Talk:Cyrus Cylinder/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

British Museum

I notice that much is made of the British Museum in the lead what with a couple of footnotes that include a quote. I also notice that there is nowhere we can check this out. So I did a little googling on my own and found the British Museum in a few places, namely here [1], here [2], and here[3]. Oddly, these sources do not seem to support what they are said to support. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Chris, you could find a source (link) to back your contention that "the dominant viewpoint - which according to the British Museum has been stood for over 100 years - is that the cylinder is regarded "as ancient Mesopotamian propaganda" ? None of the British Museum sources that I found above use the word "propaganda" at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The British Museum text is given in footnote 2. It's taken from the exhibit, isn't it? That's how I read it, but perhaps that should be clarified in the footnote. Providing links to physical things is beyond our current technology, alas. shellac (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably should be clarified. People sometimes forget there's a whole world of verifiable stuff outside the Internet. Doug Weller (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, people do forget that (or perhaps disbelieve it). As shellac says, it's from the exhibit's explanatory note. I've clarified this in the footnote. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

er...According to the links above from the British Museum, which appear to me to be from the exhibit's "explanatory notes", there is no such comment re "propaganda." Considering that I have three verifiable links [4][5],[6] from the British Museum in regard to this and not one makes that statement, I think it is time to dump the British Museum footnote altogether since it is apparently anecdotal, not verifiable, and conflicts with other, verifiable information. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"This clay cylinder is one of the most famous objects from ancient Persia. The Cyrus Cylinder is inscribed with a foundation inscription of Cyrus II (559-530BC) in Babylonian cuneiform. It was placed in the foundations of the city wall of Babylon soon after Cyrus’ conquest of the city in 539 BC, and was found in March 1879 at Amran, Babylon.

With its references to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods, the Cyrus Cylinder has been seen as an early ‘charter of human rights.’ However, such a concept would have been alien to Cyrus and his contemporaries"

Amran, Babylon

Catalogue no. 6 The British Museum website

I see, so you're calling me a liar now, are you? Have you actually been to the British Museum and personally read what they say about it? No? Then you have no reason to claim otherwise. It's perfectly verifiable, as others have noted. Nor is there any reason to believe that it's in any way out of line with the consensus of historians, since plenty of other sources say the same thing. It's not even contradicted by the BM sources you quote. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Chris, you would have no trouble at all insisting that anecdotal evidence put up by others should be removed in favor of verifiable information, especially when using loaded words like propaganda in the lead of a disputed article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs)

What is "anecdotal" about it? I've quoted the text in the article. It's eminently verifiable - it's just not online. Don't mistake "offline" with "anecdotal". -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I understand that this isn't ideal, but it isn't 'anecdotal'. Wikipedia appears to be full of references that require more effort to verify than a click, something that I (as a lazy person) resent. I'm sure you don't think ChrisO has fabricated this, and if he had he's taking a foolish risk since the evidence is publicly available. Perhaps he plans a daring raid on the British Museum to falsify the evidence? (National Treasure 2 has rotted my brain) shellac (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes worry that the Internet is producing a generation of people who won't bother to look at anything offline and refuse to believe it exists if they can't click on it... -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Chris. Maybe you and shellac could truck on over to the BM and get us a photo op. Your assertion is OR. My links are not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time for Chris and I to swallow our foolish words. Everything is online nowadays shellac (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, you're right. Is nothing sacred? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, now you want us to accept an unlabeled and unsubstantiated Flickr photo as being from the British Museum?! I think I will stick with www.britishmuseum.org links above. I find it surprising that an administrator and an experienced editor would be trying to ram such weak "proof" down our throats. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm beginning to wonder if there is any evidence that will satisfy you? Are you claiming that it was Photoshopped or something? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as neither an administrator nor an experienced editor I was not intending to ram anything down you throat. You seemed to doubt Chris's word, I found independent corroboration. The photo is part of a set taken at the museum, which is corroborated by other pictures on the web I saw. Scepticism is a trait I admire, by all means ask for proof, but this is sophistry. Sorry Tundrabuggy. shellac (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm thinking that we don't have any apparent reason to disbelieve the source even if it's someone taking a snap and putting it on Flicker. Would be best off course if we can verify this further somehow, but this source seems genuine enough unless there's evidence to the contrary. Is there a reason to believe that the content is bogus that I'm unaware of? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I put up three verifiable links to the British Museum about the Cyrus Cylinder in the first paragraph of this section. Not one mentions the word "propaganda." Considering that before I removed two references to "propaganda" (which no doubt by now Chris has edited back in -- see history) the word "propaganda" was in the lead twice, has its own section (the largest in the whole article) and was mentioned a total of ten times. The word itself is "loaded" and it is clear (to me and to others) that the way it is being used by Chris is part of a larger attempt to discredit Cyrus and this cylinder. The motivation is clear to me as the cylinder is generally thought to corroborate that Cyrus invited the Jews back to Jerusalem. This goes against the grain of those who would prefer that Jews did not have an historical claim to Jerusalem. Why not simply use the British Museum links I have posted, and dispense with this poorly sourced (Flickr) version? There is surely a large enough section below where the concept of "propaganda" is duly investigated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting the requirements of WP:LEAD - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." The largest single section of the article is about the mainstream interpretation of the cylinder, namely as an instrument of royal propaganda. That needs to be mentioned in the lead - it's hardly realistic to omit the mainstream historical interpretation, is it? I appreciate that you may have a personal disagreement with that interpretation, but we can't take that into account. As for the British Museum explanatory text that I've used as a source, I'll repeat my challenge to you below: take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you are so unhappy about it. It's not a "poorly sourced Flickr version". It's a hard-copy document located in room 52 of the British Museum, and it's as verifiable as any hyperlink. You haven't even explained why you think it's "poorly sourced". Do you think I invented it? Do you think the Flickr user Photoshopped it? What is your beef? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could go back to the BM and take a picture myself, but since it would only show the exact same thing, which TB would disbelieve anyway, what would be the point? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, Tundrabuggy: if you're really concerned about this, why not raise it at the reliable sources noticeboard? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough of this: see WP:RSN#Use of explanatory texts from museums. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my intention to smirk, but since you took it to RSN, I will mention that the general consensus was on my side, even to the extent of understanding my position when I referred to Chris's source as "anecdotal." The opinion was, that if there were better sources available, (and there are, ie mine) that they should be used. Since my 3 sources were from the British Museum, they should be used to express the "position" of the BM. Not a reference that requires a trip to London to access. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what the consensus at RSN was. It's certainly not what I said. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just quote you then, "Is it necessary to use the museum text? This artifact is very famous, and widely discussed in secondary sources; I would imagine that anything said in the museum sign could be found elsewhere. I'm not necessarily against using museum descriptions, especially with more obscure objects/works of art/etc, when there aren't many other sources, but when there are journal articles, books, etc. that discuss the subject I would prefer using those. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)"

