The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s Order to Send the

Statues of Gods to Babylon

Author(s): Stefan Zawadzki
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 71, No. 1 (April 2012), pp. 47-52
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664452 .
Accessed: 01/05/2012 10:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire:
New Data Concerning Nabonidus’s
Order to Send the Statues of Gods
to Babylon
Stefan Zawadzki, Adam-Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Despite the use of new data from administrative and
economic documents to explain the circumstances of
the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the s­ equence
of events preceding the attack of the Persian army, the
main source is still the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle,1
even though its objectivity has been contested.2 Leav-
ing the discussion of the character of the Chronicle for
a separate study, this article will only discuss the events
of the last year preceding the attack of the Persians
on Babylonia and the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Em-
1 
For the latest edition of the Chronicle, see A. K. Grayson,
­ ssyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (ABC) (Locust Valley, 1975),
A ones, L. S. Fried (The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Rela-
104–11; see also J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Society
of Biblical Literature, Writings of the Ancient World 19 (Leiden,
2004), 232–38.
2 
The main problem concerning the Nabonidus-Cyrus ­Chronicle
(almost never discussed by scholars) lies in whether the events
concerning the last year(s) of Nabonidus and the following years
were simply added to the Nabonidus Chronicle, or whether that
earlier part describing Nabonidus’s reign is the rewritten (biased)
version prepared by Cyrus’s order. The tendentious character of
the ­Chronicle was stressed lately by R. Kratz (“From Nabonidus to
Cyrus,” in Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomenon, ed. A. Panaino
and G. Pettinatto, Melammu Symposia III [Milan, 2002], 149),
and a careful analysis of the text strongly supports this view. The
anti-Nabonidus attitude of the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle is seen
in the selection of data, stressing Nabonidus’s religious negligence,
the result of which was that the Akītu festival was not celebrated.
[JNES 71 no. 1 (2012)] © 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 022–2968–2012/7101–005 $10.00.
pire.3 The currently accepted ­reconstruction suggests
that in 540 b.c. the first clash between Babylonia and
Persia took place in southern Babylonia.4 These events
3 
See S. Zawadzki, “The portrait of Nabonidus and Cyrus in
their(?) Chronicle: when and why the present version was com-
posed,” in Petr Charvat and Petra Mařikova Vlčkova, eds., Who Was
King? Who Was Not King? The Rulers and the Ruler in the Ancient
Near East (Prague, 2010), 142–54.
4 
Instead of an earlier reading māt Tam-[tim], scholars now ac-
cept the reading mātPar-[su], first suggested by E. von Voigtlander
(“A Survey of Neo-Babylonian History,” Ph.D. diss. [University of
Michigan, 1963], 206, n. 73). Considering the fact that in 540 b.c. a
few of the highest officers in Uruk were removed and replaced by new
tions in the Persian Empire [Winona Lake, IN, 2004], 24–28) came to
the conclusion that, as early as 540 b.c., the Persians had defeated the
Babylonian army near Uruk, and Cyrus appointed new officers loyal to
him. But a few months later, Ištar fled Uruk, arriving—as established
by Beaulieu (see below)—in Babylon by the end of the 4th month,
the 17th year of Nabonidus. Such an interpretation is highly unlikely,
first, because it would mean not only that the newly-appointed officials
were not punished by Cyrus for allowing the goddess to “escape,” but
also that regular contact with Babylon was maintained. Besides, after
such a success it would be logical to expect the Persian army to attack
Babylon from the south, not from the north. The evacuation of Ištar
in the month Simanu (beginning of Du’uzu 539 b.c.) demonstrates
that the Persian attack cannot be interpreted as a capture of southern
Babylonia. However, it is worth considering whether such intrusions
by the Persians into the south of Babylonia did not occur earlier. In
this regard, concerning the 10th year (546 b.c.), we read that ITI.SIG4
47
48  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies
perhaps influenced ­Nabonidus’s decision at the begin-
ning of the next year to order the transferral of the
gods to Babylon.
