Mary Boyce was born in India where her father, William H. Boyce, was a High Court Judge in Calcutta. Her mother, Nora, was a granddaughter of the noted historian of the Puritan revolution, Samuel Rawson Gardiner. While she was still young, the family returned to England and she was sent to Wimbledon High School and then to Cheltenham Ladies’ College. After a short spell in the Land Army during the early years of the war, she went to Newnham College, Cambridge and read English for Part I of her degree, and Archaeology and Anthropology for Part II, graduating with a double first in 1943. She was taught by Hector Munro Chadwick (1870-1947), a world authority on oral literatures who influenced some of her studies on Parthian minstrelsy mentioned below. Chadwick’s wife and collaborator in scholarship, Nora Kershaw Chadwick (1891-1972), had enrolled to study Persian under Professor Vladimir Minorsky (1877-1966) at SOAS, which had been temporarily relocated to Cambridge during the war, and Boyce followed her lead. Within a year she was appointed Assistant Lecturer in Anglo-Saxon Literature and Archaeology at Royal Holloway College, University of London (1944-46). When SOAS returned to London she went there to study under Walter Bruno Henning (1908-1967) who encouraged and inspired her to study Old Persian and other ancient Iranian languages.

In 1946 Boyce returned to Cambridge and embarked on her doctoral dissertation on “The Parthian hymn cycles” under the joint supervision of Henning and Harold W. Bailey (1899-1996). Her research was based on the photographs of the Turfan fragments (see TURFAN EXPEDITIONS), which Henning had brought from the Prussian Academy of Sciences (Preussiche Akademie der Wissenschaften) in Berlin. The documents shed new light on both Manicheism and the Middle Iranian Languages. The influence of Henning was considerable since he too had studied these fragments. A year later, in 1947, she was appointed to a lectureship in Iranian studies at SOAS. She completed her thesis in 1952, and it was published as The Manichaean Hymn Cycles in Parthian two years later.

She also joined a seminar (1949-50) to study the important Sasanian tract, the Letter of Tansar. The seminar was directed by Henning and the famous Iranian scholar Mojtaba Minovi (1903-1976) who was at the time working at the BBC (see GREAT BRITAIN xxiii). Her contribution, an annotated English translation of the text, was published later (Rome, 1968).

After completing her doctorate, she made several visits to Hamburg and Berlin to catalogue the Iranian manuscripts in the Manichean script. They were published as A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichean script in the German Turfan Collection by the Institut für Orientforschung of the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (nr. 45, Berlin, 1960). This became a standard work of reference for generations of scholars. Her other contributions should also be noted in this respect: “Some remarks on the present state of the Iranian Manichaean MSS. from Turfan, with additions and corrections to Manichaean hymn-cycles in Parthian,” published in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung IV, 2, 1956, pp. 314-22. Other articles on Manichean topics include, “Sadwēs and Pēsūs,” BSOAS 13/4, 1951, pp. 908-15; “Some Parthian abecedarian hymns,” BSOAS 14/3, 1952, pp. 435-50; and “On Mithra in the Manichaean Pantheon,” in A Locust’s Leg: Studies in Honour of S. H. Taqizadeh, ed., W. B. Henning and E. Yarshater, London, 1962, pp. 44-54. Two particularly important works are her A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, 1975; and A Word-List of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, 1977. In this word-list she used material collected by Henning and generously passed on by his widow, Maria Henning (see Boyce’s “Obituary: Walter Bruno Henning,” BSOAS 30/3, 1967, pp. 781-85). Boyce completed her Manichean and Parthian studies in “Parthian Writings and Literature” (pp. 1151-165) and “The Manichaean Middle Persian Writings” (pp. 1196-204), Camb. Hist. Iran, 3(2), ed. E. Yarshater, Cambridge, 1983. Both of these complement her earlier and still valuable discussions of “Middle Persian Literature,” (pp. 31-66) and “The Manichean Literature in middle Iranian,” (pp. 67-76), Literatur, HO I.IV.2, Leiden and Cologne, 1968. For the general reader, she wrote a succinct survey in “Old Iranian Literature,” A Guide to Eastern Literatures, ed. D. M. Lang, London, 1971, pp. 95-105. The first stage of her career was therefore mainly focused on Manichean and Parthian textual studies, but she had ranged wider with, for example, “A Novel Interpretation of Hafiz,” BSOAS 15/2, 1953, pp. 279-88; “Some remarks on the transmission of the Kayanian heroic cycle,” Serta Cantabrigiensia, Wiesbaden, 1954, pp. 45-52; and “The Parthian gōsān and Iranian Minstrel Tradition,” JRAS, 1957, pp. 10-45. She also began to turn her attention to Zoroastrianism and published, for example, “Some Reflections on Zurvanism,” BSOAS 29/2, 1957, pp. 104-16 (a review essay of R. C. Zaehner, Zurvan: a Zoroastrian dilemma, Oxford, 1955; repr. with a new foreword, New York, 1972). During this stage of her career she was also active in scholarly bodies: she served the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum from its inception as secretary and treasurer (1955-70) alongside Henning as chairman; the Council of the Royal Asiatic Society (1956-60, 1965-68) and the editorial board of the journal, Asia Major (1962-76).

The turning point in her life was a 12-month study-leave in the Zoroastrian villages around Yazd, notably in Šarifābād in 1963-64. This came soon after her appointment in 1963 as Professor of Iranian Studies at SOAS, succeeding Henning who had moved to Berkeley in California. The overland journey and residence in these remote villages must have been arduous for her since she had recently suffered a painful injury to her back which troubled her for the rest of her life. Till her demise, it compelled her to work while lying on her back and writing everything by hand.

In recognition of her pioneering field-work she was awarded the Burton Gold Medal of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1972, and, in 1985 the Sir Percy Sykes Memorial Medal of the Royal Society of Asian Affairs. By this time she was already an honorary member of the American Oriental Society (1976) and a foreign member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (1978). Following early retirement she became Professor Emerita and a Professorial Research Associate at SOAS (1982-2006). The Professor Mary Boyce Prize for the study of Asian religions has been instituted by the Royal Asiatic Society in her memory.

Boyce’s field-work transformed her studies in two ways. First, she had studied ancient texts from a linguistic perspective and, although she did not have a strictly religious upbringing, living with devout Zoroastrians stimulated her interest in the religious aspect of their lives. Second, it transformed her whole perspective of the study and history of the religion. Who, she asked, were likely to have a deeper understanding of the religion, western academics or the devout priests living in a remote spot sequestered from outside influences so that orthodox beliefs and practices were retained for millennia? Boyce also believed it was critical to understand the way traditions were preserved orally. She developed her theory of the continuity of Zoroastrian belief and practice from the time of the prophet right down to modern times. This led her to conclude that modern practices can shed light on obscure ancient texts, including the Gāthās. She summed this up in a little-known article published for the Open University program in Britain, “The Continuity of the Zoroastrian Quest,” in Man’s Religious Quest: a Reader, ed. W. Foy, London, 1978; repr. 1986, sec. 11.1.17, p. 613: “[I]t has been a weakness in the western study of Zoroastrianism that it has concentrated largely on texts. … In a purely academic study of religion it is possible to make a subjective choice of what seems significant whereas encounters with a living faith force one to accept its adherents’ own understanding of its essentials, which are likely, moreover, to be embodied in its main observances.” Having studied with devout priests, she came to take a different view of priesthood from that which had dominated Protestant scholarship as exemplified by J. H. Moulton (Early Zoroastrianism, Hibbert Lectures, London, 1913, pp. 116-19) who asked: “How are we to classify Zarathushtra [?] …Was he Prophet and Teacher, or was he Priest? Is the religion of the Gathas practical and ethical, or sacerdotal?” Moulton concluded, “That Zarathushtra is teacher and prophet is written large over every page of the Gathas. He is perpetually striving to persuade men of the truth of a great message, obedience to which will bring them everlasting life. He has a revelation … There is no room for sacerdotal functions as a really integral part of such a man’s gospel; and of ritual or spells we hear as little as we expect to hear.” Boyce rejected such polarization and saw Zoroaster as both teacher and prophet, inspired, as she was, by the priests she encountered in Iran. This view led her to stress both his visionary experience and his training as an Indo-Iranian priest, and to understand the Gāthās as in part, at least, meditations on the ritual (see “Zoroaster the Priest,” BSOAS 33/1, 1970, pp. 22-38).

After her return from Iran she reflected at length on the significance of what she had witnessed, and produced concomitantly some Parthian and Manichean studies as well as articles on Iran, including, for example, “The fire-temples of Kerman,” Acta Orientalia 30, 1966, pp. 51-72; and “Bībī Shahrbānū and the Lady of Pārs,” BSOAS 30/1, 1967, pp. 30-44. However, she began to focus increasingly on the Zoroastrian religion and its rituals, with articles such as “Ātaš-zōhr and āb-zōhr,” JRAS, 1966, pp. 100-18; “On the sacred fires of the Zoroastrians,” BSOAS 31/1, 1968, pp. 52-68; “On Mithra’s part in Zoroastrianism,” BSOAS 32/1, 1969, pp. 10-34; and “Haoma, priest of the sacrifice,” in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, eds., M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch, London, 1970, pp. 62-80. To complement her knowledge drawn from Iran she also began a fruitful collaboration with Firoze Kotwal, a Parsi High Priest (and temporary lecturer in Zoroastrian rituals, SOAS, 1973) endowed with an encyclopedic knowledge of Zoroastrian liturgy, whence their joint study in two installments on “Zoroastrian bāj and drōn,” BSOAS 34/1-2, 1971, pp. 56-73, 298-313.

The first substantial indicator of Boyce’s grand theory of the continuity of Zoroastrian belief and practice emerged in volume I of her magisterial four-volume, A History of Zoroastrianism (hereinafter HZ). In HZ I (The Early Period, HO I.1.2.2A, Leiden, 1975; 3d corr. repr., 1996), Boyce began with a substantial discussion of the pre-Zoroastrian religion (pp. 22-177) which she also believed to be part of that great continuity (except Zoroaster only venerated beings that were spәntā). After a discussion of the haoma ritual and the Gāthās, she concluded (p. 217f.): “There is thus no reliable evidence from the Gāthās to set against the tradition and the observance of Zoroaster’s followers, which testify to his maintenance of the blood sacrifice and haoma cult, together with the other rites of the ancient Ahuric religion.” Later (p. 223) she wrote, “It seems natural that Zoroaster as priest should have been concerned to give his new doctrines expression in observances, so that belief could declare itself through worship and be sustained by it; and there is no reason therefore to doubt the tradition that attributes to the prophet himself the founding of the feasts later known as gahāmbārs” (see GĀHĀNBĀR; cf. her Zoroastrianism: its antiquity and constant vigour, 1992, p. 105, for now attributing its founding to Zoroaster’s early followers). Further on in chapter 9 (pp. 229ff.) she argues that the Pahlavi concepts of the two states of gētīg and mēnōg and the three periods of Bundahišn (Creation), Gumēzišn (Mixture, i.e., good and evil) and Wizārišn (Separation) have their roots in Gāthic teaching.

After the publication of HZ I, Boyce’s work continued to be focused mainly on religious issues, notably, “Mihragān among the Irani Zoroastrians,” in Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, ed., J. R. Hinnells, I, Manchester, 1975, pp. 69-76; “On Mithra, lord of fire,” Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, I, Acta Iranica 4, Tehran and Liège, 1975, pp. 69-76; “On Varuna’s part in Zoroastrianism,” Mélanges linguistique offerts à Émile Benveniste, Paris, 1975, pp. 55-64; and “On the Zoroastrian temple cult of fire,” JAOS 95/3, 1975, pp. 454-65.

The year 1977 saw the publication of one of her finest works, based on her 1963-64 field-work and entitled A Persian stronghold of Zoroastrianism. Presented as the decennial Ratanbai Katrak Lectures at the University of Oxford (1975), it is cogently written and reflects concerns that would determine the course of her subsequent studies. In contrast to her earlier Manichean textual studies, every chapter is about religion, including the introductory one, which sets the context in the villages and in local Iranian history, with, for example, the description of the basic diet in relation to festive celebrations (p. 15) and the ensuing exposition of key doctrines. The lives of the villagers are described with compassion and understanding and consistently interpreted in the light of belief and traditional practice to demonstrate how piety permeated every aspect of life, especially the account of the purity laws and, particularly, menstruation (pp. 100-107; see BINAMĀZI) and the barašnom-e no-šwa or ablution of the nine nights (pp. 111-37), part of which Boyce observed personally (pp. 119, 128, 130). This makes for a unique, seminal narrative displaying outstanding sensitivity and insight. A briefer version of this work appeared while she was Paton Visiting Professor at Indiana University (A last stronghold of traditional Zoroastrianism, Bloomington, 1977) and was published, along with another public lecture, Zoroastrianism: the rediscovery of missing chapters in man’s religious history, Bloomington, 1977, in the Teaching Aids for the Study of Inner Asia series.

Boyce was always keen to encourage others to study Zoroastrianism. She was generous with the time she gave to her students, and her tutorials, like those of Henning, could last for hours. She supported, encouraged and where necessary chided all who came to her for help. This enthusiasm was also manifested in her writing, in the two books designed for students: first, her ground-breaking study of Zoroastrianism (Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices (London, 1979), weaving the narrative from pre-Zoroastrian times down to the present in both India and Iran thus highlighting her conviction of the continuity of the Zoroastrian tradition. Complementing this textbook was a chrestomathy, again both ancient and modern, so that students could read the sources for themselves (Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, Manchester, 1984; repr., Chicago, 1990).

There has been much debate over the religion of the Achaemenid kings (see ACHAEMENID RELIGION) and determining the first king to become a Zoroastrian. Boyce had no doubts that all of them were Zoroastrians, including the founder, Cyrus the Great (see CYRUS iii). Thus in HZ II (Under the Achaemenians, HO I.1.2.2A, Leiden, 1982; as well as in her “The Religion of Cyrus the Great,” Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop, eds., A. Kuhrt and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Achaemenid History III, Leiden, 1988, pp. 15-31), she asserts, at her first mention of Cyrus (p. 43), that he “put himself forward as a champion of Zoroastrianism” without adducing any evidence. In reconstructing the religion of the various Achaemenid monarchs she often uses evidence taken from living usage (for example, p. 70, on Cambyses making offerings for his father’s soul and p. 248 on the calendar observed by Artaxerxes II, 404-358 BCE). In this volume, after discussing the pre-Zoroastrian religion of the Medes (see MEDIA) and Persians, she dedicates a chapter to each of the Achaemenid monarchs combing not only classical sources but also showing a wide knowledge of the archaeological material relating to each monarch with a particular concern to construct the history of Zoroastrianism in those imperial times. It is the most substantial study of the religion in this period yet written. The successor volume HZ III (Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, HO I.1.2.2, Leiden, 1991), co-written with Frantz Grenet who authored chapters 3 on Susa and Elymais and 7 on Eastern Iran ca. 250-50 BCE, with a contribution by Roger Beck on the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha, is certainly the largest study undertaken of Zoroastrianism in these two eras. The collaboration with Grenet involved more than two chapters. Each read the other’s manuscript, commented, and often arrived at different conclusions. For example, Boyce rejected the credibility of the Onesicritus story in which the citizens of Bactra (see BACTRIA) threw their old people outside the city wall to be eaten by dogs, for she found it “unthinkable that in any Zoroastrian community there should have been a practice of allowing the old or the sick to be eaten alive by dogs” because it would go against the doctrine that death is the work of Ahriman and one should not hasten death and burden one’s soul with sin (p. 7, n. 24). In a footnote, however, Grenet accepts the story citing parallel accounts (but also see p. 377ff., n. 63 where Grenet is credited with changing Boyce’s mind concerning the Oracle of Hystaspes). What is remarkable about this volume is that Zoroastrianism is studied not only in the Iranian border territories such as Gandhara but also in the non-Iranian lands of the former Achaemenid empire including Galatia, Cappadocia and Pontus, Syria and Egypt. Here also Boyce sees continuity between living practice in Iran and the Zoroastrianism found among Zoroastrians living in Galatia (p. 260) and believes modern practice can illuminate an Achaemenid-era altar found in Cappadocia (p. 265 and pp. 269f., where she sees consistency between Strabo’s account of Cappadocian Zoroastrian practice and Zoroastrian practices in modern Iran). When she goes on to discuss Zoroastrian influence on the Jews (HZ III, pp. 362-468; also eadem, “Persian Religion in the Achaemenid Age,” Camb. Hist. Judaism, 1, eds., W. Davies and L. Finkelstein, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 279-307) she assumes that the eschatological teaching in the Pahlavi books (see ESCHATOLOGY i) can be traced back to the prophet not just in structure but also in theological complexity (HZ III, pp. 365f.; also “On the antiquity of Zoroastrian apocalyptic,” BSOAS 47/1, 1984, pp. 57-75; and Zoroastrianism: a shadowy but powerful presence in the Judaeo-Christian world, London, 1987).

