il messaggero di Anu colà giunto. Namtar, però, le comunica che cosa nel frattempo era successo:

[il messaggero di Anu], nostro padre, che è venuto a noi [il messaggero] di Anu, nostro padre, che è venuto a noi

C HIODI

S IV UV

49' /3

prima che il sole spuntasse, è salito al suo monte. prima che il sole spuntasse, sono saliti al suo monte. 41

Anche questa volta il compilatore di Uruk usa il plurale, in perfetto accordo con quanto affermava precendentemente U III

3'

50

quando descriveva “il dèi” che si era presentato agli Inferi:

ora sono scesi al Paese del non ritorno.”

Ricalcando qui ancora una volta la pluralità del dio quando si presenta ed entra nella Terra del non ritorno. S IV


Ereškigal ascoltata la notizia, si abbandona a scene di disperazione:

[Ere]škigal inspirò ed emise un forte grido, dal trono si buttò giù, per terra, dai suoi occhi cominciarono a scendere lacrime: sulle sue guance scorrevano le sue lacrime: «Erra, mio amante, mio piacere, non mi ero ancora saziata del suo piacere che già mi ha abbandonato; Erra mio amante, mio piacere, non mi ero ancora saziata del suo piacere che già mi ha abbandonato».

Come si può notare, Ereškigal rivendica come suo amante Erra, non Nergal e anche questo è in armonia con quanto precedentemente aveva affermato lo scriba di Sultantepe relativamente al dio che era entrato negli Inferi – Namtar scorge

alla soglia Erra e non Nergal – come se si volesse sottolineare che colui che agisce negli Inferi non sia Nergal, ma il suo doppio, il suo alter ego, Erra. Ma continuiamo la narrazione e vediamo qual è la reazione di Namtar:

S IV UV

58' 10

Namtar aprì la sua bocca e disse, ad Ereškigal rivolse la parola: Namtar aprì la sua bocca e disse, ad Ereškigal rivolse la parola:

S IV UV

59' 11

[«Da Anu, tuo padre,] mandami: voglio prendere prigioniero quel dio [«Da Anu, tuo padre,] mandami: voglio prendere prigioniero quel dèi

S IV UV

60' 11

e portartelo.” 42

Come si può notare lo scriba di Uruk fa dire a Namtar che egli vuol prendere prigioniero non “il dio” che ha offeso la

regina, ma “il dèi,” come se egli fosse sempre stato conscio del gioco che Nergal aveva attuato.

41 S IV 48 [dumu šip-ri šá da-nim a]d-ni šá il-li-kana-ši U V 3/ [dumu šip-ri] šá d60 ad-ka šá il-lik-anna-a-šú S IV 49 [la-am ur-ra i-nam-mi-ru šá-d]a-šú e"tu#-li U V /3 la-am ur-ra i-nam-mi-ru šá-da-šú i-te-lu. 42 S IV 58 "dnam#-tar pa-a-šú du11-ma du11.ga ana d ereš-ki-gal a-mat muár

U V 10 [dnam-tar pa-a-šú] dù-ma du11.ga ana ereš-ki-gal a-mat muár S IV 59 [ana da-nim ad-k]a šu-p[u]-"ur!#-[in-nim]a dingir šá-a-šú lu $ab-tak-ma U V 11/ [ana d60 a]d-ka šu-pur-in-ni-ma dingir.meš šá-a-šú lu-u$-bat-tak-ma S IV 60 [ lu]l!-qa-ak-ki ka-a-ši U V /1 lul-qa-ka ka-a-šú. d

109

C HIODI


Ereškigal, continua il racconto, dopo essersi abbandonata a scene di disperaV

zione, incarica Namtar di salire in cielo e di ripetere le seguenti parole ai grandi dèi:

3

«Da quando ero fanciulla ed adolescente

5

non ho avuto modo di conoscere i giochi delle vergini, non ho conosciuto nessun gioco dei bambini. [Quel dio che] avete inviato a me si è unito a me, possa (ora) egli giacere con me. Mandate qui quel dio perché possa essere il mio amante, perché possa giacere con me. Io sono diventata impura, non sono più vergine, non posso quindi emettere sentenze sui grandi dèi, sui grandi dèi che abitano l’Irkalla!

10

Se voi non manderete qui quel dio secondo [le leggi dell’Irkal]la e del Grande Paese, allora io farò salire i morti, perché possano mangiare i vivi, farò diventare i morti più numerosi dei vivi».

Ereškigal non menziona il nome del dio che l’ha sedotta e il testo di Sultantepe usa sempre il singolare. 43 La minaccia di Ereškigal, se attuata porterebbe ad un totale sovvertimento dell’ordine cosmico, cosa questa da evitare assolutamente. Ecco, allora, che cosa escogita ancora una volta il dio della saggezza Ea. Egli invita Namtar ad entrare nel vasto cortile del cielo – dove tutti gli dèi sono riuniti – per cercare, sempre che lo trovi, il fuggiasco. Inutile dire che Namtar non riconosce “il dèi” nella divinità strabica e deforme, per cui se ne torna a mani vuote negli Inferi. Ereškigal, però, non si fa ingannare dall’astuto Ea e ordina a Namtar di prendere prigioniero proprio quello strano dio che sicuramente altro non è che colui che l’ha

abbandonata. Il testo a questo punto diventa lacunoso; da quello che si comprende, Namtar trovato colui che cercava e che alla r. 2 e 5 della col. VI chiama Erra, sembra esprimere il desiderio di ucciderlo; in seguito gli spiega tutte le regole della terra tenebrosa. Innanzittutto egli deve portarsi un trono 44 più altri sei oggetti di cui nulla sappiamo in quanto il testo ha molte lacune. Da quanto si evince da quel che rimane del racconto di Sultantepe, il dio celeste – il nome purtroppo non è conservato – pone qualcosa nel suo cuore, ed unge il suo tendine e tende l’arco, ma mentre accede agli Inferi attraverso le sette porte viene piano piano spogliato da tutto ciò che egli aveva portato con sé 45 :

43 Si potrebbe ipotizzare che ella non conoscesse il nome di colui che aveva giaciuto con lei; in realtà, alla col. IV di S. r. 54, 56, la regina degli Inferi lo ha chiamato Erra. Per una diversa interpretazione si veda M. Hutter, Altorientalische Vorstellungen von der Unterwelt, p. 71. 44 Il seggio, probabilmente, era funzionale alla sua nuova vita negli Inferi. Sposando Ereškigal egli diventa il re di questa terra tenebrosa e, come tale,

quando sarà seduto sul suo trono, emetterà sui nuovi arrivati le sentenze degli Inferi. 45 La svestizione della divinità celeste mentre oltrepassa le soglie degli Inferi è un classico nella letteratura mesopotamica. Anche la dea dell’amore, Ištar, fu spogliata di tutto ciò che indossava quando varcò le sette porte, per cui giunse davanti a sua sorella Ereškigal nuda e quindi impotente.

110

C HIODI

S. VI

28

(Egli) entrò quindi nella vasta corte,

30

le andò incontro e sorrise; la prese per i capelli;


dal [trono?] … [ ] la prese [per la chio]ma tanto era l’amore nel suo amore;

35

si abbracciarono allora fratello e sorella e nella camera da letto essi voluttuosamente entrarono. Un giorno, due giorni fecero l’amore la regina E[reškigal ed E]rra; tre giorni, [quattro giorni], DITTO cinque giorni [ sei giorni [

40

[ [

] DITTO ] DITTO; ] quando ] giunse.

Il finale del racconto è dapprima lacunoso e poi rotto, per cui non si possono trarre altri dati oltre a quelli che ci offre quest’ultimo passo. Innanzittutto, da quanto si evince, secondo lo scriba di Sultantepe, il dio che fa l’amore con la regina degli Inferi è Erra, anche se poco prima chiamò Nergal il dio che scese negli Inferi. 46 Sembra quasi, che sia l’autore della tavoletta di Sultentatepe sia quello di Uruk, volutamente nominino sempre il dio che agisce negli Inferi con il nome di Erra, mentre invece quando l’azione si svolge in cielo oppure quando nell’aldilà si deve prendere una decisione, con quello di Nergal; inoltre il redattore di Uruk usa il singolare-plurale quando si riferisce a colui/coloro che agisce/ono negli Inferi. Che cosa significa tutto questo scambio di nomi? Che cosa vuol dirci lo scriba con questo artificio? Si potrebbe ipotizzare, come si è già

detto, che in realtà nulla si celi dietro questo mito perché Erra altro non è che un altro nome di Nergal, ma se così fosse non si capirebbe l’alternanza dei nomi solo in precisi e importanti momenti della narrazione mitica e non in qualsiasi momento della vicenda. Ricordo, infatti, che chi offende in cielo l’araldo della regina degli Inferi è Nergal. Ne dovrebbe conseguire che colui che scende agli Inferi debba sempre essere Nergal, eppure, lo scriba di Uruk nomina il dio celeste, usando un singolare-plurale, che attende di poter varcare le soglie degli Inferi con un altro nome: Erra. Ed è sempre Erra, anzi gli Erra, colui/coloro che Namtar fa entrare dietro ordine di Ereškigal. Ambedue le versioni, poi, affermano che il dio che Ereškigal reclama come amante è Erra, così come colui che fa l’amore con lei è chiamato con tale nome. Diversamente, il dio fuggito dal regno delle tenebre e colui che qui ritorna è nominato Nergal.

46

ferma su tale aspetto. Dato questo ripreso da G. Selz, UGASL (Philadelphia 1995), 299 n. 46, ambedue non giungono, però, alle conclusioni da me tratte.

Di questo scambio di nomi si era già accorta V. Afanasieva, «Vom Gleichgewicht der Toten und der Lebenden», ZA 70 (1981), 167, anche se non si sof-

111

C HIODI


Probabilmente quello che il mito vuol dirci è che il dio che si unì con la regina degli Inferi, cioè Erra, è e non è Nergal, per cui queste due divinità sono e non sono la stessa divinità. Sembra, in altri termini, che qui ci troviamo di fronte ad una speculazione sulla natura e sulla persona del dio, che si può così riassumere: Nergal è due, ma nel contempo è uno; la natura è una, ma le persone sono due: Nergal ed Erra. La loro identica natura spiega anche la loro interscambiabilità e quindi la difficoltà di riconoscerli. Proprio questo aspetto permetterà a Nergal, diventato due, di sfuggire alla dura legge dell’aldilà. Una parte di sé, la sua copia, può benissimo qui essere trattenuta, ma

non in toto il dio in persona; il discorso vale anche rovesciato. Solo così divengono chiari gli strani plurali-singolari usati dallo scriba di Uruk, i quali a loro volta sembrano chiarire la frase mutila della versione di Sultantepe: «[il corpo per] quanto la mia divinità è … raddoppierò». In altri termini, Nergal attraverso tale astuzia è riuscito ad aggirare, rispettandola, una ferrea legge degli Inferi di cui siamo edotti, ad esempio, dalla composizione sumerica: La discesa di Inanna agli Inferi. Quando la dea, si legge nel testo, si accinse a lasciare il tenebroso regno dei morti, gli Annunna, i grandi dèi, la fermarono e le dissero:

«Chi mai salito al Kur, ne è disceso libero? Se ora Inanna vuol scendere dal Kur, una testa per la sua testa dia!». 47

Per quanto concerne Nergal il suo sostituto, almeno da come si evince dal mito, altro non è che la sua replica, il suo perfetto gemello. Attraverso questo stratagemma il dio non solo riesce ad avere la meglio sugli Inferi, ma riesce a diventare un dio più potente in quanto allarga la sua sfera di influenza. Egli, infatti, oltre ad essere, in terra, il dio della guerra diviene, in quanto sposo di Ereškigal, il sovrano degli Inferi. Chiaramente questo status si attua solo nella condizione di gemello. Se cerchiamo altre fonti che possano confermare quanto detto fino ad ora queste si possono ritrovare tra le speculazio-

ni astrologiche. Si deve innazittutto sottolineare che Nergal, forse non a caso, oltre ad essere associato al pianeta Marte, fu identificato con un emblematico segno zodiacale: i gemelli. Questi, poi, nell’Astrolabio B, 48 dove vengono forniti i nomi dei Grandi (MAŠ.TAB.BA.GAL. GAL) e dei Piccoli Gemelli (MAŠ.TAB. BA.TUR.TUR), sono rispettivamente chiamati Nergal e Erra (mentre i piccoli Lugalgirra e Meslamtaea 49 ). Questo testo astrologico, inoltre, fornisce un illuminante passo il cui contenuto ben si inserisce con quanto sottilmente afferma questo mito. Alla col. III r. 1-10 della sezione A (KAV 218) si legge 50 :

III 1 i t i - g a [ n é-gál é - n u n t u 10 ] 2 MUL [… ur-sag kala-ga d ir-ra-gal] u r urugal-la-[ta ba-ra]-è 3 4 ur4-ur4 [dingir-maš]-tab-ba

47

Discesa di Inanna agli Inferi, rr. 286-289, trad. it. di G. Pettinato, Mitologia sumerica (Torino 2001), 275. 48 Astrolabio B, III 33 sgg. 112

6 ITI.GAN hé-gal-lu u nu-uh-šu 7 uk-ta-ma-ru UR.SAG dan-nu 8 d U+GUR iš-tu er-$e-ti i-la-a 9 ka-šu-uš [DINGIR].MEŠ ki-lal-la-an

49

Diversamente in M u l. a p i n vengono invertiti. Compilato nel periodo neo-assiro però le prime copie sono del periodo medio-assiro (1400-1300). 50

C HIODI

5 iti ur-sag GÌR.BÍL AŠ.DU


10 ITI UR.SAG [gít-m]a-li d U+GUR

«Nel mese Gan (IX 51 ) abbondanza e prosperità/ vengono accumulate, l’eroe forte,/ Nergal (in sum. Erra) è salito dagli Inferi/ unendo (sum. raccogliendo) i due dèi gemelli,/ è il mese del giovane eroe Nergal».

Il verbo sumerico ur 4 -ur 4 , raccogliere, significa tornare insieme, diventare uno e il testo accadico chiarifica che cosa si vuol dire: «rendere uno i due gemelli», i quali hanno ragione di esistere solo in quanto sono separati, mentre, quando uno sale, essi scompaiono perché esiste in S II

20'

[… il corpo per] quanto la mia divinità è … farò in due (raddoppierò).

Questi passi confermano la nostra interpretazione del mito di Nergal ed Ereškigal, ma essi non sono gli unici. Un amuleto neo-assiro discusso da 1

5

questa nuova condizione solo una divinità. I gemelli, in altri termini, risultano come due emanazioni della stessa divinità, e tale dato non può non richiamare quanto si afferma, anche se in modo lacunoso nella versione di Sultantepe del mito di Nergal ed Ereškigal:

d

MAŠ. d MAŠ MAŠ.TAB.BA SAG.GÁ DU.DU GABA $UL.GÁL NU.UN.GI.GI ZI d ASAL.LÚ.$I LUGAL AN.KI.A $É.PÀD DINGIR $UL NAM.BA. TE.GE 26 . DA ÉN

Wiggermann 52 mostra nel verso due figure identiche con mazza e doppia ascia, mentre nel recto viene riportato il seguente testo: maš-maš, coppia, andate davanti, il petto del cattivo fate vacillare. Per la vita di Asalluhi re del cielo e della terra sii scongiurato; il dio cattivo non si avvicini. Scongiuro.

Il testo, indirizzato al dio maš-maš, i gemelli, un nome di Nergal, ma anche, ricorda Wiggermann, di Meslamtaea e di Lugalgirra, mostra, secondo lo studioso che «… the incantation concerns the reduplicated god on the other side» egli inoltre osserva che «The amulet and the text imply that one god, Meslantaea, is imagined as having two identical bodies», anche se, a proposito di Meslantaea, osserva che la scelta dell’identificazione del dio o degli dèi non è facile, e si basa solo sulla presenza della mazza e della

doppia ascia, ma osserva poco dopo: «in the new b"t m#seri manuscript SpTU 3 69:2 it is Lugalgirra who is armed with mace and axe (also Nergal and a figure whose name is broken), which stresses the identity of two gods, and the futility of choosing». Comunque stiano qui le cose, a noi interessava portare un’ulteriore attestazione relativa ad un dio «replicato», in quanto ciò mostra la diffusione di questa ideologia. Altri due testi sono a questo proposito

51

cate, e 68 in cui si afferma: «Our suspicion that the mace is the sign of office of the divine deputy (u d u g /r!bi$u), and that the divine deputy appears as the “god with the mace” on OB (and later peripheral) seals, must be substantiated elsewhere».

IX mese = novembre-dicembre. Si veda E. Reiner, En$ma, Anu, Enlil, Tablets 50-51, in Babylonian Planetary Omens 2 (Malibu 1981), 82. 52 F.A.M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The ritual texts (Groningen 1992), 38, si veda anche 18sgg., relative a quattro statue divine redupli-

113

C HIODI


illuminanti. Si tratta di un passo riportato da Tallqvist, 53 3 R 66, IV 17 in cui Nergal è chiamato: il!ni ša m!t Namar «gli dèi (al plurale) del paese di Namar», ed un altro, riportato da E. von Weiher, 54

15

.................... U 4 .2.KAM šá arah du’$zi ina mu-ši i-šá-a-ta ina b"t d nèrgal ta-an-da-qu-ut lú za-zak-ku u md nabû-n!$ir a-na muh-hi it-tal-ku-nu ina giš $illi šá il!ni meš šu-lum a-na mim-ma ma-la ina lìb-bi il!ni meš a-na b"t d lugal-marad-da nu-ul-le ! -ti-iq

in cui si afferma che a causa di un incendio nella cappella di Nergal «i due Nergal» furono trasportati dall’Eanna di Uruk nel tempio del dio Lugalmarad:

.............. il secondo giorno del mese di Tammuz, di notte un fuoco scoppiò nel tempio di Nergal T. il funzionario Zazakku e Nabû-n %ir sono subito accorsi. Grazie alla protezione degli dèi tutto ciò che vi era là dentro si è potuto salvare. Gli dèi, al tempio di Lugalmarad, abbiamo portato.

Gli dèi, il!ni meš , della r. 15 sono, secondo E. von Weiher, 55 i «due Nergal», in quanto alla r. 23 dello stesso testo si legge: «a-na d nèrgal (IGI.DU) meš ki-lálle-e» che lo studioso identifica con Lugalgirra e Meslantaea. Come si può comprendere da questi ultimi passi, soprattutto quelli riportati da Wiggermann e da E. von Weiher l’idea di una divinità raddoppiata non è certo estranea al mondo mesopotamico, e il significato di questa dualità ci viene fornito dal mito di Nergal ed Ereškigal da una parte e dall’Astrolabio B dall’altra. Giunti a questo punto credo risulti chiaro che probabilmente il r!bi$u di cui si parla nella XII Tavola dell’Epopea di Gilgameš ninivita possa essere inteso come Erra, il suo identico gemello. Si è aperto questo lavoro affermando

che la dicotomia di Eracle, accennata nel libro undicesimo dell’Odissea, è rintracciabile nella figura di Nergal così come è stata delineata nel poemetto sumerico Gilgameš, Enkidu e gli Inferi, nella XII Tavola dell’Epopea di Gilgameš ninivita e nella versione di Uruk Sultantepe di Nergal ed Ereškigal, ora, le analogie fra queste due figure furono percepite dagli stessi antichi come dimostrerebbe, tra l’altro, l’associazione di Eracle al segno zodiacale dei Gemelli che per gli AssiriBabilonesi, come si è visto, era proprio di Nergal o forse sarebbe meglio dire degli dèi Nergal. Eracle, in compagnia di Apollo o di Teseo, 56 non è l’unica divinità o eroe greco ad essere associato ai Gemelli; Bouché-Leclercq ricorda, ad esempio, i Dioscuri Castore e Polluce, Apollo e

53

l’intento di rapire Persefone. Giunti colà, furono accolti da Ade che li invitò ad un banchetto. Appena, però, essi si sedettero sui seggi – che procuravano l’oblio – non poterono più alzarsi. Eracle, con il permesso di Persefone, potè liberare il solo Teseo. Piritoo, a causa della sua audacia fu punito a restare negli Inferi. «Dei sedili del sovrano dell’oltretomba, scrive C. Saporetti, Nergal ed Ereškigal, 1, sembra, per certi versi, antesignano un altro seggio, anche se fatto di legno: quello su cui Ereškigal ha tentato di far sedere Nergal, con cui era adirata».

K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta, StOr VII (1938), 392. 54 E. von Weiher, Der Babylonische Gott Nergal, AOAT 11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971), 62, n. 1. 55 E. von Weiher, Der Babylonische Gott Nergal, 62, n. 1. 56 Di Teseo, in compagnia di Piritoo, si racconta – si veda per le fonti R. Graves, Greek Myths, trad. it. di E. Morpurgo, I miti Greci (Milano 1987), 333 nota 4 – la sua catabasi e liberazione per mezzo dell’intervento di Eracle. I due erano scesi agli Inferi con 114

C HIODI


Bacco; Zetho e Anfione; Trittolemo e Giasone, i Cabiri di Samotracia. 57 Eracle, però, è l’unico fra questi – a quanto mi consta – ad essere associato al pianeta Marte; connessione che, secondo Achille Stazio ed Aristotele, sarebbe stata avanzata degli Egiziani, mentre per Macrobio dai Caldei: «Chaldaei stellam Herculis vocant quam reliqui omnes Martis appellant». 58 Il problema che rimane aperto, ma che esula dal presente lavoro, è la comprensione delle vie e dei tempi di diffusione, dato questo importante non solo per i periodi antichi, ma anche per quelli più recenti per cercare di comprendere se anche la teologia babilonese su Nergal, non solo quella sumerica, è documentata nel mondo greco. A tal proposito, anche se si tratta di una attestazione riguardante una straniera, vorrei ricordare una iscrizione bilingue del III secolo a.C. rinvenuta nel Pireo, dunque in terra greca, in cui una sidoniana afferma che il monumento funebre fu fatto costruire da Yaton-Bêl, figlio di Ešmun-Sillè , capo dei sacerdoti del dèi Nergal 59 : dove Nergal è al singolare, mentre l’apposizione dèi è al plurale: ’lm nrgl. Pur essendo noto che nelle iscrizioni fenicie si trova talvolta il plurale ’lm per indicare una singola divinità, ritengo però che questa caratteristica riferita a Nergal possa avere una motivazione teologica che affonda le sue radici nel mondo mesopotamico, la patria di origine del culto di questo dio. Questa iscrizione dimostrerebbe che la sidoniana praticava un culto di Nergal più vicino a quello teologicamente delineato nella versione di Sultantepe-Uruk che a quello sumerico dimostrando che l’impatto della cultura

mesopotamica con i paesi vicini e, in questo caso, indirettamente con la Grecia, sono stati continui e fecondi. Riportando, dopo questa lunga digressione, la nostra attenzione alla traduzione-interpretazione data dallo scriba babilonese al passo sumerico prima citato, si può, sulla base di quanto è stato fino ad ora detto, ipotizzare che egli rese il sumerico «il divino spirito ( d g i d i m ) di Nergal» con «il rappresentante di Nergal» in quanto sostituì l’idea di una scissione del dio con quella di un suo reduplicamento, per cui il r!bi$u, o il rappresentante di Nergal di cui si parla nella XII Tav. dell’Epopea di Gilgameš ninivita potrebbe essere inteso come Erra, il suo identico gemello. Una speculazione che, per certi versi e con le debite differenze, si pone a metà strada tra quella avanzata dai Sumeri e quella degli Accadi si può rintracciare nella teologia egiziana, dove troviamo, innanzittutto, l’idea di scissione del dio, come nel mondo sumerico, e quella di riunione di ciò che precedentemente era scisso, come attesta il passo tratto dall’Astrolabio B più su citato. In un Inno ad Ammone (IV 16 sgg.) di epoca post-amarniana, redatto dunque non molto tempo dopo la copiatura a Tell elAmarna del mito di Nergal ed Ereškigal, viene delineata la presenza del dio in tutto il cosmo secondo questo schema: il ba del dio creatore, ovvero la sua energia, la sua forza vitale, la sua apparizione, si trova in cielo mentre il suo corpo negli Inferi, e la sua immagine sulla terra. In questo modo, sottolinea Hornung, 60 «la divinità è pensata come presente nell’intero mondo ordinato della creazione

57

’šmn$lh rb khnm’lm nrgl». 60 E. Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen. Ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen (Darmstadt 19904), trad. it. di D. Scaiola, Gli dèi dell’antico Egitto (Roma 1992), 204.

A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie grecque (Paris 1899), 135-136. 58 Per le altre attestazioni si veda A. BouchéLeclercq, L’astrologie grecque, 98-99 n. 4 59 KAI 59: «’nk ’spt bt ’šmnšlm $dnt ’š y#n’ ly ytnbl bn

115

C HIODI


… La residenza preferita è sempre il cielo… Gli Inferi costituiscono un luogo di soggiorno secondario e temporaneo, in cui il Ba e il corpo si uniscono ogni notte. Sulla terra gli dèi vivono solo nelle immagini, nel re in quanto immagine del dio, nelle immagini cultuali dei templi, in animali, piante e oggetti sacri». Diversamente dal Nergal accadico, Ammone non si è sdoppiato, duplicato, ma, si è semplicemente scisso in due parti: da un lato il Ba, dall’altro il corpo, e questo richiama in un certo qual modo il passo sumerico – dunque non accadico – relativo a Nergal, in cui si afferma che negli Inferi non risiede il dio in persona, ma il suo divino spirito, lasciando in un certo qual modo intendere che il dio in persona, il suo sé, si trovava in cielo come ben chiarisce, anche se avanza una formulazione teologica diversa, la traduzione del passo in lingua accadica. Inoltre, mentre la riunione del dio Ammone avviene negli Inferi ogni notte, i due gemelli – ovvero Erra e Nergal – secondo il testo astrologico scritto in lingua accadica prima riportato, si riuniscono sulla terra una volta all’anno. I testi accadici ci fornisco, infine, un altro testo relativo questa volta al dio Ningizzida di cui si narra la sua singolare liberazione dagli Inferi attraverso uno stratagemma. A causa del cattivo stato di conserva-

61

zione della tavoletta su cui fu inciso il racconto, non conosciamo perché egli fu preso prigioniero dalla terra tenebrosa, né la motivazione del suo viaggio. Da quello che si comprende, Ningizzida, dopo essere stato fatto prigioniero, subisce il giudizio degli Anunna infernali per venir poi condotto alla presenza di Ereškigal. A questo punto del racconto interviene Ningiridu/Ninsiskurra, la madre del dio, che intercede per la sua liberazione. Il riscatto sarà attuato per mezzo di un prezioso simulacro del dio defunto, alla r. 15 del v., mi-li-it la-ni-šu ovvero “statua del suo corpo.” La traduzione a questo proposito è però incerta, in quanto, come afferma W.G. Lambert: «As for mi-li-it, the only other occurrences seem to be in ARM 13 19, where there is mention of the militu of a snake … From the contexts the word seems to refer to a model or replica of something, but its etymology is not clear». 61 Se la traduzione qui offerta è esatta, la statua si presenterebbe come un sostituto del dio, essa, infatti, non rappresenta, ma è Ningizzida, è il dio, è colui che essa “raffigura.” In tal modo egli è sempre presente, per mezzo della sua statua, nel regno di Ereškigal, mentre il dio liberato si trova sulla terra ed in cielo. Si avrebbe probabilente, inoltre, un altro corrispettivo del termine greco eíd lon, in questo caso, però, associato al kolossós.