The beginning of the next year’s report (539 b.c.)
in the Chronicle does not foretell any dramatic events;
quite the reverse, the text stresses that the Akītu fes-
tival “was celebrated as in normal times” (ki šalmu
ippušu).5 Some time later the situation changed:
(8) ina ITI.[x dLUGAL-MÁR.DAki u]
U4.21.K[AM lúERÍN.MEŠ] šá kurE-lam-mi-ia ina kurURIki x [DU-ma
x x l]úGAR.KUR ina UNUG.K[I . . .]. “On the twenty-first day of
the month Simanu, [the army] of the country Elammiya x [entered]
Akkad [and x x], the district governor in Uruk [. . .].” Although we
do not know if this information was in the original version, or if it was
added to the later redaction, the second possibility and its connection
with the Persians seems to me more likely. It should be noted that
beginning with 550 b.c., the Chronicle gives no information about any
positive action of Nabonidus and all military data are connected ex-
clusively with Cyrus, a strong argument for the idea that this incident
was also connected with Cyrus’s activity. It therefore seems probable
that Elammiya may be identified with Elam, which was under Persian
control. This identification was suggested by Voigtlander (“A Survey
of Neo-Babylonian History,” 195–96), but discounted by P.-A. Beau-
lieu (The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. [New
Haven, 1989], 201), who found this identification “incorrect” and
followed Grayson’s proposal to identify it with a city of Elammu, south
of Carchemish (Grayson, ABC, 254). But how could the mention of
the provincial governor of Uruk be connected with the Carchemish
region? Besides, kurE-lam-mi-ia suggests that a country or region and
not a city/settlement was meant. Nor is there any evidence that an
event of special importance took place in 540 b.c. near Carchem-
ish. Perhaps the famine in Uruk or in its vicinity (mentioned in YOS
6, 154, and dated to the next, the 11th, year of Nabonidus) was a
result of devastation from the Persian attack in that region. Cf. also
K. Kleber, Tempel und Palast: Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König
und der Eanna-Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk, Veröffentlichungen
zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend vor Chr.,
vol. 3 (Münster, 1998), 18, n. 79.
5 
The month of Ṭebētu (the 9th month) in l. 6 (cf. translation of
lines 6–8): “[. . . In the month] Ṭebētu (9th month) the king en-
tered Eturkalamma. In the temple [. . . .]/ [. . .] he made a libation
of wine . . . .[. . .]/[. . . . B]el came out. They performed the Akītu
festival as in normal times. . .” (Grayson, ABC, 109, accepted by
Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 236) is highly doubtful, because
the rule of Nabonidus had already come to an end in Tašritu (the
7th month) and the Akītu festival took place in Nisanu (1st month).
For this, we have to go back to earlier editions: see O. E. Hagen
(“Keilschrifturkunden zur Geschichte des Königs Cyrus,” Beiträge
zur Assyriologie 2 [1894]: 214–48, plus 2 plates); and S. Smith
(Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall
of Babylon [BHT, London, 1924], p. 113), who recognized in ab
the last syllable of an unidentifiable word.
(9) [DINGIR.ME]Š šá MÁR.DAki dZa-ba4-ba4
u DINGIR.MEŠ šá Kiš ki dNin-líl [u
DINGIR.MEŠ]
(10) [šá ḫ]ur-sag-kalam-ma ana TIN.TIR.KI
KU4.MEŠ-ni EN TIL ITI.KIN DINGIR.
MEŠ šá kurUri ki [. . . . . . . . . .]
(11) šá UGU IM u KI.TA IM ana E.KI KU4.
MEŠ-ni DINGIR.MEŠ šá Bar-sip ki
GÚ.DU8.A.[KI . . . . .]
