Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 11 October 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Opis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:Medcabbox

Consensus, or lack of

The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop. The premature archiving of the talk page, which included many unresolved discussions, was also inappropriate. Sweeping the problems under the rug will not help anyone achieve a consensus here. I'm going to restore the tag, and have also restored some of talk page sections that were deleted. I'll also be making some edits on the article soon. Khoikhoi 05:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is a policy issue, and if you as an administrator are unwilling to recognise that because of your own apparent POV, you're failing in your duties as an admin. I have absolutely no problem with working out issues amicably and I look forward to seeing what you do with the article. However, it must be within the framework of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, which means that you don't dictate which translation is "true" and you don't put undue weight on a very recent minority viewpoint. As long as you follow our basic policies, there won't be any problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not the ultimate authority on Misplaced Pages policies and their application. Your attempts to frame content disputes as policy issues, in order to get your opponents intimidated and blocked are unacceptable. You have been picking which policies are applicable to others as a means of advancing your position in a content dispute, yet you ignore the policies yourself. For example, you see no problem in discussing other editors' movies, by labeling your opponents with loaded adjectives (i.e. "nationalist"), yet when somebody else brings up your own motives, you issue them civility warnings? Khoikhoi 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You said editors plural. Are you calling me a bully for arguing that editors should not be deciding which translations are correct and which are 'falsified'? Is that not a policy issue? Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A disagreement over which translation to use is a content issue. An attempt to impose a preferred version by repeatedly deleting all alternative perspectives is a policy issue - specifically a violation of NPOV and disruptive editing. I would have thought the distinction was easy enough to understand. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just been following this from afar, and will not be making edits in it. But the Talk: Section is very interesting as a Cyrus spinoff and thus I have been lurking. The way I read the disagreement is that Nepaheshgar is not attempting to stifle any versions, but to put them all in, clearly documented. Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, but aren't you trying to get in a particular translation as the dominant one? The whole thing has been a little hard to follow. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC):::::No way am I going to look for diffs but this is what I am referring to: "We also agreed to put it in chronological order. There are four different translations after all.--Nepaheshgar 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)"Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is a dominant translation, or let's say a dominant view, followed by most translators: that a massacre followed Cyrus' victory at Opis. Lambert's recent article of 2007 has a different translation, in which no massacre occurs. (It's probably worth saying, though, that Lambert sticks only to the translation of the passage, and doesn't talk about the implications of his re-translation: he doesn't say "and therefore there was no massacre" or something like that.) As has been pointed out many times on this talk page, Lambert's piece is so recent that there are no printed reactions to it, and given the speed with which academic publication in the humanities works (especially fields with relatively few scholars such as the ancient Near East) I would not expect that there will be published reactions all that soon. So, Lambert's translation should certainly be included in the article, but not as anything more than a minority opinion (though a respectable one to be sure). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dominant translation of the Babylonian Chronicles is Grayson's - it's enormously widely cited, and it's described in many sources as the standard version (as does our own article on the Chronicles). That doesn't automatically make Grayson right and Lambert wrong, of course, but it does show the context in which we're operating here - a well-established, widely cited viewpoint versus a very recent, totally uncited viewpoint. I note that none of the editors who are arguing for Lambert to be given the priority have addressed the point that his piece isn't even mentioned by any other sources that anyone has been able to find. Declaring it to be somehow "definitive" or "superior" is plainly original research given the total lack of any reliable third-party references to Lambert's piece. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I recommend that the editorial disputes at this article be brought to mediation. Reverting and arguing is not the way to solve disagreements. There is a better way. A request for mediation can be made here. Jehochman 14:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely happy for this to go to mediation. Nepaheshgar and others, what about you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends who is doing the mediation. --Nepaheshgar 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You can file a request, and the relevant users will be notified. If everybody confirms acceptance of the mediation request, a neutral mediator will be appointed by the Mediation Committee. Jehochman 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mediation is fine with me. Moreschi (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay , it depends who is doing the mediation. Let me look into the process. I am seeing high level buddy buddying in different articles. Of course I am not accusing User:ChrisO, but we need a neutral mediator. For example when I said Amelie Kuhrt does not know Akkadian(that is she is not a linguist like Lambert or Grayson), another admin tried to say I was making it up. And it seems lots of times, admins are supporting other admins. I rather see user:ChrisO respond to why Amelie Kuhrt was not quoted in full(the rest of her sentence which was crucial and it was cut off, I have bolded the portion above) or why it was not mentioned she is relying on the translation of 2004 and she did not make her own translation. Or why Wiesehofer's mention of Grayson was not mentioned and it was claimed he is proposing a new translation. Until this is resolved, I see no point in further mediation. Since this is not even about content anymore and we need to assume good faith by both sides of the dispute. The stuff with the latest translation by Kuhrt needs to go as it is a lie, based on what as brought as she did not make a new translation. She quotes Glassner (2004). This matter of honesty (or hopefully a mistake) does not require mediator like the issue if Lambert should come first or Grayson. I would like to know why the rest of the sentence of Kuhrt was cut off and why it was not mentioned she is quoting Glassner and she did not do the translation.--Nepaheshgar 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are making it up, since you haven't cited a single source that says Kuhrt doesn't know Akkadian. But this is the kind of issue that will need to be dealt with at mediation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No I am not. Note this: Let's see what Kuhrt says:

