reaches down as far as 3.6 metres above zero, and which must therefore
belong to one of the later rebuildings. A water conduit constructed on
the south side (W in the plan), similar to that in the Ninib temple, was
walled up by the kisu.
XLVIII
THE GREEK THEATRE
Close to the inner city walls on the east there lies a group of mounds
which on account of their reddish colour are called “Homera” by the
Arabs (Fig. 249). Of these we have examined a northern, a central, and a
southern mound, somewhat carefully, and find that from top to bottom
they all are artificial heaps of broken burnt brick. Of their origin we
will speak later (p. 308 _et seq._).
The southern of these mounds has been utilised as a foundation for the
auditorium of a theatre. In the débris of the building there was found
the Greek dedicatory inscription on an alabaster slab (Fig. 248),
according to which one “Dioscurides (built) the theatre and a stage.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 248.—Inscription from Greek theatre.
]
The building (Fig. 253) is constructed principally of crude brick, and
only in some special places, such as the pillars and the bases of the
pillars, brick rubble is used, laid with gypsum mortar (Fig. 250).
For the upper part of the auditorium the artificial mound was not
sufficiently high, and therefore a retaining wall of mud brick supported
the upper seats, which have now disappeared. On the three broad
projections of the retaining wall on the north stairways were apparently
constructed. Of the seats only the 5 lower ranges, which must have been
up to the first _diazoma_, now remain; they consist of mud bricks on
which are laid uniform courses of brick rubble. Every seat of 5 courses
high has a footstool 2 courses high in front of it. Nine narrow stairs,
with steps only 2 courses high, separate the _kerkides_ from each other.
The central stairway, with steps 3 courses high, is broader than the
others, and led to a compartment which occupied an entire wedge from the
orchestra to the diazoma, the _proëdreia_, intended for distinguished
personages, probably the priests of Dionysos. The auditorium, the
orchestra with its _parodoi_, and the stage at some later period, which
it is not necessary to estimate as very remote from the first one, were
raised by about 1 metre, which caused the rows of seats and apparently
also the proscenium to intrude by about 60 to 90 centimetres into the
orchestra.
[Illustration:
FIG. 249.—Plan of the mounds, Homera.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 250.—General view of the Greek theatre.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 251.—Pedestals for statues in orchestra.
]
At the edge of the orchestra, which was rather more than a semicircle,
near the lowest row of seats, there was a row of statues placed on brick
postaments (Fig. 251), of which two at the lower level of the orchestra,
with their coating of fine white plaster, are still in good condition.
The statues have now disappeared, but they have left deep traces on the
top of their pedestals. On the east there are remains of 8 other
postaments of the same sort at the level of the second building period.
The stage exhibits between the _versurae_, in a similar external course,
a row of 12 proscenium piers, small and rectangular in form, and bearing
on their front face somewhat narrower semi-pillars. The intercolumnar
spaces were roofed over with roughly hewn stone blocks, one of which has
fallen over and lies immediately in front of the proscenium. All these
portions of the building were originally covered with two washes of fine
white plaster (Fig. 252).
Similar semi-columns stand on both sides of the door leading to the
orchestra. They led through two-chambered parodoi into the open air. Of
these chambers the one to the west, especially long and narrow, must
have served as a waiting-room for the public or the chorus.
[Illustration:
FIG. 252.—View of the proscenium pillars.
]
Of the back wall of the _logeion_, the “scaenae frons,” only the
foundation walls of brick rubble remain _in situ_. This was as usual
liberally decorated; many of the reliefs in gypsum plaster with which it
was adorned have been found (Fig. 254). The two lengthy halls behind the
_scaenae frons_ must have been connected with each other in the upper
floors by arched openings, as is taken for granted in our reconstructed
plan. In the foundation—above which the building is in large measure
ruined—the doorways are not arranged for, whereas in Babylonian houses,
such as in those of Merkes, the door openings are almost without
exception carried right down to the lowest course.
