HERODOTUS'DESCRIPTION

John MacGinnis

OF BABYLON

Introductionr

The purpose of this article is to re-examine the account Herodotus gives towards the end ofBook I of Babylon and Babylonia, and in the light of this to resolve whether or not he actually

went there.As early as Rawlinson (1880) and Sayce (1883, 104 and 107) scholars have doubted whether

Herodotus visited Babylon.2 The argument is confused by an inconsistency in Herodotus

himself: in two places he refers to material which seems not to have come down to us - ini.106 to an account of the fall of Nineveh, and in i.184 to the 'Assyrioi Logoi'. which here mustmean a work different from the chapters of i.178-200 which constitute his writing on Babylonia

as we have it. Drews, 1970, lists the various theories put forward over the last century: of

these Rawlinson (1880, 27) thought the Logoi must have been a separate work; Powell (1939,

18) that it was originally included but deleted to accommodate the Samian Logos; Maddalena(Drews, 1970, n.3) that i.178-200 represents a trimmed version of the original work.3 But

unless these Logoi were simply lists of names and dates of 'the many kings of Babylon' (i.184),

reproducing cuneiform king-lists of the type so well known (for instance ANET, 265,27l; 564,566) and therefore not exceptionally interesting to his readership,a I think it most unlikely thatHerodotus would have deliberately deleted the material. If, as Jacoby (1913) thought, theLogoi formed a separate work published earlier, it is surpiising that our only other knowledge

of it is a single manuscript variation in reading 'Herodotus' for 'Hesiod' in a reference by

Aristotle to a work on the fall of Nineveh (Hist. An.8.18.3; Huxley, 1965). Apart from this the

Logoi are nowhere quoted in extant ancient literature (Drews, 1973,191n.194). The question

cannot yet be resolved, but the fact that other logoi are preserved in the Histories (the Egyptian,

Libyan, Samian and Scythian), and that they all form self-contained units, would favour most

of all the view of Drews: note in particular the future tenses 'deloso' (I shall show) and'poiesomai'(I shall make) of i.106 and 184, which might suggest that as each logos was

finished it was incorporated into an updated 'complete works' of Herodotus.

The Geography'

The setting of Babylon on the Euphrates, in the plain of the Tigris and Euphrates leading down

to the Erytrian Sea, which receives little rain and in which many other large cities also lie, is

I I would like to express my thanks to Mr J. V. Kinnier Wilson and Mr J. N. Postgate for their untiring assistancewhile I was writing this article. I would also like to thank Rupert Macey-Dare and Aubrey de Grey for technicaladvice. Abbreviations used are those of AHW, plus BSA = Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture and Handbook =

The Admiralty Handbook for lraq (1944). For non-Assyriologists, note OB = Old Babylonian, NB = Neo-Babylonian, LB = Late Babylonian, NA = Neo-Assyrran.

2 Anticipated however by Ctesias' accusation of lying (Konig, 1972, l); Baumgartner, rin. l4 and 36. summartsesprevious literature on Herodotus' Babylonian passages; the most important works are his own, and that of Ravn.and of Wetzel, 1944.

3 Drews himself concludes that the two references are to a work planned by Herodotus but not yet Written (1970.190: 1973. 135).

a Thus Diodorus2.21.1 expressly states that he will not record names and ciates of the kings since they would not beof sufficient interest. Note that Eusebius considered Herodotus an authority on Assyrian kin! lists along withKtesias and Hellanikos (Huxley, 2 12).

6l

6tl Brcs 33 (1e86)

colrect. The confusion of Babylonia with Assyria is common to all classical writers exceptClaudius Ptolemaeus (Holzhey, 27),though it is surprising to find it here, given the distinctionstill preserved in the Behistun inscription of Darius.

Outside Babylon, Herodotus mentions only a few features of the land. A village calledArdericcas is said to be passed three times by the Euphrates (i.185.2), but we know of nonesuch otherwise - certainly the explanations of Rawlinson (1861), that it was connected withthe Aqar Quf lake system, and of How and Wells (ad loc.), that it may be the same as theIdikara of Ptol. V.xvii.l9 about 50 miles North of Sippar, lack support. Any eventualclarification must also account for the same name being given to the village in Susiana wherethe deported Eretrians were settled (vi.119).6

In i.200 the'three clans ... l iving entirely off fish'may well referto the marsh-dwellers inthe South.T If so, it is noteworthy that no description of the marshes accompanies, probablybecause this was information told to Herodotus rather than seen for himself.

Thirdly in i.179.4 we learn of 'Is, eight days' joumey from Babylon, on a small river of thesame name, tributary to the Euphrates, in which lumps of bitumen are found in great quantity'.Is (modern Hit) is 125 miles North of Babylon (so an acceptable 16 miles a day over eightdays), and is famous for its bitumen right up to today, the first mention being in the annals ofTukulti-Ninurta II, 'the springs of bitumen, place of ushmetu-stone, where the gods speak'(ARAB I409). Herodotus is wrong in placing Hit on a tributary of the Euphrates.

Lastly there is the'Lake of Nitocris'(i.185.3-7),400 stades (i.e.47 miles) in circumferencewith embankments of earth lined with stone. This must be the work of Nebuchadnezzarreferred to in VAB IV no.l9.vi, two walls, one 50 km. long from Babylon to Kish, one 54 km.from Sippar to Opis on the Tigris. This is the Median Wall of Xenophon; the standard work isBamett, 1963, his identification (18) now confirmed by Killick's excavation(lraq 46 (1984)).Killick points out that it could not have served as a flood embankment (though the ancientengineers may still have planned it as such: Lane (321-2) calculated the combined capacity ofthe Habba and Abu Dibis depressions North of Babylon at 6 billion tons of water, and floodingto defend a city is recorded by Sargon in ARAB II 39). This type of wall to exclude incursorsgoes back at least to the Muriq-Tidnim of Shulgi's fourth year, that is, about 2090 BC.

Architectural Features8The Walls

Herodotus (118.2-3;179.3;180.2;180.4- l8l . l ) tel ls of wal ls forming a square, each side 120stades (14 miles) long,50 cubits wide and 200 high, surrounded by a moat and with pairs ofguard rooms facing each other on top across a way wide enough for a four-horse chariot.e

The walls of Babylonro are first mentioned by Sumu-Abum (l9th century BC), but the onesseen by Herodotus must have been essentially those rebuilt by Nabopolassar andNebuchadnezzar (seventh and sixth centuries BC) after the destruction by Sennacherib.rr Theyconstructed the walls on the East going down to the river and an extension of these on the

s Saggs, 1969, suggests an Aramic etymology meaning' land of the marsh-vi l lage'.6 And which, if either. would be the Urdaliku noted by Oppert ZA III (1888), 422.7 Strabo, 1 6. l 20, says so expl ici t ly.8 See Koldewey, 1914, l8l , for a summary of NB construction in Babylon.e Diodorus. 2.3.3, says similarly of the walls of the city founded by Ninos that they could take three chariots abreast.r{) See Wetzel. 1930. Ravn. l6ff .rr The Verse Account of Nabonidus has Cyrus restoring the walls: S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Te,tts (1924),90,

vi. t t- I l . But according to Berossos (Burstein, 28, I I I 4. l) Cyrus demolished the walls.

J. MACCINNIS

Western bank (Wetzel , 1930,63. 1911,53: VAB IV Nebuch. 15.v.7) and then a second outerwall on thc East extending Nor-th to include the Summcr Palace. The main wall was in fact adouble wall of which thc oLltcr onc (3.7 m. thick) was callcd Nemetti-Enli/ ('Pedestal of En1i1')and the inner (6.-5 m. thick) Intgur-Enlil ('Enlil is lavourable'). r They both had towers, theformer at 20 ni. and lhe latter at 18 m. intervals. There was a space of 7.2 m. bctween them.

The second rnain wall built by Nebuchadnezzar on the East was also double. the inner ringbeing 7 m. wide of unbaked brick. the outer 7.8 m. ol baked. They were separated by l2 m.,and on the outer side was a moat of bakecl brick set in asphalt.'r

To Herodotus the inner double-wall was his inner wall and it was as he said the thinner of thetwo (corrbined width of 17.4 m. v iz-a-viz 26.8 m.) . His width of 50 cubi ts (about l3 m.) is afair approximation.

But whilst the l2 rn. space in the outer wall would have been enough for thc chariot, thcre isno reason to think as Koldewey (according to Wetzel. 1944,55 6) that it was fil led up to thctop. As fbr the guard-rooms. Ravn (35) noted how the towers of the two walls of the inner wallwoulcl give the appearance from below of rooms facing cach other, though not at exactlysimilar intervals. But herein lics a surprisc: Wetzel assumed Herodotus did not know the innerwalls. and this must be refuted because the wall on the Wcst specifically mentioned in i. 180

was a continlrxlion of the inner pair. It then emerges that Herodotus' walls are a conflation.assuming the towers of the inner pair and the moat of the outer.

