Media Chutzpah And Propaganda

MEDIA CHUTZPAH AND PROPAGANDA
by Kim Petersen

Dissident Voice, CA
Jews Fear Islamic Republic
ia-chutzpah-and-propaganda/
July 20 2007

The article published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency was brazen
in its headline: Fears of an Islamic Turkey push Jews to vote for
secularists.¡(1)

Parliamentary elections are scheduled for 22 July in Turkey. The JTA
writes of no good options at the ballot box¡because the incumbent
liberal-Islamic¡(2) Justice and Development Party (AKP) might form a
second successive government. The JTA notes that the AKP has improved
the economy and positioned Turkey for inclusion within the European
Union, but the AKP is suspected of Islamic tendencies that, ostensibly,
threaten Turkey¡¯s state secularism.

The opposition right-wing Republican People’s Party (CHP), while
secular, is portrayed by JTA as increasingly hostile to the United
States and the European Union with a poor track record on minority
rights and economic liberalization. Given the choices, many Jews,
according to JTA, will opt for CHP on Election Day.

I don’t like them, but I don’t have a choice, Nisim Cohen, a textile
manufacturer in Turkey, is quoted as saying. The AKP shows a nice
face, but in their hearts I fear they want to make this an Islamic
country. They will not keep the republic as it is.¡±

Jews hope their vote will help create a stronger opposition to check
the government’s powers.

Viktor Kuzu, an advertising executive, expressed a fear that an
unbridled AKP could change Turkey in ways to interrupt the way we live.

The Jewish stance toward the AKP must be regarded with much
bemusement. By aligning themselves against the AKP, Jews are aligning
themselves with the Kemalist military, which, although secularist, was
behind the Armenian Holocaust. (3) Since the World War 2 Holocaust is
the focal point of Jewish historiography, any alignment with Kemalist
forces is, on its face, deeply paradoxical.

JTA acknowledges that there is little substance to fears of Islamism
springing from AKP, but at the same time it paints a dire picture of
creeping Islamism.

Denis Ojalvo, an Istanbul businessman involved in Jewish communal
affairs complained about small changes: They [AKP] appoint people
of the wrong ilk to key positions, and then one day you wake up and
everything has changed.¡±

People of the wrong ilk!? One wonders how AKP politicians stack up
against the ilk of Jewish Israeli politicians such as Avigdor Lieberman
(4) and Ariel Sharon (5)?

JTA creates a scenario whereby Jews in Turkey appear caught in the
proverbial pinch between a rock and hard place: between Islamists and
xenophobic secularists with their°anti-European, anti-American and,
lately, anti-Israel¡rhetoric. Nearly lost in all the JTA caterwauling
is that the thrust of the article could easily be dismissed as
anti-Islamic. Imagine Israel being criticized for becoming a Jewish
republic where other ethnic minorities suffer second class status or
worse but, then, this is already a fact-of life in Israel.

I want a strong opposition that will block the insertion of
fundamentalist cadres into government,¡said Ojalvo. This would de
facto change Turkey.¡±

The JTA finds:

Jews who support the secularist CHP find themselves at odds with
Turkey’s two other visible religious minorities, the Greeks and the
Armenians. They appear to be backing AKP, which portrays itself as
the party of human rights and democracy.

This is mendacious. First, Greeks and Armenians are not a religious
minority, but rather a national or ethnic minority. Second, JTA feigns
concern for minority rights, but it’s coverage of human rights for
national minorities morally fails when it comes to the indigenous
Palestinians within Israel and elsewhere. Thus, the recalcitrance
at acknowledging the nationals in Turkey mirrors that of denying the
existence of Palestinian nationals.

1. Yigal Schleifer, Fears of an Islamic Turkey push Jews to vote for
secularists,¡JTA, 17 July 2007.

2. While the JTA sees the AKP as liberal-Islamic,¡Wikipedia describes
it as a right-wing, conservative Turkish political party,¡often
referred to as being moderate¡Ca term preferred by the AKP.

3. The Armenian National Institute: dedicated to the study, research,
and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide describes Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk as the consummator of the Armenian Genocide¡committed by
his forces.