Feel free to clarify. btw, I would just add, that the original statement under contention said : "The British Museum says..." thus Chris must use material from the British Museum, or reword the sentence without crediting the British Museum, using other sources as you have suggested. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what I said is clear: I prefer not to use museum text when there are journal articles, books, and so forth that discuss the subject. The BM webpages you've linked to are not journal articles nor books, so I was not suggesting that your three sources should be used instead of the sign. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the RSN, there are actually three BM sources quoted in the article - the inscription, an article by the BM's Director and a book by the BM's curator of Western Asian antiquities. All three explicitly address the propaganda interpretation. The fact that your very brief sources do not address it does not mean that the BM doesn't endorse the propaganda interpretation - it only means that those sources don't address it (probably for reasons of space). The sources I've quoted do have more space, so go into more detail. This whole either/or thing on your part is a completely false dichotomy - we should be describing what all the sources say, not cherrypicking on the basis of your personal POV. (And see your talk page, please.) -- ChrisO (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment/nag: I'm trying to slowly learn this topic as I find it interesting and also, I hope I can help tone down the atmosphere a bit (it's not that bad really, but there's room for improvement). For now I've skimmed over a couple of comments and one point raised by Tundrabuggy seemed reasonable. Chriso, if Tundrabuggy is correct that the word 'Propagada' appears twice in the lead, then I think there might eb room to narrow it down to a single appearance or maybe replace it entirely with a single paragraph explaining that it was exaggerated for X and Y purposes rather than use the word 'propaganda' which is a bit ambiguous pending on context if you ask me. Anyways, that's my own suggestion to a concern by Tundrabuggy - would be nice if you two can find a point or two where you can compromise and then possibly present your cases on a RfC where you can't reach consensus. Tundrabuggy - keep an open mind to compromise suggestions, Chris has a point about one source dealing with the topic and the other skipping it. Chris, please avoid words like 'cherrypicking' where possible. Both of you should try to keep things non personal as best as possible. If the word "you" slips into your text, it shows that you should take a 2 minute break and rephrase yourself in a less confrontational manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "propaganda" only appears once in the lead, which isn't unreasonable considering that an entire, very substantial, section of the article deals with this interpretation of the cylinder. It's not as if I've put the word in there arbitrarily - it's used explicitly by many historians, including the people who actually own the artifact. I'm afraid Tundrabuggy has already personalised this by claiming that I'm motivated by some sort of quasi-anti-semitic plot in his reply to you above. [7] Needless to say that's nonsense, but we're not going to get anywhere productive here if he assumes from the start that I'm acting in bad faith. I've not made any such assumptions on his part and I'd appreciate it if he could return the favour. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "propaganda" did indeed appear twice in the lead until I worked the change. See [8]. Now if we could only address the concerns of Raayen ("the article reaches to 'a' view") or those of Jayjg ("And that is the obvious issue; minority views which put Cyrus in a bad light are emphasized, whereas the standard view is minimized.") My comment regarding your motivation has nothing to do with anti-semitism, and more to do Palestinian nationalism as does anything associated with Jerusalem, as I have pointed out in the past. I believe that a sensitivity to these issues would help achieve consensus. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Tundrabuggy is concerned about somehow giving this article a perspective related with the Palestinians and that there is possibly too much emphasis on making Cyrus look bad. ChrisO, could you please review the article again "thinking for the enemy" and note back here if you can see anything which makes these concerns valid in your eyes? Please avoid making mentions to past conflicts - we're trying to open a new page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a read through with Jaakobou's words in mind. Since I know virtually nothing of this area my advice won't be that useful but here it is anyway.

On the 'making Cyrus look bad' front I didn't feel it said much about Cyrus at all. Lots about how the cylinder portrays him, and that he endorsed this, but little directly about him. Boastful, but that's emperors for you.

One section I can see that might raise an eyebrow concerns the "conciliatory treatment of the Babylonians". Here we have comments that there were reasons for this other than Cyrus' humanity. However it doesn't say they were the only reasons, and it is preceded by a section contrasting Cyrus' actions with (near) contemporaries. To be honest this paragraph could be reduced in length.

Concerning the whole 'propaganda' thing this is clearly an issue of weight rather than inclusion. Here I have a suggestion: the "As an instrument of royal propaganda" section is rather long, and that makes it seem that the article dwells on the propaganda issue. How about breaking it in two? One section on the cylinder as part of a Babylonian tradition, and the Persian co opting of it, followed by a section on the cylinder qua propaganda. That's pretty much what is there anyway.

Finally the "as a charter of human rights" could do with a better response that the http://www.savepasargad.com/ links.

shellac (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't undersell yourself, those certainly aren't ignorant suggestions. :-)

On the 'making Cyrus look bad' front, I think it rather depends on whether you have a preconceived view of Cyrus. If you're in the Cyrus Fan Club and believe that he was the greatest Iranian ever or was the saviour of the Jews, as some people apparently do believe, then of course you're going to interpret anything which contradicts that view as being an attack on Cyrus's reputation. Of course, the problem is that the reputation of Cyrus has become a matter of importance to modern nationalists and possibly religious fundamentalists. As you say, emperors are boastful; when the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, a very comparable work, is described as a work of propaganda (which it clearly is), you don't get outraged Italians or Christians denouncing such descriptions.

I agree with you about the www.savepasargad.com links - it's plainly not a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:SOURCES), so I think this needs to come out. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Savepasargad.com is an online news site, we are only using it for verifiability (similar to how you used a Flickr image for verifiability), otherwise we're clearly attributing the statement to the author, Kaveh Farrokh. We're not using this website as an independent source, so there is no issue here. Please don't remove opposing views under such pretexts. Khoikhoi 04:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, WP:V is about the reliability of publishers, not authors. That's why it speaks of third-party published sources and deprecates personally published material. The point of WP:V is to assure the reader that the sources we're using have gone through a proper editorial process. There's no evidence that this Savepasargad.com outfit even has an editorial process; it's a very amateurish website which seems to have been put together by an ad hoc group of people for an advocacy campaign. Where is your evidence that it is considered reliable or has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pahlavi propaganda

Josef Wiesehöfer has written an article on the creation of the Cyrus myth by the Pahlavi regime: Kyros, der Schah und 2500 Jahre Menschenrechte. Historische Mythenbildung zur Zeit der Pahlavi-Dynastie, in: Conermann, Stephan (Hg.): Mythen, Geschichte(n), Identitäten. Der Kampf um die Vergangenheit, EB-Verlag, Schenefeld/Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-930826-52-6, pp. 55-68.

According to Wiesehöfer the "human rights charter" interpretation can be traced back to The white revolution of Iran, a book by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi published in 1967 (Wiesehöfer p. 58; the German edition, Die soziale Revolution Irans, has it on page 15).

According to Wiesehöfer the scope of the Cyrus cylinder declaration is local, not empire-wide (Als reichsweite Deklaration ist diese babylon-zentrierte Urkunde jedenfalls nicht anzusehen, p. 66), and Cyrus can be viewed as a human rights pioneer just as little as the Shah can be viewed as an enlightened and philantropic ruler (Kyros als Vorkämpfer der UN-Menschenrechtspolitik [...] ist genauso ein Phantom wie der aufgeklärte und menschenfreundliche Schah von Persien, p. 67).

