Nabonidus & Exaltation of Sîn

Nabû-na’id šar Bābili mārua ana Sîn bēliya apqid adi balṭu lā iḫaṭṭakka

Nabonidus, king of Babylon, my son, to Sîn my lord I have devoted. So long as he is alive let him not offend against you.¹

These are the words of Adad-gûppî, mother of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus. As scholar Beaulieu mentions, Nabonidus (Akkad. Nabû-naʾid – May Nabû be exalted or Nabû is praised; r. 555-539 BCE) was not only the last king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty but also the last ruler of a native Mesopotamian state, after which the region was conquered by Cyrus, the Persian. Nabonidus is quite a curious figure in history and an equally eccentric personality due to his interests and policies like his fascination with archaeological excavations that earned him the title of world’s first archaeologist, his policies that according to some scholars, brought the Neo-Babylonian Empire to an undistinguished end² but unarguably the most discussed of these actions is his religious policy i.e trying to establish the supremacy of the moon-god Sîn over Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon.

This topic is a very fascinating one for any history enthusiast of the ancient world as it involves an amalgamation of religious, political, and social aspects of the period in this region and also because there are still many unanswered questions which leave ample areas for us to analyse. This study is a humble attempt to try and fathom various angles involved and to comprehend the views of many scholars who have studied the topic.

Nabonidus Stela depicting the Neo-Babylonian king’s devotion to the moon-god Sîn. It’s rounded at the top, and bearing on its obverse the figure of a king and astronomical symbols (the star of Ištar-Venus, the winged disc of the sun-god Šamaš and the crescent of the moon-god Sîn; the latter is the largest, showing supremity), sculptured in relief within a sunk panel. (Source – British Museum)

Table of Contents & Links

• Sources 
• Background
• The Friction
• Exaltation of Divinities: The Precedents
• Babylonian Politico-Religious Environment
• Chronology of Events
• The Persian Invasion
• The Factors: Religious, Political and Economical
• An Assesment
• Conclusion
• References
• Bibliography

Sources

The three main literary documents that form the basis of the creation of modern views on the reign of Nabonidus are “The Verse Account of Nabonidus,” “The Cyrus Cylinder” and “The Chronicle of Nabonidus (Moukarzel, 2014; 157). Though, many other evidences like various building inscriptions have also been used as a source which also will be frequently mentioned in this study but these three literary texts are extremely important for the analysis and to form a narrative. However, without discrediting the significance of the Verse Account, an important caveat should be kept in mind – it is a very prejudiced composition, some scholars call its style as negatively polemic with a belletristic form³ that basically glorifies the deeds of Cyrus, the conquerer of Neo-Babylonian Empire and hence, negatively presents the reign of Nabonidus.⁴ It was composed in Babylonia in the late sixth century BCE and thus the beginning of the Cyrus’ rule is the usual terminus post quem accepted for its composition (Moukarzel, 2014; 158).

The Cyrus Cylinder in the same vein presents a negative image of Nabonidus as a ‘weakling’ (Townsend, 2015; 5). It has a detailed eulogy of Cyrus and the commendation of his devotion to the gods in Babylon. The studies in the early twentieth century like that of Smith focused particularly on these two and thus were the first detailed presentation of the “religious reform” theory, and had a significant impact on all further studies on the subject.⁵ The Verse Account however differs from the Chronicle of Nabonidus which is a tablet belonging to the series of the “Babylonian Chronicles” (Moukarzel, 2014; 159), a much more sober account of rise of Cyrus, describing his conquest of Babylon and other important details up to start of the reign of Cambyses. It can be said to be a simple collection of facts as opposed to the Verse Account which intentionally and unabashedly promotes its political cause.

According to S. Smith, “The document (the Verse Account) is indeed a polemic piece of political propaganda aimed at securing an appreciation of the new foreign ruler for his piety.”

Moukarzel, 2014; 169.

That’s why the image of Nabonidus has been formed through the lens of the pro-Persian propaganda literature which was clearly composed against him by the aggrieved Marduk priesthood (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 278). Such heavy bias of the texts has prompted many a scholars like Van De Mieroop to consider their contents with a pinch of salt. As stated above, there are many important inscriptions which source us with rich details but one I would particularly like to mention is the autobiographical (pseudo-autobiography) account of Adad-gûppî, mother of Nabonidus whom I quoted in the beginning of the post.

Nabonidus’ case is very interesting for he is one of the very few individuals in the Near Eastern history whose mother is known to us. This text was found in two copies in a gap of around fifty years on paving stones at the entrance to the mosque of Ḫarran.⁶ From this text, we learn that she was a great devotee of the moon-god Sîn among the other gods like Ningal, Nusku, and Sadamunna whom she worshipped. The north Assyrian city of Ḫarran (Ḫarrānu), since the ancient times was the centre of the worship of moon-god Sîn (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 279). It was also an important commercial centre, and the last seat of Assyrian power as well (Rodriguez, 2017; 22). The text hints that this city was probably where Adad-gûppî was born in the twentieth-year of Aššurbanipal and confirms that she cared for the god for ninety-five years.⁷ This autobiography also confirms that his mother was a strong influence in Nabonidus’ life and he had his mother’s devotion to Sîn. It also states how her son, Nabonidus restored the temple of Sîn called Eḫulḫul (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 280). This devotion to the moon-god was basis for many such policies of Nabonidus during his reign that led to confrontation with the Marduk priesthood of Babylon (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 278).

Background

The Neo-Babylonian Empire is understood to have began with Nabopolassar (Akkad. Nabû-apla-uṣur) who in c. 612 BCE conquered Nineveh, thus inheriting a considerable part of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. He was succeeded by Nebuchadnezzar II (Akkad. Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur; r. 604-562 BCE) who then expanded the empire. But his succession was fraught with problems; three kings ruled for a total of six years with two of them being assassinated⁸ — Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-Merodach (Akkad. Amēl or Awīl-Marduk) was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar (Akkad. Nergal-šarra-uṣur; r. 559-556 BCE) after only two years of reign.  Neriglissar being an old man ruled only four years and upon the his death in c. 556 BCE, his son Lābāši-Marduk, described as young and weak became the victim of a conspiracy within a few months of rule. One of the conspirators was Nabonidus who then ascended to the throne of Neo-Babylonian Empire.

But Nabonidus did not belong to a royal descent, and he wasn’t a native of Babylonia either. Why are we considering him an outsider? Firstly because he himself said so in his inscriptions that he was an outsider and also we can make some assumptions based on the Adad-gûppî Stele. Though there is no such confirmation, it is still plausible to assume that she probably was born in Ḫarran, the city from which the text has been found, as previously mentioned. We know that she was a priestess of the moon-god Sîn at the sanctuary of Eḫulḫul, which was destroyed by a coalition of the Medes and the Babylonians under Nabopollassar in c. 610 BCE.⁹ Thus Ḫarran, the last fortress of the Assyrians, fell into Babylonian hands (Rodriguez, 2017; 22) and Adad-gûppî was most likely brought from there as a captive (Beaulieu, 1989; 77) after the destruction of Ḫarran and then she was most likely transferred to the Babylonian court.

We don’t know much about the father of Nabonidus except that his name was Nusku-balāssu-iqbi (Rodriguez, 2017; 22) and that he was a rubā’um (prínce) and a šakkanaku (governor) (Rodriguez, 2017; 22). Some scholars speculate that he was probably a chief of an Aramean tribe based in Babylon¹⁰ but we can’t be sure of this. Again, there is a possibility that Nabonidus was born after Adad-gûppî came to Babylonia but it is also possible according to Beaulieu that he was born in Ḫarran and came from there with his mother. The influence and importance that Ḫarran had in his religious policy might suggest an Aramaic origin for his mother but the evidence is again unclear as of now (Rodriguez, 2017; 22). But whatever be the circumstances of his birth, it is clear he and his mother both gradually came to assume a respectable position in the court of Babylon.¹¹ Interestingly, Adad-gûppî declared in her own inscription that she had persuaded (pressurized?) her son to enter the court of Kings Nebuchadnezzar II and Neriglissar (Rodriguez, 2017; 22)  even though they had no relation with either the royalty or any of the influential oligarchy of Babylon.

Nabonidus thus was most likely a courtier at the palace before his rise to kingship (Beaulieu, 1989; 79) and his rise in the court did not depend on wealth but his and his mothers abilities.¹² He was already an old man of almost sixty years old when he ascended the throne through conspiracy and by the time had a lot of experience by being on important court positions under two Neo-Babylonian kings – Nebuchadnezzar II and Neriglissar. Interesting to note that though he was involved in the conspiracy, he did not intend on becoming the king (Beaulieu, 1989; 90). He states in his inscription even after thirteen years of rule –

“I am Nabonidus, the only so, who has nobody. In my mind, there was no thought of kingship.”¹³  

Instead, an important figure in accession of Nabonidus was his own son Belshazzar (Akkad. Bêl-šar-uṣur) who apparently was the leader of this group of conspirators (Beaulieu, 1989; 90). After his father’s accession, we learn that Belshazzar quickly emerges as the head of a wealthy household and even a prominent businessman.¹⁴ He even carried out business with the members of the famous Egibi house, a very prominent business house in ancient Mesopotamia (The House of Egibi – House of Egibi: Entrepreneurs in the Neo-Babylonian Empire). This involvement of the royals in the business was quite unusual in Neo-Babylonian history and only other example is of Neriglissar and it seems very much possible according to some scholars that Belshazzar’s rise after the usurpation in c. 556 BCE did not only see a new ruler but also resulted in the confiscation of the estates of Neriglessar’s family to the profit of Belshazzar¹⁵ and thus Beaulieu is of the opinion that the usurpation was partly an attempt by a group of people, led by Belshazzar, to increase their economic power through political manipulation (Beaulieu, 1989; 104). The fact that Nabonidus was a usurper, not of royal lineage and more importantly, an outsider played an important part in influencing, even dominating his policies.