Boyce is known as one of the chief campaigners for an earlier date for the prophet than the previously common sixth-century dating. The publication that fleshes this out fully is chapter 2 of her Zoroastrianism: its antiquity and constant vigour, Costa Mesa, CA, 1992 (hereinafter ZACV). It is worth looking at this volume in more detail as it is the last monograph she published based on her five Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies, delivered in 1985 at the Center for Iranian Studies in New York. In the early chapters she summarized her conclusions from HZ I and II, and sometimes refined those earlier works and drew out the implications so as to form something of a conclusion to her work. In chapter 1 she dismissed the various legends linking Zoroaster with different places (see ZOROASTER ii), while in chapter 2 she examined the social conditions implied by the Old Avestan literature, concluding that “The possible chronological limits thus appear to be c. 1500-c. 1200; and a date at the lower limit, i.e. around 1200, seems the most reasonable one to postulate” (ZACV, p. 45, and a view she confirmed in the foreword to Zoroastrians, 2001, p. xiii), and locating the prophet’s homeland as the Inner Asian Steppes (see AVESTAN GEOGRAPHY). Boyce’s views on the date of Zoroaster, which was earlier than what most other scholars of Zoroastrianism had provided, did not enjoy universal acceptance and the debate on the topic continues to this day.

In chapter 3 (ZACV, pp. 32-61), Boyce reconstructed the pre-Zoroastrian cosmology and cosmogony (see COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY i) by using mostly the Pahlavi Bundahišn alongside some parallels with Vedic thought because, as she enunciated in HZ I, p. 131, she believed that since Zoroaster was a moral thinker inspired by his vision of the divine, he probably accepted existing hypotheses rather than evolving cosmological ideas of his own. In both books, therefore, she sees a great continuity not only within Zoroastrianism but also with pre-Zoroastrian thought. In chapter 4 she takes issue with three recent translators (Humbach, Insler and Kellens) for approaching the Gāthās only from a textual perspective and not taking account of the beliefs of Zoroaster’s followers (p. 64). In ZACV, Boyce emphasizes Zoroaster’s priestly training and that the Gāthās were meditations on the Yasnā he was performing (pp. 64-68) and in which rite, she believed, Zoroaster was involved in animal sacrifice (p. 69). She enthusiastically accepted the Yasnā Haptaŋhāiti as a prose liturgical creation of the prophet (ZACV pp. 65, 87-94); Narten apud Boyce, new foreword to HZ I, 3d repr., 1996, p. xiv, and suggested as quite probably so in Narten apud Hintze, BSOAS 65/1, 2002, p. 32; q.v. Johanna Narten, Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, Wiesbaden, 1986, p. 126; and Almut Hintze, A Zoroastrian liturgy: the worship in seven chapters (Yasna 35-41), Wiesbaden, 2007, p. 92). And likewise the doctrine of the Amәša Spәntas and the detailed eschatology (ZACV, p. 76f.) expounded in the Pahlavi literature (see MIDDLE PERSIAN LITERATURE). She also argued therein that it was Zoroaster who introduced the five times of daily prayer, the sudra and kustī (ZACV, pp. 84-85) and the gahāmbārs including Nowruz (ZACV, pp. 104-05; see NOWRUZ i). These radical scholarly theories are stated as simple fact rather than being argued for. She did assert the prophet’s innovations, notably apocalyptic eschatology and the teaching on the Mainyus, especially the heptad, and the exaltation of Ahura Mazdā to the exalted position of primacy over the other spirits, or gods, such as Mithra. But she saw the cult of the fravašis as perhaps a deviation from Zoroaster’s teaching (ZACV, pp. 106-7, the reference to the fravašis in Y. 37.3 she argues, p. 91, is an interpolation; also eadem, “The Absorption of the Fravašis into Zoroastrianism,” AOASH 58/1-2, 1995 [1996], pp. 25-36). She justifies her view of the great continuity of the prophet’s teaching by pointing out that as the religion was confined mainly to the Iranians it did not have to make great adjustments to the faiths of other races (ZACV, pp. 107, 112-16 where she stresses continuity in the Yašts which others such as Zaehner and Gershevitch have seen as backsliding into paganism, although she allows for a little of that). Boyce explains the continuity with pre- Zoroastrian tradition especially the Yazatas since the prophet altered the concepts only in so far as they were not to be venerated as independent deities but as evocations or agents of Ahura Mazdā (p. 111). The purity laws of the Vendidād, she argues, are based on Zoroaster’s dualistic conception of the world (p. 118). The narrative in the Pahlavi book Ardā Virāz Nāmag, she presumes (p. 119), belongs to the early days of the religion. Her conclusion on the Younger Avesta is that “it appears in essentials strikingly faithful to the doctrines and vision of its founder” (p. 121). She also gave her current views on the problem of the Zoroastrian calendars (ZACV, pp. 108-10 and associated notes). It was something on which she had published in “On the calendar of Zoroastrian feasts,” BSOAS 33/3, 1970, pp. 513-39 which thesis she herself refuted in her last articles, “Further on the Calendar of Zoroastrian Feasts,” Iran 53, 2005, pp. 1-38; and “Preliminary note by Professor Mary Boyce to Agha Homayoun Sanati’s translation of her article ‘On the Calendar of Zoroastrian Feasts’,” Ātaš-e dorun, The Fire Within: Jamshid Soroush Soroushian Memorial Volume II, eds., Carlo Cereti and Farrokh Vajifdar, Bloomington, IN, 2003, pp. 57-61.

In her chapter on “The religion of empires” (ZACV, pp. 125-148) she stresses the continuity of tradition through the Achaemenids, as evidenced especially by Darius and in the Greek literature (see GREECE vi), although she asserts one major change and that was the introduction of fire temples under Babylonian influence (pp. 128-29; see BABYLONIA ii), and sees the continuity going through the Parthian period (p. 133). Her sadly unfinished HZ IV (With Albert de Jong, Parthian Zoroastrianism, 2 vols., HO, Leiden, forthcoming) will continue the narrative down to the end of the Arsacid period. The major change she sees in the Sasanian period was the emergence of a written form of the orally transmitted Avesta although she argues this affected only the learned priestly classes (ZACV, pp. 133-35). But she also sees some liturgical developments as the scholar-priests studied the Avesta, for example, the Vendidād service performed between midnight and dawn, that is in the Ušahin Gāh, to ward off the powers of darkness (p. 135) and she believes the priests evolved more prayers and rites for the community but she maintains that the underlying teaching remained faithful to the prophet (pp. 137-40). She asserts that the statues erected in Achaemenid and Parthian times were removed as more fire temples were built (p. 141). But there were different branches of the religion, namely Zurvanism which she sees coming down from Achaemenid times, and Mazdakism where traditional dualism was influenced by Gnosticism (see GNOSTICISM i) and flourished despite some intermittent persecution of proselytizing religions among other groups such as Buddhists, Jews and Manicheans. But she maintains that at the end of the Sasanian period traditional Zoroastrianism remained dominant and coherent (pp. 142-48).

Chapter 8 (ZACV, pp. 149-62), unlike most works on Zoroastrianism, but like Boyce’s Zoroastrians, 2001, pp. 145-95, carries the study of Zoroastrianism beyond the Sasanian period into the period under Islamic rule (also eadem, “Zoroastrianism in Iran after the Arab Conquest,” A Zoroastrian Tapestry: Art, Religion and Culture, eds., P. Godrej and F. Punthakey Mistree, Ahmedabad and Cliffedgeway, NJ, 2002, pp. 229-45). She scours the fragmentary sources to reconstruct the history of Zoroastrian oppression and persecution as they were gradually driven from the great urban centers and were compelled to live in poverty, hidden from Muslim view in villages in the Yazdi plain and not even allowed to build wind-towers (see BĀDGIR) to cool their houses in the scorching summer heat. But other than the deep compassion she evinces for the Zoroastrians, there is little in this chapter which grows out of her own life-changing field-work in Šarīfābād.

Although Boyce acknowledges that there were changes in the religion, for example, the introduction of temple fires (p. 184), the central theme of the final chapter (ZACV, pp. 163-91) is that which has been seen to be the lynchpin of her general theories, namely, the fidelity and endurance of the ancient teachings and practices, not only from the time of the prophet, but even from pre-Zoroastrian times. For example, she argues that the čahārom rite on the fourth day after death, when the living bid farewell to the soul, which can be traced back to Sasanian times because the Parsis observe the same rite. “Its origins are almost certainly pre-Zoroastrian, so that basically the rite is likely to have been maintained from the prophet’s own day” (p. 167). But she believes this orthodoxy was undermined in the 1960s by Iran’s “economic miracle” when a number of Zoroastrians from Yazd migrated to big cosmopolitan centers, notably Tehran, and came under western and reformist influences (see eadem, “Some points of traditional observance and of change among the Zoroastrians of Kerman,”Ātaš-e dorun, pp. 43-56). She argues that the modern period has been neglected because philologists have dominated Zoroastrian studies and their interest wanes after the Pahlavi period (p. 165). Boyce believes the Iranians have more importance than the Parsis (see PARSI COMMUNITIES i) for her study because they have remained in Iran and retained their old traditions better than the Parsis have in their new country; further, she argues that persecution made them more steadfast whereas Parsis have been influenced by western Christian thought. So although the book is entitled Zoroastrianism: its antiquity and constant vigour, she comments on the majority of Zoroastrians, namely the Parsis, only in passing. Another key theme in the final chapter is how the teachings underpin the daily life and ideals of these remote and oppressed Zoroastrians (ZACV, pp. 176-82; also eadem, “The vitality of Zoroastrianism as attested by some Yazdi traditions and actions,” Corolla Iranica: Papers in honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie, eds., Ronald Emmerick and Dieter Weber, Frankfurt, 1991, pp. 15-22).

Boyce was an outstanding teacher and supervised the research of many who went on to hold professorships (see infra). She was so keen to perpetuate the study of Zoroastrianism that in her will she bequeathed her estate to SOAS for the founding of a professorship in Zoroastrian studies and her library to The Ancient India & Iran Trust, Cambridge, of which she was an Honorary Fellow. In an exceptional move, the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, London, held a memorial liturgy for her and posthumously declared her an “Honoured Friend” by a change in its constitution to permit bestowal of this title on non-Zoroastrians (British Association for the Study of Religions Bulletin 111, 2007, p. 4). Another first was a departure in the organization and presentation of the six Bai Ratanbai Katrak Lectures delivered decadally by a particular invitee since their subvention (1923) and inauguration (1925) at Oxford: the 2009 series consisted of six speakers, all of whom commemorated and focused on Mary Boyce’s scholarship. The range of her contributions to the study of Iran in general, and Zoroastrianism in particular, is inestimable.

Bibliography:

For a comprehensive bibliography up to 1984 see the list compiled by D. M. Johnson in Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, eds., H. W. Bailey et al., Acta Iranica 24-25, pp. xxi–xxvi; an earlier one including personalia is in Bio-bibliographies de 134 Savants, Acta Iranica 20, Leiden, 1979, pp. 61-63. In addition to her numerous articles in journals and Festschriften, Boyce was also a prolific contributor of 84 entries to EIr., 14 of which were written in collaboration with F. M. Kotwal (reviewed in Jamsheed Choksy, “Ancient Religions,” Iranian Studies 31/3-4, 1998 [1999], pp. 661-79 [special EIr. issue]). She was consulting editor to the EIr. for Iranian religions (1982-97) and a member of its international advisory committee (1997-2006).

Bibliography of works by Mary Boyce.

The Manichaean Hymn Cycles in Parthian, London Oriental Studies 3, London, 1954; Reviews: BSOAS 29/2, 1957, pp. 386-87, JAOS 78/1, pp. 86-87.

A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in the Manichean Script in the German Turfan Collection, Institut für Orientforschung 45, Berlin, 1960; Review: BSOAS 28/1, 1965, pp. 157-60.

The Letter of Tansar, tr. M. Boyce, Serie Orientale Roma XXXVIII-PHS 9, Rome, 1968.

W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, eds., Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch, London, 1970.

A History of Zoroastrianism: the Early Period, vol. I, HO I.1.2.2A, Leiden, 1975; 3d corr. repr., 1996; tr. Homāyun Ṣanʿatiʾzāda, as Tārikh-e kiš-e Zartošt, 3 vols. to date, Tehran, 1995-96; Review: BSOAS 40/3, 1977, pp. 632-33.

A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian: Texts with Notes, Acta Iranica 9, Tehran and Liège, 1975; tr. Omid Behbehāni and Abu’l-Ḥasan Tahāmi as Barrasi adabiyāt mānavi dar matnhā-ye pārti va pārsi-ye miyāneh, Tehran, 2004; Review: BSOAS 9/3, 1977, pp. 630-32.

A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism: based on the Ratanbai Katrak Lectures, 1975, Persian Studies Series 12, Oxford, 1977; repr. Lanham, MD, 1989. Review: Michael Fischer, Iranian Studies 10/4, 1977, pp. 294-99. Fischer himself resided in Yazd during 1970-71 to collect anthropological materials for his doctoral research, “Zoroastrian Iran between myth and praxis,” unpubl. Ph.D. diss., 2 vols., University of Chicago, 1973.

A Word-List of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian, with a Reverse Index by Ronald Zwanziger, Acta Iranica 9a, Tehran and Liège, 1977; tr. Omid Behbehāni and Abu’l-Ḥasan Tahāmi as Fehrest vāžegān-e adabiyāt-e mānavi, Tehran, 2006; Review: BSOAS 42/3, 1979, pp. 568-70.

Zoroastrianism: the Rediscovery of Missing Chapters in Man’s Religious History, Teaching Aids for the Study of Inner Asia 6, Bloomington, 1977.

