#1. Zeitgeschichte

[alsfussballnochrocknrollwar]

Die #Staffel5 der #Podcast🎙️- #RetroShow "ALS FUSSBALL NOCH ROCK'N'ROLL WAR"⚽🎸🕺 beginnt am 22.02.2024 mit #Episode53.

In dieser explosiven 5. Staffel gibt es noch einmal eine geballte Ladung #Nostalgie und #Highlights, wo Ausschnitte der interessantesten und spannendsten Momente der bisherigen Episoden der Staffeln 1 bis 4 zusammengefasst werden. Eine atemberaubende autobiografische #Zeitreise durch 6 Jahrzehnte. Die Episoden spannen sich über Themen wie #Fußball⚽, #Lifestyle🏌️‍♂️, #Reisen✈️, #Musik🎶, #Business📈 und #Zeitgeschichte📰. Staffel 5 führt auch noch einmal zu den kulturellen Strömungen der vergangenen Jahrzehnte!

Es wartet nicht nur eine Zusammenstellung als geballte Ladung der faszinierendsten #Erlebnisse und #Ereignisse, sondern auch eine exklusive Zusammenfassung der famous #Bars🍹 und ihrer #Cocktailrezepte🍸 aus vielen Teilen der #Welt🌍.

Die musikalische Reise setzt sich ebenfalls fort, denn es wird noch einmal eine Auswahl  der unvergesslichen Musikstücke präsentiert, die viele der #Episoden begleitet haben. Von #RocknRoll🎸 bis zu den klangvollen Beats vergangener Jahrzehnte – Es ist der Soundtrack🎷 und die #Playlist der Retro-Show.

Und es geht auch noch einmal auf virtuelle #Weltreise🛳️. Es geht um die erkundeten #Länder und #Kontinente, um das Erleben der Vielfalt der Kulturen und der Inspiration durch die einzigartigen Eindrücke.

Staffel 5 verspricht nicht nur #Fußballnostalgie, sondern auch einen audiovisuellen Genuss von #Cocktails, #Musik und #Reisen – also noch einmal auch eine wahre Zeitreise durch die Sinne!

Episoden-Vorschau:

Episoden:

[fritz-letsch]

Oskar Maria Graf: Der Abgrund - in der kooksbar

„Der Abgrund – Zeitroman“ in der kooksbar im Glockenbach. Achtung, wir beginnen nun schon um 19.30 Uhr und die Lesungen sind immer sonntags. Graf schildert in dieser spannenden Familiengeschichte ein Bild der bedrohlichsten Phase unmittelbar erlebter Zeitgeschichte: den „Sturz Deutschlands ins Bodenlose“ (Jean Amery). Es geht dabei um den aufrechten Sozialdemokraten Joseph Hochegger, der die Ideale der Solidarität der Arbeiterklasse verkörpert. Graf selbst zu diesem Roman: „Er ist die Geschichte sozialdemokratischer Menschen. Arbeiter treten darin auf, mit denen ich den größten Teil meines Lebens verbracht habe.“ Die Oskar Maria Graf-Gesellschaft präsentiert in sechs Teilen „Der Abgrund – Zeitroman“ 29.10.2023 – 19.30 Uhr kooksbar Geyerstraße 18 Oskar Maria Graf – Der Abgrund – Teil 1 Lesung: Katrin Sorko und Oliver Leeb - Musik: Eder Blosn - EINTRITT FREI - Oskar Maria Graf Gesellschaft e. V. Weitere Teile am 26.11.23, 17.12.23, 28.01.24, 25.02.24 und 31.03.24 - die Oskar Maria Graf Gesellschaft e. V. Read the full article

[yourira-blog1]

Gute Freunde - Making of #1 der "Eis und Bernstein"-Saga

Social Media Hashtags #roman #baltikum #litauen #coldwarfiction #1980s #1990s #zeitgeschichte Einige Zeit lang war es ziemlich ruhig hier, doch heute kann ich verkünden: Eine neue Reihe ist in Arbeit und im September wird Staffel 1 der “Eis und Bernstein”-Saga den Auftakt der gleichnamigen Romanserie einläuten. Geschrieben hatte ich die ersten Teile um Rasa, Valdas, Algirdas und natürlich Rimas…

[peterschoenau]

[ohneweiterebedeutung]

- Wer sich für Fußball interessiert und im April in Nürnberg herumtreibt

Selbstverständlich richtet sich die Ausstellung nicht nur an die Fans des FC Bayern. Hier gilt das Motto „Getrennt in den Farben – vereint in der Sache“. Zur Vernissage am 9. April wird daher neben dem Ausstellungsinitiator Andreas Wittner (FC Bayern Erlebniswelt) auch FCN-Archivar Bernd Siegler erwartet. Das Leben des einstigen Club-Trainers Jenö Konrad bietet auch Fans des 1. FC Nürnberg einen Anknüpfungspunkt, sich mit der ‚eigenen‘ Historie zu beschäftigen und sich gegen Antisemitismus zu engagieren.

Aus der deutschen Geschichte erwächst eine Verantwortung für Vereine und Verbände sich heute ganz besonders für Vielfalt und gegen Ausgrenzung einzusetzen. Inwiefern das „dem Fußball“ gelingt, ist ein zentrales Thema beim Podiumsgespräch am 16. April. Sporthistoriker Prof. Dr. Lorenz Peiffer, Publizist Alexander Feuerherdt und Alexander Schmidt vom Nürnberger Dokumentationszentrum blicken zudem auf die Qualität von Erinnerungsarbeit im Fußball, die oft von Fans und eben nicht an Universitäten geleistet wird. Was kann man selber machen und wie wichtig ist dieser Beitrag heute? (x)

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Again on Berossus, Herodotus, and ancient Greek historiography

“Berossus and Greek historiography

J.Haubold et al. (edd.), The World of Berossus (Wiesbaden 2013), 177-199

Christopher Tuplin

Christopher Tulpin,   University of Liverpool, Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, Faculty Member

Berossos and Greek Historiography

Christopher Tuplin (University of Liverpool)

Introduction

Felix Jacoby detected five types of historiography: genealogy / mythology; ethnography; chronology; Zeitgeschichte and Universalgeschichte; and local history. The first two are first exemplified by Hecataeus (but Dionysius’ Persica was the first full-blown ethnography); the third arrives with Hellanicus;1 the fourth, prefigured in Herodotus VII–IX, is represented by Thucydides; and the fifth was a spin-off from Herodotus. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus offered an exact reverse scheme in Thucydides 5, with local history as the starting point, but the developmental issue is not for present purposes that important.) All of these strands, except perhaps Zeitgeschichte (defined as mostly concerned with the author’s own time), are represented in some measure in Berossos’ work, and he is duly cited by the likes of Josephus or Athenaeus alongside a variety of historians (Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, Ephorus, Herodotus, Ctesias and Megasthenes). So, broadly speaking, Berossos’ text cannot be faulted as a potential example of Greek historiography; its title –  Babyloniaca– is of unimpeachably appropriate sort,2 and, if we conceive it (perhaps not too over-simplistically) as essentially a work about a single city, it could even be said to be of specially Hellenic character. Of course, the content also fits perfectly well two major categories of Babylonian literature (mythical epic and king-lists / chronicles), though the combination of both in a single literary text may be odder in the Babylonian than the Greek context: I am not sure whether Grayson 1975,18= Glassner 2004,3, which inserts a Flood narrative into a king list – i.e., something that one could describe as analogous to Babyloniaca II – makes the entirety of Berossos’ project seem ‘normal’.