A large peristyle with adjoining and almost uniform chambers abuts on
the stage at the south. The southern row of these chambers is very
largely destroyed, but of the peristyle sufficient of the brick rubble
foundations remain to enable us to judge of the main part. The peristyle
had a double nave at the south side, as is often the case with
palaestra-peristyles. Fairly numerous remains still exist of the columns
that stood on these foundations; they are of burnt brick cut into
circular forms, and some of them that were roughly shaped were
undoubtedly covered with a fine whitewash that gave them a clearly cut
outline.
[Illustration:
FIG. 253.—Plan of Greek theatre, restored.
]
On the east, by the side of the peristyle hall, there opened out a long
narrow _exedra_, which was also columned. Both stage and peristyle stand
on ancient ruined dwellings, of which the mud-brick walls were brought
to light in a cross-cut we made through the central axis.
The plan, therefore, represents on the whole a combination of a theatre
and of a palaestra. In any case the Greek population of Babylon found
here an indispensable centre for those amusements and intellectual
interests which they would have been most unwilling to abandon in that
remote metropolis of the East, on the development of which Alexander the
Great had founded such far-seeing plans.
[Illustration:
FIG. 254.—Gypsum decorations of Greek theatre.
]
The building, as it was first constructed, may well date back to the
time of Alexander himself, even though the foundation inscription found
here, which appears to refer to a restoration, belongs to a later
period.
XLIX
THE NORTHERN MOUND OF HOMERA
[Illustration:
FIG. 255.—Section through the northern mound of Homera.
]
About 16 metres in height, and with somewhat steep sides, the most
northern of the mounds of Homera (_w_ 13 on plan, Fig. 249) occupies a
dominating position above the whole of the adjacent surroundings, and
forms a remarkable object from a very considerable distance. In order to
discover its nature we carried a trench through it, from east to west,
cutting the mound in half like an apple; with the surprising result that
the mound proved to contain no building such as we might have expected,
judging from the Kasr. The entire mass from the top to 1 metre below
zero consists of brick rubble, which has been intentionally and
artificially heaped up. The layers (Fig. 255), which are alternately
coarse and finer, are fairly horizontal at the base, but above they fall
in the natural slope of about 45 grades towards the north-east. The
mound must, therefore, have been gradually heaped up with débris thrown
on it from the south-west.
The broken bricks have, for the most part, ancient asphalt or lime
mortar clinging to them. Some of them also are unburnt, and the finer
layers more especially contain much clay. The Nebuchadnezzar stamps have
been found there, but no potsherds, a few Greek terra-cottas, and a
fragment of a cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar with an inscription referring
to the building of Etemenanki, the tower of Babylon. It is a duplicate
of the cylinder: Neb. Hilp. iii. l. 18–24, and iv. l. 15–19 (M’Gee, _Zur
Topographie von Babylon_, vi.).
Thus the mass of débris comes from a Babylonian building brought here in
Greek times, and contains a document belonging to Etemenanki. At the
ruins of Etemenanki the absence of débris had already struck us as
remarkable. What is to be seen there at the present time—low banks round
the deep trenches—is merely the result of modern digging by Arab brick
robbers. Before this Arab disfigurement of the place, the site of the
tower was completely level. At the Kasr and the hill of Babil, as
elsewhere, the huge mounds of rubbish bear witness to the immensity of
the ruins they represent. In Sachn we have the insignificant remains of
a colossal building without débris, and in Homera a colossal mass of
rubbish without a building, and we may therefore safely conclude with
the greatest possible certainty that the débris of Etemenanki lies in
Homera. This agrees admirably with the statement of Greek authors
(Strabo, xvi. 1, 5), according to which Alexander the Great intended to
replace the tower which had fallen in his time, and expended 600,000
days’ wages on having the débris removed: “ἦν δὲ πυραμὶς ... ἣν
Ἀλέξανδρος ἐβούλετο ἀνασκευάσαι, πολὺ δ’ ἦν ἔργον καὶ πολλοῦ χρόνου
(αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ χοῦς εἰς ἀνακάθαρσιν μυρίοις ἀνδράσι δυεῖν μηνῶν ἔργον ἦν),
ὤστ’ οὐκ ἔφθη τὸ ἐγχειρηθὲν ἐπιτελέσαι.” The mass of rubbish that lies
in Homera—the middle and southern groups also consist of exactly similar
broken material—may be roughly estimated at 300,000 cubic metres, which
corresponds well with the amount of wages quoted above. As the Euphrates
flowed westward close to Etemenanki, and also between the Kasr and
Homera, in the Greek period we can suppose that the transport was
effected by water.