A Last Stronghold of Traditional Zoroastrianism, Teaching Aids for the Study of Inner Asia 7, Bloomington, 1977.

Foreword to W. B. Henning – Selected Papers, comp. by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Acta Iranica 14-15, Tehran and Liège, 1977.

Zoroastrians: their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979; 3d ed. with a new foreword, 2001; tr. I. Steblin-Kamensky as Zoroastriĭtsy: verovaniya i obychai, Moscow, 1987, 3rd. ed. 1994; tr. ʿAskar Bahrāmi as Zardoštiyān: bāvarhā va ādāb-e dini-ye ānhā , Tehran, 2002, 10th repr., 2009; Review: ArOr 50/1, 1982, pp. 66-68.

A History of Zoroastrianism: Under the Achaemenians, vol. II, HO I.1.2.2A, Leiden, 1982; Review: JRAS, 1984, pp. 139-41.

Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, ed. and tr. Mary Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Religion, Manchester, 1984; repr. Chicago, 1990.

Foreword to Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: a Historical Survey, Manchester, 1985, repr. 1999.

Zoroastrianism: A Shadowy but Powerful Presence in the Judaeo-Christian World, Friends of Dr. William’s Library Forty-First Lecture, London, 1987.

With Frantz Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism: Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule, and a contribution by Roger Beck, vol. III, HO I.1.2.2., Leiden, 1991. Review; The Journal of Roman Studies, 82, 1992, pp. 265-67; BSOAS 57/2, 1994, pp. 388-91.

Zoroastrianism: its Antiquity and Constant Vigour, Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies 7, Costa Mesa, CA, 1992; tr. Abu’l-Ḥasan Tahāmi, as Āyin-e zartušt: kohan ruzgār va qodrat māndegāraš, Tehran, 2007; Review: BSOAS 58/2, 1995, pp. 375-79.

Foreword to Delphine Menant, The Parsis: being an enlarged & copious annotated, up to date English edition of Mlle. Delphine Menant’s Les Parsis, tr. M. M. Murzban and A. D. Mango, 3 vols., Bombay, 1994-96.

Foreword to Tina Mehta, The Zarathushtrian Saga, Calcutta, 1995.

Besides articles and chapters cited supra in entry, also note the following significant studies (listed chronologically).

“Zariadres and Zarēr, BSOAS XVII/3, 1955, pp. 463-77.

“The Indian Fables in the Letter of Tansar,” Asia Major, n.s., V/1, 1955, pp. 50-58.

Review of R. C. Zaehner, The Teachings of the Magi: a compendium of Zoroastrian beliefs, JRAS 1957, pp. 245-46.

Review of Jean-Pierre de Menasce, Une encyclopédie mazdéenne: le Dēnkart. Quatre conférences données à l’Université de Paris sous les auspices de la fondation Ratanbai Katrak, BSOAS 23/1, 1960, pp. 149-50.

Review of Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, Symbolik des Parsismus, BSOAS 25/3, 1962, pp. 616-17.

“Der Zoroastrismus,” Saeculum Weltgeschichte: Neue Hochkulturen in Asien …, eds. H. Franke et al., vol. II, Freiburg im Brisgau, 1966, pp. 261-70.

“Den senere Zoroastrisme,” Illustreret religionshistorie, eds., J. P. Asmussen and J. Læssøe, vol. II, Copenhagen, 1968, pp. 297-308; “Diyānat-e Zartošti dar dawrān-e motaʾaḵḵer,” in Diyānat-e Zartošti, tr. and ed., F. Vahman, Tehran, 1970, pp. 129-83; “Der spätere Zoroastrismus,” Handbuch der Religionsgeschichte, eds., J. P. Asmussen and J. Læssøe and contributions by C. Colpe, vol. II, Göttingen, 1972, pp. 359-72.

“The Zoroastrian villages of the Jūpār range,” Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers, ed., G. Wiessner, Wiesbaden, 1967, pp. 148-56.

“Rapithwin, Nō Rūz, and the feast of Sade,” Pratidānam: Indian, Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to Francisicus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, ed., J. C. Heesterman et al., The Hague and Paris, 1968, pp. 201-15.

“The pious foundations of the Zoroastrians,” BSOAS 31/2, 1968, pp. 270-89.

Review of Malcolm Colledge, The Parthians, BSOAS 31/3, 1968, pp. 671-72.

Review of L. J. R. Ort, Mani: A Religio-Historical Description of his Personality, JRAS, 1968, pp. 82-84.

“Maneckji Limji Hataria in Iran,” Golden Jubilee Volume: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, Bombay, 1969, pp. 19-31.

“Some aspects of farming in a Zoroastrian village of Yazd,” Persica 4, 1969, pp. 121-40.

“Toleranz und Intoleranz im Zoroastrismus,” Saeculum 21/4, 1970, pp. 325-43.

“The Zoroastrian houses of Yazd,” Iran and Islam: in memory of the late Vladimir Minorsky, ed., C. E. Bosworth, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 125-47.

Review of Behramgore Anklesaria, ed. and tr., The Pahlavi Rivāyat of Āturfarnbag and Farnbag-srōš, BSOAS 35/1, 1972, pp. 159-60.

“An old village dakhma of Iran,” Mémorial Jean de Menasce, eds., Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, Louvain, 1974, pp. 3-9.

“Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians,” Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman cults: studies for Morton Smith at sixty, ed., J. Neusner, Leiden, 1975, pt. 4, pp. 93-111.

“The two dates of the feast of Sada,” FIZ 21, 1976, pp. 25-40.

Review of Jürgen Hampel, Die Kopenhagener Handschrift Cod. 27: eine Sammlung von Zoroastrischen Gebeten, Beschwörungsformeln, Vorschriften und wissenschaftlichen Überlieferungen, BSOAS 40/1 1977, p. 160.

Review of Guy Monnot, Penseurs musulmans et religions iraniennes: ‘Abd al-Jabbār et ses devanciers, BSOAS 40/1, 1977, p. 162.

Review of François Decret, Mani et la tradition manichéenne, BSOAS 40/1, 1977, pp. 162-63.

“[Zoroastrianism] Early Days,” Man’s Religious Quest: a Reader, ed. W. Foy, London, 1978; repr. 1986, pp. 620-24.

Review of R. Ghirshman, L’Iran et la migration des Indo-Aryens et des Iraniens, JAOS 99/1, 1979, pp. 119-20.

“Varuna the Baga,” Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne I, Acta Iranica 21, Leiden, 1981, pp. 59-73.

Review of Ph. Gignoux, Catalogue des sceaux, camées et bulles sasanides de la Bibliothèque Nationale et du Musée du Louvre II: Les sceaux et bulles inscrits, BSOAS 44/3, 1981, pp. 596-97.

Review of Sven Hartman, Parsism: the religion of Zoroaster, BSOAS 45/3, 1982, pp. 591-92.

“The bipartite society of the ancient Iranians,” Societies and Languages of the ancient Near East: studies in honour of I. M. Diakonoff, eds., M. Dandamayev et al., Warminster, 1982, pp. 33-37.

“Iranian Festivals,” Camb. Hist. Iran, 3(2), ed. E. Yarshater, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 792-815; “Jašnhā-ye Irāniyān,” tr. Homāyun Ṣanʿati [zāda], Soruš-e pir-e moḡān: yādnāma-ye Jamšid Sorušiān, ed. K. Mazdāpur, Tehran, 2002, pp. 889-919.

Review of H. W. Bailey, The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan, JRAS, 1983, pp. 305-06.

“Zoroastrianism,” The Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, ed., John Hinnells, Harmondsworth, 1984; repr. 1991, pp. 171-90. Reprinted in The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, 1997; rev. repr. 2005, pp. 236-60.

“A tomb for Cassandane,” Orientalia Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata, Acta Iranica 23, Leiden, 1984, pp. 67-71.

Review of Johanna Narten, Die Aməša Spəṇtas im Avesta, BSOAS 47/1, 1984, pp. 158-61.

Review of J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, JRAS, 1984, p. 143.

“The Zoroastrians of Iran: over 3000 years of faith,” Asian Affairs 16/3, 1985, pp. 243-53.

“Dēnkard” vol. 4 (p. 148); “Pahlavi Literature” vol. 9 (pp. 326-27); and “Zoroastrianism” vol. 12 (pp. 746-48) Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed., J. Strayer, New York, 1982-89.

“Priests, Cattle and Men,” BSOAS 50/3, 1987, pp. 508-26.

“The Lady and the Scribe: some further reflections on Anāhit and Tīr,” A Green Leaf, Barg-e sabz: Papers in honour of Jes Asmussen, eds., J. Duchesne-Guillemin et al., Acta Iranica 28, Leiden, 1988, pp. 277-82.

“The Poems of the Persian Sibyl and the Zand ī Vahman Yašt,” Études irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, Cahiers de Studia Iranica 7, Paris, 1989, pp. 59-77.

“Mithra Khšathrapati and his brother Ahura,” BAI 4, n.s., 1990 [1992], pp. 3-9.

“Some Further Reflections on Zurvanism,” Iranica Varia: papers in honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater, Acta Iranica 30, Leiden, 1990, pp. 20-29.

Review of Malcolm Colledge, The Parthian Period, BSOAS 53/2, 1990, pp. 349-51.

“Pādyāb and Nērang: two Pahlavi terms further considered,” BSOAS 54/2, 1991, pp. 281-91.

“The ‘Parsis’ or Persians of Anatolia,” Platinum Jubilee Volume: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, Bombay, 1991, pp. 43-53.

“Dahma Āfriti and some related problems,” BSOAS 56/2, 1993, pp. 209-18.

“Great Vayu and Greater Varuna,” BAI 7, n.s., 1993 [1995], pp. 35-40.

“Zoroaster’s Theology: Translation as an obstacle to understanding,” Tradition und Translation … Festschrift für Carsten Colpe, eds., C. Elsas et al., Berlin and New York, 1994, pp. 279-84.

“On the Orthodoxy of Sasanian Zoroastrianism,” BSOAS 59/1, 1996, pp. 11-28.

“Mithra the King and Varuna the Master,” Philologica et Linguistica. Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas: Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80 … eds., M. Schmidt and W. Bisang, Trier, 2001, pp. 239-57.

“The teachings of Zoroaster,” (pp. 19-27); “Zoroastrianism in ancient imperial times,” (pp. 41-63); “The Parthian: defenders of the land and faith,” (pp. 99-115), A Zoroastrian Tapestry: Art, Religion and Culture, eds., P. Godrej and F. Punthakey Mistree, Ahmedabad and Cliffedgeway, NJ, 2002.

Dissertations or studies under Boyce’s guidance.

Peshotan Anklesaria, “A Critical edition of the unedited portion of the Dādestān-i dīnīk,” (joint supervision with Henning, unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1958).

[Philip] G. Kreyenbroek, Sraoša in the Zoroastrian Tradition, Leiden, 1985, repr., Mumbai [Bombay], 1999 (external supervision, Leiden University, 1982).

Samuel Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: a Historical Survey [with a foreword by Mary Boyce], Manchester, 1985, repr., 1999 (unofficial external supervision, D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1981).

Jennifer Rose, “The Traditional Role of Women in the Iranian and Indian (Parsi) Zoroastrian Communities from the Nineteenth to the Twentieth Century,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 56, 1989, pp. 1-103 (M.A. thesis, University of London, 1986).

James Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Cambridge, MA, 1987 (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1982).

A. Sh. Shahbāzi, M.A., University of London, 1968 (studies with A. D. H. Bivar, Mary Boyce and D. N. MacKenzie).

Shaul Shaked, tr. The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI) by Aturpāt-i Ēmētān, Boulder, CO, 1979 (commenced under Henning and concluded under Boyce given former’s departure to Berkeley, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1964).

Sarah Stewart, The concept of ‘Spirit’ in the Old Testament and Zoroastrian Gathas, London, 1993 (M.A. thesis, University of London, 1985).

Eadem, “On the role of the laity in the history of Zoroastrianism,” (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1998).

Aḥmad Tafażżolī, M.A., University of London, 1965 (studies commenced under Henning and concluded with Boyce and MacKenzie); “A Critical Edition and Translation of the Ninth Book of the Dēnkard,” unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tehran, 1966 (preliminary research under W. B. Henning and principal draft completed under Mary Boyce and D. N. MacKenzie at SOAS, London and subsequently J. P. de Menasce at ÉPHE, Paris).

Alan Williams, tr. The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, 2 vols., Copenhagen, 1990 (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1984).

Yumiko Yamamoto, “The Zoroastrian Temple Cult of Fire in Archaeology and Literature (I),” Orient: Report of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 15, 1979, pp. 19-53.

Eadem, “The Zoroastrian Temple Cult of Fire in Archaeology and Literature (II),” Orient: Report of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 17, 1981, pp. 67-104 (M. Phil thesis, University of London, 1978).

Obituaries.

Maryamsādāt ʿArabi, Eṭṭelāʿāt, 24 Tir 1383 Š./14 July 2006, p. 6.

Asian Affairs 37/3, 2006, p. 421.

David Bivar, Iran 44, 2006, pp. viii-ix.

Idem, The Times, 13 April 2006, p. 75.

Center for Iranian Studies Newsletter 18/1, (Spring 2006), pp. 1, 11.

Moṣṭafi Farhudi, Eṭṭelāʿāt, 15 Tir 1383 Š./5 July 2006, p. 6.

Gherardo Gnoli, East and West 56/4, 2006, pp. 447-59.

Frantz Grenet, Stud. Ir. 35/2, 2006, pp. 279-84.

John Hinnells, The Guardian, 11 April 2006, p. 31, reprinted in Z(oroastrian) T(rust) F(unds) of E(urope) News, September 2006, pp. 8-9 and Hamazor 4I/2, 2006, pp. 10-11.

Idem, “Boyce, (Nora Elizabeth) Mary,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, January 2010; online edition, September 2010, available at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/97119.

Almut Hintze, BSOAS 70/1, 2006, pp. 443-49.

Eadem, Daily Telegraph, 28 April 2006, p. 27, reprinted in FEZANA Journal 19/3, Summer 2006, p. 125.

Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), 7 April 2006, online.

Jām-e Jamšed, 16 April 2006, p. 14.

Albert de Jong, The Independent, 28 April 2006, p. 46.

Arnavaz Mama, Parsiana 29/1, August 7, 2006, pp. 30-32.

Mehr News Agency, 7 April 2006, online.

Bahman Morādiān, Farvahar 41/9-10, 2007, pp. 38-40.

Ārzu Rasuli, Našr-e dāneš 22/2, Summer 2006, pp. 73-75.

James Russell, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān: the International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 5/1-2, 2005-07 [2007], pp. 3-7.

Homāyun Ṣanʿati [zāda], Bokārā 50, (Farvardīn-Ordibehešt, 1385 Š./2006), pp. 92-99.

SOAS People 29, Winter 2006, p. 8.

Ushta Newsletter 27/1-2, (January-March 2006) [special supplement in honor of Professor Mary Boyce].

Farrokh Vajifdar, “Mary Boyce Memorial Lecture: Professor Mary Boyce and the Quest for Zoroaster,” Hamazor XLIX/2, 2008, pp. 17-19 [report on lecture by François de Blois, Royal Asiatic Society, London, 13 March, 2008; also delivered in the Bai Ratanbai Katrak Lecture Series, Oxford, 20 October, 2009].