The Friction

The two major causes for the friction between the Marduk priesthood of Babylon and Nabonidus was that he neglected the worship of god Marduk, thus trying to exalt the moon-god Sîn instead and that the king departed from the capital, Babylon to an oasis in the Arabian Desert called Teima, staying there for a considerable period of time. The king in the initial period of his reign in c. 552 BCE (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 280) commanding an army crossed Syria and Lebonan and reached Teima (Tayma in Saudi Arabia) to pursue a military campaign against north-western Arabia¹⁶ leaving the administration of the capital in the hands of his son Belshazzar. The king therefore stayed out of the capital and that too for a period of almost a decade, and apparently, even built his own palace in Teima. This, we learn, resulted in some grave irregularities and discontinuance in some very important rituals and traditions of Babylon related to god Marduk. And even when the king came back after a long gap, he tried to exalt the moon-god Sîn in place of Marduk as the supreme god of Babylon. In the following sections, we will try to ascertain the veracity of these claims. But before we move on to study these events in detail, it is pertinent to consider one important question – Did Nabonidus actually transferred to Teima or not?

§ The Question of Teima Transfer

For a very long time, it was considered an established fact that Nabonidus spent ten long years in the oasis of Teima but recently, scholars have started to debate this (Townsend, 2015; 1). An official early report of archaeology in 2006 questioned this traditional narrative because no royal palace was found in the excavation of Teima.¹⁷ While it is true that no evidence of a royal palace has been found, it is also interesting to note that excavations in Teima have uncovered some good evidence suggesting strong Babylonian influence in the region (Townsend, 2015; 7). Some other important discoveries include a large residential building occupied from 12th century BCE to 4^th century CE, with wall coating particularly considered to be work of Nabonidus.¹⁸ The building therefore could have been expanded in the time of Nabonidus (Townsend, 2015; 9). Many inscriptions that have been found in Teima and its vicinity mention Nabonidus as malik babel i.e. Arabic for king of Babylon (Rodriguez, 2017; 24).  And if we add to this a very recent discovery in 2021 of a large inscription of Nabonidus from Ha’il, a north-western city in Saudi Arabia (Al Arabia news report – cited in Bibliography) then we have strong enough archaeological evidence from Teima itself confirming Nabonidus’ presence.

Regarding evidence outside Arabia, then there is the Ḫarran inscription in which Nabonidus himself claims that he stayed for a decade in Teima.¹⁹ The information is also corroborated by the Babylonian Chronicle, which although copied years after Nabonidus, in the reign of Persian King Darius I, its details are still confirmed by other earlier texts (Townsend, 2015; 4). The Chronicle confirms that Nabonidus – (stayed) in Teima; the crown prince, the officials and the army (were) in Akkad [Babylon] (Townsend, 2015; 5). Townsend suggests an interesting angle to the story of Nabonidus’ stay in Teima for ten years. According to him, based on various evidences, the king could have used the oasis as a centre for the growth of his expanding empire rather than staying permanently in Teima.²⁰ The fact that it was somewhat close to Ḫarran must also have played an important role (Townsend, 2015; 10). In fact, Nabonidus himelf say in his inscription –

“And as for me, I removed myself out of my city Babylon, and I proceeded on the way to Teima, Dadanu, Padakku, Hibra, Yadihu, and as far as Yatibru. During ten years, I went back and forth, between them and did not enter my city Babylon.”²¹

It is thus highly possible that there was no royal palace in Teima but a royal region, filled with influence of Nabonidus, from military rule to introduction of Aramaic language (Townsend, 2015; 11).

§ Departure to Teima and Problems with the Marduk Priesthood

Now that we have removed doubts whether the king transferred to Teima or not, we will proceed to analyse other aspects. The importance that was being given by the king to the temple of Sîn in Ḫarran and Ur seems to have been a matter of concern to the Marduk priesthood but as mentioned above, the Teima transfer and the abandonment of the capital Babylon caused a lot more disturbance.²² This after all wasn’t a transfer of capital but a desertion by the monarch. Meanwhile the capital being neglected by the king, the building projects might also have slowed down. The Babylonian kings have always given importance to embellishing their capital. As Nabuchadnezzar II (r. 605-562 BCE) says in his so-called East India House Inscription –

“..Because I do not like a royal throne for me in another holy city, I did not build for me a lordly building in any city..” He then says in a concluding prayer to Marduk: “Among all cities, I do not embellish any holy city more than thy city of Babylon.”²³

Thus the neglect of the capital, the holy city Babylon, of Marduk created huge problems in the politico-religious environment of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. What was more disturbing for the order was the fact that the Babylonian king was supposed to lead the ceremonies of the akītu festival. This was the New Year’s festival that had been celebrated annually in ancient Mesopotamia (in both Babylonia and Assyria) and the cancellation or disruption in the celebrations due to the absence of the king caused great enmity with the Marduk priesthood.²⁴ In Mesopotamian tradition, each city was considered to be the home of a particular deity and the main temple was that god’s residence. The city of Babylon remained the home of god Marduk – the king of the gods (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 285) whose pre-eminence was confirmed annually in the New Year’s festival (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 285).

“At the time the statues of other gods visited the god (Marduk) and entered the city in a public procession leading to the main sanctuary where Marduk’s kingship over them was renewed.”

Van De Mieroop, 2007; 285

Serious friction arose due to the disruption of the entire cultic cycle, again due to absence of the king due to which the statue of Marduk which was supposed to be introduced into his temple in Babylon indicating the beginning of the year²⁵ couldn’t be introduced. It was also believed in the Babylonian tradition that the order of the universe had to be restored every year and if not, the universe would descend into chaos. The New Years’ Festival reaffirmed the kingship of Marduk over other gods and in this way, the order was restored. Thus, Marduk was in the centre of the festival of akītu, the great festival of the New Year.

“…the akītu was much more than a religious ceremony. The rituals involved the political renewal of the king (that is, the renewal of the king’s legitimacy), the crucial role of the great priest in the ceremonies, and the two days of the “distributor of destinies” turned this celebration in a fundamental part of the ideological program of the monarchy and the clergy.”²⁶

But the Teima transfer brought a break into the tradition resulting in serious frictions with the king. Adding to this, the disturbances certainly didn’t add to the popularity of the king by hurting the public sentiments. But this was only a start and the difference only grew more when Nabonidus finally came back from Teima to Babylon after ten years. Nabonidus then converted apparently, many of the temples including Marduk’s in the capital Babylon into sanctuaries of Sîn.²⁷ Some inscriptions of Nabonidus almost ignored god Marduk and failed to acknowledge his status as the head of the Babylonian pantheon of deities while at the same time, they praised the moon-god Sîn in highest terms, something that Beaulieu called as out of proportion within the tenets of Babylonian religion (Beaulieu, 1989; 43).

Rodriguez details the problems that had emerged by this time as summarized by the Marduk priesthood in the Cyrus Cylinder. The problems or criticisms according to the text were – first, introducing the foreign cult of the god Sîn in Babylon; second, omitting the New Year’s celebrations in Babylon and for being involved, apparently, in the restoration of the Eḫulḫul; third, being ignorant and not knowing the scripture; and fourth, confusing rituals and interpreting omens unclearly. The text then criticizes Nabonidus for his long stay in the city of Teima.²⁸ The restoration of Eḫulḫul has been mentioned by Adad-gûppî. This decision stirred some deep seated problems with the priesthood of Babylon. The texts says regarding the restoration by Nabonidus that he built a big new temple in Ḫarran copied from the plans of Esagila, the temple of Marduk in Babylonia (Yun, 2017; 287).

Moukarzel rightly states that there could hardly be a more severe incrimination against a Mesopotamian king than the one of sacrilege and blasphemy. This restoration of Eḫulḫul is very bluntly criticised by the Verse Account where the composers of the text accuse the king of creating something of a “no-sanctuary,” the restoration is called an abomination, something that “no one in the land ever saw” and “he called its name Sȋn.” (Moukarzel, 2014; 163). The differences that already had cropped up before c. 552 BCE could still had been bridged but after his return from Teima, Nabonidus started on his plan to make Sîn the supreme god and the manner in which he went by exasperated the priesthood even more. It seems that Nabonidus even had used the religious calendar of Ḫarran proving the charge laid against him in the Verse Account that he neglected the Babylonian New Year’s Festival.²⁹ The king publicized in his later inscriptions the superior knowledge of epišti Sîn, the “deed of Sîn” (Beaulieu, 1989; 218) and claimed that they were superior to the oldest and most sacred writings of Mesopotamia. The tensions became more pronounced as according to the Verse Account, this ‘knowledge’ and ‘wisdom’ was alien to Babylonian culture.³⁰ There was history behind this animosity towards the traditions of Ḫarran or what we can call the Assyrian traditions. The Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib (Sin-ahhe-eriba; r. 705-681 BCE) had violently attacked and destroyed the city of Babylon in c. 689 BCE. The exaltation of the moon-god Sȋn who was central in the Assyrian pantheon might have frustrated the Babylonians who were under the yoke of Assyrians for a long time.

The tensions between the public and the king might have reached high when Nabonidus said in his inscription how those in Babylon and the surrounding cities “sought after (anything) they did wickedly, they knew not the wrath, (the resentment), of the king of the gods, (even) Nannar (Sȋn), they forgot their duty, whenever (?) they talked (it was) treason and not loyalty…” (Townsend, 2015; 6).

