Fwd: Response to Spiegel Mag's Attack on Cyrus the Great

[Guest guest]

B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN.

website: www.vedascience.com--- On Sun, 9/7/08, B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN. <bcvk71 wrote:

B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN. <bcvk71Fwd: Response to Spiegel Mag's Attack on Cyrus the Greatbcvk71Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 5:40 PMBCVENKATAKRISHNANNewsList , Vrndavan Parker

<vrnparker wrote:

This response below was written by Iranians dedicated to the study of

Pre-Islamic Iran. A well known German magazine published a 'hitpiece'

on Cyrus the Great. In an effort similar to the attacks on Ancient

India's Hindu legacy, efforts are being made to discredit Iran's

ancient pre-islamic legacy.

Verifying Persia's ancient Vedic roots, ancient historians Plutarch

and others state that Cyrus was named from Kuros. His heir Darius I

the Great, stated in an inscription near Shiraz, Iran: the great

King… A Persian"I am Darius , son of a Persian, an Aryan, having

Aryan lineage...". History shows that Cyrus was a Dharmic ruler.

Beyond India it is obvious that the assault against humanities

ancient Dharmic heritage is a global affair.

Recently

at the University of Hawaii, a Manipuri dance presentation was held.

Reports from fellow Hindus in attendance, are not good. This 'Native'

repeatedly denigrated Manipuri's native dancers and criticized

Manipuri

traditions as anti-female. Western audiences respectfully accepted her

anti-Hindu propaganda having no alternative to compare it with. Thats

the bad news.

The

good news is that once and when we, the Hindu activists are able to

present the real deal, the shallowness of this shadow of our tradition

will be revealed. The fact is the best cure for the denigration of

Dharma is to highlight Dharma for one and all. First hand experiance

always trumps hearsay and imitation.

It is hoped that all of

those dedicated to the true history of Dharma will unite and support

each other as we protect our collective noble past.

Vrndavan

click link for article with images

http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2008/July2008/25-07.htm

--- On Fri, 7/25/08, CAIS News <news wrote:

CAIS News <news

Response to Spiegel Magazine's Attack on the Legacy of Cyrus

the Great

"CAIS News" <news

Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:35 AM

You are

receiving this email because you have d to CAIS Daily News.

To

, please read the bottom of this email.

 

http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2008/July2008/25-07.htm

 

Response to Spiegel Magazine's Attack on the Legacy of

Cyrus the Great

 

25 July

2008

 

 

By Dr Kaveh Farrokh

 

Greetings to the Distinguished Staff of Der

Spiegel Magazine.

Recently a number of my colleagues as well as students have brought

the following

article to my humble attention:

FALLING

FOR ANCIENT PROPAGANDA

UN Treasure Honors Persian Despot

By Matthias Schulz

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,564395,00.html

(German)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566027,00.html

(English)

If

the above report had been written by ideologues, it would not have

been very

surprising, as historical revisionism and political motivations do

often

accompany one another. It is however lamentable that a distinguished

world-class magazine such as Der Speigel has chosen to perpetuate a

series of

half-truths that resemble the writings of conspiracy theorists. I

will of

course expostulate upon the narratives of the latter on item (7)

below, but

first allow me to briefly examine a number of statements made by Mr.

Schulz in

items (1) - (6).

(1) "Some Greeks praised the conqueror.

Herodotus and Aeschylus (who lived after Cyrus's death) called him

merciful."

Perhaps Mr.

Schulz is not aware that it was not just "Some Greeks"

who praised Cyrus. This is true despite the fact that Classical

Greece and the

Achaemenid Empire fought many bitter and bloody wars, notably at

Marathon (490

BC), Thermopylae and Salamis (480 BC). It is also a fact that the

mainland

(European) Greeks fought hard against the Achaemenid Empire to retain

their

independence. Why would a nation that had fought so hard against the

Achaemenid

Empire, have any reason to selectively "flatter" Cyrus

the Great? This is because the Greeks, who excelled in the

disciplines of

balanced thought and logical thinking realized that just because they

were at

war with the Achaemenid Empire did not mean that all members and

rulers of that

Empire were "evil". Simply put, they did not allow their political

passions to bias their views of "the other", even if that other was a

military opponent. Nobody forced the ancient Greeks to describe Cyrus

the Great

in a favorable manner. The Greeks in fact had written a virtual

compendium of

Cyrus entitled the Cyropedia of Xenophon.