(12) u Sip-par ki NU.KU4.MEŠ-ni
In the month of [x, Lugal-Maradda6 and
the god]s of Marad, Zababa and the gods of
Kiš, Ninlil and the gods of Hursagkalamma,
entered Babylon. Until the end of the
month Ulūlu, the gods of Akkad [. . . .]
who are above the IM and below the IM7
6 
The restoration (suggested already in an earlier edition of
the Chronicle, see Hagen, (“Keilschrifturkunden,” 220) is based
on the comparison with two other cities where the main god or
goddess of the city is mentioned first, followed by the phrase “and
the gods of the city GN.” The same rule can be observed in other
chronicles, see S. Zawadzki, Garments of the Gods: Studies in the Tex-
tile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar According to the Texts from
the Ebabbar Archive, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 218 (Fribourg-
Göttingen, 2006), 148. Cf. the personal names Šar-Marad-šar-uṣur
(mdLUGAL-MÁR.DA-LUGAL-ÙRU) in BM 60279: line 12 and
Šar-Marad-tukultu (mdLUGAL-MÁR.DA-tu-kul-tu4) in F. E. Peiser,
Babylonische Vorträge des Berliner Museums (Berlin, 1890), no. 5:3,
examples which clearly demonstrate the highest position of Šar-
Marad in the pantheon of the city of Marad.
7 
For an earlier discussion, see A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal In-
scriptions (ARI ), vol. 1 (Wiesbaden, 1972), § 464, n. 140. Grayson,
ABC, 109 left the term without translation. Glassner’s translation
of the passage—UGU IM u KI.TA IM, “upstream and down-
stream from Isin(?)” (Mesopotamian Chronicles, 237)—is not based
on any parallels and is, therefore, doubtful. Cf. Beaulieu, Reign of
Nabonidus, 223, note 54, and Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall
of Babylon”: 242, “above the wall and below the wall,” based on
the idea that IM might be an abbreviation of IM.DÙ.A = pitiqtu,
“brick wall”. The problem is that if the “Median Wall” is meant,
all cities enumerated in the Chronicle were below the wall; for its
location, see H. Gasche et al., “Habl-aṣ-ṣahr, nouvelles fouilles,”
Northern Akkad Project Reports 2 [1989]: 23–70 and Fig. 7. An
interesting translation and comments were given by B. van der Spek
in his internet edition of the Nabonidus Chronicle (http://www.
livius.org/cg cm/chronicles/abc7/abc7_nabonidus3.html), which I
cite here: “‘above the wind’ and ‘below the wind’ probably means
‘from everywhere’ (from directions upstream and downstream).
The word IM = šāru = ‘wind’ also means ‘direction.’ Cf. CAD Š 2,
s.v. šāru, p. 137.” This interpretation is supported now by an impor-
tant observation of E. Payne, “New Evidence for the ‘Craftsmen’s
Charter,’” Revue d’Assyriologie 102 (2008): 103, noting the phrase
šu-pal šá-a-ru in ABL 281: 9, and e-˹li˺ šá-a-ri u šu-pa-˹al˺ šá-a-ri šá
Unugki, “above the wind and below the wind of Uruk (i.e., upwind

entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa,
Cutha [. . . . .] and Sippar did not enter
(Babylon).
Although the meaning of IM is not fully clear, it is
rather improbable that the composer of the Chroni-
cle wanted to divide the cultic centers between those
which were inside and outside the defense system,
because it would have been impossible to place in one
group Marad, Kiš, and Hursagkalamma, and in an-
other Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar. It is more probable
that he was thinking about the Median Wall, which
still dominated the landscape at that time.
Scholars never doubted that Nabonidus ordered
the gods be sent to Babylon, but it was only in 1989,
almost exactly twenty years ago, that P.-A. Beaulieu
demonstrated that the king’s order was also fulfilled by
the city of Uruk, and was also addressed in the same
way to other cities not enumerated in the Chronicle.8
Based on data in the economic and administrative
texts from Uruk, Beaulieu came to the convincing
conclusion that the divine statue of the Lady of Uruk
reached Babylon by the fifteenth of Du’uzu (ca. 15th
of July). Assuming that the Chronicle presented events
in strict chronological order, Beaulieu suggested that
the gods of Marad, Kiš, and Hursagkalamma reached
Babylon even earlier, at the beginning of Du’uzu or
already by the end of Simanu (ca. the end of June or
beginning of July). This is doubtful, however, as the
Chronicle states only that the gods of Akkad entered
Babylon by the end of Ululu, that is, it is only certain
that the gods of Marad, Kiš, and Hursagkalamma ar-
rived before this date. In order to better establish the
time of their arrival in Babylon, new data is needed.