ZTFE News, September 2006, pp. 6-7.

The post MARY BOYCE first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

Papak was originally the ruler of a region called Khir. However, by the year 200, he managed to overthrow Gochihr, and appoint himself as the new ruler of the Bazrangids. His mother, Rodhagh, was the daughter of the provincial governor of Pars. Papak and his eldest son Shapur managed to expand their power over all of Pars. The subsequent events are unclear, due to the elusive nature of the sources. It is certain, however, that following the death of Papak, Ardashir, who at the time was the governor of Darabgerd, got involved in a power struggle of his own with his elder brother Shapur. Sources reveal that Shapur, leaving for a meeting with his brother, was killed when the roof of a building collapsed on him. By the year 208, over the protests of his other brothers who were put to death, Ardashir declared himself ruler of Pars.[26][27]

Once Ardashir was appointed shahanshah, he moved his capital further to the south of Pars and founded Ardashir-Khwarrah (formerly Gur, modern day Firuzabad). The city, well supported by high mountains and easily defendable through narrow passes, became the center of Ardashir’s efforts to gain more power. The city was surrounded by a high, circular wall, probably copied from that of Darabgird, and on the north-side included a large palace, remains of which still survive today. After establishing his rule over Pars, Ardashir I rapidly extended his territory, demanding fealty from the local princes of Fars, and gaining control over the neighboring provinces of Kerman, Isfahan, Susiana and Mesene. This expansion quickly came to the attention of Artabanus V, the Parthian king, who initially ordered the governor of Khuzestan to wage war against Ardashir in 224, but the battles were victories for Ardashir. In a second attempt to destroy Ardashir, Artabanus V himself met Ardashir in battle at Hormozgan, where Artabanus V met his death. Following the death of the Parthian ruler, Ardashir I went on to invade the western provinces of the now defunct Parthian Empire.[28]
Rock-face relief at Naqsh-e Rustam of Persian emperor Shapur I (on horseback) capturing Roman emperor Valerian (standing) and Philip the Arab (kneeling), suing for peace, following the victory at Edessa.

At that time the Arsacid dynasty was divided between supporters of Artabanus V and Vologases VI, which probably allowed Ardashir to consolidate his authority in the south with little or no interference from the Parthians. Ardashir was aided by the geography of the province of Fars, which was separated from the rest of Iran.[29] Crowned in 224 at Ctesiphon as the sole ruler of Persia, Ardashir took the title shahanshah, or “King of Kings” (the inscriptions mention Adhur-Anahid as his Banbishnan banbishn, “Queen of Queens”, but her relationship with Ardashir is not established), bringing the 400-year-old Parthian Empire to an end, and beginning four centuries of Sassanid rule.[30]

In the next few years, local rebellions would form around the empire. Nonetheless, Ardashir I further expanded his new empire to the east and northwest, conquering the provinces of Sistan, Gorgan, Khorasan, Margiana (in modern Turkmenistan), Balkh and Chorasmia. He also added Bahrain and Mosul to Sassanid’s possessions. Later Sassanid inscriptions also claim the submission of the Kings of Kushan, Turan and Mekran to Ardashir, although based on numismatic evidence, it is more likely that these actually submitted to Ardashir’s son, the future Shapur I. In the west, assaults against Hatra, Armenia and Adiabene met with less success. In 230, he raided deep into Roman territory, and a Roman counter-offensive two years later ended inconclusively, although the Roman emperor, Alexander Severus, celebrated a triumph in Rome.[31][32][33]
The Humiliation of Valerian by Shapur (Hans Holbein the Younger, 1521, pen and black ink on a chalk sketch, Kunstmuseum Basel)

Ardashir I’s son Shapur I continued the expansion of the empire, conquering Bactria and the western portion of the Kushan Empire, while leading several campaigns against Rome. Invading Roman Mesopotamia, Shapur I captured Carrhae and Nisibis, but in 243 the Roman general Timesitheus defeated the Persians at Rhesaina and regained the lost territories.[34] The emperor Gordian III’s (238–244) subsequent advance down the Euphrates was defeated at Meshike (244), leading to Gordian’s murder by his own troops and enabling Shapur to conclude a highly advantageous peace treaty with the new emperor Philip the Arab, by which he secured the immediate payment of 500,000 denarii and further annual payments.

Shapur soon resumed the war, defeated the Romans at Barbalissos (253), and then probably took and plundered Antioch.[34][35] Roman counter-attacks under the emperor Valerian ended in disaster when the Roman army was defeated and besieged at Edessa and Valerian was captured by Shapur, remaining his prisoner for the rest of his life. Shapur celebrated his victory by carving the impressive rock reliefs in Naqsh-e Rostam and Bishapur, as well as a monumental inscription in Persian and Greek in the vicinity of Persepolis. He exploited his success by advancing into Anatolia (260), but withdrew in disarray after defeats at the hands of the Romans and their Palmyrene ally Odaenathus, suffering the capture of his harem and the loss of all the Roman territories he had occupied.[36][37]
The spread of Manichaeism (300– 500)[38]

Shapur had intensive development plans. He ordered the construction of the first dam bridge in Iran and founded many cities, some settled in part by emigrants from the Roman territories, including Christians who could exercise their faith freely under Sassanid rule. Two cities, Bishapur and Nishapur, are named after him. He particularly favored Manichaeism, protected Mani (who dedicated one of his books, the Shabuhragan, to him) and sent many Manichaean missionaries abroad. He also befriended a Babylonian rabbi called Samuel.

This friendship was advantageous for the Jewish community and gave them a respite from the oppressive laws enacted against them. Later kings reversed Shapur’s policy of religious tolerance. Under pressure from Zoroastrian Magi and influenced by the high-priest Kartir, Bahram I killed Mani and persecuted his followers. Bahram II was, like his father, amenable to the wishes of the Zoroastrian priesthood.[39][40] During his reign, the Sassanid capital Ctesiphon was sacked by the Romans under Emperor Carus, and most of Armenia, after half a century of Persian rule, was ceded to Diocletian.[41]

Succeeding Bahram III (who ruled briefly in 293), Narseh embarked on another war with the Romans. After an early success against the Emperor Galerius near Callinicum on the Euphrates in 296, Narseh was decisively defeated. Galerius had been reinforced, probably in the spring of 298, by a new contingent collected from the empire’s Danubian holdings.[42] Narseh did not advance from Armenia and Mesopotamia, leaving Galerius to lead the offensive in 298 with an attack on northern Mesopotamia via Armenia. Narseh retreated to Armenia to fight Galerius’ force, to Narseh’s disadvantage: the rugged Armenian terrain was favorable to Roman infantry, but not to Sassanid cavalry. Local aid gave Galerius the advantage of surprise over the Persian forces, and, in two successive battles, Galerius secured victories over Narseh.[43]
Rome and vassal Armenia around 300, after Narseh’s defeat

During the second encounter, Roman forces seized Narseh’s camp, his treasury, his harem, and his wife.[43] Galerius advanced into Media and Adiabene, winning successive victories, most prominently near Erzurum, and securing Nisibis (Nusaybin, Turkey) before October 1, 298. He moved down the Tigris, taking Ctesiphon. Narseh had previously sent an ambassador to Galerius to plead for the return of his wives and children. Peace negotiations began in the spring of 299, with both Diocletian and Galerius presiding.

The conditions of the peace were heavy: Persia would give up territory to Rome, making the Tigris the boundary between the two empires. Further terms specified that Armenia was returned to Roman domination, with the fort of Ziatha as its border; Caucasian Iberia would pay allegiance to Rome under a Roman appointee; Nisibis, now under Roman rule, would become the sole conduit for trade between Persia and Rome; and Rome would exercise control over the five satrapies between the Tigris and Armenia: Ingilene, Sophanene (Sophene), Arzanene (Aghdznik), Corduene, and Zabdicene (near modern Hakkâri, Turkey).[44]

The Sassanids ceded five provinces west of the Tigris, and agreed not to interfere in the affairs of Armenia and Georgia.[45] In the aftermath of this defeat, Narseh gave up the throne and died a year later, leaving the Sassanid throne to his son, Hormizd II. Unrest spread throughout the land, and while Hormizd II suppressed revolts in Sakastan and Kushan, he was unable to control the nobles and was subsequently killed by Bedouins in a hunting trip in 309.

The post Sasanid Origins and early history first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

Battle of Gaugamela (October 1, 331 BCE): decisive battle in the war between Macedonia and the Achaemenid Empire, fought in northern Iraq. The outcome was influenced by a celestial omen that announced the imminent downfall of the Persian king Darius III Codomannus and the succession by Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great

In the summer of 331, Darius learned that Alexander was returning from Egypt. Alexander soon reached Tyre, where he made a sacrifice to Melqart and organised sporting contests and a theatre festival. Now that Alexander controlled the wealth of such cities as Sardes, Damascus, and Memphis, he was in a position to pay huge fees, buying up actors who were still under contract in Greece. Other guests from Greece included envoys petitioning for the release of soldiers captured at Granicus. King Agis III of Sparta had started his war of Greek liberation and had already scored one victory over a Macedonian contingent, even though he did not yet have the support of all the Greek cities. So Alexander complied with the envoys’ request, with the result that in Athens, for example, enough sympathy was aroused for the Macedonian cause to dissuade people from casting in their lot with the Spartans. At the same time, Alexander sent hundreds of Phoenician and Cypriot ships to Crete and the Peloponnese to do battle with Agis.

Alexander was biding his time. He expected Darius to attack him, but that would have been uncharacteristically foolish. Darius preferred to let Alexander set out for the east, unfamiliar territory for the Macedonians. The son of Zeus had another reason for restraint. He was expecting fifteen thousand fresh troops to follow from Europe, troops that consistently failed to arrive, perhaps because Antipater needed them in the struggle against Agis. Eventually Alexander decided to set out for Mesopotamia, in the hope that reinforcements would catch up with him before he ran into Darius’ army.

Opening game

Darius put not the slightest obstacle in Alexander’s way. Seventy years earlier, a Yaunâ army, led by the rebel Persian Prince Cyrus the Younger, had been defeated in Babylonia and largely destroyed on its way home. The Persian high command had reason to be optimistic and they allowed the Macedonians to advance towards the Euphrates, to a place the sources call Thapsacus, which must lie somewhere in the borderlands between Turkey and Syria. Alexander’s friend Hephaestionhad already started building two pontoon bridges when Mazaeus, the satrap of Babylonia, appeared with a small army on the east bank.

At first the Macedonians did not finish building their bridge all the way to the opposite bank, because they feared Mazaeus’ troops would attack their bridgehead. But when Mazaeus heard that Alexander was on his way, he and his entire army fled. As soon as he had gone, the bridges were extended to the far bank and Alexander crossed them with his army.^note

Arrian’s claim that Mazaeus fled as the Macedonian king approached is directly or indirectly based on words used by Alexander, Parmenion and other commanders to explain events to their own soldiers. It must surely have encouraged the men to know that the first contact with the enemy in this operation had brought such easy success.

But the Macedonian general staff knew better. In fact, few manoeuvres by Persian commanders were as successful as that of Mazaeus. Alexander had been planning to march along the Euphrates to Babylon, where he suspected he would find Darius’ new army. The boats used to support the bridges had been intended as transport for heavy equipment. The river route was the shortest and it was also known to the Macedonian generals from Xenophon’s Anabasis, an account of the expedition by Cyrus the Younger mentioned above. It was now obvious that Darius had blocked that route. The harvest was already in and all along the Euphrates the grain was stored in well-fortified settlements that would be easy for Mazaeus to defend. His presence meant that the Macedonians would have to engage in siege warfare to feed themselves. They would face hunger. The only alternative route was the Persian Royal Road, which Alexander knew lay somewhere to the unknown east.

Macedonian detour, Persian preparations

It was impossible to march directly south-eastwards through the desert, since high summer had arrived and the average daytime temperature was close to 50°C. An ancient map describes the region as “desolate plains, made uninhabitable by a lack of water”. The Macedonians would have to march around the desert, across the less arid steppe to the north.

When Darius learned that Alexander had decided to make this detour and was marching towards the Tigris, he left Babylon and headed north to offer battle in the central region of what had once been the kingdom of Assyria. He knew his enemy would arrive there sooner or later and he looked for a broad battleground where his numerical superiority could be used to full advantage, which had not been the case at Issus. He set up his command centre at Arba’il (present-day Irbil), a stronghold on raised ground that was famous as the holy site of the fertility goddess Ištar. To judge by its name, which means “city of four gods”, it was home to the holy sites of a number of other cults as well. This was an excellent base. Here the Royal Road joined the roads to Armenia and the eastern satrapies, so it was a convenient spot to assemble a large army. The battlefield Darius had chosen lay seventy-five kilometres to the northwest, below a hill in the form of a dromedary’s hump, which had given it the name derived from the Semitic word for that animal, gammalu. The Macedonians referred to these places as Arbela and Gaugamela.

Once the Persians had levelled the terrain to make it suitable for war chariots and horsemen, they had to ensure that Alexander would not march off somewhere else. Darius let his adversary reach Mesopotamia unhindered. The region reminded the Macedonians of their fatherland. When they came to Urhai, a city on a rock rising high above the plain, where water supplies were plentiful, they renamed it Edessa after a Macedonian city of a similar altitude that was famous for its waterfall. Alexander allowed his men to rest for a few days in nearby Harran and, being a religious man, is likely to have performed a sacrifice in the temple of the moon god Sin. Moving on through the forests of Nisibis, the Macedonians reached the Tigris on 18 September 331, somewhere close to what is now the Eski Mosul dam.

Their situation was problematic. Mazaeus’ army, which had joined forces with Darius at Arbela, had been sent on ahead to lay waste to the land the Macedonians would have to pass through. They found too little food to feed themselves properly, but not so little that they were forced to turn back. All around them, Mazaeus’ Babylonian horsemen set fire to the thatched roofs of houses, to sheaves of wheat, to crops and food stores:

The entire area to the east of the Tigris was still smoking from recent fires, since Mazaeus had put the fields to the torch as if he himself were the invading enemy. Because the daylight was subdued by dark clouds of smoke, Alexander held back for fear of a trap, but when his scouts told him the coast was clear, he sent horsemen ahead of him to test whether the river was fordable.^note

Crossing the Tigris

The Persians guarding the ford pulled back after a brief skirmish and the Macedonians reached the opposite bank without significant difficulty. They were now in Assyria. Even though this once powerful kingdom had been ruled for the past three centuries by the Babylonians, whose empire in turn had been absorbed into that of the Persians, the name “Assyria” still spoke to the imagination. The fall of such a once-powerful city as Nineveh had made an impact even in Europe.

We know from the contemporary Astronomical Diaries that panic broke out in the Persian army that evening^note and it is natural to assume this was in response to the news that the enemy had crossed the river. But in fact there was no reason for panic. Alexander had done exactly what Darius had wanted him to do. By leaving the fordable stretches of the Euphrates and the Tigris practically unguarded, the Persians had managed to guide the enemy to the battlefield of their choice. Darius was completely in command of the situation and seemed guaranteed of victory.