The moat was pafily excavated by Koldewey. Its outer revetment could not be traced due tobein,s under cultivation. but the inner one was indeed, as expected and described also in theroyal inscriptions. made of baked brick set in bitumen.rr

The lengths of the walls given by Herodotus and the other classical historians are as follows:

HerodotusStraboCtesiasCleitarchus

Q. Curtius

These lengths are all of the same order and exaggerated. The completc circuit of the inner wallwas 11.,1 km. (E - 1.65. N - 2.65. W - 1.5. S - 2.6) ant l even the outer wal l was only l0 mi leslong. Flerodotus' figure must be rejected, as too the apologies of Koldewey that Helodotusmisunderstood thc lcngth of tlie whole told to him for the length of one side. and ol Oppert thatthe walls encompasscd Borsippa and Kish as well. There is no evidence lbr this. nor is itplausible.

The height of 200 cubits is also exaggerated: the -reneral

rule of height - three times widthwould al low l2 18 m. Only Strabo's 7-5 f t . is sensible. and accords wel l wi th the 72 11. ( i .e. 170courses) ol Sennacherib's wall at Nineveh (ARAB II 366).

The quay walls along both banks described by Herodotus could reltr either to revetmentwalls, in which case he would be right. or to fortificalions. If the latter. he was probablymistaken: Nabonidus constructed a tbrtification wall along the East bank (known from hisinscriptior.rs. Berossus (Burstein.28. ll l. iv.l) and the excavations) and this did indecd havetowcrs, gates and stairs (Ravn. 29). but therc is no suggestion of a counterpart along the

r l These nanrcs are l i r \ t al lested in lhe latc Kassi le period {George. 1985. l ,+1.IAgoocl nrapof the ! ra l ls isWetzel . 194,1. .18.rr WcIzcl. 19:1.1. 5J. clnims l iorr his own inspccrion rhdl Ihc oulcr ' fcvetnlcnl wl l l \ \ ' i is ,o/ of brkad bricki.

LENGTH4tl0 Srades (56 miles)385 Stades360 Stades36.5 Stades368 Stades

HEIGHT335 feet75 t'eet300 feet

70 Blaj -l-r ( 191t6)

Wesrem bank. The c1ua1'wall rvas incleecl pielccd by gates uith loacls leading Lrp 10 thcm..juslls Hcrodolus sn1's rnd WetzeJ's statcnrcnt that the gales would have been destrol,ed by the tinreof Hcrodotus is r.rnlbunded ( 1944. 55).

The ( iatcs

ln i .179.3 HeroclotLrs te l ls o l l (X) t lonze gates. na:r ing t ive of thenr in i i i . l56 as those o1'Bel .Niucvch. Senr i ramis ancl thc Cissian and Chalcican. In addi t ion to an unknown number ol 'snrller ones' thele u,ere e i-rht nrajor gatcs - those o1'Marduk (or Gishshul ancl Zababa in theEast. Ulash ancl Enlil in the South. Aclatl rnd Sharnash on thc West and Sin and Ishtar in theNof ih (scc plan in Wiscnran. l9 l i -5. .16). " Blumga ner ident i l - iet l HerodolLrs 'gate ol Bel wi t l rthc Babyloni i ln Marcluk Gatc. thc Senr i lanr is wi t l r the Ishtal Grte. the Clr l lc lean with the Enl i lGutc (both luccci soulhwurds: Wclzcl notcs that it coulcl thcretbrc have been the f.irash Cjate)aDd l l rc Cissiar 1i .c. Kish) wi th thc Zababa Gate. This is probably correct . Note that I le lodotusknou,s allcrnutivc nurrrcs lirL ll l thc gatcs: thesc we[e doubtless the populat as opposed to theol l ic ia l ( r 'e l ig ious ) nanres. -

Hcroclolus sa)'s thcy wele ol bLonzc. and indecd thc NB inscr-iptions frcqucntly nrakclurention of bronze gates. so]nclirres lunhcr $'ith bronzc br.rlls and dragorrs. Thc latter wereprobabll' cnst statues. []u1 thc reference is othelwisc cerlainly to the bronze cladding ol'thc doorIcuvcs. examples ol which have been exclvaled. nolably al tsalarvat (King. l9 l5) . r '

The Gate ol Senr i r tmisol i . luT is L)f special in lcrcst . In the colrrsc ol thc story ol lhctombwhich i t contains. I - leroclolus says that i t (a) was ' lcopholon'ancl (b) bore an inscr ipt ion. 11 hasbecn sug-rrcstcd rlreaclv by Koldeu.'cy (l9ltl. 53: lollowecl by' Baunrganner) thal ' lcophoron'-

uhich hc t ranslatcd ' ldwentragend' (bcar ing l ions) must ref 'er to lhe cramcl lcd bl ickdccoralion of thc gatc. UntbltrLnrtely. tll is lhcory rnLlst be aliscounted ils the trLre elynolos)' oi'' lcophoron' is 'pcoplc (nol l ion) beal ing' as i ts usagc c]scwhcfc (r ight up to rrodern t iDres)shows (Powcll. 1938. s.r'.). though ol coLLrsc this cloes not mean that Herodotus' gltc cilnnolstil l be the lshlar Galc. On thc other hancl it is ccrtainly possible that the inscription menlioncd

by Helo.lolus na1'be the vcry onc found by the excavalions and restored prorrinently high upon the gate (Kolc lewe1,. l9 lU. 39-.11 ancl Abb. l ) . I t is strangc only that th is has not becnsug-gcstcd bcti)rc.

'I 'he Ziggurrat (1. | 8 l-2)

TIre ziggurrat " Elemenarki'" was sct ir i l vitst court with sides measuring '1-57 m. (S). 409 m.(E) and : l l3 rr l . (W) (Wetzcl . 1938. I4 i2) . The basc of thc z ig- tunat measures 9l m. squarc

but llrese renrains rray be OB (Bcrgamini. l\4cso1totuntfu 12. lbllowing on 1'rom his calculltl iollsof the NB water lcvel , which wts t l i1s nonral height I n. . and at h igh t lood 3 m.. abovc thc

lcvcl of the remains ltlrrrd by KOlclewel'). Xcrxcs is said to ]rave destroyed it. and Alexander tohave clearecl awiiy thc rubble as a prcliminlrl 'to the planned lebuilding which was cut short by

5Blunr lxnncf(75)pulsthel i i ( on thei f nunlbcf r l l0 -10 bul u i thoul \ i r ! ing $h).r" _l

hc posit ionr ol the lr lcs hi! \ c bccrl l i \cd through lhcif tr \e l \ relererlce lolnl\ rrr r . i r l e\r irr- ' conlr. lcl \ 'r Sce \ ' l iglus. -/- .1 71. lgl t l . l i )r lhcchxngingol lnlc rr lur lc\ in A\sur-.r ' \ jakers of iron cloor: rrc|c cnplol 'cd l t PcAcpolis (Crlr lcrorr. lc).1i1. no.l8)i Isaiah xlv. l talks ol galcs of brass

i lnd door\ of iron-.' ' Scc Koldc$ c\ . l 1) | l . rn. l Iu!n. - l5l l .

:" Thc rurnc ir not attested bt ' l i rr 'c Esr l i lddon.i tn(l thc/ igsutrdl isonlyrclcrrcdEli \h Vl . nd thc Epic ol Effr { \ 'Ln'r Sodcn t iF i ( 1971 )).

J. MACGINNIS 1t

his dealh.rr Herodotus is light in his approxirration of 2 stades (about 40{) m.) lbr the length ol

the per ibolos wal ls. br-r t lwicc too big in his I stade (200 m.) lor thc basc of the z iggurrat .

Herodotus' clescriptiot.r of a tou'er of ci-tht stages with a spiral asccnt and sh:-ine on the top

has been nuch clebatcd. Thc problem is that we do know o1'spiral zi-tgurrats (tbr instance

Klrorsabad: see also tlrc Whitc Obelisk. il lustrated by Sollbcrger lruq 36 (.1914)) but that the

other evidence is against lhis: thc excavalions revealetl a main stlircasc 9 m. wiilc and 5'1 m.

long perpenclicular 1rl thc South side. lntl lwo stnaller oncs slarting in thc SE and SW corners

and mcctirrg at the middle. Now whilst these remains musl be earlier than NB (scc abovc). and

do not in any case al ign at r ight anglcs wi th the NB temenos wal l (Wiseman. I985.6t j ) . th is is

ex.rctly the conl-!gu|ation of the NB ziggurrat at Ur (UE lX).'r These three staircascs probabll'

met at the second stage (according to thc rule that the lcngth of a stairs ecluals its hcighl).

Bcyond this Dontbar-t (Dcl ultc Orient 2912. 1930) follorvs Heroclotus by placing five spilal

stages on fwo square lower ones. Busink (De Buhtlonischc Tortltcltoren. 19.19) sinrilarly bul

with thc uppef stages also sqLlare. Wetzel (1938) ignores Heroclotus compietely ancl has the

main llight ol'stairs going strliglrt to the top.I Our cvidence is not yet conclusive. but I wottlcl

suggest that one reason against a rrmp winding the wholc way round a ziggunat the size of

Etemenanki is that in pian this wor-rld covet a horizontal distance of l5 l2 m. (4 x i9u + 7u + fi)

+ 5l + 42 + 33 + 2,+l) as against the 33 m. ( .15-12) of Wetzel 's di rcct statrc l te. meaninq thrt t

anyone ascending woulci havc had to walk,+6 times as lar.