W.G. Lambert, «A new Babylonian Descent to the Netherworld», p. 294 ad Rev. 14.

116

D E M EIS

S ALVO D E M EIS

A M ODERN A PPROACH TO A SSYRIAN -B ABYLONIAN A STRONOMY

Milano

A Modern Approach to Assyrian-Babylonian Astronomy

ssyrian-Babylonian Astronomy is on a great way to show most of its important features, after a little more than a century from the beginning of its true discovery and study. I shall not repeat, although due, the celebration of the efforts of the Fathers Founders of Assyriology: Epping, Strassmaier, Kugler, Schaumberger, neither of the researches which followed, especially those of P. Victor and Otto Neugebauer, Karl Schoch, Abe Sachs, until Simo Parpola, Hermann Hunger, Peter Huber, Giovanni Pettinato. This immense enterprise is well known to scholars for the results obtained in such a short time, and its works stand in front of us as a monument aere perennius. It is however interesting to go somehow into details to show the difficulties of these researchers, in order to consider the great advantages that we have at present, to repeat their studies and, whenever the case, try to improve or update them, or to apply the methods to other civilizations. To do this, a full humbleness is due, also because now we can take advantage of the results achieved, and because we have more powerful tools at our disposal: texts, transliterations, translations, photos, dictionaries, computers. While our Fathers, to call them shortly so, had just pen, paper and brain, we

A

have a safety layer from which to start: their works. Just to have an idea of them, look at the figure 1: it is the conclusive table in Epping’s “Astronomisches aus Babylon,” 1 the result of years of deciphering, calculating, trying and trying again solutions to the questions put forward by the clay tablets. First of all we must admire the systematic and useful layout, something we would often like to have handy: the names of the months, the words for time divisions, the names of planets, zodiacal signs, orientation, and finally of stars, all with the cuneiform ideogram, transliteration, translation. Remarkably the stars mentioned are just six; only about 1907 Schiaparelli was able to identify 118 stars. 2 This is perhaps the most striking aspect: all the names are derived from comparisons of many texts, from the calculation of astronomical positions to check any proposed identification, from the painful interpretation of the cuneiform signs in many and many tablets. Epping, modestly, states that it was easy to understand numbers and some words, but this is not a simple task, because only who commands astronomy, especially positional astronomy, can direct the research in such a way to understand that a tablet has data on lunations,

1

2

Epping 1889.


De Meis 1999, 63-80. 117

D E M EIS


planetary motions, stars, when nothing is known of its contents, and the figures have to speak by themselves. Strassmaier and Epping were in continuous exchange of data, translations, improvement of results, and we find here another advantage which we have at present: Epping was at Quito, Strassmaier some thousand kilometers away, and mail was not so fast as it is today, they had no fax or e-mail and all had to be hand-written, mailed, sent back and forth. So, although obvious, we are in a privileged condition which we often forget. The other aspect is that the command of astronomy meant calculating by hand thousands of positions to be sure of the correspondence of the text to the calculations. Of course this is true for all scientists; I am always amazed at the enormous quantity of hand calculations, generally without errors, when I see the manuscripts of Galileo, Gauss, Schiaparelli, Neugebauer, just to mention a few names. But a main consideration is in order. The first calculation of Epping was that of New Moon, first the interpretation of the texts, the enlightening discovery that they referred to Moon phases, then the calculations. Well, by hand this is lengthy, painful, subject to errors; anyone who has tried this kind of exercise can appreciate the efforts and time needed. Now, with the touch of a few computer keys we obtain exact results in fractions of a second. The ephemeris table for the Moon in SE 189 (–122/–121), SE 188 (–123/ –122), SE 201 (–110/–109) must have required hours, if not days, of calculations (again, a few seconds of computer time), besides the comparisons of Babylonian and his calculations, which oc-

cupy many pages of that precious book, small in size, great in knowledge (Fig. 2). Without insisting too much, I shall only mention the computing of the Chaldean ephemerides as he called them, and of their errors [p. 68–80], the calculations of solar and lunar eclipses [pp. 103–108], the conjunctions of the Moon with stars, the planetary conjunctions with stars [pp. 114–134], the oppositions and stations of planets, their heliacal rising and setting [pp. 140–148], and last but not least, the drawings of the kudurrus with astronomical meanings, also important at present (Fig. 3), all this at a time when even the astronomical terms had to be deciphered. I have recalculated these events and found Epping’s values correct. All this was masterly continued by F.X. Kugler, O. Neugebauer, A. Sachs and other scholars. And to conclude on this aspect, I must say that the same great knowledge and experience has to be credited to Simo Parpola, who some three decades ago calculated by hand the astronomical phenomena mentioned in his highly acclaimed “Letters from Assyrian Scholars to Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal,” 3 a huge enterprise to give scholars an enormous quantity of documents, parallel to the work of A. Sachs for Babylonian Diaries, continued by H. Hunger. 4 Let us now have a brief look at the advantages offered by modern techniques, and some suggestions to use them in the study of the astronomical part of cuneiform texts. Amongst the main purposes is the dating of a text. As it is well known, even if a date was written in a tablet, often it is broken or otherwise illegible. If we are lucky enough to find a relatively

3

4

Parpola 1970. Also mentioned as LAS.

118

Sachs-Hunger 1988, 1989, 1996.

D E M EIS


clear date, this might refer to a regnal or accession year of a king, to a year of the Seleucid Era, and in this case we have tools such as Parker-Dubberstein 1956, 5 with extensions by Parpola (LAS, Appendix J) or Peter Huber 6 (“Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III”). If we want a closer accuracy, then we can update some of the data with new findings, and write a computer program to calculate Babylonian dates from Julian ones and viceversa. This will allow us a faster search, and avoid jumping from a publication to another. In fact, when dating a tablet, it is necessary to perform several calculations of the same type, and an enormous saving of time is achieved by the computer because it is fast, and, if well programmed, is less subject to errors than a human, and can incorporate several documents to be consulted at once. An immediate check for example is that of dates which fall on intercalary months or on a definite month; moreover the inverse calculation is also fast, an advantage if we are trying different dates. This first step of the humanist has to be followed by the astronomical computing of the events supposedly occurred in the period supposedly covered, to take care of scribal errors, wrong data and similar occurrences; and also this requires repetitive calculations better made by the computer. But what should we compute first? Of course, the events which are rare, such as Solar and Lunar eclipses, Lunar occultations (“the star xx entered the Moon” is the usual quotation), Lunar conjunctions of stars or planets, Lunar phases, heliacal phenomena (the so-called Greek-Letter Phenomena).

Again, though not so easy, these phenomena can be calculated by proper computer programs, and here is a first advice and caveat. It is much commendable that an Assyriologist takes the trouble of computing astronomical events, but there are several objections to this. Generally the Assyriologist is mainly a philologist, historian, humanist and the command of astronomy is not his main “cultural luggage.” Epping and Strassmaier cooperated, each one for his own specialisation; so, there is nothing bad if after the first trials, the Assyriologist asks an astronomer to perform the calculations. What is important is that from the contents of the tablet he has a good idea of the text, the time range of historical events (if mentioned or guessed), the names and the astronomical events quoted, if this is possible. The reason is that independent calculations should always be performed to arrive at common results: only the convergence of philological, historical and astronomical data gives a high probability of a certain dating. The disadvantage is that modern astronomers are much more expert in big bang theories or other astrophysical questions, than in calculating heliacal phenomena or lunar occultations. Hence it is necessary to find one who is conversant with the calculations of the ancient astronomical phenomenology. And, incidentally, this raises the question of how and when our Universities will start interdisciplinary courses to this purpose. Another consideration refers to the use of commercial computer programs, however advertised. No program can properly calculate all the phenomena described in Babylonian astronomy, as several programs are needed and linked, and com-

5

6

Parker-Dubberstein 1956.

Huber 1982, 1999-2000. 119

D E M EIS


mercial programs are far to meet the requirements of Assyriologists. A word of warning includes even very recent ones. Ideally, one should write his own programs as Jean Meeus 7 often says, especially to know the limitations of the programs, the proper use of certain details and parameters, the necessity of including special data or conditions, in other words to know what to expect, not to have a blind trust on the program results, which may be wrong instead. Just an example. Eclipses, solar ones especially, are most useful to date a historical document. In the near past, to avoid cumbersome and difficult calculations, one used to consult eclipse tables or “Canons.” Tables gave rise to equivocal results: for example one would find a day in which an eclipse occurred, but that eclipse actually was visible elsewhere, and the table was silent on this. Oppolzer’s “Canon der Finsternisse” 8 has been very useful, but normally one would not perform those lengthy calculations (with logarithms), which give good results, but would simply jump to the diagrams showing the eclipse path. As Oppolzer himself wrote, these lines were drawn connecting three points by circular arcs, that is eclipse beginning, maximum and end. This often leads to errors, because the real lines are not circle arcs, and because that eclipse might have been observed within its northern or southern limits, not necessarily within the totality path, but the limits are not shown in the maps of many Canons, except those of Meeus-Mucke. 9 Anyway, the question of total eclipses is limited for Babylon: as a matter of facts from –750 to the year zero there were only four eclipses visible from there

as such, on –435 May 31, –401 January 18, –135 April 15 and –9 June 19, the other ones were annular (2 only) or partial. Knowing this, one can look at Oppolzer maps and exclude totality even if the curve passes close to Babylon, but still there are cases where an eclipse which is represented far from that place was rather significant, although partial, and one could think that it was not visible instead. As an example, Fig. 4 shows a part of the Oppolzer map: the track of total eclipse of –302 April 2 passes almost exactly through Babylon, that of the annular one of –306 June 14 is quite far from the town. Accurate calculations shown in figs. 5 and 6, give that at Babylon the eclipse of –306 was only of magnitude 0.687, while that of – 302 was 0.880, contrary to what one would expect. Incidentally, to my knowledge, we have not yet records of these eclipses. This shows the importance of accurate calculations by which the other maps have been calculated, with the centrality lines and the isomagnitudes. It is important to stress that by the computer it is possible to obtain accurate maps where precise positions are computed point by point, instead of hand drawings: another advantage in our studies. Another example is the dating of occultations, either lunar or planetary. Generally one computes close conjunctions of the celestial bodies, what – if small in angle – may lead to the discovery of an occultation fitting our text. However, further calculations are needed, such as the local visibility of the event, the phase of the occulting body (Moon or planet), the altitude of the body above the horizon to check if the event, al-

7

9

8

Meeus 1991. Oppolzer 1887.

120

Meeus-Mucke 1983, Mucke-Meeus 1983.

D E M EIS

though occurred, was in fact well visible from a given site, all in order that the results coincide with the text. A simple reference is the lunar occultation of Mars quoted in Aristoteles, De Coelo, 12, 2, for which many dates have been proposed. However even if these occultations occurred at Athens, the conditions described in the text must be fulfilled, such as the Moon about half illuminated, Mars ingress from the dark side of the Moon and egress from the bright one, besides a suitable altitude on the horizon. These conditions eliminate all proposals, except the date of –356 May 4, also taking into consideration that some event occurred when the great philosopher was too young to observe and note the occultation. In fact he really observed the event, and did not report others, his words are: !"#$%$& '()*+,-!$ ./0123-3$&-4$&35 ,$. Hence we can conclude how misleading could be the simple browsing into eclipse catalogs or Canons, or to perform calculations without the necessary accuracy and care. Another cause of errors is to omit in the calculations the value of Delta T ( T). This quantity is the difference between Dynamical and Universal Time, that is between a constantly running time and the actual perturbed time (due to the variations in the rotation of the Earth). It amounts to about six hours in –700, and this means that the actual visibility of a phenomenon occurs at a longitude about 90 degrees east of the point calculated in Dynamical Time. Fig. 7 shows how the track would be for the eclipse of –306 June 14 if T were evaluated as zero, that is supposing the Earth to revolve uniformly and without rotational perturbations. Exact values of T are subject to

10


various considerations, however good mean values can be computed; to ignore T is clearly a source of errors. Again, old catalogs and Canons either ignored T, or gave wrong values, as the measurement and extrapolation of this variable is quite recent, especially by Meeus and Huber. 10 Another warning concerns the difficult motion of the Moon (Newton said it caused his head to ache, which is something for such a genius!), which is quite fast, so its calculation needs thousands of correcting parameters, and they might not be known exactly or not all incorporated in a commercial program, so that the Moon results somewhere else when the Sun or other bodies are supposed to be eclipsed or, worse, occulted. Also the positions of stars, if calculated without precession and proper motion, may give surprises, and lunar conjunctions – or, worse, occultations – fail the result, and we are tempted to exercise the usual attack to careless scribes, who really deserve no such insult. The M ELAMMU Project has several very positive aspects, and one is the creation of an astronomical database, which will free scholars from the errors and pains of many computations. This database will prove useful in the study of Babylonian civilization, besides of pure astronomical records. Its structure for astronomy should be flexible, in order to accommodate for improved parameters or significant new ones and hence be always up-to-date. It could be extended to list of kings, dated tablets, correlated terms in Assyrian, Akkadian and modern languages, metrological data, a sort of generalized “Planetarium Babylonicum” for the several facets of Assyrian and Babylonian

Meeus 1991, Huber 1999. 121

D E M EIS


culture, including its historiography. A further advantage is in the calculations of events for which no definite dating is immediately possible, and in this case one will be able to put forward several proposals which can be confirmed by further studies. Also in this case computer applications prove very useful, saving large quantities of time and avoiding those inescapable errors of the hand calculations, but proposing to the humanist several possibilities from which he will choose according to his specific knowledge of text, philology, history. Needless to say, recording in a proper magnetic support (CD, DVD, diskettes, tapes etc.) the texts, figures, words, will allow fast comparisons, listing, availability of all this material. Just think of having quickly available transliterated or transcribed texts, drawings and photos of archaeological interest. One could easily classify them, consult and compare them rapidly for new studies, for example to find the age of a kudurru or the kings named in texts. A recent example is the study by Basello for Elamite calendars. 11 And indeed the memory of recent available hard disks is such that it allows enormous quantities of data to be stored. Besides the M ELAMMU Project, I take this opportunity to mention with gratitude the great impulse given by Is.I.A.O., especially Gherardo Gnoli, with the Project for the History of Science in Ancient and Oriental World, directed by Antonio Panaino, active also in several specialized fields of Oriental Studies, which is giving fruits of important value, with creative intelligence, effort and great reliability of results. Coming back to the topic of my talk, I shall quote two examples of interesting

11

Basello 1999.

122

novelties, which I found for Babylonian eclipses, and which were possible because of the speed of calculation allowed by the computer. Eclipse records often mention the presence of winds blowing in certain directions. I know 12 such cases of solar eclipses and 45 of lunar ones, either from the LBAT or the Diaries. First, I noticed that in the not observed eclipses, those mentioned as “nu pap,” there is no mention of wind. This has something to do with predictions; as we shall see Babylonians could predict eclipses – contrary to former statements – but not to the extent of their complete appearance evolution as seen from a given site. Second, the winds are actually blowing during solar eclipses, due to the fast temperature drop in the event, but this is not the case for lunar eclipses. Then the possibility was that the winds could refer to the movement of the Moon with respect to the Sun in solar eclipses, or to that of the Earth shadow during lunar eclipses, as if the winds could cause the displacement of the shadow or of the Moon during eclipses. So the computer helped, because the long calculations of many eclipses were reduced to reasonable times, including the entrance and exit angles for the main phases. Programs were written by Jean Meeus, whom I thank once again for his friendly cooperation, and by me. The result is shown in fig. 8 for some solar eclipses. Here the wind direction mentioned results the incoming one, that is the Sun is fixed and the Moon moves; “gusty” wind refers to the changing directions of the darkened lunula, in the case of total eclipses. The figure represents three phases: first, maximum and

D E M EIS

last, and it is immediate to see that the scribes noted the movements of the Moon during the eclipse, when mentioning winds. In a similar way one can investigate lunar eclipses and arrive to a conclusion hidden until now; in this case the wind refers to the motion of the Earth shadow with respect to the Moon considered fixed. Fig. 9 represents the partial lunar eclipse of –685 April 22, for which the text [LBAT 1417] says that the “West wind blew” and by looking at it one can see that the direction of the calculated shadow and that of the wind mentioned in the tablet are in agreement. This occurs for more than 45 texts, and should not be a simple coincidence. Figure 10 shows some lunar eclipses, from –662 to –647, mentioned in LAS, which I have redrawn by computer, with less pain than Simo had to experience for a similar figure. In the tablets studied here, which are not astrological, there is no mention of the directions of the shadow towards Elam, Amurru and the other lands, but the wind directions are stated as such. Concerning the prediction of eclipses by Babylonians, for brevity I shall only show some diagrams, again using data from LBAT, the Diaries or the Reports to the Kings. First of all often it is mentioned that an eclipse was expected but not seen or that “it was late,” which requires a previous computation for such a statement. Second, we find that such eclipses rated “nu pap,” that is eclipses known to occur, but not seen, were visible elsewhere than Babylon, but the times of the event are correct. In fact the details of the calculations are too many to be exposed here, and it is more convenient to give the results. If one calculates the difference between the time T1, first contact, in the tablet and


the corresponding computed New or Full Moon, the difference is very small, and can be called the “error.” Thus we may suspect that the conjunction time was calculated, what Babylonians could do with no large difficulty. One has for example from tablet ACT 122, column F, the Moon’s speed calculated by System B. Fig. 11 shows the comparison of data from ACT 122 and calculations made according to the ELP 2000 theory of Chapront. As it can be seen, the differences are quite small. Fig. 12 represents the error Babylonian–computed for the initial time T1 in solar eclipses. For 24 cases the mean error is 0.99 hours with a standard deviation of 4.17 hours, but, excluding errors larger than 3.5 hours, as shown in the figure the mean error drops to –0.41 hours with a standard deviation of 1.53 hours! This is a surprisingly small difference, which even nowadays an astronomer would not be able to calculate by additions and multiplications only. It is also interesting that the computing technique improved with respect to time, as the line of tendency gets closer to zero with increasing time. Also the next figure shows the error distribution, which is close to a normal one. In a similar way the errors for lunar eclipses have been calculated for 53 eclipses and the mean value is 0.17 hours with a standard deviation of 0.6 hours. Due to lack of geographical knowledge and relative sizes of Sun and Moon, and in the absence of physical theories, the prediction of visibility from a given place was not possible, still what is important is to document that predictions were made with a remarkable accuracy, obtained by other astronomers much later. Still, we do not know exactly how these calculations were made, although

123

D E M EIS


lists of eclipses by the Saros cycles are known, the so-called Saros canon, their accuracy is not the same of the predictions studied, and the tablets are there to put us questions after millennia. As a further example of cooperation between humanists and astronomers, I would like to quote a recent example. Tommaso Gnoli has made a deep study, C. Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus, concerning episodes in Historia Augusta. A solar eclipse is mentioned there in relation to Gordianus acclaimed as the only emperor. We made a search of eclipses visible at Athens, as clearly detailed in Gnoli’s paper, finding that the best candidate for the eclipse mentioned was the total one of 240 August 5, which was large at Athens and total at Sunion, what might have given resonance to the event, as occurred in such a sacred place. Gnoli had therefore an astronomical confirmation of his historical research. Further application of modern tools may be found in the software for images, or for language analysis, data analysis, graphic representations. For example one could efficiently use image software to reproduce cuneiform texts and put easily interlinear transliteration or translation, indicate on images particular remarks or signs, which once had to be made manually (a byproduct is that printing-proof correction becomes very limited, as it is now for camera-ready texts); preparation of indexes, glossaries, list of frequencies of words or names, and similar applications. From a computing point of view, data analysis software results particularly important when series of observations are to be studied, and their relationships determined. A recent study by Peter Huber on Delta T has lead to conclusive results

on the basis of statistical analysis, and in the present study I have used his formula, with programs by Jean Meeus for the theories ELP-2000 by Chapront (Moon) and VSOP 87 by Bretagnon (Sun and Planets). Graphic representations are widely increasing their useful role in scientific texts, showing the evolution of particular phenomena either of physical or of general nature, and they are quite easily made now. Another recently introduced software is dedicated to the analysis of sentences, Akkadian in particular, so that so called “tokens” are grouped in order to obtain something like automatic translation (from the transliterations), and, more efficiently, to discover special interpretations which will help not only beginners but experienced Assyriologists as well, in the search for significant connections. A recent work by G. Graßhoff 12 is a good example of this technique, applied to Normal Stars and Lunar Six observations, with results which are either new or confirm those already known. Also, the fundamental study by John Britton 13 “Lunar Anomaly in Babylonian Astronomy” is a splendid example of the use of computer and brain, with the help of mathematical and graphic analysis and the impressive amount of calculations, as it is the paper by Beaulieu and Britton “Rituals for an eclipse possibility in the 8 the year of Cyrus,” where lunar phenomena were calculated to fit an interesting text. Many other applications of the computer to Assyrian-Babylonian astronomy could be investigated, but I believe that everyone will add those specifically apt to her or his own studies. To finish this talk, I would like to

12

13

Graßhoff 1999.

124

Britton 1999.

D E M EIS


mention two cases. The first is the enormous work made by Neugebauer and van Hoesen for their “Greek Horoscopes,” 14 if we only think that to calculate Jupiter–Saturn conjunction from –60 to +600 they had to use long graphs on tracing paper, which were slided in order to find the periods (every 60 years) and then perform hand calculations by tables: it takes a few minutes (5) to calculate all of them by computer, so one can imagine what amount of time could be saved. The second is to revive an interesting paper by Otto Neugebauer, in which he studied the influence of Babylonian as-

tronomy to Renaissance art. 15 Indeed an analysis of the famous tables of the Trés riches heures du Duc du Berry (fig. 13) is an example of the limitation of computer applications: no computer will have the talent and the imagination of the Limbourg Brothers to draw those unequalled miniatures, although with a computer one could quickly calculate the litterae dominicales (fig. 14), and no computer would have the command of astronomy and culture which lead Neugebauer to find Babylonian influences in such an art masterpiece.

14

15

Neugebauer-van Hoesen 1959.

Neugebauer 1974 (Astr. & Hist. 507).

B IBLIOGRAPHY Basello G. P., Problemi calendariali nelle fonti elamiche di età achemenide, Thesis, Bologna 1999. Beaulieu P.-A. and Britton J.P, ‘Rituals for an Eclipse Possibility in the 8 th Year of Cyrus,’ JCS 46, 1994, 73-86. Bretagnon P., ‘Théorie du mouvement de l’ensemble des planètes. Solution VSOP82,’ Astronomy and Astrophysics 114, 1982, 278-288. Britton J. P., ‘Lunar Anomaly in Babylonian Astronomy’ in Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, ed. by N. Swerdlow, Cambridge 1999. Chapront-Touzé M. et Chapront J., ‘The lunar ephemeris ELP 2000,’ Astronomy and Astrophysics, 124, 1983, 50-62. De Meis S., ‘Il “Planetarium Babylonicum” di G.V. Schiaparelli. Problematiche astronomiche,’ in Giovanni Schiaparelli: storico della Astronomia e uomo di cultura, ed. by A. Panaino and G. Pellegrini, Milano 1999, 63-80. Epping J., ‘Astronomisches aus Babylon,’ Ergänzungshefte zu den “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach” 44, 1889, Freiburg im Breisgau. Gnoli T., ‘C. Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus,’ Mediterraneo Antico, III, I, 2000, 261-308.

125

D E M EIS


Graßhoff G., ‘Normal Stars Observations in Late Babylonian Astronomical Diaries,’ in Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, ed. by N. Swerdlow, Cambridge 1999, 97-147. Huber P.J. et al., Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III (Occasional Papers 1/4 of the Monographic Journals of the Near East), Malibu 1982. Huber P.J., ‘Astronomical Dating of Ur III and Akkad,’ AfO, Bd. XLVI und XLVII, Horn 1999/2000, 50-79. Huber P.J., ‘Modeling the Length of Day and Extrapolating the Rotation of the Earth,’ in Astronomical Amusements. Papers in Honor of Jean Meeus, ed. by F. Bonoli, S. De Meis, A. Panaino, Milan 2000, 91-104. Hunger H., ‘Schiaparelli’s Notebook of Babylonian Star Names,’ in Giovanni Schiaparelli: storico della Astronomia e uomo di cultura, Milano 1999, 81-90. Meeus J., Astronomical Algorithms, Richmond 1991. Meeus J.-Mucke H., Canon of Lunar Eclipses -2002 to +2526, Wien 1983. Mucke H.-Meeus J., Canon of Solar Eclipses -2003 to +2256, Wien 1983. Neugebauer O., van Hoesen H. B., Greek Horoscopes (Am. Philosoph. Soc.), Philadelphia 1959. Neugebauer O., ‘Astronomical and Calendrical Data in the Très Riches Heurs,’ in The Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries, Meiss, Pierpont Morgan Library 1974, 421481. Oppolzer Th., Canon der Finsternisse (Math.-Naturwiss. Classe, Denkschriften Band LII), Wien 1887. Panaino A., ‘Giovanni V. Schiaparelli e la storia dei più antichi calendari iranici, con tre inediti di G.V. Schiaparelli ed una Nota di S. De Meis,’ in Giovanni Schiaparelli: storico della Astronomia e uomo di cultura, ed. by A. Panaino and G. Pellegrini, Milano 1999, 99-148. Parker R. A. and Dubberstein W. H., Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, Providence 1956. Parpola S., Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (LAS), Neukircher-Vluyn 1983. Parpola S., Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (LABS), Helsinki 1993. Sachs A., Hunger H., Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Wien 1988, 1989, 1996. Schiaparelli G.V., Nomi di stelle e di costellazioni e di pianeti presso i Babilonesi, unpublished manuscript (see De Meis 1999, above).

126

D E M EIS


F IGURES 1. Epping 1889, Astronomische Ausdrücke. 2. Epping 1889, Babylonische Mond-Ephemeride des Jahres 189 S.A. 3. Epping 1889, Kudurrus with constellation names. 4. Oppolzer 1887, Map of solar eclipses, from Blatt N° 44. 5. Map of the path of the Annular solar eclipse of –306 June 14. 6. Map of the path of the Annular solar eclipse of –302 April 2. 7. Map of the path of the Annular solar eclipse of –306 June 14 computed without and with T (3.96 h ). 8. Movement of the Moon in some solar eclipses, considered “winds” in Babylonian texts. 9. Movement of the Earth’s umbra with respect to the Moon, considered “wind” in Babylonian texts. 10. Lunar eclipses visible at Babylon from –662 to –647. The arrow indicates the movement relative to the Earth’s umbra; quadrants are indicated, used for predictions. 11. Difference of Moon’s speed as in ACT 122, col. F, and Chapront theory. 12. Difference Babylonian prediction–modern for T1 in solar eclipses. 13. Les trés riches heures du Duc du Berry, January. The miniature has no litterae dominicales nor astronomical data. 14. Les trés riches heures du Duc du Berry, June. The miniature is complete with the astronomical data.

