Herodotus and the City of Babylon
J. Andrew McLaughlin
©2000
What is the significance of the association between Herodotus - continually branded both "the father of history" and "the father of lies" - and the city of Babylon in ancient Mesopotamia? How has Herodotus’ work, The Histories, contributed to our reconstruction of the history of that city? The answer, of course, is simple at first glance: any ancient document which contributes to our modern understanding of ancient civilizations is valuable. Few would question the significance of Herodotus’ Histories as a whole; it provides a great number of fascinating accounts of the events and peoples of his time, and a portion of this work is dedicated to the city of Babylon. He describes the city and its surroundings, provides some history of its kings and rulers, tells the story of its fall to Cyrus the Great of Persia, and outlines a number of Babylonian customs. The Histories’ nine volumes have been a popular source of information about ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures since the time of their composition in classical Greece, and have been widely circulated throughout the World ever since (as opposed to having been ‘discovered’ by modern archaeologists). However, the point can also be made that, despite his statements that Babylon was "the most powerful and renowned of them all" (Herodotus, Book I, para 178) and that it "surpasses in splendour any city of the known world" (Herodotus, Book I, para 178), Herodotus may have done unjustified harm to the historical perception of the great city. It is all but certain that in some cases - deliberately or accidentally – the Greek historian recorded mere speculation and rumors rather than verified facts, while failing in many instances to credit them as such. Whether or not his accounts of some of Babylon’s morally questionable customs reflect historical reality, he is responsible (at least in part) for its reputation as a place of hubris, hedonism, and depravity.Herodotus commences the Histories with an overview of the city’s layout. He describes the landscape as a "wide plain" (Herodotus, Book I, para. 178), and then goes on to enumerate the dimensions of, and construction techniques employed in building, the enormous city walls and moat. Other physical features noted include the course of the Euphrates river, which flowed through the center of the city, "houses of three and four storeys" (Herodotus, Book I, para 180), and the straightness and grid-like layout of the streets. Herodotus also includes a detailed description of the great ziggurat, also sometimes called the ‘Tower of Babel’. Modern scholars may utilize these physical descriptions when attempting to test the accuracy of Herodotus’ work, since such details can be verified or refuted by way of the archaeological evidence. The results of such comparisons lead some to doubt that Herodotus ever visited Babylon at all (in fact, although Herodotus mentions travelling to a number of places, he never explicitly claims to have personally seen this city). The site of Babylon shows that indeed, the ancient course of the river Euphrates did roughly bisect the city. However, Herodotus’ claim that the outer city wall was "fifty royal cubits wide and two hundred high" (Herodotus, Book I, para 179) - 85 and 335 feet, respectively – and particularly that its length was "a circuit of some fifty-six miles" (Herodotus, Book I, para 178) fails to accurately reflect the physical evidence uncovered at the site of Babylon. First of all, it is fair to speculate rationally that the supposed height of the walls was improbable. It is unlikely that the mud-brick construction material described would have been solid enough to support the weight of such a structure, and exploration has shown that the length of this wall seems to have been closer to twelve miles around. Does this confirm that Herodotus never visited the city, or merely suggest that he was given exaggerated information by his guides (and that he wasn’t inclined to personally verify the information)? This and other examples have provided ammunition for those who tend to question the legitimacy of the historian’s work. Take for example Herodotus’ claim that the royal palace and the great ziggurat were on opposite sides of the river:
"There is a fortress in the middle of each half of the city: in one the royal palace surrounded by a wall of great strength, in the other, the temple of Bel, the Babylonian Zeus." (Herodotus, Book I, para 181) The archaeologists’ site plan of Babylon suggests that both were in fact located in the eastern portion of the city. As an interesting side note, there seems to be a modern-day perception that Herodotus described the famous ‘hanging gardens’ of Babylon, when in fact the historian mentions no such gardens in his Histories. After describing the city’s layout and defenses, Herodotus focuses for a time on the "temple of Bel [Marduk], the Babylonian Zeus" (Herodotus, Book I, para 181). What he seems to be describing in this passage is not in fact not the nominal temple of Marduk, Esagila, but rather the ziggurat Etemenanki, also historically associated with the ‘Tower of Babel’. This ziggurat is no longer in existence at the site of Babylon. The temple "…was quarried for its baked bricks and is now a hole in the ground" (Roaf, p. 192). Thus Herodotus’ account of the structure is extremely valuable, albeit somewhat unverifiable. Herodotus says the temple consisted of eight levels, the top of which was a sacred ‘bedroom’ or chamber for the physical incarnation of the god Marduk. Its contents were a