Wiesehöfer refers to and recommends an article by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg: Cyrus en de sjah, in: Groniek 62 (1979), pp. 3-9. --Konstock (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for that. Ali Ansari says something rather similar in his book Modern Iran Since 1921 (quoted in the "As a charter of human rights" section of this article), in which he relates it to something the Shah termed the "Great Civilization" (which I think was his term for a modernised Iran). It also fits with what I found in researching that section of the article - I found literally no sources in English referring to the "human rights charter" interpretation dating to before 1970. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The concept of a "human rights charter" is relatively new anyway. Much history and interpretation cited here was written after the Shah expropriated the Cylinder as propaganda for his regime, and specifically to counter that particular contemporary use of it. Pahlavi's use of it, however, should not detract from the long-held historical view that Cyrus was indeed a man before his time, tolerant of others' religions and customs in a way that many tyrants, in modern memory and even today, are not. Much of the history describing this artifact as "propaganda" is a reaction to Pahlavi use of it, not the long historical view. There is nothing wrong with 'propaganda' per se, it is simply self-advertisement. However, contemporaneously the concept of propaganda has taken on a highly negative cast, as if all self-advertisement were lies. This wiki article seems to be labouring under this illusion, to its detriment. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Specifically to counter that particular contemporary use of it" is OR on your part. It's fanciful to suppose that the many books and papers published in recent years that discuss the cylinder should have all been motivated by a desire to counter the Shah's propaganda. The sources that address the Shah's use of the cylinder do so, for the most part, only in passing - they devote at the most a few lines to the issue, mentioning it to dismiss it. There are a handful of sources (such as Wiesehöfer above) that do focus on the Shah's claims as the main issue, but these seem to be very much the exception. The reason why the "history and interpretation" cited here mostly post-dates the Shah's claims is simply because in writing the article, I've tried to present current, modern historical views of the cylinder. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous articles that were written "specifically" to counter the Shah's use of the cylinder. Other more contemporary historians who wrote at the time also were responding to the political climate of the day. I am certainly not trying to say that every history written since then was written specifically in reaction to that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but unless it's clear that a source was written specifically to counter the Shah's use of the cylinder - such as the Wiesehöfer piece cited by Konstock - then you can't really say that any source was motivated by this issue. Assigning motives on the basis of personal speculation is original research, pretty much by definition. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The source given for the translation at the bottom of the article references says : "Because this web edition was made to counter propaganda, Mr. Schaudig's footnotes could be ignored; some aspects have been simplified; and Personenkeile have been rendered with m instead of i (cf. the web versions of the Babylonian Chronicles) [9] I think this should be made clear. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In relation to my above contention that the recent emphasis away from Cyrus as "tolerant" and concerned for human rights I found this in Daniel-- HIstory of Iran, quoted in the original article (though erroneously) Much recent scholarship has likewise emphasized, rather anachronistically and just as tendentiously, his supposed "tolerance" of other cultures and his concern for "human rights." This sentence does two things for my argument. 1) It points out that much recent scholarship has made much of his tolerance and concern for human rights, and thus, while Daniel apparently doesn't agree with it, demonstrates that much recent scholarship does not share the opposing view and 2)That the push to paint Cyrus as the stereotypically "bad" Iranian king (Daniel's words) is a reaction to recent developments. As Daniels puts it on the same page: The personality and exploits of Cyrus have exerted a fascination upon writers down to the present day. Many of them, usually monarchists or apologists for one type of autocracy or another, have held him up as a paragon of the ideal ruler. It is this development that had many historiographers emphasize the other in reaction. He goes on to say: Little is ultimately known of how Cyrus actually acquired and governed his empire, much less about his intentions and sentiments, so the way is always open to different interpretations. Thus it is important to either put both 'mainstream' views on or not to interpret at all, but the article should be balanced and neutral and not emphasize a particular view. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the section from Daniel that is most relevant to an article on the Cyrus Cylinder reads as follows: "The gracious words of the "Cyrus Cylinder" are formulaic repetitions of sentiments expressed by priests on behalf of Mesopotamian rulers at least as far back as the time of Hammurabi; they reflect not so much his convictions as the degree to which Cyrus was awed by Babylonian antiquity and deferred to the norms of a culture he felt manifestly grander than his own." (Daniel, History of Iran p. 39) In other words, Daniel doesn't think we can tell much about the "real" Cyrus from the Cylinder. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your "of course" refers to but let's put that sentence in a slightly larger context: "Little is ultimately known of how Cyrus actually acquired and governed his empire, much less about his intentions and sentiments, so the way is always open to different interpretations. The favors he granted he probably bestowed to secure political tranquility, not out of any philosophical purity. The praise given him by Isaiah perhaps says as much about Jewish messianic expectations of deliverance from Babylonian oppression as about Cyrus. The gracious words of the "Cyrus Cylinder" are formulaic repetitions of sentiments expressed by priest on behalf of Mesopotamian rulers at least as far back as the time of Hammurabi; they reflect not so much his convictions as the degree to which Cyrus was awed by Babylonian antiquity and deferred to the norms of a culture he felt manifestly grander than his own. In sum, Cyrus was primarily a conqueror who dazzled his contemporaries and stirred their imagination with his rise from relative obscurity to mastery of an empire of unprecedented dimension--but one with an enviable ability to do so without making unnecessary enemies and to come away with a remarkably unscathed historical reputation." -- After Daniels tells us that we know little about his history and less about his intentions and sentiments, Daniels proceeds to assert his own view without caveat. He does go on to tell us, however, on page 53: "At the same time, he arranged for the restoration of these temples, and organized the return to their homelands of a number of people who had been held in Babylonia by the Babylonian kings. Though this account refers only to Mesopotamian and Iran, it represents a policy which he carried out through out his newly conquered empire, and the document transcribed in Ezra 6:3-5 authorizing the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, and the subsequent return of the Jews (Ezra 2) to Palestine, were manifestations of this policy." Simply because Cyrus conformed to the traditions and the norms of the Babylonians in having the Cylinder written does not subtract anything from his legacy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy" according to who? What you perhaps don't realise is that Western views of Cyrus have evolved considerably. He was regarded in rather a bad light until Xenophon's Cyropaedia was rediscovered a few hundred years ago and promoted as "a practical treatise on political virtue and social organization", with Cyrus himself being lionised as "a benevolent despot [ruling] over his admiring and willing subjects." In other words, the traditional view of Cyrus owes rather more to Renaissance idealism than historical reality. More recent historians take a less deferential view because they recognise the traditional pro-Xenophon bias. As regards the supposed "human rights charter" aspect of the Cylinder, I can say categorically that this is a fringe viewpoint among historians. I haven't found a single reference to it dating to before the Shah's regime started promoting it in 1971. The vast majority of post-1971 reliable sources that do mention it do so only to dismiss it. The "human rights charter" claim needs to be mentioned, but we mustn't make the mistake of thinking it has any serious support in the literature - it doesn't. I might add, also, that there is considerable dispute about whether Ezra is historically accurate, so don't make the mistake of reading your Hebrew Bible literally. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance idealism? Xenophon lived in 400BC. He was a near contemporary of Cyrus. Just because we were ignorant of how contemporaries viewed cyrus doesn't make their view of him invalid. On another note, it seems that if the cylinder was meant as propaganda, it could have been placed in a more prominent location than under the foundation of a temple.--Ff11 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the whole idea of a "human rights charter" is a contemporary one, more like an analogy than an actual fact. Certainly Cyrus did not think of it that way at the time, but... he was religiously tolerant, as well as humane in his policy of restoring deported foreigners to their homes in his empire. This way of governing was revolutionary at the time, and as Daniels comments "represents a policy which he carried out through out his newly conquered empire, and the document transcribed in Ezra 6:3-5 authorizing the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, and the subsequent return of the Jews (Ezra 2) to Palestine, were manifestations of this policy." This is not my personal reading of the Bible, but the words of Daniel and the perspective of other historians. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So could you name and quote some of these other historians, please (modern academic historians, if possible)? --Konstock (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, besides Daniel above, I put some of this in the article, here are a couple more: At the same time, Dandamaev goes on to show the considerable differences between Cyrus' policies toward subjugated nations and those of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Assyrian and Babylonian rulers "collected as much tribute as they could" and used "excessive violence toward the unwilling," as well as deporting whole populations of people, unlike Cyrus. Cyrus permitted the return of those people who had been previously deported, including Phoenicians, Elamites and Jews. Under his rule, the gods were returned to their proper places and religious centers given special protection. As part of this unique policy, he ordered the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem. {ref name="Political History" M. A. Dandamaev trans. W. J. Vogelsang, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, p. 53. BRILL, 1989. }