127

F RYE

R ICHARD N. F RYE

T RUTH AND L IES IN A NCIENT I RANIAN H ISTORY

Harvard

Truth and Lies in Ancient Iranian History

S

ome archaeologists claim that the word impressionistic is a synonym for superficial, since they deal with the hard facts of material culture, while historians are shallow because they study causes and effects which frequently are intangible. In the ancient Near East and Central Asia, however, to try to understand the past the paucity of all sources forces one to resort to analogies, comparisons and logic, or just simple common sense. Unfortunately sometimes the last is forgotten in trying to explain enigmas. For example, it is well known, but at times overlooked, that both writing and oral memories were limited to a few people. One might say that until the spread of Arabic in the Middle Ages, in the Near East writing was restricted to priests (or other religious figures) and professional scribes. The former were interested in preserving religious texts, while the latter primarily in keeping accounts. Oral history was preserved by professional story tellers, called g s!n in Parthian times, while common folk frequently mis-remembered or forgot past events. Those with prodigious memories were respected and honoured as folk ‘historians,’ but additions and losses were the normal practices of those reporting past events. All of the above does not take into account deliberate falsification of information for political or other reasons. Consequently one must be sceptical of much information from the ancient world and consider motives and reasons for the A. Panaino & A. Piras (eds.) M ELAMMU S YMPOSIA IV (Milano 2004) ISBN 88-88483-206-3

records which are preserved. One should always ask why a priest or scribe recorded a text, or why a ruler ordered a text to be written. Even more questions need to be applied to information handed down orally and then recorded in writing. Finally the historian of the ancient Near East must be on guard not to import contemporary views or biases into an interpretation of the past. All very simple and understood but sometimes neglected. What follows is speculative and impressionistic, but it concerns an important historical question: how can we assess and believe records from the past? Anyone who tries to recover memories from his own past, or remembers the Japanese film Rashomon, will sympathize with any attempt to set up guidelines, trying to establish what Leopold von Ranke said about history – to report was eigentlich geschehen ist. As a general rule one should ask, does the information support or promote a position or point of view, or is it neutral in not contributing to any argument which is advanced by the text or inscription? In a somewhat simple or crude example, in Suetonius’ Life of Caesar (22), when he has the consul say that the Amazons had controlled a large part of Asia, this remark really has to do with a contemporary joke, and cannot be deemed true or historical. The Classical writers are full of ‘historical information’ which is meant to edify or teach their readers some lesson, and consequently must be regarded with caution. On the other hand, if a remark is simply recorded as an interesting

129

F RYE


piece of information, without any didactic or glorification purpose, then the chances of being true are enhanced. In other words, the purpose of a statement should be determined before moving to the next step, which is a comparison of similar statements or situations, to determine the reasonableness or logic of the information. It is this second step which is tricky but frequently necessary for the ancient world, where sources are few, or mere copies of one original source. In this vein let us turn to ancient Iran and examine the long standing argument about Darius and his Behistun inscription. Previously I had upheld the veracity of Darius’ remarks, considering the fact that witnesses undoubtedly existed who would know about the events he describes. Yet there was one instance where he might have escaped detection, and that was the murder of the person he claimed was the usurper Gaum ta rather than Bardiya, brother of Cambyses. The Gaum ta episode has been discussed ad nauseam, and here I wish to concentrate only on the question of legitimacy. If we cosider who was legitimate or not in previous history, the case of the neo-Assyrian king Sargon (722-705 B.C.), who was a usurper, might come to mind. He had asserted legitimacy by claiming descent from ancient kings of Babylonia, and had great success in not only maintaining power, but also expanding the Assyrian realm. Could the story of Darius be a parallel to that of Sargon, or even better to more ancient rulers who exhibited similar claims? In a recent trip to Pasargadae I again examined the inscriptions with the name Cyrus there. All

were similar and simple, saying “I am Cyrus the Achaemenid.” This seemed strange, since it is now generally accepted that Darius introduced the Old Persian cuneiform script, and most probably it was he who ordered these inscriptions to be engraved on the buildings in the city of Cyrus. Why would Darius order such a simple text engraved there? Obviously he wanted everyone to know that Cyrus was an Achaemenid like himself, and therefore Darius had legitimacy to rule. However, what does Cyrus say in his Babylonian inscriptions? Cyrus never mentions Achaemenes as his ancestor in proclaiming his genealogy in cuneiform texts. 1 The common name which attaches the descent of Darius to that of Cyrus is Teispis (OP !išpiš), but is it the same person? It would be easy to assert that it was one and the same ancestor, but just as the matter of Sargon, the intention was to prove legitimacy, which was very important in the ancient world. If we may question Sargon’s ancestors, why not also those of Darius? Why did Darius insist that both he and Cyrus were descended from Achaemenes, and not be content with Teispis as their common ancestor, since after the latter the two branches of the family diverged? We may consider several reasons for Darius’ insistence on exalting Achaemenes, which in every inscription of all the successors of Darius is emphasized. All proclaim that they are Achaemenids. The Greeks accepted the Persian version of the descent of their rulers, and the name Achaemenid came down in history everywhere except in Iran. The usual explanation for this phenomenon is the loss of memory after Alexander, but why was

1 Cf. Weidener, E.F., “Die älteste Nachricht über das persische Konigshaus,” Archiv für Orientforschung, 7 (1930), pp. 1-7. The Old Persian inscriptions may be

found in Kent, R., Old Persian Grammar, Text, Lexicon, (AOS, New Haven, Conn., 1953).

130

F RYE


the Assyrian Empire and its kings remembered even in Islamic times in Iran and not the Achaemenids? The great savant al-B"r#n" knew about the kings of Assyria but not the Achaemenids under that name. It is fascinating that even though he did not know the name ‘Achaemenid’ he did have the correct sequence of their rulers (Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, etc.), but they are listed under the sobriquet of the kings of the Chaldaeans. 2 Later, when he gives a list of the Persian kings, according to Classical authors, in a curious fashion he repeats the Chaldaean list, with the additions of Tiglath Pileser, Salmanassar and a form of Esarhadon. 3 I am at a loss to know where al-B"r#n" found these lists, but with his wide use of different sources, one would expect the name Achaemenid to appear somewhere in some form, even with the mixture of lists. One would have expected the Assyrians to have been forgotten after the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C., while the inscriptions of Darius and his successors attest to their desire to preserve memory of the Achaemenids. This requires an explanation. It seems there are two possible answers to the loss of memory of the name Achaemenids in Iran. The generally accepted explanation is that the Seleucid, and especially the Parthians, were the primary agents of forgetfulness. The latter, who came from Central Asia, it is asserted, substituted their mythic and epic version of the ancient history of Iran for the true history of the Achaemenids. It is surprising, however, that in western Iran, home of the Medes and Persians, memory of the Achaemenids was completely lost. Forms of the names of the Achaemenid

kings (Darius, Artaxerxes) do appear on coins of the Frataraka rulers of Persis or F rs, homeland of the Achaemenids, but again no trace of the name Achaemenid. Is it possible that the people in western Iran did not want, or care, to remember a dynasty which was not beloved, or may even have been considered illegitimate, in the eyes of many? This may seem farfetched, but the disappearance of the Achaemenids in the one land where they should have been remembered is puzzling. Another, and I suggest more plausible, explanation of the loss of memory of the name Achaemenid is that it was not forgotten, but a substitution was made which was codified in Sasanian times. What do I mean? The ‘Parthian’ epic account of the past was based in part on names and events in the Avesta, which may give us a clue, if we remember what was stated above that primarily it was the priests of the Zoroastrian religion who wrote down what little has been preserved. I propose that the priests, together with popular story tellers, constructed an account of Iran’s past parallel to the history which we know today. But why would the Sasanians accept this account as their ‘official’ version of the past in place of the ‘real’ history? I suggest that the Classical account was first considered propaganda of their Roman/ Byzantine enemies. Second, and more important, the priests became greatly concerned about the spread of Christianity, the religion of the enemies of the Sasanians, especially in the fifth century and later when Christianity was the official religion of their enemies. I have proposed that it was this fear of the progress of Christianity in Iran which caused the

2

p. 89, trans. p. 111. 3 Ibid., text p. 101, trans. p. 115.

al-B"r#n", Ath!r al b!qiya (The Chronology of Ancient Nations), trans. E. Sachau (London, 1879), text

131

F RYE


Zoroastrian priests to persuade the Sasanian kings to accept and proclaim the popular and religious account of the past of Iran instead of the pernicious ‘Western’ history. 4 Later Islamic authors were confused about this manipulation of the past by Iranians, and the above explanation should be considered when studying Islamic versions of the past. The third century is a turning point in world history when universal, intolerant and competing religions replaced former allegiances. No longer was it a privilege to become a Roman citizen, rather one identified himself as a Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, Manichaean or other. Christians did not tolerate pagans and Zoroastrians also adopted the intolerant attitude of their enemies. Religion became the prime player in everyone’s life and this is reflected in the history of the Near East as well as the West. The above suggests that we must be very cautious in accepting accounts of the past, without careful questioning of the motives of the recorder of those events. The repetition of patterns or motifs in the past, such as the tale of ‘baby Moses in the bulrushes,’ found also in ancient Mesopotamia, and elsewhere with variations, points to an unconscious, or even possibly intended, desire to conform to well-known and popularly accepted paradigms of behaviour. Another recurring pattern in the history of Iran is that of the founder of a new dynasty, who is connected by blood

with the previous dynasty, but for some reason has to flee from court and hide among the common folk, who raise him until the time of his revolt and success arrives. This is the account of the childhood of Cyrus, repeated for Ardaš"r, founder of the Sasanian dynasty, and with similar events even in Islamic times, witness the rise of Ismail, founder of the Safavid dynasty. Are we dealing with mythic or epic elements of history; how much can one believe? To take another general but seemingly comparable instance, how is one to understand the recurring pattern of revolutions, with a violent uprising and struggle, followed by a regime of terror and then foreign invasion? The French, Russian and Iranian revolutions are almost eerily similar, as though participants in each follow a law of revolutions, again either unconsciously or by design, having determined the paths all revolutions must follow. Sheep or shrewd readers of history? Many are the puzzles of the past. Truth and falsehood are indeed difficult to distinguish in history, but we should not go to one extreme, which has history a ‘pack of lies agreed upon.’ Rather one should examine the past with objectivity, logic, and with all the resources available, to reconstruct what really happened in the past. Then perhaps we can approach the dictum of Ranke rather than an account of what should have happened.

4

by A.S. Shahbazi, “Early Sasanians’ Claim to Achaemenid Heritage,” in the first issue of the same journal (2001), pp. 61-73.

Cf. Frye, R.N., “Founder Myths in Iranian History,” N!me-ye Ir!n-e B!st!n, vol. 2, no. 1 (Tehran, 2003), pp. 19-21, where reference is to an important article 132

G ARIBOLDI

A NDREA G ARIBOLDI

M ONETE DELL ’I RAN PREISLAMICO DAL M EDAGLIERE DEL M USEO C IVICO A RCHEO LOGICO DI B OLOGNA

Ravenna

Monete dell’Iran preislamico dal Medagliere del Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna: catalogo e considerazioni in margine* Introduzione

I

l Medagliere del Museo Civico di Bologna possiede un gruppetto di monete dell’Iran preislamico che, ad eccezione di tre darici in oro, 1 sono sinora inedite. Sebbene l’importanza delle monete per la storia e per l’arte dell’Iran antico sia fuori di dubbio e riconosciuta dagli studi moderni, 2 anche considerando la scarsità di fonti primarie che sovente affligge lo studio dell’età che va dagli Achemenidi, ai Parti, e poi ai Sasanidi, tuttavia, specie in Italia, l’interesse per questo tipo di

materiale è stato sempre assai scarso. Infatti, a partire dal Settecento, quando iniziarono a formarsi le grandi collezioni private, tutta l’attenzione venne naturalmente rivolta alla monetazione romana, greca, ed alla medaglistica rinascimentale, con la conseguenza che anche in Medaglieri importanti, come quello di Bologna o di Milano, 3 confluissero nel tempo solo pochissime monete iraniche. 4 È lecito dire che, ancora oggi, gli studi numismatici risentono di questa impostazione “classicista” degli studi.

*

niennes 13), ed. P. Briant - C. Herrenschmidt, Paris 1989; per l’età partica, Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse – The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation, ed. J. Wiesehöfer, Stuttgart 1998; per l’età sasanide e kushano-sasanide, Coins, Art and Chronology, Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Bordenlands, ed. M. Alram - D.E. Klimburg Salter, Wien 1999; Matériaux pour l’histoire économique du monde iranien, ed. R. Gyselen - M. Szuppe, Paris 1999. Per tutta la monetazione iranica è invece fondamentale ALRAM 1986, che descrive con cura le monete recanti nomi propri di persona. 3 Il Medagliere milanese, che raccoglie circa 300.000 monete, custodisce solo 69 monete sasanidi. Si veda GARIBOLDI 2003. Attualmente è in preparazione da parte di una équipe di studiosi una Sylloge commentata delle monete sasanidi dei medaglieri di Vienna, Berlino e Parigi: si veda ALRAM - GYSELEN 2003. 4 Ovviamente lo scarso interesse per le monete “persiane” era dovuto anche alla loro non reperibilità sul suolo italiano, circostanza che, peraltro, non ha mai frenato, ad esempio, la passione per l’egittologia.

Ringrazio la Dott.ssa Cristiana Morigi Govi e la Dott.ssa Daniela Picchi per avermi consentito la visione del materiale conservato presso il Medagliere, ed i Proff. Carlo Cereti e Antonio Panaino per il loro prezioso consiglio. Questo studio è frutto di una ricerca svolta nell’ambito del Programma di Ricerca Scientifica di interesse nazionale (ex 40%) dal titolo: “Interculturalità e interazione culturale, storico politica e religiosa tra Oriente e Occidente dall’Antichità all’Alto Medioevo.” 1 I tre darici furono pubblicati da PANVINI ROSATI 1963 in occasione di una mostra sulla civiltà greca. 2 Contributi numismatici sono ormai spesso presenti in importanti volumi di studi dedicati ai vari periodi della civiltà iranica preislamica. Cito, ad esempio, per l’età achemenide, Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, ed. I. Carradice, Oxford 1987; L’or perse et l’histoire grecque (Revue des Études Anciennes 91, 1/2), ed. R. Descat, Bordeaux 1989; in particolare per il problema dei tributi e delle tasse nell’impero achemenide, Le tribut dans l’empire perse (Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraA. Panaino & A. Piras (eds.) M ELAMMU S YMPOSIA IV (Milano 2004) ISBN 88-88483-206-3

133

G ARIBOLDI

M ONETE DELL ’I RAN PREISLAMICO DAL M EDAGLIERE DEL M USEO C IVICO A RCHEOLOGICO DI B OLOGNA

La storia del Medagliere di Bologna conferma questo quadro. 5 Infatti esso nacque nel 1878 dalla fusione della collezione Universitaria (sorta nel 1714, nello stesso anno in cui fu fondato l’Istituto delle Scienze con sede a Palazzo Poggi) con la raccolta Comunale. I due nuclei, con aggiunte successive, raggiunsero la consistente cifra di quasi 90.000 monete. Significativa fu, ad esempio, l’acquisizione nella raccolta Comunale presso l’Archiginnasio, assieme ai punzoni della zecca

di Bologna, chiusa nel 1861, della collezione di Pelagio Palagi, che tuttavia privilegiava sempre i settori classici. Nonostante ciò, tra i numeri di inventario delle monete del nostro catalogo comparirà più volte il suo nome, segno del grande eclettismo di questo studioso-collezionista. In totale, oggi si annoverano, per il settore qui preso in esame, solo 3 monete degli Achemenidi, 29 monete partiche, 1 del regno di Caracene e 5 monete sasanidi.

Monete Achemenidi (cat. nn. 1-3) I 3 darici, che appartenevano già alla collezione Palagi, in quanto d’oro, costituiscono, in sé e per sé, una rarità. Col termine darico si intende la moneta aurea degli Achemenidi, anche se la sua esatta cronologia costituisce ancora un problema. La prima attestazione letteraria del termine greco !"#$%&' è in Erodoto VII, 28, 2, dove si racconta che un Lidio di nome Pythios, interrogato da Serse (486-465 a.C.), nel 480, sull’ammontare delle sue ricchezze, avrebbe risposto che egli disponeva di 4.000.000 di stateri darici meno 7.000 (3.993.000 di ()!)*"+,- !"#$%.,). Questo Pythios, forse parente di Creso, era allora l’uomo più ricco di tutto il mondo greco, secondo solo allo stesso re dei Persiani, e già aveva fatto dono al padre di Serse, Dario, di un platano e di una vite d’oro, opere illustri realizzate da Teodoro di Samo (Hdt. VII, 27, 2). Pythios, esponente della più alta borghesia Lidia filo-persiana, intendeva finanziare la spedizione di Serse contro Atene, ma il re, con un gesto munifico, non accettò il suo danaro, ma

anzi gli diede i 7.000 darici mancanti per raggiungere la cifra tonda (Hdt. VII, 29, 2). L’enorme ricchezza di Pythios si spiega col fatto, omesso da Erodoto, ma riferitoci da Plutarco (Moralia 262, D-F, 263) e da Polieno (VIII, 42), che egli era un grande possidente terriero che, oltre ai proventi dell’agricoltura, poteva contare anche su alcune miniere d’oro ubicate sulle sue terre. Vista la rarità dei darici, ci si potrebbe chiedere se la cifra fornitaci da Erodoto non sia, in realtà, da intendere come un’unità di peso dell’oro in lingotti o in pepite, e non come oro monetato, 6 ma l’argento di Pythios è espresso in talenti (2.000) e l’oro in darici, mentre sarebbe stato certamente più agevole esprimere anche l’oro in talenti (infatti 3.993.000 darici pesano a 8,4 gr. l’uno, circa 33.600 kg., e cioè 1.000 talenti persiani). Dunque perché Erodoto avrebbe dovuto fornire una cifra così complessa, se non per indicare che si trattava effettivamente di darici e non di un quantitativo d’oro grezzo?

5 Per una storia dettagliata del Medagliere di Bologna si veda MORIGI GOVI 1986.

6 La questione è stata sollevata da LE RIDER 2001, pp. 155 e 189-190.

134

G ARIBOLDI


Ancora Erodoto (IV, 166) narra che Ariande, governatore dell’Egitto, volendo rendersi pari a Dario, che aveva fatto coniare moneta con oro purissimo 7 (/"0(12, %!3!"4)!)2,), fece battere monete in argento purissimo (Erodoto ricorda queste monete col nome di ariandici), tanto da suscitare il risentimento di Dario che, col pretesto che egli si era ribellato, lo fece uccidere. Il re, evidentemente, considerava un delitto di lesa maestà ed una diminuzione della sua gloria l’emissione di moneta non preventivamente autorizzata, e tanto peggio se in competizione o emulazione con la propria. Dal testo si evince anche che il re desiderava mantenere una stretta politica di controllo sul circolante dell’impero, come si addice ad uno Stato complesso e burocraticamente sviluppato. Altre importanti attestazioni del termine darico si trovano in vari conti finanziari ateniesi, dei quali il più antico risale al 429/428 a.C. (si menzionano 105 stateri di oro darico). 8

I Greci non sembrano nutrire molti dubbi sul fatto che fu Dario I (522-486 a.C.) ad introdurre per primo una moneta d’oro con l’immagine del re, naturalmente idealizzato nell’espressione del potere sovrano e senza alcuna connotazione fisionomica. La moneta achemenide, pertanto, esprime l’impronta, il segno distintivo regale, come scrive Diodoro Siculo (XVI, 66, 2), quando racconta che Alessandro Magno nel 331 trovò nel tesoro reale di Susa più di 40.000 talenti d’oro e d’argento non monetato, e 9.000 talenti di pezzi d’oro con l’emblema di Dario (/!"!%)*"!- 5!"#$%&,), cioè 2.700.000 darici. 9 Polluce (Onom. III, 87) e i lessicografi 10 ripetono poi chiaramente che il termine darico viene da Dario, perché egli lo inventò per primo. Aggiungiamo poi che forse, alle orecchie dei Greci, come ebbe già a rimarcare E. Herzfeld, 11 il nome persiano di Dario, D rayavauš, poteva evocare per assonanza il termine antico-persiano indicante l’oro, daraniya-,

7

Probabilmente a Sardi la mina persiana era equiparata a 100 sicli (100 x 60 = 6.000 = 1 talento). Il sistema ponderale adottato a Sardi dai Persiani ebbe grande fortuna perché risultava facilmente interscambiabile con il sistema ponderale attico, che prevedeva la divisione del talento in 6.000 dracme, portando ad una graduale assimilazione fra il siclo e la dracma. Tuttavia, il talento ateniese pesava circa 26 kg ed era frazionato in 6.000 dracme dal peso teorico di 4,3 gr. Nonostante le differenze di peso teorico date al talento, i Persiani manifestarono grande acume nel proporre al mercato greco un talento al pari frazionabile in 6.000 unità (sulla questione, si veda da ultimo, LE RIDER 2001, pp. 157-160; ALBUM - BATES - FLOOR 1993, p. 15). Gli Achemenidi mantennero per tutta la durata del loro impero un rapporto costante tra oro e argento calcolabile in 1: 13,3 (solo con Dario I si ebbe 1: 13), e questa stabilità della loro moneta fu senz’altro uno dei fattori che ne determinò il successo; si veda LE RIDER 2001, pp. 200-205. Ricapitolando, in età achemenide i rapporti di cambio in Asia Minore erano i seguenti: 1 Talento = 60 Mine = 6.000 sicli. 1 Darico = 20 Sicli. 300 Darici = 1 Talento. 10 MELVILLE JONES 1993, p. 464. 11 HERZFELD 1938, p. 416.

Analisi chimiche compiute su darici conservati al British Museum hanno rivelato che essi contengono circa il 99% di oro e solo l’1% d’argento (si veda TUPLIN 1989, p. 72). Questo elevatissimo valore di purezza dell’oro è indice, oltre che di una precisa volontà politica di rendere la moneta achemenide assolutamente competitiva sul mercato estero, come ci risulta anche dai ripostigli, anche del raggiungimento di un elevato livello tecnico nella raffinazione dei metalli nobili, che, come noto, in natura ben difficilmente raggiungono simili valori: vedi ZOURNATZI 2000, pp. 256-265. 8 IG I3 383, l. 17-18.Vedi LE RIDER 2001, p. 145; CARRADICE 1987, p. 75, nota 13. 9 Sarà utile ricordare che a Sardi 1 talento persiano equivaleva a 300 darici o a 6.000 sicli d’argento, ed 1 darico (8,4 gr.) valeva 20 sicli d’argento di 5,35 gr. (siclo leggero) o di 5,6 gr. (siclo pesante). Mentre a Babilonia il talento comprendeva 3.600 sicli di 8,4 gr. e pesava pertanto 30,240 kg, contro il talento usato in Asia Minore pesante 33,600 kg. (5,6 gr. x 6.000). La divisione intermedia del talento era la mina, un’unità di peso di origine babilonese (man!) del valore di un sessantesimo di talento (504 gr. circa). La mina babilonese valeva 60 sicli d’argento, mentre nel sistema attico la mina (di 436 gr.) valeva 100 dracme.

135

G ARIBOLDI


così come il nome del re Creso (6"27(2'), in greco, non poteva che richiamare la parola /"0(&', oro. In Erodoto è indubbio che entrambi i personaggi siano associati a grandi quantitativi d’oro (ad esempio, per Creso, I, 50-54, per Dario, III, 94; IV, 166). Ma, se le fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche attestano con certezza l’esistenza del darico solo dalla seconda metà del V secolo a.C. (l’epoca in cui scrisse Erodoto), è difficile stabilire quando esattamente Dario compì la sua riforma monetale, e le cronologie relative o assolute dei diversi tipi di darici o di sicli. Dobbiamo al Robinson (1958) una prima sistemazione cronologica, poi affinata da Carradice (1987), della successione dei diversi tipi monetali in cui, comunque, al dritto compare sempre il re barbuto, con una corona merlata e vestito con il kandys, una tunica regale e, al rovescio, sono presenti delle punzonature rettangolari. Sono individuabili, principalmente, quattro tipi monetali: Tipo I: Il re è rappresentato a mezzo busto verso destra, tiene un arco nella mano sinistra e due frecce nella destra. Di questo tipo non si conoscono attualmente esemplari in oro, ma solo sicli del peso di 5,4 gr. circa. Dall’esame dei ripostigli, 12 risulta essere alquanto raro ed il più antico (500-480 a.C.). Tipo II: Il re, a figura intera, avanza verso destra, tiene una faretra sulla schiena ed è nell’atto di scoccare una freccia. Si conoscono darici (8,35gr.) e sicli (5,4gr.) e frazioni in oro e argento. 13 Sulla base dei ripostigli risulta aver circolato qualche decennio in più rispetto al tipo precedente (500-450 a.C.).

12 Per i ripostigli monetali di monete achemenidi rimando a CARRADICE 1987 e LE RIDER 2001, in particolare pp. 180-185.

136

Tipo IIIa-b: Il re, a figura intera, avanza verso destra, tiene una lancia nella destra ed un arco nella sinistra, la faretra sulla schiena. Alcuni esemplari presentano due globuli lungo la barba del re (Tipo IIIa di Carradice), altri, in maggior quantità, sono senza globuli ed hanno un aumento nel peso del siclo (5,6 gr.) (Tipo IIIb di Carradice. Cfr. nn.1-3 del catalogo). Dall’esame dei ripostigli il Tipo IIIb sembra essere stato coniato per molto tempo in più, sino al 370/360 a.C., rispetto al Tipo IIIa, la cui la produzione termina intorno al 450. Tipo IV: Simile al tipo precedente, ma il re impugna un lungo pugnale nella mano destra al posto della lancia. Lo studio dei ripostigli consente di affermare che questo tipo iniziò ad essere coniato dal 450/425 circa fino alla caduta dell’impero achemenide, ed è comune nei rinvenimenti della prima metà del IV secolo a.C.