4. Justin Raimondo, A Jewish Hitler? The rise of Avigdor Lieberman¡±
Anti-war.com, 27 October 2006.

5. Return of the Terrorist: The Crimes of Ariel Sharon,¡± Counterpunch,
7 February 2001.

–Boundary_(ID_bwShsjIsqO6Wicw8uMDxhw)–

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/med

BAKU: Latvian Foreign Ministry Does Not Recognize The "Presidential

LATVIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE "PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS" HELD IN NAGORNO KARABAKH

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
July 20 2007

Latvian Foreign Ministry does not recognize the "presidential
elections" held on 19 July 2007 in Nagorno Karabakh nor their outcome,
Azerbaijani embassy in Latvia told APA.

The Ministry reiterates its support to the activities of the OSCE Minsk
Group and its efforts towards a settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. The Foreign Ministry considers that the conducting of the
"presidential elections", thus pre-empting the outcome of the ongoing
negotiations, did not contribute to peaceful conflict resolution.

NKR Presidential Elections: By 17:00 Local Time 65% Of Eligible Citi

NKR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: BY 17:00 LOCAL TIME 65% OF ELIGIBLE CITIZENS HAVE VOTED

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.07.2007 17:51 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ By 17:00 local time 65% of eligible
citizens have voted in the presidential elections of NKR, the
PanARMENIAN.Net journalist was told in the NKR CEC (Central Electoral
Commission). According to the Electoral Code of NKR, polling stations
will be closed at 20:00 local time. Soon after it the CEC must provide
information on processed bulletins every three hours.

Five candidates are running for the presidential post.

Ex-Director of the NKR National Security Service Bako Sahakyan, former
Deputy Foreign Minister Masis Mailyan, NKR NA member Armen Abgaryan,
lecturer at the Artsakh State University professor Vanya Avanesyan
and leader of Artsakhi Communist Party, head of the Control Service
of the NKR Government’s Administration are running for the post.

Nagorny Karabakh Presidential Election Valid – Monitor

NAGORNY KARABAKH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION VALID – MONITOR

RIA Novosti, Russia
July 19 2007

YEREVAN, July 19 (RIA Novosti) – The presidential election in Nagorny
Karabakh, a self-proclaimed republic in Azerbaijan, can be considered
valid now that 25% of those eligible to vote have done so, the region’s
central election commission said Thursday.

"Consequently, the threshold has been reached and the elections can
be considered valid," commission head Sergei Nasibyan said.

Five candidates, including the National Security Service chief, a
deputy foreign minister and the Communist Party leader, are running
in the elections.

Incumbent President Arkady Gukasyan, whose second term is expiring
in August, refused to run for a third term, although experts have
said that is not prohibited by the republic’s Constitution.

A candidate receiving at least 50% of the votes will be elected
president. If no one does, the two leading candidates will meet in
a second round two weeks from now.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the election as an attempt
to cover up Armenia’s policy aimed at occupying and annexing Azeri
territories.

The ministry said the election was held in breach of Azerbaijan’s
Constitution and international law, as it disenfranchised the Azeri
community of Nagorny Karabakh.

The conflict over Nagorny Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with a
largely Armenian population, first erupted in 1988 when it declared
independence from Azerbaijan and moved to join Armenia.

Over 30,000 people were killed on both sides between 1988 and 1994,
and over 100 died following a 1994 ceasefire.

Nagorny Karabakh remained in Armenian hands, but tensions between
Azerbaijan and Armenia have persisted, and Azerbaijan remains
determined to restore its control over the separatist region.

Anne Derse, the United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan, said the U.S.
government recognized neither the election nor the republic’s
independence.

Similar statements of non-recognition have been issued by Rene
van der Linden, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the European Union, the Council of Ministers of the GUAM,
an organization of four former Soviet republics – Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan and Moldova – and Turkey’s government.

Activity Of Voters At Presidential Elections In Karabakh Amounts To

ACTIVITY OF VOTERS AT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN KARABAKH AMOUNTS TO 76.25%

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 19 2007

YEREVAN. July 19. /ARKA/. Activity of voters at the presidential
elections in Nagorno-Karabakh amounted to 76.25%, Chairman of the
NKR Central Election Committee Sergey Nasibyan told reporters.