large bed and a golden table. The only human to ever spend the night there, he says, was a lone woman "that the god has chosen" (Herodotus, Book I, para 182) – presumably in order to assume the role of Marduk’s mistress. Herodotus writes he has been told by the Chaldaean priests that the god spends the night there in person, "though I do not believe them" (Herodotus, Book I, para 182). It has been speculated that the Babylonian king would act the part of the god during religious festivals, and perform a sacred marriage rite with the woman in this chamber. Continuing his description of the ziggurat, the historian claims that the penultimate level was another shrine to Marduk, this one containing a large, golden cult statue of the god. Outside the temple, he says, were two altars; one was of solid gold. Since its day, the temple has been plundered for its building materials by various peoples (including the workmen of Alexander the Great). Since nothing remains of the great structure, Herodotus’ description is one of the few means by which we can learn its appearance and function in antiquity. The Greek’s work is invaluable in this respect for reconstructing the history of this most important feature of the ancient city. The Histories briefly mention the semi-legendary Babylonian queen Semiramis, and another queen which followed her "by five generations" (Herodotus, Book I, para 184). This second queen was Nitocris, and it is she, says Herodotus, who executed a number of diversions of the Euphrates, mostly for defensive purposes (making it more difficult to navigate swiftly). In addition, she constructed an artificial lake basin outside the city and built the stone bridge which was used to cross between the city’s two halves. Herodotus’ contribution here to our body of knowledge about Semiramis is minor at best, but the location of the bridge of Nitocris has been uncovered by archaeologists at the site of Babylon. Once again, by providing us with the stories of the lake basin and bridge construction, Herodotus helps us to understand the history behind Babylon’s physical remains. Herodotus follows with an account of the siege of the city, and its subsequent fall in 539 BC to the Persian king Cyrus. This is a well known story in which Cyrus’ armies, after defeating the Babylonians in battle outside the city (yet unable to breach Babylon’s mighty defensive wall) divert the Euphrates river, circumvent the wall by entering via the dry riverbed, and take the city without a fight. There is a moral undertone to this story, in that the Babylonians are said to have been arrogantly feasting and celebrating on the night the city fell – ignoring the threat of the formidable Persian army they mistakenly thought was locked safely outside the city walls. This story and its theme are retold in the Bible, and offered as an example of Babylon’s hubris. Besides the Bible, we have another source describing this story: the famous ‘Cyrus Cylinder’ found at Babylon (now housed at the British Museum) records the event somewhat differently, claiming that Cyrus entered the city without resistance of any kind: Thus Cyrus’ version lends a more righteous air to the story. If not for other sources, such as Herodotus and the Old Testament, we might be forced to accept the events as described by Cyrus’ inscriptions on the cylinder. Here again the Histories prove to be a valuable resource for the reconstruction of Babylonian history. The Histories also provide an agricultural context to the city of Babylon. Herodotus describes some of the agricultural practices of the region, and in regard to its fertility he claims: "All the inhabitants of Babylon as well as of the entire country of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors included, bowed to Cyrus and kissed his feet, jubilant that he had received the kingship, and with shining faces." (http://home.wxs.nl/~lende045/Cyrus/Cyrus.html#Cyrus)
However, in Georges Roux’ description of the same he suggests that "As a grain-bearing country, Assyria is the richest in the world. No attempt is made there to grow figs, grapes, or olives or any other fruit trees, but so great is the fertility of the grain fields that they normally produce crops of two-hundredfold, and in an exceptional year as much as three-hundredfold." (Herodotus, Book I, para 193)
Roux goes on to suggest that "the recently suggested overall estimate of forty- to fiftyfold … appears to be acceptable" (Roux, p. 8). Although Herodotus succeeds in making his point that Assyria was a fertile grain-producing land, his figures would seem to be misleading. Once again, despite the fact that his information is valuable, the historian damages his credibility by way of exaggeration. Finally, Herodotus describes some of the customs of the Babylonian people. It is these descriptions which have been the cause of some controversy surrounding the Histories. First, he tells of an annual custom intended to guarantee adequate dowries for all young women of marriageable age. This is best described as a ‘wife auction’ at which the prettiest girls are sold to the highest bidders, and the least attractive are offered with dowries funded by the profits from the sale of the former. He also relates that Babylon has no doctors, but that sick persons are laid out in public places, and passersby are required to inquire about their maladies and provide medical advice where they can. Almost in passing, the historian additionally notes that "There is no doubt that the alluvial soil … was very fertile in antiquity, but the figure of two- or three-hundredfold given by Herodotus and Strabo for the yield of corn is grossly exaggerated, and to state that the yield of wheat in the extreme south of Iraq in about 2400 BC could compare favourably with that of the most modern Canadian wheatfields seems to be over-enthusiastic." (Roux, p. 8)