The text presented here expands the list of cities
that sent gods to the capital, and, more importantly, it
sheds new light on the relationship between Naboni-
dus and Sippar in the last days of his rule because it
raises the question of why Sippar (plus Borsippa and
Cutha) did not send their gods to Babylon.
and downwind)” in BM 114525: 25. The difference between the
description in BM 114525 and in the Nabonidus Chronicle should
be noted, however. In the first one, the point of reference for the
“wind” is Uruk, whereas in the second, “wind” is not followed by
the name of the city to which gods should be dispatched from their
towns and cities. Undoubtedly Babylon is meant, however, and the
passage should be translated “above the wind and below the wind
(of Babylon).”
8 
Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 220–24, with more detailed
analysis of this data in Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon.”
The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 49
BM 62925 (82–9-18, 2894)9
6.1 x 4.2 cm
  (1) 9 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR IGI-ú 1/3
1 [GÍN EGIR-tu4]
  (2) PAP ½ ma-na KÙ.BABBAR TA ir-bi
 (3) a-na a-gur-ru a-na mdEN-MU
  (4) A-šú šá mdŠÚ-NUMUN-DÙ lúGAL 1
me
  (5) SUMin 2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ina i-di
[šá]
 (6) mSu-qa-a-a lúSIMUG AN.BAR
  (7) 2 GÍN i-di <šá?> ˹3˺3 x x
 (8) šá lúERÍN.ME[Š x x] x
Rev.   (9) mIM-dEN-DÙG.GA lú˹TÚG.BABBAR˺
(10) ITI.KIN U4.2.KÁM MU.17.KAM
(11) dAG-IM.TUKU LUGAL EKI
(12) 4 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR TA ir-bi i-di šá
15 [ERÍN.MEŠ]
(13) a-na šá-da-du šá gišMÁ.GUR8 šá x [x x]
(14) ˹d˺LUGAL.A.TU.GAB.LIŠ ina lìb-bi
˹1˺(?) [x x]
(15) [TIN].TIR.KI il-li-ku ˹2˺ (?) [x x x]
(16) [m]dUTU-BAšá x x x
Note: l. 13. The end of the line might be reconstructed
[TA uruBa-aṣ šá] or similar.
(1) 9 shekels of silver of an earlier (payment) and
21 shekels of a later (payment), (2) totaling one
half mina of silver, from the (temple) income
(6) (was given to) (3) Bēl-iddin, (4) son of
Marduk-zēr-ibni, the chief of one hundred; (5)
2 shekels of silver, for the idu-wage of Sūqāya,
the blacksmith; (7) 2 shekels, the idu-wage of
˹3˺3 [x x] (8) for the workmen . . . (9) (given
to) Šar-Bēl-ṭab, the washerman. (10) Month
Ulūlu, 2nd day, 17th year (11) of Nabonidus,
king of Babylon. (12) 4 shekels of silver, from
the (temple) income for fifteen [workers] (13)
for towing of the processional boat [from Baṣ]
(14) of Bēl-ṣarbi, including 1[+x? shekels (paid)]
(15) [after] they came to Babylon; 2(?) [shekels
of silver] (16) [for] Šamaš-iqīša . . .
The text includes, as it seems, four separate entries
regarding disbursements from the Ebabbar temple
revenue for work done by individuals and by groups.
9 
Published here with the kind permission of the Trustees of the
British Museum.
50  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Figure 1—BM 62925 (82–9-18, 2894). © Trustees of the British Museum.