He said that according to interim data, of 92,117 voters 70,235 people
went to the polls. He believes that citizens’ participation in the
elections exceeded all expectations. "Three fourth of voters actively
participated in the presidential elections," Nasibyan reported. He
pointed out that low participation was recorded in Stepanakert – 64.6%.

According to him, some inactivity of the capital’s voters is due to
the fact that many are registered in the lists, however, in fact,
they work outside the NKR in Armenia or CIS countries. Exactly at
20:00 all polling stations closed in Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to a reporter from the Novosti-Armenia news agency in
Stepanakert, observers reported that the elections were held properly,
without considerable violations.

The NKR people has elected their president for the fourth time today.

There were five presidential candidates: Bako Sahakyan (former Head
of NKR National Security Service), Masis Mailyan (Deputy Foreign
Minister), Armen Abgaryan (NKR MP), Vanya Avanesyan (teacher at
the Artsakh State University), and Hrant Melkumyan (Leader of the
Communist Party of NKR, Head of the NKR government’s Supervision
Office).

U.S. State Department Satisfied With Cooperation With Armenian Prose

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SATISFIED WITH COOPERATION WITH ARMENIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL OFFICE

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 18 2007

YEREVAN, July 18. /ARKA/. U.S. State Department is satisfied with
cooperation with Armenian Prosecutor General Office, U.S. Embassy
Charge d’Affairs Rudolf Perina said Tuesday during his meeting with
Armenian Prosecutor General Aghvan Hovsepyan.

Perina expressed special appreciation of the crackdown on trafficking
and illegal migration.

Aghvan Hovsepyan, in his turn, said that warm relations were
established between Armenian and U.S. prosecutor offices, thanks
to which only diplomatic efforts raised cooperation between the two
agencies to higher level.

The diplomat and the prosecutor general decided to make ties between
the two countries’ agencies closer.

Egoyan Set To Shoot New Film In September

EGOYAN SET TO SHOOT NEW FILM IN SEPTEMBER

CBC Arts
Last Updated: Monday, July 16, 2007 | 2:55 PM ET

Toronto filmmaker Atom Egoyan’s next film will be a teen drama called
Adoration, to be shot in the city in September.

Robert Lantos, the head of Serendipity Point Films, is executive
producer for the feature, which is now being cast.

Lantos has worked with Egoyan on six earlier films, including 1997’s
The Sweet Hereafter and 2005’s Where the Truth Lies.

Egoyan’s The Sweet Hereafter, which also centred on a group of teens,
was nominated for two Academy Awards.

Adoration is about a high-school student who pretends to be a famous
figure and examines how teens redefine themselves through the internet.

"What’s interesting is that [the kids] have a different relationship
to each other in a classroom than they do in this virtual stage,"
Egoyan said in an interview with Playbill.

Former Commander-In-Chief Needs Excuses

FORMER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF NEEDS EXCUSES

Lragir, Armenia
July 16 2007

The leader of the National Self-Determination Union Paruir Hairikyan
stated July 16 at the National Press Club if Levon Ter-Petrosyan needs
his advice he is always ready to help a figure who has announced on
one occasion that Paruir Hairikyan was his political ideal. As to
naming Levon Ter-Petrosyan president in 2008, Hairikyan thinks there
are major problems regarding this.

"At some stage Levon Ter-Petrosyan was our commander-in-chief thanks
to good luck, his merits, with help from friends, from Moscow, we
forget about it. It will be very difficult for Levon Ter-Petrosyan,
the commander-in-chief who left the country "abeyant" under the
pressure of "certain forces", to make excuses. Because if someone
wants to be commander-in-chief, they will tell him you said in 1998
to retreat under pressure of certain forces. It is a terrible, an
unacceptable move for a commander-in-chief. A commander-in-chief
must not retreat under the pressure of certain forces but attack,"
Paruir Hairikyan says.