It may be supposed that the work of piling up débris in this place would
not be undertaken without some object. The heaps might well have served
good purpose in the erection of new buildings, such as were undoubtedly
planned by Alexander. It is true that the northern mound was never
utilised, but we have already seen that the southern one was used as the
substructure for a theatre, and the central group we will now observe
more closely.
L
THE CENTRAL MOUND OF HOMERA
The central group of Homera (_w_ 21 on plan, Fig. 249), which consists
below of exactly the same débris as that we have just described at the
northern mound, differs greatly from the latter in that at a height of
7.5 metres above zero a platform is constructed, and that not by merely
levelling down a mound that already existed, but by actually piling up
materials to the requisite height and levelling them. Upon this platform
at the present time there is a layer of earth, from 2 to 3 metres high,
with some fragments of brick and a few potsherds; no walls are to be
seen in it. It appears, therefore, that this top layer comes from quite
late and very inferior dwellings, for which the platform itself was not
constructed. The materials of which the level of this platform consists
are very much reddened, as though they had been burnt. Indications of a
great conflagration are to be found in blocks of mud brick smelted
together by a fierce fire, and bearing clear imprints of palm and other
wood. In many places the prints show the sharp edges of good carpenter’s
work. All this is remarkable, and we should like to find the explanation
of it.
This may perhaps be found in the report given by Diodorus (xvii. 115[5])
of the funeral pyre Alexander the Great caused to be erected to
solemnise the funeral ceremonies of Hephaestion. In order to form a
platform for this magnificently decorated wooden construction, he had
part of the city wall of Babylon demolished, and used the brick
materials thus obtained. The platform has perished very considerably on
all sides, and the level surface that still survives is undoubtedly only
a small part of the original, so that it is useless to endeavour to
recover the traces of the construction in detail.
Footnote 5:
Αὐτὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀρχιτέκτονας ἀθροίσας καὶ λεπτουργῶν πλῆθος, τοῦ μὲν
τείχους καθεῖλεν ἐπὶ δέκα σταδίους, τὴν δ’ ὀπτὴν πλίνθον ἀναλεξάμενος,
καὶ τὸν δεχόμενον τὴν πυρὰν τόπον ὁμαλὸν κατασκευάσας, ὠκοδόμησε
τετράπλευρον πυράν, σταδιαίας οὔσης ἑκάστης πλευρᾶς. (2) εἰς τριάκοντα
δὲ δόμους διελόμενος τὸν τόπον, καὶ καταστρώσας τὰς ὀροφὰς φοινίκων
στελέχεσι, τετράγωνον ἐποίησε πᾶν τὸ κατασκεύασμα.
The place lies exactly opposite the Citadel, and was divided from it in
the time of Alexander by the Euphrates. The magnificent pyre, which is
said to have cost 12,000 talents, when seen from the Acropolis must have
stood out in a most impressive manner against the eastern horizon.
LI
RETROSPECT
From the central position occupied by Homera we can command a peculiarly
instructive view over the ruins of Babylon, and piece together and
recall all that excavation has brought to light of the development of
the city. In doing so, we will leave unnoticed the information obtained
from written sources. They belong to a different kind of treatment.
The existence of Babylon in prehistoric times, before the fifth
millennium, is proved by flint and other stone implements. It is
impossible to carry excavations down to that depth, owing to the rise in
the water-level (p. 261).
The earliest accessible ruins belong to the time of the first Babylonian
kings (Hammurabi, _circa_ 2500 B.C.), and lie yonder in Merkes (p. 240).
The city, therefore, by that time included at least that region.
The same neighbourhood gave us the plan of houses of the time of the
Kassite kings, Kurigalzu III. to Kudur-Bel (_circa_ 1400–1249),
Bel-nâdin-šum to Marduk-aplu-iddina II. (_circa_ 1219–1154); and the
strata above afforded those of the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian,
and Graeco-Parthian periods. All of these show that the division of the
city into streets and blocks of houses remained practically unchanged
throughout the course of centuries (p. 239 _et seq._).