The criticism against Nabonidus is that by establishing his main religious policy on the traditions of Ḫarran and Assyria, Nabonidus effectively rejected the established traditions and doctrines of Babylonia (Lewy, 1945; 488). In such delicate and politically charged environment, the restoration of Eḫulḫul and the religious policies of Nabonidus earned him the tag of not a religious reformer imposing the cult of Sȋn, but rather of a madman imposing non-existing deity according to the authors of the Verse Account.³¹ The Cyrus Cylinder also accuses the king of destroying much of the original worship of the Babylonian gods and that Marduk was tired with Nabonidus enough to look “(through) all countries, searching for a righteous ruler to lead him (i.e. Marduk) (in annual procession)” (Townsend, 2015; 5). These texts portray the king’s behaviour as a crime that Marduk would avenge.³² Therefore, such attempts of Nabonidus to claim Sȋn’s wisdom as superior to one of Babylonia led to various confrontations with the scholars and priests of the kingdom and it hardly comes as a surprise that they were not going to accept the supremacy of Sîn of Ḫarran (Beaulieu, 1989; 219).

The Cylinder text says that there was so much frustration in Babylon with Nabonidus and his religious policies that people of the city welcomed Cyrus even if there was a siege of the city going on, as per Herodotus (Townsend, 2015; 6). With so much animosity against the king, no wonder Nabonidus might have wanted to leave Babylon (Townsend, 2015; 6). The details we come across in these literary texts like the Verse Account has prompted some scholars to suppose that the image of Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel comprises characteristic features which could be attributed to Nabonidus.³³

Exaltation of Divinities: The Precedents

§ Divinity in Ancient Mesopotamia

The importance of the patron god of each city in the Mesopotamian tradition cannot be overstated. The tradition was that each city was conceived and founded as an abode of a deity (Rodriguez, 2017; 14) and the idol of that deity or god resided in the temple of that city making it the most important entity of the town. The god protected the city from any misfortune. For the city and the kingdom to be secure, successful and prosperous, the relationship between gods and kings had to be harmonious (Rodriguez, 2017; 14). Right from the time of the kings of the Sumerian city-states to the Neo-Assyrian monarchs, royalty has been the interlocutor of the gods. The clergy of Mesopotamian gods always knew that the king played extremely crucial part because it is he who carried out the will of the gods, the divine actions on earth. The kingship of ancient Mesopotamia was alleged to have come down from heaven at the beginning of history and had been succeeded by the gods’ will from one dynasty to another, and as Yun points out, there always was one lawful king to rule over the whole territory of Mesopotamia.³⁴

“The right to claim the highest authority in the Babylonian court generally comes down from father to son, so many Babylonian kings proudly mentions the names of the great kings from the progenitor of their dynasty to their own father as evidence for the legitimacy of their kingship…The physical exhibition of this ideology appears at the Sumerian King List… Since the Sumerians lived in relatively small city-states, there should have been more than one king at the same time. They asserted, however, the continuous succession of the kingship from one king to another, and from one dynasty to the next. So the current king is the representative of the sacred choice of the gods and of the time-honoured tradition from the beginning of history” (Yun, 2017; 289).

§ The Precedents for Exaltation

It is in this light that we need to understand why the religious policies or reform of Nabonidus had such an effect. Marduk had been the undisputed supreme god of Babylon for past six centuries (Beaulieu, 1989; 62)³⁵ when Nabonidus attempted his reforms. Why the six centuries, readers might think? Because it would be wrong to consider the exaltation of Sîn as the only case of such kind in the Mesopotamian history. There were earlier instances as well where one god or goddess in some cases was promoted to a higher rank in the pantheon. Beaulieu mentions two most known of such cases – one of exaltation of Inanna at Uruk in Early Sargonic period and the other was the exaltation of Marduk during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (r. 1121–1100 BCE).³⁶ Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon did not always reigned as the king of gods. The exaltation of Marduk and his supremacy along with the supremacy of Babylon itself would have begun in the reign of Hummurabi, (r. 1792-1750 BCE) (Rodriguez, 2017; 18) the first great king of Babylon.³⁷ It was Hammurabi who by placing Marduk, for the first time, in the prologue of his Code of Laws (Rodriguez, 2017; 19) solidified Marduk’s role in the ancient Mesopotamian pantheon. According to this Code, Marduk was granted sovereignty over men by Anu and Enlil themselves (Rodriguez, 2017; 19).

“…the gods Anu and Enlil, heads of the Mesopotamian pantheon, assigned the god Marduk his most important attributions, while his city, Babylon, became the center of the universe, and all under the protection of the powerful Hammurabi as king.”

Rodriguez, 2017; 20.

Rodriguez points out that the fortunes of the tutelary god, his city and his sovereign were inextricably linked.³⁸ There is no doubt about the deep faith and piety of Hammurabi towards Marduk but it is also important to note according to Rodriguez that Hammurabi had, in a way, benefited politically from the exalted status of Marduk, as this king alleges in his Codes of Law that his conquest and the unification of Mesopotamian territory was protected by Heaven (Rodriguez, 2017; 19-20). Rodriguez writes that it’s in the last years of the Kassite period (c. 1531-1155 BCE) that Marduk with his growing worship assumed his fifty names which were originally names of other different deities (Rodriguez, 2017; 18). But now each name stood for different traits of Marduk as reflected by the Enūma eliš (Rodriguez, 2017; 18). After some six centuries from Hammurabi, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I, Marduk was officially acknowledged as the supreme god of the pantheon. Marduk thus finally replaced Enlil in c. 1200 BCE and was called as bēl i.e. “lord” by this time.³⁹

“He (Marduk) was the king of the gods, the architect of the heavens and the earth, and the creator of life. Furthermore, different texts suggest that Marduk was also the provider of water, the god of abundance, the saviour of men and the deliverer of destinies” (Rodriguez, 2017; 18).

Thus, the rise of Babylon was not only the political rise of the city but equally saw the rise of Marduk⁴⁰ and it replaced the old hierarchy based on the supremacy of Enlil of Nippur (Rodriguez, 2017; 17). But one important point to note is that with polytheistic religions in general, the replacement does not mean the vanishing of the deity from the pantheon and the worship by the populace. Rather than being replaced, Enlil was partially assimilated in the new pantheon.⁴¹ Thus, Marduk’s exaltation was also coupled with syncretism of several gods with him (Rodriguez, 2017; 18). The main difference in these cases with the one attempted by Nabonidus was that the former were successful (Beaulieu, 1989; 43). But it is rather frustrating that while the instances of the exaltation of Inanna and others like Marduk by the king and their theological foundations are enriched by information from the texts like Exaltation of Inanna or enūma eliš, we are unaware of any such texts in case of Nabonidus that might help to form an informed opinion.

Babylonian Politico-Religious Environment

The rise of Marduk and Babylon both from the time of Hammurabi had contributed to other significant changes in the city. As already stated, Babylon had by then became the spiritual and intellectual heart of ancient Mesopotamia (Rodriguez, 2017; 16). The city’s name itself (Sumerian: ka.dingir.ra; Akkadian: bâb ilim)⁴² meaning the door or gateway to the god signifies its socio-religious importance.

“It was the cosmic centre, the symbol of the harmony of the world, born from the strength of its supreme god Marduk.”⁴³

And it is precisely for this reason that the ziggurat of Marduk was the nerve centre of the city, perfectly reflecting the cosmological aspect of their tradition (Rodriguez, 2017; 17). It is also important to note that the priesthood of Babylon was thus bound to be more connected to the body politic by the time of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom since the king was presiding in Babylon whose patron god, the recognized head of the pantheon was Marduk. This point is more emphasized by the fact that according to Wilfred George Lambert, the king celebrated the peak of the festivals exclusively in the city of Babylon, not in Uruk, Nippur, or Eridu⁴⁴ This implies, then, that the Babylonian priesthood was not an independent institution. It was an integral part of the body exercising relative control even on the king (Rodriguez, 2017; 29). When we consider how inter-connected and complementary were religion and politics in the form of priesthood and kingship, the changes that Nabonidus attempted appear even braver or equally rash.

Chronology of Events

But was Nabonidus always this devoted to exalt the status of Sîn in the Babylonian pantheon? If he was then what explains his journey and then the long stay outside in Teima, all the way in the Arabian Desert? Why didn’t he stay in the capital, trying to reform the religious hierarchy from the beginning of his reign? Why postpone the most radical aspects to the latter part of his kingship? These are some intriguing points that need analysis. Beaulieu states on the authority of Tadmor that it would be wrong to consider that Nabonidus followed this religious policy throughout his reign with the same intensity. He points out Tadmore’s opinion that after analyzing the king’s inscriptions, a clear case of steady increase in intensity of his devotion to Sîn, particularly towards the end of his reign can be noticed.⁴⁵

Beaulieu therefore suggests that the inscriptions showing strongest inclination towards exaltation of Sîn should be subscribed to the last years of the reign after his return from Teima. The conclusion was based on the contention that the actual rebuilding of the temple of Sîn i.e. Eḫulḫul in the city of Ḫarran took place in the last years of the king’s reign rather than what was thought of before to have taken place in the beginning (Beaulieu, 1989; 2), even though strong interst and planning for this particualr restoration had been initiated since the beginning. This implies that the attempts by the king to establish the moon-god’s supremacy took place in his last years (Beaulieu, 1989; 2) that ultimately found mention in the Verse Account.⁴⁶ The points that the study of the inscriptions show can be summarized in the following sections: Based on his own analysis, Beaulieu confirms that in the early inscriptions of Nabonidus, Marduk has definitely not been ignored and the usual practice of invoking Marduk with exalting epithets has been followed. However, it is very clear that there is an attempt to show Marduk only as a passive god (Beaulieu, 1989; 49). There is also a case in one of his inscriptions when Marduk has been acknowledged as the head of pantheon and the king’s guide but the use of appropriate epithets is lacking.⁴⁷ This quiet attempt to pay a passive respect to Marduk, the most exalted god of the Babylonian pantheon seems more likely according to Beaulieu because of the inherent risks in openly breaking with the tradition in so early period of his reign without endangering his authority, (Beaulieu, 1989; 50) especially considering the instability of his circumstances due to him being a usurper would have made him more cautious to take such a major religious reform (Beaulieu, 1989; 50). Here we can again notice that early reluctance in him to follow his devotion and to apply that in the state policy were clearly affected by two main concerns – one that he was a usurper and two more importantly, due to him being an outsider, an Assyrian probably, he surely did not enjoy the support of the Marduk clergy.⁴⁸

“His early inscriptions appear orthodox at first glance, but closer scrutiny reveals an intentional restraint in the glorification of Marduk. They were commissioned by a king who strove to present himself as an orthodox ruler well in line with his predecessors, but who wanted at the same time to publicize his religious beliefs (Beaulieu, 1989; 50).”