{Referencing-- T.C. Mitchell, Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum, p. 82. Cambridge University Press, 1988. I p.53} At the same time, Mitchell goes on to explain that Cyrus arranged for the restoration of the temples, and organised the return of those deported by the Babylonian kings. "Though this account refers only to Mesopotamia and Iran, it represents a policy which he carried out throughout his newly conquered empire, and the document transcribed in Ezra 6:3-5 authorizing the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, and the subsequent return of the Jews (Ezra 2) to Palestine, were manifestations of this policy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So there is Dandamaev, who indeed assesses Cyrus' policy as "unique". But I can't see where Daniel advocates that Cyrus' "way of governing was revolutionary at the time" (as you do claim), and I can't find anything like that in the Mitchell reference either. --Konstock (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You won't, it seems to be OR on Tundrabuggy's part. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that quite a bit of the discussion here would be more useful at Cyrus the Great, as indeed would be some of the article text. The article on the Cyrus cylinder is about the artifact and the text on it, and its reception in the modern era. Disputes about Cyrus' legacy should be in the article on Cyrus. The quote(s) from Daniel speak to both issues--Daniel tells us that we can't tell much about Cyrus' motivations, because the cylinder is a formulaic document using long-established conventions. Daniel's comment from p. 53 about Cyrus' restoration of temples, etc., seems to be a matter better discussed at Talk:Cyrus the Great. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, however, as long as the cylinder is going to be claimed to be propaganda, we have to differentiate between what is and what is not propaganda. And the restoration of temples and the religious freedom and the freeing of the slaves and the return of the deported (as well as the non-violent conquest of Babylon) is corroborated by other historical documents and is understood to be fact, not mere self-aggrandizement as suggested. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not understood as anything of the sort. There's no archaeological evidence to support Cyrus's claims, and it's not even certain whether he freed the slaves (including the Jews) or whether he was credited retrospectively with this by the unknown authors of Ezra. This isn't the place to go into detail on that subject but you're showing a major lack of awareness of current scholarly opinion on the topic. Nor are we here to promote what individual editors consider to be "the truth" rather than presenting a rounded view of the various POVs. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that explicitly state Cyrus freed the Jews. "Current scholarly opinion" needs to be sourced per Wikipedia guidelines. That is a source needs to state what is "current scholarly opinion" rather than you claiming it as so. Let's get back to the issue, the issue was that Pahlavi Propoganda. As we can see in the sources I have collected, the intrepretation of Cyrus as a Humane ruler(partially due to the Cyrus Cylinder) does go back before the last Shah. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What we know: Cyrus claims he freed them, the Babylonians claim Cyrus freed them, the Jews claim Cyrus freed them, the Greeks claim Cyrus freed them.--Ff11 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Cyrus cylinder doesn't say anything about the Jews, and where it does talk about freeing captives there are indications that it's not referring to the Jews. The Hebrew Bible claims that Cyrus freed the Jews, but this is disputed by historians. I'm not sure the Greeks say anything about Cyrus freeing the Jews - the latter were a rather insignificant people at the time. In short, it's not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

As for Nepaheshgar, you're conflating two things. Yes, Cyrus was promoted as a humane ruler from Renaissance times, when Xenophon's Cyropedia was rediscovered and Cyrus was portrayed as an ideal for Renaissance rulers. (For a discussion of this, see H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Cyrus in Italy: from Dante to Machiavelli. Some Explorations of the Reception of Xenophon's Cyropaedia", in Achaemenid History V: The Roots of the European Tradition). Modern historians take a much more sceptical view - the Cyropedia is generally regarded as a very unreliable source. The issue of whether the Cyrus cylinder is a "human rights charter" as the Shah's regime claimed is an entirely separate matter. It's a claim that wasn't made before about 1970 and has no support in the academic literature. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1970 argument does not add much to the discussion. A large portion of the cylinder (referred to as fragment B, containing essentially the second half of the text) was only identified and joined to fragment A at that time. Any comments made about the text on the cylinder before this date have to be taken with a grain of salt. The cylinder does mention the freeing of captives, whether those captives were Jews or not is not entirely relevant to Cyrus being an unusually magnanimous ruler. But what the indications that the cylinder is specifically NOT referring to the Jews?--Ff11 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1970 argument does add much to the discussion for a simple reason - it explains the context in which the cylinder was promoted as a "human rights charter" and illustrates how that claim comes from a political rather than an academic source. As for the B fragment, this is already described in the text - it's nothing like half of the text. It consists of about 1 or 2 lines out of 46. Almost the entire text and its general gist were well understood within only a couple of years of its discovery in 1877. Regarding the Jews, the cylinder says that captives were returned to various locations on the periphery of Babylonia and Mesopotamia. It doesn't say anything about Judea. So the cylinder by itself can't be read as direct evidence of Cyrus liberating the Jews. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to get a good idea of what a document is all about when you can only look at half of it, as with the cylinder until 1970. Fragment A contains lines 1-35, and fragment B lines 36-45, not quite half, but not 1 or 2 lines either. It is slightly greater than 22% to be exact. The entire text could not have been well understood since 1877, since a significant portion of it was missing until 1970. The passage describing the return of people and object seems to be the following: "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings" which does not mention the Jews by name, but certainly does not exclude them in any way, nor does it put a limit on the area captives were allowed to return to. It can not be read as direct evidence, but it is certainly consistent with the other narrative.--Ff11 (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"What we know: Cyrus claims he freed them, the Babylonians claim Cyrus freed them, the Jews claim Cyrus freed them, the Greeks claim Cyrus freed them.--Ff11 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)"

Sorry but what Greek historians are you talking about Ff11? Let's not make things up!DavidRub (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Sancisi Weerdenburg (who passed away recently) has been criticized by her approach to Cyrus by other Achaemenid scholars like Curtis. We can not again emphasize some scholars over others. The approach of Weerdenburg, Wiesehofer, Kuhrt (who has been called revisionist also with regards to the selucids) are very recent (the shift partly due to the disputed translation of battle of Opis (see Wisehofer's book)), but their approach still is not unanimous and for example Encyclopedia Britannica does not carry it. Richard Frye for example has a differing viewpoint or other scholars I have mentioned. My guess would be that the image of Cyrus as a humane ruler was known even before Renaissance. For example due to the Bible and Herodotus. Anyhow, I did not find anything that specifically states the Shah was the first to consider the cylinder as a human rights charter. If you do, please bring it. The Shah did use (or misue) the image of Cyrus and legitimate sources exist with this regard. But there should be a definite statement that the Shah considered it first as a human rights charters. By wikipedia WP:verifiability and WP:RS, there are other sources. As an example: Some modern scholars have called these words (Cyrus Cylinder) the world's first declaration of human rights. Cyrus's cylinder is on display at the British London Musuem.(Michael Woods, Mary B. Woods, "Seven Wonders of the Ancient Middle East", Published by Twenty-First Century Books, 2008. page 28.). Note Some modern scholars is exactly the terms we should look for, since sources that state the opinion of scholarship are superior to what we as Wikipedia editors think is the opinion of scholars.

My own personal opinion is expressed by Curtis, Tallis and Salvini. John Curtis, Nigel Tallis, Beatrice Andre-Salvini, "Forgotten Empire ", Published by University of California Press, 2005. excerpt: Because of the reference to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods the cylinder has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'Charter of Human Rights'. Such a concept would have been quite alien to Cyrus's contemporaries, and indeed the cylinder says nothing of human rights; but return of the Jews and of other deported peoples were a significant reversal of the policies of ealier Assyrian and Babylonian Kings(page 59).

