Listed 19 sub titles with search on: Information about the place for wider area of: "MESSOPOTAMIA Ancient area PERSIAN GULF" .
ASSYRIA (Ancient country) PERSIAN GULF
Assyria (he Assuria, Herod. ii. 17, iv. 39: Ptol. vi. 1. § 1; Steph.
B.; Arrian, Anab. vii. 21: Assyria, Tacit. Ann. xii. 13; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6;
Atouria, Strab.xvi. p. 736; Steph. s. v. Ninos; Dion. Cass. lxviii.; Athura, on
Pers. Cun. Inscr., and Assura, on the Median, Rawl. J. As. Soc. xi. pt. i. p.
10: Eth. Assyrii, Assurioi, Steph. ; Herod. i. 193; Assures, Steph.; Eustath.
in Dion. de Situ Orbis, p. 70), a district of Asia, the boundaries of which are
variously given in the Greek and Roman writers, but which, in the strictest and
most original sense, comprehended only a long narrow territory, divided on the
N. from Armenia by M. Niphates, on the W. and SW. from Mesopotamia and Babylonia
by the Tigris; on tie SE. from Susiana, and on the E. from Media,by the chain
of the Zagrus. Itwas,in fact, nearly the same territory as the modern Pacha-lik
of Mosul, including the plain land below the Kurdistdan and Persian mountains.
Its original name, as appears from the Cuneiform Inscriptions, is best represented
by Aturia (Atouria), which strabo (xvi. 736) says was part of Assyria (as understood
at the time when he wrote); although Dion Cassius seems to consider that this
form of the name was a barbarous mis-pronunciation. In later times, as appears
from Pliny (vi. 12) and Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 6), it bore the name of Adiabene,
which was properly a small province between the Tigris, Lycus (or Zabatus), and
the Gordiaean mountains. (Dion Cass. lxviii.; Ptol. vi. 1. § 2.)
In the wider sense Assyria comprehended the whole country which was
included in Mesopotamia and Babylonia (Strab. xvi. p. 736), while it was often
confounded with adjoining nations by the Greek and Roman writers: thus, in Virg.
(Georg. ii. 465), Assyrio veneno is used for Tyrio; in Nonn. Dionys. (xli. 19)
the Libanus is called Assyrian; and in Dion. Perieg. (v. 975) the Leuco-Syrians
of Pontus and Cappadocia are termed Assyrians. It is curious that Scylax of Caryanda
placed Assyria among the nations on the Pontus Enxinus, between the Chalybes and
Paphlagonia, and includes in it the river Thermodon and the Greek towns of Thermodon,
Sinope, and Harmene. (Scyl. Car. ap. Hudson. Geogr. Graec. Min. p. 33.) The author
of the Etymologicumn Magnum has preserved a tradition (Etym. Maqn. in voc.) from
Xenocrates, that this land was originally called Euphratis, then Chaldaea, and
lastly, from Assyrus the son of Suses, Assyria: he appears also to consider it
as the same as Babylonia.
The chief mountains of ancient Assyria are known under the general
name of the chain of Zagrus, which extended, under various denominations, along
the whole of its eastern frontier from N. to S., and separated it from Media and
Persia.
Its rivers may be all considered as feeders of the Tigris, and bore
the names of Zabatus (Zabatos), Zabas, Zerbis, or Lycus, which rose in the N.
mountains of Armenia; the Bumadus or Bumodus; the Caprus; the Tornadotus or Physcus
(Phuskos); the Silla or Delas,- probably the same stream which elsewhere bears
the names of Diabas, Durus (Douros), and Gorgus (Gorgos); and the Gyndes. Its
provinces are mentioned by Ptolemy and Strabo under the following names: Aturia,
Calacene or Calachene, Chazene, Arrhapachitis,Adiabene, Arbelitis, Apolloniatis
or Chalonitis, and Sittacene; though there is some difference between the two
geographers, both as to their relative extent and as to their positions.
Its chief cities were: Ninus (he Ninos), its most ancient and celebrated
capital, Nineveh; Ctesiphon (he Ktesiphon), the seat of government under the Parthian
rulers; Arbela (ta Arbela), Gaugamela (ta Gaugamela), Apollonia, Artemita, Opis,
Chala or Celonae (Kelonai), and Sittace (Slttake) or Sitta.
It is of considerable importance to distinguish as accurately as we
can between the land or territory comprehended under the name of Assyria, and
the kingdom or empire which was established in that country. The former, as we
have seen, was, strictly speaking, only a small province, at first probably little
more than the district to the NE. of the junction of the Tigris and the Zabatus.
The latter varied very much, both in power and extent, according to the individual
influence and successful conquests of particular kings. For the history of the
Assyrian empire the materials at our command are extremely limited, and the sources
from which we must draw our conclusions have not - with the exception of the Bible,
which only describes the later portion of Assyrian history-been preserved to us
in the works of the original writers. Considerable discrepancy, therefore, prevails
in the accounts which the copyists of the more ancient documents have left to
us; so that it is by no means easy to derive from their comparison a satisfactory
view of the origin or progress of this ancient empire.
It seems, however, useful to put together as concisely as possible
the results of the narratives which occur in the three principal and differing
authorities; so that the amount of real knowledge to be obtained from them may
be more readily perceived. We shall therefore state what is known of Assyrian
history from: 1. The Bible. 2. Herodotus. 3. Ctesias, and others who have more
or less borrowed from his work.
1. The Bible. There is no reason to doubt that the earliest notice which
we have of Assyria is that in Gen. x. 10, et seq., in which Nimrod, the grandson
of Ham, is mentioned as possessing a kingdom at the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad,
and Calneh, in the land of Shinar; and Assur as having gone out from that land,
and founded the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen. The inference from
this statement is that the country round Babel (afterwards called Babylonia) was
the elder empire, and Assyria (which, according to universal opinion, has derived
its name from Assur) a colony or dependency of Nimrod's original kingdom. After
this first notice a long period elapsed, during which the Bible has no allusion
to Assyria at all; for the passages where that name occurs (Num. xxiv. 22; Psal.
lxxiii. 9) have no historical importance; and it is not till the reign of Menahem,
king of Israel, B.C. 769, that we have any mention of an Assyrian king. From that
time, however, to the absorption of the empire of Assyria Proper into that of
Babylon, we have a line of kings in the Bible, who shall be briefly mentioned
here, together with the dates during which they reigned, according to the general
consent of chronologers. 1. Pul, the first king of Assyria in Holy Scripture,
invaded Palestine about the fortieth year of Uzziah, B.C. 769 (2 Kings, xv. 19),
but was induced by Menahem to retire, on receiving a present of 1000 talents.
2. Tiglath-pileser, who succeeded Pul, was on the throne before the death of Pekah,
king of Israel, B.C. 738, and had previously conquered Syria (2 Kings, xv. 29,
xvi. 5-9); though the precise date of his accession is not determinable. 3. About
ten years later Shalmaneser was king, in the beginning of the reign of Hoshea,
B.C. 730, and he was still living at the capture of Samaria, B.C. 721. (2 Kings,
xvii. 1-9, xviii. 9-11.) 4. Sennacherib was on the throne eight years after the
fall of Samaria, and must therefore have succeeded his father between B.C. 721
and 713. (2 Kings, xviii. 13; Is. xxxvi. 1.) He was slain by his sons fifty-five
days after his flight from Palestine, B.C. 711. (Clinton, F. H. p. 273; Tobit,
i. 21.) 5. Esarhaddon, his son, succeeded Sennacherib (2 Kings, xix. 37), but
we have no means of determining from the Bible to what length his reign extended.
During some portion of it, it may be inferred from the story of Manasseh (2 Chron.
xxxiii. 11) that he was master of Babylon. 6. Nabuchodonosor is the last king
of Assyria mentioned in the Bible; but whether he immediately succeeded Esarhaddon
we have no means of telling. The date of his accession is fixed to B.C. 650, as
it coincided with the forty-eighth year of Manasseh. His reign is remarkable for
the overthrow of the Median king Arphaxad (Phraortes), B.C. 634, and the expedition
of Holophernes against Judaea in B.C. 633. During the last part of it, also, the
invasion of the Scythians must have occurred. Subsequently to Nabuchodonosor no
king of Assyria Proper appears in Holy Scripture, and the Empire of the East is
in the hands of the rulers of Babylon. The fall of Nineveh itself may be determined
to the year B.C. 606.
2. Herodotus. The notice in Herodotus of the history of Assyria is very
brief; and there seems reason to suppose that it is so because he had already
treated of Assyria in another work which is now lost (Her. i. 106-184); if, indeed,
we may infer from those passages that Herodotus really did compose a separate
work on Assyrian history.
According to him (Her. i. 95), the Assyrian empire had lasted 520
years, when the Medians revolted. Now, it may fairly be inferred, that the Median
revolt did not take place till after the death of Sennacherib, in B.C. 711. According,
therefore, to this theory, the Assyrian empire must have dated from about, B.C.
1231. Josephus (Ant. x. 2) confirms this for the period of the independence of
the Medes; though the subsequent evidence of the Bible proves that the Assyrian
empire was not overthrown, as he supposes, by the Median defection. Herodotus
mentions afterwards (Her. i. 106) the capture of Ninus (Nineveh) by Cyaxares the
Mede; the date of which - allowing for the twenty-eight years of the nomad Scythian
invasion - coincides, as we shall see hereafter, with the year B.C. 606. Herodotus
says little more about Assyria Proper. When, as in i. 177-178, he speaks of Assyria
and the great cities which it contained, it is clear from the context that he
is speaking of Babylonia; and when, as in vii. 63, he is describing the arms of
the Assyrians in the army of Xerxes, he evidently means the inhabitants of N.
W. Mesopotamia, for he adds that the people whom the Greeks called Syri, were
termed by the Barbarians, Assyrii.