By the time Berossos wrote there was a lot of Greek historiography: over 130 authors had written history of one sort of another in Greek by the start of the third century BC,3 well over half (78) of of whom were in the local history category to which Berossos belongs.4 So, in principle he had numerous models to follow – or to fail to live up to. In practice, of course,things are not quite like that.

It would be astonishing if he actually encountered more than the tiniest proportion of these theoretical riches. Most readers of Greek without access to the library of Alexandria (an institution unparalleled in Seleucid Babylonia) would have been in a similar position. And so are we, for fragmentary survival means that most of these 130+ authors are literary and scientific personalities whom we can scarcely grasp at all. The project of locating Berossos in Greek historiography is one in which the realistic comparanda are few in number.

There is also an issue about his desire to encounter lots of potential precedents. Berossos learned Greek, but what does that imply about engagement with Hellenic paideia? We have no way of knowing what his actual spoken or written Greek was like – which rules out one way of deciding whether he was a true pepaideumenos. Some historians start from the so-called Graeco-Babyloniaca and the assumption that the King communicated with every-one who mattered in Greek and deduce widespread knowledge of Greek among Babylonian temple- personnel or scholars.5 That might be fair, but does it imply paideia? The half-century since the conquest was time for some to have discovered that the Greek language had more to offer than administrative functionality, but it begs the question to take Berossos’ work as proof that such a process had gone very far.6 John Dillery has claimed that Manetho and Berossos used Greek because it was a prestige language (2007, 229), and that the activity was an aspect of competition with other members of the native (colonial) elite. Perhaps so.7 But does the prestige derive from entry to a new literary / cultural world or just from proximity to the levers of power? Can we be sure Berossos’ engagement with Greek literature was much more than a superficial by-product of conversations with Greeks who were properly educated? Are the putative signs of Stoic philosophy and Empedocles robust enough (and technically substantial enough) to demonstrate that it was?8 

Precedents

Three types of Greek historiographical precedent present themselves  

-authors writing about (some of) the same historical material: Herodotus, Ctesias, Dinon, Heraclides and other more faintly attested writers of Assyriaca (e.g.Hellanicus) or Persica.9 

 – authors writing about different historical material but in some sense doing the same thing, that is people doing the history / customs of a Greek community (in principle lots of authors) or the history / customs of non-Greek environments: Xanthus, Megasthenes, Hecataeus, the writers of  Persica, and various other (mostly not very familiar) authors.10  

– non-Greek authors writing in Greek: Xanthus – but not Manetho whom I take to be later in date.11

Inspecting things at this level draws attention to some ways in which the substance of Berossos’ work has not got much to do with Greek predecessors...”

“Conclusion

That Berossos wrote in Greek guarantees a Greek context for his project. He must minimally have been aware that Greek readers consumed texts other than purely functional administrative or political ones – in effect, that there was such a thing as Greek literature. But how far did his knowledge of such literature and susceptibility to its influence go? One thing that requires stress is that there really is no proof that Berossos was aware of Herodotus.73 That being so, we should hesitate to canvass as a significant model any author remote from him intime or subject-matter and much inferior to Herodotus in status. The fact that Megasthenes’ Indica was produced within the ambit of the Seleucid court makes it quite likely that he was aware of it. But it also means that any such awareness does not necessarily indicate a wider engagement with Greek history-writing and that any influence the Indica exerted may have to be seen as a function of Seleucid politics rather than of the impact of a Hellenic literary genre of more than two centuries standing. Megasthenes (like Patrocles and Demodamas) was doing what he did – asserting an intellectual possession of India in case or because no actual politico-military possession would ever be asserted – as a (quite important) servant of the state, not (just) as a scholar or an artist: he doubtless had the literary education that ensured that acting in the first capacity did not preclude acting in the second as well, but it is precisely that assumption that we cannot casually make in the case of the Babylonian priest. Berossos was also evidently aware of some aspects of the Ctesian tradition about the history of Asia; and if his attribution to Nebuchadnezzar of a wife called Amytis is a knowing re-assignment of the marital arrangements of the Ctesian Cyrus, his awareness of Ctesias stretched to apparent points of detail – though, lacking a text of Ctesias, we cannot be sure that Astyages’ daughter Amytis was not familiar even to those with only a relatively superficial knowledge of it. But neither the grand narrative of Asian empires in Persica nor the entirely ahistorical account of the diversity of distant India in Indica provides a satis- factory structural or conceptual precedent for Berossos’ work, which focused on a single polity and one that was very close to home. In that regard, Xanthus’ Lydiaca remains the closest single analogy – but one that we can hardly dare to assert Berossos had ever encountered. This does leave us with Megasthenes as the next best candidate. The ways in which Megasthenes’ India differs from that of the Alexander historians – the exploitation of the Dionysiac and Heraclean associations perceived by Alexander to create an ancient historical context for contemporary India; the greater concentration upon a single kingdom, and one not represented in earlier texts – did produce a three-book logos with some similarities to the one that would subsequently appear from the pen of Berossos. How far the stimulus went beyond the basic project of presenting the core (rather than the periphery) of the Seleucid Empire and a general idea that such a presentation would embrace history, geography and customs, we cannot tell: the state of preservation of both authors, and especially Berossos, precludes the necessary analysis of intertextual relations. One thing we can tell, however, is that the close parallel between Ctesias’ affectation of keen engagement with royal documents and Berossos’ excavation of a Babylonian past from the most ancient anagraphai raises a historiographical theme that appears not to have a significant profile in Megasthenes. I have already remarked that Berossos did not need Ctesias or any Greek to tell him that Babylonia had ancient documents, but we might nonetheless describe the Berossan project as in part a response to the provocative Ctesian claim that archival study validated an Asian history in which Babylon was variously the artefact and mere pawn of foreigners. If so, it is a pleasing irony that one crucial impact by a Greek historian upon Berossos lay in a feature that was quite untypical of Greek historiography.74″

The full text of Pr. Tuplin study can be found on https://www.academia.edu/4231478/Berossus_and_Greek_historiography

Pr. Tuplin’s text is very informative, more generally about Berossus and his relationship with the Greek culture but also especially concerning the very interesting subject of the influence of Ctesias and Megasthenes on Berossus. However, I have the following critical remarks on it:

The fragments which have survived from Hecataeus’ work show that his ethnography was rather sketchy, whereas Dionysius of Miletus is a totally shadowy figure. The truth is that the first full-blown ethnography is found in Herodotus’ work. Moreover, Herodotus was the first author to write a type of “world history”, with as main subject the rise of the Persian Empire and its conflict with the Greek city-states. Thucydides builds on Herodotus’ heritage, he writes mostly history of his own time and has a more “positivist” approach to  history than Herodotus, but, on the other hand, his scope is narrower than Herodotus’, as he focuses almost exclusively on Greek affairs and on military and political history.

I think that Berossus’ high degree of acquaitance with the Greek literature and culture and more particularly with the Greek historiography must be taken as granted, given that he chose, but also managed to write a work of history in Greek, moreover a work which was appreciated in the Hellenistic period. And you did not need to have access to the library of Alexandria if you wanted to read a copy of Herodotus’ work during the early Hellenistic period: Herodotus was a very popular and influential author and Berossus, priest and intellectual, did not live in some steppe or marsh, but in the capital of the Hellenistic Babylonia of the 3d century BCE, a region in which important Greek cities had already been created and communication between Greeks and Babylonians was intense. To doubt even that Berossus had acces to Herodotus’ work seems to me far-fetched.