One piece of evidencc that clears away some of the doubt is thc celebrated 'Esagil Tablet of

Anu-Belshunu'r'of 299 BC.ri It sives the dimensions of the ziggr:nat as fbllorvs:

STAGE LENGTH HEIGHT5 l /2 GAR3 GARIGARI GARI GARI GAR]2.5 GAR

I

234.5(6)7

WIDTHI5 GARI3 GARIO GAR8..5 GAR7 GAR

-5.5 GAR3.5 GAR (21 m.)

l5 GAR (90 m.)I3 GAR (7u m.)l0 GAR (60 m.)I t .5 GAR (5 I m.)7 GAR (42 m.)

15.5 GAR (33 m.)4 GAR (2,1 m.)

Most cditorsrn restore lhe 6th stage thus. but Herodotus' ti (not 7) stages slil l: posc a

ploblem. This is easi ly resolved. not, as Ungcr (17 and 199). by supposing that an invis ib le

nragical (i.e. non-existent.) fbundation level was included. bul either as Lawtence \utl ltr.) b.t

assuming that thc grouncl level r .vas counted in: as Drews (1973. 180 n.188) that as Herodotus

will not have been allowed into lhe enclosure} hc could not see thtt the lowest sta-se. almosl

rL Ar| ian 7. 1 7. 3. l6: Sui lbo 1 6. L5: Diorlor-us 1 7. I I l ; CT,19 nos..1 i i d 6.rr ADd so apparcni ly on thc Assyian rel iefdepict ing a zigguf|at iCldd.. l trrrrrs rr/ l r .rrrrr/ . no Tl p 106)lr Thcsc arc al l i l lustrated in Rirr n. plates XIV-XV.l Re,edi led by Ungelon pp.137.19 (rcvicwccl Weissblch. l9 l l ) . i lndno\r igainb) C!-o.gc. 1985:Potel l . l9f l l . .Z- l

7l t i ) f nretfologicir l rotcs-r i Though copicd f iorr an originul l ionr Bo|sippa. onl) f i ) f thc init iate (r l l { /r /) loscc r Weidnet publ i \h.d I \ i r ihl

tablcl of NA date in A FO 20 (1963).l l 'Nol. horvcvcr. Schott. von Sodcn or Wctzel (\ee Rr!n..19).rr The rabler t}om Bnb)' lon publishcd by Wircmen. l97l (. lnd 1985. 71 5). is lhc pl i ] l ] ol i i \nral lef 7igl lurf iLl i ln. l hr ls

f ivc complclc slages al]d one brokcn. bul thc proporl ions ir le \uch thrl a screnth is cerl l in to bL- r l- \ lofcd. I t i \part icularl) unfbrtun.i t . . lhi l t thc top is mi\si g. xs this ighl hir\ 'c sivcn t l1orc inlbnrel ior i lbout lhc lcntplr-.Judging b) thc words /x1-r i sh -bdt / In.\ /rdrl . thf i is. opposite the \hf inc oi Assur' . this \ i t \ r l di l l i r-crrIziggunal. but i l i \ ( ]1 in any case clear \ \ icthcr lhe ldblel rcpresenls a rel l or imaginrr) bui lding {wiscmrn. 1971.t. t l ) .

l* Oppenheirr. 1964. I08 (and n.38). holds that the connnon rnan could r lol enler the lcnlplc

72 B/CS 33 (1986)

twice as thick as the second, was only one; or by assuming that he was counting in the temple

at the top - in my view most likely. The belief that Herodotus was describing a tower

different from Etemenanki seems unnecessary and certainly there is no reason to think the

ziggurrat of Borsippa a better candidate (Moberg, 762, Delitzsch, 98).It is noteworthy that Herodotus makes no mention of colours; we know that other ziggurrats

were coloured such as those of Borsippa2e and Khorsabad,30 but in the case of Etemenanki we

can only be sure that the top was clad in blue tiles (VAB IV Nebuch. 14.i.42; cf. also such a

cladding on the ziggurrat of Susa according to Ashurbanipal (ARAB II 810) and the tiles found

fallen from the top from the NB ziggunat at Ur, UE V p 133). This cladding is the hitlupu(GIR1'clothed' of the Esagil tablet 1.42. lt is possible that the colours of the seven walls of

Ecbatana (i.98.5) were confused by Herodotus for the stages of the ziggunat - certainly

nobody suggests that Herodotus himself went there - but such a confusion would be

extraordinary. It may simply be that the ziggurrat at Babylon was not coloured: Wetzel,indeed, has the lower six stages white-washed (1938, 84).

The Upper Temple ( I .181.5-182.7)

Herodotus says there was a large temple on the top (neos epesti megas) containing a couch and

a golden table. It has been denied that this was so,3r but given the dimensions of the Esagil

tablet for the uppermost stage, 24 x 2l m., there is no reason why not. In fact Nebuchadnezzar

claims 'kissu ellu ... ina reshi-shina epush', that is, 'I built a holy shrine on top of them' (the

plural refers to the ziggurrats of Babylon and Borsippa; Pallis, 106), the Esagil tablet talks of'AN.TA VII-u2 sha-hu-ru' , that is, 'Upper (Cella), 7th (Stage), High Temple'. Nebuchadnezzat

also mentions an upper temple, in VAB IV Nebuch, 14.i.42.Ravn takes the section of the Esagil tablet, lines 25-36, to be an account of the temple on the

top,32 with its two courts (kisallu) and six shrines (papahu) 'of the Nuhar' .33 Its inclusion of a

bedroom (bit ershi)3a coroborates Herodotus, though this need not imply, as Cook (16), that

Herodotus actually ascended the ziggurrat. According to Herodotus, this was used for the god

to come down and sleep with a priestess; and this brings us into the controversial territory of

the Sacred Marriage.There were three sorts of Sacred Marriage rite:35(a) between a god and a goddess(b) between a goddess and the king(c) between a god and a priestess.

The first of these is attested between Ningirsu and Baba in the time of Gudea, and also between(i) Marduk and Sarpanitum and (ii) Nabu and Tashmetum in NAA'{B times; the second under

Shulgi and ldin-Dagan of Isin. The third, which most closely matches Herodotus, is van

Buren's interpretation of the role of the entu-priestess of Nannar/Sin at Ur, and would range

2e According to Rawlinson, 1 861 , though Koldewey ( 19 1 1 , 58) found no trace.30 Frankfort, 1979, 1 49.rr Schmid (134) is of the opinion that the upper parts of the ziggurrat were in ruins following Xerxes' destruction,

but Herodotus would have been able to see that part and his account gives the opposite impression.32 Unger (RLA 'Babylon', 99b) makes it part of Esagil, but as both the preceding and following sections deal with

the ziggunat this is unlikely.rrThe meaningof nuhor has been discussed by Weissbach, ZA 41 ,285f, who cites two lexical entries equating the

nuhar with ziggurrat.3a And the bit re- '-a-me, 'room of love-making', of Unger, 111 no.13.3s See Kramer. 1969. RLA. 'Hei l iee Hochzeit ' , Pal l is, 197-200.

J. MACGINNIS

f romatleastthet imeof Sargonof AkkadtoNabonidus(vanBuren, Oriental ia NS 13 (1944),

67-1)\

In NB times the evidence is chiefly for a union between a god and his divine spouse,

particularly between Nabu and Tashmetum,36 but this only involves the bringing together of the

two statues in the sanctuary and not a union of humans representing the gods. It is a matter of

debate whether a Sacred Marriage formed part of the NB New Year's Festival,3T but it is

important to realise that the arguments for this in the NB period are not strong, being based on

the Ur IIIiOB texts of Shulgi and Idin-Dagan, the hearsay of Herodotus, 1,500 years later and a

post-Frazerian determination to work it in somehow. But there is no evidence for any union

conceming humans in a sacred marriage in NB times: the text describing the ritual of the New

Year's Festival at Babylon (ANET,33l-334) makes no mention of such.38

At one time scholars, led by Langdon, believed that the New Year Festival incorporated a

ceremony in which the death and resurrection of Bel was enacted. Vod Soden (ZA 51) has

however convincingly demonstrated that the text in question records not the actual belief and

practice in Babylon, but a work of propaganda created by Sennacherib to justify his destruction

of the city. The real motive of the Festival seems rather to have involved the renewal of the

fertility of the land, and with this, perhaps, a renewal of the kingship.3e

Herodotus says that there was no statue in the Upper Temple, but the record of offerings

made 'to Marduk and Erua (a by-name of Sarpanitum) of Etemenanki' (Unger, 260 1 l8)

would suggest the contrary. Diodorus 2.9.5 makes them three golden statues, of Zeus, Hera

and Rhea, described in detail that we cannot verify.

The Lower Temple (I.183)

Herodotus also describes a lower temple containing a sitting figure of Bel on a throne on a

stand, with a table beside, all of gold. He does not enter into the architecture.