(same book pages xxix to xxx)

On the other hand you deleted the bolded portion when mentioning this setence. Furthermore, You said Kuhrt makes her own translation, but she does not. Note pages 50-51 she quotes the translations.

This issue about Kuhrt does not need a mediator to resolve it. I would like to know: 1) why the bolded portion was cut off. 2) Why it was not mentioned that she is quoting translations like Glassner. --Nepaheshgar 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will post a request for mediation later today and will add a link here so that you can follow it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is moronic

The article is now devoting almost 50 percent of its current content as to who it was that Cyrus killed. The basic facts surrounding the battle and the taking of Babylon are not in dispute. This is just one of those times where the academics have clearly agreed to disagree over something comparatively minor - with most agreeing with Grayson, but not all - and the typical reaction has taken place: the talk page is filled with pointless squabbling. The Battle of Opis article should not be devoted to academic disagreement over 1 OR TWO LINES of disputed ancient Akkadian. That's lame, not to mention an undue coatrack. Moreschi (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no agreeing or disagreeing with Grayson. Most people quoted Oppenheimer, then Grayson and now Lambert has offered a new translation. None of the people doing the quoting know ancient Akkadian. Only a few like Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheimer know it. For example Frye, Kuhrt, Wiesehofer do not know it. I resolutely believe that Lambert must come first (and I am not saying to remove Grayson) for the various reasons I have mentioned. I am willing to go to mediation based on this. But there needs to be an explanation on why the rest of the sentence of Kuhrt was cut off and why it was not mentioned she is quoting Glassner (2004). I have bolded that portion.--Nepaheshgar 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You have still not offered any sort of proof that Kurht and Wiesehofer cannot read ancient Akkadian. Kuhrt explicitly says she has retranslated the text, taking other translations into account: I see nothing in the google books link to disprove this. Which must logically mean she can read the language. And the entire quote from Lambert is classic undue weight. No one else gets such generous treatment. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiesehofer I have already shown. He is quoting Grayson for that portion. I have provided page number. As for Kuhrt, she is quoting Glassner, see pages 50-51. I also have an article from her in 1987 where she is quoting the same lines from Grayson. It is absolutely WP:OR to claim they are making a new translation based on the Akkadian. I did say they are not scholars of ancient Akkadian and my proof is that there is no journal or books from them about ancient Akkadian. Kuhrt has quoted Latin, Greek, Old Persian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian in her book. They have not made new translations. Lambert's quote is not undo weight, since it is from 2007, it is an article devoted to those two lines and it is 32 years ahead of Grayson and it criticizes Grayson's version. No other book or article has been devoted to just those two lines. Mediation will be fine, once we know why crucial part of Kuhrt's was not brought and this mislead the reader. --Nepaheshgar 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's just get this clear. Kuhrt says she personally retranslated the text. Are you saying she's lying? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No I am saying you did not mention two things and the issue is just like Wiesehofer which you claimed had made a new translation but instead he just quoted Grayson (except Wiesehofer's book is originally German so it has been translated). See the references for those pages in the end of the book. Note Kuhrt says:Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitably my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Intentionally or not, the bolded portion was not mentioned. On page 50-51 she is quoting older translations. She is giving credit to a whole bunch of translations.As and her translation is exactly like Glassner/Grayson. I said, she is not a scholar of Old Akkadian(show me some journals and books she has specifically wrote on that language), this is what is called undo weight. Lambert is a scholar of Old Akkadian, so is Grayson, so is Oppenheimer. Lambert's article is the only one that is devoted to those two lines and it is from 2007. Kuhrt is just quoting other scholars (Glassner). Wiesehofer is quoting Grayson. Grayson's book (1975) is not devoted to those two lines. Those are not new translation. Only Grayson, Oppenheimer and Lambert can be considered translations since they are the ones that know Old Akkadian and translated it directly. Kuhrt has the same thing in the 1987 article I mentioned. Again the bolded portion left out when mentioning her as well the notes on pg 50-51 are important. Just like the references for Wiesehofer were important. --Nepaheshgar 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kuhrt doesn't say anywhere in that section that she is quoting someone else's translation - it's not an "instance where they are credited" as she puts it. Where are you getting the information that the translation she presents is Glassner's? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They are credited in the intro of the section(pg 50-51). In the intro is Glassner 2004 and host of other sources. She does not need to quote it line by line that she obtained from that or this book. Specially if there are multiple sources already that she has mentioned. With regards to that specific line: "He carried off plunder and slaughtered the people" that is in her sources(Glassner and others) that she is using. Note the translation is the same as Grayson and Glassner with that line. We can say Kuhrt uses this translation in her book, but we can not assume she has translated Old Akkadian as she is not a linguist in that field. Kuhrt obviously does not provide any analysis in Akkadian with regards to that crucial line. Furthermore, as I noted, in another article from Babylonia to Persia , she says: "In 539, a battle was fought at Opis, east of Tigris in which Cyrus was eventually victorious; that it was probably a hard won victory is indicated by the fact that it ended in a massacare of the population of the city and extensive looting"(Kuhrt, 1992). So to call her book a new translation of the Old Akkadian is OR. The fact is Lambert's translation directly from Old Akkadian would be the latest translation. Kuhrt has quoted other scholars and she even had said the same thing in 1992. And Lambert's article is the only text available that is devoted to those two lines. Grayson's book, Oppenheimer, Wiesehofer, Frye, Kuhrt and etc. are not concentrating in analyzing those two lines. So Lambert should be mentioned first. I am not saying excise Grayson or Oppenheimer or etc. But this is an important point along with the fact that Wiesehofer/Kuhrt have not made translations and they are not scholars of Old Akkadian. I have taken the initiative of sending Kuhrt the translation by Lambert but her e-mail said she won't be back until August 23, 2008! so I think she might be in a longer than anticipated trip. Anyhow , I do not see any reason to remove the rest of the sentence from Kuhrt. The claim that she has made a new translation directly from the Old Akkadian is incorrect.--Nepaheshgar 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ironic as Lambert's translation is based upon his understanding of the historical context. Doug Weller (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats part of it, he also gives linguistic reasons (analyzes some words and other). He is the only scholar quoted from all the scholars that has written something specific about that line. --Nepaheshgar 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my comments as to why this article is labled as "not neutral"

