Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

DEPORTATION AS AN ANCIENT TRADITION IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN EMPIRE DURING 9TH-7TH CENTURIES BC (Kuuditamispoliitika kui muistne tava Uus-Assuuria impeeriumis 9.-7. sajandini eKr)

100%
Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2010
|
vol. 44
153-174
EN
The current paper focuses on the complicated issue of a very widespread political method, deportation, in the Neo-Assyrian Empire since the middle of the 9th century up until 612 BC. Naturally, the idea is much older - some Sumerian and Old Akkadian kings in Mesopotamia (e.g. Rimush of Akkad, etc.) had already deported certain groups of peoples of conquered territories in the 3rd millennium BC, though, this was not a common political practice at the time. Later, in the 1st millennium BC, Assyrians began to practice deportation as a regular political means in order to establish their hegemony over the Near East space, the 'oikoumene' in the understanding of ancient Mesopotamians. Thus, all or nearly all of the Neo-Assyrian kings had actively incorporated this policy in the political system of their state, and frequently deported the conquered peoples of the Near East for intimidating purposes and to suppress any separatist action, as, e.g., revolts. Such politics had indeed a certain effect on the imperial stability, keeping the empire from collapse, yet also entailed a very negative concurrent impact on the Assyrian population, economy of the state and demography - all this contributed to the downfall and degeneration of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the imperial system, ending in a complete destruction of the Assyrian capital cities - Nineveh and Ashur - by Babylonians, Scythians and Medes who conquered the weakened Assyria, demolished its power and killed the majority of native Assyrians at the end of the 7th century BC.
2

NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE AND OLD PERSIAN CUNEIFORM FROM THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES III OCHOS (Uus-babuloonia kroonika ja vana-parsiakeelne raidkiri Artaxerxes III Ochose valitsemisajast. Tolked ja kommentaarid)

100%
Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2011
|
vol. 47
135-150
EN
The main aim of the current short article is not only to give an overview of some facts regarding the biography of the last important Old Persian king Artaxerxes III Ochos (359-338 bc), who re-established a weakened Achaemenid Empire, but also to give an analysis of translations of two short, but very important texts from his reigning period, one of which is an Akkadian cuneiform text (written in neo-Babylonian dialect of Akkadian). This text was composed in the form of a short chronicle, from which we can see as the evidence of statements of some ancient Greek authors, for instance, Diodorus Siculus, that king Artaxerxes III was a very brutal despotic king and deported many people, including those involved in the revolt of the Phoenician city-state Sidon, which had been conquered and destroyed by forces of Artaxerxes III in 345 bc. He killed part of population of this big important Phoenician cultural, economic and political centre, and all women and children were deported into the inland of his renewed empire - in Babylon and Susa. He also conquered independent Egypt, killed Apis, the scared bull of the Egyptians, looted and razed sanctuaries and killed many inhabitants of Egypt. An example of his brutality: when Artaxerxes III got the throne, he butchered his 80 brothers and many other relatives. The second text, written in Old Persian cuneiform, is one of the last Old Persian cuneiform texts and can be described as 'peaceful' or more correctly as a building-inscription. It has the opposite aim comparing to the first text - to glorify Artaxerxes III as a constructive force in Persepolis, the capital city of the Achaemenid Empire and also as a very religious and faithful zoroastrist, who honoured very much the main Deity of Persians - Ahuramazda. With the poisoning of old Artaxerxes III in 338 bc, by his vizier eunuch Bagoas, began the decline of the Persian Empire, which ended some years later, when Alexander the Great, son of Philip II of Macedonia invaded with his victorious Greek-Macedonian army and during 4-5 years (334-330/329) destroyed the Persian Empire and afterwards conquered the whole of the Middle East from the Hellespont to the Indus Valley, from Egypt to the Caucasus, and died in Babylon 323 bc, when he was only 32 years old.
3

ON THE EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF SUN KING IN ANATOLIA IN THE 2ND MILLENNIUM BC (Paikesekuninga kontseptsiooni tekkest ja arengust Anatoolias II eelkristlikul aastatuhandel)