[galleriaartethule]

Andree-Klaus Busch

Blutzeugen – Beiträge zur Praxis des politischen Kampfes in der Weimarer Republik

Nordland Verlag

2. überarbeitete, stark erweiterte Auflage Die Blutzeugen der nationalsozialistischen Bewegung wurden im Dritten Reich regional und überregional als Märtyrer des weltanschaulichen Kampfes geehrt. Trotzdem sind nur wenige Namen und Lebensbilder dieser Männer und Frauen bekannt. Die Heldenverehrung konzentrierte sich seit Kriegsbeginn auf die gefallenen und hochdekorierten Soldaten der Wehrmacht. Parteisoldaten, „die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen“, traten hingegen zurück und gerieten nach 1945 nahezu in Vergessenheit. Wer mehr als nur Namen über diese Gefallenen der Bewegung erfahren will, stößt meist ins Leere oder auf sehr begrenztes Material. Horst Wessel, Albert Leo Schlageter und Herbert Norkus sind Ausnahmen. Erstmalig seit 1939 beschäftigt sich ein Autor mit den Lebens- und Todesumständen von SA- und SS-Männern ebenso wie mit den einundzwanzig Gefallenen der Hitlerjugend bis zum 31. 1. 1933. Chronologisch zählt das reich bebilderte Buch über 220 Namen auf und beschreibt die Zustände am Rande eines Bürgerkrieges. Ferner ermöglicht eine räumliche Zuordnung jedem Leser, auf den ersten Blick nicht nur die Schwerpunkte der Auseinandersetzung zu erkennen, sondern auch die regionalen Vorkämpfer der NS-Bewegung ausfindig zu machen. Neben den vorliegenden Veröffentlichungen bis 1945 hat Andree-Klaus Busch Gerichtsakten, Polizei- und Presseberichte ebenso ausgewertet wie Gespräche mit Angehörigen. Das Buch will keine kriminalistisch-wissenschaftliche Aufarbeitung sein oder minuziös juristische Feinheiten beleuchten. Der Autor stellt vielmehr wertfrei die bürgerkriegsähnlichen Zustände zwischen dem Jahr 1923 mit den ersten Toten und den politischen Mordopfern in Berlin und Lübeck in der Nacht der nationalsozialistischen Machtübernahme am 30. Januar 1933 anhand von Einzelschicksalen dar. Die Texte weisen die noch greifbaren biografischen Daten der Blutzeugen aus und rücken die Toten durch zahlreiche seltene und teilweise unveröffentlichte Bilder der „Kampfzeit“ aus dem Dunkel des Vergessens. Das Buch „Blutzeugen - Beiträge zur Praxis des politischen Kampfes in der Weimarer Republik“ erscheint für den an der jüngeren Zeitgeschichte Interessierten ebenso wertvoll wie für den Regionalhistoriker. Teilweise zeigt der Autor die Tatorte bis hin zu Straße und Hausnummer auf. Ferner ermöglicht er dem Uniformkundler eine Zuordnung zahlreicher Ehrennamen von SA- und SS-Einheiten. Bibliographische und techn. Daten: -616 S., mit zahlr. s/w-Abb., Fotografien, Presse- und Dokumentenfaksimiles -Druck: durchgehend auf 130 g/qm Bilderdruckpapier -Verarbeitung: Fadenheftung, schwarzer Leinenüberzug, Silberprägung auf Titel und Buchrücken, Schutzumschlag -Großformat: 210 x 297mm (4°) -Gewicht: 2900 g -Einzelverkaufspreis: € 59,90 -ISBN-13: 978-3-9812409-0-0 -EAN-Code: 9783981240900

https://deutscher-buchdienst.com/buecher/zeitgeschichte/weimarer-republik/busch-blutzeugen.htm

[tough-buff]

Als „Meilenstein der Erinnerungskultur“[1] gilt die kitschige TV-Miniserie „Holocaust“, die 1978 erstmals in den USA ausgestrahlt wurde. Ein Jahr später sendete auch das ARD die „Geschichte der Familie Weiß“, so der deutsche Untertitel der dramatischen Inszenierung, und erschuf damit ein Medienereignis, das zum 40-jährigen Jubiläum scheinbar wiederholt werden soll.[2] Wie die Süddeutsche Zeitung titelt, soll die Einfühlung eines Massenpublikums in die Judenvernichtung wiederholt werden. Wahrscheinlich um überhaupt mal wieder etwas zu spüren.

Und noch ein weiteres Medienspektakel feiert 2019 Jubiläum: auch Steven Spielbergs Spielfilm Schindlers Liste wird anlässlich des Holocaustgedenktages am 27. Januar nach 25 Jahren wieder in den deutschen Kinos gespielt. Der Journalist und Kritiker Eike Geisel fand seinerzeit die wohl trefflichsten Worte zu diesen beiden TV Produktionen, die wahrlich einen Meilenstein bedeutet haben, für das, was er die „Wiedergutwerdung der Deutschen“ nannte. Zum Kinostart von Schindlers Liste kommentierte er 1994:

„Vor fünfzehn Jahren flossen Tränen der Rührung anläßlich der TV-Serie »Holocaust«, und der Spiegel titelte »Eine Nation ist betroffen«. Jetzt fließen wieder Tränen, aber diesmal auch solche des Stolzes. Damals verloren die Deutschen zwar die Contenance, aber endlich gab es wieder eine Geschichte, deren Höhepunkt entschlossen gegen den Vorwurf verteidigt wurde, man habe den Massenmord bloß bei den Bolschewisten abgekupfert. Jetzt sind sie nicht nur wie Gläubige nach der Beichte erleichtert und froh darüber, daß ihre Untaten weder auf Erden noch im Himmel vergolten werden, sondern jetzt wurde, was sie immer vermutet hatten, als erlösende Gewißheit bestätigt: Auschwitz war, man mußte es jahrzehntelang in seinem Innern unterdrücken, doch noch gut ausgegangen.“[3]

Für die Deutschen war das Happy End der TV-Produktionen über den Massenmord an den Juden demnach eine segensreiche Befreiung. Geisels Kritik an der bundesdeutschen „Erinnerungskultur“, die Auschwitz mittels einer Identifikation mit den NS-Opfern zu bewältigen versuchte, firmiert mittlerweile seit bereits seit über 20 Jahren als Staatsräson der BRD.

Was in der post-nationalsozialistischen Berliner Republik eine „Erlösung“[4] von Schuld und Verantwortung bedeutet hat, ist heute längst auch global zu einer positiven Sinnstiftung der Shoah verkommen. Spielberg, der Regisseur von Schindlers Liste und Gründer der USC Shoah Foundation, eine Stiftung, die seit 1994 weltweit über 50.000 Video-Interviews mit Holocaust-Überlebenden produziert hat, ist sich sicher, dass sein „storytelling“[5] der beste Weg ist, um „Hass“ entgegen zu treten. Seine Erzählung des Holocaust mit Happy End hat sich zielsicher ebenso in den unüberblickbaren Datenbergen der Interviews mit Holocaust-Überlebenden, denen hierzulande als „Zeitzeugen“ mit einer Hass-Liebe begegnet wird, durchgesetzt.[6] Einerseits schwingt in der seit den 1980er (!) Jahren ritualisierten Formel vom „Aussterben der Zeitzeugen“ der heimliche Wunsch mit, die übriggebliebenen Zeugen des Massenmordes sollten endlich vom Erdboden verschwinden. Andererseits ist die ‚Einfühlung ins Grauen‘ mittels der Geschichten auf Video – und dem neuesten Stand der Technik verpflichtet mittlerweile auch als virtuelle Hologramme - zwar grausam und emotional zutiefst belastend, aber zugleich ein Erlebnis, das in verträglich portionierten Stücken einwandfrei konsumierbar ist. Solange am Ende die Moral von der Geschichte eindeutig ist: es ist ja nochmal gutgegangen.