The series TIN.TIRki = Ba-bi-lu lists 53 main temples in Babylon (in addition to 55 shrines of

Marduk, 300 of the Igigi, 600 of the Anunnaki, and 180 each of Ishtar and Adad (new edition

in George, 1985)), but there can be no doubt that Herodotus meant Esagil, the huge temple

complex of Marduk.a0 Esagil was in existence by the OB period (von Soden, UF 3,255;

George, 1985, 456), but had also been destroyed by Sennacherib, restored by Esarhaddon and

Ashurbanipal, and then been the object of the lavish attention of the NB kings. It was then

further looted by Xerxes, probably after the revolt of 482.a1 But it was clearly restored and is

still mentioned in texts of the Seleucid and Arsacid periods (George, 1985, 456). Pliny asserts

that it was still standing in his day amid the otherwise deserted Babylon (NH 6.30.12I).

36 Postgate, Sumer 30; Oppenheim, 1964, 102, 193 and 359 n.30.37 For this are Falkenstein in the J. Friedrich Festschrift (1959),162;Black, Religion I I (1981), 48; Frankfort, 1948,

318 and 330-331.38For instance, (Bel) ' ihish ana hadashshulr l ' , 'hastened to the marriage', in the text quoted by Pall is, 198 (VAT

663).3e See especially Kramer, 1969, Frankfort, 1948, 296, 3I7 and 330-331 on this, and the view that the ceremony

evolved from one celebrating the union of Ishtar and Dumuzi.a0 Bel is attested as a by-name of Marduk from the last Kassite period (von Soden, ZA 51, 163) and was common in

NB and Achaemenid times. With Nabu he was the dominant Babylonian deity - compare the frequency with

which the two appear in personal names and their symbols on seals - and the two are often quoted as such as the

BeI and Nebo of the later OT.ar Cf. Bohl in Bi. Or. 19 (1962).

73

74 B/CS 33 (1986)

It was surrounded by a huge courtyard with nearly I ,000 towers (Koldewey , 1914, 187) andits gatesl2 were indeed adomed with bronze, as Herodotus says, and Nebuchadnezzar records(VAB IV Nebuch. 5. i .24;7. i i .8; 13. i .59; 14. i .42).

Herodotus says that in addition to the sitting statue there had been a standing one, also ofgold, until taken off by Xerxes. We do not possess the statues from Esagil, but fragments oftheir adomment - lapis lazuli, shell and onyx inlays - were found by Koldewey (1914,222,1911, 47 and Abb. 78-9) as well as traces of a throne of wood and gold (ibid. 42; Wetzel, 1938,pl l . 36-9).43

Nevertheless we can be ceftain that the statue was made of at least gold on wood if not solidgold.aa Furthermore it is likely that both standing and seated images existed, if the depictions ofMarduk on cylinder seals from the Akkadian period onwardsa5 or on the grand seal of Mardukpresented by Marduk-Nadin-Shumia6 represent the god as commonly envisaged, includingtherefore the form of the statue.

The Palace (I .181.2)1?

Herodotus says that the palace was across the river from the main temple and, as a glance at theplan shows that the NB palaces (i.e. the main palace and the Norlhem palace) were on the same(Eastern) side as Esagil, this has normally been explained by reference to the change of courseof the river documented in the excavations by the washing away of a tract of road South andEast of the main palace, and by a 100 m. wide gap in the quay wall further South filled withalluvium (Ravn, 59). The new course is mapped in Wetzel, 1944,48. But note that Diodorus2.8.3-7 also speaks of two palaces connected by a bridge, so that it is possible that there wasanother palace on the West side of the city not found by the excavators. It it true that we do notknow exactly up to what time each of the palaces (the Main Palace, Northern Palace andSummer Palace) was in use, but that no description is given of any suggesls that Herodotuspenetrated none.

The Houses (I .180.3) '8

The laying out of streets at right-angles does seem to be approximately correct, to judge fromthe plan of the excavations of the NB residential area on Merkes (Reuther, 1926,77-122;Koldewey, 1914,241-2), though it must be stressed that this represents only a small area of theNB city.

Herodotus' other point - that each house was'triorophon kai tetrorophon' - occasioneddoubt so long as this was translated 'with three or fotx floors'. In fact as Wetzel (1944,61) andRavn (79) have pointed out, it really means with three or four roofs, and so could refer to themain room of the house having a higher roof level than the rest (for it was true of many of thehouses that the walls of the principal room were thicker than the rest), with awnings furtherstretched out on top of these, and/or the further discontinuity in the sky-line due to the constant

ar Discussed by George, 1985, 138f.ar Ashurbanipal dedicated a throne to Marduk, giving its measurements as I 213 x 1 213 x 3 1/3 cubits (ARAB II

1012).aa Baruch vi Qrassrn) speaks of statues of gold and silver on wood, with a crown, sceptre, dagger and axe and purple

garrnents.a5 For instance, Frankfort^ 1939, Plates XXVI k, XXVIII m and n.

'o Weissbach, 1903, l6-17; Unger, 210.a7 See Koldewey, 1 93 I -2, and Wiseman, 1985, 53ff.ar On these see Reuther and Ravn. 66ff.

J. MACGINNIS /)

rebuilding at different times of adjacent houses on the tell. There is no proof that this is right,

but it is certainly the best explanation yet.

The Bridge (I .186)

The bridge of stone connecting the two halves of the city can only be the Euphrates Bridge

excavated by Koldewey (Wetzel, 1930, 54-7; Ravn, 74ff). It is not mentioned in the texts

(Wetzel, l93A, rc6-7) and was dated to the time of Nebuchadnezzar chiefly on the brick size.

It had eight piers with stone facingae and was 123 m.long. According to Diodorus 2.8.2 it was

floored with cedar, cypress and palm, and slots for timbers were found by Koldewey (1914,

197). It there is any rruth in the story of the flooring being taken up at night, it is not, as How

and Wells, a result of Herodotus being 'unconscious of the rivalry between Babylon and

Borsippa' (ad loc.), but, as Wetzel (1944,66), to allow the passage of ships.

CustomsBrick-Making (I. 179)50

The method of building a water-resistant wall out of kiln-baked mud bricks with bitumen and

layers of reed matting between the courses in i.179 is exactly right. The only point of

difference is that whereas Herodotus has this matting every thirty courses, it is more usual to

see it every 5-13 courses, if not (as rarely) between every one (Koldewey, 1914, 80; Wetzel,

1944, 54; U E V , 13 1). Note that Herodotus does not explicitly mention the unbaked brick of

which virtually everything was built: perhaps because it was too well understood to need

explaining.

Waters of the Persian King (I.188)

Although we have no cuneiform evidence confirming that these were drawn from the

Choaspes, this is confirmed by Ctesias (Ktinig, 1972, I29) and Pliny (Rawlinson, 1880, 308

n.7). Other writers, however, record different traditions: Dino the Nile (Lawrence ad loc.),

Strabo the Eulaeus and Chalymon (Rawlinson ad loc.).

Clothes (195.1-2)

Herodotus' account does not match exactly the dress we see on boundary stonessr or Assyrian

reliefs depicting Babylonians,52 though the main element, a tunic (kithon) reaching to the feet, is

correct. The extra woollen one and the cloak (chlanidion) on top of that are unexpected,

suggesting that Herodotus was in Babylon at a cold time of year'

As far as we know, the Babylonians did not wear pointed shoes (embas) but wore sandals or

went barefoot (Salonen, 1969; King, 1915, pi.LXIV)'

We know nothing of the head-bands (mitra; not necessarily 'turbans' as sometimes

translated) - though these might be connected with the karballatu of the Cimmerians (s'v' in

the dictionaries) - nor of the perfumes in everyday life,53 though there is no reason to doubt

their use and it may well be that here Herodotus is a valid source in our ignorance.

ae Parts of which were found where they had fallen through decay (Wetzel ,1944,66).s0 See especially Salonen, 1972,'Die Ziegelei im alten Mesopotamien'.

51See King, 1912.52 See Hrouda, 39.53Though Assyrian perfume recipes are known (Ebeling, Orientalia 17-19 (1948-50)) and perfumers (muraqqitu)

are aitested in the LB period. The monarchs were characterised by their use by Classical authors - thus

Ashurbanipal (Diodorus 2.23.t) and Alexander captudng the perfume chest of Darius II (Cook, 140).

/o B/CS 33 (1986)

Reliefs do picture men of rank holding staff.s5a ending in a shaped form: most usually asimple knob, perhaps Herodotus' 'apple',5s though rosettes (Herodotus' rose),56 tulip-likeblossoms (= Herodotus' li ly?),s? and a 'melon-shape's8 are also found. The correspondencebetween Herodotus' staffs and those depicted is thus good, with only the eagle designotherwise unattested. In the past however it has been suggested (for instance Baumgartner, 79)that these designs really derived from seals, also mentioned in the same sentence. This cansafely be dismissed, as we know that the seals of the Achaemenid period were predominantlyengraved with scenes of a single or fighting animal or of men on horseback (Zettler, "rNES 38(1979)). Likewise, the assertion hitherto that cylinder-seals were meant (for instance How andWells arl /ac.; Ravn, 89) is incorrect, as these had been replaced by stamp seals in the NBperiod. Moreover, the fact that Herodotus does nol describe the shape of the seal surelysuggests that it was that familiar to his Greek audience, viz. the stamp.5e

The Boats ( I .194)

It has long been realised that Herodotus has fused elements of two different craft still used onthe Euphrates earlier this century and attested in antiquity.60 These are the kelek, a raft normally16- l8f t .x 14-16ft .of p lankslashedtogetherandf loatedon30orsoinf latedgoatskins,6randthe guffa, a round willow frame with hides stretched over and sealed with bitumen on thebottom. of diameter 3 ft. 8 ins.-l5 ft.62 In Herodotus, the elements of a wooden-framed craftfloated down from the North and broken up to be sold in Babylonia derive from the kelek, thecircular shape, hide covering and carrying of a donkeyo3 from the guffa.6a

Auctioning Girls (I. 196)

Nothing is known of this from cuneiforrn sources, whilst the marriage contracts make clearboth the influence of the family in arranging a match, and also the stress which is often placedupon virginity (Baumgartner, 82). This custom hardly seems probable. Both Strabo andNicolaus Damascenus, however, say that the practice was still in use in their time, and the onlyremotely connected parallels are those of parents selling their children in time of siege(Oppenheim, Iraq l7) or dedicating them to a deity (Dougheny, 'The Sherkutu of BabyionianDeities'), in both instances the principal aim being to ensure that the children would be fed.