100%
Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2009
|
vol. 42
91-110
EN
The concept of sun king was widely spread in ancient cultures, for example in Peru (among the Incas), India, and the Ancient Middle East already in the 2nd and 3rd millennium BC. In Ancient Egypt the perception of Pharaoh as the son of Ra and the sun king formed in the Old Kingdom by the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. The king was identified with the sun already by Hittites, Babylonians, and Assyrians in the 2nd millennium BC. Among the Hittites, 'My Sun', which could be interpreted also as 'Majesty', became the most popular royal title. The first Assyrian ruler to adopt the epithet 'the Sun God of All People' was the despotic Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208). Until now, some scholars have argued that the concept of sun king emerged in Mesopotamia and Anatolia under the influence of Egypt. This argument, however, has little ground because it is not likely, at least there is no record of it, that Egypt had contacts with Mesopotamia and Anatolia prior to the 3rd millennium BC, and by the 2nd millennium the contacts had been established but the influence of Egypt on Anatolia was rather limited. At the same time, the influence of Mesopotamia and the local Hattians, who had occupied Anatolia before the coming of Hittites, on the Hittite ideology was remarkable. Several concepts connected to Hittite royalty have been borrowed from Mesopotamia, and from Hattians. There is circumstantial evidence that the concept of sun king may have emerged at the end of the 3rd millennium BC in Sumer and Akkad, and from there spread to Anatolia. It cannot be ruled out, though, that the phenomenon may have emerged spontaneously and developed independently without major external influences.
4

Moningad markused nelja ilmakaare kuninga ja jumal-kuninga kontseptsiooni kohta Sumeris ja Akkadis 3. at eKr

100%
Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2020
|
vol. 78
173-184
EN
This article is dedicated to the issues related to the King of the Four Corners and the God-King in ancient Sumer and Akkad in the 3rd millennium BCE. The author shows that the title King of the Four Corners has always deified the ruler, but the ruler who used the title King of the Universe never claimed divinity. What conclusions can we draw? Except in two cases – the case of Erri-dupizir and the case of Utu-ḫeĝal – all kings who used the title king of the four corners were deified. Erri-dupizir was a foreigner, more a warlord or tribal chief of the Gutians than a king, but he tried to legitimate his power by using Akkadian-Sumerian formulas, among them royal titles. Utu-ḫeĝal freed Sumer from the Gutians’ yoke and re-introduced old Sumero-Akkadian ideological elements, among them the king of the four corners, because he wanted to be as powerful and strong as the Akkadian king Narām-Su’en, who was an example for Utu-ḫeĝal. We do not have any proof regarding the deification of Utu-ḫeĝal, as he ruled only 6–7 years, and we have only a few texts from the time of his reign. More interesting is the fact that none of the Sumerian or Akkadian kings who used the title king of the universe in the 3rd millennium and even in the early 2nd millennium BCE (Isin-Larsa period) were deified (at least we do not have a firm proof). How to explain this phenomenon? Firstly, I think the title king of the four corners had a slightly different meaning than king of the universe; however, both are universalistic titles. The title king of the four corners was probably seen as a wider and more important universalistic title in the sense not only of universal rule, but also of ruling the divine universe and divine spheres (heaven, sun, stars, etc.). It seems that it included some kind of divine aspect, while at least the Sumerian version of the title lugal an-ubda-limmuba means “king of the heaven’s four corners”. The title king of the four corners was related to the universe order, to the sun and the cosmos, and to cosmic divine powers, and they were connected to the universal order. We can see that sometimes the title king of the four corners was used to refer to gods in Ancient Mesopotamia – for example in the case of the god Tišpak in Ešnunna – but never king of the universe. Secondly, early dynastic rulers (e.g. Lagash or Uruk), who never used universalistic titles for themselves, addressed universalistic expressions and epithets to the main gods – e.g., Enlil, Ningirsu, etc. For example, Lugal-kiğine-dudu of Uruk claimed: “Enlil, king of all lands, for Lugal-kiğine-dudu – when the god Enlil truly summoned him, and (Enlil) combined (both) lordship and kingship for him”. Thirdly, ruling over all the lands from east to west or over the corners of the universe – these epithets may be used for gods. LUGAL KIŠ (later Akkadian šar kiššati(m)) in its early original meaning was seen only as “ruler over Kiš (or ruler over (the northern part of) Sumer)”; it was an important though more regional and geographic title. Fourthly, only much later did it acquire the meaning king of the universe but I am not sure about that meaning at all. In that case, king of the four corners had a different meaning; the title designated not only ruling over the world but it probably included some kind of divine aspect as well (Michalowski 2010). In that case the title šar kibrāt arbaˀi(m) – king of the four corners could be seen as more universal than LUGAL KIŠ (šar kiššati(m)). There still remain several questions which need to be solved: Was LUGAL KIŠ in its Akkadian form šar kiššati(m) a universalistic title at all? Or was LUGAL KIŠ a hegemonic title showing certain hegemonic rule or lordship over (all) Sumer (and Akkad?) but not including the whole world (here: Mesopotamia)? Could it be for this reason that the king who used the title king of the four corners had to be deified but the king who was LUGAL KIŠ had not?
5