When the Assyrian kings ruled over Babylon they repaired mainly the
great temple of Esagila, now under Amran, where the pavements of
Esarhaddon (680–668 B.C.) and Sardanapalus (668–626 B.C.) still lie (p.
204). Sennacherib (705–681) had caused the Procession Street near Sachn
to be paved.
On the Kasr, Sargon (710–705) built the wall of the Southern Citadel,
with the rounded corner tower (p. 137). Sardanapalus restored
Nimitti-Bel lying close to our point of observation, Homera, and Emach
on the Kasr. At that time the great extension of the Southern Citadel
itself was not built, nor yet that part of the Kasr that lay to the
north of it, the mound of Babil and the outer city wall. All that
belongs to the building period of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom (625–538
B.C.).
Nabopolassar (625–604) began with the western part of the Southern
Citadel, built the Arachtu wall from the Kasr as far as Amran, and also
the temple of Ninib (p. 229), and Imgur-Bel on the Kasr.
With Nebuchadnezzar (604–561) began the colossal rebuilding of the
entire city, with the restoration of the temple of Emach on the Citadel,
of Esagila, of Etemenanki, the tower of Babylon with its wide temenos,
of the Ninib temple in Ishin aswad, of temple “Z” and the earlier Ishtar
temple in Merkes. He restored the Arachtu wall, constructed the earliest
stone bridge over the Euphrates (p. 197) at Amran, the canal
Libil-ḫigalla, that flowed round the Kasr on the north, east, and south,
completed the Southern Citadel with his palace, and enlarged it towards
the north in three successive extensions, in which the Procession Street
was heightened and paved with stone, and the Ishtar Gate acquired its
latest form, while both were decorated with the coloured enamelled
frieze of animals. He built a new castle far out on the north and
surrounded the city which he had enlarged in this fashion with the great
outer city wall, of which from Homera we can see the white chain of
mounds on the eastern horizon.
Of Nabonidus (555–538) we have more especially the strong fortification
wall on the banks of the Euphrates, that has been excavated from Kasr to
the Urash gate, near the bridge at Amran (p. 200), and the Ishtar temple
in Merkes.
In the time of the Persian kings (538–331 B.C.), of which Artaxerxes II.
(405–358) has left us a memorial in the marble building on the Southern
Citadel (p. 127), the great change must have occurred that essentially
altered the aspect of Babylon. The Euphrates, which until then had only
washed the west side of the Kasr, now flowed eastward round the
Acropolis. From this time dates the plan of the city as it is described
by Herodotus (484–424? B.C.) and Ctesias, the physician of Artaxerxes.
The apparently wide bend of the river that then flowed round the east of
the Kasr we must now reconstruct in imagination as we look across to the
castle of Nebuchadnezzar from Homera.
Alexander the Great (331–323) set himself to prevent the decline of
Babylon, which was then beginning, and to restore it to its former
magnitude. The great tower Etemenanki, the sanctuary of Bel, and a
marked feature of Babylon, was to have been rebuilt. The fallen masses
were carried away, and the débris lies here in the mounds of Homera (p.
308), but the king died before he could rebuild the tower.
From this time onward the burnt brick of the ancient royal buildings was
re-used for all manner of secular buildings. The Greek theatre at Homera
(p. 301) is built of such material. Thus the pillared buildings of Amran
(p. 215 _et seq._) and houses at Merkes, that are built of brick rubble,
belong either to the Greek (331–139 B.C.) or the Parthian (139 B.C.–226
A.D.) periods, but to which of them cannot be determined. At that time
began the process of demolishing the city area, which perhaps was now
only occupied by isolated dwellings, a process that certainly continued
throughout the Sassanide period (226–636 A.D.).
Amran alone was inhabited, and that only scantily, as is shown by the
uppermost levels there, which reach down as late as the Arab middle age
(_circa_ 1200 A.D.). When we gaze to-day over the wide area of ruins we
are involuntarily reminded of the words of the prophet Jeremiah (l. 39):
“Therefore the wild beasts of the desert, with the wild beasts of the
islands, shall dwell there, and the owls shall dwell therein: and it
shall be no more inhabited for ever; neither shall it be dwelt in from
generation to generation.”