Questa classificazione tipologica può, naturalmente, essere ancora perfezionata mediante l’inserimento di alcune subtipologie, come ha mostrato M. Alram, 14 ma, nella sostanza, resta valida e molto pratica. A riprova dell’esattezza dell’analisi delle cronologie relative che si evincono dai ripostigli, è stata fortunatamente rinvenuta nelle fortificazioni di Persepolis, e pubblicata dal Root, 15 una tavoletta amministrativa riguardante una distribuzione di farina per uno spostamento, che ci fornisce un utile terminus ante quem per la produzione del Tipo II (re che tira con l’arco). La tavoletta, infatti, reca al verso, a guisa di sigillo del beneficiario, l’impronta ripetuta per due volte di una moneta del Tipo II, ed è datata al venti-

13 14 15

LE RIDER 2001, pp. 143-144. ALRAM 1993, pp. 23-53. ROOT 1988, pp. 1-12.

G ARIBOLDI


duesimo anno e al dodicesimo mese di un regno, che il Root ha dimostrato essere quello di Dario I, per cui la tavoletta è ascrivibile al 500 a.C. Se il Tipo II era già in circolazione nel 500 a.C., anche se non possiamo sapere da quanto, il Tipo I deve essere comunque precedente, e, secondo Le Rider e Carradice, 16 non di molti anni, dato che è stata rilevata la presenza di pochissimi punzoni, e quindi si presume che l’emissione sia stata scarsa e di breve durata. Un ultimo importante dato che occorre tenere in considerazione è che nella sala del trono e delle udienze del palazzo reale di Persepolis, l’apad na, sono state rinvenute due scatole in pietra, poste una all’angolo nord-est, l’altra all’angolo sud-est, contenenti tavolette in oro e in argento iscritte in antico-persiano, elamico e babilonese, dove Dario invoca la protezione per sé e la sua casa da parte di Ahuramazd , dal quale ha ricevuto il

regno. Sotto ciascuna scatola erano state interrate sei monete: quattro creseidi 17 d’oro “leggero,” e due monete d’argento di Cipro da una parte, e dall’altra un pezzo in argento di Abdera ed uno di Egina. 18 Trattandosi di un deposito di fondazione del palazzo di Persepolis, voluto da Dario intorno al 519/518, e terminato verso il 513/512, sembrerebbe che a quell’epoca Dario non avesse ancora riformato la monetazione e che, pertanto, l’inizio della coniazione dei darici e dei sicli con l’immagine (/!"!%)*") del re (Tipo I e II) sarebbe da collocare fra il 510 ed il 500 a.C. Questo ragionamento, tuttavia, è valido solo se si crede, come alcuni studiosi, 19 che, se fossero esistite all’epoca del termine dei lavori del palazzo, le nuove monete sarebbero state deposte assieme alle tavolette, certamente per esaltare ulteriormente la grandezza di Dario. Personalmente sono

16

co inspiegabile nell’uso della moneta (dal 547 al 510). Inoltre le fonti parlano della retribuzione di soldati e mercenari in moneta coniata già al tempo di Ciro il Giovane (Xenoph. Anab. I, 3, 21). La grande quantità di conî e di punzoni differenti, nei quali si nota anche una evoluzione artistica da uno stile naturalistico ad uno più crudo e lineare, poco si addice al regno del solo Creso. A ciò si aggiunga che nei ripostigli monetali i creseidi leggeri non sono mai associati a quelli pesanti, segno che non solo si tratta di due emissioni distinte, ma anche separate cronologicamente. Solo i mezzi stateri del secondo gruppo di creseidi, infatti, sono stati rinvenuti assieme ai sicli persiani (CARRADICE 1987, pp. 74-75). Sulla complessa questione dell’attribuzione dei creseidi rimando ancora una volta al saggio di LE RIDER 2001, in particolare le pp. 101-121 e passim. 18 ROOT 1988; LE RIDER 2001, pp. 129-130. 19 ROBINSON 1958 e CARRADICE 1987, ritengono corretta la datazione 510/500, altri, tra cui spiccano ROOT 1988 e VARGYAS 2000, pp. 40-41, stimano che proprio l’assenza dei darici sia da interpretare come un segno positivo della loro esistenza, poiché il deposito è altamente simbolico e le monete nascoste alluderebbero al passato. Altri studiosi ancora, come LE RIDER 2001, si limitano prudentemente a tenere per certo il 500 come terminus ante quem delle emissioni regali.

LE RIDER 2001, pp. 130-131; CARRADICE 1987, p. 83. Si ritiene che i “creseidi” siano le prime monete in oro emesse nel mondo greco, verso la metà del VI sec. a.C., dal re di Lidia Creso (560-547 a.C.), dopo le prime emissioni in elettro (lega di oro e argento). Si è soliti citare, a questo proposito, il noto passo di Erodoto, I, 94, 1, in cui si dice che i Lidi furono i primi a coniare monete d’oro e d’argento. I Greci conoscevano bene questo tipo di monete, e, nei rendiconti ateniesi, le differenziavano con cura rispetto alle altre monete d’oro in circolazione (si veda, ad esempio, IG3 458, 29, iscrizione del 439/438, concernente l’acquisizione di oro per la statua dell’Atena Parthenos di Fidia). I creseidi “pesanti” sono costituiti da stateri, sia in oro che argento, del peso di 10,7 gr., con frazioni, quelli detti “leggeri,” presentano uno statere d’oro di 8,1 gr. ed un pezzo d’argento pesante circa la metà dell’antico statere, pari a circa 5,4 gr. La moderna ricerca numismatica (the orthodox view, come scrive CARRADICE 1987, p. 74) è incline a ritenere che i Persiani, dopo la conquista della Lidia da parte di Ciro, nel 547/546, abbiano continuato a coniare a Sardi i creseidi “leggeri,” mantenendo inalterata la tipologia delle protomi del leone e del toro affrontati, sino alla riforma monetale di Dario I del 510/500. Se così non fosse, se cioè tutti i creseidi fossero da attribuire al regno di Creso, si avrebbe un gap cronologi17

137

G ARIBOLDI


dell’avviso che siano state scelte monete utili a rappresentare la circolazione monetale del momento della fondazione, i creseidi d’oro, le uniche monete d’oro del tempo, ed alcune monete greche arcaiche, che facilmente potevano pervenire tra le mani dei Persiani tramite i loro floridi commerci sullo Ionio. Tuttavia non è possibile nutrire a riguardo una certezza assoluta. Possiamo certamente ritenere, invece, che nell’ambito della politica di grandezza e di propaganda politica di Dario I, manifestatasi, ad esempio, tramite la realizzazione del palazzo reale a Persepolis o della grande iscrizione con rilievo di Bisutun, fosse anche stata programmata la creazione di un sistema monetale 20 “universale” nella diffusione, duraturo e forte nella qualità dell’intrinseco, portatore fra i sudditi ed i suoi nemici di un’immagine di re guerriero e cacciatore, invincibile agli occhi degli uomini. I Greci, non a caso, chiamavano le monete persiane anche “arcieri” ()28&)!$), con un certo, mi pare, riverente rispetto (cfr. Plut. Artax. 20). Ricordiamo che l’uso di moneta aurea, nel mondo greco, sarà sempre solo sporadico ed eccezionale almeno fino a Filippo II il Macedone, 21 che, dopo il 355, emise un’abbondante quantità di monete in oro (stateri di 8,6 gr. di piede attico), grazie

allo sfruttamento intensivo delle miniere del Pangeo e di Crenides, con cui poté prezzolare una grande quantità di mercenari e di sostegni politici (cfr. Diod. XVI, 8, 6-7). Queste monete diventeranno ben presto famose col nome di 9$:1;< ;#$2$, “filippi.” Nella produzione di moneta aurea, dunque, solo la monarchia macedone fu in grado di rivaleggiare col Gran Re. Anche i ripostigli monetali, oltre che le fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche, testimoniano il successo della moneta regale achemenide, 22 diffusa abbondantemente dentro e fuori il limite dell’impero, dal momento della sua creazione sin dopo la conquista di Babilonia da parte di Alessandro Magno, che anzi proseguì anche dopo il 331 a coniare monete con le stesse tipologie. 23 La fama del darico in Grecia fu tanto grande, che un documento contabile ateniese, del 355 a.C., registra gli stateri di Filippo col nome curioso di “filippi darici,” evidentemente perché non vi fosse confusione sul fatto che essi erano proprio d’oro. 24 Solo in età romana per indicare le monete greche d’oro emesse dai re ellenistici si userà il nome generico di nummi philippei, 25 ma il poeta Ausonio, ad esempio, nel IV sec., si riferisce ai solidi costantiniani ancora con il termine di darii. 26

20

lo studio di NICOLET - PIERRE 1999, in particolare le pp. 296-299. 24 IG II2, 1526, l. 22-23. 25 Ad esempio, Livio, XXXIV, 52, 4-10, in occasione del trionfo di Flamininus; Orazio, Ep. II, 1, 234. Si veda LE RIDER 2001, pp. 199-200, che raccoglie una serie di fonti. Aggiungo che Giovanni di Efeso, che scrisse in siriaco le Vite dei Santi Orientali nel VI sec., usa il termine “darici” quando si riferisce a monete d’oro: vedi BROOKS 2003, pp. 548, 551 (Vita di Theodoro Castrensis), 600 (Vita di Giacomo di Edessa). 26 Ausonio, Ep. V, 23: ergo aut praedictos iam nunc rescribe darios.

Sono emblematiche le parole di Erodoto IV, 166: !"#72,- =;$30>?2,)!- >,@>&(0,2,- A+0)2B- :$;?(3!$ )2B)2- )C- >D- E::F- #G@- H!($:#7- %!)#"I!(>?,2,JJJ /"0(12,- %!3!"4)!)2,- K;#L*(!'- ='- )C- 50,!)4)!)2, ,&>$(>!-=%&L!)2J “Dario desiderava lasciare come proprio ricordo qualcosa che non fosse mai stato compiuto da altro re… fatto liquefare dell’oro rendendolo purissimo ne batté moneta.” Sulla regalità Achemenide si veda PANAINO 2003b, in particolare le pp. 334-336. 21 LE RIDER 2001, pp. 196-200; MELVILLE JONES 1999. 22 CARRADICE 1987, pp. 79 e 87. 23 A proposito di queste emissioni babilonesi si veda 138

G ARIBOLDI


Monete Partiche Le monete partiche più antiche della collezione bolognese risalgono a Mithradates II (123-88 a.C.), sotto il regno del quale avvennero importanti cambiamenti rispetto alle emissioni precedenti. Da un punto di vista iconografico, infatti, Mithradates II inizialmente compare ancora ellenizzato, 27 indossa infatti il semplice diadema regale legato attorno alla testa, il volto è rivolto verso destra, non porta la barba lunga, e la scritta del rovescio, dove campeggia una divinità greca femminile, è disposta lungo quattro linee parallele, secondo il modello seleucide. 28 Successivamente, forse verso il 115 a.C., il ritratto, sempre con diadema, si volve definitivamente a sinistra, e la figura del rovescio sulle dracme, interpretato come Arsakes, l’eponimo fondatore della dinastia, in un primo tempo siede sull’omphalos (cat. n.4), come Apollo sulle monete greche, poi su un trono (cat. n.5). Dall’osservazione di questi particolari si può affermare che gli elementi iranici andavano prevalendo su quelli greci, in modo da conferire una nuova fisionomia alla regalità arsacide.

Tale processo di “neoiranismo” dei Parti, su cui tanto ha insistito il Wolski, 29 raggiunge una tappa importante nella fase successiva della monetazione di Mithradates, verso il 105-100 a.C., quando egli adotta sulle monete, in luogo di Basileus Megalos Arsakes Epiphanes, il titolo completo di !"#$%&" !"#$%&' (%)!$*+ !,"!-*+ %.#/!'*+", ed inizia a portare sul capo una mitra o tiara, perlinata e decorata al centro da una stella (cat. n.5). 30 Mithradates, infatti, avrebbe assunto il titolo di “Re dei Re” verso il 109 a.C., in base ad alcune tavolette cuneiformi, 31 e conseguentemente lo avrebbe apposto, per primo, anche sulle monete. È necessario tuttavia rilevare che, se sulle monete il titolo di “Re dei Re” venne introdotto da Mithradates II, già Mithradates I se ne sarebbe fregiato verso il 140 a.C., come testimonia l’iscrizione del rilievo rupestre di Xung-i Naur0z1 (mtrdt MLKYN MLK, Mithradates Re dei Re), che celebra la vittoria su Kamnaskires satrapo di Susa. 32 La presenza della mitra come copricapo regale al posto del solo diadema,

27

un ulteriore accrescimento della potenza di Roma… ma, al suo posto, non ha creato niente.” Consiglio la lettura del recente volume a cura di J. Wiesehöfer, Das Partherreich und Seine Zeugnisse. The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation. Beiträge des internationalen Colloquiums (Eutin 27-30 Juni 1996), Stuttgart 1998; inoltre sono preziose le considerazioni ed i riferimenti bibliografici di GNOLI 1998, pp. 115-117, circa la fondata ed ampia affermazione nella moderna storiografia di un rinascimento iranico sotto i Parti. 30 Sulle corone partiche si vedano PECK 1993, pp. 408-413; CURTIS 1998, pp. 61-74; PIRAS 2000, pp. 18-19. 31 SELLWOOD 1983, p. 285. 32 SCHMITT 1998, p. 168; WOLSKI 1993, pp. 97-99; PANAINO 2001, pp. 113-114.

Ricordo che Mithradates I iniziò a fregiarsi, su tetradrammi emessi nella neo-conquistata Seleucia sul Tigris, del titolo di 9$:?::@,, “amico dei Greci,” certamente non per supino filellenismo ma per compiacere la popolazione greca. Si vedano SELLWOOD 1980, p. 42, tipo 13.1; 1983, p. 282; WOLSKI 1983; WIESEHÖFER 1996, p. 60; D2BROWA 1998, p. 40. 28 SELLWOOD 1980, p. 65, tipo 23.1. 29 WOLSKI 1993, pp. 97-121. L’impostazione del Wolski è stata aspramente criticata come una “moda” da SIMONETTA 1979, per il suo eccessivo “iranismo partico,” mi pare con argomentazioni di assai discutibile profondità, come quando scrive, a p. 36: “Che cosa ci hanno lasciato cinque secoli di impero partico…? Molte monete, qualche rudere, qualche tomba “a pantofola,” un po’ di oggetti d’oro, d’argento, d’avorio,” o ancora, a p. 37: “la loro potenza ha avuto sostanzialmente una funzione negativa: ha impedito

139

G ARIBOLDI


portato legato sopra la mitra, si può intendere come manifestazione del potere partico e del rafforzamento interno della regalità, che esprime una dimensione universale sia nella titolatura che mediante la comparsa di motivi astrali nell’iconografia. Il sole e la luna sono affiancati al capo dei parricidi di Phraates III, Mithradates III (57-54 a.C.) e Orodes II (57-38 a.C.) (cat. nn.6-9). Come Phraates III essi non portano la tiara ma solo il diadema, con l’aggiunta importante dei due luminari, e mi domando se, almeno inizialmente, la complessa simbologia astrale, che compare sulle ultime emissioni di Mithradates III, 33 non alluda alla spartizione del regno fra i due fratelli. La co-reggenza fu comunque breve, e Mithradates, al quale mancò l’aiuto del governatore di Syria, Gabinius, dovette soccombere ad Orodes, che era sostenuto dalla potente famiglia dei S!r"n. 34 Le emissioni di Orodes II furono numerose e testimoniano che l’impero partico era florido dopo la sconfitta romana a Carrhae, della quale però non vi è alcun chiaro riferimento nella monetazione. Molte delle sue monete recano o un crescente, o una stella ed un crescente, o due stelle ed un crescente ai lati del capo (cat. n.9). 35 Sellwood 36 ha notato che tale proliferare di simboli astrali poteva essere in qualche modo utile a differenziare le emissioni successive all’interno delle zecche. Ritengo questa ipotesi plausibile, e, in un certo senso, ho avanzato un’interpretazione simile anche per la

monetazione sasanide, 37 dove si ha l’impressione che le diverse combinazioni di lune e stelle fossero finalizzate anche a distinguere le monete di un sovrano da quelle di un altro. La comparsa di simboli astrali in modo sempre più numeroso è stata utilizzata dal Sellwood per elaborare una cronologia relativa delle emissioni di Phraates IV 38 (38-2 a.C.), nella quale a volte la stella solare si può riscontrare anche al rovescio, 39 posta alle spalle di Arsakes. Non si deve comunque dimenticare che zecche diverse potrebbero aver adottato questi simboli in tempi diversi. Il tipo più frequente presenta un’aquila con diadema nel becco, dietro la testa di Phraates, e, di fronte, una stella entro crescente (cat. nn.11-13). 40 Complessivamente, comunque, Phraates IV adottò un’iconografia simile a quella del padre Orodes, facendosi raffigurare anch’egli con la verruca sulla fronte, che divenne così un tratto distintivo della famiglia reale arsacide, e con la stessa titolatura greca, 41 che rimase virtualmente invariata sino alla fine della dinastia, sebbene di fatto fosse poi incomprensibile. Volagases I (51-78 d.C.), per differenziarsi dal figlio ribelle Vardanes II (5558 d.C.), iniziò a porre le sue iniziali (wl per wlgšy), in aramaico, sulle monete. 42 Ma una scritta completa in caratteri aramaici, accompagnata dalla leggenda greca corrotta, comparirà solo a partire da Mithradates IV, verso il 140 d.C. (mtrdt MLK’ / Mithradates re). Volagases IV (147-191) coniò alcune monete, ad Edes-

33

36

SELLWOOD 1980, p. 129, 41.17. Surenas, il grande condottiero che sconfisse Crasso a Carrhae nel 53, avrebbe infatti battuto a Seleucia sul Tigris Mithradates, nel 54, ed incoronato personalmente come re Orodes, avvalendosi di un privilegio familiare ereditario ed antico (Plut. Crass. XXI, 8). Sulla campagna di Carrhae, si veda BIVAR 1983b, pp. 48-58. 35 SELLWOOD 1980, p. 153, tipo 48.8. 34

140

SELLWOOD 1980, p. 123; 1983, p. 290; 1996, p. 78. GARIBOLDI 2003, p. 20. 38 SELLWOOD 1996, p. 81. 39 SELLWOOD 1980, p. 174, tipo 53.3. 40 SELLWOOD 1980, p. 177, tipo 54.7. 41 !"#$%&" !"#$%&' !,"!-*+ %+%,)%3*+ 4#-!#*+ %.#/!'*+" /#$%$$5'*". 42 SELLWOOD 1980, p. 231, tipo 71.1; ALRAM 1986, p. 127. 37

G ARIBOLDI


sa, con una leggenda partica (’ršk wlgšy MLKYN MLK’ / Arsace Volagases Re dei Re). 43 Gli ultimi re parti continuarono l’uso del bilinguismo sino alla caduta della dinastia sotto Volagases VI (cat. n.32) e Artabanos IV. Nella collezione bolognese sono interessanti, inoltre, alcuni tetradrammi della zecca di Seleucia sul Tigris, l’unica zecca che coniò questo tipo di nominale per l’impero partico, 44 sui quali è possibile leggere l’esatto anno di emissione secondo l’era seleucide (cat. nn.18-19), che iniziò con il mese Dios (ottobre) del 312 a.C. Il mese di coniazione, sfortunatamente, spesso si trova fuori dal conio delle monete. L’anno compare anche sui nominali in bronzo, sempre della zecca di Seleucia (cat. nn. 20, 26), che presentano iconografie più varie rispetto alle monete in argento, anche se usualmente si rifanno a tipologie greche (come Tyche), analogamente a quanto accade per i bronzi partici di Susa. Le Rider ha studiato una gran quantità di bronzi partici dagli scavi di Seleucia, mostrando come le emissioni, sebbene non fossero annuali, ma andassero ad ondate successive, siano comunque abbondanti sino al 127/128 d.C., 45 per poi decrescere, ma senza mai scomparire, nel corso dell’ultimo secolo di dominazione partica. Merita una menzione a parte il tetradramma bronzeo della zecca di Spasinu di Caracene, nella Mesopotamia meridio-

nale (cat. n.33). Il regno di Caracene, resosi indipendente dai Parti con la rivolta del satrapo Hyspaosines nel 125/124 a.C., continuò a coniare monete, con qualche interruzione, sino al primo quarto del terzo secolo d.C. 46 Il nostro tetradramma appartiene all’ultima fase monetale del regno indipendente di Caracene, quando ormai l’uso del greco era stato abbandonato in favore di leggende aramaico-eterografiche, disposte circolarmente, di assai difficile lettura. 47 Anche per l’iconografia, questa moneta segna una svolta rispetto alle emissioni caracene precedenti, che solitamente recano al rovescio Herakles seduto, e seguono nelle date il calendario seleucide. Sul dritto della moneta n.33 compare un busto di re barbuto e diademato, con tiara a calotta, non decorata, e sfortunatamente la leggenda è risultata, sino ad ora, incomprensibile. 48 Al rovescio, figura una testa barbuta, forse un re successore, poiché non reca alcuna insegna regale, ed inoltre, la scritta definisce il personaggio, Maga, come figlio di un certo re Atam6bi6z (Attambelos VI ?), secondo la lettura che ha dato De Morgan 49 (ATaMABIAZ), oppure Athabiaos (A[s]tab’iaz), secondo Hill. 50 I Sasanidi probabilmente misero fine all’autonomia di questo importante regno sul Golfo Persico, che ci mostra, pur nel suo declino storico, evidenti segnali di una rinascita della cultura iranica in quelle regioni.

43

47

ALRAM 1986, p. 133, nn. 419-420. Seleucia sul Tigris fu attiva come zecca per i Parti dal 140 circa a.C., quando venne strappata a Demetrio II da Mithradates I. Vedi SELLWOOD 1983, p. 282; D2BROWA 1998, pp. 38-39. 45 LE RIDER 1999, p. 74. 46 Per una introduzione alla monetazione della Caracene: SELLWOOD 1983, pp. 310-314; LE RIDER 1959. 44

Un parallelo abbandono del greco in favore dell’aramaico avvenne nel II sec d.C. anche nelle monete elimee. Vedi VARDANIAN 1999, pp. 122-123; ALRAM 1986, pp. 160-161. 48 ALRAM 1986, p. 161. 49 DE MORGAN 1923-1936, pp. 226-227. 50 HILL 1922, p. CCVI-CCVIII; SELLWOOD 1983, p. 317. 141

G ARIBOLDI


Monete Sasanidi La collezione del Medagliere di Bologna possiede solo 5 monete sasanidi: due dracme di Š6buhr I, ed una di Kaw6d I, Xusraw I e Ohrmazd IV. Le due monete di Š6buhr, pur essendo simili, provengono certamente da due conî differenti. Infatti, la n.34 presenta al rovescio le fiamme dell’altare di Ahuramazd6, dritte, e la colonna è liscia, mentre la n.35 ha le fiamme ondulate e sulla colonna vi è il simbolo dell’“erede” regale (un anello sormontato da un crescente: Alram - Gyselen 2003, p. 258). Anche nelle scritte si riscontrano alcune diversità: la n.35, ad esempio, omette quasi interamente dalla leggenda del dritto la parola mazd"sn/ mazdeo, tranne la m"m, certamente perché l’incisore non ha trovato spazio sufficiente sul conio per incidere la titolatura completa, ed è stato così costretto ad obliterarne una parte. Notiamo che i capelli dietro la nuca di Š6buhr arrivano a lambire la perlinatura, non lasciando spazio alla leggenda di girare completamente attorno alla figura, come invece possiamo osservare sulla n.34. Simili inconvenienti occorrevano di sovente sulle monete sasanidi, poiché sui conî prima veniva disegnato il busto del re, poi si incidevano le scritte, negli spazi liberi. Se il disegno della figura era troppo esuberante, le scritte venivano forzatamente abbreviate. In altri casi ancora, vi possono essere anche errori dovuti alla scarsa conoscenza della lingua da parte dell’incisore, che doveva vero-

similmente seguire un modello prestabilito. 51 Possiamo osservare, inoltre, che la scritta del rovescio della n.35, dur # Š buhr, “il fuoco di Š6buhr,” è invertita rispetto all’ordine usuale sulle monete, che prevede l’apposizione del nome del re a sinistra dell’altare (come sulla n.34) e non a destra. Le ultime monete sasanidi non presentano particolarità di eccezione. La n.36 è una dracma di Kaw6d del I regno (488-497), coniata prima dell’usurpazione di Zam6sp (497-499), per cui al dritto è il nome del re (kw’t, in alto a destra), senza la formula augurale abz$n/ crescita, che invece verrà aggiunta sulle monete del secondo regno (499-531). Tale formula, propria della religione zoroastriana, augura al re che il suo xwarrah, o splendore regale, possa aumentare e non venire mai meno. A partire dal secondo anno di regno di Xusraw II (590/91-628), questa scritta verrà indicata comunemente tramite l’eterogramma aramaico GDE (xwarrah) e ’pzwty (abz!d), “possa lo Splendore crescere.” 52 Al rovescio della moneta n.36, sulla destra dell’altare, si trova l’indicazione abbreviata della zecca, 53 in questo caso SK (sakast n), e sulla sinistra il nome del re ripetuto, che sarà poi sostituito canonicamente, dall’undicesimo anno di regno, 54 dall’indicazione dell’anno di regno di Kaw6d. Sotto questo re avvenne infatti una standardizzazione dei tipi e delle leggende, che lascia spazio a poche va-

51

che, si vedano, in particolare, GYSELEN 1979 e 1989, che si avvale dell’apporto significativo della sigillografia sasanide. 54 GÖBL 1971, p. 23.

GÖBL 1971, pp. 15-16; 1983 b, pp. 297-298. Sullo xwarrah si veda, da ultimo, GNOLI 1999. Sulla politica propagandistica di Xusraw II, riflessa dalle monete: DARYAEE 1997. 53 Sullo scioglimento delle abbreviazioni delle zec52

142

G ARIBOLDI


rianti nelle monete dei successori. 55 Notiamo, ad esempio, che suo figlio, Xusraw I (cat. n.37), pone al dritto delle monete, fuori dal margine della perlinatura, tre crescenti lunari in posizione cardinale 56 (a ore 3, 6, 9), mentre Kaw6d

I, dal secondo regno, aveva già introdotto il motivo della sole entro crescente, che comparirà sempre 57 sulle monete sasanidi sino alla fine della dinastia con Yazdagird III (632-651 d.C.), ed anche dopo, sulle monete arabo-sasanidi. 58

55

57

GARIBOLDI 2003, pp. 21-22. Sulle importanti e profonde implicazioni astrali della regalità sasanide, PANAINO Astral Characters (in c.s.) e PANAINO 2003a, pp. 277-280; GARIBOLDI 2003, pp. 18-19. 56

Fa eccezione Wahr6m VI (590-591), che usa, come Xusraw I, il crescente senza sole. 58 GYSELEN 2000; GARIBOLDI 2003, cat. nn. 67-68, pp. 52-53.