3. Ctesias. The remains of Assyrian history in Ctesias, preserved by
Diodorus (ii. 1-31), differ widely from the Bible and Herodotus. According to
him, Ninus, the first king, was succeeded by Semiramis, and she by her son Ninyas,
who was followed by thirty kings, of whom Sardanapalus was the last. A period
of 1306 years is given to these thirty-three reigns, the last of which, according
to his chronology, must have been in B.C. 876, - as Ctesias adds four reigns (158
years) to the 128 years which Herodotus gives for the continuance of the separate
kingdom of Medes. On this theory, the commencement of the Assyrian empire must
have been in B.C. 2182; and, to make the story in Ctesias harmonize at all with
the Bible and Herodotus, we must suppose that there were two Median revolts: the
first, a partial one, in B.C. 876, when the Medes became independent of Assyria,
but did not destroy the seat of go. vernment; and the second, and more complete
one, in B.C. 606, when, in conjunction with the Babylonians, they sacked Ninus
(Nineveh), and put an end to the separate existence of the Assyrian empire. Ctesias
himself imagined that Nineveh was destroyed at the time of the first Median revolt
(Diod. ii. 7), - the only one, indeed, mentioned by him.
Many writers have more or less followed Ctesias in assigning a very
high antiquity to the Assyrian empire. Thus Strabo (xvi. p. 737) - grouping Assyria
and Babylonia together, as countries inhabited by those whom the Greeks called
generically Syrians - states that Ninus founded Nineveh, and his wife Semiramis
Babylon; and that he bequeathed the empire to his descendants to the time of Sardanapalus
and Arbaces. He adds that it was overthrown by the Medes, and that Ninus (its
capital) ceased to exist in consequence (ephanisthe parachrema meta ten ton Suron
katalusin).
Nicolaus Dam. (ap. Excerpt. Vales. p. 229) makes Ninus and Semiramis
the first rulers of Ninus. Aemilius Sura (ap. Velleium, i. 1, 6) gives 1995 years
as the time from Ninus to Antiochus, which would place the commencement of the
empire at B.C. 2185. Justin (i. 1, 3) mentions Ninus, Semiramis, and Ninyas, in
succession, and adds that the Assyrians, who were afterwards called Syrians, ruled
1300 years, and that Sardanapalus was their last king. Velleius (i. 6) gives 1070
years for the duration of the Assyrian empire, and makes its transference to the
Medes occur 770 years before his time. Duris (ap. Athenaeum, xii. p. 529, a.)
mention the names of Arbaces and Sardanapalus, but describes the fate of the latter
differently from other writers. Abydenus (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 12, p. 36) speaks
of Ninus and Semiramis, and places the last king Sardanapalus 67 years before
the first Olympiad, or B.C. 840. Castor (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 13, p. 36) calls
Belus the first Assyrian king in the days of the Giants; and names Ninus, Semiramis,
Zames (or Ninyas), and their descendants in order, to Sardanapalus.
Cephalion - according to Suidas, an historian in the reign of Hadrian
(Euseb. Chron. i. 15, p. 41) - followed Ctesias in most particulars, but made
Sardanapalus the twenty-sixth king, and placed his accession in the 1013th year
of the empire, throwing back the period of the revolt of Arbaces 270 years. According
to him, therefore, the Median independence began in B.C. 1150, and the Assyrian
empire in B.C. 2184. Eusebius himself mentions thirty-six kings, and gives 1240
years from Ninus to Sardanapalus; placing the Median revolt forty-three years
before O1. 1, er at B.C. 813. (Euseb. Chron. i. p. 114.) Georgius Syncellus (p.
92, B.) commences with Belus, and reckons forty-one reigns, and 1460 years; placing
the commencement in B.C. 2285, and the termination in B.C. 826. His increased
number is produced byinterpolating four reigns after the twenty-seventh king of
Eusebius. Lastly, Agathias (ii. 25, p. 120) gives 1306, and Augustine (Civ. Dei,
xviii. 21) 1305 years, for the duration of the Assyrian empire.
We have been thus particular in mentioning the views of Ctesias and
his successors on the subject of the duration of the Assyrian empire, because
it seemed of importance that all which has been handed down to us should be made
accessible to students. We do not pretend to maintain that Ctesias has given us
the history as it really was,because it is contrary to universal experience that
there should be so numerous a succession of kings, reigning in order for the number
of years which must on the average have fallen to each, - and this, too, in an
Oriental land, where the per-petuity of any one dynasty is far less common than
in Europe. Yet, though the list of kings and their number may be wholly imaginary,
though there may never have been either a Ninus or Semiramis, the statement of
Ctesias - who, as Court Physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon had abundant opportunity
of consulting, and did consult the royal records (basilikai diphtherai) - is valuable,
as indicating a general belief that the Assyrian empire ascended to a far remoter
antiquity than that assigned to it by Herodotus. It is not, indeed, necessary
to suppose that the records of Herodotus and Ctesias contradict each other; though,
as we have shown, there is considerable discrepancy between them. A very acute
writer (Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis, Lond. 1851, p. 43) has conjectured,
and, we think with some probability on his side, that the two accounts confirm
and elucidate one another, and that one is the necessary complement to the other;
though we confess we are not wholly convinced by some of the chronological arguments
which he adduces.
According to Mr. Fergusson, the earlier period given by Ctesias to
the Median revolt, which that author says took place by the agency of Arbaces
the Mede and Belesys the Babylonian, is to be accounted for on the supposition,
that the result of the outbreak was the establishment of Arbaces and his descendants
on the throne of Ninus, under the name of Arbacidae ; and that Herodotus does
not allude to this, because he is speaking only of a native revolution under Deioces,
which he placed 100 years later. Mr. Fergusson considers that this theory is proved
by a passage which Diodorus quotes from (possibly some lost work of) Herodotus,
in which Herodotus states that between the overthrow of the Assyrian empire by
the Medes, and the election of Deioces an interregnum of several generations occurred
(Diod. ii. 32). We confess, however, that, though much ingenuity has been shown
in its defence, we are not converts to this new theory, but are content to believe
that the Median revolt did not take place till after the death of Sennacherib
B.C. 711, and that even then, agreeably with what the Bible would naturally lead
us to suppose, no change of dynasty took place-and that, though Media continued
for some years independent of the Assyrian power, it was not till the final overthrow
of Ninus (Nineveh) about B.C. 606, that the Medes succeeded in completely subduing
the territory which had. belonged for so many years to the Elder Empire.
With regard to the kings of Assyria mentioned in the Bible, commencing
with Pul, it may be worth while to state briefly some of the identifications with
classical names which have been determined by chronological students. Mr. Clinton
(F. H. vol. i. p. 263-283) has examined this subject with great learning, and
to him we are indebted for the outline of what follows. According to Mr. Clinton,
it is clear that the Sennacherib of Holy Scripture does not correspond with the
Sennacherib of Polyhistor and Abydenus, who have ascribed to him many acts which
are much more likely to be true of his son Esarhaddon. Esarhaddon (under the name
of Sardanapalus) loses the Median Empire, and is commemorated as the founder of
Tarsus and Anchiale (Schol. in Aristoph. Aves, v. 1022 ; Athen. xii. p. 529).
Again. the Sardanapalus of Abydenus is most likely the Nabuchodonosor of the Book
of Judith, who reigned 44 years, and invaded Judaea 27 years before the destruction
of Nineveh. The combined testimony of Hellanicus, Callisthenes, and Clitarchus,
go to establish the fact that the ancients believed in two Sardanapali-one, a
warlike prince who was reigning when the Medes revolted, and who seems to correspond
with the Scriptural Esarhaddon; and the other, named Saracus by Abydenus, but
by Ctesias,Sardanapalus,who was luxurious and effeminate in his habits, but who,
when his capital was attacked, made a gallant defence, and was burnt in his palace,
on the capture of his city. The Bible, as we have seen, does not mention the name
of the king who was on the throne at the time of the fall of Nineveh. Again, it
appears from Alexander Polyhistor and the Astronomical Canon, that Babylon had
always kings of her own from the earliest times: that they were sometimes subject
to the Assyrians, and sometimes independent - and that they never acquired extensive
dominion till the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The same view is confirmed as we have
seen from the narrative in the Bible (2 Kings xvii. 24.; Ezra iv. 2).
It may be remarked, that Clinton, agreeing with Usher and Prideaux,
attempts to distinguish between what he and they call the Assyrian Empire and
the Assyrian monarchy, supposing that the first terminated in the revolts of the
Medes, but that the latter was continued to the time of the final destruction
of Nineveh. We confess that we see no advantage in maintaining any such distinction.
It is clear that an Assyrian Royal house continued exercising great power till
the fall of Nineveh, whether we term that power an empire or a monarchy; and we
are not convinced that there is any statement of weight in any ancient author
from which it may be satisfactorily inferred that there was any change in the
ruling dynasty. One great impediment to the correct comparison of the account
in the Bible with those in profane authors, is the great variety of names under
which the Assyrian rulers are named - add to which the strong probability that
at the period of the compilation of the records of the Bible, the name Assyria
was not used with its proper strictness, and hence that some rulers who are there
called kings of Assyria were really chief governors of Babylonia or Mesopotamia.
The late remarkable discoveries in Assyria, many of them, as may fairly
be presumed, upon the site of its ancient capital Ninus, have thrown an unexpected
light upon the manners and customs of the ancient people of that land. The world
are greatly indebted to the zeal with which the excavations in that country have
been carried on by Mr. Layard and M. Botta, and it is probably only necessary
that the numerous inscriptions which have been disinterred should be fully decyphered,
for us to know more of the early history of Assyria than we do at present of any
other Eastern nation. Already a great step has been made towards this end, and
Col. Rawlinson, who has been so honourably distinguished for his remarkable decypherment
of the Rock Inscriptions of Dareius the son of Hystaspes, with other scholars
in England and France, has made considerable progress in determining the correct
interpretation of the Assyrian Cuneiform records. It is premature here to attempt
to lay before the public the results of their investigations, as the constant
discovery of new inscriptions tends almost necessarily to change, or at least
to modify considerably, previous statements, and earlier theories. It may, however,
be stated generally, that all that has yet been done appears to show that the
monuments of ancient Assyria ascend to a very early period; that many towns, known
from other sources to have been of very ancient foundation, have been recognised
upon the inscriptions, and that it is quite clear that the ruling city Ninus and
the kings resident in it possessed a very extensive empire at least as early as
the 15th century B.C. Those who wish to consider the bearing of the discoveries
of the inscriptions will find all that has yet been done in Rawlinson, Journ.
of As. Soc. vol. xii. pt. 2, vol. xiv. pt. 1; Hincks, Ibid. vol. xii. pt. 1; Botta,
Mem. sur l'Ecriture Assyr., Paris, 8vo. 1848; Lowenstein, Essai de dechiffr. de
l'Ecrit. Assyr. Paris, 4to. 1850.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited October 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
BABYLON (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
Babylon (Babulon), in later times called also Babylonia (Justin, i.