Evil omens

It was not to be. On 20 September, immediately after sunset, Darius’ soldiers watched the moon turn blood red and then go dark. The Astronomical Diaries describe the omen:

On the thirteenth day of the month of Ulûlu in the fifth year of Darius there was an eclipse of the moon, which was entirely darkened as Jupiter set. Saturn was four fingers distant. As the eclipse became total, a westerly wind was blowing; as the moon became visible again, an easterly wind. During the eclipse there were deaths and plagues.

According to the Persian Magians, an eclipse of the moon was more significant for the king himself than most other omens.^note The Babylonian Chaldaeans, in their catalogue of prophecies, offered an even less propitious interpretation:

If the moon or the sun are eclipsed and Jupiter is not visible: end of a dominion.^note

Moreover, according to the systems generally used in prophetic writings, an eclipse on the thirteenth day of the month meant disaster for Babylonia and an eclipse in the month of Ulûlu meant disaster for Persia. A westerly wind during such an eclipse indicated that the catastrophe was to come from that direction; an easterly wind as the disc of the moon became visible meant the eastern regions were safe. The fact that Saturn was visible gave added force to all these prophecies.

In other words, after the omens of 20 September, a Babylonian astronomer would have known that the end was near for the ruler of Persia and Babylonia and that the cause of his demise would be an enemy from the west. Although the east would provide sanctuary, this was still a demoralising prospect. On another clay tablet we find a similar description of a lunar eclipse, but this time it predicts the fate of the victor rather than the defeated party:

If on the thirteenth or fourteenth of Ulûlu the moon is eclipsed, the watch passes and the darkness remains, the moon’s features are dark as lapis lazuli, the moon is eclipsed as far as its centre and its western quadrant covered, a westerly wind is blowing, the sky remains dark and the light concealed, then the king’s son will undergo a cleansing ritual in front of the throne, but he will not ascend to the throne. An invader will mount an invasion supported by the rulers of the west; for eight years he will exercise kingship [lacuna]; he will defeat a hostile army; he will find abundance and riches on his path; he will pursue his enemy relentlessly and there will be no end to his good fortune.^note

Astrology was not a secret doctrine.^note We can assume that educated Babylonians in Darius’ army, such as Mazaeus, would have known the fate of their king was sealed. Morale declined visibly, especially when the following day brought word that the Macedonians had made short work of the cavalry unit responsible for laying waste to the land through which Alexander was marching. The Astronomical Diaries record a new omen in the early hours of 23 September:

A meteor flashed. Its light was visible on the ground.^note

When daylight came, one of the Persian courtiers taken prisoner during the battle of Issus arrived at Darius’ camp, released in order to bring the great king more bad tidings: his wife Stateira, who had been take captive, had died in childbirth two days before. Alexander had buried her in accordance with Persian rites.

The Macedonians advance

On the twenty-fourth, Darius sent a messenger to the Macedonian army with a third peace proposal. This time he offered his enemy all the land to the west of the Euphrates and the hand in marriage of one of his daughters who had been captured by Alexander. This proposal shows that the Persian king was keen to avert a battle. His army had been so heavily demoralised by bad omens that he felt forced to make concessions. It was no use. The messenger returned the following day to report that Alexander had rejected his offer.

He also reported that the Macedonians were only forty kilometres away from the Persians that morning and advancing rapidly. In the evening another omen was seen; the Astronomical Diaries refer to it as a “fall of fire”. Exactly what this means is unclear, but it may have been a bolide, a kind of slow meteorite. The phenomenon was seen by the Macedonians as well and it provoked panic. Mazaeus, who had taken up position on a hill between the Macedonian and Persian camps, could see that the enemy was not breaking camp that morning, in fact the Macedonians were starting to reinforce their position with a palisade. Alexander had never approached an enemy so circumspectly. More than ten kilometres separated the two armies.

On the evening of the twenty-sixth there was another fall of fire and Mazaeus informed his king that the Macedonian army remained in its camp. The enemy did not turn out on 27 or 28 September either. No doubt the soldiers made use of the time to sharpen their weapons and to exercise. On the evening of the twenty-ninth Mazaeus saw that the enemy army was on the move and he knew it was time to abandon the hill and join the Persian main force.

A remarkable omission in the sources shows just how great the tension had become. The Macedonian army had to cross a river and pass along a canal that the Assyrian king Sennacherib had laid long before, as a means of supplying Nineveh with clean water. It was one of the greatest engineering achievements of the Ancient World, but it passed unnoticed. At least, the Greek sources, which generally make note of such things, do not refer to it. Neither is there any mention of the nearby ruins of an Assyrian palace.

Preparing for battle

When the sun rose on 30 September, Darius sent scouts to the far side of the field to study his opponents’ battle formation. It looked similar to their formation at Issus. In the Macedonian centre was the phalanx (under the leadership of Craterus) and on the right wing stood the shield-bearer infantrymen (under the command of Parmenion’s son Nicanor), the companion cavalry (led by Nicanor’s brother Philotas and Alexander) and the light cavalry. On the left wing, commanded as ever by Parmenion, stood the Thessalian and Thracian horsemen, commanded as ever by Parmenion. A second line, invisible to the Persians, consisted of Greek troops and lightly armed soldiers who were to intervene if the Persians attempted a flanking movement.

Alexander and his general staff were also studying the enemy lines, stretched out six kilometres wide in front of them. Arrianus records what they saw:

At the centre, where King Darius was to be found, the relatives of the king were arranged, along with the Persian Applebearers, the Indians, the “Carian deportees” and the Mardian archers; behind them, in a hollow, were the Babylonians [under the leadership of Mazaeus], the Red Sea contingents and the Sittacenians. Out in front on the left wing, opposite Alexander’s right wing, stood the Sacaean horsemen [commanded by Bessus], around 1,000 Bactrians, and 100 scythed chariots. The elephants and 50 scythed chariots stood close to Darius’ own royal squadron. At the front of the right wing stood the Armenian and Cappadocian horsemen, with another 50 scythed chariots. The Greek mercenaries were placed on either side of Darius and his Persian followers, directly opposite the Macedonian phalanx, since only they could possibly be a match for the phalanx.^note

Scythed chariots were war chariots with, as the name suggests, scythes attached to the wheels. Like the elephants, they were deployed mainly against enemy infantry.

Night

It was an almost moonless night, but not dark, since hundreds of campfires were burning on either side of the plain. Darius did not want a repeat of the battle of Granicus, where the Macedonians had taken advantage of the fact that Persian armies were only allowed to march after performing sacrifices to the rising sun. So he had his men stay awake all night, in battle formation.

Accompanied by generals and relatives he made the rounds of his troops […]. He invoked the sun, Mithra, and the holy eternal fire, to lend the kind of courage to his men that would be appropriate to the ancient fame and memory of their ancestors. “If the human spirit is capable of understanding the signs of divine assistance,” Darius went on, “then the gods are definitely with us. We caused panic recently among the Macedonians and our enemies are still stiff with fear, throwing down their weapons. The tutelary deities of the Persian Empire will give those madmen everything they deserve. And their leader has not acquired a single grain of wisdom! Like a wild animal, he sees nothing but the prey he is after as he storms into the trap set for that very same prey.”^note

So runs the account of Curtius Rufus, which may be an accurate reflection of the great kings words. The night of 30 September 331 was the beginning of autumn, when the Persians celebrated Mithrakana – sure enough, by making sacrifices to the sun, to Mithra and to the holy fire. The comparison between Alexander and a “wild animal” is also worth noting. In the Persian holy book, the Avesta, the same imagery is used to describe Angra Mainyu, the evil counterpart of Ahuramazda. The personification of evil, he was sometimes described as like a lion, and the Persian king was often depicted fighting a lion. Alexander liked to have an image of himself as Heracles stamped on coins, with a lion’s skin over his head. It was natural for Darius, Ahuramazda’s chosen ruler, to compare his enemy to Angra Mainyu.

The battle of Gaugamela

Our detailed knowledge of events leading up to the battle is mirrored by a lack of information about the engagement itself. We simply have no idea what happened, even though Greek and Roman authors offer detailed descriptions of the advances and manoeuvres that took place on 1 October 331. Their reports amount to saying that Alexander charged at Darius with such energy and terrifying ferocity that he panicked, turned around and thereby put the mass of the Persian army to flight.

The actual course of events was probably rather different. The battleground at Gaugamela was a sandy plain, and the sand they kicked up would have made it impossible for the Macedonians and Persians to see what was happening. After a day of fighting in a dust storm, Alexander’s army emerged in control of the field. No one could say how this had come about, although the Macedonians naturally assumed that their plan of attack had proved successful: an advance by the companion cavalry on the right wing, led by Alexander, while Parmenion’s left wing and the second line took up defensive positions. There is also firm evidence that at some point Mazaeus’ Babylonian horsemen broke through the Macedonian lines, only to take the Macedonian camp instead of attacking the enemy from the rear.

That evening the victors tried to reconstruct what had happened. They put their victory down to the heroic performance of their young king and to Darius’ cowardice. What actually happened lies concealed for ever in the dust clouds of the battlefield, but the Astronomical Diaries do offer some interesting information:

On the morning of the twenty-fourth of the month of Ulûlu, the king of the world [Alexander] raised his standard [lacuna]. The armies engaged each other and the king’s soldiers suffered a heavy defeat. The troops abandoned their king [Darius] and headed back to their cities. They fled to the lands in the east.^note

“King of the world” is how the Babylonians translated “king of Asia”, the title accepted by Alexander. The writer of the Astronomical Diaries had to use this ancient royal title because “Asia” was not a concept he recognised. The striking thing about this fragment is that it says Darius was abandoned by his men and not – as Macedonian propaganda would have it – that he let his men down. By “lands in the east” the writer means Media, where Darius, just as the Chaldaeans had predicted, found sanctuary and could begin raising his third army.

The Babylonian account of the engagement, which was written a few days after the battle, makes sense in the light of what had happened in the days leading up to it. Despite Darius’ meticulous preparations and the fact that his enemy behaved like a puppet in his hands, his soldiers, many of whom had no combat experience at all, were demoralised and ran away. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the battle of Gaugamela amounted to an attack on a large group of deserters. It wasn’t Alexander’s courage or Darius’ cowardice that decided the fate of the Persian Empire, it was the signs that were seen in the sky.

Thanks

This was about half a chapter from my book Alexander de Grote. De ondergang van het Perzische rijk(“Alexander the Great. The Demise of the Persian Empire”), which was published in 2004 by Athenaeum – Polak & Van Gennep, Amsterdam. It was translated for the NLPVF (Foundation for the Production and Translation of Dutch Literature) by Liz Waters, who kindly gave permission to reproduce the text on this website.

The post Battle of Gaugamela 331 BCE first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

Style: the carving is not deep, leading to a poor volume effect. The surface was left grainy, not being smoothed as other sasanian reliefs usually were. Scholars admit it was probably intentional, in order to ease the painting on the surface (evidences were found backing the hypothesis that sasanian rock reliefs like some other iranian era’s reliefs were painted with multiples colors).

Imaging: The relief shows a dramatic scene of victory or fierce repression, caracterized by a representation of cruelty, unique in the sasanian iconography. Such violent imaging is usually seen on Assyrian imaging (see Susa’s plundering stela from king Ashurbanipal). The relief is carved into a rectangular panel composed with 2 registers. The upper register shows the king at the center, seating on his throne, holding his sceptre in one hand and his sword with the other. Such enthroned king image was inspired by Bahram II’s relief at Sarab-e bahram (and is admitted to have inspired later the byzantian face seating christ icons). Persian courtiers and members of the royal family pay him respect on the lef side of the register, while on the right side, persian soldiers bring prisoners. One of the prisoners is carried, being injured while another watches his guard. The lower register shows either ranks of persian soldiers on the left, and on the right, others who present to the king 2 heads and plundered objects. One of the head still wears an animal figured hat, evidence that the beheaded man was a member of the royal family. An imploring child calls upon the man holding the head, probably being the son of the dead man, increasing the dramatical emotional feature

The scene has been reported as showing the repression of some noble’s revolt, or a victory against the kuchan empire. But during the reign of Shapur II, roman expansion towards the east triggered another war between Persia and Roma. The expanding christian religion was then perceived as endangering zoroastrism, the state religion in Persia. Zoroastrism was at this time an instrument of power and ruling for the sassanian kings since high priest Kartir period. One of Shapur’s nephew was even executed for converting to the christian religion. Famous belgian archeologist Pr Louis Vanden Berghe then stated that the scene probably reports this event as a symbol of the christian repression, with the aim to reinforce the royal power. Arabic ancient scholars also reported Shapur II in their texts as a king reminded for being particularly fierce and cruel.

Taken in Tang-e Showgan, Bishapour, viscinity of Kazerun, Fars province, Iran, April 2007.

The post Bishapour 6 first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

This is the first part of an article in eight pieces.

Prologue

Herodotus of Halicarnassus hereby publishes the results of his inquiries, hoping to do two things: to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of the Greek and the non-Greek peoples; and more particularly, to show how the two races came into conflict.

These are the confident opening lines of Herodotus’ Histories, and the Greeks who heard them must have been surprised. Preserving the memory of the past by putting on record certain astonishing achievements was not unusual, but the bards who had been singing legendary tales had been less pretentious. Even the great poet Homerhad started his Iliad in a more modest way:

Sing, goddess, the wrath of Peleus’ son Achilles, that brought endless harm upon the Greeks. Many brave men did it send down to the Underworld, and many heroes did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures. In this way, the counsels of Zeus were fulfilled, from the day on which Agamemnon -king of men- and great Achilles first fell out with one another. And which of the gods was it that set them on to quarrel?

The similarity between these two prologues is obvious: we are about to hear a tale about a terrible conflict and the speaker wants us to understand how the two sides came into conflict. The difference is striking, too: Homer invites a goddess to relate the story; Herodotus does not need divine aid. Who was this man, who so proudly gave his personal opinion about the past?

Herodotus’ life

Not much is known about Herodotus’ life. The only reliable source we have is the book he wrote, known as The Histories, and this remarkable text gives us some clues that enable us to sketch the outlines of its writer’s life. As its prologue shows, Herodotus was born in a town called Halicarnassus: modern Bodrum in southwestern Turkey. Not far from Herodotus’ native city is the island Samos, which figures so prominently in The Histories, that it has been argued that Herodotus spent several years on it. The same argument applies to Athens: Herodotus may have spent some time in the leading Greek city of his age.
Ancient-Warfare.com, the online home of Ancient Warfare magazine
The theater and acropolis of Halicarnassus. Photo Marco Prins.
Halicarnassus / Bodrum

It is unknown when or why he left his home town. Two or three centuries after Herodotus’ death, scholars from Alexandria assumed that the historian was banished because he had been involved in an abortive coup attempt. Unfortunately, there are many ancient historians who were forced to spend part of their lives abroad after a political failure (e.g., Thucydides, Theopompus of Chios, Timaeus, and Polybius of Megalopolis). Probably, it is safer to ignore this piece of scholarly speculation.
The famous Macedonian philosopher Aristotle of Stagira (384-322 BCE) must have heard or read The Histories. In his book on Rhetorics, he quotes its first line:

Herodotus of Thurii hereby publishes the results of his inquiries…
[Rhetorics 1409a27]
An easy way to explain this variant reading of Herodotus’ opening line is that Aristotle was simply mistaken. However, the philosopher’s infallibility has been axiomatic for centuries, and many scholars -ancient and modern- have tended to believe that Herodotus was one of the settlers in the South-Italian city Thurii, which was founded in 444 BCE. A medieval dictionary, the Suda, mentions Herodotus’ tomb on the market of Thurii (Suda H536); this was a high honor, only attributed to the (often legendary) founders of new cities. Of course it is possible that Herodotus was the founder of Thurii, but probably we are better advised to take the Suda’s statement with a grain of salt, especially since Athens and Pella (in Macedonia) also claimed his tomb. It is imaginable that the Thurians have invented theirs after reading Aristotle.