LII
APPENDIX
HERODOTUS i. 178–187
178. Κῦρος, ἐπείτε τὰ πάντα τῆς ἠπείρου ὑποχείρια ἐποιήσατο, Ἀσσυρίοισι
ἐπετίθετο. τῆς δὲ Ἀσσυρίης ἐστὶ μέν κου καὶ ἄλλα πολίσματα μεγάλα πολλά,
τὸ δὲ οὐνομαστότατον καὶ ἰσχυρότατον καὶ ἔνθα σφι Νίνου ἀναστάτου
γενομένης τὰ βασιλήια κατεστήκεε, ἦν ΒΑΒΥΛΩΝ, ἐοῦσα τοιαύτη δή τις
πόλις. κέεται ἐν πεδίῳ μεγάλῳ, μέγαθος ἐοῦσα μέτωπον ἕκαστον εἴκοσι καὶ
ἑκατὸν σταδίων, ἐούσης τετραγώνου· οὗτοι στάδιοι τῆς περιόδου τῆς πόλιος
γίνονται συνάπαντες ὀγδώκοντα καὶ τετρακόσιοι. τὸ μέν νυν μέγαθος
τοσοῦτόν ἐστι τοῦ ἄστεος τοῦ Βαβυλωνίου, ἐκεκόσμητο δὲ ὡς οὐδὲν ἄλλο
πόλισμα τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν. τάφρος μὲν πρῶτά μιν βαθέα τε καὶ εὐρέα καὶ
πλέη ὕδατος περιθέει, μετὰ δὲ τεῖχος πεντήκοντα μὲν πηχέων βασιληίων ἐὸν
τὸ εὖρος, ὕψος δὲ διηκοσίων πηχέων· ὁ δὲ βασιλήιος πῆχυς τοῦ μετρίου
ἐστὶ πήχεος μέζων τρισὶ δακτύλοισι.
179. Δεῖ δή με πρὸς τούτοισι ἔτι φράσαι, ἵνα τε ἐκ τῆς τάφρου ἡ γῆ
ἀναισιμώθη καὶ τὸ τεῖχος ὅντινα τρόπον ἔργαστο. ὀρύσσοντες ἅμα τὴν
τάφρον ἐπλίνθευον τὴν γῆν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὀρύγματος ἐκφερομένην, ἑλκύσαντες
δὲ πλίνθους ἱκανὰς ὤπτησαν αὐτὰς ἐν καμίνοισι· μετὰ δὲ τέλματι χρεώμενοι
ἀσφάλτῳ θερμῇ καὶ διὰ τριήκοντα δόμων πλίνθου ταρσοὺς καλάμων
διαστοιβάζοντες ἔδειμαν πρῶτα μὲν τῆς τάφρου τὰ χείλεα, δεύτερα δὲ αὐτὸ
τὸ τεῖχος τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον. ἐπάνω δὲ τοῦ τείχεος παρὰ τὰ ἔσχατα οἰκήματα
μουνόκωλα ἔδειμαν, τετραμμένα ἐς ἄλληλα· τὸ μέσον δὲ τῶν οἰκημάτων
ἔλιπον τεθρίππῳ περιέλασιν. πύλαι δὲ ἐνεστᾶσι πέριξ τοῦ τείχεος ἑκατόν,
χάλκεαι πᾶσαι, καὶ σταθμοί τε καὶ ὑπέρθυρα ὡσαύτως. ἔστι δὲ ἄλλη πόλις
ἀπέχουσα ὀκτὼ ἡμερέων ὁδὸν ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος· Ἲς οὔνομα αὐτῇ. ἔνθα ἐστὶ
ποταμὸς οὐ μέγας· Ἲς καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ τὸ οὔνομα. ἐσβάλλει δὲ οὗτος ἐς τὸν
Εὐφρήτην ποταμὸν τὸ ῥέεθρον, οὕτως ὦν ὁ Ἲς ποταμὸς ἅμα τῷ ὕδατι θρόμβους
ἀσφάλτου ἀναδιδοῖ πολλούς, ἔνθεν ἡ ἄσφαλτος ἐς τὸ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι τεῖχος
ἐκομίσθη.