Besides, there is another problem, Paruir Hairikyan says. "Of
course, we are not judging a person for his mistakes. After all,
Apostle Paul persecuted Christian then he became the most devoted
Christian. I repeat, however, speaking about the personality of
Levon Ter-Petrosyan or Hairikyan or someone else means having no
idea of the state of things. There is no need to come together for
a person, it is necessary to come together in general. After all,
we have a state. The slogan that the only way out for Armenians is
unification is out of date. The people are united if they make a
nation," Paruir Hairikyan says, adding that he would not like the
change in the country depend on one person, even if he were this
person. Paruir Hairikyan says Ter-Petrosyan has the right to return
to the political sphere just like all the others but Paruir Hairikyan
thinks it is funny to consider an individual. He says the individual
must be a representative of a collectivity with a distinct program.

Monetary Incomes Of Armenian Population Grow By 24.6% And Expenditur

MONETARY INCOMES OF ARMENIAN POPULATION GROW BY 24.6% AND EXPENDITURES BY 22.5% IN JANUARY-MAY, 2007, COMPARED WITH SAME PERIOD OF PREVIOUS YEAR

Noyan Tapan
Jul 16 2007

YEREVAN, JULY 16, NOYAN TAPAN. The monetary incomes of Armenian
population made 682b 781.7m drams (nearly 1b 901.5m USD) in
January-May, 2007, and expenditures 676b 892.9b drams. According to
the data of the RA National Statistical Service, the growth rates
of the above mentioned indices, as compared with January-May, 2006,
made 124.6% and 122.5%, respectively.

The real monetary incomes of the RA population (incomes less compulsory
payments, taking into account changes of indices of consumer prices)
grew by 18.4% in January-May, 2007, as compared with the same period
of 2006.

In 2007 April the average monthly nominal salary exceeded the minimum
salary 3.5fold, as compared with 4.2fold in 2006.

Whatever Happened to Sumerian Beer?

Whatever Happened to Sumerian Beer?

Feature Article by () _HorstDornbusch_
( file/HorstDornbusch) / 07-13-2007

Anthropologists and archaeologists believe that the first humans ever
to make the great leap from a nomadic and tribal into a civilized and
sedentary existence were the Sumerians, some eight to ten thousand
years ago. The place was Mesopotamia (now the southern portion of
present-day Iraq). Apparentlythe Sumarians had migrated there all the
way from India. Once settled in the Middle East, they build elaborate
communities, grouped in prosperous city-states, and surrounded by
fertile fields, which they kept lush by communal irrigation from the
waters of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The most magnificent of
their urban centers was Babylon on the banks of the lower
Euphrates. The Sumerians are considered the world’s first builders,
farmers, and writers – and, as we know from archaeological finds,
probably the _first brewers, too_
( 3) . Beer was at the
center oftheir religious rituals. Their highest deity was the goddess
of beer and fertility. It is a measure of the importance of beer in
Sumerian society that eventually about half their grain ended up in
their brews.

The Official Story of the Sumerian Exit from History

The Sumerians’ ingenuity and wealth soon became a magnet for other,
non-brewing, people around them. Newcomers, mostly Semitic tribes from
thenorth and west, began to move into Mesopotamia – sometimes
commingling peacefully with the Sumerians, sometimes fighting wars
against them for supremacy. As a result, the Sumerians eventually
began to be absorbed by their numerous neighbors and gradually
disappeared as a distinct culture. By the start of the third
millennium BC, Sumeria had faded almost completely into oblivion. In
its place arose a new culture, which historians call Babylonian.

The new masters of Mesopotamia centralized power away from the many
scattered city-states ruled by kings, queens, and priestesses, to just
onecenter, Babylon, and they unified the loose cluster of Sumerian
settlements into a territorial state and government. This new, broad
regional organization, Babylonia, was, in essence, the first sovereign
country in history.

Once the Babylonians consolidated their power internally, they turned
their attention to external conquest. They poured their resources into
building a mighty army, which they marched westward to the shores of
the Mediterranean, northward into Armenia, eastward into Persia, and
southward into Arabia and the islands of the Persian Gulf. In the
process, they amassed the first true empire in history – with the king
of Babylon known as the King of the Totality, or the King of the Four
Regions. He ruled an empire that spanned the four corners of the
then-known world.