Medicine (L197)

We know nothing of the custom here recorded of laying out the sick in the market place,though Baumgartner points out that this is so in Mark vi.56, also bringing to attention the

sa King, 1912, pI.LXXIY; passim apudHrotda.55 For instance, Hrouda. pI.32 nos.l-8; also the pomegranate (no.9).56 1bid. nos. 10- l l .51 lbid. no.l7 .58 On the onyx staff excavated at Babylon (Wetzel, 1951 , p1.421.5e One could otherwise have tried ro treat'sphregida ... kai skeptron cheiropoieton' as hendiadys for a 'seal actually

(= kai) wrought (in the form ofl a rod'.60 Chesney, vol.Il. ch.XX, is a good source on the craft of the Tigris and Euphrates.6r Chesney, vol. II, 635; kalakku occurs hapar (Salonen, 1939, 66), and the craft once too in the reliefs (ibid. p1.23).6r Chesney, vol.Il, 639-40; cf. the hapar quppu (Salonen, 71); the reliefs showing them are reproduced ibid. p11.21

and 22.6: This dont ey forms the subject of part of Aristarchus' commentary on Herodotus Book l - see Grenfell and Hunt,

The Antherst Pap,-r i , Pt . I I (1901),3.6a Wetzel 's view (19214, 6l) that a guff 'a alone was described is not correct.

J. MACGINNIS .71

Caucasian folk-tale in which a sick prince goes to the bazaar to seek (successfully) a cure after

his doctors have failed him (80-81).

Our knowledge of Babylonian medicine is confined largely to the scholarly side. This

comprised both magical and physical treatment (see especially Ritter, AS 16), the latter

including chemical prescriptions for intemal treatment, poultices and bathings, and surgery (cf.

CH, 215-225, and Oppenheim, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences XY

(1960)). Wiseman (1985, 106) is surely right in refuting Oppenheim's view that formal

medicine had fallen out of the curriculum in the NB period (see now the indices under

'medical' in Leichty's new catalogues of the Sippar Collection in the British Museum), but it

may well be that our sources do not reflect the treatment available to the common man. On the

present point, we have no reason to doubt Herodotus' statement.

Burial (L198)

In the NB period burial was normally by direct interment (often wrapped in a mat) or crouched

up inside two large jars (RLA, 'Grab'). Herodotus' 'taphai de sphi en meliti', that is 'burying

them in honey', could mean either smearing or immersion in honey,65 and investigation does

reveal some confirmation. Further classical evidence is the record that Alexander inspected a

romb in Babylon containing a body floating in oil (Ctesias (Konig, 1912, pJA no.21); Aelian

Var.Hist.xii.3) and the tradition in the Pseudo-Callisthenes Life of Alexander (chapter 283,

preserved only in the Armenian; see Budge, The History of Alexander the Great (1889, repr.

1916),141, III.xxii) that the corpse of Alexander himself was preserved in oil, honey, incense

and a1oe.66Beyond this, there is also some cuneiform witness to burial in oil. This includes the text

published in Ebeling, Tod und Leben,56, in which a NA king 'laid my father in royal oil'

(shaman sharri),61 and on two occasions Nabonidus similarly'... his corpse in sweet (=

scented?) oil', though in each place the verb is broken off.68 The difference to note is of course

that the cuneiform evidence speaks of oil or 'good oil' (= perfume?) and not honey. It is thus

not clear whether this can be identified with the custom recorded by Herodotus or not.

This practice is also known from Egypt in late antiquity, a recent case being the body of a

child found preserved in honey in a jar neat Giza (Leca, I17).

Temple Prostitution (I. 199)

This passage has caused much controversy. It was at first thought that the name Mylissa6e was,

if at all correct, a comrption of Belitu (see Tallqvist, 1938, 276) or *muallid(a)/tt, 'she who

causes to give birth' (Baumgartner, 82), as a title of Ishtar or Sarpanitu, though it is now certain

that Herodotus was right, Mylissa representing Mul(l)is(s)u, the Babylonian form of the

EME.SALII version of UMUN.LIL for NIN.LIL (Parpola, 1980, Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen),

65 Strabo 16.I.20, 'thaptousi d' en meliti keroi periplasantes' , Ihat is, 'they bury in honey, smearing with wax', might

suggest both.66Curtius 10.10.13 has him embalmed in perfume. Outside Babylon, Plutarch has Agesilaos embalmed in honey'

and Tacitus Poppaea in oil (Leca, 267), whilst Herodotus himself records that the Persians smeared their dead in

wax ( i .140).

67The signs I3.GISH were'corrected'by von Soden in his review of Ebeling (ZA 43, 1936,255 n.1) to KISAL. but

without examining the tablet. My collation, confirmed by J. N. Postgate, reveals that I3,GISH is certainly correct.

68 4.GISH DuG3 AD6-su [. . . ] , Anat. St. 8 p.52, H 1 B 1.15; \ .GISH DLIG3 shal-mar-su u2-[. . . ] . vAB IV p.294

f . i i i .28.6e Also mentioned in i.l 3170 A dialect of the Sumerian language.

78 Blcs 33 (1986)

177 n.2l; Dalley, RA 73, 1979).11 This raises another problem, as the Babylonian goddess ofsexual love is normally thought to be Ishtar, not Ninlil. One of Ninlil's aspects is as a Mother(ummu: Tallqvist, 1938, 412), but it is Ishtar who assumes the specifically sexual role as theProstitute (harimtu) and Mistress of Love-making (belet ru'ame: ihid. 344). There are varioustemple employees who may have been prostitutes - the qadishtu, kezertu, harimtu, shamhatuand kulmashitu (see Renger, ZA 58 (.1967) for the OB period; he concludes that at least theqadishtu and kulmashituhad a sexual role). These are most often connected with Ishtar, thus itis Ishtar's city of Uruk that is described as'al kezreti shamhati u harimati', that is, 'city ofcourtesans (?), prostitutes and harlots' (EnaIY.52; also Gilgamesh VI.i65, BWL 218 1.6-7).In Assyria at any rate Ishtar and Ninlil were confused or merged in late times (Menzel, vol.Il,95* n.1254). Wiseman (1985, 106) associates the coins in Herodotus' account with the leaddisks found in the Ishtar Temple as Assur, but even if this is right it is hardly that Herodotushad 'confused Babylonian and Assyrian customs', as there is no evidence at all that he visitedAssyria, nor that the Assyrian temples continued functioning after the fall of Assyria in 612,well over a century before Herodotus' travels.

But whilst cuneiform evidence is equivocal, there is interesting corroboration from theApocryphal Letter of Jeremias (= Baruch VI; Charles (1963 repr. from 1913), The Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha of the Old 'festament,606) where it is described how in the Temple ofBabylon women sit with a cord round the head buming bran, waiting to be drawn off to lie withmen. This accords exactly with Herodotus (only the bran being added), and as it is not possiblethat we are dealing with a borrowing from Herodotus, it seems that a genuine tradition isrecorded.T2

Historical TraditionsSemiramis (I.184)

Semiramis, originally Sammu-ramat, the wife of Shamshi-Adad V, once thought to have beenan independent regent of Assyria,Tr grew to be a great figure of folk-lore in the Middle Eastright up to todayTa and Herodotus is one of the earliest witnesses to this. Thus, whilst nothingof what he says of her is true (apart, perhaps, from the naming of the gate, though again wehave no cuneiform record of this), he must be reproducing a genuine Babylonian tale. It isinteresting to note that Berossus in two places tried to correct this, reminding the Greeks thatshe was a queen of Assyria (not Babylon) and chiding them for the belief that she had built thatcity (Burstein, 22, I 4.9: 28, III 3.3).

Nitocr is ( I .185-187)

Nitocris, similarly, is as such a fictitious character. She has been identified as Nebuchadnezzar(Delitzsch, i915; Baumgartner, 961' Bergamini, 136), his wife (Ravn, 38), Nabonidus(Dougherty, 1929), his mother Adad-Guppi (Rollig, 'Nitocris von Babylon', apud R. Stiehl(1969 ed.), Beitrcige zur alten Geschichte und daren Nachleben) and Naqi'a (Zakutu) a wife ofSennacherib (Lewy,.rNES 11 (1952)). None of these can be completely correct as, at thesimplest, Nitocris is credited with works of Nebuchadnezzar (the basin and the bridge: i.185-6),though also made the mother of Nabonidus (i.188). So it is clear that the figure represents a

7r This is srared explicitly from ar least the OB period: 'dNin-tiu = [dna]u-li1-tu' in AKF II p.9, line 4.72 Sacred prostitution is recorded for Phoenicia by Augustin (Civ. Dei tv.70).73 Finally disproved by Schramm, Historia 2l (1972).7j See Eilers, Semiromis l l9 '71).