2; Solin. c.37: Eth. Babulonios, rarely Babuloneus, fem. Babulonis),the chief
town of Babylonia, and the seat of empire of the Babylonio-Chaldaean kingdom.
It extended along both sides of the Euphrates, which ran through the middle of
it, and, according to the uniform consent of antiquity, was,at the height of its
glory,of immense size. There seems good reason for supposing that it occupied
the site, or was at least in the immediate vicinity, of Babel, which is mentioned
in Genesis (x. 10) as the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom, and in Genesis (xi. 1-9)
as the scene of the confusion of tongues: its name is a Graecized form of the
Hebrew Babel. There is, however, no evidence that it was at an early period a
place of importance, or, like Ninus (Nineveh), the imperial seat of a long line
of kings. The name of Babel is said to be derived from the circumstance of its
having been the place of this confusion of tongues (Gen. xi. 9); another and perhaps
more natural derivation would give it the meaning of the gate or court of Bel,
or Belus, the Zeus of that country. A tradition of this event has been preserved
in Berossus, who says that a tower was erected in the place where Babylon now
stands, but that the winds assisted the gods in overthrowing it. He adds that
the ruins still exist at Babylon, that the gods introduced a diversity of tongues
among men, and that the place where the tower was built is called Babylon on account
of the confusion of tongues ; for confusion is by the Hebrews called Babel. (Beross.
ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix.; Syncell. Chron. 44; Euseb. Chron. 13.) A tradition
of the diversity of tongues and its cause is preserved also in a fragment of Histiaeus
(ap. Joseph. Ant. i. 4), and in Alex. Polyhist. (ap. Sync. 44, and Joseph. Ant.
i. 4). Eupolemus also (ap. Euseb. Fraep. Evang. ix.) attributes the foundation
of Babylon to those who escaped from the Deluge, and mentions the tower and its
overthrow. He adds that Abraham lived in a city of Babylonia called Camarina,
or by some Uric [i.e. Ur], which is interpreted to mean a city of the Chaldaeans.
Of Babel or Babylon, believing them, as we do, to represent one and
the same place, we have no subsequent notice in the Bible till the reign of Hoshea,
about B.C. 730 (2 Kings, xvii. 24), when the people of Samaria were carried away
captive. It seems probable that during this long period Babylon was a place of
little consequence, and that the great ruling city was the Assyrian capital Ninus.
As late as the time of Hezekiah (B.C. 728-700) it is clear that Babylon was dependent
on the Assyrian Empire, though Merodach-Baladan is mentioned in Isaiah (xxxix.
1) as, at that time, king or ruler in that city; for Polyhistor (ap. Euseb. Arm.
Chron. 42) states that after the reign of the brother of Sennacherib, Acises ruled;
and that, after Acises had reigned thirty days, he was slain by Merodach-Baladanus,
who held the government, but was in his turn slain and succeeded by Elibus. Polyhistor
adds that, in the third year of the reign of Elibus, Sennacherib came up and conquered
the Babylonians, took their king prisoner away into, Assyria, and made his own
son Asardanus king in his place. Abydenus (ap. Euseb. ibid. p. 53) states the
same thing, adding that he built Tarsus after the plan of Babylon. The fragments
preserved of Berossus, who lived in the age of Alexander the Great, and who testifies
to the existence of written documents at Babylon which were preserved with great
care, supply some names, though we have no means of ascertaining how far they
maybe depended on. The commencement of the narrative of Berossus is a marvellous
and fabulous account of the first origin of Babylonia. In it he speaks of Belus,
whom he interprets to mean Zeus,and states that some of the most remarkable objects
which he has noticed were delineated in the temple of that god at Babylon. (See
Castor, ap. Euseb. Arm. Chron. 81; Eupol. ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix.; Thallus,
ap. Theophan. ad Ant. 281; Aesch. Suppl. 318 and 322; Hesiod, Fragm. ap. Strab.
i. p. 42; and Eustath. ad Dionys. 927, for the name of Belus, and various legends
connected with it.) Berossus mentions the name Xisuthrus, and with him a legend
of a great flood, which has so remarkable a resemblance to the narrative of the
Bible, that it has been usual to suppose that Xisuthrus represents the Noah of
Holy Scripture; adding that, after the flood, the people returned to Babylon,
built cities and erected temples, and that thus Babylon was inhabited again. (Beross.
ap. Sync. Chron. 28 ; Euseb. Chron. 5. 8.) Apollodorus, professing to copy from
Berossus, gives a different and fuller list of rulers, but they are a mere barren
collection of names. (Apoll. ap. Sync. Chron. 39; Euseb. Chron. 5.) The Astronomical
canon of Ptolemy commences with the era of Nabonassar, whose reign began B.C.
747 twenty-three years after the appearance of the Assyrian King Pul, on the W.
of the Euphrates. It has been argued from this fact, in connection with a passage
in Isaiah (xxiii. 13) Behold the land of the Chaldees; this people was not, till
the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness, that the first
rulers of Babylon were of Assyrian origin; but this seems hardly a necessary inference.
It is, however, curious that Syncellus, after stating that the Chaldaeans were
the first who assumed the title of kings, adds that of these the first was Evechius,
who is known to us by the name of Nebrod (or Nembrod) who reigned at Babylon for
six years and one third. Nabonassar is said to have destroyed the memorials of
the kings who preceded him. (Sync. Chron. 207) Of the monarchs who succeeded him
according to the Canon we know nothing, but it is probable that they were for
the most part tributary to the kings of Ninus (Nineveh). Mardoch-Empadus, the
fifth, is probably the Merodach-Baladan of the Bible, who sent to congratulate
Hezekiah on his recovery from sickness. (2 Kings, xx. 12; Isaiah, xxxi. 1.) Somewhat
later Manasses, king of Judah, is carried by the king of Assyria into captivity
to Babylon. Then follow Saosduchinus and Chyniladan, who appear to have ruled
partly at one city and partly at the other; and then Nabopollasar, who finally
overthrew Ninus, and removed the seat of the empire of western Asia from the banks
of the Tigris to Babylon.
With his son Nebuchadnezzar commenced, in all probability, the era
of Babylonian greatness, and the accounts in the Bible and in other writings are,
for his reign, remarkably consistent with one another. The Bible relates many
events of the reign of this king, his carrying the Jews into captivity, his siege
and conquest of Tyre (Ezek. xxix 18), his descent into Egypt, and his subsequent
return to Babylon and death there. Berossus (ap. Joseph. c. Ap.) states that Nebuchadnezzar
was sent with a great army against Egypt and Judaea, and burnt the temple at Jerusalem
and removed the Jews to Babylon, that he conquered Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and
Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon
and Chaldaea. He adds that, on the return of the king from his Jewish war, he
devoted much time to adorning the temple of Belus, rebuilding the city, constructing
a new palace adjoining those in which his forefathers dwelt, but exceeding them
in height and splendour, and erecting on stone pillars high walks with trees to
gratify his queen, who had been brought up in Media, and was therefore fond of
a mountainous situation. (Beros. ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 19; Syncell. Chron. 220;
Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix.)
Berossus goes on to state that after a reign of 43 years, Nebuchadnezzar
was succeeded by Evilmerodachus, Neriglissoorus, and Labrosoarchodus, whose united
reigns were little more than six years, till at length, on a conspiracy being
formed against the last, Nabonnedus obtained the crown, and reigned sixteen years,
till, in his seventeenth year, Cyrus took Babylon, the king having retired to
the neighbouring city of Borsippus; that, on Cyrus proceeding to besiege Borsippus,
Nabonnedus surrendered himself to the king of Persia, who sent him out of Babylonia
and placed him in Carmania, where he died. (Beros. ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 20; Euseb.
Praep. Evang. ix.)
Megasthenes (ap. Abyden.; Euseb. Praep. Evan. x., Chron. 49) tells
nearly the same story, slightly changing the names of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar,
and adding, that, Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt Babylon, turned the course of the Armakale
(Nahr-Malcha), which was a branch of the Euphrates, constructed a vast receptacle
for its waters above the city of Sippara, and built the city of Teredon near the
Erythraean Sea, i. e. the Persian Gulf, to check the incursions of the Arabs.
The first Greek who visited Babylon, so far as we know, was Antimenidas,
the brother of the Poet Aleaeus, who was there B.C. 600-580 (Strab. xiii. p. 617;
Fragm. Alc., Muller, Rhein.Mus. p. 287); and the earliest Greek historian who
gives any description of Babylon is Herodotus, who travelled thither about a century
after the first conquest by Cyrus. His testimony is more valuable than that of
any other writer, for he is the only one whom we know to have been an eye-witness,
and whose account of what he describes has reached us uncurtailed. There is more
or less uncertainty about all the others. Thus, of Ctesias, we have only what
Diodorus and others have extracted. Of Berossus, who was a century and a half
later than Herodotus, we have only a few fragments. We have no: proof that Arrian
or Strabo themselves visited Babylon, though the treatise of the former has this
value, that he drew his information from the Notes of Aristobulus and Ptolemy
the son of Lagus, who were there with Alexander. Of Cleitarchus, who also accompanied
Alexander, and wrote ta peri Alexandrou, we have no remains, unless, as has been
supposed by some, his work was the basis of that by Curtius. The incidental remarks
of Herodotus have a manifest appearance of truth, and convey the idea of personal
experience. Thus, in i. 177, he distinguishes between the length of the Royal
and the Ordinary Cubit; in i. 182, 183, he expresses his doubts on some of the
legends which he heard about the Temple of Belus, though the structure itself
(or its remains) he evidently must have seen, as he describes it as still existing
(es eme touto eti eon, i. 181.) His account also of the country round Babylon
(i. 179, and i. 192-200) is, as is shown elsewhere, confirmed by all other writers,
as well ancient as modern.