This is the official story of the demise of the Sumerians and the
Babylonian take-over of their lands, at least as it is written in the
history books. However, the common narrative of history always seems
to focus on political and military events, while the less transient
forces of social evolution often receive only scant attention. What we
do not learn from the shifting sandsof military power in Mesopotamia
is what happened to the all-important Sumerian beer as Sumerian
society changed under the burden of conquest! Born out of the mist of
prehistory as the twin of society itself, did beer survive in the new
order? That’s a question historians rarely address.

The Real Story: Beer a Target of Governance

While Sumerian social and religious rituals had been hedonistic and
expansive, Babylonian rituals assumed an austere, military panache –
more Spartan drill than spiritual experience. In the zero-sum game of
power between the rulers and the ruled, and with the concentration of
might in just a few hands, the political stakes were high. Wealth now
depended less on the bounty of the harvest than on the fortunes of war
and on control over other humans. Those new virtues, however, as the
Babylonians were eventually to find out, could be more fickle than the
moods of a beer goddess.

Initially, the future of beer in Babylonia seemed assured, because the
new rulers of Mesopotamia, like all good conquerors, usurped the
achievements of the vanquished for themselves. The Babylonians
continued the Sumerian tradition of making beer, yet they could not
leave well alone. While beer in Sumeria was mostly a matter of
religion and economics, beer in Babylonia became mostly a matter of
politics. That shift in vision found its manifestation in a novelty
that has since been imitated by just about every government, even to
this very day: The Babylonians were the first to institute beer
regulation.

Compared to the social rules among the happy-go-lucky Sumerians, laws
in the power-and-control machine of Babylon were severe. In the new
Babylon, no facet of life could escape the tyranny of bureaucracy, and
beer was no exception, especially once Hamurabi (1728 -1686 BC), the
6th king of the 1st Babylonian dynasty, took over. Hamurabi ran his
realm with an iron fist and epitomized in his deeds what the new order
stood for. Life was controlled by a written set of rules, which is now
known as the Code of Hamurabi, mankind’s first body of laws. The code
consisted of 360 paragraphs, which were chiseled into a seven-foot
high column made of diorite, a dark-gray to greenish igneous rock.
The column was discovered in 1901 near Susa (present-day Khuzestan) in
Iraq and was taken to France, where it is now in the Louvre.

Everything of importance in Hamurabi’s society was regulated by his
code … and the code has plenty to say about beer. In paragraphs 108
to 111, it classifies beer into 20 different categories, each of which
we would now call a beer style. Eight styles were made just from
barley, but most were made from a mixture of grains, with emmer (a
spelt-like grain) being the predominant one. The most highly valued
and most expensive beer style among the Babylonians was pure emmer
beer. There were also pure wheat beers, thin beers, red beers, and
black beers – as well as an aged beer for export, mostly to Egypt,
where the beer bug was happily spreading, too. In effect, by defining
beer categories in the legal code, Hamurabi was the first to regulate
the production of beer. The consumption of beer did not escape his
regulation either. Hamurabi simply slapped price controls on the
brewers and innkeepers – another "first" in human history.

Babylonian beer must have been rather strong, probably because it was
often fortified with honey or boysenberries. We can infer its potency
from the fact that at Babylonian drinking parties, guests were
generally offered various preparations against hangovers. Such
medicines tended to be taken in liquid form, dissolved … in beer!

Beer and Social Class in Babylonia

While the Sumerians had steadfastly valued beer as a
happiness-inducing social beverage to be shared by everyone, high and
low, the Babylonians saw beer more as an instrument of social
distinctions, as a means to affirm the connection among the members of
the elite. Society in Babylonia was rigidly stratified, as was the
apportionment of beer according to social rank. At the bottom rung of
society were the slaves, whose ranks were often replenished from
abroad, either through war or through purchase. They tended the fields
anddid the dirty work in the shops and temples, but received beer only
at their masters’ whim.