Sūqāya, the blacksmith, known from many texts, 10
Bēl-iddin, son of Marduk-šum-ibni, the centurion
(rab meʾati),11 and Šar-Bēl-ṭabi, the ašlāku12 are all
strongly connected with the Ebabbar temple, and
their inclusion here makes it certain that the docu-
ment was produced in the Ebabbar temple and be-
longs to its archives. Though Šamaš-iqīša cannot be
10 
Cf. A. C. V. M. Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar
Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography, Ned-
erlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut (Istanbul, 1997), 383–
84, and Maria Kunert-Zanelli, “Metalurgia i złotnictwo w okresie
nowobabilońskim w świetle archiwum Ebabbar w Sippar.” PhD
diss., Uniwersytet Szczeciński, 2005. They believe that because
Sūqāya received his payment in silver—as in the text under discus-
sion—he was not one of the temple slaves (širku), but was the slave
of a private person, who rented him out to the Ebabbar temple.
Note, however, that in Nbn 976 his payment is described as kurum-
matu, i.e., food rations paid to temple personnel.
11 
Bongenaar, Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple, 137, known
from the 10th year of Nabonidus (Nbn 478) until the 2nd year of
Cambyses (Camb 195), described sometimes as rab meʾati of Bēl
(i.e., most probably Marduk), which suggests (according to Bon-
genaar) that he was sent from outside (Babylon?). Like in previ-
ously known texts, where he is active in producing or delivering
the building materials, here he is paid by the Ebabbar temple for
baked bricks.
12 
Ibid., 351. The document discussed here is the latest text
mentioning this ašlāku. Note that until now the name was written
as Šar-ṭâb-Bēl or in abbreviated form as Ṭābiya. The same writ-
ing of the name appears in BM 73285: 7′: mIM-dEN-DÚG.GA
lú
MÁ.[LAH4] and in BM 51287, rev. 5′ (3.7.11), a long list of hire-
lings delivering reeds. Concerning lúTÚG.BABBAR = ašlāku, see
C. Waerzeggers, “Neo-Babylonian Laundry,” Revue d’Assyriologie
107 (2006): 93–94.
identified because of his common Babylonian name,
he also must have been involved with the Ebabbar
temple. The scribe wrote all these operations on one
tablet13 because these people received pay (idu) not
food rations (kurummatu); that is, although they
worked for the temple, they did not belong to its
personnel. Their relationship with the temple was built
on a different basis than the temple’s relationship with
its own personnel.
The reason, as was suggested above, that such a
simple administrative document deserves special at-
tention is because of the third entry. Although it is not
fully preserved, the main sense seems clear: a group
was hired to tow the processional boat of the patron
god of the city Baṣ (or Šapazzu) to Babylon. Accord-
ing to our text, they acted and were paid on behalf of
the Ebabbar temple, which was not out of the ordi-
nary since the responsibility of the Ebabbar temple for
the cult and safety of the gods of Baṣ/Šapazzu is well
known.14 We read here that they should transport the
god Bēl-ṣarbi (“Lord of the Poplar Tree”) to Babylon.
The reason for this decision can be understood when
we take into account the date: 2nd Ulūlu, 17th year
of Nabonidus, shortly before the Persian attack on
Babylon. The gods of Baṣ were sent to Babylon to
carry out the king’s order.
13 
But the fact that two entries follow the date and that the signs
are a little smaller suggests that the scribe had not planned on writ-
ing these entries on this tablet.
14 
Cf. J. MacGinnis, “Baṣ‚ continuo,” N.A.B.U. (1997): 135;
and Zawadzki, Garments of the Gods, 149 and 182.