The year of Herodotus’ death is unknown, but we have two clues. In section 137 of Book Seven of The Histories the execution of two Spartans in Athens is mentioned. From another source, The history of the Peloponnesian War by the Athenian historian Thucydides (2.67), it is known that the two were killed in the winter of 430/429 BCE. Therefore, Herodotus was still alive and writing in 429. Since it is also known that in the summer of 429 many Athenians were killed by the plague, it may be conjectured that Herodotus was one of the victims of this disease. However this may be, he must have died before 413, because he tells (Book Nine, section 73) that a certain village in the neighborhood of Athens, Decelea, was never plundered by the Spartans, something that did in fact happen in 413, as Thucydides tells us (6.93)
Assuming that Herodotus died between 429 and 413, it is reasonable to infer that he was born between 500 and 470. Perhaps we can be a little bit more precise: nowhere in The Histories does he claim to have witnessed the great Persian War (480-479 BC) that he is describing. Therefore, his date of birth can be estimated in the eighties of the fifth century BC.

The author of The Histories seems to have been a real globetrotter. If we are to believe him, he was no stranger in Babylon, where he interviewed the priests; he claims to have gone north to the Crimea and south along the Nile; he visited Sicily and knows the details of North-African topography. However, some doubts are possible: e.g., his description of Babylon is contradicted by archaeological evidence (see below). On the other hand, in his description of the Crimea, he mentions a king known to have lived around 460, which makes it likely that he really visited that part of the world.

That he was able to write, is a fact easily ignored. However, it tells us that his parents could afford a teacher and were well to do. Herodotus must have been a rich man, possibly a member of the old aristocracy. We may speculate that he fought as a heavy armored infantryman (a hoplite), like all Greek men of his class and age. This would explain why his descriptions of battles are always from a soldier’s point of view and sometimes confused. He was a soldier, not a general.

This is all we know about the Father of History: frustratingly little. Yet, there are only a few ancient writers that we know as well as Herodotus. Other authors wrote longer texts, were greater historians, or reached greater intellectual heights, but none of them is able to convey the same feeling of intimate friendship that we experience when we read Herodotus. We meet him when he is in a dark mood, share his surprise, know his religious opinions, hear him chattering, joking and babbling. There is no ancient author whose character we know so well as the man about whose life we know so little. The solution to this paradox lies in The Histories.

Herodotus’ originality

Today, The Histories are usually edited in one volume. In Antiquity, nine scrolls were needed to contain the entire text, and it is still usual to divide The Histories into nine ‘books’. As the Italian classicist Silvana Cagnazzi has pointed out, it is possible to subdivide every ‘book’ into three units, the logoi (overview). When a person reads one of these logoi to an audience, he or she needs about four hours, and it is likely that this is how Herodotus first ‘published’ the results of his inquiries: as a lecture. This idea corroborates an ancient story that he used to recite his work. (On one occasion, a boy started to cry: the future historian Thucydides, who was deeply moved by Herodotus’ narrative.)
It is likely that at one point Herodotus decided to collect his logoi in one continuous text. But now he faced a serious problem. His logoi were about very dissimilar subjects -e.g., a description of Egypt, a logos about Scythian customs, and a narrative about Persian diplomacy in the winter of 480/479- and it was likely that this collection of logoi would become a messy whole. Herodotus has recognized this problem, and decided to group everything around one single theme: the expansion of the Achaemenid (or Persian) empire between 550 and 479. Lectures on topography and ethnography now became integrated chapters of a historical chronicle.

Ancient-Warfare.com, the online home of Ancient Warfare magazine
Homer. Glyptothek, M�nchen (Germany). Photo Marco Prins.
Homer (Glyptothek, Munich)
Stories about the past were something that the Greeks primarily knew from the beautiful epic poems of Homer, who had sung about the valiant deeds of past heroes in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Herodotus was heavily influenced by this example. Sometimes he quotes the legendary bard; or he uses words that any Greek would have recognized as homeric. The Iliad contains a catalogue of nations that took part in the Trojan War; in Book Three, Herodotus sums up all Persian provinces, and in Book Seven, he inserts a list of troops that took part in Xerxes’ expedition to Greece. Sometimes, Herodotus copies scenes from Homer. In his description of the Battle of Thermopylae, he tells how the Spartans and Persians fought about the body of Leonidas. This is impossible in a hoplite-battle (the type of warfare Herodotus is describes) but echoes a scene from the Iliad in which the Greeks and Trojans fight about the body of the hero Patroclus.

A very important borrowing from Homer is the circular composition. More than a hundred times, Herodotus interrupts his narrative to digress on a subject. The longest digression is Book Two: Herodotus announces that the Persian king Cambyses wanted to conquer Egypt, and then begins to talk about the geography, the customs and the history of the ancient country along the Nile. Finally, at the beginning of Book Three, Herodotus resumes his narrative and describes the Persian invasion.
The digressions belong to the most entertaining parts of the Histories. For example, we read an interview with an employee of an Egyptian mummy factory, an astonishing anecdote about the first circumnavigation of Africa, a hilarious tale about Indian goldmining, a report about the sources of the Nile and the Danube (see below), a reconstruction of the language of the prehistoric Greeks, a cautionary tale about deposits, and lots more.

Modern bust of Herodotus, Bodrum (Turkey). Photo Jona Lendering.
Modern bust of Herodotus, near the Museum of Bodrum

A final point of similarity between Herodotus and Homer is the impartiality of the narrative: Homer’s heroes are the Greeks, but his Trojans are no villains, and in the same way Herodotus portrays his Greeks and Persians – he treats both parties without partiality or hatred, but with genuine sympathy. It is interesting to compare this with the historiographical texts from the oriental monarchies: the Persian shah -e.g., the Behistun inscription- and the Egyptian pharaoh leave no doubt about the wickedness of their opponents.
But Herodotus is more than just a pupil of Homer who added geographical and ethnographical bits and pieces to his unbiased epic tale. A first difference is that Homer was a poet using a complex meter, whereas Herodotus composed his logoi in prose. But the greatest difference is the fact that Herodotus was a real researcher, an empiricist. (In fifth century BC Greek, the word historia still meant ‘research’; it was Herodotus’ achievement that the meaning of the word changed.) He traveled a lot in order to investigate the cities and opinions of man. Where Homer claimed to be speaking the truth depended on his inspiration from the muses, Herodotus based his narrative on research. It is a tribute to the quality of Herodotus’ geographical descriptions that the works of his predecessors are now lost.

As a corollary of Herodotus’ empiricist method, he is interested in the recent past. Homer had told about distant, legendary antiquities; Herodotus was interested in events that were in living memory and could be verified. For example, he seems to have interviewed the survivors of the Battle of Marathon. Admittedly, interviews are an unreliable source, but it must be said that Herodotus did a remarkable job: when we can check The Histories, it often turns out to be trustworthy. Even though Herodotus makes some serious mistakes, he managed to give a pretty accurate description of the century before his birth.
As it turned out, Herodotus invented a new literary genre: history. He did so by integrating the results of empiricist ethnographic and topographic research into epic, and writing this in prose. This combination was revolutionary.

Thucydides. Mosaic from Jerash, now in the Altes Museum Berlin (Germany). Photo Jona Lendering. Thucydides; mosaic from Jerash (Altes Museum, Berlin)
It is odd that he was hardly appreciated in Antiquity. People admired his entertaining way of telling stories, but they did not believe them. The first to criticize the Father of History was Thucydides, who rejected Herodotus’ religious explanation of what was happening (below). In later times, nobody dared to believe what Herodotus told about strange customs. For almost two thousand years, people considered him just a teller of (excellent) tales and thought that all these strange customs were merely inventions. His never ending stream of tall, short and winding tales earned him -as Salman Rushdie would say- not one but two nicknames: to some, he was the Father of History, but to others, he was the Father of Lies. Only when, after the discovery of the Americas, the Europeans learned to know the customs of hitherto unknown people, the reappreciation of Herodotus started. But even today, many of his claims are the subject of debate.

The post Herodotus of Halicarnassus first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

The post The Geography of Arabia first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

The post Ancient Arabias before Islam first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

After about a decade of relative peace and status quo with the Hyksos who still controlled the northern half of the country, the Theban king Ahmose rekindled Kamose’s war against these foreign rulers. Within 5 years, he succeeded in expelling them from his country, reuniting it back under the sole rule of one Egyptian king.

Perhaps driven by the desire to make sure that Egypt never again would fall under a foreign rulership, Ahmose continued his military campaigns after the expulsion of the Hyksos. Through a series of campaigns both in Syria-Palestine and in Nubia, Ahmose extended Egypt’s realm of influence well beyond its borders, stretching from at least as far north as the city of Bybos and perhaps even beyond, down to the second cataract town of Buhen in the south.

From this reign on, Egypt would become a military power that the neighbouring states and kingdoms would need to reckon with.

The reign of Ahmose’s son and successor Amenhotep I was somewhat more peaceful than that of Ahmose and seems to have focused more on the building of new temples throughout the country.

Although he was not buried there, Amenhotep I, along with his mother Ahmes-Nefertari, would be revered until long after his death by the craftsmen who built the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings.

With Thutmosis I a new family ascended to the throne. The mother of the new king is only known by the title of King’s Mother, which she obtained after her son came to power. She was neither the sister, daughter nor wife of a king, which means that the father of Thutmosis I, who is not known, was definitely not a king. It is sometimes argued that the royal line was continued through Ahmes, Thutmosis’ principal wife, but the fact that this queen is not known to have held the title King’s Daughter, does indicate that she was neither a daughter of Ahmose nor Amenhotep I. Her title King’s Sisiter might as well mean that she was the sister of Thutmosis I himself, .

Following some rebellions in the conquered territories, Thutmosis I launched a series of military campaigns both in Syria-Palestine and in Nubia. Towards the end of his reign, Egypt’s southern border was at the at the town of Napata, near the 4th cataract, deep into Sudan, while in the north, the country’s influence stretched as far as the town of Karkemish, not far from the modern day Turkish border.

The bounty Thutmosis brought back from his campaigns, and the tribute that foreign kings and vassal rulers would send to Egypt on a regular basis, brought a wealth to the country unlike anything it had ever seen before. This wealth flowed mainly to the building of temples, particularly the temple of the god Amun-Re at Karnak.

Thutmosis I was the first king to be buried in the Valley of the Kings, a tradition that would be followed until the end of the New Kingdom.

Ahmose’s ceremonial axe shows the king slaying an enemy.

 Stretching from Karkemish, on the shores of the Euphrates river in the North, to Napata at the 4th cataract of the Nile in the South, Egypt reached its widest expansion during the reign of Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III.

Thutmosis I was succeeded by his son Thutmosis II who died after a brief reign leaving only an infant son, Thutmosis III, to inherit the empire. The widow and sister of the deceased king, Hatshepsut, was appointed regent on behalf of the new king, her stepson. Within a few years, Hatshepsut evolved from regent to king, forcing the young Thutmosis III into the role of junior partner in a corregency.

Hatshepsut’s reign was generally a peacefull one, during which the country prospered. A trading mission to the mysterious land of Punt is often considered as one of the most important accomplishments of this remarkable queen-turned-king and was left very well documented in her funerary temple at Deir el-Bahari.

An important part of Egypt’s prosperity continued to flow to large building projects. Hatshepsut added many new shrines and a pair of obelisks to the great temple of Amun at Karnak and she extended or built several temples throughout the country. Her most remarkable building achievement, however, was be the unique mortuary temple she built at Deir el-Bahari, on the Westbank of Thebes.

   At Deir el-Bahari on the westbank of Thebes, Hatshepsut built a unique funerary temple.

When Hatshepsut disappeared from the political stage the then adult Thutmosis III was faced with a rebellion that threatened Egypt’s hold on Syria-Palestine. Like his grandfather before him, Thutmosis III embarked on a series of military campaigns in Syria-Palestine and in Nubia that reinforced Egypt’s control over both areas. Rather than executing the vassals that had rebelled against him, Thutmosis III confirmed them in their power, ensuring himself of their loyalty by bringing their heirs back to Egypt, not just as hostages, but also to “educate” them so that, when they would succeed their fathers, they too would remain loyal to Egypt.

The success of this policy is shown by the fact that Thutmosis III’s successors would rely more on diplomacy and trade than solely on military power to maintain their empire.

The 18th Dynasty peaked during the reign of Amenhotep III, a great-grandson of Thutmosis III. Sustained by the enormous wealth of past conquests, by tributes and diplomatic gifts of vassal kings and foreign rulers, Amenhotep III became one of the greatest builders in the history of his country.

Like his ancestors, he continued extending the great temple of Amun at Karnak. He also built the temple of the goddess Mut at Karnak, just to the South of Amun’s great temple and somewhat more to the south, he constructed a new temple dedicated to Amun and Amenhotep III himself. On the Theban Westbank, he built a large palace complex and a funerary temple of which, unfortunately, only two badly damaged colossi now bear witness.

Amenhotep’s building activity was not limited to Thebes alone. Throughout his realm, and as far south as the 4th cataract, new temples were built and others extended.

Thutmosis III is considered to be the greatest conqueror in the history of Ancient Egypt.

Another interesting development in the course of Amenhotep III’s reign was more of a religious nature. Next to the apparent deification of the living king, a new god made his appearance in the already vast pantheon of the Ancient Egyptians: Aton, the solar disk.

All the while, however, Amenhotep III continued to support the cult of the god Amun, whose priests became increasingly wealthy and powerful. Perhaps driven by a desire to break this power, Amenhotep IV, the son and successor of Amenhotep III, advanced the status of this new god from being the most important solar god, to being as good as the only god. Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaten, which means as much as “ray of Aton“, ordered all temples that were not dedicated to the new god closed and moved the capital away from Thebes to a new city which he built in Middle Egypt: Akhet-Aton, “the horizon of Aton“, which, in modern-day literature is called Amarna. The so-called Amarna Revolution had begun.

As part of his revolution, Akhenaten also made some drastic changes in the way people and things would be represented. The most obvious change would be the way he had himself and the members of his family portrayed. His protruding belly, elongated face, fat thighs and small ankles and arms are in sharp contrast with the young and athletic portrayals of his predecessors. Whether or not this was actually what Akhenaten looked like, is still the subject of much debate.

Although there was some military activity during Akhenaten’s reign, the king seems to have been interested more in his religious and cultural reforms than he was in protecting Egypt’s intrests abroad. Calls for support from his vassals in Syria-Palestine went largely ignored, opening the way for the Hittite empire to expand its own realm of influence in that region.

Akhenaten’s religious reforms were also reflected in the different way he had himself portrayed in statues and reliefs.

Towards the end of his reign, Akhenaten appointed Semenekhkare to be his coregent, leaving all the worldly matters to him. Remarkably, the junior coregent appears to have set the first steps towards a restoration of the old cults.