According to Herodotus, Babylon, which, after the fall of Ninus, became
the seat of the Assyrian empire (i. 178), had already been ruled over by several
kings, and by two remarkable queens, Semiramis and Nitocris, at an interval of
five generations from one to the other. (i. 184, 185.) Of these, the elder erected
immense embankments to keep the water of the Euphrates within its proper channel,
the second made the course of the Euphrates, which had previously been straight,
so tortuous that it thrice passed the village of Ardericca, dug an immense lake,
and having turned the waters of the river into this lake, faced its banks with
a wall of baked bricks, and threw a bridge across within Babylon, so as to connect
the two sides of the river. (i. 186.) Herodotus adds a story of her tomb, which
we may reasonably question, as he himself could only have heard of it by tradition
when he was at Babylon (i. 187), and states that it was against the son of this
queen, Labynetus, that Cyrus marched. Labynetus is, therefore, the Nabonnedus
of Berossus, the Belshazzar of Holy Scripture. Herodotus says nothing about the
founders of Babylon, and what is scarcely less remarkable, does not mention Nebuchadnezzar,
-he simply describes the town as we may presume he saw it. He states that it was
placed in a great plain, and was built as no other city was with which he was
acquainted; that it was in form an exact square, each side being 120 stadia long,
with a broad and deep trench round it, the materials dug from which helped to
make the bricks, of which a wall 200 royal cubits high, and 50 broad, was composed.
Warm bitumen procured from the village of Is (now Hit) served for mortar, a layer
of reeds being inserted at every thirtieth course. (i. 178, 179.) A hundred brazen
gates opened into the city, which was divided into two distinct quarters by the
Euphrates, had all its streets at right angles one to the other, and many houses
of three and four stories. (i. 180.) Another wall, hardly inferior in strength,
but less gigantic, went round the city within the one just described. In each
of the two quarters of the city, there was an immense structure: one, the Royal
Palace, the other, the brazen-gated Temple of Belus, within a square space two
stadia each way, itself one stadium in length and breadth; on the ground-plan
of which a series of eight towers were built, one above the other. He adds some
further remarks about the temple, and speaks of several things,which, as we have
remarked, he did not see, and, apparently, did not believe (i. 181-183). The vast
size Herodotus gives to Babylon has, in modern days, led scholars to doubt his
history altogether, or at least to imagine he must have been misinformed, and
to adopt the shorter measures which have been given by other authors. (Grosskurd,
ad Strab. xvi. p. 738; Heeren, As. Nat.; Olearius, ad Philostr. Vit. Apoll. i.
25.) Yet the reasoning on which they have rested seems inconclusive; it is as
difficult or as easy to believe in the 360 stadia of Ctesias (himself also an
eye-witness) as in the 480 stadia of Herodotus. All that was required to effect
such works was what the rulers of Babylon had, an ample supply of human labour
and time; and, with more than thirty pyramids in Egypt and the wall of China still
existing, who can set bounds to what they might accomplish?
The simple narrative of Herodotus we find much amplified, when we
turn to later writers. According to Diodorus (ii. 6), who, apparently, is quoting
from Ctesias, Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, king of Assyria, founded Babylon (according
to one statement, after the death of Ninus), and built its walls of burnt brick
and asphalt, and accomplished many other great works, of which the following are
the principal:
1. A bridge across the Euphrates, where it was narrowest, five stadia long. (Strab.
xvi. p. 738, says its breadth was only one stadium, in which opinion Mr. Rich
very nearly concurs.)
2. Two palaces or castles at each end of the bridge, on the E. and W. sides of
the river, commanding an extensive view over the city, and the keys of their respective
positions. On the inner walls of the western castle were numerous paintings of
animals, excellently expressing their natural appearance; and on the towers representations
of hunting scenes, and among them one of Semiramis herself slaying a leopard,
and of Ninus, her husband, attacking a lion with a lance. (Is it possible that
Ctesias preserves here a popular tradition of the bas-reliefs lately discovered
at Nimrud and Khorsabad,- the situation of the scenes having been changed from
Assyria to Babylonia?) This palace he states far exceeded in magnificence that
on the other side of the river.
3. The temple of Belus or Zeus, in the centre of the city, a work which, in his
day, he adds, had totally disappeared (Diod. vi. 9), and in which were golden
statues and sacrificial vessels and implements. On the other hand, many of the
ancients, besides Herodotus, seem to have doubted the attribution to Semiramis
of the foundation of Babylon. Thus Berossus (ap. Joseph. c. Ap. 1) states that
it was a fiction of the Greeks that Semiramis built Babylon; Abydenus (ap. Euseb.
Praep. ix.) that Belus surrounded the town with a wall, the view also taken by
Dorotheus Sidonius, preserved in Julius Firmicus. Curtius (v. 1) affirms the double
tradition, and Amnmianus (xxiii. 6) gives the building of the walls to Semiramis
and that of the citadel to Belus: lastly, Orosius (ii. 6) asserts that it was
founded by Nimrod the Giant, and restored by Ninus or Semiramis. It has been suggested
that the story of Belus is, after all, a Chaldaean legend: but this cannot, we
think, be satisfactorily shown (see, however, Volney, Chron. Bab.; Perizon. Orig.
Bab.; and Freinsheim. ad Curt. v. 1).
Of the successors of Semiramis (supposing that she did reign in or
found an empire at Babylon) we are in almost entire ignorance; though some names,
as we have seen, have been preserved in Ptolemy (Astron. Canon.), and elsewhere.
With regard to Nebuchadnezzar, another and an ingenious theory has
been put forth, which seems generally to have found favour with the German writers.
According to Heeren (As. Nat. i. p. 382), it has been held that, some time previous
to Nebuchadnezzar's ascent of the throne in Babylon, a revolution had taken place
in Western Asia, whereby a new race, who, descending from the north, had been
for some time partially established in the plain country of Babylonia, became
the ruling people; and that Nebuchadnezzar was their first great sovereign. The
difficulty of accounting for the Chaldaeans has given a plausibility to this theory,
which however we do not think it really merits. The Bible does not help us, as
there is a manifest blank between Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar which cannot be
satisfactorily filled up, if at all, from fragments on which we cannot rely. So
far as the Bible is concerned, Nebuchadnezzar appears before us from first to
last, simply as a great ruler, called, indeed, the Chaldaean, but not, as we think,
for that reason, necessarily of a race different from the other people of the
country. Diodorus, indeed (ii. 10), attributes the Hanging Gardens to a Syrian
king, telling the same story which we find in Berossus. It is probable, however,
that he and Curtius (v. 1) use the word Syrian in the more extended sense of the
word Assyrian, for all western and southern Asia, between Taurus and the Persian
Gulf.
Differing accounts have been given of the manner in which Babylon
was taken, in the Bible, in Herodotus, and in Xenophon's Cyropaedeia. That in
the Bible is the shortest. We are simply told (Dan. v. 2-11 ) that Belshazzar,
while engaged at a great feast, was alarmed by a strange writing on the wall of
his banqueting room, which Daniel interpreted to imply the immediate destruction
of the empire by the combined army of the Medes and Persians. In that night, the
Sacred Record adds, was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldaeans slain. (Dan. v.
28.) Herodotus (i. 177, seq.) describes the gradual advance of the army under
Cyrus, and his attempt to take the city by a regular siege, which, however, its
vast extent compelled him to convert into a blockade. He mentions the draining
the waters of the Euphrates by means of a canal cut above the city, and that by
this means the Persians were enabled to enter the city, the water being only thigh-deep,
the inhabitants being more careless of their defences, as the day on which they
entered happened to be one of their great festivals. (Her. i. 191.) The narrative
of Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5) is substantially the same, though he gives many details
which are not found elsewhere. He mentions especially, that the time of attack
was one of general festivity, the drunkenness of the royal guards, and the death
of the king on the palace being forced.
The subsequent history of Babylon may be told in a few words. From
the time of its overthrow by Cyrus it never recovered its previous splendour,
though it continued for some centuries a place of considerable importance, and
the winter residence of its conqueror Cyrus during seven months of each year.
(Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 22) Between the reign of Cyrus and that of Dareius, the
son of Hystaspes, we hear nothing of it. In the reign, however, of the latter
king, Herodotus (iii. 150) mentions a revolt of the Babylonians, and the cruel
plan they adopted to prevent a scarcity of provision in the siege they expected:
he appears, however, to have confounded this revolt with a subsequent one which
took place in the reign of Xerxes. (Ctes. Persic. ap. Phot. p. 50, ed. Didot.)
Herodotus, however, states that, at this time, the walls of the city were beaten
down, which Cyrus had left standing, and 3000 of the inhabitants were put to death;
though Berossus (ap. Joseph. c. Apion. i. 20) and Eusebius (Chron. Armen. i. p.
75) say that Cyrus only destroyed the outer walls. In neither case is it indeed
necessary to suppose that much more ruin was caused than was necessary to render
the place useless as one of strength. It is certain that Babylon was still the
chief city of the empire when Alexander went there; so that the actual injury
done by Dareius and Xerxes could not have been very great. The Behistan inscription
mentions two revolts at Babylon, the first of which was put down by Dareius himself,
who subsequently spent a considerable time there, while the second was quelled
by his lieutenant. (Rawlinson, As. Journ. vol. x. pp. 188-190.) In the reign of
Xerxes, Herodotus (i. 183) states that that king plundered the Temple of Belus
of the golden statue which Dareius had not dared to remove; and Arrian (vii. 17)
adds, that he threw down the temple itself, on his return from Greece, and that
it was in ruins when Alexander was at Babylon, and was desirous of rebuilding
it, and of restoring it to its former grandeur. Strabo (xvi. p. 738) adds, that
he was unable to do so, as it took 10,000 men to clear away the ruins. Pliny (vi.