180. Ἐτετείχιστο μέν νυν ἡ Βαβυλὼν τρόπῳ τοιῷδε, ἔστι δὲ δύο φάρσεα τῆς
πόλιος. τὸ γὰρ μέσον αὐτῆς ποταμὸς διέργει, τῷ οὔνομά ἐστι Εὐφρήτης.
ῥέει δὲ ἐξ Ἀρμενίων, ἐὼν μέγας καὶ βαθὺς καὶ ταχύς· ἐξίει δὲ οὗτος ἐς
τὴν Ἐρυθρὴν θάλασσαν. τὸ ὦν δὴ τεῖχος ἑκάτερον τοὺς ἀγκῶνας ἐς τὸν
ποταμὸν ἐλήλαται· τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου αἱ ἐπικαμπαὶ παρὰ χεῖλος ἑκάτερον τοῦ
ποταμοῦ αἱμασιὴ πλίνθων ὀπτέων παρατείνει. τὸ δὲ ἄστυ αὐτό, ἐὸν πλῆρες
οἰκέων τριωρόφων τε καὶ τετρωρόφων, κατατέτμηται τὰς ὁδοὺς ἰθέας, τάς τε
ἄλλας καὶ τὰς ἐπικαρσίας τὰς ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμὸν ἐχούσας. κατὰ δὴ ὦν ἑκάστην
ὁδὸν ἐν τῇ αἱμασιῇ τῇ παρὰ τὸν ποταμὸν πυλίδες ἐπῆσαν, ὅσαι περ αἱ
λαῦραι, τοσαῦται ἀριθμόν. ἦσαν δὲ καὶ αὗται χάλκεαι, φέρουσαι καὶ αὐταὶ
ἐς αὐτὸν τὸν ποταμόν.
181. Τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τὸ τεῖχος θώρηξ ἐστί, ἕτερον δὲ ἔσωθεν τεῖχος
περιθέει, οὐ πολλῷ τέῳ ἀσθενέστερον τοῦ ἑτέρου τείχεος, στεινότερον δέ.
ἐν δὲ φάρσεϊ ἑκατέρῳ τῆς πόλιος ἐτετείχιστο ἐν μέσῳ ἐν τῷ μὲν τὰ
βασιλήια περιβόλῳ τε μεγάλῳ καὶ ἰσχυρῷ, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ Διὸς Βήλου ἱρὸν
χαλκόπυλον, καὶ ἐς ἐμὲ ἔτι τοῦτο ἐόν, δύο σταδίων πάντῃ, ἐὸν τετράγωνον.
ἐν μέσῳ δὲ τοῦ ἱροῦ πύργος στερεὸς οἰκοδόμηται, σταδίου καὶ τὸ μῆκος καὶ
τὸ εὖρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πύργῳ ἄλλος πύργος ἐπιβέβηκε, καὶ ἕτερος μάλα
ἐπὶ τούτῳ, μέχρι οὗ ὀκτὼ πύργων. ἀνάβασις δὲ ἐς αὐτοὺς ἔξωθεν κύκλῳ περὶ
πάντας τοὺς πύργους ἔχουσα πεποίηται. μεσοῦντι δέ κου τῆς ἀναβάσιός ἐστι
καταγωγή τε καὶ θῶκοι ἀμπαυστήριοι, ἐν τοῖσι κατίζοντες ἀμπαύονται οἱ
ἀναβαίνοντες. ἐν δὲ τῷ τελευταίῳ πύργῳ νηὸς ἔπεστι μέγας. ἐν δὲ τῷ νηῷ
κλίνη μεγάλη κέεται εὖ ἐστρωμένη καί οἱ τράπεζα παρακέεται χρυσέη.
ἄγαλμα δὲ οὐκ ἔνι οὐδὲν αὐτόθι ἐνιδρυμένον· οὐδὲ νύκτα οὐδεὶς
ἐναυλίζεται ἀνθρώπων ὅτι μὴ γυνὴ μούνη τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, τὴν ἂν ὁ θεὸς
ἕληται ἐκ πασέων, ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ Χαλδαῖοι, ἐόντες ἱρέες τούτου τοῦ θεοῦ.