It would, however, be Tutankhaten, who would abandon the capital of Akhenaten, along with the cult of its god. Having changed his name to Tutankhamun, this young king set about reopening the temples that were closed during the reign of Akhenaten, restoring the old priesthood back to its former power. Despite the importance of his reign, Tutankhamun will probably be best remembered for his tomb, which was found almost intact in the early 1920s.

 The mummy mask of Tutankhamun is perhaps one of the most famous finds in the history of archaeology.

Tutankhamun having died without leaving an heir, the throne passed to two of his courtiers. The first was Ay, who is sometimes believed to have been a brother-in-law of Amenhotep III and who married the widow of the deceased king in order to legitimise his claims to the throne.

The second was Horemheb, a former general who served under Tutankhamun and who may have been married to a sister of Nefertiti, Akhenaten’s wife. It was during Horemheb’s reign that the restoration policy after the Amarna Revolution turned into a policy of destruction: Akhenaten’s names were chissled away, his statues torn down and his temples smashed to bits.

As he had no male offspring, Horemheb appointed an old comrade in arms, the general Paramesu, to be his successor. With Paramesu’s accession to the throne as Ramesses I, the 18th Dynasty had come to an end.

The table below lists the kings and queen of the 18th Dynasty:

Name Manetho Highest Year Dates (*) Ahmose Amosis 1540 – 1515 Amenhotep I Amenophis 1515 – 1494 Thutmosis I Tethmosis 1494 – 1482 Thutmosis II Khebron 1 [or 3 (?)] 1482 – 1479 Thutmosis III Misphragmuthosis 1479 – 1425 Hatshepsut Amensis 1473 – 1458 Amenhotep II 1425 – 1401 Thutmosis IV Tuthmosis 1401 – 1391 Amenhotep III 1391 – 1353 Amenhotep IV Akhenaten 1353 – 1335 Semenekhkare 1335 – 1334 Tutankhamun 1334 – 1325 Ay 1325 – 1321 Horemheb Armaios 13 1321 – 1307

(*) Note that all dates are approximations only and that even the length of each king’s tenure of power is subject to debate.

The post The 18th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt – Eighteen first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

An Essay by Bill Hemminger

The question that initiates this program is a broad one: Why study ancient cultures? You might feel that the question is moot: students do study and will study ancient cultures; such study is an expected part of a tradition of intellectual development. The response to the why of the initial question is a matter of tradition, if not fact. A study of the ROMAN EMPIRE, a reading of Greek philosophy and literature, a look at the PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT — these are all accepted parts of a Western education, aren’t they?

Probably so: even today, in the plurality of approaches to the study of history and to the study of cultures, people talk about PLATO or DANTE or Krishna or Mohammed. But there is an important proviso: How you approach ancient cultures (or any other culture, for that matter) and how you conceive of the people of such distant worlds are of paramount importance. At this point, you might ask yourself these two additional questions: Do we study these cultures because, to some extent, all cultures share certain characteristics? Does our own culture reflect aspects of these other cultures?

The answer to the first of the two questions has historically been found in a discussion of universality. Consider, for a moment, the case of Arjuna in The Bhagavad Gita. You might well ask how the battle that Arjuna holds off while frozen on his chariot relates, for example, to contemporary battles in World War II. Convinced that his relatives will die in this life only to be reborn in another, Arjuna can reluctantly permit the carnage to begin. No such choice is left to Schindler (featured in Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List), on the other hand, whose intervention on behalf of Jews saved many people in this life. The danger in looking for universals thus consists in reformulating other, possibly alien, views to fit our own. We must always guard against the assumption that other people think as we do — or that they should. Arjuna speaks within the context of one culture; Schindler acts within the confines of another.

The differences among cultures are of greatest interest here, and reading about ancient cultures is thus reading about other people whose lives were surely different from our own. The social organization of Socrates’ ATHENS — where a gimpy-legged man could hobble around interrogating citizens at will — differs profoundly from today’s world beset with modern media whereby people rarely get to see or literally hear their critics. How can we today understand the psychology of the thousands of Egyptian workers who, apparently unquestioningly, spent their lives dragging great blocks of stone across burning sands in the construction of staggering pyramidal edifices whose completion took many lifetimes? Interestingly, these differences may help us better to see — and know — the limits of our culture and the limits of our language and experience.

The problem with the second question lies in its formulation. What is a culture after all? This paper and this program proceed under the assumption that there is some sort of definition to the word culture. Most people would ascribe an abstract value to culture — that which produces good art, great literature, right behavior, etc. Yet the criteria of quality are scarcely international or inter-cultural: a revered “classical” work on the sitar resists comparison to a Mozart symphony beyond the statement that both are considered great cultural achievements in the context of their home cultures. Is, then, culture something that can be taught, or are its constituent parts more sweeping and pervasive than what can be learned from books or lectures? Answers to this second question already exist in the form of canons and reading lists, though there is much discussion today about what makes up those reading lists and about the assumptions concerning what should or should not fit on such lists.

Many people would like to conceive of history as a succession of movements or stages in an on-going (and, generally) ever-improving cultural novel of human life. For these people, the Romantic period is definable, its gifts to the human spirit are calculable. Yet, how can any culture speak for all its practitioners? Do all people share equally in the culture of which they are a part? It is precisely because AKHENATON chose to resist the pantheism that characterized pharaonic Egypt before and after his brief reign and instituted a qualified monotheism that he is remembered (and magically, too, in a contemporary opera by Philip Glass). So, a culture includes both the dominant tradition and its transgression.

As you begin your study of ancient cultures, you might want to recall these questions as you forge for yourself a meaning to the term culture. In the process, try not to measure others against your own cultural standard, which has, in many ways, formed you and your apprehension of the world. Instead, try for a moment to see the glittering battle scene with Arjuna’s eyes.

The post Why Study Ancient World Cultures? first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of Nana, managed the temple of Harsag-kalama; the grave of the enemy, whose help brought about the victory; who increased the power of Cuthah; made all glorious in E-shidlam, the black steer, who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable for E-zida; the divine king of the city; the White, Wise; who broadened the fields of Dilbat, who heaped up the harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom come scepter and crown, with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who fixed the temple bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu; the provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash and Girsu, who provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of Ningirsu; who captured the enemy, the Elect of the oracle who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who rejoiced the heart of Anunit; the pure prince, whose prayer is accepted by Adad; who satisfied the heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the vessels for worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of Adab; the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and brought abundance to the temple of Shidlam; the White, Potent, who penetrated the secret cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of Malka from misfortune, and fixed their home fast in wealth; who established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and Dam-gal-nun-na, who made his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of the city, who subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal to the sway of Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and Tutul; the sublime prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who presents holy meals to the divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its inhabitants in their need, provided a portion for them in Babylon in peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the slaves; whose deeds find favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the temple of Dumash in the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by law; who gave back to the city of Ashur its protecting god; who let the name of Ishtar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself before the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of Sin-muballit; the royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun of Babylon, whose rays shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I.

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in …, and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

The Code of Laws

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive the fine that the action produces.

5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge’s bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.

7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.

8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say “A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses,” and if the owner of the thing say, “I will bring witnesses who know my property,” then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony — both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant.

10. If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.

11. If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.

12. If the witnesses be not at hand, then shall the judge set a limit, at the expiration of six months. If his witnesses have not appeared within the six months, he is an evil-doer, and shall bear the fine of the pending case.

14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

18. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.

19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.

20. If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear to the owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.

21. If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.

23. If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and … on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.

24. If persons are stolen, then shall the community and … pay one mina of silver to their relatives.

25. If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.

26. If a chieftain or a man (common soldier), who has been ordered to go upon the king’s highway for war does not go, but hires a mercenary, if he withholds the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to death, and he who represented him shall take possession of his house.

27. If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king (captured in battle), and if his fields and garden be given to another and he take possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field and garden shall be returned to him, he shall take it over again.

28. If a chieftain or a man be caught in the misfortune of a king, if his son is able to enter into possession, then the field and garden shall be given to him, he shall take over the fee of his father.

29. If his son is still young, and can not take possession, a third of the field and garden shall be given to his mother, and she shall bring him up.

30. If a chieftain or a man leave his house, garden, and field and hires it out, and some one else takes possession of his house, garden, and field and uses it for three years: if the first owner return and claims his house, garden, and field, it shall not be given to him, but he who has taken possession of it and used it shall continue to use it.

31. If he hire it out for one year and then return, the house, garden, and field shall be given back to him, and he shall take it over again.

32. If a chieftain or a man is captured on the “Way of the King” (in war), and a merchant buy him free, and bring him back to his place; if he have the means in his house to buy his freedom, he shall buy himself free: if he have nothing in his house with which to buy himself free, he shall be bought free by the temple of his community; if there be nothing in the temple with which to buy him free, the court shall buy his freedom. His field, garden, and house shall not be given for the purchase of his freedom.

33. If a … or a … enter himself as withdrawn from the “Way of the King,” and send a mercenary as substitute, but withdraw him, then the … or … shall be put to death.

34. If a … or a … harm the property of a captain, injure the captain, or take away from the captain a gift presented to him by the king, then the … or … shall be put to death.

35. If any one buy the cattle or sheep which the king has given to chieftains from him, he loses his money.

36. The field, garden, and house of a chieftain, of a man, or of one subject to quit-rent, can not be sold.

37. If any one buy the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, his contract tablet of sale shall be broken (declared invalid) and he loses his money. The field, garden, and house return to their owners.

38. A chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent can not assign his tenure of field, house, and garden to his wife or daughter, nor can he assign it for a debt.

39. He may, however, assign a field, garden, or house which he has bought, and holds as property, to his wife or daughter or give it for debt.

40. He may sell field, garden, and house to a merchant (royal agents) or to any other public official, the buyer holding field, house, and garden for its usufruct.

41. If any one fence in the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, furnishing the palings therefor; if the chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent return to field, garden, and house, the palings which were given to him become his property.

42. If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field.

43. If he do not till the field, but let it lie fallow, he shall give grain like his neighbor’s to the owner of the field, and the field which he let lie fallow he must plow and sow and return to its owner.

44. If any one take over a waste-lying field to make it arable, but is lazy, and does not make it arable, he shall plow the fallow field in the fourth year, harrow it and till it, and give it back to its owner, and for each ten gan (a measure of area) ten gur of grain shall be paid.

45. If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive the rent of his field, but bad weather come and destroy the harvest, the injury falls upon the tiller of the soil.

46. If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on half or third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be divided proportionately between the tiller and the owner.

47. If the tiller, because he did not succeed in the first year, has had the soil tilled by others, the owner may raise no objection; the field has been cultivated and he receives the harvest according to agreement.

48. If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.

49. If any one take money from a merchant, and give the merchant a field tillable for corn or sesame and order him to plant corn or sesame in the field, and to harvest the crop; if the cultivator plant corn or sesame in the field, at the harvest the corn or sesame that is in the field shall belong to the owner of the field and he shall pay corn as rent, for the money he received from the merchant, and the livelihood of the cultivator shall he give to the merchant.

50. If he give a cultivated corn-field or a cultivated sesame-field, the corn or sesame in the field shall belong to the owner of the field, and he shall return the money to the merchant as rent.

51. If he have no money to repay, then he shall pay in corn or sesame in place of the money as rent for what he received from the merchant, according to the royal tariff.

52. If the cultivator do not plant corn or sesame in the field, the debtor’s contract is not weakened.

53. If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.

54. If he be not able to replace the corn, then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.

55. If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water flood the field of his neighbor, then he shall pay his neighbor corn for his loss.

56. If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.

57. If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.

58. If after the flocks have left the pasture and been shut up in the common fold at the city gate, any shepherd let them into a field and they graze there, this shepherd shall take possession of the field which he has allowed to be grazed on, and at the harvest he must pay sixty gur of corn for every ten gan.

59. If any man, without the knowledge of the owner of a garden, fell a tree in a garden he shall pay half a mina in money.

60. If any one give over a field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden, if he work at it, and care for it for four years, in the fifth year the owner and the gardener shall divide it, the owner taking his part in charge.

61. If the gardener has not completed the planting of the field, leaving one part unused, this shall be assigned to him as his.

62. If he do not plant the field that was given over to him as a garden, if it be arable land (for corn or sesame) the gardener shall pay the owner the produce of the field for the years that he let it lie fallow, according to the product of neighboring fields, put the field in arable condition and return it to its owner.

63. If he transform waste land into arable fields and return it to its owner, the latter shall pay him for one year ten gur for ten gan.

64. If any one hand over his garden to a gardener to work, the gardener shall pay to its owner two-thirds of the produce of the garden, for so long as he has it in possession, and the other third shall he keep.

65. If the gardener do not work in the garden and the product fall off, the gardener shall pay in proportion to other neighboring gardens.

[The text for laws 66 through 99 is missing]

100. … interest for the money, as much as he has received, he shall give a note therefor, and on the day, when they settle, pay to the merchant.

101. If there are no mercantile arrangements in the place whither he went, he shall leave the entire amount of money which he received with the broker to give to the merchant.

102. If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes, he shall make good the capital to the merchant.

103. If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had, the broker shall swear by God and be free of obligation.

104. If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt form the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant.

105. If the agent is careless, and does not take a receipt for the money which he gave the merchant, he can not consider the unreceipted money as his own.

106. If the agent accept money from the merchant, but have a quarrel with the merchant (denying the receipt), then shall the merchant swear before God and witnesses that he has given this money to the agent, and the agent shall pay him three times the sum.

107. If the merchant cheat the agent, in that as the latter has returned to him all that had been given him, but the merchant denies the receipt of what had been returned to him, then shall this agent convict the merchant before God and the judges, and if he still deny receiving what the agent had given him shall pay six times the sum to the agent.

108. If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water.

109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

110. If a “sister of a god” open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.

111. If an inn-keeper furnish sixty ka of usakani-drink to … she shall receive fifty ka of corn at the harvest.

112. If any one be on a journey and entrust silver, gold, precious stones, or any movable property to another, and wish to recover it from him; if the latter do not bring all of the property to the appointed place, but appropriate it to his own use, then shall this man, who did not bring the property to hand it over, be convicted, and he shall pay fivefold for all that had been entrusted to him.

113. If any one have consignment of corn or money, and he take from the granary or box without the knowledge of the owner, then shall he who took corn without the knowledge of the owner out of the granary or money out of the box be legally convicted, and repay the corn he has taken. And he shall lose whatever commission was paid to him, or due him.

114. If a man have no claim on another for corn and money, and try to demand it by force, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver in every case.

115. If any one have a claim for corn or money upon another and imprison him; if the prisoner die in prison a natural death, the case shall go no further.

116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.

117. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.

118. If he give a male or female slave away for forced labor, and the merchant sublease them, or sell them for money, no objection can be raised.

119. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid servant who has borne him children, for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and she shall be freed.

120. If any one store corn for safe keeping in another person’s house, and any harm happen to the corn in storage, or if the owner of the house open the granary and take some of the corn, or if especially he deny that the corn was stored in his house: then the owner of the corn shall claim his corn before God (on oath), and the owner of the house shall pay its owner for all of the corn that he took.

121. If any one store corn in another man’s house he shall pay him storage at the rate of one gur for every five ka of corn per year.

122. If any one give another silver, gold, or anything else to keep, he shall show everything to some witness, draw up a contract, and then hand it over for safe keeping.