Mitra esmamainimine Hetiidi kuninga Suppiluliuma I ja Mitanni kuninga Sattiwaza lepingus?

63%
Lahe J., Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2019
|
vol. 73
5-14
EN
In 1907 a treaty was found in the Hittite royal archive in Boğazköy. It was forged between the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I and the Mitanni king Šatiwaza. Among the deities named in this contract is DINGIR.MEŠ Mi-it-ra-aš-ši-il. This is usually understood to refer to the god Mitra. However, the authors of this article draw attention to the fact that the name occurs in the plural form; the divine classifier DINGIR (“god” before Mitra’s name) is written in the plural form DINGIR.MEŠ, meaning “gods”. They are of the opinion that it should not be understood as a proper name but as a denomination of a group of deities that one could translate as “gods of the treaties”.
6

Jumalad sojas: jumalik toetus ja sodade teoloogiline õigustamine muistses Anatoolias ja Pohja-Suurias

63%
Sazonov V., Töyräänvuori J.
Mäetagused
|
2022
|
vol. 82
147-174
XX
As we can see, divine support, divine intervention, and an ideology of (divine) warfare developed in the Hittite world throughout the whole of Hittite history and became better formulated and more complex with the passing of time, reaching their apex during the New Kingdom Period. If we can observe barely any divine support for Anitta’s deeds in the Text of Anitta, then Ḫattušili I, who ruled 100 years later, already elaborated this phenomenon more explicitly and referred to gods in support of his aggressive politics and military actions (The Annals of Ḫattušili I). The phenomenon of divine support for war can be found in an even more sophisticated and developed manner during the New Kingdom, in the Annals of Tudḫaliya I, in the Manly Deeds of Šuppiluliuma and in the annals written by Muršili II, etc. In some cases, we even have outright theological justification of wars. As we can see, ideology, religion, and theology played an insignificant role in conflict and warfare and especially in the divine support of war in Hittite Anatolia at the time of Anitta in the 18th century BCE. This, however, changed dramatically across the time, and in the Annals of Ḫattušili I, the role of gods increased considerably, and the king began to refer to the gods in justification for his actions (also in war). Later, in the epoch of the New Kingdom, since the time of Tudḫaliya I, and especially since Muršili II, the role of the gods became even more elaborate and sophisticated, and the kings mention several gods or a group of gods, instead of only two or three of them (as was done by Ḫattušili I) which helped them in wars and in military campaigns. We have several pieces of evidence from Hittite sources in which the ruler uses proper theological justification for his military campaign or for the invasion of another country, and the most elaborate of these are the annals of Muršili II. Similar themes of divine support and the occasional theological justification of war are also found in the texts of the vassal kingdoms of the Hittite Empire, with the exception that, on the ideological level, the Hittite kings were the representatives of the gods for the Syrian kings. This is a clear difference between the texts from the core area of the Hittite Empire and the texts from the kingdoms of the Hittite ambit. Many of the wars fought by the major international players of the Late Bronze Age were fought on the battlefields of North Syria, which is why war is a common occurrence in the texts of the peoples based there. Unlike in the Hittite texts, the petitioning of the gods before military undertakings is a common trope in the texts from Ugarit and Alalaḫ. The same may have been true of the other Syrian vassals of the Hittite kings, but fewer texts have remained from them. These petitions were also accompanied by rituals meant to ascertain good fortunes in war. The petitioned deities changed depending on the place of origin of the petitioner and the place that was attacked. Both one’s ancestral gods and the gods of the enemy needed to be respected for a campaign to be successful, and peace could also be made on behalf of the gods of both parties only. In the North Syrian kingdoms, proper conduct of war concerned not only the present but also the past and future generations. A victory or defeat could be decided by the conduct of one’s ancestors, and teaching one’s descendants the proper way to petition the gods for success in war was supremely important. While the storm god was likely the most important deity concerning the theological justification of war among the North Syrian kingdoms, this role of the god is not always clearly formulated in the texts. Goddesses were also petitioned for success in war, but there was a clear difference in how common soldiers and kings apprehended the gods, especially the widely popular warrior goddess Anat. While soldiers and warriors looked to the goddess for success in battle, she functioned as the nursemaid of the king. While the petitioning of divine support for military undertakings was likely shared by kings across the entire ancient Near East, Anatolia and North Syria formed a cultural ambit where influences were readily exchanged both from Anatolia to Syria and from Syria to Anatolia. In the texts from these areas, we can see details and motifs that are particular to either region but also themes that are shared by both areas. It is noticeable that the political relationship of overlord and vassal or subject kingdom can be seen not only in the political correspondence of the kingdoms but also on the ideological level, in the texts that the Hittites wrote for their own gods and the Syrians wrote for theirs. The hierarchical relationships of the kingdoms of Anatolia and North Syria are so ingrained that they influenced the very core of how the divine support of war was formulated in the texts.
7