The favorable recordings of Cyrus were certainly not a minority

opinion in ancient Greece.

This is corroborated by Xenophon (431-355 BC) in his work, the

Cyropedia.

Far more

interesting however is Mr. Schulz's silence with respect to Alexander

the

Great. Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Empire and was instrumental

in

putting the city of Persepolis to the torch (in revenge for Xerxes'

invasion of Greece and the burning of Athens in 480 BC). It was the

same

Alexander who accorded his highest respects to Cyrus the Great.

Alexander not

only held a deep respect and admiration for Cyrus, he also regarded

him as his

personal hero. It is fact that Alexander had always wished to visit

the tomb of

Cyrus at Pasargardae. One excellent source for the history of these

events is

Arrian (Arrian, XXIX, 1-11) who has narrated this aspect of

Alexander's

conquests of ancient Iran.

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC).

Alexander held a deep respect and profound admiration for Cyrus the

Great.

He assumed the mantle of "the world hero" from Cyrus and attempted

to fuse the Iranians and the Greeks into a single and unified realm.

When

Alexander reached the tomb of Cyrus, he was highly distressed to

learn that the

tomb had been violated by robbers. Cyrus' remains had been damaged as

thieves had unsuccessfully tired to steal his coffin. Alexander

immediately

ordered Cyrus' coffin to be repaired, and placed back into the tomb.

The

other damaged contents were all restored to their original form. The

tomb was

repaired under Alexander's explicit orders; the structure's

entrance was sealed. Alexander even spared the frontier post of

Kurtakh as this

had been originally founded by Cyrus; the city was known to the

Greeks as

Cyropolis (the city of Cyrus) (see Quintus Curtius, VII, 6.20).

The Tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae

where Alexander paid his respects.

The tomb is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Once again,

Mr. Schulz can rest assured that the Hellenic views regarding Cyrus

have never

been historically confined to "Some Greeks". Mr.

Schulz's selective historical amnesia is what is termed as the

cherry-picking method of analysis to help portray a set of

personalized

beliefs.

(2) "The Bible describes him as the

'anointed one,' because he supposedly permitted the abducted Jews to

return to

Israel."

What does

Mr. Schulz mean by "supposedly permitted the abducted Jews to return

to Israel"? Is Mr. Schulz suggesting that this portion of history

is also "propaganda"? If this were the case, then were

the Jews forced to remain in Babylon even after Cyrus' arrival? If the

Jews were never liberated as Mr. Schulz seems to aver, then why have

no

recordings been discovered in any Hebrew sources that contradict the

established Biblical sources? Surely, the Jews who were amongst the

most

excellent record-keepers of antiquity would have written on other

possible

"alternative" histories of Cyrus, especially after the fall of the

Achaemenid Empire to Alexander the Great. No such records have

surfaced.

Mr.

Schulz's creative penmanship is at variance with the established

academic

discourse on the history of Cyrus the Great and the liberation of the

Jews from

their Babylonian captivity. The distinguished members of Der Spiegel

are

invited to consult the following link on Encyclopedia Brittanica

regarding

Cyrus the Great:

Cyrus

the Great

By: Richard Nelson Frye

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/Cyrus/cyrusfryebritannica.htm

While a

virtual cornucopia of other books may be suggested, the following

book may of

interest as it is in German:

Darius

und die Perser: E. Kulturgeschichte d. Achameniden (Holle vergangene

Kulturen)

By: Professor Walther Hinz

Finally,

there are a large number of citations in the Bible about Cyrus.