B IBLIOGRAFIA A BGARIANS M.T. - S ELLWOOD D.G. (1971) A Hoard of Early Parthian Drachms, The Numismatic Chronicle 11, pp. 103-134 (Pl. 20-23). A LBUM S. - B ATES M. - F LOOR W. (1993) Coins and Coinage. In particolare: The Achaemenids, Encyclopaedia Iranica, VI, 1, London-Costa Mesa, pp. 14-16. A LRAM M. (1986) Nomina Propria Iranica in Nummis. Iranisches Personennamenbuch IV, Wien. A LRAM M. (1987a) Arsacid Coinage, Encyclopaedia Iranica, II, London-Costa Mesa, pp. 536-540. A LRAM M. (1987b) Die Vorbildwirkung der arsakidischen Münzprägung, Litterae Numismaticae Vindobonenses 3, pp. 117-142. A LRAM M. (1993) Dareikos und Siglos. Ein neuer Schatzfund achaimenidischer Sigloi aus Kleinasien, Circulation des monnaies des marchandises et des biens (ed. R. Gyselen), Res Orientales V, Bures-sur-Yvette, pp. 23-53. A LRAM M. (1998) Stand und Aufgaben der Arsakidischen Numismatik, Das Partherreich und Seine Zeugnisse. The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation. Beiträge des internationalen Colloquiums (Eutin 27-30 Juni 1996), Stuttgart, pp. 365387. A LRAM M. – G YSELEN R. (2003) Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum. Band 1: Ardashir I – Shapur I, Wien. B IVAR A. D. H. (1983a) Achaemenid Coins, Weights and Measures, The Cambridge History of Iran 2, Cambridge, pp. 610-639. B IVAR A. D. H. (1983b) The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids, The Cambridge History of Iran 3 (1), Cambridge, pp. 21-99. B ROOKS E. W. (2003) John of Ephesus. Lives of the Eastern Saints III. Patrologia Orientalis, T. XIX – F. 2, Brepols (ed. or. Paris 1925). 143

G ARIBOLDI


C ARRADICE I. (1987) The Regal Coinage of the Persian Empire, Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires. The Ninth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History (ed. I. Carradice), Oxford, pp. 73-107. D 2BROWA E. (1998) Philhellên. Mithridate I er et les Grecs, Electrum 2, pp. 35-44. D ARYAEE T. (1997) The Use of Religio-Political Propaganda on the coinage of Xusr7 II, American Journal of Numismatics 9, pp. 41-53. D E M ORGAN J. (1923-1936) Manuel de Numismatique Orientale, Paris. D ESCAT R. (1995) Darius I er et la monnaie, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 42, pp. 9-20. F RYE R. N. (1964) The Charisma of Kingship in Ancient Iran, Iranica Antiqua IV, pp. 36-54. G ARDNER P. (1878) A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum. The Seleucid Kings of Syria, London. G ARIBOLDI A. (2000) Simboli e ideologia del potere in età romana, La corona e i simboli del potere, Rimini, pp. 31-63. G ARIBOLDI A. (2003) La monetazione sasanide nelle Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche di Milano, Milano. G NOLI G H . (1989) The Idea of Iran. An Essay of its Origin. Serie Orientale Roma LXII, Rome. G NOLI G H . (1998) L’Iran tardoantico e la regalità sassanide, Mediterraneo Antico I, 1, pp. 115-139. G NOLI G H . (1999) Farr(ah), Encyclopaedia Iranica IX, London-Costa Mesa, pp. 312319. G ÖBL R. (1971) Sasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig. G ÖBL R. (1978) Antike Numismatik, I-II, München. G ÖBL R. (1983a) Sasanian Coins, The Cambridge History of Iran 3 (1), Cambridge, pp. 322-336. G ÖBL R. (1983b) Die Titel der ersten beiden S6s6niden auf ihren Münzen, Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 120, pp. 290-298 (Taf. I-III). G YSELEN R. (1979) Ateliers monétaires et cachets officiels sasanides, Studia Iranica 8/2, pp. 189-212. G YSELEN R. (1989) Ateliers monétaires et organisation administrative sassanides, Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, London 1986, pp. 517525. G YSELEN R. (2000) Arab-Sasanian Copper Coinage, Wien. G YSELEN R. (2002) Nouveaux matériaux pour la géographie historique de l’empire sassanide: sceaux administratifs de la collection Ahmad Saeedi, Cahier de Studia Iranica 24, Paris. H ERZFELD E. (1938) Notes on the Achaemenid Coinage, Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, London, pp. 413-416. H ILL G. F. (1922) A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, London. 144

G ARIBOLDI


L E R IDER G. (1959) Monnaies de Characène, Syria 36, pp. 229-253 (Pl. 19-22). L E R IDER G., G ÖBL R., M ILES G. C., W ALKER J. (1960) Numismatique Susienne. Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran, Tome XXXVII, Paris. L E R IDER G. (1965) Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran, Tome XXXVIII, Paris. L E R IDER G. (1999) Séleucie du Tigre. Les monnaies Séleucides et Parthes, Monografie di Mesopotamia VI, Firenze. L E R IDER G. (2001) La naissance de la monnaie. Pratiques monétaires de l’Orient ancien, Paris. L UKONIN V. G. (1983) Political, Social and Administrative Institutions, Taxes and Trade, The Cambridge History of Iran 3 (2), Cambridge, pp. 681-746. M ELVILLE J ONES J. R. (1993) Testimonia Numaria I. Greek and Latin Texts concerning Ancient Greek Coinage, London. M ELVILLE J ONES J. R. (1999) Ancient Greek Gold Coinage up to the Time of Philip of Macedon, Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts a Georges Le Rider (ed. M. Amandry - S. Hurter), London, pp. 257-275. M ORIGI G OVI C. (1986) Il medagliere del Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna. Storia della sua formazione, Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Province di Romagna XXXVI, pp. 87-103. N ICOLET -P IERRE H. (1999) Argent et or frappés en Babylonie entre 331 et 311 ou de Mazdai à Séleucos, Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts a Georges Le Rider (ed. M. Amandry - S. Hurter), London, pp. 285-305. P ANAINO A. (2001) Greci e Iranici: confronto e conflitti, I Greci. Storia Cultura Arte Società (a cura di S. Settis). 3 - I Greci oltre la Grecia, Torino, pp. 79-136. P ANAINO A. (2003a) The Ba86n of the Fratarakas: Gods or “divine” Kings?, Religious Themes and Texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of his 65 th Birthday on 6th December 2002. Edited by Carlo G. Cereti, Mauro Maggi and Elio Provasi, Wiesbaden, pp. 265-288. P ANAINO A. (2003b) Herodotus I,96-101: Deioces’ conquest of power and the foundation of sacred royalty, Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia. Edited by Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Michael Roaf, Robert Rollinger, Padova, pp. 327-338. P ANAINO A., Astral Characters of Kingship in the Sasanian and Byzantine Worlds, Atti del Convegno sul tema: La Persia e Bisanzio. Accademia dei Lincei e IsIAO, Roma (in c.s.). P ANVINI R OSATI F. (1963) Arte e civiltà nella moneta greca. Catalogo della mostra, Bologna. R OBINSON E. S. G. (1958) The Beginnings of Achaemenid Coinage, The Numismatic Chronicle, pp. 187-193. R OOT M. C. (1988) Evidence from Persepolis, The Numismatic Chronicle, pp. 1-12. S CHMITT R. (1998) Partische Sprach-und Namenüberlieferung aus arsakidischer Zeit, Das Partherreich und Seine Zeugnisse. The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation. Beiträge des internationalen colloquiums (Eutin 27-30 Juni 1996), Stuttgart, pp. 163-204. 145

G ARIBOLDI


S ELLWOOD D. (1980 2 ) An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia, London. S ELLWOOD D. (1983) Numismatics, The Cambridge History of Iran 3 (1). The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge, pp. 279-321. S ELLWOOD D. (1996) The “Victory” Drachms of Phraates IV, American Journal of Numismatics 7-8 (1995-96), pp. 75-81 (Pl. 12). S IMONETTA A. M. (1968) La monetazione partica dal 247 al 122 a.C., Rivista Italiana di Numismatica LXX, pp. 11-64 (Tav. 1-6). S IMONETTA A. M. (2001) A Proposed Revision of the Attributions of the Parthian Coins Struck during the So-called “Dark Age” and Its Historical Significance, East and West 51, pp. 69-108. S IMONETTA B. (1979) Le monete quale documentazione dell’atteggiamento dei Parti di fronte all’influsso greco ed a quello romano, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica, pp. 3548. SNG Copenhagen = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. Volume Seven, Cyprus to India, West Milford 1982. T UPLIN Ch. (1987) The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire, Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires. The Ninth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History (ed. by I. Carradice), Oxford, pp. 109-166. T UPLIN Ch. (1989) The Coinage of Aryandes, L’or perse et l’histoire grecque. Revue des études anciennes 91 (1/2), pp. 61-82. V ARDANIAN R. (1999) La monetazione di bronzo elimea del II sec. D.C. Problemi di classificazione e datazione, Parthica 1, pp. 117-134. V ARGYAS P. (2000) Darius I and the Daric reconsidered, Iranica Antiqua 35, pp. 33-46. W IESEHÖFER J. (1994) Die ‘dunklen Jahrhunderte’ der Persis. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur von F rs in hellenistischer Zeit (330-149 v.Chr.). Zetemata 90. München. W IESEHÖFER J. (1996) “King of Kings” and “Philhellên”: Kingship in Arsacid Iran, Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus, pp. 55-66. W IESEHÖFER J. (2001 2 ) Ancient Persia, London-New York. W OLSKI J. (1983) Sur le «philhellenisme» des Arsacides, Geriòn 1, pp. 145-156. W OLSKI J. (1990) Le titre «Roi des Rois» dans l’idéologie monarchique des Arsacides, From Alexander the Great to Kül Tegin (ed. by J. Harmatta) Budapest, pp. 11-18. W OLSKI J. (1993) L’empire des Arsacides, Acta Iranica 32, Lovanii. W ROTH W. (1903) A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Catalogue of the coins of Parthia, London. Z OURNATZI A. (2000) The Processing of Gold and Silver Tax in the Achaemenid Empire: Herodotus 3.96.2 and the Archaeological Realities, Studia Iranica 29, pp. 241271.

146

G ARIBOLDI


C ATALOGO

Monete Achemenidi Tipo III b (dopo il 480 a.C.) Zecca incerta (Sardi?) Darico D. Il re, barbuto, indossa una corona merlata ed un kandys, avanza verso d., tiene una lancia nella mano d. e un arco nella s., la faretra sulla spalla d. R. Punzonatura rettangolare. Bibl. Gen.: L E R IDER 2001, Pl. V, 13; C ARRADICE 1987, Pl. XIII, 27. Bibl. Spec.: P ANVINI R OSATI 1963, n. 15. 1- AU gr. 8, 21; mm. 14; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53401. Simile alla precedente Bibl. Gen.: L E R IDER 2001, Pl. V, 13; C ARRADICE 1987, Pl. XIII, 27. Bibl. Spec.: P ANVINI R OSATI 1963, n. 14. 2- AU gr. 8, 17; mm. 14; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53400. Simile alla precedente Bibl. Gen.: L E R IDER 2001, Pl. V, 13; C ARRADICE 1987, Pl. XIII, 27. Bibl. Spec.: P ANVINI R OSATI 1963, n. 16. 3- AU gr. 7, 60; mm. 14; 0. N. Inv.: Verzaglia Rusconi 71598.

Monete Partiche MITHRADATES II (123-88 a.C.) 115 a.C. circa Zecca di Ecbatana? Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Mithradates a s., con veste perlinata e torques al collo desinente a protome equina. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. sull’Omphalos. !"#$%&"// (%)!$*+// !,"!-*+// %.#/!'*+" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 24/10. 4- AR gr. 3, 19; mm. 21; 0. N. inv.: Palagi 53412.

147

G ARIBOLDI


MITHRADATES II (123-88 a.C.) 100 a.C. circa Zecca di Rhagae ? Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Mithradates a s., con veste perlinata e torques al collo. Indossa una tiara decorata al centro da un motivo a stella. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. !"#$%&"// !"#$%&'// (%)!$*+// !,"!-*+/ %.#/!'*+" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 28/1. 5- AR gr. 3, 59; mm. 20; 0. N. inv.: Palagi 53413. ORODES II (57-38 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Orodes a s., con veste perlinata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// [%+%,)%3*+]/ 4#-![#*+// %.#/!'*+" /#$%$$5'*"] Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 45/9. 6- AR gr. 3, 36; mm. 19; 0. N. inv.: Palagi 53410. ORODES II (57-38 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Orodes a s., con veste perlinata e torques al collo. Nel campo, a d., crescente. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. [ !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+]/ 4#-!#*[+]// %.#/!'*+"/ [/#]$%$$[5'*"] Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 46/8. 7- AR gr. 2, 77; mm. 19; 0. N. inv.: Palagi 53423. ORODES II (57-38 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana (?) Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Orodes a s., con veste perlinata e torques al collo. Verruca sulla fronte. Nel campo, a d., crescente. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca illeggibile. [ !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$5'*"] 148

G ARIBOLDI


Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 46/8. 8- AR gr. 2, 74 (moneta forata); mm. 18; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53422. ORODES II (57-38 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Orodes a s., con veste perlinata e torques al collo. Verruca sulla fronte. Nel campo, a d., crescente e motivo a stella, a s., motivo a stella. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca, a s., àncora. !"#$%[&"]/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ [/#$]%$$5'[*"] Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 48/6. 9- AR gr. 3, 38; mm. 19; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53419. PHRAATES IV (38-2 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Phraates a s., con veste perlinata e collana al collo. Verruca sulla fronte. Nel campo, a d., aquila con diadema nel becco. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$[%&"]/ !"#$%[&']// [!,"!-*+]// [%]+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ [/#]$%$$5'*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 52/10. 10- AR gr. 3, 06; mm. 18; 0. N. Inv.: Collez. universitaria incerta 85863. PHRAATES IV (38-2 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Phraates a s., con veste perlinata e collana al collo. Verruca sulla fronte. Nel campo, a d., aquila con diadema nel becco, a s., motivo a stella e crescente. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$5'*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 54/7. 11- AR gr. 3, 83; mm. 19; 0. N. Inv.: Collez. universitaria incerta 85864.

149

G ARIBOLDI


PHRAATES IV (38-2 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Phraates a s., con veste perlinata e collana al collo. Verruca sulla fronte. Nel campo, a d., aquila con diadema nel becco, a s., motivo a stella e crescente. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// [!,"!-*+]// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$5'*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 54/7. 12- AR gr. 3, 24; mm. 18; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53415. PHRAATES IV (38-2 a.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Phraates a s., con veste perlinata e collana al collo. Verruca sulla fronte. Nel campo, a d., aquila con diadema nel becco, a s., motivo a stella e crescente. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// [!,"!-*+]// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ [/#]$%$$5'*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 54/7. 13- AR gr. 3, 13; mm. 18; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53420. ARTABANOS II (10-40 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Artabanos a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// [%.#/]!'*+"/ [/#$%$$5'*"] Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 61/7. 14- AR gr. 2, 93; mm. 19; 0. N. Inv.: collez. acquisti-doni 70754. ARTABANOS II (10-40 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Artabanos a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. 150

G ARIBOLDI


!"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$5'*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 63/6. 15- AR gr. 3, 39; mm. 20; 10. N. Inv.: Palagi 53408. ARTABANOS II (10-40 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Artabanos a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$H'*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 63/6. 16- AR gr. 2, 84; mm. 21; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53407. GOTARZES II (40-51 d.C.) Zecca di Seleucia sul Tigri Tetradramma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Gotarzes a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. A s., il Re seduto in trono a d.; a d., Tyche, in piedi a s., con cornucopia nella mano s., e diadema nella d. Nel campo, in alto, anno di regno illeggibile. [ !"]#$%[&"]/ !"#$%&'// !,"![-*+]/ %+%,)%3[*+]// 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'[*+"]/ [/#$]%$$[5'*"]; mese di coniazione fuori dal conio. Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 65/?. 17- AR gr. 12, 64; mm. 27; 0. N. Inv.: Collez. universitaria 85866. VARDANES II (55-58 d.C.) 55/56 d.C. Zecca di Seleucia sul Tigri Tetradramma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Vardanes a s., con verruca sulla fronte. Indossa una veste decorata e torques al collo. R. A d., il Re seduto in trono a s.; a s., Tyche, in piedi a d., con scettro nella mano s., e diadema nella d. Nel campo, in alto, anno di regno 9:3 (367). [ !"#$%&"]/ !"#$%&[']// [!,"!-*+]/ %+%,)%[3*+]// [4#-!#*+]// %.#/!'[*+"]/ [/#$]%$$[5'*"]; mese di coniazione fuori dal conio. Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 69/1-6. 18- AR gr. 13, 72; mm. 27; 0. N. Inv.: Collez. universitaria 49243. VARDANES II (55-58 d.C.) 55/56 d.C. 151

G ARIBOLDI


Zecca di Seleucia sul Tigri Tetradramma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Vardanes a s., con verruca sulla fronte. Indossa una veste decorata e torques al collo. R. A d., il Re seduto in trono a s.; a s., Tyche, in piedi a d., con scettro nella mano s., e diadema nella d. Nel campo, in alto, anno di regno 9:3 (367). [ !"#$%&"]/ !"#$%&[']// [!,"!-*+]/ %+%,)%[3*+]// [4#-!#*+]// %.#/!'[*+"]/ [/#$%]$$[5'*"]; mese di coniazione fuori dal conio. Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 69/1-6. 19- AR gr. 12, 15; mm. 26; 0. N. Inv.: Collez. universitaria 49244. PAKOROS II (77-105 d.C.) 82/83 d.C. Zecca di Seleucia sul Tigri Dichalkos D. Busto diademato di Pakoros a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo; a s., anno di regno, 4MT (394) R. Busto turrito e drappeggiato di Tyche a d., nel campo, a d., A Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 75/8; SNG Copenhagen VII, Parthia, Pl. 6, n. 210. L E RIDER 1999, p. 32 n. 56 (Pl. 5, 56 a-c). 20- AE gr. 2, 68; mm. 15; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53427. VOLAGASES III (105-147 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Volagases a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$[%&"]/ !"#$[%&']// [!,"!-*+]// [%+%,)%3*+]/ 4#-!#*+// [%].#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$5;*["] (sic!)* Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 78/2. 21- AR gr. 3, 13; mm. 21; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53411. * La leggenda greca diviene sempre più corrotta. VOLAGASES III (105-147 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Volagases a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. [ ]!"#$[%&"]/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// [%+%,)%3*+]/ 4#-!#*+// [%.]#/!'*+"/ [/#$%]$$5;*" Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 78/3. 152

G ARIBOLDI


22- AR gr. 3, 25; mm. 20; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53414. VOLAGASES III (105-147 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Volagases a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. !"#$%&["]/ !"#$%&'// !,["!-*+]// [%+%,)%3*+]/ 4#-!#*+// [%].#/!'*+["]/ [/#$%$$5'*"] Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 78/3. 23- AR gr. 2, 93; mm. 19; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53416. VOLAGASES III (105-147 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Volagases a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. [ !"#$%&"]/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)[%3*+]/ 4#-!#*+// [%.]#/!'*+"/ [/#$%$$5'*"] Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 78/3. 24- AR gr. 2, 86; mm. 21; 0. N. Inv.: Collez. universitaria 49242. VOLAGASES III (105-147 d.C.) Zecca di Ecbatana Dracma D. Busto diademato e barbuto di Volagases a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. R. Arsace con arco nella mano d., seduto a d. su trono. Nel campo, a d., monogramma di zecca. Leggenda greca corrotta { !"#$%&"/ !"#$%&'// !,"!-*+// %+%,)%3*+/ 4#-!#*+// %.#/!'*+"/ /#$%$$5'*"} Bibl. Gen.: S ELLWOOD 1980, 78/3. 25- AR gr. 2, 78; mm. 18; 0. N. Inv.: Palagi 53421. OSROES I (109-129 d.C.) 127/128 d.C. Zecca di Seleucia sul Tigri Dichalkos D. Busto diademato di Osroes a s., con veste decorata e torques al collo. Indossa una tiara crestata, sotto la quale fuoriesce una grande crocchia. 153

G ARIBOLDI


R. Busto turrito e drappeggiato di Tyche a d., con ramo di palma, a s., anno di regno, 6:+;6EF)*+@6:+?:+@; princeps huius mundi). 77 The possible Zurvanite elements of this doctrine cannot be separated from some later speculations (which, in their own turn, could be ascribed to a close tradition) concerning the stereotyped ages of the three Evangelical Magi (the first young, the second middleaged and the third old), who represent the three periods of human life, but also the three forms of Zurvan-G, 78 ac-

72 More strictly concerning the subjects discussed in this article is the contribution by Stroumsa, 1994. Cf. also Shaked, 1984: 317-318. 73 See Anklesaria, 1956: 212-213. About the Bundahišn see now MacKenzie, 1989. 74 Cf., e.g., Duchesne-Guillemin, 1958: 71-84. See also Russell, 1990. 75 Cf. Duchesne-Guillemin, 1978: 60-63; but see on the problem of the Persian names in the Book of Esther the following contributions by: Mayer, 1961; Gehman, 1924; Millard, 1977; Moore, 1982; Shaked, 1982: 292-303; Yamauchi, 1990: 226-239; Russell,

1990; Skjærvø, 1994: 500-501; Hinze, 1994. 76 On this subject see Duchesne-Guillemin, 1978: 64-67, with additional bibliography. 77 See Gnoli, 1983: 158. 78 See in general Zaehner, 1955; on the origin of Zurvanisme see Gignoux (1981) and Shaked (1979: XXXIV) suggesting a late date, but contra Gnoli (1991b). For the Indian parallels see Scheftelowitz, 1929; see also Junker, 1923; Degani, 1961 and Gnoli, 1994a: 544-545. For a comparison between Iranian and Judaic millenarism see also Gignoux, 1990.

222

P ANAINO

R ELATIONS BETWEEN I RANIAN P RE -I SL AMIC AND J EWISH C ULTURES

cording to the interpretation and adaptation of a heterodox doctrine, surely of remarkable antiquity. 79 Also important is the possible Iranian derivation of a series of notions appearing in the Slavonic Book of Enoch, such as the concept of progressive creation of the world, from the visible state (g t%g) to the invisible (m n$g), and the existence of two different times, the eternal and the limited. 80 Recently, Yuri Stoyanov, during one of his talks in Ravenna emphasized this already: “R. Otto and Pines have called attention to the evident Zoroastrian echoes in the allusion to the ‘Animal Soul’ accusing man (58: 4) in the apocalypse and its timespeculations on the ‘Aion of Creation’ and the ‘Great Aion’ (65: 1-8), which adds Iranian influences to the abovementioned ones influences emanating from sources outside of Judaism.” He also remarked that: “The trinity of God and the two principles of light and darkness, respectively Adoil and Arkhas, has also been compared to the Zurvanite trinity of Zurvan, Ohrmazd and Ahriman, given the fact that the speculations on time display an obvious Iranian, probably Zurvanite impact on the Apocalypse.” To what extent the Iranian tradition concerning the Frava#i (a feminine double of the individual personality, a spiritualguide and protector, existing prior to the individual birth) could have stimulated the Christian doctrine of the guardian angel, 81 as well as that of the couple of angelic figures accompanying the human being, remains the subject of investigation which requires a new evaluation of all the sources with methodological pru-

dence and without confessional prejudices, where nobody should be afraid of losing something, if a foreign influence would result plausible or implausible. Certainly seminal, but on a more fundamental level, is the problem of the possible connections between Zoroastrianism and Judaism in the framework of the doctrines regarding the so-called post mortem dimension. 82 The complex Mazdean concept of the final judgment and the subsequent introduction to a paradisiacal or infernal condition (a&huš vahišt$ “the best existence” vs. a&huš acišt$ “the worst existence”; gar$ d!m!na- “the house of the song (of welcome)” vs. druj$ d!m!na- “the house of lie”) 83 – a doctrine of G!$ic origin to which we have already referred – has often been mentioned as an idea which could have influenced the evolution of the Jewish concept of the afterlife. We see, starting from the Post-exilic period, a significant evolution from an undefined and grey Še’"l, an undetermined abode of the dead, towards a new concept of the afterlife, based on the dualistic distinction between Hell and Paradise and the diffusion of the idea of a final retribution of sins and merits. 84 The subject is unlimited, because it involves the entire history of both traditions and represents one of the key points of the querelle concerning the importance of the relations between these two religious cultures. Thus we simply point out that, in a larger or in a minor form, the entire bibliography about these general themes (discussed in the previous pages) with its enormous number of arguments on both

79

83

Panaino, 1999: 33, 47, n. 12, with additional bibliography. 80 Shaked, 1984: 320-321. See also Pines, 1970. 81 Moulton, 1913: 324-325; Autran, 1935: 208-209. See also Söderblom, 1899. 82 Cf. Clemen, 1912: 168-174.

Cf. Jackson, 1928: 147-149; see also Bartholomae, 1904: 512-513; 1090-1092; cf. Kellens-Pirart (1990: 238, 262, sub d'm!na-). 84 See the comparisons, notwithstanding the skeptical evaluation, listed by König, 1964: 277-279.

223

P ANAINO


sides, compels us to pursue this tantalizing subject, which we cannot analytically evaluate here. The invitation to further analysis is all the more crucial, given that different positions in the debate are not always absolute and sometimes yield on certain point. Consider, for instance, the Zoroastrian idea of the resurrection of the dead, a doctrine already evident in the Avestan framework, and which seems to have been ignored in the oldest Jewish literature. Even Söderblom (1901: 315316), who was skeptical about the significance of the Iranian impact on Judaism, considered the connection in this context reasonable, although with some prudent restrictions (see also the works of Mills, Cheyne e Stave). 85 Before the final considerations, it seems to me necessary to underline the fact that, among the themes of special interest, we have that of the origin of “Iranian apocalyptic” in a wider sense. 86 Iranian apocalyptic seems to be derived from an independent background of eschatological ideas 87 ; yet, after the studies of Ph. Gignoux 88 and more recently Carlo Cereti, 89 dedicated in particular to the later elements attested in the Pahlavi sources of the ninth century A.D., the presence of influences of Judaeo-Christian and Islamic origin is no doubt evident. While the eschatological doctrines concerning the individual destiny of the soul

are well described and carefully documented in the older Zoroastrian sources (such as the doctrine regarding the function of sacrifices as a means for attaining safety and eternity), 90 the development of a real apocalyptic, considered in the general framework of a “literary genre,” is only the fruit of a later phenomenon and reflects the impact of Judaeo-Christian cultures, superimposing further refinements on an already established doctrine. It seems to me very fitting for this contribution to give only a summary of the Pahlavi sources belonging to the Sasanian and post Sasanian periods which refer to the Jewish community, 91 because, in spite of the absorption of elements of Judaism described above, we find strong criticism of Judaism (yah"d%h) and Jews (yah"d) 92 ; yet seen in the context of their times, these attacks may have been aimed at other religions as well. In fact, in the changed conditions of the Mazdean Church after the fall of the Sasanian dynasty under Isl!m, in particular during the ninth and tenth centuries, the priests and wise Zoroastrians became more prudent. Thus, in the Š!yast n -Š!yast, VI, 7 (West, 1880: 196) Jews and Christians are put together with the Zend g and peoples “of the bad religion” (ak-d n%h), and the D nkard (in which the Torah is said to contain nothing but the words of the demons, while the Jewish Scripture is held

85 In many studies a particular point is heavily underlined, the fact that, according to the Jewish tradition, the resurrection does not seem to be possible for all the dead, but only for “your dead,” i.e., the right Jews, in other words only the dead of Yahveh. See already Söderblom (1901: 316-321) and Widengren (1957: 226-233). 86 Moulton (1913: 326-327) supposes an Iranian influence on the Revelation of John (20, 2, 7-10; 8, 712, 9, 15), but the comparison would be fitting only in the case of some passages attested in the Bundahišn (such as those of the liberation of the snake Aži Dah!ka and of the fall of G"zihr, the celestial

dragon); see also Autran, 1935: 215-234, 235-250. 87 See Shaked, 1984: 321-324; 1994: 27-51. Cf. Kellens, 1994; 1995. 88 Gignoux, 1985-88; 1986; 1999. 89 Cereti, 1995b: 11-27; 1995c; 1996. A different point of view has been suggested by Widengren Hultgård - Philonenko, 1995. 90 See Kellens, 1994. 91 On this subject see Gray, 1905a; 1905b; 1915; Darmesteter, 1889; de Menasce, 1945: 176-181; Widengren, 1961; Shaked, 1990: 85-104. 92 Cf. Widengren, 1961: 121.