Was also bedeutet die neuerliche Ausstrahlung der „Soup Opera“ (Elie Wiesel) Holocaust und der Geschichte über den guten Deutschen Schindler im deutschen Fernsehen im Jahr 2019?

Womöglich, dass noch immer nichts begriffen worden ist. Dass Auschwitz 74 Jahre nach Kriegsende zwar präsenter denn je in den Medien und der öffentlichen Debatte vertreten ist, aber stets nur als Verweis auf eine dunkle Vergangenheit und zugleich Sinnbild für die Möglichkeit aus Scheiße Gold zu machen: sechs Millionen Tote Juden bedeuten heute Einschaltquoten im Millionenbereich. Wiederholt wird 2019 zwar nicht, wie die falsche Grammatik des SZ-Tweets nahelegt, die Judenvernichtung, aber neben der seichten Unterhaltung geht das Morden in der Welt munter weiter. Ende Januar wird es voller Pathos dann wieder in den Reden von Politikern und in den obligatorischen facebook-postings heißen: „Nie wieder!“

[1] Vgl. Stefan Reinecke, US-Fernsehserie „Holocaust“. Ein Meilenstein der Erinnerungskultur, Deutschlandfunk Kultur (07.01.2019), URL: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/us-fernsehserie-holocaust-ein-meilenstein-der.1005.de.html?dram:article_id=437527&fbclid=IwAR1FJXPVgDgujGjqOLAuSz-sdvq5CEcp9GE3OnjSvOck0lKq87MEe1lvm_A

[2] Jürgen Wilke, Die Fernsehserie „Holocaust“ als Medienereignis, in: Zeitgeschichte-online, Thema: Die Fernsehserie „Holocaust“ – Rückblicke auf eine „betroffene Nation“, hrsg. von Christoph Classen, März 2004, URL: https://zeitgeschichte-online.de/thema/die-fernsehserie-holocaust

[3] Eike Geisel, E.T. bei den Deutschen. Nationalsozialismus mit menschlichem Antlitz (1994), wiederabgedruckt in: Ders., Die Wiedergutwerdung der Deutschen, Essays und Polemiken, Herausgegeben und mit einem Vorwort versehen von Klaus Bittermann, Berlin 2015, S. 171-190, hier S. 177.

[4] Vgl. Ulrike Jureit: Opferidentifikation und Erlösungshoffnung: Beobachtungen im erinnerungspolitischenRampenlicht, in: Ulrike Jureit/Christian Schneider (Hrsg.), Gefühlte Opfer. Illussionen der Vergangenheitsbewältigung, Bonn 2010, S. 17-103.

[5]  Adam Popescu, Steven Spielberg on Storytelling’s Power to Fight Hate, in: New York Times (18.12.18), URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/arts/design/steven-spielberg-shoah-foundation-schindlers-list.html

[6] Vgl. Linde Apel, "You are participating in history". Das Visual History Archive der Shoah Foundation, in: Zeithistorische Forschungen 5, 2008, S. 438–445, hier S. 440.

[hamsterrausch]

Globus Sammelaktion: Sticker "Eine Reise durch die Zeitgeschichte Teil 3" gratis

Neue Treueaktion: Globus: Reise durch die Zeitgeschichte Teil 3 - Sammelsticker gratis - #Hamsterrausch

Da werden (nicht nur) Kinderaugen strahlen: Bei Globus startet das Sammelfieber. Professor Globus und Globini machen sich vom 25.07.2022 an auf “Eine Reise durch die Zeitgeschichte” – und zwar Teil 3. Die Globus-Sammelaktion für treue Kunden gibt es schon seit mehreren Jahren. Vor Teil 1 und 2 zum Thema Zeitgeschichte waren bei Globus “Die Jagd nach dem Piratenschiff” (2019) sowie eine “Reise…

[andreaskorn]

Andreas U. Korn - Vorbemerkung: in der Manuskriptsammlung meines Vaters Karl Korn [1] liegen einige seiner Zeitungsartikel zur Geschichte von Mettmann vor, die hier in Auszügen abgebildet werden. Dies würde sicherlich seiner Intention entsprechen, die er auf diese Formel im Rahmen einer vom ihm konzipierten Ausstellung in der alten Bürgermeisterei formuliert hat: „Geschichtliches, Vergessenes, Verlorenes, Bewahrtes.“

ak 31.05.2022

--------------

Michael Schaffers: Heimatforscher Karl Korn erinnert sich. Mühseliges Suchen in Geschichtsquellen [2]

Mettmann. „Im Mettmanner Bach konnten wir nur die Füße baden, doch die alte Badeanstalt an der Vollmühle suchten wir gerne auf, um Stitzlinge [Stichlinge] und Salamander zu fangen.“ Gern erinnert sich der Mettmanner Karl Korn an seine Jugendzeit. Gestern vollendete er sein 80. Lebensjahr.

Erinnerungen an Schulzeit

Jahrzehntelang hat er Archive durchforstet, nun hat er seine Jugenderinnerungen in einem Artikel zusammengefaßt. „Erinnerungen an die Schulzeit 1828 bis 1934“ hat Karl Korn eine weitere Erinnerung überschrieben. Anziehungspunkt für ihn und seine Freunde war damals auch die Schmiede von Vogelsang, am Anfang des Eidamshauser Weges. Der geduldige Meister mit der dicken Lederschürze, den die Kinder liebevoll „Onkel Vogelsang“ nannten, hatte mit seiner tiefen Baßstimmen [sic] immer ein gutes Wort für die Kleinen. Dann schwärmt er von Rodelparadies am Eidamshauser Berg. Noch gut im Gedächtnis sind ihm die Eigenheiten der damaligen Lehrer, sein Wunsch, daß Menschen und Zeitgeschichte für die Nachwelt erhalten bleiben. Schon früh beschäftigte er sich mit Archivarbeiten. Nach dem Krieg und Gefangenschaft war er Stadtverordneter der katholischen Zentrumspartei in Mettmann. Zum Jubiläum seiner Heimatstadt gestaltete er 1954 erstmals eine Ausstellung sakraler Gegenstände der Kirchengemeinde St. Lambertus. In der alten Bürgermeisterei folgten 1979 die große Kirchenausstellung.

Abschriften angefertigt Als er 1980 als Direktor einer Bank in den Ruhestand ging, „kniete“ er sich in die Archivarbeit. Das Mettmanner Stadtarchiv und das Pfarrarchiv St. Lambertus wurden seine Wirkungsstätten, später kümmerte er sich um das Amt Hubbelrath. Karl Korn erstellte 29 Dokumentationen, er fertigte Abschriften von elf Kirchenbüchern aus der Zeit von 1663 bis 1809. Die Quellen der katholischen Gemeinde Mettmann hat er von 1290 bis heute bearbeitet. Noch einmal konnte der Archivar die Früchte seiner Arbeit ernten: 1983 feierte St. Lambertus ein besonderes Jubiläum. Der Neubau des Kirchenschiffes wurde genau von 100 Jahren vollendet. Wieder in der alten Bürgermeisterei gestaltete Karl Korn eine Ausstellung über die Kirchengemeinde unter dem Motto: „Geschichtliches, Vergessenes, Verlorenes, Bewahrtes.“ Der damalige Stadtarchivar Bernd Gansauer bescheinigte dem „Motor" des Ganzen: „Nur der Sachkenner kann ermessen, wieviel Stunden mühseliges Suchen erforderlich sind, um längst Vergangenes wieder ans Tageslicht zu bringen.“

----------------------

[1] Karl Korn: Chronik der Familie Korn 1996 [2] Quelle: Rheinische Post, 31.03.1989 – Nr. 76  [Rubrik - Das Portrait]

[germanischer-junge]

Was Gates neueste Aussagen bedeuten

(Weitergeleitet von P. Boehringer:)

"Bill Gates, München, 18.2.2022: „Leider [sic!] ist Omikron eine Art Impfstoff. Es hat die Weltbevölkerung besser immunisiert als wir mit Impfstoffen. … Das Risiko eines schweren Krankheitsverlaufs ist nun auf natürlichem Weg dramatisch reduziert. Heute gibt es mehr Impfstoff als Nachfrage.“

=> Ein zugleich sensationelles und übles Statement von Bill Gates am 18.2.22 auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (zu der offenbar inzwischen auch Impfkrieger gehören).