Examples of

references to "Koresh" (Cyrus' name in the Bible) are:

The generosity of Cyrus as

reflected in the Old Testament where he is cited as Yahweh's

anointed

(See Book of Ezra Chapter 1 to witness the high regard that Cyrus

was

held by the Jews). Cyrus is viewed as savior of the Jews in the 2nd

Book

of Isaiah.

Koresh, is hailed as a

Messiah by the Jews. Isaiah cites Cyrus as "He is my Shepherd, and

he

shall fulfill all my purpose" (Isaiah, 44.28; 45.1; see also 35, 40-

55).

The king

also ordered sacred Hebrew utensils confiscated earlier by

Nebudchadnezzar to

be restored to Jewish ownership:

Also Cyrus the king brought

forth the vessels of the house of The Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had

brought

forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods;

Even those

did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the

treasurer,

and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah" (Ezra I:7-8)

Cyrus also

allowed the Jews to rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem and supported

that

reconstruction with an imperial stipend from the treasury:

They gave money also unto the

masons, and to the carpenters; and meat, and drink, and oil, unto

them of

Zidon, and to them of Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the

sea of

Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus king of Persia."

(Ezra III:7)

The Empire

continued to support the Jews as indicated by a decree issued by

Darius the

Great (549-486 BC) in 519-518 BC allowing the Jews to complete the

reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple:

Then came the same

Sheshbazzar, and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in

Jerusalem:

and since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet

it is not

finished. Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be

search made

in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it

be so, that

a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at

Jerusalem,

and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter."

(Ezra

5:13-17)

Darius the Great (549-486 BC).

He continued supporting the Jews in accordance with

those polices set be his predecessor, Cyrus the Great.

Darius also

continued the process of transferring back to the Jews all those holy

utensils

that had been captured by Babylon:

And also let the golden and

silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth

out of the

Temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored,

and

brought again unto the Temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to his

place,

and place them in the house of God." (Ezra VI:3-5)

Artaxerxes I

(Old Persian: Artakhshathra) who became king in 464 BC continued

Cyrus' policy of favoring the Jews by his continued support for the

rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. Artaxerxes' name is recalled with

honor in the Jewish holy texts of Nehemiah and Ezra due to his

support of

Judaism. Greco-Roman sources, notably Plutarch in Artaxerxes has

described the

king as being "a gentle and noble spirit".

The tomb of Esther and Mordechai

in Hamedan, northwest Iran.

The tomb of Daniel

in Khuzestan in southwest Iran.

The Biblical

characters Ezra, Daniel, Esther and Mordecai played historically

important

roles in the Persian court. Jews remained very loyal subjects of the

Empire,

even during those times when Syria and Egypt broke into rebellion

(Frye, 1984,

p.114).

Historically,

the Jews have often sided with the Iranian Empires in the latter's

contests against the Romano-Byzantine Empires. By Iranian Empires we

are now

referring to the second (Parthian 247 BC-226 AD) and third (Sassanian

224-651

AD) Empires; the first being the Achaemenid (550-333 BC). While a

detailed

analysis of all historical archives are impractical here, a number of

examples

can be provided to illustrate Jewish sympathies with the Iranian

kingdoms

before the arrival of the Islamic armies of Arabia in 637-651 AD.

During the

Parthian era Jews cooperated with the forces of Pacorus against the

Romans in

40-39 BC (i.e. Craven, 1920, p.53) and during the Sassanian era the

Jews

cooperated with General Shahrbaraz in his capture of Jerusalem in 614

AD

(Sebeos 115-116, 69).

The brief

analysis made serves to highlight the importance of Jews in the

history of Iran

since antiquity. Once again, what is Mr. Schulz referring to by

stating that

Cyrus "supposedly permitted the abducted Jews to return to

Israel"?

(3) "... modern historians have long

since debunked such reports as flattery. 'A shining image of Cyrus

was created

in antiquity,' "

The

statement "modern historians have long since debunked such reports

as flattery" is false, as the vast majority of scholarship does

not agree with the views being cited by Mr. Schulz.

The only

scientifically valid method of "debunking" historical

reports is by being able to discover multiple, independent and

reliable

sources that are contemporary to the period (or approximately to that

time). The critical reliance upon primary sources and archaeology is

analogous

to the necessity of using calculus and physics in engineering.