26), on the other hand, appears to have thought that the temple of Belus was still
existing in his time.
From the time of Alexander's death its decay became more rapid. Strabo
(xvi. p. 738) states, that of those who came after him (Alexander) none cared
for it; and the Persians, time, and the carelessness of the Macedonians aided
its destruction. Shortly after, Seleucus Nicator built Seleuceia, and transferred
to it the seat of government, till, at length, adds the geographer, speaking probably
of his own time, it may be said of Babylon, as was said of Megalopolis by the
Comic poet, The vast city is a vast desert. (Cf. also Plin. vi. 26; Paus. iv.
31, viii. 33; Dion Cass. lxxv. 9.)
But though Babylon had ceased, after the foundation of Seleuceia,
to be a great city, it still continued for many centuries to exist.
At the time that Demetrius Poliorcetes took Babylon, two fortresses
still remained in it (Diod. xix. 100), one only of which he was able to take.
Evemerus, a king of Parthia, B.C. 127, reduced many of the Babylonians
to slavery, and sent their families into Media, burning with fire many of their
temples, and the best parts of their city. About B.C. 36 a considerable number
of Jews were resident in Babylon, so that when Hyrcanus the High Priest was released
from confinement by Phraates, king of Parthia, he was permitted to reside there
(Joseph. Ant. xv. 2), and that this Babylon was not, as has been supposed by some,
another name for Seleuceia, is, we think, clear, because when Josephus (Ant. xviii.
2. § 4, viii. 9. § § 8, 9) speaks of Seleuceia, he adds, on the Tigris, showing,
therefore, that he was acquainted with its position.
In the reign of Augustus, we learn from Diodorus that but a small
part was still inhabited, the remainder of the space within the walls being under
cultivation. Strabo, as we have seen, looked upon it as a desert, when he wrote
in the reign of Augustus, though, at the same time, manifestly as a place still
existing, as he draws a parallel between it and Seleuceia, which, he says, was
at that time the greater city; so great, indeed, that Pliny (v. 26) asserts it
contained 600,000 inhabitants; and according to Eutrop. (v. 8) at the time of
its destruction, 500,000. Indeed, it is the magnitude of Seleuceia that has misled
other writers. Thus Stephanus B. speaks of Babylon as a Persian metropolis called
Seleuceia, and Sidonius Apollinaris (ix. 19, 20) describes it as a town intersected
by the Tigris. When Lucan speaks of the trophies of Crassus which adorned Babylon,
he clearly means Seleuceia. A few years later it was, probably, still occupied
by a considerable number of inhabitants, as it appears from 1 Peter, v. 13, that
the First Epistle of St. Peter was written from Babylon, which must have been
between A.D. 49-63. It has indeed been held by many (though we think without any
sufficient proof) that the word Babylon is here used figuratively for Rome; but
it is almost certain that St. Peter was not at Rome before A.D. 62, at the earliest,
while the story of his having been at Babylon is confirmed by Cosmas Indico-Pleustes,
who wrote in the time of Justinian. Again, not more than twenty years earlier
there was evidently a considerable multitude (probably of Jews) in Babylon, as
they were strong enough to attack and defeat two formidable robbers, Anilaeus
and Asinaeus, who had for some time occupied a fortress in the neighbourhood.
(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9.)
The writers of the succeeding century differ but little in their accounts.
Thus Lucian of Samosata (in the reign of M. Aurelius) speaks of Babylon as a city
which once had been remarkable for its numerous towers and vast circumference,
but which would soon be, like Ninus (Nineveh), a subject for investigation. (Lucian,
Charon. 23, Philopatr. 29.)
In the third century, Eusebius of Caesareia states that the people
of the surrounding country, as well as strangers, avoided it, as it had become
completely a desert.
St. Jerome believed that the ancient walls had been repaired, and
that they surrounded a park in which the kings of Persia kept animals for hunting.
He states that he learnt this from an Elamite father residing at Jerusalem, and
it is certain that he was satisfied that in his time there were few remains of
Babylon.
St. Cyril of Alexandreia, about A.D. 412, tells us that the canals
drawn from the Euphrates having filled up, the soil of Babylon had become nothing
better than a marsh. Theodoret, who died A.D. 460, states it was no longer inhabited
either by Assyrians or Chaldaeans, but only by some Jews, whose houses were few
and scattered. He adds that the Euphrates had changed its course, and passed through
the town by a canal. Procopius of Gaza, in the middle of the sixth century, speaks
of Babylon as a place long destroyed.
Ibn Haukal, in A.D. 917, calls Babel a small village, and states that
hardly any remains of Babylon were to be seen.
Lastly, Benjamin of Tudela (ed. Asher, 1841), in the twelfth century,
asserts that nothing was to be seen but the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar's palace,
into which no one dared enter, owing to the quantity of serpents and scorpions
with which the place was infested. (Rich, Babylon, Introd. pp. xxvii-xxix.)
The ruins of Babylon, which commence a little S. of the village of
Mohawill, 8 miles N. of Hillah, have been examined in modern times by several
travellers, and by two in particular, at the interval of seven years, the late
Resident at Baghdad, Mr. Rich, in 1811, and Sir Robert K. Porter, in 1818. The
results at which they have arrived are nearly identical, and the difference between
their measurements of some of the mounds is not such as to be of any great importance.
According to Mr. Rich, almost all the remains indicative of the former existence
of a great city are to be found on the east side of the river, and consist at
present of three principal mounds, in direction from N. to S., called, respectively,
by the natives, the Mujelebe, the Kasr, and Amran Ibn Ali, from a small mosque
still existing on the top of it. On the west side of the river, Mr. Rich thought
there were no remains of a city, the banks for many miles being a perfect level.
To the NW., however, there is a considerable mound, called Towareij; and to the
SW., at a distance of 7 or 8 miles, the vast pile called the Birs-i-Nimnrud. Of
the mounds on the E. side, the Msjelebe is much the largest, but the Kasr has
the most perfect masonry. The whole, however, of the ruins present an extraordinary
mass of confusion, owing to their having been for centuries a quarry from which
vast quantities of bricks have been removed for the construction of the towns
and villages in the neighbourhood. Mr. Rich subsequently visited the Birs-i-Nimrud,
the size of which is nearly the same as that of the Mujelebe; but the height to
the top of the wall is at least 100 feet higher; and he then discusses at some
length the question which of these two mounds has the best claim to represent
the Tower of Babel of the Bible, and the Temple of Belus of profane authors. His
general conclusions incline in favour of the Birs-i-Nimrud, but he thinks it is
impossible satisfactorily to accommodate the descriptions of ancient authors with
what now remains; while it is nowhere stated positively in which quarter of the
city the Temple of Belus stood. Along the E. side of the river, the line of mounds
parallel to the Kasr, at the time Mr. Rich was there, were, in many places, about
40 feet above the river, which had incroached in some places so much as to lay
bare part of a wall built of burnt bricks cemented with bitumen, in which urns
containing human bones had been found. East of Hillah, about 6 miles, is another
great mound, called Al Heimar, constructed of bricks, similar to those at Babylon.
On the publication of Mr. Rich's memoir in the Fundgruben des Orients,
Major Rennell wrote an Essay in 1815, which was printed in the Archaeologia, vol.
xviii., in which he combated some of the views which Mr. Rich had stated in his
memoir, which produced a rejoinder from Mr. Rich, written in 1817, in which he
goes over again more completely the ground mentioned in his first notice, and
points out some things in which Major Rennell had been misled by imperfect information.
The chief points of discussion are, as to how far any of the existing ruins could
be identified with things mentioned in the classical narratives, whether or not
the Euphrates had ever flowed between the present mounds, and whether the Birs-i-Nimrud
could be identified with the Temple of Belus. It is sufficient here to mention
that Rennell considered that honour to belong to the Mujelebe, and Mr. Rich to
the Birs-i-Nimrud, an idea which appears to have occurred to Niebuhr (Voy. vol.
ii. p. 236), though the state of the country did not allow him to pay it a visit.
Ker Porter, who surveyed the neighbourhood of Babylon with great attention in
1818, differs from Mr. Rich in thinking that there are remains of ruins on the
western side of the river, almost all the way to the Birs-i-Nimrud, although the
ground is now, for the most part, very flat and marshy. He considers also that
this ruin must have stood within the limits of the original city, at the extreme
SW. angle. With regard to this last and most celebrated ruin, it has been conjectured
that, after all, it was no part of the actual town of Babylon, the greater part
of which, as we have seen, in all probability dates from Nebuchadnezzar, in accordance
with his famous boast, Is not this great Babylon that I have built? (Dan. iv.
30), but that it represents the site of the ancient Borsippus (to which Nabonnedus
is said to have fled when Cyrus took Babylon), its present name of Birs recalling
the initial letters of the ancient title. According to Col. Rawlinson, the name
Borsippa is found upon the records of the obelisk from Nimrud, which is at least
two centuries and a half anterior to Nebuchadnezzar (As. Journ. xii. pt. 2. p.
477), and Mr. Rich had already remarked (p. 73) that the word Birs has no meaning
in the present language (Arabic) of the country. It is certain that this and many
other curious matters of investigation will not be satisfactorily set at rest,
till the cuneiform inscriptions shall be more completely decyphered and interpreted.
It is impossible to do more here than to indicate the chief subjects for inquiry.
(Rich, Babylon and Persepolis; Ker Porter, Travels, vol. ii.; Rawlinson, Journ.
As. Soc. vol. xii. pt. 2.)