I promised Moreschi that I will provide the quote and the prophet who said Cyrus would liberate the Jews before Cyrus was even born. The point of this message is to show that Cyrus did not need to be a propagandist in his conquest of Babylon, but of course in some parts all the ancient rulers were sometimes. So the bottom proves that he could not have influenced the Jews to write well about him, because the Jews wrote good about him before he was born, I know its hard to believe that such a prophecy came true, as the prophet mentions the liberator by name, which is Cyrus, which to me is just short of a miracle, I WELCOME anyone to research more about this if they want to disprove me and say that I am religous, which I am barely. Anyways, check the link below, and read the bottom left of page 99, where I think Isiah mentions Cyrus! So check it out, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Annals of the World p.99.5

You're referring to the quote that says "Many years before these events, Isaiah called their deliverer by his proper name Cyrus {Isa 44.28 45.1}", right?

We can be more direct than that: gives the text of the Book of Isaiah in Hebrew and English, saying "Thus saith the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:".

Of course, there are always other explanations; if you read the article on Isaiah, you will find that it says scholars currently consider the Book of Isaiah a "post-exilic work" - that is, it was written after the Jews came back to Israel. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, do not get me wrong, I have always known that even the Torah can not be trusted, as most of the stories were plagarized from ancient mesopotamia, but thanks for the reminder. I think I have heard somewhere else that other prophets talked about him before he was born, which I am currently looking into. Anyways, even if the whole Isiah thing is false, I still think and have proven how wrong that sentence that I am critisizing is, in the Aftermath section of this artcile, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

It may interest you to know that the Jerusalem Bible says (about the Book of Isaiah):"...some prophecies from the time of the Exile , about a hundred years later, have been included. These include oracles against Babylon (ch 13-14), an apocalypse (ch 24-27) and some poems (ch 33-35).....Toward the end of the Exile, some very fine and profound prophecies were made by an unnamed writer...form chapters 40-55 of the book.....Chapters 56-66...appear to date from different times thoughout the whole age, from the call of Isaiah to the restoration in Jerusalem after the Exile." ---Introduction to the Book of Isaiah -- Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition, 1967. The point being that since Isaiah was written at different times by different (unknown) authors, we rightly know exactly when what was written. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the Battle of Opis? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

Here is my suggestion on the battle portion . Note it does not differ from the current version except I will summarize Lambert's argument and also Lambert is brought first. Kuhrt and Wiesehofer are not mentioned since they do not translate the Akkadian and rely on Glassner and Grayson. I brought Lambert first since his article is from 2007 and his article is the only piece of paper that is devoted to the specific line of contention and is the only article/book that is devoted to the topic of hand. There is simply no other book or article that is devoted to the analysis of the contentious line and Lambert is heavy weight when it comes to Akkadian language (along with Oppenheimer and Grayson). Note unlike what some other users had suggested earlier I have not removed anyone, but have just given priority to Lambert based on the reasoning mentioned. Anyhow, once I know why the bolded portion of Kuhrt was removed by User:ChrisO (nothing against him personally and wish him the best of health) for the readers, I will be happy to try mediation. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I waited a bit but nothing happened. I didn't change the article, but mentioned it based on chronological order of translation. Note Kuhrt does not count as a translator of that line as she is referencing Glassner and others and she had that same view on that line the 90s and late 80s article I already mentioned. So Lambert's is the newest translation. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Kurht explicitly calls it "my translation" in her book. She references several previous translations, not just Glassner. I've held off posting a request for mediation because I'm hoping to get an uninvolved expert to offer advice. Can you leave it as it is for a couple more days? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