Gates anerkennt zum einen Omikron als eine „natürliche Immunisierung“ gegen Covid19. Die zugleich gegen Corona einen „besseren Job als die Impfung“ gemacht habe!

Zudem spricht er klar aus, dass die Impfungen nie geholfen haben – aber Omikron nun den Job der [Herden]Immunität und Endemieerreichung ganz natürlich erledigt.

Dann bedauert er noch, dass die Entwicklung der Impfstoffe „zu lange gedauert habe und das in MONATEN gehen“ müsse, was natürlich ein gefährlicher Witz ist, denn sichere Impfstoffe sind nicht unter vielen JAHREN an Entwicklung und Tests möglich – insbesondere bei völlig neuen, bislang niemals erfolgreich angewendeten mRNA-Experimenten.

Nebenbei gibt er noch zu, dass es heute viel zu viel Impfstoff gibt und dass die Krankheit nur für sehr Alte und Übergewichtige und Diabetiker gefährlich werden kann. Und vor allem, dass die Gefahr vorbei ist!

=> Soweit so gut – das ist genau das, was Selbstdenker seit Jahren sagen (natürliche Immunität erreichen) und was wir speziell zu Omikron seit Monaten sagen! Gegen wüste Beschimpfungen der Pharmalobbyisten in den Medien und im Bundestag! Allerdings leitet Gates sein Statement mit „Leider [ist es so]“ ein! Damit bedauert er, dass die Natur ihren Lauf und ihre Lösung [Omikron] durchsetzt, bevor die [Zwangs-]Impfung von 8 Milliarden Menschen durchgeführt werden konnte…

=> Unten damit es alle glauben meine eigene Übersetzung als Transkript sowie das Originalvideo hier in Form von zwei Videos. Zeitgeschichte gestern in München. Anschauen und merken:

„[Einführung durch Moderatorin, dann Bill Gates:] Leider ist das Virus selbst – insbesondere Omicron – eine Art Impfstoff, schafft sowohl B-Zellen- als auch T-Zellen-Immunität und hat es besser geschafft, die Weltbevölkerung zu erreichen, als wir es mit Impfstoffen getan haben. … Das bedeutet, das Risiko eines schweren Krankheitsverlaufs, das vor allem Alte, Übergewichtige und Diabetiker betroffen hat, ist nun dramatisch reduziert [auf natürlichem Weg] durch die Exposition mit dem Omikron-Virus. … Heute gibt es mehr Impfstoff als Nachfrage dafür. … Beim nächsten Mal [bei der nächsten Jahrhundertpandemie, Anm. PB] sollten wir den Impfstoff in sechs Monaten entwickeln statt in zwei Jahren … und die standardisierten mRNA-Entwicklungsplattformen erlauben es uns auch, das zu tun. …“

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VnXTLv2YOo [Originalvideo ungeschnitten, 2 Minuten]

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWBt8USfdp0 [Wichtigste Sätze von Gates, 1 Minute]

[coffeekissdotonline]

New Post has been published on https://coffeekiss.online/peter-giesel-vermogen/

Peter Giesel Vermögen

Peter Giesel Vermögen (* 9. Juni 1968) ist ein deutscher Journalist, Moderator und TV-Produzent. Peter Giesel Vermögen hat drei Töchter. Der gebürtige Berliner und Sohn des ehemaligen Abgeordneten des Berliner Abgeordnetenhauses Rainer Giesel studierte Anglistik, Zeitgeschichte und Philosophie an der Freien Universität.

Peter Giesel Vermögen

Peter Giesel Vermögen im Jahr 2013 im Rahmen einer Auslandsmeldung gehören zu den schlechten Arbeitsbedingungen auf den Baustellen für die Fußballweltmeisterschaft 2022 im Emirat Katar. Peter Giesel Vermögen ist vor allem durch seine Doku-Reihe Achtung Abzocke bekannt.

Peter Giesel Vermögen

Peter Giesel Vermögen war der Journalist Peter Giesel ist weltweit "den Betrügern auf der Spur". Von 1997 bis 2000 war Peter Giesel Chefreporter für alle Boulevard-Sendungen bei Sat.1 und danach als Chefreporter für Focus TV weltweit.

Peter Giesel Vermögen

Peter Giesel Vermögen im Jahr 2018 18 Millionen US-Dollar. Peter Giesel Vermögen war Produzent und Regisseur. heißt es in einem Zeitungsartikel der Süddeutschen Zeitung. Nettovermögen in 2021,2020,2019 wird bis jetzt nicht aktualisiert.

Peter Giesel Vermögen

Peter Giesel Vermögen

[peterschoenau]

Peter Schoenau auf der Buchmesse von Buenos Aires

5 DAYS ONLY!!!

MAXIPROMOTION THE GREAT BARGAIN

14 NOVELS AND OTHER STORIES BY PETER SCHOENAU -

AMAZON Autorenseite von Peter Schoenau:http://www.amazon.de/-/e/B075Z7G8PV

See also:

https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Peter_Sch%C3%B6nau

Peter Schoenau - https://www.barnesandnoble.com

Vom 15. März bls 19. März sind die folgenden Titel gratis erhältlich

From March 15 to March 19 the following titles are available as a freebee

Desde 15 de marzo a 19 de marzo, los títulos siguientes están disponibles gratis

Dal 15 di marzo fino al 19 di marzo i titoli seguenti sono disponibili gratuitamente

Dès 15 de mars à 19 de mars, les titres suivants sont disponibles gratis

Desde 15 de março até 19 de março os títulos seguintes estão disponíveis gratuitamente

1. Zeitgeschichte

2. Der Fahrstuhl

3. La mesure du temps dans le miroir de l’histoire d’un projet: la MÈTRO

4. Ginja al ghiaccio

5. Tra buffoni, furbi, pretenziosi, vincitori e perdenti

6. Habana libre

7. Sélection d’histoires brèves / Seleção de contos

8. Vita Noia (deutsch)

9. Geschichten aus der Kreisstadt R

10 Wasser hat keine Farbe

11. Malas rachas y otras extrañezas

12. Die Stadt der Betrüger

13. Die Mondflucht

14. Bauernopfer

[ohneweiterebedeutung]

Today Germany remembers the victims of national socialism. In German football, as well, people were cast out, persecuted and murdered. Our special issue „Lost Heroes“ is dedicated to the Jewish players who fell victim to this madness. Here’s the download link. [in German] (x)