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited October 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
CARRHAE (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
MEGALI SELEFKIA (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
Seleuceia or Seleucia (Seleukeia, Polyb. v. 48; Strab. xi. p. 521;
Ptol. v. 18. § 8), a large city near the right bank of the Tigris, which, to distinguish
it from several other towns of the same name, is generally known in history by
the title of Seleukeia epi toi Tigreti (Strab. xvi. p. 738; Appian, Syr. 57.)
It was built by Seleucus Nicator (Strab. l. c.; Plin. vi. 26. s. 30; Tacit. Ann.
vi. 42; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 9. § 8; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 20), and appears to
have been placed near the junction with the Tigris, of the great dyke which was
carried across Mesopotamia from the Euphrates to the Tigris, and which bore the
name of Nahar Malcha (the royal river). (Plin. l. c., and Isid. Char. p. 5.) Ptolemy
states that the artificial river divided it into two parts (v. 18. § 8). On the
other hand, Theophylact states that both rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, surrounded
it like a rampart-by the latter, in all probability, meaning the Nahar Malcha
(v. 6), It was situated about 40 miles NE. of Babylon (according to Strabo, 300
stadia, and to the Tab. Peutinger., 44 M. P.). In form, its original structure
is said to have resembled an eagle with its wings outspread. (Plin. l. c.) It
was mainly constructed of materials brought from Babylon, and was one principal
cause of the ruin of the elder city, as Ctesiphon was (some centuries later) of
Seleuceia itself. (Strab. xvi. p. 738.) It was placed in a district of great fertility,
and is said, in its best days, to have had a population of 600,000 persons. (Plin.
l. c.) Strabo adds, that it was even larger than Antiocheia Syriae,--at his time
probably the greatest commercial entrepot in the East, with the exception of Alexandreia
(xvi. p. 750). Even so late as the period of its destruction its population is
still stated to have amounted to half a million. (Eutrop. v. 8; comp. Oros. viii.
5.) To its commercial importance it doubtless owed the free character of its local
government, which appears to have been administered by means of a senate of 300
citizens. Polybius states that, on the overthrow of Molon, the Median rebels Antiochus
and Hermeias descended on Seleuceia, which had been previously taken by Molon,
and, after punishing the people by torture and the infliction of a heavy fine,
exiled the local magistracy, who were called Adeiganae. (Adelganai, Polyb. v.
54.) Their love of freedom and of independent government was, however, of longer
duration. (Plin. l. c.; Tacit. Ann. vi. 42.)
Seleuceia owed its ruin to the wars of the Romans with the Parthians
and other eastern nations. It is first noticed in that between Crassus and Orodes
(Dion Cass. xl. 20); but it would seem that Crassus did not himself reach Seleuceia.
On the advance of Trajan from Asia Minor, Seleuceia was taken by Erucius Clarus
and Julius Alexander, and partially burnt to the ground (Dion Cass. lxviii. 30);
and a few years later it was still more completely destroyed by Cassius, the general
of Lucius Verus, during the war with Vologeses. (Dion Cass. lxxi. 2; Eutrop. v.
8; Capitol. Verus, c. 8.) When Severus, during the Parthian War, descended the
Euphrates, he appears to have found Seleuceia and Babylon equally abandoned and
desolate. (Dion Cass. lxxv. 9.) Still later, in his expedition to the East, Julian
found the whole country round Seleuceia one vast marsh full of wild game, which
his soldiers hunted. (Amm. Marc. xxiv. 5.) It would seem from the indistinct notices
of some authors, that Seleuceia once bore the name of Coche.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited September 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
MESSOPOTAMIA (Ancient area) PERSIAN GULF
Mesopotamia (he Mesopotamia), an extensive district of Western Asia,
deriving its name from its position between the two great rivers Euphrates and
Tigris. It was hounded on the N. by Armenia and the S. branch of M. Taurus, on
the E. by the Tigris, on the W. by the Euphrates, and on the S. by the Median
Wall, which separated it from Babylonia. (Strab. xvi. p. 746; Ptol. v. 18. § 1.)
Pliny apparently extends it on the southern side as far as the Persian Gulf (v.
24. s. 21); but, like many other ancient provinces, its limits varied much at
different periods, - it being sometimes extended so as to comprehend Babylonia,
at other times so as to take in parts of Syria.
Mesopotamia is noticed among the earliest records of the human race
which we have in the Bible. It is commonly known by three titles in Holy Scripture:
either Aram Naharaim (or Syria of the Two Waters ), as in Gen. xxiv, 10; or Padan
Aram ( Syria of the Plain ), as in Gen. xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18, xxxv. 9; or Sedeharam,
the field of Aram (Hos. xii. 12), corresponding with the Campi Mesopotamiae of
Curtius (iii. 2. § 3, iv. 9. § 6). There are indeed places where Aram Maharaim
appears to be used in a more limited sense for the more northern portion of it
(Deut. xxiii. 4); while it is equally certain that it was not supposed to comprehend
only the flat country of the plain; for Balaam, who is said to have been a native
of Aram Maharaim (Deut. xxiii. 4), is also in another place stated to have been
brought from Aram out of the mountains of the East. (Numb. xxiii. 7.) It is not
certain how soon in history this country acquired its Greek title, which is, after
all, only a modification of the meaning of the original Hebrew word,- probably,
however, not till after Alexander's invasion of the East. (Cf. Arrian, vii. 7;
Tacit. Ann. vi. 37.) The translators of the LXX. render the Hebrew sometimes Mesopotamia
Surias, and sometimes simply Mesopotamia. In the Bible we have mention of one
ruler who is called a king of Mesopotamia, Cushan-Rishathaim, to whom the children
of Israel were subject for eight years. (Judg. iii. 8, 10.) The modern Arabic
name Al-Jezireh (the island) describes its locality accurately; but the modern
province is much less extensive than the ancient.
The whole country (as known at least to the later writers) appears
to have borne much the same character as Babylonia, and to have been rich in the
same products. It was throughout well wooded, especially in the neighbourhood
of the principal streams; and some of the timber must have been of a large size,
as Trajan built a fleet in the neighbourhood of Nisibis during the Parthian War
(Dion Cass. lxviii. 26), and Severus one in subsequent times from the woods along
the banks of the Euphrates. (Dion Cass. lxxv. 9.) Its extensive plains afforded
abundant pasturage for cattle (Curt. v. 1. § 12; Amm. Marc. xxv. 8), and its wilder
and less frequented districts were the haunts of the lion, the wild ass, and the
gazelle. (Strab. xvi. 747; Ammian. xviii. 7.) The same character it possesses
now; though, from the scantiness of the population, and the careless rule of its
Turkish governors, much that was formerly under cultivation has become a deserted
wilderness. Among its natural products Strabo mentions especially naphtha, amomum,
and a stone called gangitis or gagatis (perhaps a kind of anthracite coal). (Cf.
Schol. ad Nicandr. Ther. 37; Plin. x. 3. s. 4; Dioscorid. v. 146.)
Though Mesopotamia is for the most part a flat country, the ancients reckoned
some mountains which were along its northern boundary, as belonging to this division
of Asia. These were Mons Masius (now Karja Baghlar), one of the southern outlying
spurs of the great range of the Taurus; and M. Singaras (now Sinjar), which may
be considered as an extension to the S. of the M. Masius. The latter is nearly
isolated from the main ranges on the N., and extends on the NE. to the neighbourhood
of the Tigris. The two most important rivers of Mesopotamia are, as we have stated,
those which formed its W. and E. boundaries, the Euphrates and Tigris ; but besides
these, there are a number of smaller, but not wholly unimportant streams, which
traverse it as affluents of the former rivers. These were the Chaboras (Khabur);
the Saocoras perhaps the same as that which Xenophon calls Mascas (Anab. i. 5.
§ 4); the Belias or Bilecha; and the Mygdonius (Hermes.) Under the Roman Empire,
Mesopotamia was divided into two parts, of which the western was called Osrhoene,
while the eastern continued to bear its ancient name. It was conquered by Trajan
in A.D. 115, who took Singara and Nisibis, and formed the three Roman provinces
of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, of which Mesopotamia reached as far as the
Persian Gulf. (Dion Cass. lxviii. 22, 23; Eutrop. viii. 3; Euseb. p. 165, ed.
Scalig.; Malalas, p. 274, ed. Bonn.) But even Trajan could not retain his conquests
(Dion Cass. lxviii. 29), and they were given up by Hadrian of his own accord.
(Spartian, Hadr. 5; Eutrop. viii. 6.) Under M. Aurelius, Mesopotamia was again
conquered by L. Verus, as far as the Median Wall (S. Rufus, Brev. 14); and the
conquest was further secured by the foundation of the colonies of Carrhae on the
Chaboras and Singara, to which Septimius Severus added those of Nisibis and Rhesaena.
But this province was a constant cause of war between the Persian and Roman empires;
and at length the greater part of it was surrendered to the Persians by Jovian
in A.D. 363. After this time Mesopotamia contained two eparchiai: Osrhoene, bounded
on the south by the Chaboras, with the capital Edessa; and Mesopotamia, extending
as far south as Dara, and having Amida as its capital. The province was governed
by a Praeses. (Marquardt, in Becker's Romisch. Alterth. vol. iii. pt. i. pp. 204,
seq.)
The most important cities of this province were Batnae or Bathnae; Carrhae;
Circesium; Nisibis or Antiocheia Mygdoniae; and Singara.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
MYGDONIA (Ancient area) MESSOPOTAMIA
Mygdonia (Mugdonia, Plut. Lucull. c. 32; Polyb. v. 31), a district
in the NE. part of Mesopotamia, adjoining the country now called the Sinjar. According
to Strabo, the people who were named Mydgones came originally from Macedonia,
and occapied the district extending from Zeugma to Thapsacus (xvi. p. 747); as,
however, he states in the same place that Nisibis was called by the Macedonians
Antiocheia in Mygdonia, and places it in the immediate neighbourhood of M. Masius,
he would appear to have thought that it was on the eastern side of Mesopotamia.
Plutarch relates the same story of the Greek name of Nisibis (Lucull. c. 32).
In Stephanus Byz. the name is written Muchthonia, which is probably an error.