I think this view is the current main stream. The words propoganda and human rights and etc are sort of streches. But if propoganda is going to be mentioned then the sources such as Woods should be mentioned. The middle ground is Curtis. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it was Western scholars themselves that cameup with the term human rights charter, since the term itself did not exist in the Persian language till recently. Note Will Durant who wrote before the last Shah and before 1970: (Cyrus the Great) was the most amiable of conquerers and found his empire upon generosity. His enemies knew that he was lenient, and they did not fight him with that desperate courage which men show when their only choice is to kill or die. So I do not think the Shah started this. Plus if I wanted to follow wiki-guidelines, I have published sources which explicitly state: The Cylinder of Cyrus is widely referred to as the first charter of human rights. That is I have WP:RS and WP:Verifiability sources which state "widely". And another source that mentions "Some scholars".

I think we can balance the article by just mentioning the quote from Curtis which I believe is fair and balanced. The rest of the stuff both pro human rights charter and non-human rights charters. can be removed. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Read carefully what Curtis says. He doesn't endorse any of the claims about a "human rights charter". He says, entirely correctly, that his policies on the deported peoples was a reversal of previous state policy. That is generally accepted. As for Cyrus as a humane ruler, according to Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Cyrus actually didn't have a very good image prior to the rediscovery of Xenophon. To quote Amélie Kuhrt, his "very positive reputation ... is the result of selective and/or uncritical reading" dating largely from when Xenophon and Herodotus were rediscovered in the 15th century (see her essay in Heinz & Feldman, Representations of Political Power). The origins of the "human rights charter" myth are discussed at the top of this section. The "rest of the stuff" certainly should not be removed, as it's a necessary summary of the arguments either way. WP:NPOV requires a balanced presentation - that's a non-negotiable requirement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC):

I agree that Curtis does not endorse a claim about a "human rights charter". Such a concept did not exist before the 20th or 19th century. So I totally agree with him and he is a well known Achaemenid scholar. But what Curtis is pointing to is what this book on human rights is stating:(W. J. Talbott, "Which Rights Should be Universal?", Oxford University Press US, 2005. excerpt from pg 40): Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. This is what Curtis is also pointing to. This time I have quoted a book about human rights since the issue is about the charter being viewed as a human right charter. So I think a compromise version along this line Curtis/Talbott is a good proposal for that section. But what I was looking for is a direct proof that the last Shah was the first person to call it the cylinder a "human rights charter". Because I have sources that state: "Some scholars" or "Widely known among scholars" as a "human rights charter". As per Kuhrt, here is where she is exactly wrong. The Bible predates the knowledge of Xenophon/Herodotus and has given a positive viewpoint (actually divine viewpoint) on Cyrus. He is called the "annoited one", the only non-Hebrew in the old or new testament with such a distinction. If the bible had a negative image, thousands of Xenophon/Herodotus would not have mattered at that tme. If we are incorporating many sources (I rather keep it simple to just what Curtis has stated), then we ned to have multiple viewpoints and statements that "scholars think X or Y" should be sourced. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Bible predates the knowledge of Xenophon/Herodotus and has given a positive viewpoint (actually divine viewpoint) on Cyrus."

Both assertions are factually false. the Bible was written at various times and extensively edited after Xenophon and Herodotus. We have absolutely NO IDEA what the Bible would have said about Cyrus until long after Xenophon and Herodotus, and may in fact, and probably was, influenced by both. We have no proof Cyrus even appeared in any version of the Tanakh before 200 BCEDavidRub (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bible section certainly needs to be overhauled. I'll have a look at it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous citation?

I noticed that Khoikhoi had (re)added the following line from an old version of this article: "these writers have been criticized for their Western-centric approach to human rights and the false notion that the concept of human rights is so Western in its philosophical underpinnings, that the idea of it having Eastern roots is therefore impossible", references to John M. Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, p. 21. I've checked this book. Page 21 says nothing about human rights, and there is no mention anywhere in the book of Cyrus the Great, the Cyrus cylinder or Babylon. It also doesn't discuss "these writers" [i.e. the people who comment on the Cyrus cylinder] at any point. The reference is clearly erroneous. I strongly advise people to check what they're putting into articles rather than just hoping it's accurate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Supposed original research

Where is the original research that I'm being accused of by Tundrabuggy and Khoikhoi? This is the full unedited text of the paragraph from Ansari's book that I'm summarising:

By early 1971, preparations for the celebrations were in earnest and the person of Cyrus the Great emerged as less of an historical and cultural icon, and increasingly as a fundamental principle of government ideology. Indeed, before the Shah could effectively identify with Cyrus, the Achaemenid king had to be introduced and made familiar to a wider general public. Indeed, Cyrus was even evoked in the Prime Minister's budget speech: 'Since the beginning of its glorious history, our country has been famous for peace, friendship and humanity, and this can be clearly proved by studying the methods and measures of the great kings such as Cyrus the Great, whose efforts made possible our celebration next year of the 2500th anniversary of the Iranian monarchy!' In his New Year message, the Shah was in buoyant mood, declaring the new Persian year to be the year of Cyrus the Great.' 'Cyrus the Great Year' was marked by special programmes on television and radio, and articles in the press: 'Schools, universities, factories, trade unions, women's and youth organisations have all prepared plans and set committees to ensure their playing a proper part in the festivities!' Literary magazines and journals published widely on the ancient period and the symbol adopted for the ceremonies was the Cyrus cylinder.

There's no OR or synthesis here; I'm faithfully summarising exactly what Ansari says, including the context for why the cylinder was adopted in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ansari is talking about the 2500 years of celebrations, he says nothing about the cylinder as a charter of human rights. You can't use this here, it would be a synthesis of published material to advance a position. Khoikhoi 20:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand Khoikhoi's objection. Ansari describes the political and ideological background of the shah's promotion of Cyrus as a founder of "Iranian monarchy"; the Cylinder was a symbol in the celebrations of the 2500 year anniversary celebrations of the foundation of said monarchy. This is relevant background for what was said about the Cylinder during the '70s. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's objection is quite incoherent. The regime promoted Iran as a country of "peace, friendship and humanity". Cyrus was promoted as the founder of the monarchy that had supposedly made these things possible. The celebrations were intended to promote the monarchy. The cylinder was adopted as the symbol of the celebrations. On the opening day of the celebrations, the shah's sister presented the UN secretary general with a copy of the cylinder, claiming that it was a human rights charter. It's a straightforward sequence of events. There is no synthesis here - that's exactly what the sources say. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a reminder to everyone, for best results, please try to keep comments as civil as possible, thanks. --Elonka 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's always good advice, but I'm not understanding where this thread strayed into incivility. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. Why not rather remind, say, Jayjg for making a comment like this one?-- Konstock (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand Khoikhoi's objection either. What "position" is being advanced here? --Konstock (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If Khoikhoi can't or won't explain his objection, I propose to restore the content that he keeps deleting (see [10]). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the section of text I deleted, with my explanation to follow:

The government made a concerted effort to present the Achaemenid king as a humane and enlightened figure, a theme addressed in the 1971 budget speech of Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveida:

Since the beginning of its glorious history, our country has been famous for peace, friendship and humanity, and this can clearly be proved by studying the methods and measures of the great kings such as Cyrus the Great, whose efforts made possible our celebration next year of the 2500th anniversary of the Iranian monarchy."