She does not make a new translation as I mentioned her other books way before and she quotes other authors when mentioning the chronicles. Plus she is not known for her knowledge of Akkadian like Lambert or Grayson. So for these reasons she can not be called the newest translation. Also it has been a week but anyhow I will wait, but the expert needs to be neutral, no history of predujice and should preferably be an expert in Akkadian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't even know if he'll agree to participate, but I'll post the mediation request shortly anyway. Apologies for not having been able to do it earlier, I've been unwell for a few days. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Again, preferably we should have an expert that has access to someone that knows Akkadian well. Also I do not think putting Lambert and "Iranian nationalists" together helps in the article. We are discussing a topic from 2500 years ago when such concepts did not exist. Lets have it as a purely historical and academic argument without such terms. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the effort. Also the mediator should know either Akkadian or have access to someone that knows Akkadian. And should be uninvolved with the recent series of articles and their name should not have came up (unless they are at the level of Lambert or Grayson or somethng). We need someone that will look at arguments based on their merit. For example, despite liking the good and informative work of Jona Lendering on his website, but we know he does not know Akkadian. This can totally clutter and bias the mediation effort. We need someone totally uninvolved who has access to someone well known in his or another university that knows Old Akkadian. The whole dispute is about one line of Akkadian and which translation should come first. The language is dead and so we need expertise here from unvinvolved people/users. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I please remind people that my expert says that the argument is basically a historical one, ie what interpretation is most likely given the historical context. It isn't a question of does X mean Y or Z, it's a question of X can mean Y or Z, what does it mean in this case? Doug Weller (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another solution is let your expert write the confusing portion! --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More outrages claims from Ariobarza

Suffice it to say that Cyrus had defeated a military opponent at Opis - there is no record of any harm being selectively inflicted upon the civilians in the Nabonidus Chronicle.

The only “slaughter” that one finds is that committed by the Babylonian King Nabonidus as noted in the Nabonidus Chronicle (see prior references in this article regarding ANET- Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament):

In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter.

The only “slaughter” that has been recorded by history is that made by Nanbonidus, not Cyrus. The Akkad citizens had probably risen in revolt against Nabonidus in anticipation of the eminence of Cyrus’ victory.

Objectively speaking, the case is closed; there is no evidence to back any “list of atrocities” by Cyrus, as alleged in The Daily Telegraph.

Do not blame Ariobarza, blame Kaveh!

--Ariobarza (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Translations

I've gone through all the English-language translations of the full text of the Nabonidus Chronicle back to 1925 (there's an earlier translation of 1882 that I've not been able to locate yet). Here's how they treat the disputed line - the formatting is exactly as in the originals:

A few points:

• There are obvious similarities between the translations of Grayson, Brosius and Kuhrt. However, they're not simply copying each other. Brosius and Kuhrt agree with Grayson's translation of this particular line but disagree on other lines. Many lines elsewhere in the translations are markedly different.

• All of the translations published since 1925 agree on three points: that (1) there was a battle between Babylonians and Persians, (2) that the Persians won, and (3) that there was a mass killing at Opis. Lambert's recently published paper appears to be the only published source that disputes point 3.

• Every post-1925 translation apart from Oppenheim puts the blame for the massacre on Cyrus. Oppenheim stands out as the only one to blame Nabonidus.

• The key changes between Oppenheim and the later translations appear to be that:

• All later translators definitively blame Cyrus for the massacre;
• The word that Oppenheim translates as "revolted" is interpreted by all later translators (including Lambert) as "retreated";
• The later translators (including Lambert) all reject Oppenheim's translation of a word as "confused" (Smith seems to think this is "burnt with fire") and translate it as "plundered" or "pillaged" instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the so-called "translations" by Brosius and Kuhrt, neither of whom are linguists, are nothing but word-by-word copies of Grayson's translation. Also, if anything, Smith's translation proves Lambert's interpretation that "people" here means "people of Akkad" (as in his entourage and soldiers). Khoikhoi 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That struck me immediately. Also I have seen in some of Kurht's works that she clearly attributes Grayson. Why would she attribute Grayson if she did her own translations? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's funny; I think that I have at least several ounces of common sense, and I doubt that Brosius and Kuhrt's translations are "word-by-word copies" of Grayson's translation. (You seem to be alleging that they're plagiarists!) ChrisO mentions that Brosius and Kuhrt differ from Grayson in other passages; clearly, they're translating the Akkadian themselves, but it's inevitable that the translations are going to be similar in most passages and identical in some. If you took a relatively unadorned ancient Greek or Latin text, like the Parian Marble or something, and had several people translate it, I imagine that there would be a lot of similarity in the results.