There is one very fascinating inscription which relates how after his assumption of kingship, Nabonidus, now recognized as a king, visited the sanctuaries of Nabû and Marduk (Beaulieu, 1989; 89), a fact that again confirms that he was not hostile to the worship of these deities in the start of his reign. In these particular inscriptions, another related point that emerges is his troubled conscience.⁴⁹ According to Beaulieu, the king is not certain whether his elevation to the throne is legitimate and ascribes his reluctance to accept kingship to his ignorance of Marduk’s intentions, a fact which might point to his foreign origins (Beaulieu, 1989; 89). As the king recognized to a certain extent that he was ignorant of the cult of Marduk (Beaulieu, 1989; 137), probably because of him being a non-native of Babylonia. However, he still intended to acknowledge him as the supreme god when acting as the king of Babylon.⁵⁰

“The heart of Marduk, my lord, calmed down. Reverently I praised (him) and sought after his sanctuary with prayers and supplications. Thus I addressed (my) prayers to him, telling him what was in my heart: Let me indeed be a King who pleases your heart, I who, not knowing, had no thought of kingship for myself, when you, O lord of lords, have entrusted me with (a rulership) more important than the rulerships which have been exerted in the past by other kings whom you have called. Lengthen my days, may my years become old, let me fulfill the function of provider” (Rodriguez, 2017; 25-26; see e.g., Beaulieu, 1989; op. cit. p. 89).

But in an interesting turn of events and rather unexpectedly,  the inscriptions of the period that follows i.e. the period of king’s stay in Teima in the Arabian Peninsula show a marked increase and return of the orthodoxy. It once again sees the coming back of the loftier epithets to Marduk; one inscription even quite emphatically acknowledges the universal character of Marduk’s godhead.⁵¹ Beaulieu proposes in his work that the return to orthodoxy was part of the propaganda promised to Babylon. Having said that, Beaulieu still disagrees (Beaulieu, 1989; 62) with Tadmore’s contention that devotion of Nabonidus steadily increased throughout his reign culminating in the end. Sure, as explained above we do see variation in kings’ religious policy in these inscriptions but instead of this variation being a product of the steady ascendence in Nabonidus’ devotion to Sîn, according to Beaulieu, it is rather a product of the king’s presence or absence in the capital city of Babylon.⁵² In his earliest inscriptions, Nabonidus’s policies were primarily aimed at strengthening his legitimacy and being perceived by the people as a guarantor of orthodoxy and Babylonian imperialism. That’s why we still see Marduk being acknowledged as he has been in the past but we also notice a reluctance towards or ignorance of Marduk in Nabonidus’ early inscriptions, a fact that might not have gone unnoticed to the Babylonian priesthood. It seems that the relationship between Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar was not very cordial and this played a significant role in the affairs of the state. And in fact, as per Beaulieu, the departure of the king to Teima was in all likelihood due to a split between him and an influential party led by his son (Beaulieu, 1989; 63) and they probably convinced him that his religious views might provoke serious confrontation with the clergy of Marduk (Beaulieu, 1989; 63). Therefore, the king might have moved out of the capital to keep his empire stable especially in the initial period. After the contentions, Nabonidus then departed from Babylon to Teima and in the meantime, the affairs in the capital were handled by his son Belshazzar, as has been mentioned in the post before and this might explain the return to orthodoxy in the inscriptions for the period of the Teima stay.

“The term co-regency is often employed in reference to that period, although Belshazzar never assumed any official title.”⁵³

Interestingly, during his entire time in Teima when Belshazzar was handling the affairs of the state, Nabonidus never directly interfered with the administration (Beaulieu, 1989; 63) and this meant that Belshazzar was now handling the public works and was commissioning inscriptions in Babylon in which he resumed the orthodox traditions (Beaulieu, 1989; 63). But, this does not mean that everything went on smoothly in the capital. There are certain prerogatives of the king which the son, even though now acting as a temporary regent, was not allowed to follow and thus a break in the tradition happened anyway. Belshazzar was therefore not allowed to replace the king at certain transcendental moments for the city of Babylon, such as the celebration of the akītu, which was still, according to some scholars postponed until the return of Nabonidus.⁵⁴ Thus, it is clear that Nabonidus always seemed to have believed in Sîn’s godhead and only limited himself in the early period to stabilize his rule. This is even proved by the date that he chose to come back to Babylon after his ten year stay in Teima – Tašrītu 17 of an unspecified year (Beaulieu, 1989; 152). Important to note is that the akītu festival of Sîn in Ḫarran (not Babylon) also started on the seventeenth of an unspecified month (Beaulieu, 1989; 152) which Beaulieu writes could very well be in the same period.

On the other hand, the exile of the king did not do much to bridge the gap in father-son relations and when Nabonidus returned, we simultaneously see two important steps. First, the culmination of efforts in exaltation of Sîn at the expense of Marduk and the second, demotion of Belshazzar from his administrative responsibilities and dismissal of the officials whose incumbencies, as mentioned by Beaulieu, extended over the period of king’s absence (Beaulieu, 1989; 64). The scholar also points out that Nabonidus was an old man by this time and his age might have played some role as to why after his return, he initiated his religious reforms to put Sîn at the head of the Babylonian pantheon⁵⁵ for he might have thought that he only had few more years to live and it was time for him to start on his grandiose plan (Beaulieu, 1989; 203). The shift of power was now towards Nabonidus and his supporters. Even the inscriptions from now on were re-edited to suit the new religious policy of the king. These inscriptions are all ending in prayers urging the king, his son Belshazzar and their subjects to receive Sîn’s blessings. After the kings’ return, we can notice an assertive turn to the exaltation of the moon-god. It is also quite expected that during this period, his execution of the national budget must have been largely focused on building temples of the moon-god (Yun, 2017; 287) and this must have increased the differences between the king and the priesthood or even the general populace. The elevation in the status of the moon-god is more apparent when we see that he is exalted not only in inscriptions related to him but also in those related to the other gods (Beaulieu, 1989; 55). On the other hand, except in one inscription, Marduk is largely ignored and even then he is mentioned only as a mere companion to god Sîn (Beaulieu, 1989; 55). It is now Sîn who is the cause of the victories of the empire of Nabonidus. One such inscription reads –

“In a night dream which he (Sîn) sent to me thus (he spoke): Rebuild immediately the Eḫulḫul, the temple of Sîn at Ḫarran and I will deliver all the countries into your hands.”⁵⁶

Nabonidus now became much more open with the expression of his devotion to the moon-god and the inscriptions even justify his departure to Teima and blame the disturbances in Babylonia to people’s impiety and disregard to Sîn’s power due to which the king had to leave the city (Beaulieu, 1989; 60) –

“The citizens of Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, Ur, Uruk, and Larsa, the governors and people of the cult centers of Akkad offended his great godhead, they acted wickedly, they sinned, not knowing the great wrath of Nannar (Sîn), the King of the gods, they forgot his rites” (Rodriguez, 2017; 27).

In the inscriptions, Sîn is the one to bring back prosperity to the land, due to his grace are the subjects of the empire reconciled to the king, he makes possible the victories of Arabian lands and it is he who renders possible the building of Eḫulḫul (Beaulieu, 1989; 60). The utterances like “without you who can do what?” which were earlier a prerogative of Marduk are also now used in context of the moon-god (Beaulieu, 1989; 61). Thus, Nabonidus seemed to have purposefully used the language in this inscription that was earlier used as a prerogative of Marduk.⁵⁷ The text of the Verse Account explains this transfer of royal prerogatives as some kind of “royal madness” and an “evil deed” (Moukarzel, 2014; 163). We even find cases of usurpation of the temples of Marduk and Nabû (son of Marduk) in the Verse Account. This text also depicts the king arguing with members of the clergy regarding another important temple of Marduk – the Esagil which the king believed to be a sanctuary of Sîn instead. Though according to Beaulieu, it did bear the symbol of moon-god. So, Nabonidus might have some genuien point in this fight.⁵⁸ Nevertheless, the Verse Account says that Nabonidus made a hideous new statue and installed it in Esagila instead of the traditional Marduk statue (Yun, 2017; 287). The prestigious epithets of Marduk and the other chief gods as Aššur and Enlil like bēl bēlē ‘lord of lord,’ šar šarrāni ‘king of kings,’ bēl ilāni ‘lord of the gods,’ šar ilāni ‘king of the gods,’ šar ilāni ša šame ū erṣetim ‘king of the gods of heaven and the underworld,’ etc. are now applied to Sîn in the inscriptions (Beaulieu, 1989; 60-61). The highest epithet probably ever given to a god in Mesopotamian tradition i.e. ilāni ša ilāni meaning ‘god of the gods’ is also used by Nabonidus to Sîn which signifies an accent of supreme devotion of the king (Beaulieu, 1989; 62).

Beaulieu also explains that Nabonidus in the later part of his reign was much more occupied with the concept of sin (ḫiṭītu) against Sîn in his religious views,⁵⁹ even going as far as to say that the postponement in the rebuilding of the temple of Eḫulḫul was due to the evil conduct of the citizens of Babylonia, who allegedly in his views “faulted” against Sîn’s godhead (Beaulieu, 1989; 65). In some inscriptions, as previously mentioned, Nabonidus tried to reconcile the people of Babylonia and his son Belshazzar with Sîn, and to accept him as the supreme deity (Beaulieu, 1989; 65). They however also depict the king’s concern or fear of sin against the moon-god –

Establish from heaven the fear of Sîn, the lord of the gods in the heart of his people. May they not commit any sin and may their foundation be firm. And as for Belshazzar, my eldest son, my offspring, lengthen his days. May he not commit any sin (Beaulieu, 1989; 64).