Dear readers, when 13 year old Leo Weinstein arrived for training at SV Werder Bremens’s youth team in the spring of 1933, he was in for the shock of his yet young life. The coach told the boy, who’d been active in the club for five years, that from now on he wasn’t allowed to play anymore. Because he was Jewish. From early 1933 on thousands of Jewish players, coaches, referees, officials, patrons and simple club members were ostracised in this manner. Many of whom had been involved in club work for many years, had helped to win championships, were German internationals or even founding members of big clubs like FC Bayern München, Eintracht Frankfurt or 1. FC Nürnberg. The forced displacement of Jews from sports is the story of a great loss, one that for decades had been almost forgotten. Fortunately, thanks to the work of dedicated researchers and fan initiatives, there’s been a gradual change over the last 20 years. That is why, three years ago, 11Freunde and the arts council [Kulturstiftung] of DFB decided to create an overview of the biographies of Jews in German football. The sports historians Prof. Lorenz Pfeiffer and Henry Wahlig of the University of Hannover, based on their own research as well as the groundwork and support of many other researchers, have assembled the biographies of 192 Jewish footballers that were victims of nazi prosecution. This overview of Jewish protagonists in the big clubs of that time can never be complete. Its aim is to inspire to engage in further research, talk to survivors and to contribute to writing on the Jewish history of German football. This publication was made possible by DFB-Kulturstiftung, publishers Die Werkstatt and prize money from the trust Gegen Vergessen. Für Demokratie [„Against Forgetting, For Democracy“], awarded to 11Freunde "for their exemplary editorial work“ regarding the examination of the past and the commitment against right-wing tendencies in football. Incidentally, Leo Weinstein could flee in time from the Holocaust to the USA where he became a renowned literary scholar. A loss, therefore, not just for German football. [download]

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Berossus, the Babylonian chronicles, Herodotus, and historiography (I: excerpts from a text of R. J. van der Spek)

“Berossus as a Babylonian chronicler and Greek historian

R.J. (Bert) van der Spek

in: R.J. van der Spek et al. eds. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society presented to Marten Stol on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 10 november 2005, and his retirement from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Bethesda MD: CDL Press 2008) 277-318

Marten Stol began his career in Classical Studies and so in this Festschrift I should like to present a study of an ancient Babylonian cuneiform scholar who also read Classics.1 The name of this scholar who lived in Babylon in the early Hellenistic period was Bel-re’ûshunu,2 whose name means “The Lord is their shepherd,” and who is better known in its Latinized Greek form: Berossus. He was an ancient historian interested in both Near Eastern and Greek history, reading Babylonian historiographic texts and the works of Greek historians. He wrote a history in Greek about Babylonian culture and history and, possibly, he composed Babylonian chronicle texts as well. In this essay I shall endeavor to shed light on Berossus’ place in Babylonian and Greek historiography and science and in the academic circles in which he lived.

Babylonian Chronicles and Historiography 

A chronicle is a continuous register of events in chronological order. The events are simply enumerated in terse, often paratactic, sentences and the primary interest is in exact dating. A chronicle does not contain narrative; has no exposition about cause and effect; and offers no general background. It is a data base of facts about the past. Many civilizations produce these kinds of texts, but the purpose is not always the same. The Greeks had a chronographic tradition; the Romans had their Annales Maximi; Eusebius wrote his Chronica to prove the antiquity of the Bible. As chronography is writing about the past, chronicles can be viewed as historiography. The word “historiography,” however, has led to endless discussions about what it is supposed to be. Is historiography any writing about the past or is it  a literary or scientific genre that has to obey to certain rules? Many authors subscribe to the last assumption and then try to distinguish real historiography from other kinds of history writing, which contributes a great deal to the confusion. Fornara (1983:1) distinguishes “historical writing” (general term) from “history” (specific type, exemplified by authors such as Herodotus and Thucydides). He does this on the basis of Felix Jacoby’s distinction in Greek historiography between Genealogie, Ethnographie, Zeitgeschichte (rephrased “history” by Fornara), Horographie and Chronographie. According to Van Seters (1983: 2) “all historical texts may be subsumed under the term historiography as a more inclusive category than the more particular genre of history writing.” The narrower definition of “history writing” is further defined by five criteria that I need not repeat here (Van Seters 1983: 4–5). Hence Van Seters’ “history writing” comes close to Fornara’s “history,” but differs from the latter’s “historical writing.”

The second, but related discussion is where and when the genre of historiography was created. The point is pertinent because it depends how “historiography” is defined. The answers given—it all started with Herodotus, with the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, with the Hittite annals and treaty prologues, or with Babylonian chronicles—are so different because the interpretation of historiography diverges so widely.3

Herodotus is most commonly credited as the inventor of historiography, primarily because it was perceived that way already in the Classical period. Cicero, De Legibus 1.5.5 called him pater historiae, although he added that Herodotus’ work is full of fabulous stories. Yet Herodotus’ personal research and his reference to different sources are generally appreciated for what they are, as is his excellent narrative style. Hence Herodotus is the standard, and as there is no equivalent for Herodotus in the Near East, there could not have been “real historiography” in the East.4 [ NOTE 4 of the author: See for a recent study about “the first real historians” Grabbe 2001, who concludes: “Thus, if someone asks, ‘Who were the first historians?’ I would have to answer, ‘It depends on your definition of “historian”.’ But if you ask, ‘Who were the first critical historians?’ the answer is definitely the Greeks.” (Grabbe 2001: 181).  ].

Actually, it was only at a later period that historiography was recognized as a genre. Historie in Herodotus means “investigation,” as in the Latin Naturalis Historia. Herodotus refers to his own work as a description of ta genomena ex anthropon, “what came to pass by the hand of man” and erga megala te kai thamasta “great and miraculous deeds” (I Prooemium). Herodotus is perhaps the creator of a new genre, but the new genre was not yet clearly demarcated from other kinds of writing about the past. Herodotus saw himself in a way as continuing the work of Homer. Homer also wrote about the past, about the conflict between Asia and Europe (Hdt I 3–5; II 113–120). Yet Herodotus has, probably intentionally, his own  approach. He writes not in verse, but in prose. The gods hardly have direct influence on man’s actions, and Herodotus’ source is not the inspiration of the Muse, but his own research (opsis, “eyewitness information,” akoe, “oral information” and gnome, “understanding,” II 99), though this claim may be questioned (Fehling 1989).5

The ancient Mesopotamians had no word for history or history writing. Yet the Mesopotamians did write about their past, contemporary as well as distant; and they did so in different ways: in epic (Gilgamesh and the Tukulti Ninurta Epic), in king-lists, in royal inscriptions, in building inscriptions, and, last but not least, in chronicles.6 

Are the Babylonian chronicles to be defined as historiography? In view of the many uncertainties I prefer not to give a precise definition of historiography. There are so many forms in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past: oral poetry of bards, myths, king lists, royal inscriptions, historical epics, chronicles, moralistic-historical texts, biographies. In my teaching of “Ancient historiography” (the historical writing of the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome) I usually present a ladder of characteristics of historiography in a more or less ascending scale of sophistication, and then establish, for the sake of comparison, which features fit a particular text and which not. These characteristics are:

1. It is about the past. 

2. It is about the deeds of human beings. 

3. It is based on evidence (either accounted for, or not). 

4. It tries to explain (in religious or secular terms). 

5. There is a certain distance between author and object of study; pursuit of detachment. 

6. It is narrative. 

7. It has a well-defined theme. 

8. It has a single, well-defined author, preferably known by name. 

9. It is written with a historiographic aim: history for history’s sake. 

10. It is published. 

11. It tries to make sense of human history; it conveys meaning.

The advantage of this list is that it releases us from the question as to whether or not a certain type of writing is the work of “real historians,” and gives us a tool with which to judge and compare these genres. The disadvantage is that it is composed from the teleological perspective of Herodotus, or even modern historiography.