J. MACGINNIS

conflation (Legrand's 'personne imaginaire' is closest to the mark, 1932, ad loc.), and the

question is whether this is the fault of Herodotus (through misunderstanding due to language

difficulties) or his sources. I would think the latter more likely, but note that this is an excellent

example where our conclusion might well have been altered were the Assyrioi Logoi preserved.

Labynetus (I.74-7 and 188.1)

Labynetus too contains contradictory elements. Nobody doubts that the name represents

Nabonidus (Nabu-na'id), the last of the NB kings, only the genealogy which makes him the son

of another Labynetus mentioned in i.74-7 as the mediator between the Medes and Lydians is

wrong. The real father of Nabu-na'id was Nabu-balassu-iqbi. Dougherty made Labynetus I

Nabonidus, and Labynetus II his son and regent Belshazzar (1929), and this is universally

rejected. Others make Labynetus I Nebuchadnezzar (Ravn, 38; Baumgartner, 95). The best

suggestion is that of Melkman (110, followed by Wiseman, 1985,9) making them both the

same, Labynetus I representing Nabonidus before he became king. It is true that Nabonidus

was of high rank before accession (he is attested as a burgrave (sha eli ali') from the eighth year

of Nebuchadnezzar - Dougherty,1929,31), so that perhaps he really did act as mediator, but

clever though the suggestion is, it is not proven. At any rate, Herodotus' historical facts are

again confused.Ts

The Capture of Babylon (I.190-1)

Herodotus tells how the Babylonians were first defeated outside their walls and the city then

captured during a festivalT6 by Cyrus' ruse of lowering the waters of the river. The Babylonian

Chronicle is well preserved in the poftions describing Cyrus' capture of Babylon (Grayson,

ABC Chr.7, col.iii), and inasmuch as he did first defeat the Babylonian army (though at Opis

- it is not clear whether Herodotus is referring to this or to a separate battle/sortie outside

Babylon) and then take the town, Herodotus is quite correct. In fact, of all the historical

material, this account deviates least from what we know from cuneiform sources, and it may be

that some truth lurks behind the story of the lowering of the Euphrates.TT Wetzel (1930, 53)

was of this opinion. In one respect, however, Herodotus must be corrected: the chronicle does

not allow for a prolonged siege.Lastly, here, the fragment of narrative involving Sennacherib toid in the Egyptian logos

(ii.141) throws back to that monarch's Palestinian campaign of 701 BC and the battle of

Altaqu, known from his annals as well as the (slightly errant) summary in II Kings xix.35

(Baumgartner, Sg-92). The tale of the tunnel dug in the time of Sardanapalus (ii.150) is another

example of pure folk-tale attached to a famous figure.

AgricultureThe Crops (1.193.3-4)

Herodotus gives the main crops as wheat, barley, millet, sesame and dates, saying also that no

figs, grapes, olives or any other fruit are grown. He is right about those that are grown,ts and

that olives were not grown in Babylonia (though they were in Assyria), and almost right about

75Sack, RA 7'7 (1983), summarises the evolution of the legends which grew up around Nabonidus andNebuchadnezzar.

76 Thus too in Daniel v and Xenophon, Cyrop. 7 .5.7 -31 . See also Jeremiah 1i.77 Wiseman (1985,62 n.101) seems to think that the lowering of the Euphrates is recounted in the Cyrus Cylinder,

but this is not the case.78 See articles by Renfrew and M. P. Charles in BSA I ( 1984).

79

80 BICS 33 (1986)

the figs and vines: these were grown in Babylonia, but the extremes of temperature mean thatthey do not thrive, and most wine was in fact importedTe (see dictionaries under serdu, karanuand tittu; also C. C. Townsend and E. Guest, Flora rf lraq, vol. IV/1 (1980), 87, forficoculture). All three are still grown today (Handbook, 463).80 Furthermore, other fruit treescertainly did exist.8r

He is right about the extensive use of sesame oilE2 but his estimates of grain yields of 200- or300-foldE3 are rnuch too large. Calculating yields from the cuneiform sources is greatlyhampered by the use of differing metrologies and baffling scribal practices (see articles byPostgate and Maekawa in BSA I). It seems that a yield of 16 xis attested from the ED period,but even the standard 30 x of Ur III has been criticised as being far too high (for instance, Butz,R LA,' Landwirtschaft' ).

Another point treated with scepticism is the enorrnous height to which the millet grew (suchthat he refrained from recording it exactly, as 'no-one who has not been to Babylonia wouldever believe me' (i.193.4)). But here our author is right on the mark: the species Giant Milletstil l grows in Iraq, reaching heights of 4 m. or more (Townsend, 544, Handbook,46l).8a

The Date-Palm (I. 193.4-5)

It is scarcely possible to over-estimate the importance of the palm in the agricultural economyof Iraq.ss This was just as true in ancient times and Herodotus is exactly right in drawing thisout. He notes that the tree supplied food, wine86 and honey, though there are many other by-products in addition: charcoal and fodder from the stones,s7 rope from the fibre, timber, fueland ladders from the trunk, fuel, roofing and fencing from the fronds, chairs, baskets, beds andcages from the mid-ribs, are just a few.

Herodotus is however confused in his description of the fertilisation: the method used forfigs is not employed for the palm, which is fertilised by cutting open the female inflorescenceand inserting it into the male spathe, or dusting pollen over it.

The Keloneion (L193.1)

This is certainly the shadouf, which consists of a bucket on a pole 13-15 ft. long pivoted on anupright pole 3-4 ft. long. It is depicted on a relief of Sennacherib (Salonen, AgriculturaMesopotamic'a (1968), pl.IX) and on an Akkadian cylinder seal (ibid. Pl.IVa) and is still in usetoday.

7e See W. F. Leemans, ForeignTrade in tke OB Period (1960), 102-107,127 and 136.80 There were of course a host of lesser fruits and vegetables.Er Dowson, 1921, lists a large number of varieties that are planted amongst date-groves today.8r Though there has been much debate whether the Akkadian shamashshammu, though etymologically the word

'sesame', actual ly denoted l inseed; J. Renfrew apud BSA II (1985) for the latest on this.Er Strabo 15.3.1 1 ascribes 100- to 200-fo1d to Susiana,EaPerhaps we rhus also accept Ashurbanipal's boast that in his reign the grain grew 5 cubits high (ARAB lI'769),

though the word here is she'u ('barley', but also more generally 'grain') not duhnu (millet).85 See in particular Dowson, 1921, and Landsberger's The Date-Palm and its By-products (1961).E6 Date-wine is also mentioned by Xenophon, Anab. 2.3.1.4.8r Mentioned in Strabo ( 16. l.l4), one of the few places where his parallel account materially expands on Herodotus.

J. MACGINNIS

Conclusion

Let us now bring all this together to ask: did Herodotus visit Babylonia? There have been

great scholars on both sides of the question;88 though the trend is clearly swinging in

Herodotus' favour as time strides on and cuneiform studies and Mesopotamian archaeology

matures. It has been claimed that in the 5th century BC it would have been difficult to reach

Babylon from the Greek world,Ee and whilst the Akkadian cylinder seals from Cyprus and the

OB ones from Crete may be taken as raritiese0 there is evidence of almost routine contact with

the Greek West - Cyprus (Iadnanu) and Ionia (Iamanu) - from the time of Sargon II.er In

fact there were thriving foreign communities in Babylonia in the Persian period (Oppenheim,

1985, 579; Cook, 203) as well as imports from Ionia (oppenheim, JCS 21 (1967)). These

would have come via Phoenicia, and as (Assyria and) Babylonia were in close contact with

Phoenicia in the first millennium,e2 and as Herodotus specifically says he went to Tyre (ii.44)'

there can be no problem about the route he took'

But let his description of Babyion and Babylonia speak for itself; we shall tabulate the results

of our researches as follows:

ASSESSMENT OF HERODOTUS' DESCRIPTION

81

RIGHTGeneral GeographyRainfallHirCanalsShadoufMain CropsDate-PalmBoats

WRONGLength of wallsHeight of wallsAssyria = BabyloniaHistoryPalm Fertilisation

OBSCUREruNCERTAIN3 or 4-roofed HousesBurial in HoneyStairway of the ZiggtmatTemple ProstitutionAuctioning GirlsLaying out the SickArdericcaFish-eaters

Double Walls

Quay WallGatesBrick-makingZiggunat TowerUpper TempleLower TempleWorship of BelStreetsBridgeNebuchadnezzar's'Median' Wall

Seals

88 Summarised by Baumgartner,6gf: against Herodotus having gone are Rawlinson, Sayce, Delitzsch, Weissbach'

Meissner and blmstead; for him are King, Oppenheim, Lehmann, Ravn (86) and Wetzel (1944, 68); note that

Wetzel (1950, 5l-2) believes that neither Strabo nor Diodorus nor Curtius Rufus went to Babylon.