Mesopotaamia jumalanna Nanāia mõjudest Kesk- ja Lõuna-Aasias

63%
Schumann A., Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2023
|
vol. 85
121-136
EN
In this paper we have traced some basic attributes belonging to the Mesopotamian goddess Nanāia, from their origin in the period of Ur III (2112–2004 BC) in ancient Mesopotamia up to the period of the Kuṣāṇas and Kūšānšāhs (from the 1st century AD to the late 4th century AD) in Central and South Asia, and up to the period of their successors – the Kidarites and Hephthalites. We have shown that there was a smooth transformation of these attributes of Nanāia to the standard Indian iconographic motif of Durgā.
8

“Olen su sõbra sõber ja su vaenlase vaenlane” – Vene riigi ja Krimmi khaaniriigi diplomaatilised suhted Ivan Julma valitsemisajal

63%
Kupp-Sazonov S., Sazonov V.
Mäetagused
|
2023
|
vol. 88
121-144
EN
The Russo-Turkish stand-off, which began under Ivan IV the Terrible, was largely motivated by the rising imperialism and ambitions of Muscovy, which the no less ambitious Ottoman sultans, who in turn were expanding their Ottoman Empire, wished to oppose in order to maintain and extend their influence also in the Black Sea, Caspian regions and the Caucasus, where Russian troops were slowly ‘infiltrating’ and to which Moscow’s foreign policy was also increasingly turning its attention. Tsar Ivan IV conquered and destroyed all the Tatar states (including Astrakhan, Kazan, the Siberian Khanate, the Nogai Horde), with the exception of Moscow, which was increasingly subjected to the Russian occupation. Although he eventually achieved military supremacy over Crimea, Ivan IV was unable to subdue Crimean Khanate. In order for Crimea to survive, the Crimean Khan had to accept in the 1580s that Crimea, already formally a vassal of the Ottomans since 1474/1475, would become even more dependent on the Ottoman Empire. This article examines Ivan the Terrible’s eastern policy ambitions, as well as Muscovy’s relations with the khanates, especially the Khan of Crimea, and the diplomatic correspondence between the rulers (the Khan of Crimea and Ivan IV). In addition to excerpts from the letters of the various khans and the Russian tsar’s replies, we present commented translation into Estonian of a letter of 1572 from the Crimean khan Devlet-Girei to Ivan the Terrible, about a year after his raid on Moscow and just after the Battle of Molodi in the summer of 1572. More recently, the history of Russo-Tatar-Turkish relations has shown that the existence of the Crimean Khanate in the 17th and 18th centuries depended to a large extent on the support of the Turkish Sultan, and that eventually, after a series of Russo-Turkish wars (often involving Crimea), the Russian Empire absorbed the Crimean Khanate. Admittedly, this took place 200 years after the death of Ivan IV, in 1783, when the Russian Empire was ruled by Catherine II. However, it was Ivan IV who laid the foundations for the conquest of the Tatar lands, and this was only the first episode in a series of Russian-Turkish wars and the Russian-Turkish confrontation, which in fact continues to some extent to this day.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.