What Schultz

may be referring to by citing "modern historians" (and

this seems to be central to his thesis) is what is called secondary

sources. These are the books and articles that historians (or writers)

often produce to convey a certain viewpoint or simply choose to

report on what

has occurred based on primary sources.

Yes, it is

imperative for historians to question the original sources, but to

substantiate

a call to dramatically revise history (as Mr. Schulz is demanding),

one needs

solid evidence to back one's assertions. Secondary sources with no

or little support from the primary sources cannot be used as

definitive sources.

In this case, one is citing opinions and speculations. When one (a)

chooses to

widely diverge from what has been established from a variety of

corroborating

sources in antiquity and (b) fail to provide a concrete (as in proof)

basis for

rejecting those sources, then one is engaging in revisionism, a

method that was

common practice under the Stalinist "historians" of the former Soviet

Union. By dismissing the primary sources as mere "flattery",

Mr. Schulz has singlehandedly discredited the need for historians to

learn

ancient languages such as Akkadian, Aramaic, Babylonian, Old Persian,

etc. or

engage in archaeological research.

If we

strictly follow Mr. Schulz's logic, then we can begin questioning all

primary

sources as "propaganda" and "flattery"

without the need to back-up our assertions with evidence. Following

this

rudimentary system of arm-chair methods of analysis we can

technically question

the entire sage of human history as having been contrived!

(4) "Josef Wiesehöfer says. In truth,

he was a violent ruler, like many others. His army ransacked

residential

neighborhoods and holy sites, and the urban elites were deported."

Professor

Wiesehöfer is certainly entitled to his opinion. Much of the research

that he

has conducted is extremely valuable. He has chosen to arrive at a

negative

conclusion of Cyrus however (a) his view is not universally accepted

and (b) he

lacks primary sources or evidence to back his assertions (as stated

in item 3).

The opinions of Professor Wiesehöfer cannot (a) by themselves

conclusively

negate the history that has been attested to in the original sources

and (b) be

used to override the majority of scholarship.

Yes, Cyrus

did conquer, fight battles and ruled as an absolute monarch. The same

is true

of many great historical figures such as David of the Israelites,

Justinian of

Byzantium, Peter the Great of Russia, and a plethora of others.

However the

failure of logic is in supposing (and this is a supposition, not

fact) that as

Cyrus fought battles and conquered then he must have been a "despot

who had his enemies tortured".

One can use

Mr. Schulz's "logic" to arrive at unwarranted conclusions. Does

one cite a master statesman such as Abraham Lincoln as a "despot"

simply because he fought wars? This very term (despot) was used by the

confederacy and its European supporters against Lincoln at the time.

Yes the

American civil war was a human tragedy beyond words, but how would

that justify

the re-invention of Lincoln as "a despot"?

 

President Abraham Lincoln

Cyrus the Great

Abraham

Lincoln freed the blacks of the southern United States from slavery

just as

Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. Both of

these

events were the consequence of battles and wars.

The

Babylonian captivity and the freeing of the Jews are recorded in the

Biblical

sources. Then again, Mr. Schulz chooses to reject the Bible as well

(as

discussed in item 2). This is because logic can often be distorted to

produce

nonsense results. In that endeavor, Mr. Schulz can certainly benefit

from the

study of the Greek logicians of the Classical era. Then again, Mr.

Schulz has

chosen to dismiss the entire set of Greek sources as well (as

discussed in item

1).

(5) "Only the Shah, who had his own

problems in the 1960s, could have come up with the idea of

reinterpreting this

man as an originator of human rights."

History

cannot be reinterpreted by either the late Shah, the Mullahs of today

or by Mr.

Schulz. As noted in items 1-2, the favorable mention of Cyrus has

already been

cited by a number of ancient sources. Simply refuting them does not

prove

them false. However, the sources are not confined to simply Greek,

Biblical, etc. sources.