Also, I don't see the point of saying that Brosius, Kuhrt, or anyone else isn't a linguist. You don't need to be a linguist to be able to understand and translate an ancient language. Nor do you need to be a linguist to dispute the reading of a text, or the meaning of individual words within a text. You just need to be conversant with the relevant languages. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just found Kurht's book in Googlebooks and did a search on Grayson: In fact she seems to credit him as a source. Also Brosius. I have seen the same in other of her works. There is no clear indication to me that she translated the works herself. Can ChrisO provide a book and page number where Kurht says specifically that she has translated the whole of the Chronicle (or at least the disputed section) herself? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In her book "The Ancient Near East" she references Grayson fully 16 times. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, Kuhrt's translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle appears on pp. 50-51, and Google Books tells me "Pages 50-51 are not part of this book preview." However, p. 53 is a commentary upon the translation, and there, Grayson is cited as follows: "Translation of ll.24-8 follows the new reading, after collation, of Andrew George (1996:379-80); it is preferable to the rendering of the lines by Grayson (ABC, no.7). The passage indicates that Cyrus, wearing Persian (= 'Elamite') robes, installed his designated successor, Cambyses..." Here we have Kuhrt disagreeing with the reading of Grayson, so it should be fairly obvious that she's not reproducing his translation. Nor is there anything here, or in anything else anyone has said on this page, that suggests that Kuhrt is not translating the text herself. ChrisO has already quoted her statement that she retranslated everything herself. There's nothing ambiguous about that statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found the "(re)translation" line here:

"I have (re)translated everything although inevitably my translations rely heavily on existing ones to which reference is made. pg xxx The Persian Empire. Nor is it surprising that the passage sounds just exactly like Brosius' translation as well, whom she thanks in the introduction: "I owe a debt of gratitude to many people ... I should like to thank ....Maria Brosius...advice and correcting sections of the manuscript," -- and whose translations she credits at least 24 times. My guess? Kurht "relied heavily" on Brosius' translation, and Brosius relied on Grayson's. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, all this speculation is kind of amusing. You don't have all the translations in front of you, do you? I do, and I can tell you that if you put them side by side there are very substantial differences. It's true that Grayson, Brosius and Kuhrt translate the disputed line in the same way. But that merely means that they all agree on how that particular line should be read. There are plenty of other places where they present different translations. So it's obvious that they're not copying each other; they're reviewing previous translations, using the same interpretation where they agree with it, and using different interpretations where they disagree. As for "why would she attribute Grayson?", are you serious? Grayson is widely regarded as the standard translation of the Babylonian Chronicles. Of course she's going to reference Grayson, as do Brosius, Glassner, Tavernier (a Dutch translation from 2003 that I haven't included here) and of course Lambert. Historians don't operate in a vacuum. Incidentally, Grayson references his own predecessors, Oppenheim and Smith. Does this mean he's merely relying on them? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Again the fact of the matter is Kuhrt relies on Glassner and she is not an Akkadian expert. We can take a look at google books.

She is referencing Glassner, Tavernier, and Brosius. She could have retranslated it from French (Glassner) or another language.