224

P ANAINO


to have been composed by Aži Dah!ka [Dk, III, 227, 229, 288], 93 a demonic being with the body of a dragon, who lived in Babylon), also contains very negative references to Christians and Manichaeans. Perhaps we can see here a polemic reference to the most famed Talmudic academic centres of the Sasanian period which were located in Sura, Pumbedita and Nehardea. 94 Two chapters (XIII and XIV) of the Škand-gum!n%g Wiz!r turn out to be very significant, because they contain a detailed criticism of the Jewish religion (with a good number of direct quotations from the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Psalms, and other texts), from the point of view of the Zoroastrian doctrine of the ninth century A.D., for which the best source is still the edition and the penetrating commentary by Jean de Menasce. 95 It is again to the deep intuition of Father de Menasce (1969) that we owe the plausible suggestion that, behind many accusations delivered against the Mosaic religion, was the intention to target the Isl!mic monotheism, which, after the fall of the Sasanians to the Arabs, 96 was formally excluded from any open or direct criticism. This hypothesis seems no doubt attractive, because it explains the anti-Judaic references (or at least many of them) as a kind of coded attack on Isl!m. Some centuries later, when the Zoroastrian communities became only a

pale minority, in order to obtain a larger space of tolerance in the framework of the “peoples of the book,” some Mazdean wise men would try to superimpose and mix the image and personality of Zoroaster with that of Abraham, even though the Jewish patriarch was previously considered under a dark light in Pahlavi literature. 97 A different subject is that of the very important Judaeo-Persian literature, fruit of a seminal community still living today in Iran, about which I will give only some basic bibliographic references in note. 98 In conclusion, I would like to express the wish that, although the present contribution is surely not sufficient, it could stimulate a wider reflection on the significance of the religious thought developed in the Iranian Pre-Islamic world, and at the same time a deeper analysis, perhaps through a reconsideration of the historiographical problems, of the controversial, but sometimes ignored problem of the “mutual” influences between the religious cultures of Iran and of the Jewish world. It is very improbable that the final word might ever be written on such a question, but a good step forward would be that of approaching such a target with clarity and prudent attention. It is surely a fitting subject for the M ELAMMU scholarly community.

93

1943. For an overview of the Pahlavi literature see now Cereti, 2001. 98 Important are the essays on Judaeo-Persian written by G. Lazard (many of the are now collected in Lazard, 1995: 27-48, 107-121, 123-132, 157-152); see also Asmussen, 1970 and Gnoli, 1964 (on the inscriptions of G2r) all containing a large and useful bibliography.

Cf. de Menasce, 1945: 240, 242, 284-285; Shaked, 1990: 94-99. 94 Gray, 1905a; 1905b: 180-181; 1915: 562b. 95 1945: 175-203. See now the contribution of Shapira, 2001. 96 See Gabrieli, 1996. 97 Russell (1987b: 60). For the main problems concerning the late Zoroastrian literature see Bailey,

225

P ANAINO


B IBLIOGRAPHIC R EFERENCES Aberbach, D. (1993) I Profeti e la storia. Il tema dell’imperialismo nello sviluppo della cultura ebraica (750-500 a.C.). Genova. Ackroyd, R. (1970) Israel under Babylon and Persia. Oxford. Ackroyd, P.R. (1990) The Biblical Portrayal of Achaemenid Rulers. In Achaemenid History V. The Roots of the European Tradition. Leiden, pp. 1-16. Alexander, P.S. (1999) Demonology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. Ed. by P.W. Flint and J. VanderKam. Leiden, pp. 331-354. Anklesaria, B.T. (1956) Zand-Ak!s%h. Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Transliteration and Translation in English. Bombay. Asmussen, J.P. (1970) Studier i Jødisk Persisk Litteratur. København. Autran, Ch. (1935) Mithra, Zoroastre et la préhistoire aryenne du christianisme. Paris. Bailey, H.W. (1943) Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books. Oxford. Bartholomae, Chr. (1904) Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg. Bartholomae, Chr. (1906) Zum Altiranischen Wörterbuch. Nacharbeiten und Vorarbeiten. Beiheft zum XIX Band der Indogermanischen Forschungen. Strassburg. Bausani, A. (1959) Persia religiosa da Zaratustra a Bahâ’u’llâh. Milano. Benveniste, E. (1929) The Persian Religion according to the Chief Greek Texts. Paris. Benveniste, E. (1938) Les Mages dans l’Ancien Iran. Paris. Bertholet, A. (1909) Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem des Spätjudentums. Tübingen. Bertholet, A. (1916) Zur Frage des Verhältnisses von persischem und jüdischem Auferstehungsglauben. In Festschrift Friedrich Carl Andreas zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 14. April. Leipzig, pp. 51-62. Bianchi, U. (1958) Zam!n i (hrmazd. Torino. Bickerman, E.J. (1976-96) The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra. In Studies in Jewish and Christian History. 3 vols. Leiden, Vol. 1, pp. 72-108. Bidez, J. – Cumont, F. (1938) Les Mages hellénisés. Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition grecque. 2 voll. Paris. Böklen, E. (1902) Die Verwandtschaft der jüdisch-christlichen mit der Parsischen Eschatologie. Göttingen. Bosworth, C.E. (1983) Iran and the Arabs before Islam. In The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. III/2. Cambridge pp. 593-612. Bousset, W. (1907) Hauptprobleme der Gnosis. Göttingen. Bousset, W. (1926) Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter. 3rd ed. revised by U. Gressmann. Tübingen.

226

P ANAINO


Boyce, M. (1975) A History of Zoroastrianism, I. The Early Period. Leiden-Köln. Boyce, M. (1982) A History of Zoroastrianism, II. Under the Achaemenians. LeidenKöln. Boyce, M. (1992) Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour. Costa Mesa, California-New York. Boyce, M. – Grenet, Fr. (1991) A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. III. Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule. With a Contribution by R. Beck. Leiden. Bowman, R.A. (1970) Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis. Chicago. Brandenstein, W. – Mayrhofer, M. (1964) Handbuch des Altpersischen, Wiesbaden. Bresciani, E. (1958) La satrapia d’Egitto. RSO, 7, 1958, pp. 132-188. Bresciani, E. (1985) The Persian occupation of Egypt. In The Cambidge History of Iran. Vol. II. Cambridge, pp. 502-528. Bresciani, E. (1995) Cambyse, Darius I et le droit des temples égyptiens. Meditérraniens, pp. 103-113. Briant, P. (1996) Histoire de l’Empire Perse. Paris. Brody, R. (1990) Judaism in the Sasanian Empire. Irano-Judaica II. Jerusalem, pp. 52-62. Bussagli, M. (1991) Storia degli Angeli. Racconto di immagini e di idee. Milano. Cama, K.R. (1970) The Collected Works of K.R. Cama. Volume II. Bombay. Cameron, G.G. (1948) Persepolis Treasury Tablets. Chicago. Cannizzaro, F.A. (1916) Il Vendidad. Messina (ristampa Milano 1990). Carter, G.W. (1918) Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Boston. Cereti, C. (1995a) Pad%riftan % d n and the Turn of the Millennium. East and West, 45, 1/4, pp. 321-327. Cereti, C. (1995b) The Zand % Wahman Yasn. A Zoroastrian Apocalypse. Roma. Cereti, C. (1995c) La figura del redentore futuro nei testi iranici zoroastriani; aspetti dell’evoluzione di un mito. AION, 55/1, pp. 33-81. Cereti, C. (1996) Again on Wahr!m warz!wand. In La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo. Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127. Roma, pp. 629-639. Cereti, C. (2001) La Letteratura pahlavi. Introduzione ai testi con riferimento alla storia degli studi e alla tradizione manoscritta. Milano. Chaumont, M.-L. (1988) La christianisation de l’Empire iranien des origines aux grandes persécutions du IV e siècle. Lovanii. Cheyne, Th.K. (1891) Possible Zoroastrian Influences on the Religion of Israel. Expository Times, 2/9, pp. 202-208; 2/10, pp. 224-228; 2/11, pp. 248-253. Cheyne, Th.K. (1897) The Book of Psalms; its Origins and its Relation to Zoroastrianism, pp. 111-119. Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut. Ed. by G.A. Kohut. Berlin. Cheyne, Th.K. (1899) Asmodeus. In Encyclopædia biblica. Vol. I. Ed. by Th.K. Cheyne, J.S. Black. London, col. 342. Christensen, A. (1907) L’empire des Sassanides. Le peuple, l’état, la cour. København. 227

P ANAINO


Christensen, A. (1928) Études sur le Zoroastrisme de la Perse antique. Copenhagen. Christensen, A. (1941) Essai sur la démonologie iranienne. Copenhagen. Christensen, A. (1944 2 ) L’Iran sous les Sassanides. København. Clemen, C. (1912) Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources. Translated by R.G. Nisbet. Edinburgh. Clemen, C. (1920a) Die griechischen und lateinischen Nachrichten über die persische Religion. Giessen. Clemen, C. (1920b) Fontes Historiae Religionis Persicae. Bonn. Cohn, N. (1993) Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come. New Haven and London. Coudert, A. (1993) Angel. In The Encyclopaedia of Religion. Ed. by M. Eliade. Complete and unabridged edition 1993. Vol. I. New York, pp. 283-284. Cowley, A. (1923) Aramaic papyri of the fifth century B.C. Oxford. Dandamayev, M.A. (1992) Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia. Costa Mesa and New York. Dandamayev, M.A. – Lukonin, V.G., (1989) The culture and social institutions of ancient Iran. Cambridge. Darmesteter, J. (1889) Textes pehlevis relatifs au Judaisme. Revue des Études Juives, 18, pp. 1-15; 19, pp. 41-56. Darmesteter, J. (1892-93a) Le Zend-Avesta. 3 voll. Paris. Darmesteter, J. (1893b) La Reine Shasyân Dôxt. Actes du du VIII e Congrès International des Orientalistes. Deuxière partie, Leyden, pp. 193-198. Day, J. (1988) An Adversary in Heaven: s!t!n in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta. Degani, E. (1961) G da Omero ad Aristotele. Padova. Dunand, M. (1968) La Défense du Front Méditerranéen de l’empire achéménide. In The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interactions of Mediterranean Civilizations. Ed. by W. Ward. Beirut. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1953) Ormazd et Ahriman. L’aventure dualiste dans l’antiquité. Paris. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1958) The Western Response to Zoroaster. Oxford. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1962) La religion de l’Iran ancien. Paris. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1972) La religion des Achéménides. In Beiträge zur Achämenidengeschichte, herausgegeben von G. Walser. Historia, Heft 18. Wiesbaden, pp. 5982. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. (1978) Opera Minora. Vol. III. Iran - Grèce - Israël - etc. Téhéran. Dumézil, G. (1945) Naissance d’Archanges. (Jupiter Mars Quirinus, III). Essai sur la formation de la théologie zoroastrienne. Paris. Eilers, W. (1974) Le texte cunéiforme du cylindre de Cyrus. In Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage Universel. Vol. 2. Acta Iranica 2, Téhéran-Liège, pp. 25-34. Forsyth, N. (1987) The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton.

228

P ANAINO


Fox, W.Sh. – Pemberton, E.E.K. (1928) Passages in Greek and Latin Literature relating to Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism. Bombay. Frye, R.N. (1967) Iran und Israel. In Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers. Wiesbaden, pp. 74-85. Frye, R.N. (1984) The History of Ancient Iran. München. Frye, R.N. (1993) The Golden Age of Persia. The Arabs in East. London. Gabrieli, F. (1996) Maometto e le grandi conquiste arabe. Ia ed. Milano 1967 (reprinted, Roma). Galling, K. (1964) Studien zur Geschichte Israels im Persischen Zeitalter. Tübingen. Garbini, G. (1984) Universalismo iranico e Israele. Henoch, 6, pp. 293-312. Gaster, M. (1917) Parsiism and Judaism. In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. IX. Ed. by J. Hastings. Edinburgh, pp. 637-640. Gehman, H.S. (1924) Notes on the Persian Words in the Book of Esther. Journal of Biblical Literature, 43, p. 327. Geiger, W. (1916) Die6 Am! a Sp!"tas. Ihr Wesen und ihre ursprüngliche Bedeutung. Wien. Geldner, K.F. (1889-1896) Avesta, the Sacred Books of the Parsis. 3 voll. Stuttgart. Geldner, K.F. (1904) Awestalitteratur. In Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie. Vol. II, Strassburg, pp. 1-52. Gershevitch, I. (1975) Die Sonne das Beste. In Mithraic Studies. Ed. by J.R. Hinnells. Manchester, pp. 68-89. Gignoux, Ph. (1969) L’enfer et le paradis d’après les sources pehlevies. Journal Asiatique, 256, pp. 219-245. Gignoux, Ph. (1979) «Corps osseaux et âme osseuse»: essai sur le chamanisme dans l’Iran ancien. Journal Asiatique, 267, pp. 41-79. Gignoux, Ph. (1981) La conception du temps dans l’Iran ancien. In Cinquième et sixième Colloques d’Histoire des Religions, Orsay, pp. 101-115. Gignoux, Ph. (1984) Le Livre d’Ard! V%r!z. Paris. Gignoux, Ph. (1985-88) L’apocalyptique iranienne est-elle vraiment la source d’autres apocalypses? AAASH, 31, pp. 67-78. Gignoux, Ph. (1986) Nouveaux regards sur l’apocalyptique iranienne. Comptes-rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres. Paris, pp. 334-346. Gignoux, Ph. (1990) Hexaéméron et Millénarisme: Quelques motifs de comparaison entre Mazdéisme et Judaïsme. Irano-Judaica II. Jerusalem, pp. 72-84. Gignoux, Ph. (1991) Les quatre inscriptions du Mage Kird%r. Texte et concordances. Paris. Gignoux, Ph. (1999) L’apocalyptique iranienne est-elle vraiment ancienne? RHR, 216/2, pp. 213-227. Gnoli, Gh. (1963) Osservazioni sulla dottrina mazdaica della creazione. AION, n.s. 13, pp. 163-193. Gnoli, Gh. (1964) Le iscrizioni giudeo-persiane del )"r (Afghanistan). Roma.

229

P ANAINO


Gnoli, Gh. (1967) Ricerche storiche sul S%st!n antico. Roma. Gnoli, Gh. (1971) Politica religiosa e concezione della regalità sotto i Sassanidi. In La Persia nel Medioevo. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Roma, pp. 225-251. Gnoli, Gh. (1974) Politica religiosa e concezione della regalità sotto gli Achemenidi. In Gurur!jamañjarik!. Studi in onore di G. Tucci. Vol. I. Napoli, pp. 24-88. Gnoli, Gh. (1983) Questioni comparative sull’ascensione d’Isaia: la tradizione iranica. In Isaia, il Diletto e la Chiesa. Visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva nell’Ascensione d’Isaia. A cura di M. Pesce. Brescia, pp. 117-128. Gnoli, Gh. (1984) Universalismo e nazionalismo nell’Iran del III secolo. In Incontro di Religioni in Asia tra il III e il X secolo d.C., a cura di L. Lanciotti, Firenze, pp. 31-54. Gnoli, Gh. (1989) The Idea of Iran. Roma. Gnoli, Gh. (1991a) L’Iran antico e lo Zoroastrismo. In L’uomo indoeuropeo e il sacro. Milano, pp. 105-147. Gnoli, Gh. (1991b) Considerazioni sulla dottrina del tempo e del dualismo. In Il Tempo e l’Uomo. Atti della IX Settimana di Seminari Interdisciplinari (Arcavacata 11 - 14 giugno 1990), Cosenza, pp. 9-16. Gnoli, Gh. (1993) Ahura Mazd! and Angra Mainyu. In The Encyclopaedia of Religion. Ed. by M. Eliade. Complete and unabridged edition 1993. Vol. I. New York, pp. 157-159. Gnoli, Gh. (1994a) Le religioni dell’Iran antico e Zoroastro (Parte I). La religione zoroastriana (Parte II). In Storia delle religioni. Vol. 1. Le religioni antiche. RomaBari, pp. 455-565. Gnoli, Gh. (1994b) Iranic Identity as a Historical Problem: the Beginning of a National Awareness under the Achaemenians. In The East and the Meaning of History. International Conference (23-27 November 1992). Roma, pp. 147-167. Gnoli, Gh. (1998) Ebraismo e cultura iranica. In Ebrei in Asia e Africa. Il contributo della diaspora alle culture e allo sviluppo dell’Asia, dell’Africa e del Mondo Mediterraneo. Cagliari 15-16 Maggio 1995. Quaderni dell’Istituto di Studi Africani e Orientali, 3 (aprile 1998). (Orientalia Karalitana). Cagliari, pp. 103-114. Gnoli, Gh. (2000) Zoroaster in History. UCLA. Los Angeles. Gray, L.H. (1905a) The Jews in Pahlavi Literature. In The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. IX. New York, pp. 462-465. Gray, L.H. (1905b) The Jews in Pahlavi Literature. In Actes du XIV e Congrès International des Orientalistes. Alger 1905. Première partie. Algiers, pp. 177-192. Gray, L.H. (1915) Jews in Zoroastrianism. In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. VII. Ed. by J. Hastings. Edinburgh, pp. 561-562. Gray, L.H. (1929) The Foundations of the Iranian Religions. Bombay. Greenfield, J.C. – Porten, B. (1982) The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great. Aramaic Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Part I. Vol. V. London. Hallock, R.T. (1969) Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Chicago. Hallock, R.T. (1985) Aramaic in the Achaemenid Empire. In The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 2. Cambridge pp. 698-713.

230

P ANAINO


Harmatta, J. (1974) Les modèles littéraires de l’édit babylonien de Cyrus, in Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage Universel, vol. I, Acta Iranica 1. Téhéran - Liège, pp. 29-44. Hartman, S.S. (1953) Gay$mart. Uppsala. Hinnells, J.R. (1976) Zoroastrian influence on the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 45, pp. 1-80. Hintze, A. (1994) The Greek and Hebrew Versions of the Book of Esther and Its Iranian background. Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem, pp. 34-39. Hintze, A. (1995) The Rise of the Saviour in the Avesta. In Iran und Turfan. Beiträge Berliner Wissenschaftler, Werner Sundermann zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet, Wiesbaden, pp. 77-97. Hinz, W. (1973) Neue Wege im Altpersischen. Wiesbaden. Hinz, W. (1975) Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen. Wiesabden. Hoffmann, K. – Narten, J. (1989) Der Sasanidische Archetypus. Wiesbaden. Humbach, H. (1959) Die Gathas des Zarathustra. 2 voll. Heidelberg. Humbach, H. (1984) A Western Approach to Zarathustra. Bombay. Humbach, H. (1991) The G!th!s of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts. 2 voll. Heidelberg. Insler, S. (1975) The G!th!s of Zarathustra. Acta Iranica 8. Téhéran-Liège. Jackson, A.V.W. (1898) A Bief Note on the Amshaspands, or a Contribution to the Zoroastrian Angelology. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 1, pp. 363-367. Jackson, A.V.W. (1899) Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran. New York. Jackson, A.V.W. (1928) Zoroastrian Studies. New York. Jastrow, M. (1903) A dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the midrashic literature. Brooklyn, NY. Junker, H.F. (1923) Über iranische Quellen der hellenistischen Aion-Vorstellung. Leipzig. Kellens, J. (1989) Avesta. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. III, New York, pp. 35-44. Kellens, J. (1991) Zoroastre et l’Avesta ancien. Quatre leçons au Collège de France. Paris. Kellens, J. (1994) L’escatologie mazdéenne ancienne. Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem, pp. 49-53. Kellens, J. (1995) L’âme entre le cadavre et le paradis. Journal Asiatique, 283/1, pp. 19-56. Kellens, J. – Pirart, E. (1988, 1990, 1991) Les textes vieil-avestiques. Wiesbaden. Kellermann, U. (1967) Nehemia Quellen, Überlieferungen und Geschichte. Berlin. Kent, R.G. (1953 2 ) Old Persian. Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven. Kluger, R.S. (1967) Satan in the Old Testament. Tr. by H. Nagel. Evanston. König, F.Ch. (1964) Zarathustras Jenseitsvorstellungen und das Alte Testament. Wien Freiburg - Basel.

231

P ANAINO


Kohut, A. (1866) Ueber die jüdische Angelologie und Daemonologie in ihrer Abhängigkeit von Parsismus. Abh. der D.M.G. IV, n. 3. Leipzig [The Jewish Angelology and Demonology based upon Parsism. Translated from the German by K.R. Cama, Bombay 1880-83 (in four parts); reprinted in K.R. Cama, 1970, II: 161-276)]. Kohut, A. (1867) Was hat die talmudische Eschatologie aus dem Parsismus aufgenommen? ZDMG, 21, pp. 552-591. Kohut, A. (1871) Die talmudisch-midraschische Adamssage in ihrer Rückbeziehung auf die persische Yima- und Meshiasage, kritisch beleuchtet. ZDMG, 25, pp. 59-94. Labourt, J. (1904) Le christianisme dans l’Empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide. Paris. Lagrange, M.-J. (1904) La religion des Perses, la réforme de Zoroastre et le Judaisme. Revue biblique, 87, pp. 27-55; 188-212. Langdon, S. (1934) Babylonian and Hebrew Demonology with reference to the supposed borrowing of Persian Dualism in Judaism and Christianity. JRAS, pp. 45-58. Lazard, G. (1995) La formation de la langue persane. Paris. Lecoq, P. (1997) Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide. Paris. Lewy, H. (1949) The Babylonian Background of the Kay Kâûs Legend. Archiv Orientální, 17, pp. 28-109. Lewy, J. (1945-46) The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus. Hebrew Union College Annual, 19, pp. 405-489. Liverani, M. (2003) Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israele. Roma - Bari. Lommel, H. (1927) Die Yäšt’s des Awesta übersetzt und eingeleitet. Göttingen-Leipzig. Lommel, H. (1930) Die Religion Zarathustras nach dem Awesta dargestellt. Tübingen. Lukács, G. (1959 3 ) La distruzione della ragione. Torino (Die Zerstörung der Vernunft, Berlin). MacKenzie, D.N. (1988) Khwarezmian and Avestan. East and West, 38, pp. 81-92. MacKenzie, D.N. (1989) Bundahišn. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. IV, fasc. 5, New York, pp. 547-551. Malandra, W.W. (1971) The Fravaši Yašt. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary. University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor (Michigan). Marrazza, M. (2002) Osservazioni su accadismi e persianismi nel libro di Esdra. Materia giudaica, VII/2, 283-298. Mayer, R. (1961) Iranischer Beitrag zu Problemen des Daniels- und Esther-Buches. In Lex tua Veritas: Festschrift für H. Junker. Herausgegeben von H. Gross und F. Mussner. Trier, pp. 127-135. Menasce, J. de (1969) Jews and Judaism in the Third Book of the D#nkart. In K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume. Bombay, pp. 45-48. Menasce, J. de (1973) Le troisième livre du D nkart. Paris. Messina, G. (1930) Der Ursprung der Magier und die zarathuštrische Religion. Roma. Messina, G. (1933) I Magi a Betlemme e una predizione di Zoroastro. Roma. Millar, F. (1994) The Roman Near East. 31 BC - AD 337. Cambridge (Mass.) - London.