We wouldn’t know how far the king might have wanted to go in his religious reforms, so to say, because the drums of war were beginning to beat. The invasion of Cyrus, the Persian was now expected anytime, so the king made preparations months before the fateful clash of arms at Opis (Upi) happened.⁶⁰ Nabonidus, faced with the Persian threat, ordered the gods of the country to be collected and kept in Babylon so that they would be more protected, but cities like Borsippa or Sippar refused to obey (Rodriguez, 2017; 25). The collection of gods in the capital in case of a danger was not a novel practice and we have precedents for it Babylonia.⁶¹ There has been a practice in the ancient Near East where the victors carried off the divine images as punishment for the vanquished (Beaulieu, 1989; 223). That’s why the action of Nabonidus in collecting the divine statues from the temples was in line with the traditional duties of a Mesopotamian king in times of an enemy invasion. The evident purpose was to save these divine idols from being captured by the enemy (Moukarzel, 2014; 176-177).

“It seems reasonable to assume that Nabonidus was trying to ensure the loyalty of all the Babylonian cities by sheltering their main gods in the capital.”

Beaulieu, 1989; 223

As the gods of Sippar, Kutha (Cutha) and Borsippa did not enter the capital hence, it is suggested by some like Smith as a proof of the contentions between the priesthood and the populace at these places and the king. The priests refused, according to this view due to their disgust of the king’s religious policies but Beaulieu is of the opinion that there is no conclusive proof for this theory.⁶² The text of the Chronicle of Nabonidus with its subtler and sober narrative does not imply anything of the kind instead the immediate mention of the battle of Opis (Upi) makes it much more reasonable to suggest that the three cities simply did not have enough time to send their divine images to Babylon. All of the three cities were situated near the capital, and it is suggested in the Chronicle that the evacuation of the images had started from the distant cities.⁶³

The Persian Invasion

After the battle at Opis, it is rather odd that Cyrus faced no resistance at all and the capital was taken without opposition. As for the fate of Nabonidus, some texts suggest that he was killed but the Dynastic Prophecy confirms that he was exiled to a remote province of the Persian Empire (Beaulieu, 1989; 231). Cyrus promptly made sure that the statues that had been brought for safety in the capital were taken back to their centres.⁶⁴ Taking the advantage of the unfavourable sentiments of the Babylonian people regarding their former king, Cyrus took the opportunity to describe himself as the saviour of the people, selected by Marduk to restore order and justice.⁶⁵ For example, the following text was written explaining the deeds of Nabonidus when Cyrus became the king of Babylon –

“By his own plan, he did away with the worship of Marduk, the king of the gods; he continually did evil against Marduk’s city . . . Daily, [ ] he imposed the corvee upon its inhabitants unrelentingly, ruining them all” (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 281). Cyrus even describes the conquest of Babylon as liberation from Nabonidus at the request of the god Marduk: “Marduk ordered Cyrus to march to his city Babylon. He set him on the road to Babylon and like a companion and friend, he went at his side. His vast army, whose number, like the water of the river, cannot be known, marched at his side fully armed. He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands” (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 295).

The literary texts thus justify the inaction of the Babylonian populace and say that since such a senseless king was on the throne, Babylonians were living in distress and were willing to open the city gate to receive Cyrus, king of Persia, and his army as liberators (Yun, 2017; 287). It is quite likely that the hostility of the priesthood of Marduk and also disenchantment of the public opinion played a crucial role in conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus. When Cyrus entered the region from the east in 539 BCE, a major battle was fought at Opis, the confluence of Diyala and Tigris rivers which the Persians won. This was the last major resistance faced by them for the cities offered no resistance and were easily taken over.⁶⁶ Babylon fell.

The Factors: Religious, Political and Economical

Until now we were discussing the actions and policies of Nabonidus which may seem to some as quite bizarre for the sheer risks involved especially considering his precarious background that have already been discussed. He clearly would not compromise on his personal religious preference⁶⁷ which we noticed by his lip service to the god Marduk in his earlier inscriptions before his departure to Teima. So in this section, we will try and understand the motives of the king. What were his beliefs and why he took such drastic decisions? Was it only religion or were there other aspects like politics, foreign affairs or even economics also important? We will attempt to understand the multi-faceted factors that guided the policies and actions of Nabonidus. It would be a better approach rather than blindly following what very obviously prejudiced accounts like the Verse Account and the Cyrus Cylinder would have us believe. As can be expected in such complicated scenarios, political implications intertwined with foreign affairs were as much important reasons behind this attempt, probably motivated by a number of economical factors.⁶⁸ His immediate concern was to stabilize and legitimize his rule.

The decision to prefer his own religious inclinations rather than of Babylonia were also affected by his background and the circumstances of his accession. A king who was an outsider without a fancy lineage (Yun, 2017; 289) and who rose to the throne by coup d’êtat had to use some different ideology to claim his legitimacy⁶⁹ as he certainly couldn’t use that of his predecessors. His father was a rather insignificant prince or only a “wise noble” (Yun, 2017; 289). And Nabonidus was also an only child without any high status relatives. For him, according to Yun, his mother was the only choice that he could use to make a connection to the glorious tradition of ancient Mesopotamian civilisation (Yun, 2017; 289). According to some scholars, Adad-gûppî thus became his medium through which he wanted to legitimize his rule. Nabonidus needed another ancient god from the highest rank of the Babylonian divine hierarchy who used to grant the throne right to ‘son of nobody’ like himself (Yun, 2017; 290). Marduk being the patron deity, the supreme god of Babylon and its traditional royal house would not have fulfilled this need (Yun, 2017; 290). Religion after all can be a much stronger weapon than military or political schemes or negotiations.⁷⁰ And that’s why, as per one section of opinions, religion is what Nabonidus used.

Restoration of Eḫulḫul and Ḫarran to their old glory was therefore significant from political point-of-view for Nabonidus. Even though, as the analysis of the king’s inscriptions suggest that the actual restoration of Eḫulḫul was completed only by the end of his reign and after he had came back from Teima, the planning and earlier preparations might have started from the initial years of his reign. Such early emphasis on Ḫarran was intriguing. Was it only because of the place being his background? The study reveals there was more to it. The downfall of Assyria instantly demanded a question – who would replace Assyria as the hegemonic power in the Near East, Babylonia or Media?⁷¹ The city of Ḫarran was situated on the border between Babylonia and Media, a strategic situation that might also explain the reason for the importance being given to the city. Scholars also opine that the economic importance of Ḫarran due to its market also played an important role. If we add to this the fact that it had a special status under the last Sargonid kings, it isn’t that complicated to think why Nabonidus, other than his obvious devotional reasons, wanted the city and the temple to be exalted to their earlier glory (Beaulieu, 1989; 110).

“It is virtually impossible to draw a firm line between religion and politics when trying to evaluate Nabonidus’ goals.”⁷²

However, as much as we are discussing other factors, it would be wrong in my opinion to disregard Nabonidus’ genuine devotion to the moon-god. The point is to highlight that there were other factors influencing his actions and we would be equally wrong to not take them into consideration as much as we would be in the wrong to dismiss the king’s devotion to Sîn as a mere ploy.

lā īdū ezzessu ša šar ilani Nannari parṣī šunu imšū’ima idabbubū surrātū u lā kīnātu kīma kalbi ittanakkalū aḫāmiš

They did not know the wrath of the king of the gods, Nannar. They forgot their duty, and they talked treason and not loyalty; like a dog they devoured one another. (Yun, 2017; 288).

In the aforementioned inscription, Nabonidus seems to have believed that Nannar, who is Sîn, was not properly worshipped and his rituals had been abandoned even in Assyria and restoration of the temple Eḫulḫul was his way of bringing his worship back, bringing prosperity back to his lands and pacify the enraged god. There is no doubt that Nabonidus sought to change the Babylonian culture, looking at the ancient written traditions in order to put his personal mark on them (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 280). But he complained in his inscriptions that the negligent court officials and priests were oblivious; talking about what they did not understand and planned treason against him. Thus almost instantly after his accession, the restoration of Eḫulḫul, the temple of Sîn at the Syrian city of Ḫarran became one of the main concern of Nabonidus and we can see the importance being accorded to this in his earliest inscriptions –

“..the restoration of the cult of Sîn at Ḫarran is placed on the same level as the cults of Ištar and Anunītum at Uruk and Sippar. It is presented as a legitimate concern for a Babylonian ruler.”⁷³

His Ḫarran inscription which was commissioned after rebuilding of the temple of Sîn i.e. Eḫulḫul was an instrument to show the greatness of god Sîn to his people, both those he grew up with and those he ruled over in Ḫarran and Babylon respectively (Townsend, 2015; 3). It was meant to show the grandness of the reign of Nabonidus and his priority of Sîn over Marduk (Townsend, 2015; 3). For Nabonidus, political and religious motives seem to have intertwined for he seems to have believed that restoration of this temple was the culmination of his mission of restoration of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty which originated with the decree of Marduk in the time of Sennacherib (Beaulieu, 1989; 107). As for his move to Teima in the desert, it is suggested by some that the reason was primarily religious because the worship of the moon-god was a prominent part of the Arabian culture.⁷⁴ Lewy suggested the same that the adjacent regions of northern Hejaz were old religious centres of the moon-god (Lewy, 1945; 450) and might have induced the king to choose this location for his stay.

However, Van De Mieroop disagrees with this causality. He believes politics to be a much more important factor behind this decision of Nabonidus. He states that the move was rather due to the king’s astute understanding of the international political situation (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 281). Cyrus of Persia by this time in 550 BCE had not only become the leader of the Persians but had also established complete control over the Zagros region (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 281). It was therefore a legitimate fear that he would try and expand. The northern Mesopotamia and Syria would also had been the targets for any army coming from Anatolia and the victory over these territories would certainly cut off Babylonia from the Mediterranean Sea.⁷⁵  And while it is true that Arabian religion at the time was heavily influenced by the moon god worship but there is no clear indication in the Nabonidus’ inscriptions that he promoted it there (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 281), again stressing the point that it was a non-religious decision.