Those are her sources. You have failed to prove that Kuhrt is a notable figure in Akkadian studies. She has not produced a single journal paper on the matter of Akkadian and thus her translation/reliance upon past translations can not be put in the same league as people that know Akkadian . Until you prove that Kuhrt is an Assyrologist and is an expert in matter of Akkadian studies, she simply is not reliable. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As per the comment: "You don't need to be a linguist to be able to understand and translate an ancient language. Nor do you need to be a linguist to dispute the reading of a text, or the meaning of individual words within a text. You just need to be conversant with the relevant languages.". You can not be really converstant in an dead language. And a scholar of Latin/Greel languages is more reliable with its translation than a non-scholar in Latin/Greek. In very well known history departments (say university of Toronto or Harvard..) there are experts in Old Akkadian. It is a sub-field by itself. The bottom line is that the book of Kuhrt has Latin, Greek, Old Persian, Hebrew, Assyrian, Akkadian and etc. translations. It is a very general book and she is not an expert in any of these languages, so it can not be put in the same league as Grayson or Lambert. I do think for a such controversial matter, it is important to have experts in Akkadian language to decide which translation is correct.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the Smith, Oppenheim, and {Grayson, Brosius, Kurt} translations: it is obvious there is enough doubt in the original to allow quite different translations. Oppenheim points at Nabonidus, one talks of "fire" and burning.... Glassner adds a place name not in any of the others. If the interpretation can vary so, how is it that at least three are totally identical? Kurht acknowledges "relying heavily on others" for her translation. If you are "(re)translating" something, why would you need to rely on anyone? You simply look at the original work and translate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepahesgar, why do you keep ignoring that the issue is not 'which translation is correct', as though it was some sort of mathematical or logic problem, but 'which is more likely to be historically accurate' since key words involved have more than one meaning? Hasn't that been made clear by a couple of experts so far? Same thing for Tundrabuggy, that isn't the way translation works, even with modern languages. Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that the understanding of the signs being translated has developed over the last 82 years, as you would expect. Cuneiform is extremely complex - there are anything up to 1,500 separate recognised signs. It's not like Latin, where the identity of a character is unambiguous (and Akkadian doesn't work in the same way anyway). The word translated by Smith as "burnt" is clearly being interpreted a different way by all the subsequent translations, most likely because the sign itself is being recognised differently. First you have to transliterate the line from cuneiform to identify the words being represented. You then have to work out the most likely translation of those words.

Kuhrt evidently relies on Glassner because he gives a transliteration of the entire chronicle from the original cuneiform; he renders the disputed line as bala.ki sar sar un gaz. Only a few sources - Smith, Oppenheim, Glassner - provide transliterations; Glassner's is the most recent. (Lambert cites basically the same transliteration, so that isn't in dispute.) Brosius and Kuhrt clearly agree with Grayson's translation of this line. If a translator thinks a particular translation is correct, why change it? This doesn't mean that they are simply copying. There are plenty of other places in the text where they disagree with Grayson's translation. Complicating things further, as Dougweller notes, Akkadian words can have multiple meanings. Note that Oppenheim translates a particular word as "revolted". All the other later translations render the same word as "pillaged" or "plundered". The transliteration doesn't appear to be different between Oppenheim and Lambert, but the later translators evidently agree that the appropriate translation for the word in question is some kind of synonym for "looted" / "plundered" / "pillaged".

As for the place name, Tundrabuggy, Upû is Opis. "Opis" is merely a Greek rendering of the name Upû, just as "Babylon" is a Greek rendering of the name Babilu. See the very first sentence of Opis. Glassner has merely chosen to use the Akkadian name rather than the better-known Greek name. Both are correct. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see my error with the place name. But I still have serious problems with the differing translations, "the people" "the population" "the confused inhabitants" one translator believes that Nabonidus is the culprit...the population (people, confused (?) inhabitants...) leave, and then they are slaughtered or massacred by Cyrus or (possibly) Nabonidus...? and why isn't Lambert's translation on your chart? It is a valid translation by a highly respected translator and Akkadian expert.

Now Chris, Help me to understand this: "my translations rely heavily on existing ones." When I translate (or re-translate) a manuscript, I have the manuscript in front of me, not other peoples' manuscripts. And if I am translating myself, and expect credit for my translations, then the translations are totally my own and I should not have to "rely heavily" on others' translations. In fact I would not rely on them at all. Now it is possible that Kuhrt looked over a number of versions and decided which one she most approved of. She cites Brosius' translations at least 2 dozen times, and says that Brosius corrected her manuscript.