232

P ANAINO


Millard, A.R. (1977) The Persian Names in Esther and the Reliability of the Hebrew Text. Journal of Biblical Literature, 96, p. 484. Mills, L. (1906) Zara#uštra, Philo, the Achemenids and Israel. Leipzig. Mills, L. (1913) Our own Religion in ancient Persia ... presenting the Zend Avesta as collated with the Pre-Christian exilic Pharisaism. London. Modi, J.J. (1914) Angelology. A few traits common to Zoroastrianism, Hebrewism and Christianity. Dante Papers, 7, pp. 150-159. Moore, C.A. (1982) Studies in the Book of Esther. New York. Mosse, G.L. (1964) The Crysis of German Ideology. New York. Moulton, J.H. (1913) Early Zoroastrianism. London. Narten, J. (1982) Die Am! a Sp!"tas im Avesta. Wiesbaden. Narten, J. (1985) Avestisch «frauua%i-». Indo-Iranian Journal, 28, pp. 35-48. Narten, J. (1986) Der Yasna Hapta&h!iti. Wiesbaden. Netzer, A. (1974) Some Notes on the Characterization of Cyrus the Great in Jewish and Judeo-Persian Writings. In Commémoration Cyrus. Hommage Universel. Téhéran Liège, vol. II, pp. 35-52. Neusner, J. (1983) Jews in Iran. In The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. III/2. Cambridge, pp. 909-923. Neusner, J. (1986) Israel’s Politics in Sasanian Iran. Lanham - New York - London. Nyberg, H.S. (1929/1931) Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes. Journal Asiatique, 214, pp. 129-310; 219, pp. 1-1134, 193-244. Nyberg, H.S. (1938) Die Religionen des alten Iran. Leipzig. Olmstead, A. (1948) History of the Persian Empire. Chicago. Otto, R. (1940 2 ) Reich Gottes und Menschensohn. Tübingen. Panaino, A. (1990b) La religione zoroastriana. Guida critica e bibliografica. Postfazione a F.A. Cannizzaro, Vendidad, Milano, pp. 235-300. Panaino, A. (1992) Philologia Avestica I. ahura*!ta- / mazda*!ta-. Aula Orientalis, 10, pp. 199-209. Panaino, A. (1994) Figure femminili divine e demoniache nell’Iran antico. In Miti di origine, miti di caduta e presenza del femminino nella loro evoluzione interpretativa. Ricerche Storico-Bibliche, 1994, 1-2, pp. 47-70. Panaino, A. (1998) Avesta. In Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Bd. 1, Tübingen 1998, coll. 1024-1026. Panaino, A. (1999) I Magi e la ricerca del Salvatore. In I tre saggi e la stella. Mito e realtà dei Re Magi. Rimini, pp. 31-60. Panaino, A. (2001a) Il contributo del mondo iranico preislamico al pensiero filosofico. In Filosofie nel tempo. A cura di P. Salandini e R. Lolli. Opera diretta da G. Penzo, vol. I. Dalle origini al XVI secolo d.C. Roma, pp. 41-83. Panaino, A. (2001b) L’ecumene iranica e lo Zoroastrismo nel loro sviluppo storico,” published in Atti del Seminario invernale Il popolo del ritorno: l’epoca persiana e la

233

P ANAINO


Bibbia. Lucca, 25-27 gennaio 2000. Biblia, Associazione laica di cultura biblica, Firenze 2001, pp. 13-100. Pavry, J.C. (1929) The Zoroastrian Doctrine of the Future Life from Death to the Individual Judgement. New York. Pelaia, B.M. (1960) Esdra e Neemia. A cura di B.M. Pelaia. Torino - Roma. Pettazzoni, R. (1920) La religione di Zarathustra nella storia religiosa dell’Iran. Bologna. Pines, Sh. (1970) Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch. In Types of Remption. Ed. by R.J.Z. Werblowsky and C.J. Bleeker. Leiden, pp. 72-87. Pines, Sh. (1982) Wrath and Creatures of Wrath in Pahlavi, Jewish and New Testament. Irano-Judaica. Jerusalem, pp. 76-82. Posener, O. (1936) La première domination perse en Egypte. “Bibliothèque d’étude,” 11, Le Caire. Römer, Th. (2002) I Lati oscuri di Dio. Crudeltà e violenza nell’Antico Testamento. Traduzione di F.J. Comba (Dieu obscure. Le sexe, la cruauté et la violence dans l’Ancien Testament, Genève 1996). Torino. Rudolph, W. (1949) Esra und Nehemiah. Tübingen. Russell, J.B. (1977) The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca. New York. Russell, J.R. (1987a) Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Cambridge (Ma.). Russell, J.R. (1987b) Our Father Abraham and the Magi. Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 54, pp. 57-73. Russell, J.R. (1987c) An Irano-Judaic Correspondence. Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 54, pp. 81-84. Russell, J.R. (1990) Zoroastrian Elements in the Book of Esther. Irano-Judaica II. Jerusalem, pp. 33-40. Russell, J.R. (1994) The Ascensio Isaiae and Iran. Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem, pp. 63-71. Sarton, G. (1938) Anquetil-Duperron (1731-1805). Osiris, 3, pp. 193-223. Scheftelowitz, J. (1920) Die altpersische Religion und das Judentum (Unterschiede, Uebereinstimmungen und gegenseitige Beeinflussungen). Giessen. Scheftelowitz, J. (1929) Die Zeit als Schicksalgottheit in der indischen und iranischen Religion. Stuttgart. Schippmann, K. (1980) Grundzüge der parthischen Geschichte. Darmstadt. Schippmann, K. (1990), Grundzüge der Geschichte des sasanidisches Reiches. Darmstadt. Schmitt, R. (1991) The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great. Old Persian Text. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. London. Schwab, R. (1934) Vie d’Anquetil-Duperron. Paris. Shaked, Sh. (1971) The Notions «m#n"g» and «g#t g» in the Pahlavi Texts and their relation to Eschatology. Acta Orientalia, 33, pp. 59-61. Shaked, Sh. (1972) Qumran and Iran: further consideration. IOS, 2, pp. 433-446.

234

P ANAINO


Shaked, Sh. (1979) The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages. Boulder (Colorado). Shaked, Sh. (1984) Iranian influence on Judaism: first century B.C.E. to second century C.E., pp. 308-325. Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. I. Cambridge. Shaked, Sh. (1982) Two Judaeo-Iranian Contributions: Iranian Functions in the Book of Esther. – Irano-Judaica. Studies relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages. Irano-Judaica. Jerusalem, pp. 292-322. Shaked, Sh. (1990) Zoroastrian Polemics against Jews in the Sasanian and Early Islamic Period. Irano-Judaica II. Jerusalem, pp. 85-104. Shaked, Sh. (1994) Dualism in Transformation. London. Shapira, D. (2001) On Biblical Quotations in Pahlavi. Henoch, 23, pp. 175-183. Skjærvø, P.O. (1994) Recensione di Yamauchi (1994). JAOS, 114/3, pp. 499-504. Smith, M. (1963) Isaiah and the Persians. JAOS, 83, pp. 415-421. Smith, M. (1968) Palestinian Judaism in the Persian Period. In The Greeks and the Persians from the Sixth to the Fourth Centuries. Ed. by H. Bengston. London, pp. 386-401. Soden, W. von (1983) Kyros und Nabonid. Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda. In Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben. AMI, Ergänzungsband 10. Berlin, pp. 61-68. Söderblom, N. (1899) Les Fravashis. RHR, 39, pp. 229-260, 374-418. Söderblom, N. (1901) La Vie future d’après le mazdéisme à la lumière des croyances parallèles dans les autres religions: étude d’eschatologie comparée. Paris. Söderblom, N. (1903) Notes sur les relations du Judaisme avec le Parsisme à propos de travaux récents. RHR, 48, pp. 372-378. Spiegel, F. (1871-1878) Erânische Alterthumskunde. 3 voll. Leipzig. Stave, E. (1898) Über den Einfluss des Parsismus auf Judentum, ein Versuch. Haarlem. Stoyanov, J. (2000) The Other God. Dualist Religion from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy. New Haven - London. Stroumsa, G.G. (1994) Zoroastrian Origin to the Sefirot? Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem, pp. 17-33. Sundermann, W. (1987) Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäern. Altorientalische Forschungen, 14/1, pp. 41-107. Tiele, C.P. (1903) Die Kosmogonie des Avesta und Genesis I. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 6, pp. 244-246. Verger, A. (1965) Ricerche giuridiche sui papiri aramaici di Elefantina. Roma. Voltaire [= F.M. Arouet] (1828) Dictionnaire philosophique. Paris. Weiss, J. (1900 2 ) Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Göttingen. West, E.W. (1880) Pahlavi Texts. Part I. The Bundahis-Bahman Yast, and Sh!yast l!Sh!yast. SBE 5. Oxford. Widengren, G. (1957) Quelques rapports entre Juifs et Iraniens à l’époque des Parthes. Vetus Testamentum. Suppl. IV, pp. 197-241.

235

P ANAINO


Widengren, G. (1960) Iranisch-semitische Kulturbegegnung in parthischer Zeit. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung der Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Heft 70. Köln und Opladen. Widengren, G. (1961) The Status of the Jews in the Sassanian Empire. Iranica Antiqua, I, pp. 117-162. Widengren G. (1968) Les religions de l’Iran. Paris. Widengren, G. – Hultgård, A. Philonenko, M. (1995) Apocalyptique iranienne et dualisme qoumrânien. Paris. Wiesehöfer, J. (1988) Das Bild der Achaimeniden in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. In Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory. Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop. Leiden, pp. 1-14. Wiesehöfer, J. (1990) Zur Geschichte der Begriffe ‘Arier’ und ‘Arisch’ in der deutschen Sprachwissenschaft und Althistorie des 19. und der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. In Achaemenid History VII. The roots of the European tradition. Proceedings of the 1987 Groningen Achaemenid History workshop. Leiden, pp. 149165. Wiesehöfer, J. (1996) Ancient Persia. London - New York. Wiesehöfer, J. (1999) Das frühe Persien. Geschichte eines antiken Weltreichs. München. Williams, A.V. (1994) Zoroastrian and Judaic Purity Laws. Reflections on the Viability of a Sociological Interpretation. Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem, pp. 72-89. Winston, D. (1966) The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence. HR, 5, pp. 183-216. Wolff, F. (1910) Avesta, die heiligen Bücher der Parsen. Leipzig. Wolski, J. (1993) L’empire des Arsacides. Acta Iranica 32. Leiden. Yamauchi, E.M. (1990) Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids (Mich.). Zaehner, R.C. (1955) Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma. Oxford. Zaehner, R.C. (1956) The Teachings of the Magi. A Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs. London. Zaehner, R.C. (1961) The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. London.

236

P ARPOLA

S IMO P ARPOLA

T HE R ELEVANCE OF THE P AN -B ABYLONIAN S CHOOL TO THE M ELAMMU P ROJEC T

Helsinki

Back to Delitzsch and Jeremias: The Relevance of the Pan-Babylonian School to the MELAMMU Project

lmost exactly one hundred years ago, perhaps at this very hour, the German Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch started preparing his famous series of lectures entitled “Babel und Bibel.” 1 His purpose was to demonstrate, on the basis of recent discoveries and in conjunction with the opening of German excavations at Babylon, the relevance of cuneiform studies to Biblical research in particular and the history of Western culture in general. 2 We all know, at least in rough outline, how this enterprise ended. 3 All of the three lectures, especially the first two, generated enormous interest and a fierce public debate. The first two lectures were delivered on 13 January 1902 and 12 January 1903 respectively in the presence of the German emperor Wilhelm II himself, and were published in printings of more than 60,000 and 45,000 copies each. They were reviewed in more than 1350 short and 300 long newspaper and journal articles and in 28 pamphlets in Germany alone; in addition, there were reviews and debate in several

A

other countries. The reactions varied from enthusiastic acceptance to violent attacks against Delitzsch’s ideas; they came from the man of the street as well as from historians, theologians, clergymen, biblical scholars, philosophers, and orientalists. Delitzsch took pains to answer to the most important criticism briefly in the published versions of the lectures, but noted that the majority of the feedback was scientifically substandard and not worthy of reply. 4 The third and final lecture was delivered on 27 October 1904. It was no longer attended by the Kaiser, who, disturbed by some theological implications of the second lecture, 5 had publicly distanced himself from Delitzsch’s views and advised him to stay within Assyriology and leave “religion as such” to others. This was widely (though wrongly!) interpreted as a deathblow to the substance of Delitzsch’s argument and, much to the disappointment of the general public, as an end of the whole Babel-Bibel debate. 6 In reality, however, the debate continued after the

1

5

Cf. Delitzsch’s letter to Karl Bruckmann cited in Lehmann 1994: 285, dated 12.XI.’01, which shows that he had been already working on the lecture for some time in November 1901. 2 Delitzsch 1902: 3-4. 3 For an excellent in-depth presentation and analysis of the Babel-Bibel controversy, making extensive use of unpublished documents in the literary remains of Delitzsch and others, see Lehmann 1994. 4 Cf. Delitzsch 19032: 47-48. A. Panaino & A. Piras (eds.) M ELAMMU S YMPOSIA IV (Milano 2004) ISBN 88-88483-206-3

Ironically, the conclusion of the lecture shows that it had been intended as a positive response to a recent speech of Wilhelm II calling for “Weiterbildung der Religion.” See Lehmann 1994: 217-219. 6 Lehmann 1994: 250f. Contrary to what is/was commonly thought, Delitzsch never lost the favour of the Kaiser but the two men remained on friendly terms until the death of Delitzsch (see Lehmann 1994: 242 and 355).

237

P ARPOLA

T HE R ELEVANCE OF THE P AN -B ABYLONIAN S CHOOL TO THE M ELAMMU P ROJECT

third lecture as well and was extended to new, much wider horizons. Soon after the first Babel-Bibel lecture, a student of Delitzsch, Hugo Winckler, had published a small book entitled Die babylonische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zur unsrigen (“The Babylonian Culture in its Relationship to Ours”). This booklet of 52 pages was immediately reprinted, and inaugurated a long series of other books produced in the course of the next ten years by a small group of German scholars subsequently to be known as the “pan-Babylonians” (German: Panbabylonisten). Beside Winckler, the “founder” of the pan-Babylonian school, the “group” initially consisted only of two other Assyriologists, Alfred Jeremias and Heinrich Zimmern, both of whom likewise were former students of Delitzsch and active in Leipzig, 7 although later on it also included Ernst Weidner, a student of Jeremias. 8 A further former student of Delitzsch, Peter Jensen, who published his controversial book Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Welt-

literatur at the same time as Winckler and Jeremias were writing, is often also associated with the pan-Babylonian school. This is a mistake, however, as Jensen and the pan-Babylonians were on inimical terms and the latter, especially their most prolific representative, Alfred Jeremias, sharply dissociated themselves from Jensen’s ideas and writings. 9 The pan-Babylonians took as their point of departure Eduard Stucken’s mythological studies of the late 19th century, which they developed further. Their basic contention was that the astral mythologies and conceptions of the ancient peoples all over the world were borrowed from the cradle of all astrological knowledge, Babylonia, and that this lore was part of a larger system, a comprehensive, coherent world-view that had taken its shape in prehistoric times and is first attested, already fully developed, in ancient Babylonia. The central tenets of this world-view were circulated as esoteric secrets and included the following 10 :

7 Jeremias was a great admirer of Winckler who embraced and defended his views wholeheartedly; Zimmern was more critical in his evaluation of Winckler’s theories. 8 The group also included a non-Assyriologist, August Wünsche, a colleague of Jeremias specialising in Judaism and Jewish mysticism, who contributed four articles to the pan-Babylonian series Ex Oriente Lux in 1904-1906. The founder of Finnish Assyriology, Knut Tallqvist, who got his Assyriological training in Leipzig under Delitzsch, may also be considered a pan-Babylonian based on his intercultural studies in the early twenties and thirties. 9 See Lehmann 1994: 46 and Jeremias 1913: 7 n. 2. Eberhard Schrader can be counted to the panBabylonians (cf. Rollinger 1999: 382) only insofar as the third, revised edition of his Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament was essentially the work of Winckler and Zimmern. 10 See basically Winckler 1902: 49 and Jeremias 1913: 9. Note, however, the following important qualification of Wincker’s model in Zimmern 1909: 309: “We have to deal, in the first place, with the following question: Are we to hold, with Winckler especially, that the religion of the Babylonians and their theory of the universe in general are to be regarded, at the time when our sources begin, i.e. about B.C. 3000, as es-

sentially complete a fixed system, based on astronomical principles, which arose in a period which, for us, is entirely prehistoric. Or, are the undoubted traces of the systematizing of the religion, which are found in our sources, only the product of a comparatively late period? ... The present writer feels compelled, from his study and interpretation of the sources, to adopt an intermediate theory between the two extremes just mentioned. It seems to him undeniable that there was among the Babylonians, even at an early date, a tendency to reduce the world of the gods to a single system, and to carry out the law of correspondence between [...] the macrocosm and the microcosm. At the same time, he does not feel inclined to exclude the element of historical evolution from the actually known period of Assyro-Babylonian history to the same extent as Winckler does... Moreover, to a far larger extent than Winckler is disposed to admit, we seem to have to deal in the Babylonian religion with unreconciled differences, due partly to widely deviating local cults which once existed... We cannot, then, speak of a finished scheme as present in the Bab. Weltanschauung and consequently in its religion. At the same time, it must be conceded that Winckler’s reconstruction of a Bab. Weltanschauung has in many ways, in spite of its onesidedness and evident exaggeration, made possible a better understanding of the religion of the Babylonians.”

238

P ARPOLA

1. The visible world is to be understood as a materialization of or an emanation from the transcendent God. 2. God is one, but manifested in a multiplicity of forms. 3. All mundane existence reflects celestial order. 4. All knowledge about the cosmos and its organization is based on divine revelation received at the beginning of time, and 5. Knowledge of the heavens is the source of all wisdom.

These, and other theses of the panBabylonians were publicized and backed up in a great number of monographs produced within a short period of time. Between 1903 and 1908, Winckler and Jeremias alone published a total of 19 books and pamphlets relating to the subject (not counting the former’s strictly Assyriological publications). The central theses were presented to the general public by Winckler in a book entitled Die babylonische Geisteskultur, published in 1907, and in several penetrating studies by Jeremias, such as Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients (1904), Babylonisches im Neuen Testament (1905) and particularly Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur (1913). As indicated by these titles, the work of the pan-Babylonians continued the Babel-Bibel debate. It also immediately became the target of similar vehement attacks and criticism. The critics expectedly attacked the alleged great antiquity of Babylonian astronomy and the spread of Babylonian doctrines all over the world in remote antiquity. 11 The Mesopotamian world-view, as reconstructed by the pan-Babylonians, also came under attack; it was declared a methodically flawed projection of phenomena and

11 12

E.g., Kugler 1910. Jeremias 1902, 1907, 1908a; Winckler 1906a,


doctrines specific to the Hellenistic age and late antiquity backwards in time. Winckler and Jeremias sought to refute such criticism by carefully documented arguments, also adducing new evidence in support of their theories, e.g. from the recent excavations of the Hittite capital, Hattuša. 12 They also defiantly adopted the designation pan-Babylonians coined by their critics as their own, claiming that none of the pillars on which their theory rested had been shaken in the least by the criticism. 13 The long and bitter debate came to an end with the death of Winckler in 1913, just before the appearance of Jeremias’s magnum opus, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur and the outbreak of the First World War. True, Jeremias’s brilliant student Ernst Weidner still contributed a final piece to it two years later with the publication of his Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie; but the book had actually been completed earlier and had been in press since 1913. Jeremias himself continued his work after the war, preparing updated editions of his principal works and publishing several new monographs in the pan-Babylonian tradition, the last of which (Der Kosmos von Sumer, 1932), appeared only three years before his death; but in effect, the panBabylonian polemics had ended with World War I, and it was well over by the thirties. The pan-Babylonians thus passed away defiant and unshaken in their central theses. However, although they left a stunning legacy in the field of intercultural studies, they did not find many followers. In 1926, Zimmern’s student and successor, Benno Landsberger, sowed the seeds of a major turning point in Assy-

1907b. 13 Jeremias 1913: VII and 7. 239

P ARPOLA


riological studies. In his inaugural lecture at Leipzig, Landsberger distanced himself from the work of his predecessors 14 and outlined his own research programme, which stressed the “conceptual autonomy” (Eigenbegrifflichkeit) of the Mesopotamian civilisation and insisted that it should be reconstructed in its own terms and basically with recourse to the cuneiform evidence only. 1 5 Although Landsberger by no means denied the value of comparative studies, 16 the subsequent almost exclusive implementation of his heuristic method in Assyriology effectively paralysed interdisciplinary study of Mesopotamian religion for several decades. 1 7 Today, 72 years after the appearance of the second, completely revised edition of Jeremias’s Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur, this work remains the only systematic, welldocumented attempt to reconstruct the Mesopotamian world-view and correlate it with other comparable systems in the ancient world. While it cannot be said that cross-cultural studies are completely lacking in Assyriology since the panBabylonians, it is certainly true that there has been little effort to correlate Mesopotamian intellectual culture with the outside world since them. And that is not all. Not only has the work of the panBabylonians not been continued; it has also been largely forgotten; and if not forgotten, then tainted with a stamp of questionability that has made many serious scholars shun away from it as

something “suspicious.” Who nowadays reads Jeremias and Winckler, or for that matter, Delitzsch? Even the most recent, revised editions of their works are in many respects hopelessly out of date today. They refer to antiquated and/or defective editions of texts, and use name forms and chronological schemes that have long since been shown to be incorrect. 18 Worse still, their authors have been summarily branded as tendentious racists or charlatans with grossly exaggerated, fantastic claims. 19 Recent, on the whole factual, accounts of the Babel-Bibel debate paint a picture of Delitzsch as an embittered man imbued with Aryan ideology and trying to present Christianity as an ultimately Aryan religion. 20 In consequence, the main theses of the pan-Babylonians have been ridiculed and effectively rejected or turned upside down during the past decades. The recent revised edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example, expressly denies that there was any Mesopotamian mysticism before Hellenistic times. 2 1 Thus, whereas the pan-Babylonians maintained that Babylonian mysticism deeply influenced the entire ancient world, the current mainstream view is different and in fact diametrically opposed to theirs. Similarly, claims that the ancient Mesopotamians entertained a belief in resurrection from the dead, or a monotheistic concept of God, as maintained by the pan-Babylonians, have long been an

14

ential. It is no coincidence, for example, that I. J. Gelb’s famous article, where he urged Assyriologists to concentrate on the study of onions instead of religion (Gelb 1965), was published in a Festschrift presented to Landsberger. 18 E.g., “Ninib” for Ninurta, and 2850 as the approximate year of accession of Sargon the Great. 19 Cf., e.g., König 1954. 20 Huffmon 1983: 318; Larsen 1995: 103-105. 21 Gordon 1996.

Landsberger 1926: 356-357 = 1976: 5-7. Ironically, at the beginning of the lecture he praises both Delitzsch and Zimmern highly and refers to them as “men to whom our science owes most.” See also below. 15 Landsberger 1926: 358 = 1976: 6-7. 16 See Landsberger 1926: 357 = 1976: 6, and cf. n. 28 below. 17 Of course, Landsberger was not alone responsible for this development, but his views were very influ240

P ARPOLA


anathema in Assyriology. Presenting such views in print is nowadays widely felt as dangerous in scholarly circles, as it automatically leads to association with the ideas of the pan-Babylonians, and thus to being stigmatised as a scholar of dubious judgement and outdated views. This is a paradoxical and, in many respects, surreal situation, as the diffusionist model of cultural evolution espoused by Delitzsch and the panBabylonians has by no means been proven wrong by later research. 22 On the contrary, the central contention of the pan-Babylonians, namely that Mesopotamian ideas, knowledge, and systems of thought were widely diffused throughout the ancient world since the earliest times, has by now become a firmly established fact, and can be extensively documented today. And how could it be otherwise? The ancient Mesopotamians did not live in a vacuum, but in constant interaction with their neighbours, and it is but natural that ideas and knowledge from Mesopotamia spread to the surrounding world, just as the Mesopotamians (of course) also received significant impulses from the outside world. Hence, it is not enough to study the Mesopotamian civilisation as an alien, isolated system only to be understood in its own terms, as such an approach artificially separates Mesopotamia from the rest of the world and obscures its pivotal role in the genesis and growth of a cultural oikumene that has kept growing and continually expanding to the present day. Since our knowledge of the past is fragmentary, it is essential that the available

Mesopotamian data be systematically correlated with other relevant (interdisciplinary) evidence to yield a deeper and more diversified understanding of the past. Interdisciplinary data are often mutually complementary and can thus significantly contribute to the understanding of the past, usually to the benefit of more than one discipline. Since cultural borrowings, like loanwords, are subject to variation from culture to culture on the surface level, different frames of reference often leading to surprisingly different modes of expression of the same ideas, 23 intercultural studies require considerable interdisciplinary competence, good critical judgement and sound methodology in order to produce viable results. 24 In view of the overwhelmingly negative acceptance of their work, it is ironical to note that the pan-Babylonians, as a whole, meet this requirement far better than most of their critics. Winckler, Zimmern, Jeremias and Weidner were all highly competent Assyriologists who had an excellent first-hand command of cuneiform sources of all types and periods, even by today’s standards. In addition, they had good knowledge of many fields of ancient Near Eastern studies and were well informed in astronomy, astrology, comparative mythology, biblical studies, classics, ethnology, and the relevant methodologies. Jeremias was a trained Christian theologian. Their teacher, Delitzsch, not only was the leading Assyriologist but also one of the leadings Semitists of his time. The school of Delitzsch laid great stress on sound methodology, scientific accu-

22

basis of isolated superficial similarities only; the similarities between the phenomena compared have to be historically and geographically feasible, systematic, functional, and specific enough to justify the hypothesis of a common origin.

Cf. Albright 1964: 50 and 309; Oppenheim 1964: 333-334; Beaulieu 2002: 14-15. 23 See, e.g., Panaino 2001 and the article of Grottanelli in the same volume. 24 Needless to say, historical connections between intercultural phenomena cannot be established on the

241

P ARPOLA


Reading the Babel-Bibel lectures today, it is almost unbelievable that they could have stirred such emotions and opposition as they did in their time. Many of the things presented in them have since then become firmly established parts of Assyriological and even general knowledge. What is more, the facts are presented in the same clear, intelligent and accurate manner that is also characteristic of Delitzsch’s scientific work. Along with established facts, he does present challenging ideas and interpretations that are still fresh and worth pursuing even today. However, he does not press them, but leaves the final judgement about them to future research. Despite allegations to contrary, it is difficult to find any racism or bitterness in the lectures. 26 The only occurrence of the word “Aryan” there is at the beginning of the first lecture, where Delitzsch discusses a drawing of Assurbanipal’s queen made by Billerbeck and remarks: “Wohl möglich, dass diese Gemahlin Sardanapals eine Prinzessin arischen Geblüts ist und blondhaarig zu denken.” But such remarks must be understood within the context of the time, when

racial theories were in vogue everywhere, not from the perspective of later times! There is nothing in the lectures even remotely suggesting that Delitzsch wanted to promote the idea of an Aryan Jesus. In the third lecture, he does (rightly) emphasise the (often overlooked) fact that the population of Galilee included a strong Babylonian element, but his point was to draw attention to the relevance of cuneiform evidence for New Testament studies, not to suggest a new racist interpretation of Christianity. 27 It is true that one can detect a certain change of tone and an occasional sarcasm in the last two lectures. But that is understandable considering the vicious and mostly totally unjustified feedback that the lectures received. It is also true that Delitzsch’s personal religious convictions surface here and there, and that he occasionally presents ideas that are difficult to endorse or sustain. But on the whole the tone of the lectures remains factual and the quality of information contained in them remarkably high throughout. The same can be said about the writings of Hugo Winckler, Alfred Jeremias and the other pan-Babylonians. One can disagree with the details of their reconstruction of the Mesopotamian worldview and its supposed spread all over the world, and many parts of their theories are certainly subject to refinement, adjustment and correction in light of the evidence that has become available afterwards. But the facts collected by them are on the whole presented accurately and reliably, and have not lost their validity. As far as the reconstruction of Mesopotamian esoteric thought is concerned, my own conclusions, based on a

25

27

racy and the importance of carefully documenting all scientific assertions. In his famous lecture already referred to, Landsberger says of Delitzsch: In their enthusiasm of discovery the early decipherers often imbued the simple monuments with too much of their own ideas and so gave Assyriology a reputation for fancifulness. Friedrich Delitzsch imposed on this freely creative fantasy the fetters of sound methodology and laid the foundations of our philology by quiet, persevering work, uninfluenced by sensationalism. 25

26

Landsberger 1976: 5 = 1926: 356. Lehmann 1904: 268.

242

See Delitzsch 1905: 11, 56f.