This section does not refer to the issue of calling the cylinder a "charter of human rights," but goes much further, setting up Cyrus as a "humane and enlightened figure," (strawman) and then attempting to interweave the concepts of "charter of human rights" & "propaganda", to include not only the cylinder, but also Cyrus' reputation in history. While it is true that the Shah's government did use attempt to use a modern concept to describe a historical artifact("first charter of human rights"), and that the Shah's use of it as such may be considered "propaganda," that does little to nothing to actually enlighten us regarding the cylinder, nor should it or does it reflect in the slightest on Cyrus' actual reputation. It does not belong in the article. But then, the whole section is heavy and mostly unnecessarily, imo. OR comes in where ChrisO attempts to include Cyrus' reputation as humane and enlightened as mere propaganda....straying far afield from the question of "first charter of human rights" issue. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Again ChrisO seems to ignore that Cyrus the Great's humanity was known at least from the time of Plato. And his cylinder was praised before the last Shah. The late Professor Will Durant noted that: "The first principle of his [Cyrus the Great] policy was that the various peoples of his empires would be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state. Instead of sacking cities and wrecking temples he showed a courteous respect for the deities of the conquered, and contributed to maintain their shrines, even the Babylonians who had resisted him so long, warmed towards him when they found him preserving their sanctuaries and honoring their pantheon. Wherever he went in his unprecedented career he offered pious sacrifice to the local divinities. Like Napoleon he accepted indifferently all religions, and-with much better grace-honored all the gods."[Durant, Will (1942) The Story of Civilization:(Part One): Our Oriental Heritage. New York: Simon & Shuster..pp.353]. Before the last Shah took power and before 1970. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I added two statements here: Professor Arthur Cotterell has noted that:"…the Persian respect for the religious sensibilities of a subject people [the Jews] shown in the edict [Cyrus’ proclamation on behalf of the Jews in the book of Ezra] contrasts sharply with the Hellenizing policies of the later Seleucid Dynasty (312-64 BC) which gave rise to the Maccabean revolt."[47]. Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau:"He [Cyrus the Great] can be said without fear of contradiction to rank amongst the five of six greatest leaders of humanity [p.31] …Although Babylon had been taken it was not looted or burnt. Cyrus did not destroy the walls or remove the gates [p.43]… Under his [Cyrus the Great] regime, which did not differentiate between classes or religions, the Jews were treated in exactly the same way as anyone else [p.47]". with reards to the old testament section. Tundrabuggy has made a good point about revisionism. We know scholars agree that:Cyrus and his successors permitted them [the Jews] to return home from exile and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. . Yet there seems to be a sort of scholarship propping up which praises Nabonidus who had Jews enslaved. It is classical revisionism and is being headed by people like Kuhrt. Imagine 2400 years from now, scholars (like some euro-centrists/pan-arabs) consider H from 1946 to be good, and etc. I do not understand what sort of scholarship is this that praises Nabonidus who had Jews enslaved. I think non-euro-centric academics and decent western scholars need to work together in order to make sure the euro-centric types with their superiority complexes (looking down on all easterners) do not push revisionist viewpoints. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi is completely right here. The source (Ansari) is not talking about the Cyrus Cylinder. So ChrisO is violating WP:synthesis. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous citation ?(II)

3rd paragraph in the lead: ...although criticized by others as "anachronistic and erroneous" [See e.g. T.C. Mitchell, Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum, p. 82. Cambridge University Press, 1988. ISBN 0521368677] -- that quote is not there. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the quotation marks seem to have been added to ChirsO's content by CreazySuit.[11] I'd like to note that the "by others" has a special tag for it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

'

Too much emphasis on Kuhrt

Kuhrt ihas been called a revisionist by independent authors: [12]. For example on the Seleucid empire: What we get, in fact, is a revisionist view of the empire in the third century: not a tottering colossus destined to collapse, but a vibrant and cohesive unit in which Greek and non-Greek cultures and systems are juxtaposed. And again another author has called her a revisionist, Kathryn Gutzwiller, "For a revisionist history of the Seleucid empire...see Sherwin and Kuhrt" (Kathryn Gutzwiller, A Guide to Hellenistic Literature , 2007). Kuhrt is also mentioned here: The revisionists (minimalists, etc.) agree in emphasizing the unreliability of the biblical text as evidence for the history of ancient Israel, some of them going so far as to put "ancient Israel" in quotation marks. [13]. I know privately, some serious Achaemenid scholars ahve criticized her approach (and weedenburger too). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? Revisionism isn't a bad thing. Historians continually re-assess historical interpretations. You seem to be trying to find reasons to exclude Kuhrt. The issue is whether Kuhrt represents mainstream historical opinion, which she evidently does - her works are widely cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If an idea is currently consider "revisionist", then it is not mainstream. I am not trying to exclude Kuhrt, but she is given more weight than more popular and mainstream writings on the topics. [14]: Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements. . --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very crude way of looking at it, and in the case of Kuhrt it's simply wrong. It's so mainstream that it was even the subject of a major exhibition in the British Museum a few years ago - "Forgotten Empire", and you've quoted from the companion book of the same name. "Revisionists" in this case simply means "historians who challenge the old 19th/early 20th century viewpoints" which treated the likes of Xenophon, Herodotus and Ezra as hard fact (or something close to it). 50 or 100 years ago historians viewed ancient Near Eastern history entirely through a Greek or Biblical prism. Now they're seeking to view it in its own terms. The "tottering colossus" POV that your source cites above was the traditional view of the Persian Empire (you could also mention "despotic" and "decadent"), coming largely from the often hostile view that the Greeks had. Kuhrt and others are reassessing the period from a viewpoint that isn't so distorted by hostile outside views. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see no evidence here that Kuhrt is not mainstream. She is widely published and cited (e.g., in the Brill Companion to Herodotus, she has the article on the history of Persia). What's more, one of the pages you linked [15] praises one of the textbooks he talks about (Spielvogel) for recommending Kuhrt in its "additional reading" section. The quote from Gutzwiller above in your post is also a recommendation to read Sherwin/Kuhrt. As ChrisO says, "revisionist" is not necessarily a negative label. Indeed, what you (and others on this page) seem to be misunderstanding is that Kuhrt's "revisionism" consists of writing NE history from NE sources, rather than using Greek historians as the main guide. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely the point I was making. "Revisionism" also shouldn't be interpreted as meaning "minority viewpoint". Quite the contrary - in this case it's about as mainstream as you can get. She wrote an entire chapter of the Cambridge Ancient History, the gold standard of historical reference works, from this viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, not all revisionism is bad as long as it is soundly grounded, but her viewpoint on the Bible and Cyrus is not mainstream. There are different and more well ground Achaemenid scholars, but look at the number of times she has been quoted relative to them. I agree not all classical sources are unbiased, but they are what we have in writing the history of that era. By simply disregarding a large portion of them, anyone can create a narrative of their own with regards to Achaemenid history. As per the book, forgotten empire, I have it and again its viewpoint on Cyrus is different than what Kuhrt has been preaching. The British Museum Infact I have friend that knows Curtis and he has criticized the Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Kuhrt approach to Achaemenid history with regards to the whole re-characterization of Cyrus. That re-characetirization is revisionist and for the most part, not mainstream. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We use reliable sources around here, not anonymous "friends". Things don't become true by repeating them. Show me a source that says Kuhrt is non-mainstream. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist by definition is not mainstream, even if it is cited. I showed a source that calls her a revisionist. My main concern is that many achaemenid scholars have been left out of this article, and undo weight is given to a particular scholar. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you're engaging in original research again, just like you did with your nonsensical claims about Kuhrt's qualifications. You need to show that Kuhrt is non-mainstream. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For example: However, this view has been challenged by Amelie Kuhrt. Okay why should her viewpoint be given such a prominence in the first place? I see her name from everything to do with Akkadian translation, Seleucids, Achaemenids, old testament and etc. Each of these fields requires a specialists. It seems many of the articles that have to do with ancient Persia have brought her name prominently and this will make the overall Encyclopedia somewhat unbalanced. So to balance it, other Achaemenid scholars should be mention on a variety of topics. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As per nonsensical claim, you could not provide a single journal paper from Kuhrt that shows specialization in Akkadian, Hebrew, Old Greek, Latin, Old Persian and etc. I know who the experts are in Old Persian for example and she is not one of them and has not written single paper in Old Persian from a linguistic perspective. My viewpoint is correct as you failed to prove she was an expert linguist in Akkadian or any of the other languages she mentioned. Many of these Achaemenid articles really reflect her viewpoint which is not necessarily taking into account different Achaemenid scholars. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, perhaps you could explain what you think "revisionist" means in the following quote: "For a revisionist history of the Seleucid empire, emphasizing the cultural influence of the eastern (and non-Greek) portions of the kingdom in its formation, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (1993); Downey (1963) provides a good account of ancient Antioch for the nonspecialist." That's from Kathryn Gutzwiller's Guide to Hellenistic Literature, which you mentioned above. And why, pray tell, do you think Gutzwiller is advising her readers to consult this revisionist work? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with revisionism, but revisinism has to become mainstream for an Encyclopedia. Again are we trying to write an Encyclopedia? As a base-line for an Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Iranica on various topics is very impressive and uses mainstream and well known scholars. Note how simple and brief is the article wih regards to the Cyrus Cylinder[16]. When it comes to Achaemenid studies, scholars like Dandamaev or Curtis or Cameron or even Briant have been well established. Please look at the Cyrus article there:Or when it comes to the Medes, it is Diakonov. Please answer this question, can someone be an expert in 7-8 ancient languages, Achaemenids, Assyrian empire, Babylonian empire, seleucids and etc.? I actually have a doctorate in applied mathematics and I can tell you, a person who is an expert in topology is not an expert in combinatorics or PDE or number theory and etc. For example someone like Briant has written only in Achaemenid topics and yet he is not an expert say an Old Persian. My problem is simple. Many of the articles with regards to Old Persian topics have quoted Kuhrt extensively while ignoring mainstream or more established scholars. This is okay as long as it is balanced by well established scholars in the field. If a majority of scholars including Briant mention that the events in the cylinder resemble closely some of the events of the bible, then we can not have Kuhrt's opinion solely highlighted as the mainstream opinion. What is needed is a balanced viewpoint with regards to some of these articles. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Something funny about the Encyclopedia Iranica article you directed us to: it seems somewhat dated--in the section on the cylinder, the most recent work cited is from 1989. The second oldest work is from 1983: A. Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25, 1983, pp. 83-97. So, um, what were we talking about again? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Testament section

