The Duration of the Reign of Smerdis, the Magian, and the Reigns of Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV

A. Poebel
{"title":"The Duration of the Reign of Smerdis, the Magian, and the Reigns of Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV","authors":"A. Poebel","doi":"10.1086/370532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the article \"Darius and His Behistun Inscription,\" which appeared in AJSL, LV (1938), 392 ff., Professor Olmstead on page 398 arrives at the conclusion that the Magian GaumAta, who claimed to be Bardia, son of Cyrus,' ruled not seven months but one year and seven months, namely, from March 11, 522, to October 17, 521. As a consequence he places Darius' aiccession to the throne not on Teiritu 10, 522/21, but on Tesritu 10, 521/20, a dating which if proved correct would make it necessary to drop all dates given in my table for the events of the first and second years of Darius' reign (AJSL, LV, 14347) by one year. Professor Olmstead bases his conclusion on the wellknown fact that a number of Babylonian tablets are dated in the second, third, and fourth months of the \"accession year\" of Barzia,2 while others are dated in the first and the third to eighth months of the \"first year\" of Barzia. Since Gaumata started his rebellion in the twelfth, i.e., the last, month of the year 523/22, the \"accession year\" of the Babylonian tablets, including as it does a second, a third, and a fourth month, necessarily can be referred only to the following year, 522/21; and since the \"accession year\" under ordinary circumstances undoubtedly precedes the first official year of a king,3 Professor Olmstead's conclusion that the official \"first year\" of Barzia represents the","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1939-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In the article "Darius and His Behistun Inscription," which appeared in AJSL, LV (1938), 392 ff., Professor Olmstead on page 398 arrives at the conclusion that the Magian GaumAta, who claimed to be Bardia, son of Cyrus,' ruled not seven months but one year and seven months, namely, from March 11, 522, to October 17, 521. As a consequence he places Darius' aiccession to the throne not on Teiritu 10, 522/21, but on Tesritu 10, 521/20, a dating which if proved correct would make it necessary to drop all dates given in my table for the events of the first and second years of Darius' reign (AJSL, LV, 14347) by one year. Professor Olmstead bases his conclusion on the wellknown fact that a number of Babylonian tablets are dated in the second, third, and fourth months of the "accession year" of Barzia,2 while others are dated in the first and the third to eighth months of the "first year" of Barzia. Since Gaumata started his rebellion in the twelfth, i.e., the last, month of the year 523/22, the "accession year" of the Babylonian tablets, including as it does a second, a third, and a fourth month, necessarily can be referred only to the following year, 522/21; and since the "accession year" under ordinary circumstances undoubtedly precedes the first official year of a king,3 Professor Olmstead's conclusion that the official "first year" of Barzia represents the
术士斯默底在位的时间和尼布甲尼撒三世、尼布甲尼撒四世在位的时间
《大流士和他的贝希斯顿铭文》一文,载于《AJSL》,LV(1938), 392页。奥姆斯特德教授在第398页得出结论,声称自己是居鲁士之子巴迪亚的马吉安·高玛塔“统治的时间不是7个月,而是1年零7个月,即522年3月11日至521年10月17日。”因此,他把大流士登基的日期不是在Teiritu 10, 522/21,而是在Tesritu 10, 521/20,如果这个日期被证明是正确的,那么就有必要把我表中大流士统治的第一年和第二年(AJSL, LV, 14347)的所有日期都去掉一年。Olmstead教授的结论基于一个众所周知的事实,即许多巴比伦石碑的日期是在巴齐亚“登基年”的第二、第三和第四个月,而其他石碑的日期是在巴齐亚“第一年”的第一个月和第三到第八个月。由于高玛塔在12月开始叛乱,即523/22年的最后一个月,即巴比伦碑的“登基年”,包括第二,第三和第四个月,必然只能指下一年,522/21;由于一般情况下的“登基年”无疑先于国王正式登基的第一年,3奥姆斯特德教授关于巴西的官方“第一年”代表了巴西的历史
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信