![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
- "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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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." [1]
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)
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)
'
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
- "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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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." [1]
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)
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)
'
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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