Next up on the social ladder were the free laborers. They had written
contracts with their employers that stipulated the length of time of
their employment and their compensation, which usually included two
crocks (of perhaps a gallon each) of beer per day. Members of the
middle tier of society, which included merchants and civil
administrators, were entitled to three crocksof beer a day, as were
regular priestesses and female civil servants. Higher echelons in the
bureaucracy and priesthood could claim five crocks a day as part of
their compensation. On religious feast days, these rations were
increased by decree, which was designed to enhance the populace’s
affection of its gods and especially its rulers.

In Hamurabi’s Babylonia, like in Sumeria, women ran the breweries and
pubs. But while they were adored by Sumerians, Babylonians really had
it in for the female sex. In paragraph 282 of his code, Hamurabi
decreed that a brewster or a barmaid was to be drowned in beer if she
watered down her liquid wares. She met the same fate if she charged
for her potion in silver coin. If she served spoiled beer, she was to
be force-fed with it until she expired from asphyxiation. Like all
good dictators, Hamurabi was not too fond of free speech and public
expressions of political opinions. He simply forbade all political
debates in drinking establishments. Therefore, if an alewife who
overheard her patrons talk over a crock of beer about politics or a
topic the authorities might deem subversive, she was supposed to
deliver such heretics to the police. On the other hand, if she
tolerated such speech, she was put to death. While priestesses under
Sumerian rule were required to run temple brewpubs, under Hamurabi,
they were burned alive if they were caught even just visiting
one. However, male brewers (as well as cooks) were held in high regard
in Babylonian society, attained high social rank and were even exempt
from military service. The lustful brewster-goddess of the Sumerians
would not have been pleased!

Beer Ousted From the Land of Its Birth

Shortly after the zenith of Babylonian power under Hamurabi, around
the fifteenth century BC, ominous clouds of change began to emerge on
the Mesopotamian horizon from two directions, the north and the
west. These clouds appeared just as Babylon had consolidated its grip
over the region – and perhaps overplayed its hand, too. To the north,
a rival Semitic center called Nineveh, dominated by Assyrians, had
sprung up on the banks of the upper Tigris, while to the west, the
Egyptians – a civilization of great future importance for both the
story of beer and the path of human progress – were getting
sufficiently well organized along the Nile to consider expanding
eastward. Both the Assyrians and the Egyptians were now poised to
challenge Babylon’s hegemony.

The political horizon for all actors in the Middle East was slowly
expanding. In Sumerian times, Mesopotamia had been an almost
apolitical mosaic of self-sufficient city states. During the
Babylonian supremacy, it had becomea unified, relatively unchallenged
territorial state. But with its rise, it also became the crucible of
political relations and expansionist impulses among rival states. The
center of the universe was slowly shifting from the Mesopotamian
cradle of civilization to its neighboring cultures which werefast
catching up. Historically, international politics as the struggle
between peoples and countries started right then and there.

The Assyrians, geographically the closest pretenders for the throne of
Babylon, sent their armies across the lands between the upper Tigris
and the lower Euphrates and harassed the Babylonians at their northern
border. At the same time, the Egyptian pharaohs sent their armies
across the Arabian Peninsula and butted up against the western border
of Babylonia. Eventually, the two invaders joined forces in an
alliance, placing the Babylonian empire into a most precarious pincer
situation. As Babylonia had to divide its military between two fronts,
it soon became exhausted. Around 1250 BC, the city of Babylon fell to
the Assyrian invaders.

The Assyrians soon found out, however, that conquering an empire was
one thing, but holding on to it was quite another. The Babylonians may
have been defeated, but, unlike the vanquished Sumerians before them,
they simply refused to fade into oblivion. The struggle between the
Assyrians and indigenous Babylonians merely turned, as we would now
say, from an international intoa civil war. In the end, the Assyrian
interlude in Babylonia lasted about four centuries … perhaps a long
time by modern standards, but not all that long at an age when the
pace of social change was so much slower. By 600 BC Babylonian power
clearly re-emerged. The Babylonians sent the Assyrians packing, then
went after them and destroyed their capital of Nineveh. The metropolis
on the Euphrates once again assumed its former glory … but under
whose rule, and how about the beer?