1)I added a source from the Harvard Theological Review and Duetero-Isaiah. 2)I added the name of Joseph Flavius without quotes. Again he is a Jewish historian of first century A.D. [17] and had access to different sources that are lost today. Basically, just like we mentioned Herodotus does not mention the battle of Opis, we can mention that Joseph Flavius does mention events that corroborate positively with the old testament. In fact the details he provides in my opinion suggests that he had many other sources besides the old testament and the letter of Cyrus which is recorded by him is unique. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep "your opinion" out of articles. That's nothing more than original research. As for Josephus, you need to be careful with him - as Louis Jacobs puts it in A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion, he is "not always too careful to get his facts right. For this reason, historians treat his works with caution." Don't make the mistake of thinking that ancient historians wrote for the same reasons, or to the same standards, as modern historians. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He is a primary source and according to Wikipedia WP:RS:Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself . What pertains to this article is that Josephus mentions the same prophetic text had come to the attention of Cyrus himself. Wether some modern scholars agree with this or not, it is still an important fact to mention. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What this means is that we can only use Josephus as a source for what Josephus says - "According to Josephus...". What we can't do is use Josephus to support statements of fact about issues other than his own statements. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph in the section is awkward & has other problems: - "Diana Edelman has pointed out chronological difficulties that arise when we accept that the Jews returned during the reign of Cyrus[48], although it has been argued that she based her conclusions on questionable treatments of genealogical lists and unsubstantiated links between various figures in the early Persian period.[49] There is no clear independent evidence to confirm the Biblical claim that Cyrus freed the Jews and encouraged them to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem[citation needed]. The text of the Cyrus Cylinder does correspond closely to the spirit of the decree described in Ezra. As with other texts from the same period, it credits the god of his intended audience for his success and makes claims of worship, piety and religious tolerance that recall the claims of Ezra. Although it cannot be used to directly confirm the authenticity of the decree cited in Ezra, it suggests that in restoring the Temple in Jerusalem, Cyrus may have acted strategically to grant privileged status to the city to gain the support and cooperation of its people. Israel's sensitive location close to Egypt made it a particularly sensitive area for the Persians, who would have had a strong interest in ensuring that it was firmly in their hands.[28]."

• Why are we confusing the reader with an argument among scholars that is not mainstream to begin with? (first line) I suggest we strike that line altogether, as uninformative, confusing, and unnecessary.
• Regarding the "no clear independent evidence" assertion... is the author of that sentence referring to the Cyrus Cylinder or any "clear" "independent" evidence anywhere? Isn't this statement as stands OR? Biblical "evidence" is both clear and independent on this point. It may not be archeological evidence, but it is still evidence - perhaps one could call it 'circumstantial' evidence.
• It goes on to repeat the concept of "no clear evidence" with "although it cannot be used to directly confirm" --thus is redundant.
• the idea that Cyrus' restoring of the Temple in Jerusalem (which the same paragraph claims we can't definitively know) was a "strategic move" in order to "gain support" from Israelis, also sounds like OR to me. I don't question that it might be true, but we aren't working with "true" here but general opinion. If we don't know for sure that Cyrus ordered the rebuilding of the Temple, we certainly wouldn't know for sure that he did it for particular strategic reasons.

I would like to see this read more clearly -- simply that the Cylinder is seen by some to corroborate Cyrus' policies of religious toleration (as iterated by other sources, ie Biblical and others) but we don't know this for sure since it does not specifically mention the Jews. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The section as a whole needs a rewrite, to be honest. I didn't tackle it in any great depth. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

exact passage

ChrisO wrote: It was first put forward in a 1967 book, The White Revolution of Iran, by the then Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who made Cyrus the Great a key figure in government ideology and associated himself personally with the Achaemenids

Do we have an exact passage? I am requesting a source for this or the original Persian words where the term "human rights charter" (Manshoor-e- Hoquq-e- Bashar) is used for the cylinder.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Konstock's comments immediately below #Pahlavi propaganda. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So it is saying it is on page 15 if I look it up? I just want to make sure before I look at the Persian. What that person says though is :""human rights charter" interpretation can be traced back to The white revolution of Iran, a book by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi published in 1967". It can be traced back to does not necessarily mean it was first use. So I think we should be precise for now and use the term: According to Wisehofer "it can be traced back" to the book the white revolutin by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. I will try to look at the original Persian to see if it is true, since Wiesehofer does not necessarily know modern Persian well (I might be wrong on this but I see no evidece). So I'll try to look at the primary source. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

On this section re : Lisbet Fried: "Lisbet S. Fried, reflecting on the Cyrus cylinder and the priests of Marduk believes that the Deutero-Isaiah:" (and you added a quote... I wonder if you could explain a little more exactly what you and she mean by this? It is not 100% clear to me. Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will send you the whole article and you judge :) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Architecture