Beualieu also believes that the Northern Arabian campaign was done with purely imperialistic reasons (Beaulieu, 1989; 184) as the region was also quite wealthy. He also stresses that the situation with the foreign affairs was also quite relevant to the king, especially with the rise of Cyrus on the scene. The Medes were a continuing factor in this and it seems that Nabonidus was aware of the problems that Cyrus would be creating for Astyages and Nabonidus on his part was seeking to take advantage of the situation by encouraging uprisings amongst the vassals of the Medes.⁷⁶ Though it has been suggested that Nabonidus made alliance with Cyrus, the evidence is insufficient regarding this and it is more likely that the king was expecting troubles to the Medes from Cyrus and thus, according to Beaulieu he made his plans for Syria and Arabia accordingly (Beaulieu, 1989; 109) and hence, it is no surprise that the beginning of Cyrus’ revolt coincided exactly with Nabonidus’ campaign to the west and Arabia.⁷⁷

It was also suggested that the move to Teima might also have helped Nabonidus at winning the help of the Arabs against this danger of an impending Persian attack (Lewy, 1945; 436) but other scholars like Dougherty pointed out that firstly, there was no danger of any invasion certainly at the time when the king went to the Arabian Peninsula and secondly, even if we assume that he had expected support from the Arabs, in that case, it again makes no sense to stay in this particular oasis for ten long years (Lewy, 1945; 436), away from the capital. And if there were some religious factors behid his decision to stay for a decade, the Verse Account would surely had mentioned it for this would be just the kind of topic that would have interested the composers of the text but we do not find it mentioned there (Beaulieu, 1989; 184). In fact, Nabonidus himself explained his reasons, that “impiety of the Babylonians and the disregard for Sîn’s godhead” and their faults against the moon-god (Beaulieu, 1989; 184) had prompted the move.

Moukarzel however tries to analyse another possibility – of an uprising against the king that might explain his departure. He mentions the study of C. J. Gadd on the royal stelas found in Ḫarran (Moukarzel, 2014; 180). Gadd had opined that the reason for the withdrawal and the long stay of Nabonidus in Arabia was the danger of a mutiny of his subjects dwelling in the great cities of Babylonia, led by their priests (Moukarzel, 2014; 180). The text of the inscription mentions civil disorders in a number of Babylonian cities defined in the source as “an uprising against the divinity of Sȋn.”⁷⁸ But Moukarzel mentions that there are some serious limitations in accepting this view because it means that there was large-scale internal turmoil before the king’s march into Arabia (Moukarzel, 2014; 181). Also there is no cuneiform evidence prior to c. 539 BCE to support this theory as no source of any kind, either building inscriptions or any temple administrative archives like texts from the temple archives in Uruk and Sippar mention any civil unrest against the rule of Nabonidus thus as per Moukarzel, the text from Ḫarran does not find any serious corroboration (Moukarzel, 2014; 181; c.f. Beaulieu, 1989; 185). As there is no evidence for any rebellion or any such acts in the early years of his reign, at least until now that might explain his desperation to depart from the capital, we should not consider this theory as viable.

There even has been a suggestion that health problems may have made Nabonidus travel to Teima. Apparently, he might have been a victim of a malaria outbreak in Babylon.⁷⁹ Again, this is only a theory without any strong evidence in its support. Beaulieu even though denies the suggestion that there was any strong religious angle to the move, he still agrees with the possibility that the place became his chosen place of exile because of multiple reasons working in its favour, religious practices of the region being one of them i.e. its cosmopolitan character which made it more susceptible to the introduction of new cults than Babylon (Beaulieu, 1989; 185). The place was ideal due to its direct connection with Babylonia but not insignificantly, due to the worship of the moon god Ser/Ter/Teri (Ilteri, a Syrian lunar deity in the Verse Account) and also the main deity of the Teima region – Ṣalm, who most probably was also a moon-god.⁸⁰

Discarding, for the moment the possibility that any uprising or civil unrest played any role in his departure to Teima, the political and foreign situation still remains our best bet to explain his decision. But even though this could explain why Nabonidus chose to start his Arabian campaign at the time that he did, coinciding with the situation on his eastern front, it still doesn’t explain sufficiently why would the king stay outside his core realm for ten years? If we relate this with the information that departure of Nabonidus seems to have been voluntary then it becomes more likely that the king knowing his religious convictions might have decided under pressure from his son Belshazzar, who was rather interested in maintaining the status quo, to prolong his stay out of the core region (certainly helped by the favourable religious environment of Arabia) and in the meantime, gave more prerogatives to his son for administering the kingdom (Beaulieu, 1989; 185). But even the stay in Teima had a lot more interesting points going in its favour than only the religion. Teima actually was a flourishing oasis with successful economy and was amply gifted with greenery and a good enough water supply for being in a desert.⁸¹ It also was a powerful fortified city located at the crossroads of the routes that join the Persian Gulf with the Red Sea, and southern Arabia with the Mediterranean. The city was a true natural centre of Arab trade (Rodriguez, 2017; 23).

“Nabonidus may have been exploring new routes through the desert from Babylon to the west to secure access to that sea. Moreover, north Arabia was known for its wealth, which must have appealed to the king. The move to the desert was thus not frivolous, although it may have exacerbated hostility toward him at home.”⁸²

We also have reports of findings in Uruk of goods shipped from Teima during the reign of Nabonidus. Hence, the commercial intentions between southern Arabia and the Levant, Syria and Mesopotamia shouldn’t be left aside as they must have played an important role as well (Rodriguez, 2017; 24-25). This suggests that the reasons for Nabonidus’ campaign might have been imperialistic and practical but the long sojourn in Teima and absence from the capital was more related to the political and religious environment in Babylonia instead (Beaulieu, 1989; 184) and they in the end, might explain why the stay extended for ten long years.⁸³

Moukarzel also mentions the opinion of authors who have advanced the idea that the so-called “religious reforms” of Nabonidus were intended to consolidate the West-Semitic Aramean tribes in Mesopotamia and the whole of the Near East under Neo-Babylonian dominance (Moukarzel, 2014; 183). By this time, the Arameans would have constituted significant ethnical element in Mesopotamia, and particularly in Ḫarran and its vicinity. Even Nabonidus’ background suggests that he and his family might have been a part of the local élite in Ḫarran (his father was probably a governor in the region, as mentioned previously) which might have incorporated Aramean origin with Assyro-Babylonian cultural affinities (Moukarzel, 2014; 183). Moukarzel mentions the opinion of H. Saggs and M. Dandamaev that through exaltation of Sȋn, Nabonidus tried to impose an acceptable religion for all the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, both those with local and those with Aramean origin.⁸⁴ It is therefore a possibility that this might have been a political ruse to get the support of the western front (Aramaeans and Assyrians) with the addition of the Arabic component in it (Rodriguez, 2017; 24).

However, Moukarzel disagrees with so much importance being given to the Aramean factor. Even though the cult of Sȋn in Ḫarran was locally important, but it had no central role in the Aramean pantheon (Moukarzel, 2014; 184). The idea that through his “religious reform” the king tried to impose an acceptable religion for the inhabitants of Mesopotamia with Aramean and non-Aramean origin seems doubtful to Moukarzel because on one hand, it underestimates the polytheistic traditions of the Aramean tribes, and on the other it overrates the importance of the cult of Sȋn from Ḫarran within the borders of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.⁸⁵ The king’s return to Babylonia was also much more related to the political and foreign policy aspect than anything else (Beaulieu, 1989; 203) as on the one hand, Cyrus was emerging as a danger and the king might have thought that his presence in the capital would be better in case the Persians attacked (Beaulieu, 1989; 203) and on the other, disagreements with his son might have compelled him to end his stay in Teima.⁸⁶

The measures mentioned in the previous sections that confirm Nabonidus’ attempts in the last years of his reign after his return to exalt the status of Sȋn also had more angles to it than only religion. It has emerged that Nabonidus was not a lone wolf trying these changes on his own. He had the support of some people in the capital, some officials and nobles, probably of non-Babylonian ethnicity, some of whom also went to Teima with the king, albeit they still were in minority. Nabonidus with his group of non-Babylonians might have attempted these religious changes to claim a pre-eminence for him and their god Sȋn that would prolong the life of a weakened Babylon, something which according to Rodriguez was incompatible with the interests of the clergy of Marduk.⁸⁷

Nabonidus found himself at the crossroads of faith and power, as stated previously in the post, we should not doubt his piety to Sȋn, but we should also consider that there were non-religious motivations for such behaviour (Rodriguez, 2017; 30) and that they follow a continuous theme that in case of intentions of Nabonidus we would be in the wrong to give importance to any one factor, be it religious, political or economical. Rather he always seems to have been affected by a combination of these, though not denying that one factor played much more important role than others at a given point of time.

An Assesment

After examining various factors that influenced Nabonidus’ decisions, we are now in a position to make a general assessment of his activities and his behaviour. In the beginning of this write up, an excerpt from the Adad-gûppî Stele has been mentioned in which she prayed to Sîn that so long as he (Nabonidus) lived, “let him not offend against you” (Yun, 2017; 287). According to Yun, the verb for offence that has been used in the sense of “to offend” (haṭû) is generally used as “to make a mistake” in economic or commercial documents, or “to fail or neglect” in religious or omen literature, or even “to trespass” on a treaty between two countries, which usually causes a military campaign.⁸⁸ But it has never been used to signify any activity of the king. It was “beyond the imagination” of ancient Babylonians to mention an offence of their current king. It was possible to do so after the king’s reign or even his death but never while he reigned or was alive. The fact that it has been used in a royal stele is in the words of Yun quite extraordinary, and goes against the literary tradition of Babylonia. The scholar contemplates that there must have been some strong reason behind this. Even though, we had discussed many a factors for the king’s actions, be it political, economical etc. we have always maintained that religion certainly played a significant role and such an unforeseen literary measure must also be due to the intense devotion of both the king and his mother.⁸⁹

“Nabonidus willingly gave up the position of absolute infallibility that his predecessors traditionally enjoyed for ages and became a humble individual, and his consent to use the verb in this inscription clearly shows his appreciation of the religious inheritance of his mother” (Yun, 2017; 287).