In many of the earlier editions of Xenophon, a people are spoken of who are called
Mugdonioi; the later and better editions read, however, Mardonioi, which is more
probable (Anab. iv. 3. § 4).
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ANTIOCHIA MYGDONIA (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
(Nisibis), also called Antiochia Mygdoniae. A celebrated city
of Mesopotamia, and the capital of the district of Mygdonia, stood on the river
Mygdonius in a very fertile district. It was of great importance as a military
post. Its name was changed into Antiochia, but it soon resumed its original name.
In the successive wars between the Romans and the Parthians and Persians, it was
several times taken and retaken, until at last it fell into the hands of the Persians
in the reign of Jovian.
This text is cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ASSYRIA (Ancient country) PERSIAN GULF
(In Greek, Assuria; in Assyrian inscriptions called Assur; in
the Persian, Athura; and in the Median, Assura). The country properly so called,
in the narrowest sense, was a district of Asia, extending along the east side
of the Tigris, which divided it on the west and northwest from Mesopotamia and
Babylonia, and bounded on the north and east by Mount Niphates and Mount Zagrus,
which separated it from Armenia and Media, and on the southeast by Susiana. It
was watered by several streams flowing into the Tigris from the east, two of which,
the Lycus or Zabatus (Great Zab) and the Caprus or Zabas (Little Zab), divided
the country into three parts. The district between the upper Tigris and the Lycus,
called Atturia, was probably the most ancient seat of the monarchy, containing
the capital, Nineveh or Ninus. The Lycus and the Little Zab bounded the finest
portion, called Adiabene. The district southeast of the Little Zab contained the
two subdivisions Apolloniatis and Sittacene. In a wider sense the name Assyria
was used to designate the whole country watered by the Tigris and Euphrates, including
Mesopotamia and Babylonia; and in a still more extended application it meant the
whole Assyrian Empire, one of the first great states of which we have any record.
The remarkable fertility of the country enabled it to support
a large population; and its great material prosperity, power, and culture are
attested by ancient writers, as well as by the monuments that remain to us in
the shape of ruins of cities, extensive canals and water-works, and proofs secured
by excavators of the possession of the arts and sciences. At the present day the
country is almost a desert; but from Tekrit to Bagdad, and in the vicinity of
Nineveh, abundant ruins mark the former wealth and splendour of the people.
Ethnology.--The Assyrians were a branch of the Semitic race,
to which the Syrians, Ph?nicians, Jews, and Arabs belonged, and which in Chaldaea
appears to have supplanted the Scythic or Turanian stock as early as B.C. 2100.
Assyria had in the earliest times a close connection with Aethiopia and Arabia.
Hence Herodotus speaks of Sennacherib as king of the Arabians as well as of the
Assyrians.
Language.--The language of the Assyrians is allied to the North
Branch of the Semitic family, its vocabulary showing a close affinity to Hebrew
and Phoenician. In the fulness of its verbal system and richness of synonyms,
however, it resembles the Arabic. The ethnic type of the Assyrians is the Semitic
modified by some admixture with Akkadian elements.
Assyrian literature is known to us chiefly from the discovery
in the palace of Assur-bani-pal, at Nineveh, of a library of many thousand tablets
collected by that king and his father, Esar-haddon. Duplicate copies of some of
these tablets have been found in excavating the Babylonian cities. Of these tablets,
many are syllabaries, dictionaries, geographies, and other educational works,
often couched in the ancient Akkadian and Sumirian tougues; so that from them,
Assyriologists have learned much about the older languages of Chaldaea. The richest
literary discoveries, however, have been in the field of poetry and mythology.
In 1872 the late Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, discovered a series
of tablets containing an epic in twelve books, one of which relates to the legend
of the Deluge, and bears a very striking resemblance to the account given in the
Old Testament. In both accounts the Deluge is a punishment for human sins; in
both, the builder of an ark gathers into it his family and the beasts of the field;
in both, the ark rests upon a mountain; in both, peace between God and man is
restored; and in both, a sign of the restoration is the appearance of the rainbow.
Many other interesting resemblances to portions of the Book of Genesis are contained
in the Assyrian tablets. The hymns and prayers are likewise beautiful and poetic.
Results of Excavations.--Successful excavations have been made
by Botta, Layard, Oppert, Rawlinson, Smith, and others, with the result of opening
up very many palaces and temples, and bringing to light sculptures covered with
inscriptions, and including obelisks, sphinxes, winged lions and bulls, and bas-reliefs
of battle-scenes, sieges, hunts, etc. Many smaller objects are no less interesting,
such as ornaments, bells, engraved gems, and bronzes. It has been learned that
the Assyrians were acquainted with glass; that they employed the arch in building;
that they used the lens as a magnifying instrument; and had, among other mechanical
appliances, the lever and the roller.
Religion.--The religion of Assyria was simpler than that of
the Babylonians, although polytheistic in character. The national deity was Assur,
regarded as the founder of the nation. Beside him there are two principal triads,
with many minor deities. The first triad is known as the Nature Triad (Ann "the
Progenitor," Bel "the Lord of the World," Hea "the Lord of
the Sea, Rivers, and Fountains"). The second triad is the Celestial Triad
(Sin the Moon-god, Shamas the Sun-god, Istar the Stargoddess). Minor gods are
Merodach or Marduk, son of Hea; Nebo the god of learning, who possesses many of
the attributes of the Greek Hermes; and Nergal and Nusku the war-gods.
History.--Ancient accounts of Assyrian history are those of
Berosus, a Graeco-Chaldean priest, who wrote at Babylon, where he had access to
the inscriptional records, about B.C. 268; of Herodotus; and of Ctesias of Cnidus,
physician to the Persian king Artaxerxes Mnemon (B.C. 405). The narrative of Berosus
has met with much confirmation from recent excavations and explorations. In the
Bible narrative we are told that Nineveh was founded from Babylonia. "Out
of that land [Babylonia] he [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria" --and this
statement is fully confirmed by the results of recent explorations. The earliest
inscriptions found on the bricks from Assur (Kileh-Shergat), the ancient capital,
give to the first rulers of the land the Akkadian title of Patesi, or "high-priest
of the city of Assur," and to the city itself the Akkadian name of Pal-bi-ki.
The next notice of Assyria does not occur until the Assyrian king Pul, or Tiglath-pileser
II., invaded Palestine, and was bought off by Menahem, king of Israel (B.C. 738).
In the same reign we find the Jewish king Jehoahaz (Ahaz) becoming a vassal of
the court of Assyria, and the tribes beyond Jordan carried away captive (B.C.
734). In B.C. 722, Samaria is captured by Sargon the Tartan, who had usurped the
throne from his weak master, Shalmaneser IV. The next reference to Assyria is
that of the siege and capture of Jerusalem by Sargon, and the siege of Ashdod
(B.C. 712-711). This event is now proved to be distinct from the siege by Sennacherib
in B.C. 701, which terminated apparently in a disaster for the Assyrian army.
The last mention of Assyria is the record of the murder of Sennacherib by his
sons in B.C. 681, and the accession of his faithful son Esar-haddon, the most
powerful of all the Assyrian monarchs, for he carried his arms as far as the Mediterranean
and conquered Egypt. Little credit is to be attached to the expedition of Holofernes
recorded in the apocryphal Book of Judith.
After this the Empire appears to have gradually decayed, until
at last, in the reign of Assur-banipal or Sardanapalus, or that of Esar-haddon
II. (Sarakos), a league for its destruction was formed between Nabopolassar, governor
of Babylon, and Cyaxares, king of Media, which was strengthened by the marriage
of Nebuchadnezzar, son of the former, to Nitocris, daughter of the latter. The
war and siege are said to have been interrupted by an invasion of the Scythians,
which drew off Cyaxares; but at length Nineveh was taken and destroyed about B.C.
605, or, according to Rawlinson, 625. In the time of Darius Hystaspes Assyria
rebelled without success in conjunction with Media. In the time of Herodotus the
capital had ceased to exist; and when Xenophon passed it the very name was forgotten,
though he testifies to the extent of the deserted city, and asserts the height
of the ruined walls to be 150 feet. An inconsiderable town seems to have existed
on its ruins in the reign of Claudius; and the last notice we have of Nineveh
in the classics is in Tacitus.
The fanciful history related by Ctesias is now found to be
based on distorted Graeco-Persian traditions; and though the writer managed to
make the ancient world give credit to him in preference to Herodotus, his work
is now proved to be very untrustworthy. According to him, for thirty generations
after Ninyas the kings led a life of luxury and indolence in their palace; the
last of them, Sardanapalus, made a vigorous defence against Arbaces, the rebel
governor of Media, but, finding it impossible to defend Nineveh, he set fire to
his palace, and burned himself with all his treasures. This event took place 1306
years after Ninus. Now, the above account represents Nineveh to have perished
nearly three centuries before the real date, which was about B.C. 606, and is
utterly incompatible with Scripture. Herodotus assigns to the Empire a duration
of 520 years, and Berosus of 526. In order to reconcile these conflicting accounts,
historians have supposed that Nineveh was twice destroyed, but this supposition
is now generally rejected. However, that part of Nineveh was actually destroyed
by fire is proved by the condition of the slabs and statues found in its ruins,
which show the action of intense heat.
This text is cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
BABYLON (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
A celebrated city, the capital of the Babylonian (Chaldaean)
Empire, situated on the Euphrates. The ancient accounts of its origin and of
the structure of the city are extremely confused. The god Belus is spoken of
as its founder, and also Semiramis and Nitocris. According to Diodorus, Semiramis
employed upon it two million workmen collected from all parts of her realm.
It must be understood, however, that nearly all the ancient accounts of Babylon
refer not to the primitive city, but to the later capital and residence of Nebuchadnezzar.
Herodotus describes it in the first book of his history, as if from his personal
observation.