However, the Chronicle states that at least three
centers (Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar) did not send
their gods to Babylon. It was suggested that Sippar
refused to send its gods to Babylon because of opposi-
tion toward the king’s religious policy.15 An alterna-
tive idea—that these cities could have not sent their
gods to Babylon because they were protected by a
common defensive system16—was refuted by Beaulieu,
who noted, quite rightly, that it would be impossible
to explain why two other cities very close to Babylon,
Kiš and Hursagkalamma, did send their gods to the
capital.17 As long as the original text of Nabonidus’s
order is missing, it cannot be excluded that the cities
close to Babylon felt protected by the Babylonian army
stationed there, and that they could send their god to
Babylon if they wished to do so. However, in light of
the text published here, the idea of hostility between
Nabonidus and Sippar in the period preceding the
Persian attack against Babylonia seems improbable.18
It would be difficult to explain why the authorities of
the Ebabbar temple sent Bēl-ṣarbi (and probably other
gods of Šapazzu) to Babylon if they were in conflict
with Nabonidus. Why Šamaš and other gods of Sippar
were not sent to Babylon might be for other reasons;
for example, they may have delayed the dispatch of
the gods because they wanted to celebrate the com-
ing feast on the 3rd of Ulūlu, or later, on the 7th of
Tašrītu, and the swift progress of the Persian army
made a later transfer impossible. It cannot be excluded
15 
So first Smith in 1924 (BHT, 103–104), and in similar and
even more dramatic tone, Olmstead almost 25 years later, (A. T.
­Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire [Chicago, 1948], 50):
“The limit of citizen patience had been reached; the gods of Kutu,
Sippar, and even Borsippa did not enter. Ebarra, the temple of the
sun-god Shamash in Sippar, had been restored, but the priests were
disgusted when Nabu-naid through one of his frequent dreams
changed the form of the god’s headdress.”
16 
S. Smith, Isaiah Chapter XL–LC (London, 1944), 45–47.
17 
Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, 223–24.
18 
Arguments suggesting that there was no hostility between
Nabonidus and Sippar, but rather, a long friendly cooperation, were
presented in my 2006 lecture at the Rencontre Assyriologique In-
ternationale in Münster (forthcoming in the conference volume
Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien, ed. Hans Neumann).
The End of the Neo-Babylonian Empire  F 51
that Nabonidus himself prevented the gods of Sippar
from leaving their temple. This idea is suggested by
the fact—as is clear from the Chronicle—that he in-
tended to stop the Persians by fighting a decisive battle
in the area north of Sippar. The removal of Šamaš
from Sippar could have been interpreted as the king’s
lack of faith in his ability to defeat the Persian army.
In addition, an evacuation of Nergal, god of war and
patron deity of Cutha, certainly would have cast doubt
on the possibility of victory. Other reasons for such
a decision are feasible, but this psychological factor
should not be ignored.
One thing at least seems certain: Sippar, by send-
ing the gods of Šapazzu to Babylon, demonstrated
willingness to abide by the king’s order. Therefore,
the data from the Chronicle cannot be treated as proof
of tension between Nabonidus and Sippar’s clergy.
The lack of resistance and subsequent fall of Sippar
to the Persians could indicate a conscious decision
to avoid conflict with a new power at the very begin-
ning of its rule—and in the face of the inevitable fall
of Nabonidus.
In light of the date of the document, 2nd Ulūlu,
it is certain that the cities north of Sippar dispatched
their gods a little earlier, probably in the month of
Abu. The transfer of gods near Sippar in Abu seems
more probable since a few administrative documents
from Sippar, dated to Du’uzu, concern building activi-
ties in the region north of Sippar. The work in Du’uzu
was continued as in normal times, suggesting that an
enemy attack was not deemed a real threat, at least
during the following few weeks. If the Lady of Uruk
reached Babylon as early the 15th of Du’uzu, it means
that the king’s order was proclaimed at the beginning
of this month or even a little earlier, in the month
of Simanu. This early dispatch of the gods of Uruk
might be explained by the longer distance upstream
or by fear that the Persian army might try to conquer
Babylonia not from the north, but quite the opposite,
from the south. Further study of the administrative
documents might deliver new data that will shed light
on the last days of the independent Babylonian state.