8o So Lister. lS7q. 84.e0 Also the (OB) inscription of Naram-Sin of Eshnunna from Kythera, which could have been brought there at a

much later date (Weidner , 1939, JHS 59).ersee arr icles by Roll ig in the RLA under'Griechen' and ' Ionier ' , also Astour, JNES 23 (1964); there was heavy

Greek contact with Egypt from the 7th century onwards (Lloyd' 1975' 1;?-60)

e2 From as early as Lugalzagesi (about 2300 BC) comes the boast ofthe monarch to have ruled from the Upper to the

Lower Sea.

82 B/CS 33 (1986)

StaffsClothes (?)

Waters of the KingGnomon and Polos (ii.109)

As mentioned, although some figs and vines were grown in Babylonia, the climate was reallyunsuitable and the amounts are not likely to have been large. Everything labelled 'obscure'could derive from some genuine practice, and of the 'wrong' the history that he records iseasily explained as from some source who did not have access to the official records: andthough his dimensions for the height and length of the walls are undoubtedly incorrect, it isabsurd to condemn him on this if his measurements are his own rough estimate, or againderived from folk tradition. As mentioned above there is only one classical writer whoconsistently and conectly distinguishes Assyria and Babylon(ia).

The Date and Season

If, then, Herodotus did go to Babylon, it will be of interest to see if we can determine when.The date is most closely fixed by association with the visit to Egypt: scholars disagree as towhether this preceded (Powell, 1939,28;' Lloyd, 1975,66), or followed (Ravn,59; Lister, 83)or whether we cannot tell (Jacoby, 1913, col. 265f). Fortunately this cannot affect the dating ofthe stay in Babylon by more than a year or two. Lloyd (1975,61) points out that the visit toEgypt must have been after the battle of Papremis (459 BC), the site of which Herodotusdescribes in 1ii.12; that moreover it is not likely to have been before the Peace of Callias in44918 as Egypt had been at the centre of Athenian-Persian conflict; and that the reference inSophocles' Antigone 904ff implies that Herodotus must have been in Athens by 443 BC.r3

The season should be determined by the vegetation,ea and the decisive piece of evidence mustbe that he saw the millet just before harvest (i.193.4): millet is a summer crop, cut from July toOctober (Handbook, 461-2; Charles inBSA I (1984),3l ; Townsend,486, 502,544). This issupported by the fact that sesame too is a summer crop (Handbook, 461). As the Euphrates isnavigable all through the year by small craft (Chesney, vol.I, 45; Handbook, 26-35; thoughwith difficulty during the flooding which reaches its height in May), Herodotus' note on theriver-craft is not relevant here, and Ravn (59) need not be right in assuming that becauseHerodotus calls the Euphrates'swift'(i.180.1) he was there during the floods, and so beforeJune. It is worth noting that the three layers of clothing recorded by Herodotus in i. 195 mightmean that he was there during winter. This all adds up to a late time during the millet harvest,so most likely October.e5

At any rate, Ravn must surely be right (95) in thinking that the brevity of Herodotus'description (par-ticularly in comparison with Egypt or Scythia) must mean that he was inBabylon for only a short while.

er Powell ( 1939, 38) also dates the composition of the Historles to 448-442; W erzel (1944,48) reckons on 470-460,but without quoting evidence. Jacoby (1913, col l . 265-7) opts for 448-7. See also Forrest, 1984.

ea Though be cautioned how Lloyd (1975,72) has proved that Sourdille's conclusions on the season of the visit toEgypt are invalid simply because he fails to distinguish between what he actuatly saw and what he is merelyreporting.

e5 Contra Saggs (RLA under'Herodot') , and Jacoby (1913, col. 263), who opr for Apri l-May.

J. MACGINNIS

Herodotus' Sources

Herodotus himself acknowledges his debt to the so-called 'Ionic Logographers'e6 (for instance,ii.3, 15, 16,20-23; iv.45) such as Dionysus of Miletus, Charon of Lampascus and Hellanicus ofLesbos, and Drews (1969) has demonstrated that Herodotus used a predecessor on chronology,mildly suggesting Dionysus of Miletus (n.36). In particular, however, it is Hecataeus ofMiletus, whose wider importance in relation to the Histories is not in doubt,eT who may have

been a source for Herodotus' description of Babylon. This view was held by Jacoby ( l9l3 col.426), specifically with respect to i.180.1, i.189.1 and i.196.1-2, none of which is convincing)

and Saggs (RLA 'Herodot', 332), but as Hecataeus would primarily have been a source forgeography, while his 9th Satrapy (Babylon and Assyria) is the only one not to be described in

detai l in his Periodos Ges (Jacoby,1912,col.2725; text in Klausen,214, ch.88), i t camot besupported.

Lehmann (1898) argued that the many passages in Strabo similar to ones in Herodotusderived not from the former borrowing from the latter, but from both using a common source.e8However, examination shows that all the differences, where not trivial, can best be explainedby the suggestion that Strabo was using another source(s) in addition to Herodotus.

As to the sources in Babylon, it is first important to wam that any conclusions we reach willnecessarily be tentative, because of the fact that we do not possess the Assyrioi Logoi in theirentirety (see above), so that our perception will be distorted. Rawlinson (1880, 62) alreadynoted that Herodotus does not reflect the great learning of the priestsee but it is just this detail ofliterature, history, science and religious practice that we would expect to have comprised theLogoi. But there are other clues.

Firstly, hitherto unnoticed, the promise to tell of 'the many kings of Babylon who helped to

forttfi the city and embellish its temples' (i.184) suggests that he was read out texts of precisely

the nature of most of the NB royal inscriptions (see VAB IV). These would have beenaccessible only in the temple or palace archives, and as we shall see it is clear that Herodotusdid not penetrate the palace (see below).100

Secondly, on several occasions Herodotus quotes his sources (i.181.5; 182.1; 183.1-3), andeach time it is the 'Chaldeans'. These were properly a people from Southem Babylonia thatproduced the dynasty of Nabopolassar,iol but in view of the later Greek (and Roman) belief thatthe Chaldeans were astrologers (Strabo 16.1.6, Pliny, NH 6l2Iff; Rochberg-Halton,.INES 43(198a); this sense also in Daniel ii.4) and the fact that astrological scholars were probably basedin the temple,rO2 one assumes that by 'Chaldeans' Herodotus must mean temple staff, whether

e6See Oppenheim, "INES 19 (1960), 146, for a suggestion that these may have arisen out of the tradition thatproduced narrative such as that of Sargon's Eighth Campaign.

e7 As acknowledged by Herodotus; Jacoby (1912, col.2744) demonstrated how Herodotus made use of Hecataeus''Genealogiai'. See also Lloyd, 1975, 127f; Myres, 23; and Griffiths, JNES 25 (1966).

e8 Followed by Lawrence in his notes on i.198 nos. 1 and 2, and Baumgafiner, i01.eeAn exception to this may be his statement in ii.109 that the gnomon and polos originated in Babylon. Cooks's

statement (16) that this was due to Herodotus only having access to the lower ranks of the priesthood is illogical,since the information available to priests of all rank would have been identical.

100So Huxley,211: '(Herodotus) took the opportunity to discuss chronological matters with the keeper of thearchives.'

r01 For the people see Brinkman, 1968,260-267.102 Wiseman (1985, 99) associates astrology with Esagil; otherwise Ezida, the temple of Nabu, comes to mind with

its library, to judge by the contents of the Ezida temples in Nimrud, Nineveh and Khorsabad; the scholarsresponsible for astrological omina (primarily the series Enuma Anu Enlil) were also expert in the series ShummaAlu and Shumma Izbu (Oppenheim, Centaurus 14 (1969),99; and Kinnier Wilson, 1972, 2I). They were notnecessarily priests (and this is denied by Landsberger - see for example his Brief des Bischofs t'on Esagila

83

84 B1C,t 33 (r986)

ornottheywere,orhethoughtthemtobe,pr iests. This istheconclusionalsoofJacoby(1913,col.262) and Orthmann (RLA, 'Kaldu' , VI.2), denied by Drews (1913,181, n.124), but surelyconfirmed by the fact that all the matters for which they are quoted as the source - the womanin the Upper Temple and the entry therein of the god; the weight of the golden statue in theLower Temple; the earlier existence of a second statue - bear on temple matters.Furthermore, Diodorus describes the Chaldeans as temple staff specialising in divination(2.29.2); Berossos claims that he was a 'Chaldean, a priest of Bel' (Burstein, 13 n.2); andCurtius Rufus (5.1.22) places them between the Magi and the prophets in the lists of peoplegreeting Alexander's entry into Babylon. So it seems acceptable to propose that they were thedivination-priests. Less certain would be the suggestion that as the Chaldean language referredto by Berossus (Burstein, 14,I.2.2) was Babylonian, that these divination (and other?) priestsstlll spoke Babylonian (as opposed to Aramaic).r03

Lastly, note that Drews has shown (1969) that Herodotus had access to at least some Persiansources; perhaps, as Wells (1907), the Zophyrus whom Herodotus could have met in 44I10.'u

Wetzel (1944,49-50) wonders why he does not describe the Ishtar Gate or the HangingGardens, but the fcrmer may have fallen into decay (and may in any case be the SemiramisGate) whilst the latter was part of the royal palace,ro5 and, as we have already seen, it isprobable that he did not penetrate the palaces. Similarly, Wetzel's point that Herodotus did notdescribe either the New Year Festival or the Bit Akiti is invalid if we are correct in placing hisvisit at the end of the summer (see above). In short we may be astonished at the accuracy'06 ofthe account; and when noting also that Herotodus' saying in i.193.4, 'I shall not record theheight to which the sesame and millet grows ... because no-one who has not been to Batryloniawould ever believe me', is a vifiual acknowledgement that he had been there, I find no possibleremaining reason to doubt that he did.107

Trinity College, Cambridge

BIBLIOGRAPHYBarnett R. D., 'Xenophon and the Walls of Media', JHS 83 (1963).