In fact, the approach that Nabonidus seems to have taken was rather to include the larger ancient Mesopotamian religion and culture and that’s why it would be a misrepresentation to describe the king and his rule as a ‘break form the past’. It has to be kept in mind that Sîn worship was significant for the ancient Near East since the existence of the earliest states (Lewy, 1945; 481-483). Notwithstanding his religious changes, he was a king who revered the Babylonian culture and traditions. The Babylonian kings had pursued a policy of maintaining and even reviving their culture and traditions (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 284) and Nabonidus seems to have been no exception at least in this regard. This practice of adhering to the larger Mesopotamian traditions and not just Neo-Babylonian or even Babylonian is again stressed in the important Adad-gûppî Stele. In it, as the study of Yun shows, the kings that the mother of the king boasts to have served include not just of Babylonia but also Assyria.⁹⁰

“Sîn’s merciful choice of him as a Babylonian king is not a local issue of Babylonia, but here is interpreted as the continuation of the sacred kingship from Ashurbanipal through Nebuchadnezzar to himself. The regional or dynastic identity of a king is not important, only the ceaseless succession of the kingship from the beginning of history to the present, which is exactly the ideology of the Sumerian King List” (Yun, 2017; 290).

Adad-gûppî certainly couldn’t have forgotten the troubled relations between Babylonia and Assyria, which means that it was a deliberate decision on her part. It seems that it was a calculated attempt at proving that the kingship that had been bestowed on his son may not have come from a respectable dynasty but more importantly, it came direct from the blessings of the moon-god Sîn (Yun, 2017; 290). But if there was another god that was considered supreme to Sîn, the kingship didn’t carry the same weight and it was thus considered necessary that Sîn was made the king of all other gods.⁹¹ Probably that’s why the religious changes were attempted, in order to provide stability and legitimacy to the king, something that he needed in his reign as the differences with the priesthood were still huge. Again we see the recurring theme behind the kings actions here as well – religion, but not only.

Oddly or rather interestingly, Nabonidus’ religious policy was both a cause and an effect of his lack of legitimacy and his unstable reign with the backdrop of him being an outsider to Babylonia. This theme of the king’s eagerness to engraft himself into the ancient tradition can also be found in his other behaviour patterns.⁹²

Nabonidus was quite an eccentric figure in history with interests in what we today call archaeology (Rodriguez, 2017; 14). That’s why sometimes, he is called the world’s first archaeologist. He seemed to have had a fascination or wish to revive and restore sanctuaries and customs according to their original features (Lewy, 1945; 452) and this was not only in the case of Sîn but also when he honoured other gods⁹³ as we also see in cases of revival of worship of gods like Anu and Ištar of Uruk. He even found a statue of Sargon of Akkad and set it up in a temple, providing it with regular offerings (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 284-85). He also attempted the restoration of the Sippar temple. But the restoration was unsteady because of his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus complained about the work of Nebuchadnezzar who had failed to determine where the foundations of the Sippar temple were located (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 285). Nabonidus didn’t stop his efforts and repeated the excavations until a foundation deposit from the time of Naram-Sin of Akkad was found and the temple was then accordingly rebuilt.⁹⁴ According to some authors, this task bordered on the obsessive, but rather than this being a fascination for all things historical, it seems that in reality, as per Rodriguez, in this way he tried to ensure his authority and legitimacy over his subjects, which he lacked for being a usurper.⁹⁵ But it would be wrong to assume that he was the first king to do so because Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar had already began restoration of temples and ancient cults. And, Nabonidus wanted to assert the point that he was in this way following the traditions of his predecessors. He specifically said:

“I am the true legitimate heir and successor of Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar (stars and dreams have proven it), I have continued and finished the work of restoration of temples, of the sacred trousseaus, of the cults” (Rodriguez, 2017; 26).

Even though we have established that Nabonidus was only following in the footsteps of his predecessors in order to show to the populace that he was a true heir to the traditions of the kingdom, it is equally true that he wanted to also innovate, to leave his separate impression, his ‘personal mark’ as Van De Mieroop calls it (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 280). As the Babylonian temple buildings were made of clay bricks, they needed constant repair and restoration. And the kings had the duty to get the repairs done at regular intervals. Yun mentions that when a Babylonian king set out a building enterprise, they used to say that they “returned (the temple  building) to its (original) place (ana ašrišu târu).”⁹⁶ The Babylonian traditions and their rulers were strict with regard to any innovations but restoration to the original plan was still appreciated (Yun, 2017; 291). And Nabonidus by his restorations and “archaeological” work was only following this ideology, albeit passionately and certainly more than the previous kings. He eagerly got such excavation conducted on temple sites and find the ancient building plan or foundation inscriptions. But while explaining his achievements, he used quite a new expression⁹⁷ –

Ebabbarra šuāti adkema ḫiṭṭ assu aḫṭuṭ temmenšu labīri  ša Šarru-kīnu šar maḫrī pušu āmurma eli temmenna Šarru-kīnu puššu ubān lā aṣê ubān lā erēbi uššušu addima ukīn libnāssu

I raised this Ebabbarra; and I excavated a pit. I saw the old foundation that Šarru-kīnu, my  previous king, built; and I lay its base on the foundation (that) Šarru-kīnu built without a finger-wide going out (or) coming in, and I established its brick-work (Yun, 2017; 291).

Two points are important to note here – First, Yun points out that he tries to associate his building work to Sargon, the legendary king of Akkad, with whom, and it is significant to note, he does not have any kinship relation. Second, is the use of a new expression “without a finger-wide going out or coming in” which Nabonidus has used according to Yun to declare his utmost resolution to follow the track of his previous kings. This obsession of Nabonidus’ with excavations and exploration of the relics of ancient kings is exactly what tempted others to give him the title of the first archaeologist ever in the world (Yun, 2017; 291). But again, it is important to stress that this was not something done purely for archaeological, academic or antiquarian purposes but to solve the persistent problem of legitimacy which he could not dismiss for all his life (Yun, 2017; 291-92). He even determined that Naram-Sin had ruled 3200 years before him which factually is a gross miscalculation but it again confirms that he saw himself as heir to a very old tradition⁹⁸ and something that he desperately wanted to prove.

“Nabonidus might have found it necessary to return to the customs of the times when the empire had flourished, hoping that in doing so, he would avoid a disaster, in which the Neo-Babylonian state would suffer the fate of its Assyrian predecessor (Lewy, 1945; 453).”

This is also the reason that he revived the office of high-priestess (entu-priestess) (Yun, 2017; 288) of the Egipar temple of Ningal, the spouse of Sîn (Yun, 2017; 288) situated in Ur (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 285) and appointed his daughter Ennigaldi-Nanna on it. It was a forgotten custom from the middle of the Old Babylonian period (Yun, 2017; 288) and the office had been originally created by Sargon.⁹⁹ Nabonidus was in this way trying to fulfill two of his wishes – proving himself as the heir to a very old tradition (Van De Mieroop, 2007; 285), something which he genuinely believed thus trying to legitimize his rule and two, reviving the worship of Sîn to whom he was so completely devoted. If we base our opinion on the either the Verse Account or the Cyrus Cylinder or both then sure it might sound right that Nabonidus’ ineptness precipitated Babylon’s fall to the Persian Cyrus.¹⁰⁰ But if taken a more balanced approach, the other image, according to Rodriguez, is that of a king who tried to save the unstoppable decline of the kingdom, in the midst of a complex and unprecedented international situation (Rodriguez, 2017; 14). The point that is brought up multiple times is that the king failed in performing his duties with regard to the akītu festival. The king is blamed in the Verse Account of devoting his attention to the restoration of the temple of Eḫulḫul because he had vowed not to celebrate akītu until he had finished the building of the “no-sanctuary” temple in Ḫarran but we do know that it was because his stay in Teima that the celebrations were interrupted (Moukarzel, 2014; 164). The subtler text, the Chronicle of Nabonidus offers a more detailed and different account.¹⁰¹

The text mentions about the performance of some incomplete version of the usual rituals of the akītu festival in the absence of the king from the capital. It says: “niqê ina é.sag.gil u é.zi.da ilāni šūt Bābili(ki) u Barsip(ki) kī šalmu nadnû uri-gallu išruq-ma bītā iblil”—”Offerings were made to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa in Esaila and Ezida as is correct. The Urigallu priest made a libation and besprinkled the temple”(Moukarzel, 2014; 164).

According to Moukarzel, there is a possibility that after the year of a king’s accession, his presence at the akītu festival was not obligatory (Moukarzel, 2014; 164). Moukarzel also points out that the general importance of akītu for the Babylonian society, for its cults and for the calendar excludes the possibility of completely omitting the celebration (Moukarzel, 2014; 164). This is the reason why there seems to have existed a kind of more compact ceremony approved by tradition and appropriate in the cases when the king was absent from the capital.¹⁰² There is evidence that in the accession year of Shamash-shum-ukin (Šamaš-šuma-ukīn; r. 668-648 BCE; the Babylonian king and later the vassal of Neo-Assyrian Empire), the akītu festival was celebrated but there is omission of the festival during a time of active warfare between Babylonia and Assyria (Moukarzel, 2014; 164).