The Neo-Babylonian Chronicles 

The Neo-Babylonian Chronicles are a very intriguing manifestation of Babylonian historical writing. They are a collection of documents constituting a data base of historical facts in strict chronological order. Chronicles are not narrative; there is no story, no plot, no introduction or conclusion, nor is there any attempt to explain, to find causes and effects, to see relations between recorded events. The main interest is in chronology and the facts described mostly concern the king: his accession, his battles, his attitude toward the temple cult, his illnesses, and his death. Plagues and famines are other recurrent topics. The later chronicles tend to go into greater detail than do the earlier ones. A striking feature of the later chronicles and the related astronomical diaries (see below) is their interest in juridical matters.7

The Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles have been collected and edited in a single volume by A.K. Grayson (1975b). Grayson distinguishes within this collection a “series” of texts, viz. the “Babylonian Chronicle Series” (nos. 1–13b) and other chronicles. This series is subdivided into the “Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series,” covering the period from Nabonassar (747–734 BC) to the fall of the NeoBabylonian Empire (539 BC) (nos. 1–7), and the “Late Babylonian Chronicle Series,” covering the Persian and Hellenistic periods (nos. 8–13b). The other chronicles are supposed not to belong to this series (ABC 14–24). After this edition a new chronicle was edited by C.B.F. Walker (no. 25 = Walker 1982). A new edition of Mesopotamian chronicles has been produced by Glassner (2004, nos. 16–37). The chronicles of the Hellenistic period are being published by I.L. Finkel and the author of this article (BCHP). This collection contains eleven previously unpublished chronicles. The latest chronicles are from the Parthian period, i.e., after 141 BC.

Actually, there is only slight evidence for a constructed “series” stricto sensu...

Thus the evidence for an “official” series is limited to ABC 1 and 3–5, whichprobably do not belong to the same series. In addition, ABC 1 is preserved in several copies that were far from identical (cf. Brinkman 1990). It may well be that documents ABC 2–6 or 2–7 and possibly 14 (the Esarhaddon Chronicle) are constituents for the editions of larger summary chronicles like ABC 1. It is also possible that the“series” (a consecutive series of documents) started under the Neo-Babylonian period and that a summary chronicle was produced to cover the period of the Assyrian domination (ABC 1).

 It is hard to ascertain when this later compilation was made. The copy of the “first section” was composed in 500 BC, the twenty-second year of Darius I. The first section covered 76 years (745–669 BC), but not all years have an entry. If the second tablet was as large, it may have continued until the fall of Assyria. These two tablets then would contain the domination of Assyria over Babylon. Resistance against Assyria by Babylonians and Elamites is a recurring theme. The Neo-Babylonian empire is subsequently covered in a series of smaller documents that recorded more details and presented facts about every regnal year (ABC 2–7). It is not known whether a compilation like ABC 1 was ever made from these. One would like to know which “original” document Ea-nadin used in 500 BC. I suggest that the date of composition might be the early Neo-Babylonian period, but the earlier Achaemenid period cannot be excluded.

Apart from a “series of chronicles” several other kinds of chronicles have been composed that may have been the source for the composition of larger texts. Documents like ABC 6 and 9, dealing with one year only, are not excerpts from larger chronicles (as supposed by Wiseman 1956: 4, Grayson 1975b: 12, n. 36 and Glassner 2004: 43), but the rough materials to be used for larger compositions. The smaller documents in the form of business documents contain information that isleft out in the larger compositions. Most of the preserved Hellenistic chroniclesbelong to the type of the smaller business tablets...

At the same time other chronicles were made about the remote past (pp. 84–88), the focus of which differed from the above-mentioned chronicles. A minor difference with the chronicles of the recent past is that the chronology was less precise, that is, by reigns rather than by regnal years. The topics are the same in both: wars, the accession of kings, the death of kings, civil disturbances, and the interruption and alteration of cult practices. A major difference is that the authors of the remote past chronicles wanted to explain events. They were not satisfied with simply mentioning numerous facts. The explanans is the retributive will of Marduk. “In otherwords, the chronicles exemplify an attempted interpretation of events of human history, according to which they were the consequences of divine anger aroused by some impious deed of a human ruler” (Glassner 2004: 85).

In my view the Neo-Babylonian collection chronicles about the recent past. Although it is not narrative, it does not have well-known authors, it does not discuss sources, and it has no interest in causality. Its merit is that it is an objective enumeration of facts, not dictated by royal ideology. The most remarkable fact, especially in the light of Near Eastern historiography, is that it is extremely secular. Although the authors certainly have an interest in the vicissitudes of the temple and its cult, there is not a single reference to an action of any god: no support of Marduk for the enterprises of the king, no punishment of rebellious people by angry gods...

Another salient feature is the distance between author and object of study. There is hardly any judgment of kings, favorable or negative. Victories and defeats are mentioned as dry facts; no effort is made to suppress defeats of Babylonian kings. A striking example is the record of the battle of Der (720 BC). After the death of Shalmaneser V, the Assyrian king and overlord of Babylonia, the Chaldaean Merodach-baladan II had ascended the throne in Babylon with Elamite support. Sargon of Assyria tried to reconquer Babylon but was defeated by an Elamite army. Though both Sargon and Merodach-baladan claimed victory, the Babylonian chronicle made it soberly clear that the Elamites were the real victors and that Merodach-baladan arrived too late at the battlefield (ABC 1 I: 33–37)

If we take a look at the above-suggested ladder of historiographic writing, the following features apply to the series: 1, 2, 3 (but not accounted for), 5, and possibly 9. As mentioned above, the secular character of the documents is particularly striking. In the greater part of the ancient historiographical texts religion plays a major role. In the royal inscriptions the gods are presented as major actors in the historical process; historical epics like the Tukulti-Ninurta epic are made in order to acquire divine sanctioning of royal policy; certain earlier chronicles were composed in order to show how the gods favor those kings who respect, foster and support the cult of the gods in temples. Nothing of this can be found in the Neo-Babylonian chronicle series. In no instance do the gods play a role, nor is there any suggestion of divine support or wrath.

All this brought Grayson, the editor of the Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles, to the conclusion: “Thus one is tempted to conclude that the documents were compiled from a genuine interest in writing history….We have, therefore, what seems to be history being written for history’s sake as early as the eighth century B.C.” (Grayson 1975b: 11). In my view, as I shall show below, it was history for the sake of divination. To serve this research it was necessary to make exact records of historical facts, so that the pursuit of divinatory science could go hand in hand with the study of reliable and well-dated historical facts.

The Babylonian Chronicler and His Sources 

Several proposals have been made about the sources of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series. One of the most noteworthy theories is that the astronomical diaries must be so considered (Grayson 1975b: 12–13). These astronomical diaries are, like the chronicles, a running record of various phenomena. Most of the phenomena recorded are of an astronomical or meteorological nature but at the end of each monthly section there are statements about market prices, the height of the river, and matters of historical interest.10 Grayson stresses the fact that the diaries series and the chronicle series started about the same time. “This in itself would suggest that the source of the series was astronomical diaries” (Grayson 1975b: 13)...

Another intriguing theory is Finkelstein’s proposition that the Assyrian and Babylonian lists of omens are the sources of the chronicles (Finkelstein 1963). The omen texts contain apodoses, statements concerning historical events that are supposed to be the result of ominous events mentioned in the protases. This is an interesting proposal, as the chronicles clearly do have much in common with the phraseology of the omens. Yet it is not satisfactory as there is a lot of material that has no parallel in the omens. The same is true for the astronomical diaries.

Yet both theories are valuable. The similarity between omens, prophecies, chronicles, and diaries is striking. They share the interest in the fortunes of kings, temple cult, plagues, famines and portents. They share the predilection for the use of archaic geographical names, such as Gutium for countries in the East, Hatti for Syria, Hani for Macedonia, Meluhha for Egypt. These expressions occur widely in the omens.... It must be stressed, however, that the chroniclers were not consistent in their use of geographical names. They could use a normal contemporary designation, followed a few lines later by an archaic one...