182. Φασὶ δὲ οἱ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πιστὰ λέγοντες, τὸν θεὸν αὐτὸν
φοιτᾶν τε ἐς τὸν νηὸν καὶ ἀμπαύεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης, κατάπερ ἐν Θήβῃσι
τῇσι Αἰγυπτίῃσι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ὡς λέγουσι οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι (καὶ γὰρ
δὴ ἐκεῖθι κοιμᾶται ἐν τῷ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Θηβαιέος γυνή, ἀμφότεραι δὲ αὗται
λέγονται ἀνδρῶν οὐδαμῶν ἐς ὁμιλίην φοιτᾶν), καὶ κατάπερ ἐν Πατάροισι τῆς
Λυκίης ἡ πρόμαντις τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐπεὰν γένηται. οὐ γὰρ ὦν αἰεί ἐστι
χρηστήριον αὐτόθι· ἐπεὰν δὲ γένηται, τότε ὦν συγκατακληίεται τὰς νύκτας
ἔσω ἐν τῷ νηῷ.
183. Ἔστι δὲ τοῦ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἱροῦ καὶ ἄλλος κάτω νηός, ἔνθα ἄγαλμα μέγα
τοῦ Διὸς ἔνι κατήμενον χρύσεον, καί οἱ τράπεζα μεγάλη παρακέεται χρυσέη
καὶ τὸ βάθρον οἱ καὶ ὁ θρόνος χρύσεός ἐστιν. καὶ ὡς ἔλεγον οἱ Χαλδαῖοι,
ταλάντων ὀκτακοσίων χρυσίου πεποίηται ταῦτα. ἔξω δὲ τοῦ νηοῦ βωμός ἐστι
χρύσεος. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλος βωμὸς μέγας, ἐπ’ οὗ θύεται τὰ τέλεα τῶν
προβάτων· ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ χρυσέου βωμοῦ οὐκ ἔξεστι θύειν ὅτι μὴ γαλαθηνὰ
μοῦνα, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ μέζονος βωμοῦ καὶ καταγίζουσι λιβανωτοῦ χίλια τάλαντα
ἔτεος ἑκάστου οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τότε ἐπεὰν τὴν ὁρτὴν ἄγωσι τῷ θεῷ τούτῳ· ἦν δὲ
ἐν τῷ τεμένεϊ τούτῳ ἔτι τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον καὶ ἀνδριὰς δυώδεκα πηχέων
χρύσεος στερεός. ἐγὼ μέν μιν οὐκ εἶδον, τὰ δὲ λέγεται ὑπό Χαλδαίων,
ταῦτα λέγω. τούτῳ τῳ ἀνδριάντι Δαρεῖος μὲν ὁ Ὑστάσπεος ἐπιβουλεύσας οὐκ
ἐτόλμησε λαβεῖν, Ξέρξης δὲ ὁ Δαρείου ἔλαβε καὶ τὸν ἱρέα ἀπέκτεινε
ἀπαγορεύοντα μὴ κινέειν τὸν ἀνδριάντα. τὸ μὲν δὴ ἱρὸν τοῦτο οὕτω
κεκόσμηται, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἴδια ἀναθήματα πολλά.
184. Τῆς δὲ Βαβυλῶνος ταύτης πολλοὶ μέν κου καὶ ἄλλοι ἐγένοντο βασιλέες,
τῶν ἐν τοῖσι Ἀσσυρίοισι λόγοισι μνήμην ποιήσομαι, οἳ τὰ τείχεά τε
ἐπεκόσμησαν καὶ τὰ ἱρά, ἐν δὲ δὴ καὶ γυναῖκες δύο· ἡ μὲν πρότερον
ἄρξασα, τῆς ὕστερον γενεῇσι πέντε πρότερον γενομένη, τῇ οὔνομα ἦν
Σεμίραμις, αὕτη μὲν ἀπεδέξατο χώματα ἀνὰ τό πεδίον ἐόντα ἀξιοθέητα·
πρότερον δὲ ἐώθεε ὁ ποταμὸς ἀνὰ τὸ πεδίον πᾶν πελαγίζειν.