I agree with Tundrabuggy for removing that source. It had said: The cylinder indicates that Cyrus sought to acquire the loyalty of the ravaged regions by funding reconstruction, the return of temple properties and the repatriation of the displaced populations. However, it is unclear how much actually changed on the ground; there is no archaeological evidence for any rebuilding or repairing of Mesopotamian temples during Cyrus' reign.("Winn Leith")

Again it seems like a non-specialized source making a wild claim and again I am surprised why our resident expert (mean it as a good characteristic) does not look at more specialized sources. The book does not seem to be about Achaemenid architecture, but the fact that there is or there isn't "evidence" is uncertain until sufficient excavations have taken place. Here is a source to counter such claim though. There are certainly different opinions from more reliable sources. Here is one for example:There was a good deal of architectural work undertaken in Mesopotamia when Cyrus returned captive deities to their native cities and had their temples restored and rebuilt, presumably at royal expense. Repair work at least, and perhaps even new buildings, must also have been undertaken on the several magnificent palaces, governmental and temple buildings within Babyloan itself"(T. Cuyler Young J.R., "The Persian Empire", in the "Cambridge Ancient History: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean. C. 525-479 B.C.", edited by Iorwerth E. S. Edwards, John Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, Alan K Bowman, Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (1988))

Again Cambridge Ancient history:"From northern Mesopotamia we have up to now very little post-612 archaeological evidence until Hellenstic times. To some extent this must reflect the security and stability re-established under Achaemenid rule, for the huge mound of ruins which now represent the citadels of Assyrian cities were unattractive to later settlers except in time of danger. Since in these sites that have been excavated, we lack knowledge of distinguishing features of Achaemenid pottery, the tools most useful to archaeologists in settlement-pattern studies"(Joan Otates, "The fall of Assyria" in The Cambridge Ancient History Part 2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC, Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (January 31, 1992). ). Given these two specialized sources, I suggest we work them into this article or remove Winn Leith (non-specialized source with this regard). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop trying to disqualify sources because you disagree with them. You tried to do it with Kuhrt, now you're doing it with Winn Leith. We have a policy on reliable sources under which Winn Leith unquestionably qualifies - her work is a chapter in a major Oxford University Press publication on ancient history. Now, what you've found appears on the face of it to be a disagreement between sources. I'll have a look at them in more detail to work out what specifically they're disagreeing on. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay but is it about architecture? Cuyler Young specialized more in the architecture/archeology...--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I started a justification last night but gave it up. I will just say again that the cylinder itself does not "indicate[s] that Cyrus sought to acquire the loyalty" ... that is Winn Leith's characterisation (interpretation) of Cyrus' motives, not necessarily his motives ... and not at all clear in the way it is written. Why do we go on to confuse a reader with the idea that something on the ground is "unclear"? And if it is disputed, as per Nepaheshgar, (as well as unclear) why put it in at all? What does "on the ground" actually have to do with the "interpretation" of the cylinder? This raises more questions than it answers. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow the point about it being Winn Leith's characterisation. Is that a problem? The article summarises the source reasonably well, indicates the source, and it seem to be reliable. You might be right about the confusion: Leith is talking about more than one thing (rebuilding and religious issues), and (as I read it) the uncertainty more concerned with whether 'restore' refers the the physical buildings or the religious practices. Maybe worth a little rewrite. As for putting it in at all, well why not? Leith is concerned with contents of the cylinder and the commitments made. Like a political manifesto :-) shellac (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

re the characterisation. I think we should avoid ascribing motives. I don't see it as "encyclopedic." If Cyrus had left diaries behind or had actually written "In an attempt to win the loyalty of my new subjects..." in the Cylinder, then fine... Otherwise, in my opinion, it is merely an historiologist's personal perspective. By all means attempt a re-write... :-) Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cylinder as legitimizing rule

I just did a little OR which I would like to bring up here on the talk page merely as a point of interest and as an analogy of sorts.

Under this section we are told about the Cylinder in the tradition of Mesopotamia:

"The preceding king is vilified and he is proclaimed to have been abandoned by the gods for his wickedness; the new king has gained power through the divine will of the gods; the new king rights the wrongs of his predecessor, addressing the welfare of the people; the sanctuaries of the gods are rebuilt or restored, offerings to the gods are made or increased and the blessings of the gods are sought; and repairs are made to the whole city, in the manner of earlier rightful kings."

This section goes on to amplify this, even discussing the elements 2 or 3 other cylinders/texts by means of comparison/analogy. In regard to Cyrus, however, the implication is that there is something nepharious about all this "propaganda." However even this from the U.S. "Declaration of Independence" [18] from Britain in 1776 CE, most of the same elements are there, perhaps written in a more modern style... Yet we generally do not interpret this in a nepharious way. Why not? Is it a matter of interpretation?

• "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them...
• ...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
• That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
• ...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies;...
• The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States....

I suppose an argument could be made that it was just another power grab, business as usual, no changes on the ground for decades, etc. but I believe that such an argument, made to the extent that it is made in this section, would be unbalanced and undue weight on one perspective. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)more

How does it imply Cyrus's case is 'nefarious'? It just shows that it follows a particular tradition, to my eyes. You might say that it examines the claims made closely, but I presume that's because subsequent claims made for the cylinder (wrt to human rights and, perhaps, biblical). In that respect the article reflects the literature, I think. shellac (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you asked that question. The section has been lately cleaned up a little and is better than it was. A final note has been added that makes it read less so. But here are my notes going through that section: Cyrus is manipulative:..."manipulating local traditions" - "sought to acquire the loyalty of the ravaged regions by funding reconstruction, the return of temple properties and the repatriation of the displaced populations" This also implies that nothing he did was based on any convictions, but simply to "acquire loyalty" -- more manipulation. later in the section:-- his policies were "driven by the needs of the Persian empire" and not an expression of tolerance. He did what he did because he wanted to "decentralize governments" -- "to serve the political interests" "a matter of practicality and economy ... [as] it was simpler, and indeed cost less...than to have to impose their sovereignty by force.." No personal convictions. The Babylonian takeover claim is "standard ...rhetoric" and "may obscure other facts." (innuendo) "[Persian] propaganda regarding Nabonidus' rule is extensive" and "not supported by many of the known facts". (ie Cyrus as a liar) -- Nabonidus was recognised as "peaceful, and he undertook a variety of building projects..." (unlike Cyrus of whom it is claimed: "there is no archaeological evidence for any rebuilding or repairing of Mesopotamian temples during Cyrus' reign")... (Cyrus: A would-be killer, who only doesn't kill because it is cheaper--manipulative--liar ... :-) Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You nailed it! --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And...?

Ok, that's not a helpful response. What are you attempting to demonstrate? That this section is overly negative about Cyrus? Firstly: I really don't think it is. I know very little about him, but this article doesn't leave me with a negative impression. This article is about the cylinder, an artifact of 'regime change', in a way, and thus we get an incomplete account of Cyrus from the sources. He has a whole article to himself for the 'big picture'.

But secondly, and more pertinently, you haven't provided any sources to back your view. It's Tundrabuggy vs reliably sourced statements without them. How about providing some? You clearly perceive something is wrong wrt balance, overall impression, etc. Presenting the opposing views would help enormously. shellac (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically a useless enterprise. I did so, and the article was re-written without them. I don't fancy edit-wars. see for example, Nepha's links in the section "Cyrus Cylinder" above for examples of differing sources... Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)