Diaries and chronicles also share the use of prolepsis, the inverted word order that is typical for omen texts and prophecies. Compilers of omens liked to mention the object of the portents first, before the prediction, even if this would contravene the normal Akkadian subject-object-verb word order, as in the following examples: sarram massu ibbalakassu, “the king, his country will rebel against him, ummanam nakrum usannaq, “the army, the enemy will subdue (it),” alam iÍatum ikkal, “the city, fire will consume (it).”11 1We see this word order also in the chronicles and diaries: Is-tar-hu-un-dul ugal nim Hal-lu-su-se-su-is-bat-su-ma ká ina igi- sú ip-hi, “Ishtar-hundu, the king of Elam, Hallushu, his brother, took him and he shut thedoor in his face” (ABC 1 II: 32–33); d 30.ÍeÍ.meÍ.susàr kur As-surdumu-sú  ina si-hi gaz-sú,“Sanherib, king of Assyria, his son killed him in a rebellion” (ABC 1 III: 34–35); m IÍ-tu-me-guerín-súbal-su-ma , “Astyages, his troops rebelled against him”(ABC 7 II: 2); lugal erín.meÍ-sú ú-maÍ-sìr-ú-si-ma , “the king (=Darius III), his troops left him” (AD I 179, no. -330: 17'; cf. Van der Spek 2003: 297–8)12; Dynastic prophecy V 5: lugal sá-a-sús lú sa-re-[si …], “That king (=Arses), a eunuch (= Bagoas) [will murder]” (Van der Spek 2003: 314, 316). .

What I suggest here is that there was not a distinct group of historians or chroniclers who used omens or diaries as their sources. Perhaps the authors of the chronicles were the same people as the students and composers of omens, diaries, and astronomical texts. They all belonged to the circle of Babylonian scholars who were tied to the temple, and had some kind of specialization (but not a rigid one), such as scribe of Enuma-Anu-Enlil, kalûs “singers,” asipus, “exorcists”13 and others, all of them more or less homines universales. The main objective of all these Babylonian scholars, as I see it, was divination.14 Divination in Babylonia was a science, not the work of animated prophets (Rochberg 2004).

These scholars, “Chaldaeans” as they were called by the Greeks, were famous for their science even outside their own country, in the Greek and Roman worlds, in Israel, Egypt, and even India.15 In this university of divination some specialization will have emerged. Just as in modern medicine there are cardiologists, neurologists, and gynecologists, the “university of divination” at Babylon had astronomers, mathematicians, chroniclers, compilers, and copyists of omens, compilers of lists of kings, prices, weather phenomena, etc. As every individual has particular abilities, some may have been versed in astronomy, others in mathematical texts, and others in writing chronicles, but they all belonged to the same circles. So it may have been that some of the scholars who made observations of the starry sky wrote the diaries and inserted historical information, specialized in astronomy and wrote astronomical cuneiform texts, while others revealed a predilection for collecting historical information. In this pursuit they may have developed an interest in recording important events of the past “with a historiographic aim, history for history’s sake.”

One might make a comparison with modern students of theology. Though this academic study originated as a “study of God” and students today usually start with the intention of becoming a minister or priest, many eventually become historians of, e.g., the history of Israel. How many Assyriologists, like Marten Stol, began study out of interest in the “Umwelt” of the Bible and ended up in writing dissertations such as “Studies in Old Babylonian History”? In the same way ancient students of Babylonian divination will, in due course, have become specialists in astronomy or historiography. And like modern scholars they pursued their goal in a secular way. The astronomical and historiographical texts lack any suggestion of divine intervention. This does not mean, as Drews correctly observes, that the chroniclers lost their faith in the intervention of gods or the usefulness of divination. Rather they assume all events to be divinely ordained and therefore none is singled out as especially so (Drews 1975: 45). In the same way some modern scholars who write secular historical or Assyriological texts attend services in church on Sunday. One of these Babylonian scholars must have been Berossus....

Berossus 

We do not know many chroniclers by name. The chronicles only seldom have colophons with names. Chronicle ABC 1 has a colophon, dated to 500 BC, but the scribe mentioned there, Ea-nadin, son of Ana-Bel-erish (the owner of the tablet), son of Liblutu, descendant of Ur-Nanna, was probably the copyist, not the author of the tablet, unless the phrase kima lab‹risu Íaˇirma baru u uppus,“written accord-ing to its original, checked and collated” is to be understood in the sense that it wasan extract of a set of smaller but more detailed chronicles. A second name is Nabu-kasir, son of Ea-iluta-ibni, the owner (and author?) of a one-column tablet (gittu ,ABC 15) with “non-integrated lines from a writing-board of Urshidazimeni” (mu.mu nu tés.a.me ta ugu gis dam Ur-si-da-zi-me ?-ni ?), a chronicle with random references from the reigns of Ashshur-nadin-shumi (699–694), Shamash-shuma-ukin (667–648), Shirikti-shuqamuna (985), and Nabu-shuma-ishkun (760?–748BC).

Another chronicler whom we know by name is Berossus (Bel-re’ûshunu ), who,in three books, wrote a history of Babylonia (Babyloniaca or Chaldaica ) from the beginning of the world up to his own time. He wrote it in Greek, but it is clear that he had access to chronicles, king lists, Enuma Elish , the Sumerian story of the flood, about Ziusudra (Xisouthros) and other cuneiform documents (Cf. Schnabel 1923, Komoróczy 1973). Apart from history he was also interested in astronomy and astrology.

It remains very difficult to establish facts about Berossus’ life. He was born during the reign of Alexander the Great (331–323BC); he was “priest of Bel”; and he dedicated his book to Antiochus I in the third year of his reign (278 BC).16 According to tradition he moved to the island of Cos and settled a school there.17 He is even supposed to have had a statue in Athens.18 His move to Cos may be legendary, but such movements were not uncommon...  Hellenistic scholars were often more cosmopolitan than some of their modern counterparts. Berossus must have been versed in Babylonian science, transmitting some of it in his work. He will have started as a Babylonian scholar and reader or writer of chronicles. The style of chronicles is clearly visible in parts of his work. De Breucker(2003b) has given a good overview of the kind of scholars operating in late Babylonian Uruk and Babylon.

There is an old debate as to whether Berossus the historian was the same person as Berossus the astronomer-astrologer...”

“Conclusion

Berossus was a man of his time, educated, a Babylonian scholar well versed in Mesopotamian literature. He was familiar with all types of cuneiform literature, king lists, the Enuma Elish, the Ziusudra story of the flood, Babylonian chronicles, royal inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar. He was the colleague of the composers of chronicles, prophecies, royal inscriptions, and astronomical diaries. He, himself, may have been the author of some of these texts. He also was versed in Greek historiography, and he wrote with the express purpose of joining this discourse. The conceptual basis of his writing was Greek and he criticized other authors’ ideas in a Greek manner. In his endeavor to keep up with the Greeks he even followed and adapted legends well known to his Greek audience.61 With his knowledge of Babylonian, Sumerian, Aramaic, and Greek language and culture he was the ideal advisor to the king.”

The full text of the study of Pr. van der Spek can be found on https://www.academia.edu/12460609/Berossus_as_a_Babylonian_chronicler_and_Greek_historian

Diadochi Chronicle, Obverse. The Babylonian Diadochi Chronicle (BCHP 3; a.k.a. ABC 10, Chronicle 10) is one of the Mesopotamian chronicles written in ancient Babylonia in the Hellenistic Period. It deals with the history of the Diadochi (the successors of Alexander the Great). Source: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-3-diadochi-chronicle/