It is

interesting that Mr. Schulz selectively quotes (or misquotes) less

than a

handful of historians who appear to support his views, but steers

clear of a

plethora of others who contradict his views. It is suggested that the

Distinguished Staff of Der Speigel consult the following:

Some Notes on the

Characterization of Cyrus the Great in Jewish and Judeo-Persian

Writings

By: Annon Netzer

 

Cyrus the

"Father" and Babylonia

By:

George G. Cameron

Mr. Schulz

repeatedly laments that the notion of Cyrus having been a defender of

Human

Rights is a "hoax that the UN had fallen for". The "hoax"

however has gone as far north as the Scandinavian nations, long

before the UN

body was formed in 1945. Kindly consult:

Cyrus the Great in

Icelandic Epics: A literary Study

By:

Jakon Jonnsen

(6) "There is no evidence of moral

reforms or humane commandments in the cuneiform document.

Assyriologist

Schaudig calls it 'a brilliant piece of propaganda.' "

It is

surprising that Mr. Schulz would make such a statement without having

consulted

the actual cuneiform in British Museum first:

The Cyrus Cylinder

(The British Museum)

Recall that

in item (4) Mr. Schulz makes the following claim:

His

[Cyrus the Great's] army ransacked residential neighborhoods and holy

sites, and the urban elites were deported

Here are some excerpts, which

you (the staff of Der Spiegel) can judge for yourself:

I took up

my lordly abode in the royal palace amidst rejoicing and happiness.

Marduk, the

great lord, /established as his fate (šimtu) for me a magnanimous

heart of one

who loves Babylon, and I daily attended to his worship.

My vast

army marched into Babylon in peace; I did not permit anyone to

frighten the

people of [sumer] /and\ Akkad.

....relieved

their wariness and freed them from their service. Marduk, the great

lord,

rejoiced over [my good] deeds.

Note that

Cyrus cites Marduk, the god of Babylon and not Ahura-Mazda, the

Zoroastrian supreme

entity of pre-Islamic Iran. Cyrus had already conquered Babylon as

the one

"in charge" why would he have had to cater to Marduk? There was

certainly no military benefit to this. Whatever his personal

motivations may

have been, Cyrus respected Marduk, the god of the Babylonians and

recorded this in the cylinder.

The question

here is thus: what does Mr. Schulz imply by "no evidence"?

Is there another cuneiform that has been written that refutes the

historical

cuneiform cited above and supports the views of Mr. Schulz?

Thus far,

all Mr. Schulz has achieved in the Speigel article is to simply

accuse the

cuneiform of having been a historical forgery. When Biblical and

Greek sources

corroborate that cuneiform, he counters by citing secondary sources

that dismiss

these as "flattery" and "propaganda".

This is the

classic case of rejecting evidence, even if it arrives from divergent

and

independent sources. This makes Mr. Schulz's thinking process

analogous

to the members of the Flat Earth Society (an organization that

believes

that the earth is not round but flat):

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Examples of their beliefs in their website:

Why we don't believe

the world is round

Scientific data and

measurements backing up our claims

Dispelling common

myths about "proof" regarding round earth theory

Uncovering the

conspiracy to withold the truth from the public

Using

similar "Flat Earth" thinking processes, Mr. Schulz arrives towards

conclusions that are not necessarily warranted. Like the members of

the Flat

Earth Society, Mr. Schulz seems to to some type of

conspiracy theory

with respect to the history of Cyrus the Great.

(7) "Iran's mullahs have not escaped

the Cyrus cult. In mid-June, the British Museum in London announced

that it

planned to lend the valuable original cylinder to Tehran. It has

become an

object of Persian national pride."

This

particular statement is both simplistic if not outright false. It is

highly

indicative that Mr. Schulz has either distorted information or is

simply

unaware of the very complex "facts on the ground" in Iran today.

First, many (but certainly not all) "Mullahs" are

against the legacy of Cyrus the Great and have attempted to write out

the

history of pre-Islamic Iran (including Cyrus the Great) from the

educational

curricula of Iran since 1979. The main focus of these particular

Mullahs is the

pan-Islamic discourse which is in fact against the heritage of ancient

(pre-Islamic) Iran as well as India.