Now entered the stage of history a bon vivant, a king quite unlike the
severe and austere rule-maker Hamurabi. His name was Nebuchadnezzar II
(604-562 BC). As the new ruler of Babylon, he was a man of both
military disciplineand earthly indulgences. His reign is usually
referred to as the peak of the so-called Neo-Babylonian period. Today,
he is perhaps best known as the builder of the famous hanging gardens
of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. But most important
for our story, unlike Hamurabi, Nebuchadnezzar was a friend of beer.

( yloniaNebuchadnezzars_Babylon.htm)
( Nebuchadnezzars_Babylon.htm)

Like the Sumerians, Nebuchadnezzar saw the meaning of life in the
collective cultivation of grains for bread and beer, but unlike the
Babylonians, he also saw great purpose in flexing his military
muscle. He scored many victories over the Egyptians and Syrians. At
the height of his power, in 586 BC, he even captured Jerusalem,
destroyed the city’s temple, and herded the Jews to Babylon as slaves.

His power politics, however, did not diminish his hedonistic and
ritualistic embrace of the drink. Contrary to Hamurabi, who often
preferred to drown people in beer rather than let them drink it,
Nebuchadnezzar lacked that fellow’s uptight and secular relationship
to the fermented beverage. Instead, more like the Sumerians, he
promoted its enjoyment by all. Under his reign, the priestesses could
once again drink copious quantities of beer during sacrificial
services – to please their gods and to honor their king. On his
returns from military campaigns, he celebrated his successes by
virtually flooding the temple altars with rivers of beer.
Incongruously, however, like Hamurabi, he forbade his priestesses to
open pubs or even set foot in one.

Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, as it turned out, spelled the last hurrah for
the golden age of Mesopotamia. The forces that were amassing all
around it were not to be kept at bay for ever. This was the time of
awakening not just for the Egyptians, but also for the Persians, and,
more consequentially, the Greeks and the Romans. Little Mesopotamia,
the first to start civilization, was also to be the first to be
swallowed up by the success it had spawned. Mesopotamia had shown the
world what could be accomplished once mankind had figured out how to
harness its individual potential for collective action. Soon other,
bigger tribes had learned the same lesson, and the Mesopotamian empire
quite literally turned from master to slave. The first "new" tribe to
set its site on Mesopotamia was Persia. Ironically, in 538 BC, not
even two decades after Nebuchadnezzar had led the tribe of Israel as
slaves into Babylon, Cyrus II, King of Persia, overran the city from
the east and sent the Jews back hometo freedom.

The art of beer-making, which had been, so much at the core of
Sumerian and Babylonian society, albeit in different roles, now lay
dormant in Mesopotamia. Under Persian occupation, which lasted for
almost two turbulent centuries, Mesopotamian society fell into
disarray. There was simply no dominant force in the Middle East that
could have stabilized the region and provided the cultural and
political base for beer to re-emerge as a vibrant force. The Middle
East was ripe for a takeover, and when it came, it was with a
vengeance. It changed Mesopotamian society irrevocably and it dealt a
final blow to beer-making in the very land where it had started. That
blow came from the then-rising intellectual and military superpower of
antiquity, Greece.

The Hellenistic Takeover of the Cradle of Beer

The final trouble for Mesopotamia started in 337 BC, when the
Macedonian King Philip II (359 336) declared war on Persia. Not unlike
what the Babylonians had done in Mesopotamia, Philip had united all
the Greek city states and had harnessed their combined military,
economic, and brain power for the cause of aggression against Darius
III, King of Persia. Within a year, Philip had decimated the Persian
armies and was just about to exploit his victory, when, on his way
home he was murdered. This put his young son Alexander, known as The
Great, at the head of the Greek army. Alexander immediately embarked
on one of the most remarkable feats of empire building. Within just a
few years, the world – to the extent that it was known to the ancients
– became Hellenistic … in taste, in culture, in politics, and in
drink! In 330 BC, Alexander arrived in Babylon to occupy it. There he
died seven years later at the young age of 33.