P ARPOLA

different approach and a different set of data, in many essential points agree with theirs. 28 It seems to me that the negative attitude to the work of the pan-Babylonians, like the emotions stirred by the BabelBibel lectures, largely stems from careless and/or ideologically biased reading of their writings and insufficient firsthand knowledge of Mesopotamian primary sources, rather than impartial study of the actual facts. I cannot but concur with Marie Pancratius who, in response to Cumont’s slighting evaluation of the work of the pan-Babylonians, wrote in 1913: Even one who – like the reviewer – has never stood in the ranks of the panBabylonians, must protest against such a summary. A feuilletonist may not resist the temptation of it; but if a scholar like F. Cumont wishes to judge a group of scholars before a circle of laymen, he must know their work otherwise than just from disputatious writings. Even if the paths which a scholar undaunted by error boldly cleared to an unknown land unfolding from a new, constantly increasing documentation taking us into an ever more distant past, would not seem to lead where they should lead – even Columbus did not discover India – they have nevertheless led to a more diversified orientation, and broad vistas and overviews. And how many stimuli have come from the pan-Babylonian idea – even beyond the confines of Assyriology! I am reminded of the strong impulse that comparative mythology received from it.

28

My scholarly work has from the beginning been guided by Landsberger’s heuristic method, as can be easily seen from my analysis of the correspondence of Neo-Assyrian scholars (Parpola 1983). However, I also attach considerable importance to the comparative method and the use of interdisciplinary evidence (cf. Parpola 1997). These methods are not mutually exclusive but complementary: as stressed by Landsberger (1976: 7 = 1926: 358), interdisciplinary evidence is vital for the success of the heuristic method. There is, of course, an order of priority in which the two methods must be applied. The heuristic method


Even if one does not want to believe in Babylon as the source of all the myths of the world nor in the uniquely mythologizing power of the Aryans or the hoary antiquity of the sky myth, one must acknowledge an admirable work achievement valuable, in any case, as a preliminary work and fresh effort to penetrate the riddles of myth… Such a successful hypothesis can impossibly be placed in the same line with a futile soap bubble. 29

Naturally, much in the writings of the pan-Babylonians is obsolete and redundant today. Nevertheless, I believe their work is still valuable and should by no means be overlooked or summarily discarded. Apart from the fact that it is the only systematic attempt to date to reconstruct the Mesopotamian world-view in a coherent manner, it also contains a great deal of cuneiform data correlated with parallel evidence from other Near Eastern and classical traditions, much of which is not found or discussed in later Assyriological publications. From the viewpoint of the M ELAMMU project and intercultural studies in general, it is absolutely essential that these data be checked for their reliability, brought up to date and made available in a revised form – otherwise they will remain accessible exclusively through the writings of the pan-Babylonians, and will, en faute de mieux, continue being cited in this form indefinitely. I intend to go through all interdisciplinary publications of the pan-Babylo-

comes first; only after the Mesopotamian data have been thoroughly analysed in their own right, can they be successfully compared with cross-cultural data, which naturally must also be well explored (cf. Landsberger 1976: 6 = 1926: 357). While Delitzsch and the pan-Babylonians may have laid greater stress on the comparative method, their extensive first-hand familiarity with the cuneiform sources makes it certain that they had by no means neglected the heuristic approach. 29 Pancratius 1913: 405 (my translation).

243

P ARPOLA


nians, extract from them data that can be considered valid, and have them incorporated in the M ELAMMU database now under construction. This way, the pioneering work of the pan-Babylonians will not get lost but can be put at the service of the scholarly world and the general public. The aim of this enterprise, which certainly is not an easy one but will take time and effort, is not to prove or disprove the theories of the pan-Babylonians but simply to take advantage of their pioneering work. The M ELAMMU

project does not advocate a Mesopotamia-centred view of cultural evolution but studies the interaction of Mesopotamian culture with other cultures over a broad time scale. The pan-Babylonians have already collected and analysed much of the relevant evidence, which is not always easy to identify, and sooner or later it will be necessary to readdress the issues raised by them in light of the evidence available today. I believe it makes sense to check out their evidence and give it the credit that it deserves.

B IBLIOGRAPHY Albright, William F. (1964) History, Archaeology and Christian Humanism. New York. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain (2002) “W. F. Albright and Assyriology,” Near Eastern Archaeology 65, 11-16. Cumont, Franz (1912) Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans. New York. Delitzsch, Friedrich (1902) Babel und Bibel. Ein Vortrag. Leipzig (52 pp). Second and third editions (78 pp.), 1903; 4th ed. (81 pp.), 1903; 5th ed. (82 pp.), 1905; 6th ed. (80 pp.), 1921. (1903) Zweiter Vortrag über Babel und Bibel. Stuttgart (48 pp). Second edition, 1903; 3rd ed. (50 pp.), 1903; 4th ed. (62 pp.), 1904. (1905) Babel und Bibel. Dritter (Schluss-)Vortrag. Stuttgart. 69 pp. (1907) Mehr Licht. Die bedeutsamsten Ergebnisse der babylonisch-assyrischen Grabungen. Leipzig. Gelb, I. J. (1965) “The Philadelphia Onion Archive,” in H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 21, 1965 (Assyriological Studies 16, Chicago and London), 57-62. Gordon, Richard L. (1996) “Mysteries,” in Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Third Edition (Oxford), 1017-1018. Huffmon, Herbert B. (1983) “Babel und Bibel: The Encounter Between Babylon and the Bible,” Michigan Quarterly Review 22, 309-320. Jensen, Peter (1890) Die Kosmogonie der Babylonier. Studien und Materialien. Strassburg. (1906) Das Gilgamesh-Epos in der Weltliteratur, Bd. I. Strassburg. (1909) Moses, Jesus, Paulus. Drei Varianten des babylonischen Gottmenschen Gilgamesch. Eine Anklage wider die Theologen, ein Apell für die Leien. Frankfurt. 244

P ARPOLA


(1928) Das Gilgamesh-Epos in der Weltliteratur, Bd. II. Marburg a. L. Jeremias, Alfred (1902) Im Kampfe um Babel und Bibel. Ein Wort zur Verständingung und Abwehr (vierte, abermals erweiterte Auflage 1903). Leipzig. (1903a) Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern. Leipzig. (1903b) Abraham als Babylonier, Joseph als Ägypter. Leipzig. (1904a) Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients. Handbuch zur biblischorientalischen Altertumskunde. Leipzig. (1904b) Monotheistische Strömungen innerhalb der babylonischen Religion. Leipzig. (1905) Babylonisches im Neuen Testament. Leipzig. (1906) Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients. Handbuch zur biblischorientalischen Altertumskunde (zweite Auflage). Leipzig. (1907) Die Panbabylonisten. Der alte Orient und die ägyptische Religion. Im Kampfe um den Alten Orient 1. Leipzig. (1908a) Das Alter der babylonischen Astronomie. Im Kampfe um den Alten Orient 3. Leipzig. (1908b) Der Einfluss Babyloniens auf das Verständnis des Alten Testaments. Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen 4, 2. Berlin. (1913) Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur. Leipzig. XVI, 366 pp. (1927) Die ausserbiblische Erlöserwartung. Berlin. (1929a) Die Weltanschauung der Sumerer. Der Alte Orient 27, 4. Leipzig. (1929b) Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur. Zweite, völlig erneuerte Auflage. Berlin. XVIII, 508 pp. (1930) “Panbabylonismus,” in Kurt Galling (ed.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Band 4, 879-880. (1931a) Der Schleier von Sumer bis heute. Der Alte Orient 31, 1/2. Leipzig. (1931b) Die Biblische Erlöserwartung. Berlin. (1932) Der Kosmos von Sumer. Der Alte Orient 32, 1. Leipzig. König, Franz (1954) “Babel-Bibel, fünfzig Jahre später. Ein Schulbeispiel für den Irrweg einer voreingenommenen Wissenschaft,” Wort und Wahrheit 7, 677-686. Kugler, Franz Xaver (1910) Im Bannkreis Babylons. Panbabylonistische Konstruktionen und religionsgeschichtliche Tatsachen. Münster. Landsberger, Benno (1926) “Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt. Ein Vortrag,” Islamica 2, 355-372. (1965) Reprint of Landsberger 1926 with a “Nachwort,” in B. Landsberger/W. von Soden, Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt/Leistung und Grenze sumerischer und babylonischer Wissenschaft (Darmstadt), 1-19. (1976) The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World (transl. T. Jacobsen, B. Foster and H. von Siebenthal). Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1/4. Malibu. Larsen, Mogens Trolle (1995) “The ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy and Its Aftermath,” in J. Sasson et al. (eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York), 95-106.

245

P ARPOLA


Lehmann, Reinhard G. (1992) “Jeremias, Alfred,” in W. Bautz (ed.), BiographischBibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Bd. 3 (Herzberg), 43-49. (1994) Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 133. Freiburg/Schweitz. Lewis, Theodore J. (2002) “The ‘Babel-Bibel’ Controversy,” Near Eastern Archaeology 65, 14. Oppenheim, A. Leo (1964) Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago and London. Panaino, Antonio (2001) “Between Mesopotamia and India: Some Remarks about the Unicorn Cycle in Iran,” in R.M. Whiting (ed.), Mythology and Mythologies. Melammu Symposia 2 (Helsinki), 149-179. Pancritius, Marie (1913) Review of Cumont 1912, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1913/9, 404-405. Parpola, Simo (1983) Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part II: Commentary and Appendices. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn. (1997) Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria 9. Helsinki. Rollinger, Robert (1999) “Babel-Bibel-Streit und Panbabylonismus,” Der Neue Pauly 13, 380-382. Tallqvist, Knut (1920a) Madonnas förhistoria. Populärvetenskaplika skrifter utgivna av Finska Orient-Sällskapet, Svensk serie N:o1. Helsingfors. (1920b) Konungen med Guds nåde (King by the Grace of God). Populärvetenskaplika skrifter utgivna av Finska Orient-Sällskapet, Svensk serie N:o 2. Helsingfors. (1938) Kuu ja ihminen (Man and the Moon). Suomen Itämaisen Seuran kansantajuisia julkaisuja 9. Helsinki. (1943) Eläinrata (The Zodiac). Suomen Itämaisen Seuran kansantajuisia julkaisuja 10. Helsinki. Weidner, Ernst F. (1912) “Zum Alter der babylonischen Astronomie,” Babyloniaca 6, 129-134. (1913) “Die Entdeckung der Präzession, eine Geistestat babylonischer Astronomen,” Babyloniaca 7, 1-19. (1914) Alter und Bedeutung der babylonischen Astronomie und Astrallehre, nebst Studien über Fixsternhimmel und Kalender. Im Kampfe um den Alten Orient 4. Leipzig. (1915) Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie. Assyriologische Bibliothek 23. Leipzig. Winckler, Hugo (1901) Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der Weltanschauung und Mythologie aller Völker. Leipzig. (1902) Die babylonische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zur unsrigen. Leipzig. (1903b) Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der Weltanschauung und Mythologie aller Völker. Zweite durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. Der Alte Orient 3, 2/3. Leipzig.

246

P ARPOLA


(1905a) Die Euphratländer und das Mittelmeer. Der Alte Orient 7, 2. Leipzig. (1905b) Die Weltanschauung des alten Orients. Ex Oriente Lux 1, 1. Leipzig. (1906a) Der alte Orient und die Bibel nebst einem Anhang Babel und Bibel–Bibel und Babel. Ex Oriente Lux 2, 1. Leipzig. (1906b) Altorientalische Geschichts-Auffassung. Ex Oriente Lux 2, 2. Leipzig. (1906c) Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung. MVAG 1906, 1. Berlin. (1906d) Religionsgeschichtlicher und geschichtlicher Orient. Eine Prüfung der Voraussetzungen der religionsgeschichtlicher Betrachtung des Alten Testaments. Leipzig. (1906e) Die babylonische Weltschöpfung. Der Alte Orient 8, 1. Leipzig. (1907a) Die babylonische Geisteskultur. Leipzig. (1907b) Die jüngsten Kämpfer wider den Panbabylonismus. Im Kampfe um den Alten Orient 2. Leipzig. Wünsche, August (1904) “Zu Babel und Bibel,” Vierteljahresschrift für Bibelkunde 2, 222-227. (1905) Die Sagen vom Lebensbaum und Lebenswasser, altorientalische Mythen. Ex Oriente Lux 1, 2. Leipzig. (1906a) Salomos Thron und Hippodrom: Abbilder des babylonischen Himmelsbildes. Ex Oriente Lux 2, 3. Leipzig. (1906b) Schöpfung und Sündenfall des ersten Menschenpaares im jüdischen und moslemischen Sagenkreise mit Berücksichtigung auf die Überlieferungen in der Keilschrift-Literatur. Ex Oriente Lux 2, 4. Leipzig. Zimmern, Heinrich (1903a) Keilinschriften und Bibel nach ihrem religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang. Ein Leitfaden zur Orientierung im sog. Babel-Bibel-Streit mit Einbeziehung auch der neutestamentlichen Probleme. Berlin. (1903b) “Religion und Sprache,” in Eberhard Schrader (ed.), Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, mit Ausdehnung auf die Apokryfen, Pseudepigraphen und das Neue Testament neu bearbeitet von H. Zimmern und H. Winckler (Leipzig), 343-654. (1903c) Biblische und babylonische Urgeschichte. Der Alte Orient 2, 3. Leipzig. (1909) “Babylonians and Assyrians,” in James Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh), 309-319. (1910) Zum Streit um die “Christusmythe.” Das babylonische Material in seinen Hauptpunkten dargestellt. Berlin. (1915) Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluss. Leipzig.

247

P IRAS

A NDREA P IRAS

M ESOPOTAMIAN S ACRED M ARRIAGE AND P RE -I SLA MIC I RAN

Ravenna

Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage and Pre-Islamic Iran*

he Mesopotamian heritage of the Achaemenid culture is a well established fact that deserves no particular mention in a foreword or introductory remarks. Nevertheless, the legacy of such a cultural background is sometimes curious with regard to some aspects which developed contrastive evolutions inside the Iranian milieu. A specimen of this trend is surely the cultural pattern of the sacred marriage, composed of a mythical scenario and a ritual drama creating a deep impression on the mind and feelings, with ideological consequences in the sacral legitimation of the Mesopotamian kingship. The recent contribution of Martti Nissinen (2001) is the better updated essay about the Mesopotamian sacred marriage (or hieros gamos) and its rich and flourishing literature – describing the sacred union between two divinities (mythology) as well as between human and divine beings (ritual) performed by a priestess and a god, or by the king and a goddess. This religious phaenomenon has Sumerian origins and dates back to the late third and early second millennium B.C. and later attested in the cultural history of Mesopotamia and of the Babylonian and Assyrian periods during more than half a millennium, from the 8th through the 2nd century B.C. In spite of the possibility of a strong impact and scenography we have to admit

a curious lack of evidence of this cultural pattern with regard to the Pre-Islamic Iranian royal ideology: as a matter of fact, no Iranian text – Avesta, Achaemenid inscriptions (6th-4th B.C.), Sasanian inscriptions (3th-4th A.D.) – records any hint comparable to the Mesopotamian literary tradition of hymns and prayers focused on the encounter (and not necessarily ‘intercourse’) between the goddess and the king; and we can affirm the same for the Middle Persian literature of the Pahlavi texts – of late composition (9th A.D.) even if dating back to a more ancient period of conception. Probably all this depends on the priestly autorship (as we shall see below) pertaining this kind of religious texts – i.e. the Avesta and the Zoroastrian Pahlavi texts – but we can also recognize a similar trend of oblivion in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, secular and ideological documents par excellence characterized by a multishaped literary framework, with a degree of zoroastrianization mixed with different cultural levels related to the Indo-Iranian heritage (and backwards, to the Indo-Europaean one, in some cases) and Near Eastern acculturations (Skjærvø 1999: 14). It sounds very strange that in spite of the massive influence played by the Mesopotamian culture in the development of the Persian civilization – in religion, arts, science, writing, architecture, law, political and administrative

* Paper delivered at the Third MELAMMU Symposium: “Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena,” Chicago 27-31 October 2000. I wish to thank Walter

Burkert, Stefano Seminara and Joan Westenholz for their valuable help and advice.


249

P IRAS


organizations – this impressionistic and theatrical cult of the sacred marriage, so deeply interlaced with the glorification of the kingship, with a lot of dramatic performances, failed to grasp the Achaemenid agenda of the royal ideology and propaganda. 1 Furthermore, the possible involvement of population in some collective phases of such a ritual could certainly have been a not negligible factor – and especially in Babylon, where the couple Marduk-Zarpanitu (in the temple of Esagila) or Šamaš-Aya (in the temple of Ebabbar) were at their own home – to guarantee and increase the popular ‘audience’ and consensus, as in the case of Cyrus’ Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle. These two important cuneiform documents drew a clear picture of the Achaemenid religio-political strategy of cultural absorption concerning the Mesopotamian traditions, and showing (Nabonidus Chronicle) the adoption of epitheta like bibil libbi “beloved one,” one expression of typical Mesopotamian taste, 2 connected to the emotional relationship between the god and the king (Oppenheim 1981: 537, 546) and also to the cheerful mood of the people, welcoming Cyrus’ entry with benedictions (kar bu) and shouts of joy (sam ru), praising him as the one who had saved their lives. Contrary to, in the Achaemenid pantheon there is no trace of such a divine

couple. 3 In the Achaemenid inscriptions the foremost role of divine entities is played by Ahura Mazd , with some scarce references to “other gods,” an elliptical usage of literary expressions dealing with a rhetorical device of cumulative definiton of the pantheon, with Ahura Mazd at the top, followed by “the other gods who are” (aniy ha bag ha tayai hanti [DB IV 61]). With the exception of the supreme god Ahura Mazd , and a part of the above mentioned elliptical statement, we can recognize a more articulated and threefold équipe in the Artaxerxes’ inscriptions (404-359 B.C.), in which the two other major gods of the Iranian peoples are mentioned, Mi!ra and An hit , together with Ahura Mazd : “by the favour of Ahuramazda An hit and Mi!ra this palace I built; May Ahuramazda, An hit and Mi!ra protect me from all evil, and that which I have built may they not shatter nor harm” (Artaxerxes II, Susa A; Kent 1953: 134). In taking into consideration the development of the cult of An hit during the reign of Artaxerxes II – even though her promotion dated back to the former time of Artaxerxes’ parents Darius II and Parysatis, according to Boyce (1982: 201204) – it is worth noticing to quote the Plutarch’s Greek source of Vita Artaxerxis 3, which is very late and far from Achaemenid times but really interesting

1

about a hierogamical situation by the Imperial Aramaic inscription (nr. 264 in Donner-Röllig 1971: 51; 1973: 311) of Arebsun – ancient Arabissos, Cappadocia – dated on paleographic grounds to the fifth/ fourth century B.C. and providing evidence for an Iranian-Semitic coalescence in the name of Ahura Mazd (’whrmzd) called B"l. But this inscription does not concern in a real scenario of royal initiation although it is a very important wittness for the debate on the Zoroastrian custom of the next-of-kindmarriage, a kind of sacred marriage which probably has been influenced by some mystical aspects of Mesopotamian hierogamy (Gnoli 1974: 33) and which I shall deal with it in further researches.

The episode of Antiochus IV Epiphanes – quoted by the Second Book of Maccabees (1, 13-17) – who entered the temple of Nanay in ‘Persia’ (= Susa), and under the pretext of one marriage with the goddess tried to take away the treasure of her temple, is a story that underlines the persistence of the hierogamy in the Iranian area after the Achaemenid period. But it increases the interrogative about the silence and the lack of evidences in the Iranian sources. 2 In the Sumerian hymns the king is identified with Tammuz and they are both the beloved of Ištar: šalim šarrumma šalim dumuzi šudat išt r “the king is safe, Dumuzi is safe, the beloved of Ištar” (Nissinen 2001: 117). 3 Outside the Achaemenid inscriptions, we are told 250

P IRAS

about our subject. Moreover, it is the unique document which can justify the researcher in this way of study, in tempting to reconstruct a likely outlook of a hierogamigal situation by collecting different items. By this text we are told about a “warlike goddess” ( !"#$%&'()*+) compared by Plutarch to Athena. But let Plutarch speak about the important topic of a ritual scenario connected with the inthronization of the second Artaxerxes (Artaxerxes ,-+(.-), the longest-reigning Achaemenid: The new king made an expedition to Pasargadae, that he might receive the royal initiation at the hands of the Persian priest (/!01")2# 3'0!.-). Here there is a sanctuary of a warlike goddess (415) 67# '82# $%&'()*92# 3'0:-) assumed to be Athena. Into this sanctuary the candidate for initiation must go, and after laying aside his own proper robe, must put on what Cyrus the Elder used to wear before he became king; then he must eat a figcake, chew some turpentine-wood, and drink a cup of sour milk.

Unfortunately, this is the unique source recording a Persian and Achaemenid custom of royal initiation which mentions the presence of a goddess, and there are not further hints to hypothesize other forms of close relationship between these “warlike goddess” and king Artaxerxes. Indeed, we have to suppose that according to the royal ideology of legitimation nothing but the presence of the gods was necessary to grant the divine charisma to the king, in a scenario very similar to the Sasanian rock reliefs, where the triade of gods is carved: Ahura Mazd!, Mi"ra and An!hit!, surround the king giving him the insignia of royal power. 4 Truly speaking, in order to understand

4

See Vanden Berghe (1988) for the iconographic antecedent of the Iranian royal investiture and the continuity of Mesopotamian artistic models in the Achaemenid and Sasanian times: the pattern of the


the expression ‘sacred marriage,’ or ‘hierogamy’ in a broader sense, it is not always necessary to imagine e real union but rather a symbolic one: the ‘reality’ of the cultic scenography is created by the dramatis personae acting as the human and the divine counterpart (sometimes in the shape of a statue) of one interplay between earth and heaven, in which the mondane component find a support, a legitimation, through the favour of the supernatural realm. The “warlike goddess” of Plutarch shows one of the main features related to An!hit!, probably borrowed by the bellicose typology of some Near Eastern goddesses (Gnoli 1974: 33-36) and continued until the Sasanian times, in the dynastic cult of F!rs (Chaumont 1958, 1965), where An!h#d the ‘Lady’ (b n!) shared with Ištar (b"ltum, b"lit ‘lady’) this honourific epithet (Eilers 1988: 715). According to the scheme traced by Carsten Colpe (1983: 845-6), the many functions of An!hit! can be scheduled in some features: one aspect of the legitimation of the sovereignity, providing the king with carisma, and enthronement (especially in later times, under the Sasanians); a general Hellenistic aspect (Syrian Philadelphia, Lydia, Cappadocia); an ethnic Iranian aspect as a personified symbol of flowing water, and a cultural Iranian aspect, mythologically related to other gods. From the Zoroastrian point of view, this classification includes all these aspects with the exception of the Hellenistic ones: in fact some Hellenistic marks developed in Asia Minor were surely unthinkable in a true Zoroastrian mentality: especially the custom of hieroduly,

investiture scene seems to have been the rock-relief of Sar-i Pul in which the king Anubanini, because of his victory, pays hommmage to Ininna/Ištar holding the power ring and giving it to the king. 251

P IRAS


connected with Anaitis (the Hellenistic portrait of An hit in Asia Minor), as we can see by reading the Anatolian inscription of Ortaköy (ancient Cappadocia) dedicated to the great goddess Anaitis Barzochara 5 ( !"# $!%&'()# "*"!&(&+& ,"-./0"-") by her temple-servants: Let the temple-servant (1234546748) Photis and Theon and Prima, also called Garse, be unscathed in all things, together with their children, throughout life.

The ambiguous label of ‘hieroduly,’ together with ‘sacred prostitution’ as well, are both difficult words to treat, and this is the same for the ‘hierogamy,’ usually classified in the range of ‘sexual rites’ (Bleeker 1975: 216-217) and so being often arbitrary evaluated only under the explicit and real sexual point of view – the most prominent item but not the unique one: the symbolic and the metaphorical side of the question should always be considered in reading the texts. A more strict criticism of the texts can show a reassessement of prejudicial component: in the case of a condemnation attested in Biblical sources towards fertility components of Cananean origins and New Year celebration (Asmussen 1957: 170-171). Most confusion may also arise from a misreading of the common Biblical metaphors of sexual misconduct to signify idolatry; but the understanding

5

See Harper (1967); according to Schmitt (1970: 210) the epithet ,93:4;

Schools Of Oriental Studies And The Development Of Modern Historiography

The Historiography of Genocide

Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern

The Development of Modern Logic

The Historiography of Communism

Modern Historiography: An Introduction

Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

India Antiqua: A Volume of Oriental Studies

Arab Painting (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

Sogdian Traders: A History (Handbook of Oriental Studies) (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

Herbert E. Bolton and the Historiography of the Americas (Studies in Historiography)

The Historiography of the Holocaust

Sport Histories: Figurational Studies in the Development of Modern Sport

Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

Primates of the Oriental Night

The schools of Vedanta

The Life and Mind of Oriental Jones: Sir William Jones, the Father of Modern Linguistics

Professional Development for Leaders and Managers of Self-Governing Schools

The Luwians (Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch Der Orientalistik)

Calculus of Variations, Classical and Modern (C.I.M.E. Summer Schools, 39)

A History of Indian Logic (Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Schools)

Studies in the Development of Capitalism

Intellectual Capital: The Intangible Assets of Professional Development Schools

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) (Nov.2010)

The Future of Leadership Development: Corporate Needs and the Role of Business Schools

'Race'' and Racism: The development of Modern Racism in America

Solving the Riddle of Globalization and Development (Routledge Studies in the Modern World Economy)

A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (School of Oriental & African Studies)

Enigmatic Charms (Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch Der Orientalistik)

Schools Of Oriental Studies And The Development Of Modern Historiography

The Historiography of Genocide

Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern

The Development of Modern Logic

The Historiography of Communism

Modern Historiography: An Introduction

Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

India Antiqua: A Volume of Oriental Studies

Arab Painting (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

Sogdian Traders: A History (Handbook of Oriental Studies) (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

Herbert E. Bolton and the Historiography of the Americas (Studies in Historiography)

The Historiography of the Holocaust

Sport Histories: Figurational Studies in the Development of Modern Sport

Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism (Handbook of Oriental Studies)

Primates of the Oriental Night

The schools of Vedanta

The Life and Mind of Oriental Jones: Sir William Jones, the Father of Modern Linguistics

Professional Development for Leaders and Managers of Self-Governing Schools

The Luwians (Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch Der Orientalistik)

Calculus of Variations, Classical and Modern (C.I.M.E. Summer Schools, 39)

A History of Indian Logic (Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Schools)

Studies in the Development of Capitalism

Intellectual Capital: The Intangible Assets of Professional Development Schools

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) (Nov.2010)

The Future of Leadership Development: Corporate Needs and the Role of Business Schools

'Race'' and Racism: The development of Modern Racism in America

Solving the Riddle of Globalization and Development (Routledge Studies in the Modern World Economy)

A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (School of Oriental & African Studies)

Enigmatic Charms (Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch Der Orientalistik)

Recommend Documents