Baumgartner W., 'Herodots babylonische und assyrische Nachrichten', Archiv Orientalni 18/1( 1950).Bergamini G., 'Levels of Babylon Reconsidered', Mesopotamia 12 (1977).

Brinkman J., A Politicctl History of Post-Cassite Babylonia (1968).

Bum A. R., Persia and the Greeks (1962).

(1965), 312 n.8). though note that several ofthose sending reports to the Assyrian king were mashmashshu orA'alrr (Oppenheim, op. r'it., 100) and that in Seleucid Uruk the chief-priest, sheshgallu, was often an astrologer,tupshar Enuma Anu Enli l , as well (McEwan, 1981,'Priest and Temple in Hellenist ic Babylonia', 16 and 198).Wiseman ( 198-5, 73) is of the opinion that the ziggurrat was used for astronomy.

r03 Nevertheless, Wiseman (1985,88) holds that the 'Chaldean astrologers l ived in a special quarter olthe city andwere distinguished from the tribe of the same name', but does not quote his evidence for the statement.

roa Though it is difficult to gauge the plausibility of Zophyrus carrying round the records that provided the basis forthe Tribute List in Book III, the details of the Royal Road in V and the Army-Role in VII.

105 For the latest on the Hanging Gardens, see Wiseman, 1985, 56ff.106Especial ly i f he took no notes (Spiegelberg,3T; Ravn,93; Moberg, 162; Fehling, 17,1; Baumgartner, T9), though

there is no evidence for that, even if Herodotus was no more than a casual visitor (Baumgartner's 'interessierterGlobetrotter', p. 105) rather than on a mission specific to collecting materials for the Histories. I may as well addhere that it seems to me just as probable that his plan to write the Histories was conceived after and because of histravel s.

107And so oisagree with the astonishing statment of Sayce (108 n.3) - and even more astonishing concurrence ofRavn (92) that 'we need not regret the loss of his Assyrian History' .

J. MACGINNIS 85

Burstein S. M., The Babyloniaca of Berossas (1978).

Cameron G., Persepolis Treasury Tablets (1948).

Chesney F. R., The Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris (2 vols.)(1850).

Cook J. M.,The Persian Empire (1983).

Delitzsch K. (apud Sachau Festschrift), 'Zu Herodotus babylonischen Nachrichten' (1915).

Dougherty R. P., Nabonidus and Belshazzar (1929).

Dowson V. H. W.. Dates and Date Cultivation in the Iraq (3 vols.) (1921-3).

Drews R., 'Assyria in Classical Universal Histories', Historia 14 (1965).

Drews R., 'The Fall of Astyages: Herodotus' Chronology of Eastern Kingdoms', Historia l8(1969).

Drews R., 'Herodotus' Other Logoi', AJP 362 (1910).

Drews R., The Greek Accounts of Eastern History (1973).

Drews R., 'Sargon, Cyrus and Mesopotamian Folk History' , JNES 33 (I9'14).

Drews R., 'The Babylonian Chronology of Berossos' , Iraq 31 (1915).

Fehling D., Die Quellenangabe bei Herodot (1911).

Forrest W. G., 'Herodotus and Athens', Phoenix 38 (1984).

Frankfort H., Cylinder Seals (1939).

Frankfort H., Kingship and the Gods (1948) (repr. 1978).Frankfort H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (1979) (Pelican 4th paperback

revision).George A. R., Babylonian Topographical Texts (1985) (unpublished dissertation of the

University of Birmingham, England).Handbook: Iraq and the Persian Gulf (Admiralty Handbook) (1944).

Holzhey K., Asssur und Babel in der Kenntniss der Griechisch-Romischen Welt (1921).

How W. W. and Wells J., A Commentary on Herodotus (1912).

Hrouda B., Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes (1965).

Huxley G., 'A Fragment of the Assyrioi Logoi of Herodotus', GRBS 6 (1965).

Jacoby, F., 'Herodot' in Pauly-Wissowa supplement II (1912).

Jacoby F., 'Hekataios' in Pauly-Wissowa VII.2 (1913).

King L. W., Babylonian Boundary Stones (1912).

King L. W., Bronze Reliefs from the Gate of Shalmaneser III (1915).

Kinnier Wilson J.Y.,The NimrudWine Lists (1972).

Klausen R. H., Hecataei Milesii Fragmenta (1831).

Koldewey R., 'Die Tempeln von Babylon und Borsippa' ,WVDOG 15 (1911).

Koldewey R.,The Excavations at Babylon (1914) (trans. from the German of 1913).

Koldewey R., 'Das Ischtar-Tor in Babylon',WVDOG 32 (1918).

Koldewey R., 'Die Konigsburgen von Babylon I + II', WVDOG 54+55 (1931-2).

Konig F. W., 'Die Persica des Ktesias von Knidas' , AfO Beiheft 18 (1972).

Kramer S. N., Z/ze Sacred Marriage Rite (1969).

Lane W. H., Babylonian Problems (1923).

Lawrence A. W., Herodotus (1935).

Leca A. P.,The Cult of the Immortal (1980) (from the French of 1976).

Legrand Ph- E., Herodote (1932).

Lehmann C.F. (apud H. Kiepert Festschrift), 'Zu Herodot und Hecataeus' (1898).

Lister R. P., The Travels of Herodotus (1979).

Llovd A. B." Herodotus Book II: Introduction (1975).

86 BICS 33 (1986)

Lloyd A. B., Commentary on Herodotus II 1-98 (19'16).

Melkman J., 'Labynetus', Mnemosyna 9 (3rd Series) (I94I).

Menzel 8., Das assyrische Tempel (1981).Moberg A., 'Herodotus and Modem reconstructions of the Tower of Babel', Monde Oriental2-5 (1931).Myres J., Herodotus the Father rf History (1953).

Olmstead A. T., H istory of the Persian Empire ( 1948).Oppenheim A.L., Ancient Mesopotamia (1964).

Oppenheim A. L., Cambridge History of Iran II (1985) ch. 10, 'The Babylonian Evidence ofAchaemenid Rule in Mesopotamia'.Pallis S. A.,The Babl,lonian Akitu Festival (1926).Parrot A., Ziggurrats et Tour de Babel (1949).

Powell J.8.. A Leric:on to Herodotus (1938).

Powell J. E., The Hisrories of Herodotus ( 1939).Ravn O., Herodotus' Description of Babylon (1942).Rawlinson G., 'On the Birs Nimrud, or the Great Temple of Borsippa', -IRAS 18 (1861).

Rawlinson G.,The Histories of Herodotus, 3rd edition (1880).

Reuther O., 'Die Innenstadt von Babylon',WVDOG 41 (1926).

Saggs H. W. C., Assyriology and the Study of the Old Testamenr (1969).

Salonen A., Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien (1939).

Salonen A., Die Fussbekleidung der alten Mesopotamier (1969).

Sayce A. H., The Empires of rhe East ( 1883).Schmid H., 'Ergebnisse einer Grabung am Kernmassen der Zikkurrat in Babylon' , BaghdaderMirteilungen 12 (198 l).Spiegelberg W ., The Credibility of Herodotus' Account of Egypt (1927).

Tallqvist K., Akkadische Gotterepithetd (1938).

Townsend C. C. and Guest E., Flora of lra4IX (Gramina) (1968).

Unger E., Babylon die heilige Stadt (1931).

Weissbach F. H., 'Babylonische Miscellen', WVDOG 4 (1903).

WeissbachF. H., 'Review of Unger, 1931' ,ZA4l (1933).

Wells J., 'The Persian Friends of Herodotus', -IHS 2l (190'7).

Wetzel F., 'Die Stadtmauem von Babylon',WVDOG 48 (1930).

Wetzel F., 'Das Hauptheiligtum in Babylon, Esagila und Etemenanki',WVDOG 59 (1938).

Wetzel F., 'Babylon zur Zeit Herodots', ZA 48 (NF 14) (1944).

Wetzel F., iBabylon bei den klassischen Schriftstellem ausser Herodot', MDOG 82 (1950).

Werzel F., Schmidt and Mallwitz, 'Das Babylon der Sp2itzeit',WVDOG 62 (1957).

Wiseman D. J., 'A Babylonian Architect?', Anatolian Studies 22 (1972)

Wiseman D. J ., N ebuchadrezzar and Babylon ( I 985).Wood H.,The Histories of Herodotus (1912).