The Greeks, unfortunately, like the Persians before them, were not
much interested in beer. The fermented beverage from grain, often
referred to as the most democratic drink, did not catch on in the
cradle of democracy, because there just wasn’t enough spare grain in
the Greek homeland to support a beer culture. The climate and soil of
most of Greece are more suited for the cultivation of grapes and
olives than of grains … and wherever the Greeks went, they put their
cultural stamp on society.

This is not to say that the Greeks were unaware of beer. There was one
place where the Greeks actually did attempt some beer-making of their
own, in the province of Thrace. Only in Thrace did barley grow better
than grapes, and Dionysus – generally considered the Greek god of
wine, the sun, and agriculture – was also revered as the guardian of
beer. Even an authority as unassailable as Aristotle (384-322 BC),
philosopher and tutor of Alexander the Great, had a kind word to say
about beer drinkers, and this in spite of the general Greek disdain
for beer. Aristotle wrote, that "those who get drunk from beer fall on
their backs and lie with their faces up, while those who get drunk
from wine fall down every which way." The ancient Greek word for beer
is zythos, which has survived to this day in modern Greece, where beer
is still called sythos. From this etymology of zythos, we can surmise
that the Greeks first learned about beer from the Egyptians (whom the
Alexander had conquered, too, in 332 BC), because the ancient Egyptian
word for beer is zytum.

Beer had flourished in old Mesopotamia for at least five millennia
before the Greek conquest, probably even longer. With the Greeks in
charge, however, beer-making was at an end in the land where it had
started. Beer could not stand on its own, without a supportive
political and cultural environment.

Mesopotamia set an example that was to be replicated everywhere,
henceforth: In societies where there is ample grain, there is ample
beer, and where there is ample beer, beer cannot be ignored. Because
beer is important in society, our collective institutions will always
have an eye on it, for better or for worse, no matter what the
particular time and place and social order. This is the truth that is
at the heart of the story of beer throughout the ages. Political
fights, such as the struggle over brew rights in medieval Europeor the
fight over Prohibition in North America after World War I, are
essentially no different from Hamurabi’s struggle with the brewsters
and barmaids of his time.

The End of Beer … Almost

As the center of power shifted in antiquity from Mesopotamia to lands
less sympathetic to beer – first to Greece, then to Rome – wine, the
favored beverage of these new powers, replaced beer as the people’s
drink. As civilization was expanding, however, and new cultures joined
the world around the Mediterranean, beer found new opportunities to
become established in new places. Plato, in his Phaedo, once likened
the Mediterranean to a pond. "The earthis a very large place," he
wrote, "but we…live in only in one small part of it, around the sea,
like frogs around a pond." While the Greeks and the Romanshad their
day in the sun around that pond, there were other cultures, both near
the pond and far beyond, ready to take the plunge into civilization,
and – like the Sumerian pioneers – to farm the land, to raise the
grain, and to make the beer. The end of beer in Mesopotamia,
therefore, did not mean the end of beer in the world. The most
important standard bearer for beer from the decline of Babylon until
the beginning of the Christian era many centuries later was the most
productive grain-growing culture of antiquity, the one that had given
the Hellenistic conquerors their word for beer. That culture was
Egypt.

For an account of beer-making in its new home of ancient Egypt, see
_Horst Dornbusch on Beer and Civilization #7, Egyptian Beer for the
Living, the Dead … and the Gods._
( 629)

For those interested in further reading about the ancient cultures of
the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians and Egyptians can go to The
Ancient Near East by Amélie Kuhrt. The book can be read online at:
_books.google.com_
ks?id=3DEQiJsxWr_L0C&pg=3DPA590&lpg=3DPA59 0&dq=3Dnebuchadnezzar+ii+604+562&source=3D web&ots=3DSS-xf1Q1N-&sig=3D6O6kZx933rxiq76 JIE6UFCXfQ2U#PPP1,M1

http://beeradvocate.com/login
http://beeradvocate.com/user/pro
http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/67
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/Bab
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/Babylonia
http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/
http://books.google.com/boo