123. If he turn it over for safe keeping without witness or contract, and if he to whom it was given deny it, then he has no legitimate claim.

124. If any one deliver silver, gold, or anything else to another for safe keeping, before a witness, but he deny it, he shall be brought before a judge, and all that he has denied he shall pay in full.

125. If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge. But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it away from the thief.

126. If any one who has not lost his goods state that they have been lost, and make false claims: if he claim his goods and amount of injury before God, even though he has not lost them, he shall be fully compensated for all his loss claimed. (I.e., the oath is all that is needed.)

127. If any one “point the finger” (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.)

128. If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.

129. If a man’s wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father’s house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

131. If a man bring a charge against one’s wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132. If the “finger is pointed” at a man’s wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.

133. If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.

134. If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless.

135. If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the children follow their father.

136. If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.

138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father’s house, and let her go.

139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.

140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

141. If a man’s wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband’s house.

142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: “You are not congenial to me,” the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father’s house.

143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.

144. If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

145. If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.

146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

147. If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money.

148. If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.

149. If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband’s house, then he shall compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her father’s house, and she may go.

150. If a man give his wife a field, garden, and house and a deed therefor, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.

151. If a woman who lived in a man’s house made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefor: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man’s house, had contracted a debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefor.

152. If after the woman had entered the man’s house, both contracted a debt, both must pay the merchant.

153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man’s wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled.

154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).

155. If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).

156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father’s house. She may marry the man of her heart.

157. If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father’s house.

159. If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law’s house, and has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says to his father-in-law: “I do not want your daughter,” the girl’s father may keep all that he had brought.

160. If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and pay the “purchase price” (for his wife): if then the father of the girl say: “I will not give you my daughter,” he shall give him back all that he brought with him.

161. If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law’s house and pay the “purchase price,” if then his friend slander him, and his father-in-law say to the young husband: “You shall not marry my daughter,” the he shall give back to him undiminished all that he had brought with him; but his wife shall not be married to the friend.

162. If a man marry a woman, and she bear sons to him; if then this woman die, then shall her father have no claim on her dowry; this belongs to her sons.

163. If a man marry a woman and she bear him no sons; if then this woman die, if the “purchase price” which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father’s house.

164. If his father-in-law do not pay back to him the amount of the “purchase price” he may subtract the amount of the “Purchase price” from the dowry, and then pay the remainder to her father’s house.

165. If a man give to one of his sons whom he prefers a field, garden, and house, and a deed therefor: if later the father die, and the brothers divide the estate, then they shall first give him the present of his father, and he shall accept it; and the rest of the paternal property shall they divide.

166. If a man take wives for his son, but take no wife for his minor son, and if then he die: if the sons divide the estate, they shall set aside besides his portion the money for the “purchase price” for the minor brother who had taken no wife as yet, and secure a wife for him.

167. If a man marry a wife and she bear him children: if this wife die and he then take another wife and she bear him children: if then the father die, the sons must not partition the estate according to the mothers, they shall divide the dowries of their mothers only in this way; the paternal estate they shall divide equally with one another.

168. If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before the judge: “I want to put my son out,” then the judge shall examine into his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out.

169. If he be guilty of a grave fault, which should rightfully deprive him of the filial relationship, the father shall forgive him the first time; but if he be guilty of a grave fault a second time the father may deprive his son of all filial relation.

170. If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: “My sons,” and he count them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of the wife is to partition and choose.

171. If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the maid-servant: “My sons,” and then the father dies, then the sons of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall belong to her children.

172. If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave her husband’s house. If the woman desire to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father’s house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.

173. If this woman bear sons to her second husband, in the place to which she went, and then die, her earlier and later sons shall divide the dowry between them.

174. If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first husband shall have the dowry.

175. If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.

176. If, however, a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry a man’s daughter, and after he marries her she bring a dowry from a father’s house, if then they both enjoy it and found a household, and accumulate means, if then the slave die, then she who was free born may take her dowry, and all that her husband and she had earned; she shall divide them into two parts, one-half the master for the slave shall take, and the other half shall the free-born woman take for her children. If the free-born woman had no gift she shall take all that her husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her children.

177. If a widow, whose children are not grown, wishes to enter another house (remarry), she shall not enter it without the knowledge of the judge. If she enter another house the judge shall examine the state of the house of her first husband. Then the house of her first husband shall be entrusted to the second husband and the woman herself as managers. And a record must be made thereof. She shall keep the house in order, bring up the children, and not sell the house-hold utensils. He who buys the utensils of the children of a widow shall lose his money, and the goods shall return to their owners.

178. If a “devoted woman” or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed therefor, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath it as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of disposal; if then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field and garden, and give her corn, oil, and milk according to her portion, and satisfy her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil, and milk according to her share, then her field and garden shall support her. She shall have the usufruct of field and garden and all that her father gave her so long as she lives, but she can not sell or assign it to others. Her position of inheritance belongs to her brothers.

179. If a “sister of a god,” or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases, and give her complete disposition thereof: if then her father die, then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can raise no claim thereto.

180. If a father give a present to his daughter — either marriageable or a prostitute (unmarriageable) — and then die, then she is to receive a portion as a child from the paternal estate, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

181. If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give her no present: if then the father die, she shall receive the third of a child’s portion from the inheritance of her father’s house, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

182. If a father devote his daughter as a wife of Mardi of Babylon (as in 181), and give her no present, nor a deed; if then her father die, then shall she receive one-third of her portion as a child of her father’s house from her brothers, but Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.

183. If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband, and a deed; if then her father die, she shall receive no portion from the paternal estate.

184. If a man do not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no husband; if then her father die, her brother shall give her a dowry according to her father’s wealth and secure a husband for her.

185. If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this grown son can not be demanded back again.

186. If a man adopt a son, and if after he has taken him he injure his foster father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his father’s house.

187. The son of a paramour in the palace service, or of a prostitute, can not be demanded back.

188. If an artizan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his craft, he can not be demanded back.

189. If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to his father’s house.

190. If a man does not maintain a child that he has adopted as a son and reared with his other children, then his adopted son may return to his father’s house.

191. If a man, who had adopted a son and reared him, founded a household, and had children, wish to put this adopted son out, then this son shall not simply go his way. His adoptive father shall give him of his wealth one-third of a child’s portion, and then he may go. He shall not give him of the field, garden, and house.

192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: “You are not my father, or my mother,” his tongue shall be cut off.

193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father’s house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father’s house, then shall his eye be put out.

194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

197. If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.

198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.

199. If he put out the eye of a man’s slave, or break the bone of a man’s slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.

201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.

202. If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public.

203. If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina.

204. If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money.

205. If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, “I did not injure him wittingly,” and pay the physicians.

207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

211. If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five shekels in money.

212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.

213. If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he shall pay two shekels in money.

214. If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

215. If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.

216. If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.

217. If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician two shekels.

218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.

219. If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.

220. If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his eye, he shall pay half his value.

221. If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man, the patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money.

222. If he were a freed man he shall pay three shekels.

223. If he were a slave his owner shall pay the physician two shekels.

224. If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee.

225. If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value.

226. If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off.

227. If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his house. The barber shall swear: “I did not mark him wittingly,” and shall be guiltless.

228. If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall give him a fee of two shekels in money for each sar of surface.

229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house.

232. If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.

233. If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.

234. If a shipbuilder build a boat of sixty gur for a man, he shall pay him a fee of two shekels in money.

235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.

236. If a man rent his boat to a sailor, and the sailor is careless, and the boat is wrecked or goes aground, the sailor shall give the owner of the boat another boat as compensation.

237. If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn, clothing, oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for fitting it: if the sailor is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its contents ruined, then the sailor shall compensate for the boat which was wrecked and all in it that he ruined.

238. If a sailor wreck any one’s ship, but saves it, he shall pay the half of its value in money.

239. If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.

240. If a merchantman run against a ferryboat, and wreck it, the master of the ship that was wrecked shall seek justice before God; the master of the merchantman, which wrecked the ferryboat, must compensate the owner for the boat and all that he ruined.

241. If any one impresses an ox for forced labor, he shall pay one-third of a mina in money.

242. If any one hire oxen for a year, he shall pay four gur of corn for plow-oxen.

243. As rent of herd cattle he shall pay three gur of corn to the owner.

244. If any one hire an ox or an ass, and a lion kill it in the field, the loss is upon its owner.

245. If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen.

246. If a man hire an ox, and he break its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox.

247. If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value.

248. If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money.

249. If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who hired it shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.

250. If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it, and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the hirer).

251. If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.

252. If he kill a man’s slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

253. If any one agree with another to tend his field, give him seed, entrust a yoke of oxen to him, and bind him to cultivate the field, if he steal the corn or plants, and take them for himself, his hands shall be hewn off.

254. If he take the seed-corn for himself, and do not use the yoke of oxen, he shall compensate him for the amount of the seed-corn.

255. If he sublet the man’s yoke of oxen or steal the seed-corn, planting nothing in the field, he shall be convicted, and for each one hundred gan he shall pay sixty gur of corn.

256. If his community will not pay for him, then he shall be placed in that field with the cattle (at work).

257. If any one hire a field laborer, he shall pay him eight gur of corn per year.

258. If any one hire an ox-driver, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.

259. If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in money to its owner.

260. If any one steal a shadduf (used to draw water from the river or canal) or a plow, he shall pay three shekels in money.

261. If any one hire a herdsman for cattle or sheep, he shall pay him eight gur of corn per annum.

262. If any one, a cow or a sheep …

263. If he kill the cattle or sheep that were given to him, he shall compensate the owner with cattle for cattle and sheep for sheep.

264. If a herdsman, to whom cattle or sheep have been entrusted for watching over, and who has received his wages as agreed upon, and is satisfied, diminish the number of the cattle or sheep, or make the increase by birth less, he shall make good the increase or profit which was lost in the terms of settlement.

265. If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been entrusted, be guilty of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or sell them for money, then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten times the loss.

266. If the animal be killed in the stable by God (an accident), or if a lion kill it, the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner bears the accident in the stable.

267. If the herdsman overlook something, and an accident happen in the stable, then the herdsman is at fault for the accident which he has caused in the stable, and he must compensate the owner for the cattle or sheep.

268. If any one hire an ox for threshing, the amount of the hire is twenty ka of corn.

269. If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty ka of corn.

270. If he hire a young animal for threshing, the hire is ten ka of corn.

271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred and eighty ka of corn per day.

272. If any one hire a cart alone, he shall pay forty ka of corn per day.

273. If any one hire a day laborer, he shall pay him from the New Year until the fifth month (April to August, when days are long and the work hard) six gerahs in money per day; from the sixth month to the end of the year he shall give him five gerahs per day.

274. If any one hire a skilled artizan, he shall pay as wages of the … five gerahs, as wages of the potter five gerahs, of a tailor five gerahs, of … gerahs, … of a ropemaker four gerahs, of … gerahs, of a mason … gerahs per day.

275. If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per day.

276. If he hire a freight-boat, he shall pay two and one-half gerahs per day.

277. If any one hire a ship of sixty gur, he shall pay one-sixth of a shekel in money as its hire per day.

278. If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.

279. If any one by a male or female slave, and a third party claim it, the seller is liable for the claim.

280. If while in a foreign country a man buy a male or female slave belonging to another of his own country; if when he return home the owner of the male or female slave recognize it: if the male or female slave be a native of the country, he shall give them back without any money.

281. If they are from another country, the buyer shall declare the amount of money paid therefor to the merchant, and keep the male or female slave.

282. If a slave say to his master: “You are not my master,” if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.

The Epilogue

Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.

The king who ruleth among the kings of the cities am I. My words are well considered; there is no wisdom like unto mine. By the command of Shamash, the great judge of heaven and earth, let righteousness go forth in the land: by the order of Marduk, my lord, let no destruction befall my monument. In E-Sagil, which I love, let my name be ever repeated; let the oppressed, who has a case at law, come and stand before this my image as king of righteousness; let him read the inscription, and understand my precious words: the inscription will explain his case to him; he will find out what is just, and his heart will be glad, so that he will say:

“Hammurabi is a ruler, who is as a father to his subjects, who holds the words of Marduk in reverence, who has achieved conquest for Marduk over the north and south, who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord, who has bestowed benefits for ever and ever on his subjects, and has established order in the land.”

When he reads the record, let him pray with full heart to Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady; and then shall the protecting deities and the gods, who frequent E-Sagil, graciously grant the desires daily presented before Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady.

In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.

Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king’s reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose command can not be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his hand can not control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory from the land. May Belit, the great Mother, whose command is potent in E-Kur (the Babylonian Olympus), the Mistress, who harkens graciously to my petitions, in the seat of judgment and decision (where Bel fixes destiny), turn his affairs evil before Bel, and put the devastation of his land, the destruction of his subjects, the pouring out of his life like water into the mouth of King Bel. May Ea, the great ruler, whose fated decrees come to pass, the thinker of the gods, the omniscient, who maketh long the days of my life, withdraw understanding and wisdom from him, lead him to forgetfulness, shut up his rivers at their sources, and not allow corn or sustenance for man to grow in his land. May Shamash, the great Judge of heaven and earth, who supporteth all means of livelihood, Lord of life-courage, shatter his dominion, annul his law, destroy his way, make vain the march of his troops, send him in his visions forecasts of the uprooting of the foundations of his throne and of the destruction of his land. May the condemnation of Shamash overtake him forthwith; may he be deprived of water above among the living, and his spirit below in the earth. May Sin (the Moon-god), the Lord of Heaven, the divine father, whose crescent gives light among the gods, take away the crown and regal throne from him; may he put upon him heavy guilt, great decay, that nothing may be lower than he. May he destine him as fated, days, months and years of dominion filled with sighing and tears, increase of the burden of dominion, a life that is like unto death. May Adad, the lord of fruitfulness, ruler of heaven and earth, my helper, withhold from him rain from heaven, and the flood of water from the springs, destroying his land by famine and want; may he rage mightily over his city, and make his land into flood-hills (heaps of ruined cities). May Zamama, the great warrior, the first-born son of E-Kur, who goeth at my right hand, shatter his weapons on the field of battle, turn day into night for him, and let his foe triumph over him. May Ishtar, the goddess of fighting and war, who unfetters my weapons, my gracious protecting spirit, who loveth my dominion, curse his kingdom in her angry heart; in her great wrath, change his grace into evil, and shatter his weapons on the place of fighting and war. May she create disorder and sedition for him, strike down his warriors, that the earth may drink their blood, and throw down the piles of corpses of his warriors on the field; may she not grant him a life of mercy, deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and imprison him in the land of his enemies. May Nergal, the might among the gods, whose contest is irresistible, who grants me victory, in his great might burn up his subjects like a slender reedstalk, cut off his limbs with his mighty weapons, and shatter him like an earthen image. May Nin-tu, the sublime mistress of the lands, the fruitful mother, deny him a son, vouchsafe him no name, give him no successor among men. May Nin-karak, the daughter of Anu, who adjudges grace to me, cause to come upon his members in E-kur high fever, severe wounds, that can not be healed, whose nature the physician does not understand, which he can not treat with dressing, which, like the bite of death, can not be removed, until they have sapped away his life. May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse and evil upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the Sun temple of Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects, and his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that can not be altered, and may they come upon him forthwith.

The post Hammurabi’s Code of Laws first appeared on Ancient Civilizations.