Some modern problems in controlling ancient names
| February 18, 2015 | Posted by Lanah Koelle under Uncategorized |
|
From our friends at the Institute for Study of the Ancient World:
“He lied to the people, saying ‘I am Nebuchadnezzar’”: Some modern problems in controlling ancient names
by Gabriel McKee — Jan 30, 2015
The ISAW library recently received a copy of Nebukadnezar III/IV by Jürgen Lorenz, which assembles the primary sources for two little-known political upstarts in the Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550-330 BCE). The two rebel Nebuchadnezzars—and all the other would-be contenders in ancient history—pose a problem for libraries and researchers: how do we catalog and search for history’s losers?
One of the fundamental principles of cataloging is the concept of “authority control.” As all of us who have studied or done research in the ancient world know, an individual person, thing, or concept may be described with different terms, in different languages, or with variations in spelling. On the other side of the coin, the same name may describe different individuals from different regions or periods in history. Libraries (and other entities) overcome this multiplicity by tying related versions together under a single, “authorized” form of the name, which is used in cataloging materials related to that topic or individual. But choosing which name to use can be challenging, particularly when it comes to figures from ancient history.The ISAW library recently received a copy of Nebukadnezar III/IV by Jürgen Lorenz (ISLET Verlag, 2008). A revision of the author’s thesis, the book assembles scattered primary sources regarding two little-known political upstarts from the early Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550-330 BCE). They both arose in the midst of the upheaval surrounding Darius I (r. 522-486 BCE)’s accession the throne. In late 522 BCE, a man named Nidintu-Bêl declared himself Nebuchadnezzar III, King of Babylon. He claimed to be a son of Nabonidus (r. 556-539 BCE), the final king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, whom Cyrus II (r. 559-530 BCE) had defeated in 539 BCE. Nidintu-Bêl seems to have actually ruled Babylonia for about two months, until Darius defeated him in two battles that December. Darius then besieged Babylon and put him to death. The following year, an Armenian known as Arakha staged another rebellion, also claiming to be a son of Nabonidus and also adopting the name Nebuchadnezzar. Arakha’s rebellion lasted from May to November of 521 BCE, when Darius’ subordinate Intaphernes reduced the city and crucified the rebels.
The primary source of information for both figures is the Behistun Inscription (pictured above; full transcription here), which records Darius’ own biased account of several revolts against his early rule. The source is (of course) less than fully reliable, as Darius seems to have engaged in some creative fabrication in order to magnify his own stature as a military leader. Several of the rebels he claims to have defeated do not seem to have been able to raise an army: what sort of “kings” or “rebels” were they, then? And the chronology of Darius’ victories is also unclear: he seems to have shifted dates in order to be able to claim that he suppressed all of the revolts against him within a single year. But Darius is crystal clear in this inscription about their claims to legitimacy: “[Nidintu-Bêl] lied to the people, saying ‘I am Nebuchadnezzar’.”
The two rebel Nebuchadnezzars (and all the other rebels against Darius) pose a problem for libraries or any organization that wishes to create a unified data set, like Google. That is to say, they pose a problem for authority control. Though these rebels’ real names are known, they are also known—perhaps even better known—by their adopted royal names. And yet, for good reason, most reasonable people would hesitate to class them among the true or legitimate kings of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, with the likes of Nabonidus (556-539 BCE) and Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BCE). The Persians had effectively destroyed the Empire, and so each would-be king had, at best, limited control for a matter of months over a besieged Babylon. Ancient politics, oddly enough, resurface when one creates metadata for works about figures like Nebuchadnezzar III and IV. What do we call these people? How and in what way, or at what level, do we recognize their pretensions to power?