This casual description of (presumably) rampant and officially-sanctioned prostitution serves to harm the historical reputation of the city. Another custom along the same lines, but which Herodotus contends is the most questionable of all: a religious rite dedicated to the act of ‘sacred prostitution’: "…they have of late years hit upon another scheme, namely the prostitution of all girls of the lower classes to provide some relief from the poverty which followed upon the conquest with its attendant hardship and general ruin." (Herodotus, Book I, para 196)
According to the historian, a man throws the woman a silver coin of any value and utters a prescribed phrase invoking the goddess. Once propositioned thusly, the woman cannot refuse the offer, and must prostitute herself. There has been speculation that the description of this custom, combined with the mention of the "prostitution of all girls of the lower classes" (Herodotus, Book I, para 199) are the root causes of Babylon’s reputation for sexual impropriety – specifically within portions of the Bible. For example, "Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth" (Concordia: revelations 17:5). Regardless of whether these descriptions of sexual customs are true or false, it is a fact that the Greek historian has created and fuelled interest in Babylon which might not otherwise have existed – and therefore has contributed greatly to our understanding of the city: the Histories serve as a corroborating source for details found in the Bible’s Old Testament, and vice-versa. The Babylon that Herodotus visited in the mid-fifth century BC would have been that reconstructed by Nebuchadnezzar II, the same Babylon inhabited by the exiled Jews of the Old Testament. Our modern understanding of Babylon would not be as great if not for the fields of theology and of Biblical archaeology. This can be observed today with a search of the World Wide Web for the terms ‘herodotus’ and ‘babylon’. This returns as many (if not more) sites dedicated to theology as sites with historical or archaeological focus. In those writings, Herodotus is continually cited as proof of various Biblical passages. The earliest explorers of the ruins of Babylon (Koldewey et al) were from Christian Germany (not Islamic Iraq). Add to this the fact that Babylon was one of the earliest Mesopotamian sites to be studied, circa 1811, and the fact that the Histories had been so widely distributed since even pre-Christian times. It can be concluded that Herodotus’ factual account of the semi-mythical Biblical city, and its corroboration of portions of the Bible, must have helped to fuel the search for - and excavation of - the ancient site. In judging the value of the work of Herodotus, it is helpful to attempt to place it within its historical context. Scholars believe that works such as this were originally created to be ‘performed’ at public readings in Hellenic centers, such as Athens, during festival periods. Thus, there is an unsurprising element of showmanship and storytelling in the Histories. John Marincola, in his introduction to the Histories, says: "There is one custom amongst these people which is wholly shameful: every woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit in the temple of Aphrodite [Ishtar] and there give herself to a strange man." (Herodotus, Book I, para 199)
Additionally, one must remember that there was truly very little precedent for this kind of historical study. Herodotus was among the first to compile a comprehensive written volume of this nature. Prior to his time, the passing down of history would have been accomplished mainly by way of oral tradition. Thus, being the first known historian in the modern sense, Herodotus has often been an easy target - even in the ancient world - for others who wished to establish names for themselves as historians. Plutarch and Ctesias are two of the earliest examples. The reconstruction of the history of Babylon and other such places invariably comes down to the comparison and evaluation of disparate sources of information. Those who study history – particularly ancient history – will often acquire information from multiple sources, and frequently (almost invariably), these sources will disagree to some extent. It is commonly accepted that Herodotus was correct in many instances, and incorrect in others. In all, we can consider the Histories a valuable guide for reconstructing the history of ancient Babylon - so long as we recognize that we cannot necessarily accept its entirety at face value. "The reader will often find in Herodotus stories that can only be described as folktales, the type of literature known from the collections of the brothers Grimm. Stories of this kind, which are found all over the world, often have a whiff of the marvelous about them … Herodotus was probably drawing here on a long tradition of Ionian storytelling, but he took this and brought it to a level of inspired brilliance." (Herodotus, intro p. XV)
References Herodotus
1954 The Histories. Book I. , Revised edition. Ed. J. Marincola, Trans. A. De Selincourt. Canada: Penguin Roaf, M.
1990 Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Equinox. Roux, G.
1964 Ancient Iraq. Third edition. England: Allen & Unwin God, J.
1973 Concordia Self Study Bible. New international version. Ed. R. G. Hoerber. Grand Rapids: Zondervan