Another exteremely important question is that how far Nabonidus went in his religious policy? How successful was he in his attempts? How strongly these reforms were imposed? This is an interesting question because when analysed by the scholars, such extensive religious changes to the tradition are not corroborated because it is also true that despite whatever changes the king attempted, Babylonia in this period remained the home of its gods, worshipped since centuries. As mentioned previously, each city was still the home of a particular deity and the main temple of that city was that god’s residence.¹⁰³ Even the temple archives do not support such extensive reforms theory. An examination of the temple archives of the Eanna of Uruk and the Ebabbar of Sippar (Beaulieu, 1989; 219) belonging to the last four years of Nabonidus’ reign suggest that traditions were followed as before with no changes to the functioning of the temple and quite certainly with no imposition of the worship of Sîn.

According to Moukarzel, the theory that the use of most exalted epithets for Sȋn which had earlier been prerogatives of Marduk suggesting a religious reform by the king is also found lacking because according to him, the epithets were written on steles which were intended for the temple of Sȋn in Ḫarran. Moukarzel finds it odd to question this practise because why should we expect that anyone would not use the most exalting epithets of Sȋn in a dedication made in his very temple?¹⁰⁴ Of the three inscriptions presented in support of the hypothesis for a “gradual religious reform” of Nabonidus, Moukarzel mentions that two were found in temples of Sȋn and one is of unknown finding place. Even the epithets used in the inscriptions dedicated by Nabonidus in the temples of Sȋn are according to traditions and don’t support any strong religious reform (Moukarzel, 2014; 186). Thus there is a tendency of underestimating the archaeological context of the inscriptions which are otherwise stated as proof for Nabonidus’ ‘religious reform.’¹⁰⁵

“In the polytheistic religious environment of Mesopotamia, each local deity was regarded as the main god of the pantheon. The imposition of centralized political authority did not lead to the imposition of a centralized cult system over the local cults. On the contrary, Mesopotamian kings usually demonstrated their respect to the local main deities which they worshiped according to the local cult traditions during their visits in different cities” (Moukarzel, 2014; 185).

On the other hand, from the Verse Account, we learn of an argument that Nabonidus had with the priesthood of Esagil in which he tried to ascribe the temple to Sîn and it was contested by its priesthood.¹⁰⁶ Thus, it seems possible that the king might have focused his attempts mainly towards Esagil. Howewer, it would be wrong to deny the seriousness of any attempt of Nabonidus in the sphere of religion. After all, it is also probable that due to such strong religious convictions, Nabonidus might have certainly tried his reforms but the attempts remained unsuccessful as the provincial cult centres remain steadfast in their beliefs and traditions and opposed any changes attempted by the king (Beaulieu, 1989; 219). The question whether or not Nabonidus was a “religious reformer” therefore according to scholars, remains pending and undecided and should be open for future investigation and deliberation, eventually in the light of new source texts and more comprehensive text-critical analyses.¹⁰⁷

Conclusion

Why Nabonidus was unsuccessful is a question with multi-faceted answers. It is important in such endevours that they should be able to hold the momentum, so to say, for an extended period. Marduk’s exaltation started in the reign of Hammurabi, reached a solidified platform in the Kassite period only. It took many centuries when by c. 1200 BCE, Marduk was officially acknowledged the supreme god of Babyolon. Nabonidus saw his empire fell before this momentum could be achieved. In the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus of Persia conquered his territories, thus depriving the pro-Sîn faction of the political means by which Nabonidus could implement his plans.¹⁰⁸

The smooth victory of the Persians in Mesopotamia however, may not have been that smooth as we can see that there was a necessity of the propaganda accounts which Cyrus commissioned to be composed like the Verse Account and the Cyrus cylinder. There would not have been any need for them, states Beaulieu if the Persian overlordship had been accepted smoothly (Beaulieu, 1989; 232). After Cambyses died, two usurpers arose in the region, both taking the name of Nebuchadnezzar, claiming to be sons of Nabonidus suggesting that he was still remembered as a major figure in Babylonia.¹⁰⁹ We cannot blindly trust the aforementioned documents as they were written by the opposition parties of Nabonidus in Babylon under Cyrus’s rule. Their historical validity therefore needs scrutiny.

However, it is also true that Nabonidus did stay in Teima for a long time, leaving his capital city in the hands of his son. As previously discussed in the post, while it is true that the king was guided by multiple factors while taking his decisions, nonetheless, we should be wary of under-estimating the religious component. As Yun states, even though there are many lacunae in available information to understand Nabonidus’ reign, a tendency of his religious policy toward the cult of the moon-god cannot be denied.¹¹⁰

References

• ¹ Yun, 2017. p. 287
• ² Beaulieu, 1989. p. xiii
• ³ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 157
• ⁴ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 43
• ⁵ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 157
• ⁶ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 279
• ⁷ ibid. p. 278
• ⁸ ibid. p. 277
• ⁹ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 22
• ¹⁰ ibid.
• ¹¹ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 79
• ¹² ibid. p. 86
• ¹³ ibid.
• ¹⁴ ibid. p. 91
• ¹⁵ ibid. p. 92
• ¹⁶ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 23
• ¹⁷ Townsend, 2015. p. 2
• ¹⁸ ibid. p. 8
• ¹⁹ ibid. p. 3
• ²⁰ ibid. p. 10
• ²¹ ibid. p. 9
• ²² Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 280
• ²³ Lewy, 1945. p. 488
• ²⁴ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 280
• ²⁵ ibid.
• ²⁶ Rodriguez, 2017. pp. 18-19
• ²⁷ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 280
• ²⁸ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 28
• ²⁹ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 153
• ³⁰ ibid. p. 218
• ³¹ Moukarzel, 2014. pp. 179-180
• ³² Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 281
• ³³ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 178
• ³⁴ Yun, 2017. p. 289
• ³⁵ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 62
• ³⁶ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 43
• ³⁷ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 15
• ³⁸ ibid. p. 20
• ³⁹ ibid. p. 17
• ⁴⁰ ibid.
• ⁴¹ ibid. p. 18
• ⁴² ibid. p. 14
• ⁴³ ibid. pp. 16-17
• ⁴⁴ ibid. p. 29
• ⁴⁵ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 45
• ⁴⁶ ibid.
• ⁴⁷ ibid. pp. 49-50
• ⁴⁸ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 25
• ⁴⁹ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 89
• ⁵⁰ ibid. p. 137
• ⁵¹ ibid. p. 53
• ⁵² ibid. p. 63
• ⁵³ ibid.
• ⁵⁴ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 28
• ⁵⁵ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 203
• ⁵⁶ ibid. p. 60
• ⁵⁷ Townsend, 2015. p. 3
• ⁵⁸ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 61
• ⁵⁹ ibid. p. 64
• ⁶⁰ ibid. p. 222
• ⁶¹ ibid. p. 223
• ⁶² ibid. pp. 223-224
• ⁶³ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 177
• ⁶⁴ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 232.
• ⁶⁵ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 281
• ⁶⁶ ibid.
• ⁶⁷ Yun, 2017. p. 288
• ⁶⁸ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 163
• ⁶⁹ Yun, 2017. p. 289.
• ⁷⁰ ibid. p. 290
• ⁷¹ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 110
• ⁷² ibid.
• ⁷³ ibid. p. 107
• ⁷⁴ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 281
• ⁷⁵ ibid.
• ⁷⁶ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 109
• ⁷⁷ ibid.
• ⁷⁸ Moukarzel, 2014. pp. 180-181
• ⁷⁹ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 24
• ⁸⁰ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 184
• ⁸¹ Townsend, 2015. p. 7
• ⁸² Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 281
• ⁸³ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 184
• ⁸⁴ Moukarzel, 2014. pp. 183
• ⁸⁵ ibid. p. 184
• ⁸⁶ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 203
• ⁸⁷ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 30
• ⁸⁸ Yun, 2017. p. 287
• ⁸⁹ ibid.
• ⁹⁰ ibid. p. 290
• ⁹¹ ibid.
• ⁹² ibid. p. 291
• ⁹³ Lewy, 1945. p. 452
• ⁹⁴ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 285
• ⁹⁵ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 23
• ⁹⁶ Yun, 2017. p. 291
• ⁹⁷ ibid.
• ⁹⁸ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 285
• ⁹⁹ ibid
• ¹⁰⁰ Rodriguez, 2017. p. 14
• ¹⁰¹ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 164
• ¹⁰² ibid.
• ¹⁰³ Van De Mieroop, 2007. p. 285
• ¹⁰⁴ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 185
• ¹⁰⁵ ibid. p. 186
• ¹⁰⁶ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 219
• ¹⁰⁷ Moukarzel, 2014. p. 188
• ¹⁰⁸ Beaulieu, 1989. p. 43
• ¹⁰⁹ ibid. p. 232
• ¹¹⁰ Yun, 2017. p. 287

Bibliography

• Abueish, Tamara. Saudi Arabia discovers 6th-century rock inscriptions of Babylonian king in Hail. Al Arabia News. 16 July, 2021.
• Beaulieu, Paul-Alan. 1989. The Reign of Nabonidus-King of Babylon 556-539 BC. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
• Lewy, Julius. 1945. The Late Assyro-Babylon Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus. Hebrew Union College Annual, 19, 405–489.
• Moukarzel, Kabalan. (2014). The Religious Reform of Nabonidus: A Sceptical View. In: Markham J. Geller (ed.): Melammu : The Ancient World in an Age of Globalization. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften). Berlin.
• Rodriguez, Carlos F. 2017. The Exaltation of Divinity in Mesopotamia: Marduk and Sin, Two Possible Political Instruments in Babylon. Revista Historia Autónoma.
• Townsend, Colby. 2015. “From Teima I [proceeded? to] Babylon, [my] lord[ly] city:”: The Ten-Year Sojourn of Nabonidus in Teima. Academia.
• Van De Mieroop, Marc. 2007. A History of Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC. Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published 2004)
• Yun, Sungduk. 2017. Mother of her Son: The Literary Scheme of the Adad Guppi Stele. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 70 (3), 277–294 (2017) DOI: 10.1556/062.2017.70.3.1