This select

group of Mullahs, are inspired by tenets of the original Muslim

Brotherhood

(the Ikhwan al-Muslemeen). While a thorough scientific analysis is

impractical here, we can trace some of this thinking to those in Iran

today who

are imbued with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. The quotes

below by

Dreyfus and LeMarc are revealing:

The son of Shah Wallullah,

Shah Abdel-Aziz, [one of great grandfathers of Muslim Fundamentalism]

gathered

around him a network of disciples ... who visited India in 1809.

Radiating from

Indian centers where the British Colonial Office ruled ... Islamic

"purity" ... considered all outside influences as suspect and

evil-demanded that all Muslims safeguard themselves from the

penetration of

Persian traditions and Indian habits (Dreyfuss & LeMarc, 1980, p.119)

Mr.

Schulz's error of superimposing ancient Iran on the current Mullahs

is a

common error amongst western analysts and writers at present. This is

mainly

the result of the tendency by these writers to view Iran in

simplistic terms.

The history

of ancient pre-Islamic Iran is viewed with considerable disfavor by

the

followers of the pan-Islamists, including those inside Iran. The pan-

Islamic

ideologues have been vigorously funding, supporting and perpetuating

the

publications of Nasser Pourpirar, a man who believes that the entire

history of

ancient Iran, including Cyrus the Great to be a "hoax"

that has been "... invented by Zionists, Americans at the University

of Chicago". For more information, please consult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser_Pourpirar

Below is

Pourpirar's website in Iran which fully reveals his views:

http://www.naria.blogfa.com (in Persian)

Nasser Pourpirar (a fanatic anti-Semite)

believes that the entire history of pre-Islamic Iran

as well as Alexander the Great is a hoax

that has been invented by the Jews and the Americans.

His views on Cyrus the Great and the Cyrus cylinder

are virtually identical to those of Matthias Schulz.

One

cannot help but notice how closely the writings of Mr. Schulz overlap

with the

conspiracy theories of Pourpirar, a virulent and venomous anti-

Semite. Hopefully your

publication will realize the magnitude of the embarrassment (if not

discrediting) that Mr. Schulz has brought upon your world-class

publication by

inadvertently repeating the nonsense of anti-Semite conspiracy

theorists.

Perhaps Mr.

Schulz can choose to learn from one of my Canadian friends who had

been a

member of the Canadian Armed Forces during his career. As a student

of history

he points out the following:

I am not really interested in

whether modern Iran is a friendly country or not. It has no bearing

on what was

happening more than 1400 years in the past.

This means

that when one approaches the field of history, one is required to

suspend

one's contemporary (political) biases. Failure to do so leads to

politically-tainted speculations and the writing of fiction. In this

endeavor,

Mr. Schulz has certainly set the standard for creative writing.

Creative

writing however is not the same as objective historiography.

Mr. Schulz

has made it clear that he dislikes the previous Iranian government of

the Shah

as well as the present theocratic regime in Tehran. Unfortunately he

also

appears to be displaying a profound sense of antipathy against the

people of

Iran and their history. The history of Cyrus however belongs not just

to Iran,

but to the entire saga of humanity.

I hope to

conclude this discussion by citing the Classical Greek historian

Thucydides who

prophetically stated:

Their judgment was based more

upon blind wishing than upon any sound prevision; for it is a habit

of mankind

to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign

reason to

thrust aside what they do not fancy. (Book IV, 108)

Thucydides (460-395 BC)

Best Regards

Kaveh Farrokh

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh

(PhD)

Historian - University of British Columbia Continuing Studies Division

Member of Stanford University's WAIS (World Association of

International

Studies)

Advisor of Iranian Studies for The Society of Hellenic-Iranian Studies of the Archaeological Department of the Pasargard

Preservation

Foundation

Member of the Iranian-Canadian Congress

Member of Iran Linguistics Society

Member of Persian Gulf Preservation Society

 

--- End forwarded message ---