The shape of the city of Babylon was that of a square, traversed
each way by twenty-five principal streets, which, of course, intersected each
other, dividing the city into 625 squares. These streets were terminated at
each end by gates of brass of prodigious size and strength, with a smaller one
opening towards the river. Respecting the height and thickness of the walls
of Babylon, there are great variations among the ancient writers. Herodotus
makes them 200 royal cubits (or 337 feet 8 inches) high and 50 royal cubits
(or 84 feet 6 inches) broad, which seems incredible. A difficulty also presents
itself with regard to the extent of the walls of Babylon. Herodotus makes them
120 stadia each side, or 480 in circumference. Pliny and Solinus give them the
circuit at 60 Roman miles, which, reckoning eight stadia to a mile, agrees with
the account of Herodotus. Strabo makes it 385 stadia. Diodorus, from Ctesias,
assigns 360, but from Clitarchus, who accompanied Alexander, 365. Curtius gives
368. Taking the circumference of Babylon at 365 stadia, and these at 491 feet,
each side of the square (which is equal to 91 1/4 stadia) will be 8.485 British
miles, or nearly 8 1/2. This gives an area of 72 miles and an inconsiderable
fraction. It is to be remembered, however, that the walls, like those of most
Oriental towns, enclosed rather populous districts than mere cities. That the
area enclosed by the walls of Babylon was only partly built on is proved by
the words of Quintus Curtius, who says that "the buildings in Babylon are
not contiguous to the walls, but some considerable space was left all around."
Diodorus, moreover, describes a vast space taken up by the palaces and public
buildings. The enclosure of one of the palaces was a square of 15 stadia, or
near 1 1/2 mile; the other of 5 stadia--here are more than 2 1/2 square miles
occupied by the palaces alone. Besides these, there were the Temple and Tower
of Belus, of vast extent; and the Hanging Gardens. From all this, and much more
that might be adduced, we may collect most clearly that much vacant space remained
within the walls of Babylon; and this would seem to do away, in some degree,
with the great difficulty respecting the magnitude of the city itself. Nor is
it stated as the effect of the subsequent decline of Babylon, but as the actual
state of it when Alexander first entered the place, for Curtius leaves us to
understand that the system of cultivating a large proportion of the enclosed
space originated with the foundation itself; and the history of its two sieges,
by Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis, seems to show it. The walls of Babylon were built
of brick baked in the sun, cemented with bitumen instead of mortar, and were
encompassed by a broad and deep ditch, lined with the same materials, as were
also the banks of the river in its course through the city, the inhabitants
descending to the water by steps through the smaller brass gates already mentioned.
Over the river was a bridge, connecting the two halves of the city, which stood,
the one on its eastern, the other on its western bank; the river running nearly
north and south. The bridge was five furlongs in length and thirty feet in breadth,
and had a palace at each end, with, it is said, a subterranean passage beneath
the river from one to the other, the work of Semiramis. Of this bridge no traces
have yet been found.
Within or near the city was the Temple of Belus, or Baal,
which Herodotus describes as a square of two stadia; in the midst of this arose
the celebrated tower, to which both the same writer and Strabo give an elevation
of one stadium, and the same measure at its base. The whole was divided into
eight separate towers, one above another, of decreasing dimensions to the summit,
where stood a chapel, containing a couch, table, and other things of gold. Here
the principal devotions were performed; and over this, on the highest platform
of all, was the observatory, by the help of which the Babylonians are said to
have attained to great skill in astronomy. A winding staircase on the outside
formed the ascent to this stupendous edifice. The Old Palace, which stood on
the east side of the bridge over the river, was 3 3/4 miles in extent. The New
Palace, which stood on the west side of the river, opposite to the other, was
7 1/2 miles in extent. It was surrounded with three walls, one within another,
with considerable spaces between them. These walls, as also those of the other
palace, were embellished with an infinite variety of sculptures, representing
all kinds of animals to the life. Among the rest was a curious hunting-piece,
in which Semiramis on horseback was throwing her javelin at a leopard, and her
husband Ninus piercing a lion. In this last palace were the Hanging Gardens,
so celebrated among the Greeks. They contained a square of 400 feet on every
side, and were carried up in the manner of several large terraces, one above
another, till the height equalled that of the walls of the city. The ascent
was from terrace to terrace by stairs ten feet wide. The whole pile was sustained
by vast arches raised upon other arches, one above another, and strengthened
by a wall, surrounding it on every side, of twenty-two feet in thickness. On
the top of the arches were first laid large flat stones, sixteen feet long and
four broad; over these was a layer of reeds, mixed with a great quantity of
bitumen, upon which were two rows of bricks closely cemented together. The whole
was covered with thick sheets of lead, upon which lay the mould of the garden.
And all this floorage was contrived to keep the moisture of the mould from running
away through the arches. The earth laid thereon was so deep that large trees
might take root in it; and with such the terraces were covered, as well as with
all other plants and flowers that were proper to adorn a pleasure-garden. In
the upper terrace there was an engine, or kind of pump, by which water was drawn
up out of the river, and from thence the whole garden was watered. In the spaces
between the several arches upon which this whole structure rested were large
and magnificent apartments, that were very light, and had the advantage of a
beautiful prospect. Amyitis, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, having been bred in
Media (for she was the daughter of Astyages, the king of that country), desired
to have something in imitation of her native hills and forests; and the monarch,
in order to gratify her, is said to have raised this prodigious structure. Near
Babylon was the famous Birs Nimroud.
Babylon was probably in the zenith of its glory and dominion
just before the death of Nebuchadnezzar. The spoils of Nineveh, Jerusalem, and
Egypt had enriched it; its armies had swept like a torrent over the finest countries
of the East, and had at this time no longer an enemy to contend with; the arts
and sciences, driven from Ph?nicia and Egypt, were centred here; and hither
the philosophers of the West came to imbibe instruction. The fall of Babylon,
before the victorious arms of Cyrus, occurred B.C. 538. The height and strength
of the walls had long baffled every effort of the invader. Having understood,
at length, that on a certain day, then near approaching, a great annual festival
was to be kept at Babylon, when it was customary for the Babylonians to spend
the night in revelling and drunkenness, he thought this a fit opportunity for
executing a scheme which he had planned. This was no other than to surprise
the city by turning the course of the river--a mode of capture of which the
Babylonians, who looked upon the river as one of their greatest protections,
had not the smallest apprehension. Accordingly, on the night of the feast, he
sent a party of his men to the head of the canal, which led to the great lake
made by Nebuchadnezzar to receive the waters of the Euphrates while he was facing
the banks of the river with walls of brick and bitumen. This party had directions,
as soon as it was dark, to commence breaking down the great bank or dam which
kept the waters of the river in their place, and separated them from the canal
above mentioned; while Cyrus, in the meantime, dividing the rest of his army,
stationed one part at the place where the river entered the city, and the other
where it came out, with orders to enter the channel of the river as soon as
they should find it fordable. This happened by midnight; for, by cutting down
the bank leading to the great lake, and making, besides, openings into the trenches
which, in the course of the two years' siege, had been dug around the city,
the river was so drained of its water that it became nearly dry. When the army
of Cyrus entered the channel from their respective stations on each side of
the city, they rushed on ward towards the centre of the place; and finding the
gates leading towards the river left open in the drunkenness and negligence
of the night, they entered them, and met by concert at the palace before any
alarm had been given; here the guards, partaking, no doubt, in the negligence
and disorder of the night, were surprised and killed. Soon after, the soldiers
of Cyrus, having killed the guard, and meeting with no resistance, advanced
towards the banqueting-hall, where they encountered Belshazzar, the ill-fated
monarch, and slew him, with his armed followers.
Under Cyrus, Babylon was reduced to the rank of a provincial
city, and having revolted under Darius Hystaspis was severely punished, and
by Xerxes plundered and despoiled, after which it steadily decayed.
This text is cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
MESSOPOTAMIA (Ancient area) PERSIAN GULF
A district of Asia, named from its position between the Euphrates
and the Tigris, divided by the Euphrates from Syria and Arabia, and by the Tigris
from Assyria. On the north it was separated from Armenia by a branch of the Taurus,
called Masius, and on the south from Babylonia by the Median Wall. The name was
first used by the Greeks in the time of the Seleucidae. In earlier times the country
was reckoned a part, sometimes of Syria, and sometimes of Assyria. In the division
of the Persian empire it belonged to the satrapy of Babylonia. The northern part
of Mesopotamia was divided into the districts of Mygdonia and Osroene. In a wider
sense, the name is sometimes applied to the whole country between the Euphrates
and the Tigris.
This text is cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
BABYLON (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
Total results on 24/7/2001: 902 for Babylon.
MEGALI SELEFKIA (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
Total results on 24/7/2001: 104 for Seleucia, 6 for Seleucea, 16 for Seleuceia, 3 for Seleukeia.
MESSOPOTAMIA (Ancient area) PERSIAN GULF
Total results on 30/8/2001: 128
ANTIOCHIA MYGDONIA (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
ASSYRIA (Ancient country) PERSIAN GULF
VARVALISSOS (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
MEGALI SELEFKIA (Ancient city) MESSOPOTAMIA
The site covers 1.3 ha of mounds. The city was founded by Seleucus
(305-281 B.C.) at the location of the BabyIonian town of Opis. Here, at the narrowest
point between the Euphrates and the Tigris a canal joined the two, running just
N of the site, now 3.2 km W of the Tigris. Just across the river is Ctesiphon,
and Baghdad is 32 km to the N.
The Seleucid city was laid out in rectangular blocks and is said by
Strabo to have had 600,000 inhabitants. Prior to the excavations visible areas
included sections of its stone wall, built on foundations of baked bricks from
Babylon, and its defensive ditches and canals. Excavation concentrated on the
three upper levels of the city and particularly on Block B, an entire city block
150 by 72 m. Very little of Level IV, the Seleucid city, was uncovered, although
coins and figurines of that period were found. That level ceased to be occupied
about the time of a Parthian invasion in 143 B.C. Level III was a Greek autonomous
city under Parthian suzerainty and ended about A.D. 116 with Trajan's invasion.
D. N. Wilber, ed.
This text is from: The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites,
Princeton University Press 1976. Cited Nov 2002 from
Perseus Project URL below, which contains bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!