To Akilleus I would add that if we are going to make a judgment regarding Cyrus based on a few words in an ancient text, it is important for those words to be "correct" -- or at any rate demonstrate consensus among translators. That is one reason Nepah's point regarding the specific look that Lambert took of this particular passage is so important. Lambert is a highly respected authority in the field. If he sat down and (re) translated that particular passage and came up with a different interpretation, we have to sit up and take notice. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As Dougweller has said, the same word can have different meanings, and different translators have interpreted the contexts differently. Don't forget that words in one language may not map precisely onto words in another language. What our translators are doing is looking at the different meanings of the Akkadian words and trying to work out from the context which one is the most appropriate.

Why do you suppose that your personal experiences in a different language are relevant to those of our translators? We're talking about a very specialised field here. I've found only eight published translations, published in English and Dutch, from the last 125 years of research. Is there any reason why Kuhrt shouldn't draw on previous translations or acknowledge Brosius's help? We know already that she's not merely copying Grayson, since her translation of the full text is significantly different, even if a few individual lines may be the same. I find it very strange that people seem to be implying (per Nepah) that she must be lying about translating it or (per you) must be a plagiarist.

Lambert's paper doesn't appear in that table because it isn't a translation of the full text of the Nabonidus Chronicle, unlike all the other items I've listed. I've listed all the items that three reliable sources (Smith, Grayson and Kuhrt) list as translations of the Chronicle.

Nepah's entire argument about Lambert is an appeal to authority, a classic logical fallacy. Yes, Lambert is an expert in Akkadian. But this does not mean that he is correct. We have no business deciding whether he's correct! It's not up to us to "sit up and take notice". Our undue weight policy relies on the prominence of differing POVs, not on the "authority" of the person making a statement. Right now, the only source advocating Lambert's POV is Lambert himself. It's literally a tiny-minority viewpoint - you can't get much smaller than one man. Also, we are not making a judgment about Cyrus. We are simply reporting the judgment that mainstream historians have made. And as the table shows, every full-text translator since 1925, bar Oppenheim, have made a consistent judgment about Cyrus's actions at Opis, even if they disagree on some of the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tundrabuggy, there needs to be a source to show that there is a consensus among translators and there is a majority and minority POV about the specific line. On Kuhrt, we have had this discussion and she is not a noted linguist of Akkadian and has relied on other translators and has indicated so. She is simply not in the same class as Lambert or Grayson when it comes to the Akkadian language. She is tertiary source. Again, unless we mention the complexity of Akkadian and that there is no correct translation (per Doug Welter I agree)(there never will be because it is a dead language and we do not know its context and symbols 100%) in the introduction of the section, the mediation should go on. I have proposed actually that we mention this fact. Furthermore, to claim a majority POV or minority POV with regards to this line needs a source by itself that says majority of scholars say this and minority say that. The fact is only few scholars have translated this line of Akkadian(among thousands of line) and only one of them has actually written an article solely for this line and delved into linguistic/historical arguments. I would be more flexible obviously if the recommendations of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz with regards to the nature of the source itself is included in the introduction of the section. Yesterday and Today, I have e-mailed two scholars in Akkadian from two major universities. (I have CC'ed admins as well and what they say will have a large effect on my POV). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are other translations for Tundrabuggy: "In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The people of Akkad raised a revolt ; people were killed;" Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, Published by Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1903.

(does not say who did the killing).

Another POV: "In the month of Tesri(October), says the chronicle, 'Cyrus did battle at Opis on the Tigris against the troops of Akkad' One battle broke the Babylonian king's paid army; and there was no popular resistance anywhere. Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels'" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984

Another POV by Pierre Briant, a world famous achaemenid scholar: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously).

Another POV: "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007)

Unless there is a source that states "The majority of Akkadian scholars view the line to be correctly translated this way...", then we can not establish minority and majority POV. What we should do is state the various translations from Akkadian scholars and I believe since Lambert's translation is from 2007 and he is the world's leading expert and his translation has provided linguistic analysis/commentary and historical context and is devoted to the single line that is contested, his point of view should have primacy. Of course I have e-mailed two scholars this weekend and I hope they respond back.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Stub-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles
• Stub-Class Iran articles
• Mid-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles