Talk:Babylon/Archive 2

Edit request from Dragan0, 3 September 2011
Change " was an Akkadian city-state " to " was an Akkadian city-state " The former redirects to Akkadian language, which is not the intent of the link.

Dragan0 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It appears that the city was founded after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, so it seems that the link to the Akkadian language may be more appropriate, as linking to the empire would suggest that the city had been part of it. Monty  845  17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Perhaps then it's misleading to call it an "Akkadian city-state" Dragan0 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When did the city become permanently uninhabited ?
Think this should be a heading in the article - always good to have a start and an end ... 122.150.200.116 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone add this picture to the article please. its a very recent picture of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.48.7 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2012
Babyon is the Greek term for fertile land located between the Euphrates and Tigris. The fall of the Assyrian Empire in 612 BCE led to the installment of the Babylonian Empire whose “heartland” was Babylonia. The Empire dominanted the East and had some more advanced technology than Europe which at the time was primarily Greek and Roman. Babylon’s agricultural wealth stemmed from this advanced technology including the seeder-plow unknown to Greece and Rome. In response to the fertility of the fields, Herodotus said, “So great is the fertility of the grain fields that they normally produce crops of two-hundredfold, and in an exceptional year as much as three-hundredfold. The blades of wheat and barley are at least three inches wide. As for millet and sesame, I will not say to what an astonishing size they grow, though I know well enough; but I also know that people who have not been to Babylonia have refused to believe even what I have already said about its fertility.” The language Babylonians spoke is unclear insofar as old texts were written with pictograms however some of their texts incidentally influenced writers of Judah, Greece, and Babylonia. Hammurabi reunited southern Mesopotamia and was the most well-known of the kings of Babylonia. Their most famous invention was astronomy which was followed by a stellar calendar. Its influence spread to East as part of Oriental culture insofar as the country was rich and so spread its language, literature, and culture to those fascinated individuals of the Orient.

http://www.livius.org/ba-bd/babylon/babylonia.html

Renegade3939 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have to give that composition a D--. For one thing, "the language Babylonians spoke" is not that "unclear".  Also, their history did not begin in 612 BC.  We can do a lot better than that, surely. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: What is the change being requested here? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Babylon and Persia
Kukini, I am not sure what part of `Babylon under Persia` is incorrect. In fact, every single statement is factual, unless your biased views dictate they are not the truth. Elamites, and Medes were the ancestor of Persians. When Cyrus the Great entered Babylon, he avenged Marduk and dissolved the the Chaldean king. The history of Babylonians and Persians are intertwined. Furthermore, Babylon became a major player in world history after Cyrus colonized it. Examples include, numerous mentions of the Persian Empire and the freeing of Jews in Babylon in the Old Testament, the fact that the Persian Empire made Babylon the center of its administration, the fact that `First Charter of Human Rights` in history was found in Babylon, embedded in the Cyrus cylinders, written by Cyrus, and other major historical events. As such, it is only fitting that, instead of a one sentenced, almost insignificant introduction to this period, a more informative paragraph be embedded in the `Babylon under Persia` section. You should really do some research before deciding for yourself what history was. Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Persians have much more in common with Babylon than Iraqis ever will; Iraq refers to the land that was formerly Babylon, before Arabs invaded Persia and moved their own people there.Zmmz 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sumerians who were originally an Iranian tribe had immense ties to Babylon, you may look up [], that says, ``The history of Mesopotamia began with the civilization of the Sumerians, who emigrated from the highlands of Iran and northern Anatolia in about 3000 BC``.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, by this time, editors would be laughing hysterically at this sort of claim, but - for the record - Sumerians had no relationship at all with Iranians, who lived thousands of miles away before migrating into the Persian, and other, areas from the central Asian region. Sumerian is a language ISOLATE, with no known relationship to any other language.  Iranians (Medes, Parthians, Persians) speak an Indo-European language.  Sumer, as a nation, was fully absorbed into Akkad and the Babylonian Empire by the time of Cyrus.  And for the record, today, modern historians more or less feel that the Sumerians were indigenous to the areas of Sumer, and were not migrants from some other area.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't stress how correct you are Zmmz. Everything you have written is 100% factual. For the first time, I didn't get wound up reading your account. Thanks --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

The link you provided in that last paragraphs says no such thing, rather it clearly states that Sumerian origins are still a mystery.

Further, from the books I read (Roux' "Ancient Iraq", Crawford's "Sumer and the Sumerians", Oppenheim's "Ancient Mesopotamia", and some articles) all agree that there is no difference physiologically betwen the Sumerians and their Semtiic northern neighbors, and that not only is there no evidence of Sumerian origins outside of the region, but they seem to go back deep in history. Now, I may have mis-read, but that is what I recall.

If you look at the patterns of Neolithic migrations, humans migrated from the Ferile Crescent, not into it. When agriculture began in the Fertile Crescent, the population exploded, and people from there began migrating out of the area into all directions.

In that light, the Sumerians, being in the Fertile Crescent itself (south Iraq), can be seen as a continuation of the local population, now booming and entering a more urban phase. Thus they are locals. it is this Neolithic migration, which began around 10,000 years ago, and continued for several thousand years after, that not only explains the spread of agricluture to many regions around, but also may explain the spread of languages, such as the similarities between Elamite (also from southern Iraq), and Dravidian, perhaps due to Neolithic Elamit (or Proto-Elamite) speakers from southern Iraq spdreading east-wards all the way to India.

But anyway, the point is, the Sumerians are most probably indeed an indigenous population, one continuous with with Neolithic farmers of the Fertile Crescent.

I do think it is sad your attempts to "steal" as it were, the Sumerians for "Persia" (strange you stating that they came from both Iran and northern Anatolia, which are quite a ways apart! And around 3000 b.c. you say? So they came to southern Iraq after they began their civilization? Quite amazing!).

Further, while it is true that Arabians moved into parts of Iraq (and have for some centuries before Islam), there was no population displacement of the indigenous peoples.

And what's this about Persians being descendants from the Elamites and Medes?! MYLO 09:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot do your homework for you. In regards to the origin of Sumerians, Columbia Encyclopedia says, '''``The questions concerning their origin cannot be answered with certainty. Some evidence suggests that they may have come as conquerors from the East (possibly from Iran or India)``'''. Furthermore, a scholar in his article titled `History of Iraq` says, ``the history of Mesopotamia began with the civilization of the Sumerians, who emigrated from the highlands of Iran and northern Anatolia in about 3000 BC``. And, about Iraq being made into an Arab country after Arabs invaded Persia; Encyclopedia Britanicca confirms it. Finally about Elams being one of earliest people to be in Iran, Encyclopedia Britannica says it is so. Keep in mind; the relationship between Elams, Medes, and Iranians is very much like that of Germans and Austrians. However, the difference is, 4000 years ago, all these tribes, and later Scythians being added to them, formed the country of Iran. Unfortunately, problems arise due the fact that some may have their own biased views, as well as the fact that in the West, Persia is mistakenly the name used for ancient Iran; see Discussion in Persia.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the real problem is that Babylonians, Sumerians, Elamites and Persians all spoke different languages that were not even in the same family, and this is a well known fact you can find anywhere. There is no need to confuse the distinct groups, even if the modern peoples are descended from a mixture of all of them.  And additionally, as I have repeatedly stated to no avail, this particular article is strictly about ONE CITY, the city is not know nto have existed after 275 BC when the inhabitants were deported by the Seleucids, and the story of that city (and this article) really ends there.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated, that ``ONE CITY`` that you mention, has an immensely significant period history under Persian rule; as such, only and only, under the section `Babylon under Persia`--we must be more informative. As fars as Sumerians, Elamites, Medes and Persians go, you stated they were not related, I stated, they have ancestorial ties, much more than Greeks and Macedonians ever did before they merged as one nation. And they do have their own seperate sections in all Encyclopedias. I am sorry, you seem to now be questioning Columbia Encyclopedia and other sources, but you cannot change history to fit your views.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't change the languages to fit your views. The languages are all well known, and were not related.  One is Semitic (Babylonian), one is Indo-European (Persian), and Elamite and Sumerian are totally different again.  They were four separate countries, four separate ethnicities, not even existing at the same time frame.  Nothing in Columbia Encyclopedia, which you seem to be twisting to your own ends, can possibly trump everything that is known by experts about these peoples and languages.  There has to be a return to consensus version here.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The language of the first Persian dynasty was Elamite. They had different languages, yet when they merged, one unifying language was chosen for them. In fact, even today many different provinces in Iran have their own dilect, and language, as well as, of course their unifying language of Persian, or Farsi. Sumerians may have not existed simultaneously as Persians; however, they may have been the ancestor of Iranians. Elamites, Medes, and Persians existed simultaneously and were very much close in their ethnicities. Elamites lived in what is today southwest Iran--whom incidentally is the neighboring state of Pars, i.e., Persia in latin, the state from which the first Persian dynasty, Achaemenids. All of these facts are not my words, rather if you put your biased views aside, and bother to read the articles in Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica that have been linked to the below texts, you will see for yourself that the quotations in bold below [are] from those Encyclopedias. Bottom line; these ethnicities were the ancestor of modern Iranians, which you try feverishly to deny. Again, In regards to the origin of Sumerians, Columbia Encyclopedia says, '''``The questions concerning their origin cannot be answered with certainty. Some evidence suggests that they may have come as conquerors from the East (possibly from Iran or India)``'''. Furthermore, a scholar in his article titled `History of Iraq` says, ``the history of Mesopotamia began with the civilization of the Sumerians, who emigrated from the highlands of Iran and northern Anatolia in about 3000 BC``. This discussion is over.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

I remember once walking into an Iranian book store, here in Los Angeles, and seeing them sell various miniature of various Assyrian and Mesopotamian artifacts, like a statue of Sennacharibe and Sargon and Great and the winged bull figures. When I asked the owner why they are selling Mesopotamian artifacts, she actually told me that these are all really Iranian! That the Assyrian Empire was as much Persian as "Iraqi"! This clearly shows the extent to which modern national animosities have influenced perceptions of history.

Let me repeat what I said before, there is no evidence of Sumerians coming from anywhere but Iraq. You cited sourced, and so did I. I got mine from books I read, which I already mentioned. If you want me to quote from the books I have here, I will gladly do so, but I'm sure you can find them yourself.

Further, as I already clearly stated, the pattern of neolithic migration shows that humans migrated out of the Fertile Crescent starting from around 10,000 years ago, and onwards for several thousand years afterwards. This is a fact, proven by both archeology and genetics. From a modenr geographic stand-point, that means people went from "Iraq" to "Iran", not the other way around.

And about the link you provided, ask yourself a simple question: how can Sumerians have come from both the Iranian plateau, and northern Anatolia?! Two areas far apart? And how can they have come into southern Mesopotamian in 3000 b.c. when their civilization began beofre that, and has clear and proven precedant in earlier cultures?

Were there some cultural ties with the Iranian plateau? Yes, as there was with Anatolia, and Syria, but that is to be expected with the rise of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, and the spread of peoples (and cultures) from there on out-wards, as well as later purely cultural influenced. As humans spread form the Fertile Crescent out-wards, they took their language and culture with them, which would explain the Elamite-Dravidian connection(unless you want to tell me that the Elamites must therefore have come from southern India?). There were pre-Sumerian Mesopotamian Ubaid cultural artifacts in eastern Arabia, should I take this proof that the Ubaid peoples were originally from eastern Arabia then?

Also, it should be pointed out that the land of Elam is technically part of the Mesopotamian low-land. You have only to look at a map, and you will see that while Elam is contiguous with southern Mesopotamia, it is seperated from the Iranian plateau by the Zagros mountains. That Elam was later taken over by Persians, and is today part of the nation of Iran, is true, but means nothing, like with the Syrian-Iraqi, or Syrian-Turkish borders.

I don't think that the lack of similarities between the various languages should point to differing ethnic origins. Afterall, back in paleolithich and mesolithic times, the human population density was fairly small, so that people who are living i the same area, could develope langauges that evolve to be desimilar over time, but with the coming of agricluture and the growth of the human population in these areas, the speakers of these languages grow as well, though perhaps some more than others (as may have been the case witht he speakers of Semitic in the Fertile Crescent, vis-a-vis speakers of Sumerian and Elamite, the latter of whome spread their langauge and elements of culture eastwards all the way to India).

Maybe I'm wrong. But from what I have read, both in books on Mesopotamian history, Near Eastern history, as well as genetic/linguistic studies (specifically the works of Cavalli-Sforza), there seems to have been in the region of today's Iraq, Syria/Palestine, south-western Iran, and south-eastern Turkey, a human population which, like in other parts of the world, made up of hunter-gatherers living ins mall population densities, probably speaking various languages that evolved differently over time. Then with the coming of agriculutre in the Fertile Crescent, the people's there grew in number, and began spreading out from the region in all direction, a process that continued for thousands of years, taking their language and culture with them.

Eventually, some of these peoples living in the origin-zone evolved urban centers and civilizations, which would influence neighboring regions as well.

That's not to say that cultural influences only spread from the Fertile Crescent out-wards, since things like pottery designs have no boundaries (I belive that neolithic migrants to Europe were themselves influenced by some of the local mesolithic cultures), but that is not the same as major human migrations, which, atleast from 10,000 years ago on-wards to maybe 6,000 or 5,000 years ago, tended to be from the Fertile Crescent outwards.

As for the Arabs in Iraq. Your link itself clearly states "The Arab conquests of the 7th century brought about the Arabization of central and southern Iraq." Yes, there was Arabian migration into Iraq, as into Syria and other areas (including eastern Iran), not just during the 7th and 8th centuries, but even before. But to say, as you seem to be implyingf, that somehow the local population of Iraq somehow disappeared and was replaced by one of Arabian ancestory, is silly.

"This discussion is over."?

I don't think so.

MYLO 03:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

I don`t know which books you have been reading, but I cited Columbia Encyclopedia--that is all the proof you need.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this nationalist cruft is doing on this talkpage, but it could definitely do with a more civil tone. Yes there is continuity between the Elamites and the Persians, there have been endless debates about that on Elamite Empire. I don't know about "ancient ties to the Sumerians" though, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic anyway. Babylon was under Persian rule for 200 years, and if you have information concerning the city during this time, it will be welcome. Just don't turn it into an article on the Achaemenid dynasty, stay on topic. dab (&#5839;) 09:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not, nor never have turned this into discussion about Persia; I only added two sentences to `Babylon under Persia` section.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be immensely helpful if participants in this discussion would sign their posts. You can do this using four tildes. It might even help your credibility! -Ben 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have turned this article into one about Persia? I only added two sentences to `Babylon under Persia` section, to make the significance of that era more understandable. Not one statement is incorrect under that section.Zmmz 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

True enough, this page is not about Sumerians or Persian, I was merely responding to the assertion made by this gentleman.

I've already named the books I got this information from, Roux' "Ancient Iraq", Oppenheim's "Ancient Mesopotamia", Crawford's "Sumer and the Sumerians", as well as Cavalli-Sforza's "The Great Human Diasporas" (for Neolithic explanations of Elamite and Dravidian connections), plus Sagg's "Babylonians".

Read about the connections between Ubaid and Uruk pre-Sumerian cultures.

You want to quote the internet, that's fine, but I prefer real books written by real scholars.

MYLO 05:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

``You want to quote the internet``? I have fevereshly quoted Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica; yet, you have failed to provide some solid evidence, besides some books written by some ideologically driven authors.Zmmz 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

"Ideologically driven authors"? Are you one of those people who believs that if it's not on the internet, then it doesn't exist?

Listen, I don't want this to go on endlessly.

You believe what ever you want, agreed?

MYLO 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the internet is an enormous source of knowledge, and by Googling some of authors you provided, it seems there are not of highest caliber. My refrences are again, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Are they wrong because you are biased, and choose not to agree with these Encyclopedias?Zmmz 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

HAve you ever even read a book about Mesopotamia?

"not of the highest caliber"? Who are you then to make such a childish judgement?

Also, stop this nonesense with changing the "Babylon under Persia" page back.

What I put in was history with dates, not some meaningless statements about "world power" this and that.

And "Achaemenian Period" is how it should be refered to, as with "Hellenistic Period" and "Assyrian Period". WHy should it be any different with this era?

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. It now seems very clear that you have some prejudices about Persia, since you call the factual statements ``nonesense. Next time I will report you to the Wikipedia boardroom. I am sorry that information from Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica is not good enough for people like you.Zmmz 07:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

What was the empire's name? Was it not "Achaemenian"? Is this not how it is refered to in most history books? When people refer to Baghdad's early-medieval empire, do they say "Abbasid" or "Arab"? Do peolpe say "Qin" and "Song" and "Tang" dynasties, or do they say "Chinese Empire I", "Chinese Empire II" and so on? Are you afraid that if you don't say "Persian" then some how people won't credit Persia for it?

And Persia is not the name of the country used in association with Babylon, rather it is "Mesopotami" or "Iraq". Get your geography straight.

Report me? Is that a threat? I'm not using Wiki entires as nationalism propganda.

Persia is the country mentioned often in the Old and the New Testament , because the Jews were freed by Persians. And, Iraq did not even exist at that time genius. But, I guess you are playing tune def. Zmmz 07:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

Well, "Persia" didn't exist during the Sumerians, but that didn't stop you from harping on and on on their supposed connection.

And what do the Jews have anything to do with this?

Look, I don't want to contunue this childish game with you.

I tell you what, you leave my information in the entry, and you put in whatever else you want, this was atleast people will have some importamnt dates. MYLO 07:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is like going in circles with you. Jews do matter, because many know Babylon from the Old Testament, when it was under Persia. And, what does it have to with Sumerians? We are simply discussing the `Babylon under Persia` section, and not the `Babylon and Sumerians` section. It is amazing what being biased does to one`s preception of historical events.Zmmz 07:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

WHo said that most people know Babylon through the Old Testament? Maybe a hundred years ago, but not today.

And if you want to mention the Old testament, then Babylon is first mentioned in connection with the neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) Epire, not the Achaemenian Empire.

"And, what does it have to with Sumerians?"?? Do you even read what you write? Maybe you should scroll up to the begining of this topic, and read what you wrote.

I'm not biased. I couldn't care less what anyone believes. There are people out there who believe that Aryans were blond Germans who built world civilization. There are people who believe that msot of the ancient civilization were black. There are people who believe that space aliens built the Pyramids. Anynone can believe what they want, just don't put it on Wikipedia!

You want to talk about bias, maybe you should read what you wrote in the main page. Harping on and on about Cyrus and the Jews, and "world power"....what does this have anything to do with the history of Babylon? Put that in that "Cyrus" page and the "Jewish Exile" page, not here.

Again, you're using that section of the "Babylon" page for your own nationalist agenda. I'm not. I'm trying to just put in facts.

MYLO 08:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since all these events hapenned in Babylon, it [does] matter. And, We are simply discussing the `Babylon under Persia` section, and not the `Babylon and Sumerians` section. We are talking only about one section. And, adding two lines to a section is ``Harping on and on about Cyrus and the Jews``? Do not let your biaseness come in the way of necessary facts that need to be mentioned in association with Babylon. Facts from Encyclopedia Britannica quotes are a far cry from ``People believe in aliens too`` comment that you made. Zmmz 08:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

Again, go back and re-read what you wrote. I'm not the once who brought up the Sumerians.

Or how about this: "The Persians have much more in common with Babylon than Iraqis ever will; Iraq refers to the land that was formerly Babylon, before Arabs invaded Persia and moved their own people there"

I suppose there is not nationalist propoganda bias there!

MYLO 08:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I said that, but we are simply discussing the `Babylon under Persia` section, and not the `Babylon and Sumerians` section. We are talking only about one section right now.Zmmz 08:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

There is no "Babylon and Sumerians" section.

But as you wish.

MYLO 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, there is no "Babylon and Sumerians" section, but there IS a `Babylon under Persia` section, and this discussion is only limited to the latter section. You cannot twist or play with words to push a political or social agenda in Wikipedia--only facts are allowed here. And, there is nothing that is not factual or irrelevant in the `Babylon under Persia` section. You cannot change Persia into the Achaemenid dynasty in the heading, because the former is the universally recognized title, and the latter is an obscure title for many, which is the name of the dynasty. There IS NO `Achaemenid Empire`, yet, there IS the Persian Empire. Mention the name of the dynasty of that era somewhere in the section, not in the heading.Zmmz 21:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Sumerians were NOT Iranians, or indeed any form of Indo-European, nor for that matter were the Elamites. Both predate the arrival of Indo European peoples in history by some time. In fact Iranic peoples only entered Persia circa 1000BC, and were subject to the Assyrians for the first 3 or 4 hundred years, being greatly Assyrianized..the Achamaenid Empire simply aped the Assyrian Empire.

As for the Sumerians, they were neither Semitic nor Indo European, but originated in what is now Northern Iraq in the ubaid period, northern Iran was inhabited by savage tribes such as the Lulubi at this time.

True, both Assyria and Babylonia were prosperous under the Achamenids, but they are not the same people as the Persians, the modern Chaldo-Assyrians are the direct descendants of the mesopotamians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please have an end to presuming that the Columbia Encyclopedia is the be-all, end-all on this subject? That's laughable. It's not even a very good encyclopedia (neither is Wiki at this point.) Far more scholarly works are available on this subject but I feel ALL OF YOU have to accept something that the vast majority of historians all agree on - and that is, at this point in mankind's knowledge, the origin of the Sumerians is still unknown to any real degree of certainty. Some scholars feel they migrated into Sumer from the East. At any event, some time in the future with more discoveries we may get more of a handle on the origins of these people. But for any nationality - Arab, Persian, (even some Latvians!!!) - to try and 'claim' them is completely ridiculous. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan

Collapse of ruins?
I removed the passage claiming helicopter vibrations caused ruin collapse. The referenced article, ref #9, has no such verbiage in the story. I am surprised nobody bothered to look up the reference and compare the claims in this article. In fact, I am inclined to believe the entire section has a distinct political tone. Such political rants have no place in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.121.101 (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC) actually babylonian religous beliefs recquired sacrificing babies to the high god shamoo and certain objectors of this practis had begone a siege of the city and soon all its water was eeaten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.22.162 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * US troops have historically cased major damages to historical sites all around the world. Thus, the writings about the destruction of Babylon grounds by the US do not surprise me. I would suggest including photos of the damages cased by the US. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside of the 19th century atrocities in the lamentable Native American wars, do you have any proof of your wildy anti-American POV claims? (You won't find one, because it isn't true, outside of the normal damage caused in warfare.)HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What surprises me, after visiting the place in 2004, is that the US is blamed for all of the damage there. It was a camp run by and for Multi-National Division South-East, consisting of Polish and Ukrainian forces as well as a large number from the Spanish-speaking world.  The Poles, for example, placed a tent camp and a row of portapotties right against the wall of the old city.  Of course, blaming the US is quite popular, but let's get realistic -- the US did not operate the base and was not the primary occupant.  138.162.128.52 (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from Dr John Curtis
In the chapter Effects of the U.S. military Dr John Curtis is said to be quoted. Those quotes are obviously from this BBC page. However, the report from Dr Curtis can be found on this link, and doesn't contain those wordings. In my humble opinion they thus shouldn't be presented as quotes from the report.

The British Museum page about the report can be found here. The link to the Polish report on that page doesn't work, but it can be found here (the page is in Polish, but the report itself is in English).

The final UNESCO report (2009) can be found here, and would probably be a better source for citations.

--Episcophagus (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation for destruction
The quote in section "Effects of the U.S. military" is asking for a citation. I'd like to propose http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4461755.stm


 * Yes check.svg Done - Thanks! -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nimrod and Biblical Mythology - Should this be included?
There was no king named Nimrod in Mesopotamia. Should Biblical Mythology be included in this article without at least putting a counterpoint to the claims Nimrod built Babylon. The Mesopotamians themselves had no such king, he appears in no king lists, nor in any of the millions of Mesopotamian texts from circa 3500 BC to the 1st century AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not quite correct, calling Nimrod "Biblical Mythology" is a p.o.v. and ambiguous since he figures in several views of history, see Enmerkar for one of the most persistent. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Enmerkar was not named Nimrod though. He was an early Sumerian ruler credited with founding certain cities, and existed long before the Northwest Semitic speaking wanderers arrived in Mesopotamia circa 20th to 17 the centuries BC. Nimrod is also linked to the Assyrian god Ninurta, and to the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta. Ninurta was a mythical god, so could not have created Babylon, and Babylon was founded well after the time of Enmerkar and well before Tukulti-Ninurta. Babylon was a minor administrative town during the Akkadian Empire circa 23rd Century BC, it is not mentioned before this. It was only built into a major city worthy of note by Hammurabi who lived in the 18th century BC.

The city almost certainly sprung up like most cities do, a village grows into a town, grows further, then at some point is built into a major city. Babylon was not built by anyone in particular, but clearly it was Hammurabi that turned the town into a major city from a minor administrative centre and minor city state. So if anyone is credited with building Babylon, it should be him

I think it is fine to mention that no king named Nimrod appears in Mesopotamian annals, because it is fact.

It is absolutely pointless to use the Bible as primary source material for Mesopotamian history, for three very good reasons;

1. Mesopotamian written records are far more numerous and detailed than those of the Bible

2. They were written by the Mesopotamians themselves, and not by foreigners who came later.

3. Mesopotamian records are far and away older, writing being invented by Mesopotamians circa 3500 BC, and Hebrews being unable to write until at least the 11th Century BC, and the Bible even later still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the same inaccurate information you posted below, so I'll post my reply here again. Actually, Babylonian records are just as susceptible to bias and propaganda as any other nation's records, and the historian looks at all angles from all sources objectively, not turning a blind eye in any direction. Hebrew records in the Bible are amazingly detailed compared to what many people at the time wrote, these cannot be simply ignored because someone "doesn't like" them. And please name one Mesopotamian record that is dated anywhere near 3500 BC?  The earliest archaeological evidence found to date is a few clay bricks or cones dated to the reign of Enmebaragesi, and bearing simply the name "King Enmebaragesi".  That's at least a millennium after the date you give. There is also no agreement that Hebrews were illiterate before the 11th century.  Alphabetic writing was developed where? In Canaan of all places, home of Ugarit, Byblos, etc.
 * We have an article on Nimrod that can be linked, where the full range of arguments touching that controversy are dealt with neutrally. There is no need to add in a statement "But there is no Mesopotamian text containing the word Nimrod" and attributing this to a supposedly comprehensive list of Mesopotamian rulers where his name does not appear is a violation  of WP:SYNTH.  You need a scholar making this specific point that this point can be attributed to, if it has ever been made. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not because I dont like them, I am a Church of the East Christian myself, it's more that there is no contemporary evidence to support many Biblical claims, Nimrod's existence and his founding of various cities being just one. Of course Babylonian records are biased, as are Assyrian, Elamite, Egyptian and Hittite records. But that very bias that is extant would surely mean that if such a great king had existed in Mesopotamia (or nearby), he would have been trumpeted to the world in record, much like the real Mmesopotamian kings?

As you well know Alphabetic writing was not the first writing by a long shot, Pictographs, Cunieform and Heiroglyphs predate it by at least a thousand years. Nor was Alphabetic writing developed by the monotheistic Hebrews (Israelites, Judeans, Samaritans), but by Phoenician Canaanites to the north.

It is not a POV to state that Nimrod is not name checked in Msopotamian record, because he clearly is not. You could say, There has been no king named Nimrod yet discovered on any Mesopotamian king list, nor in Mesopotamian record thus far, but it really means the same thing, we pretty much know who all of the Mesopotamian kings were, and others who may or may not have been kings (such as Puzur-Sin of Assyria) but are not attested on king lists, are at least mentioned.

A better way of commenting on Nimrod might be to state that almost all Assyriologists and Orientalists believe that the biblical Nimrod was a representation or symbol of one or more Mesopotamian kings or dieties (or both). Nimrod as such clearly does not exist as portrayed in the Bible, Enmerkar, Tukulti-Ninurta and Ninurta could be mentioned as influences on this character, but the Biblical assertions that he existed as Nimrod, and that this Nimrod was a king who built Babylon, Ashur, Calah/Kalhu and undertook various other deeds clearly flies in the face of the much older, more detailed records written by the Mesopotamians themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be best if we simply link Nimrod and not comment unduly on Nimrod one way or the other here. Nimrod has plenty of comments and various theories attributed to reliable sources, and no need to hash it all out here. Anyway nobody would expect to find cuneiform references using the Hebrew form Nimrod so it is a circular argument by omission that isn't sourced to anyone.  But if you find any scholar actually making such an argument in the context of the article topic, Babylon (as required by WP:SYNTH policy), then it might be more reasonable to include such an argument here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of Nineveh's fall
The article on Nineveh says it fell about 625 BC. Which is it? -- Zoe

Google seems to say it fell once in 612 BCE. There's some pages that give 606 BCE, yet others give 633.

I always meet one date of Nineveh fall - 612 BC and 610 BC as the last Assyrian king death. Silthor 07:50 8 June 2003 (UTC)

Most sources put the fall of Nineveh between 612 and 610 BC. The last Assyrian Capital at Harran 609 or 608 BC, and the death of the last Assyrian king somewhere between 609 and 605 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, 81, good to see you on the talkpage! I think we really ought to put more of a microscope on the year span in question and try to get sources with detailed info on what happened when, in what order - we often see vague accounts that put the fall of the Assyrian Empire somewhere in that date range without much detail. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's because records are pretty scarce foe that period. We are not entirely sure, though 612 BC seems the date most agree on. I read somewhere long ago that Nineveh may have been fought over after it was breached in 612 for a couple of years. As for the last king, that is very hazy also, there is no record of his fate, he seems to have been at Harran until 609/608 BC, but he might have been killed there or at Carchemish in 605 BC,or just disappeared, but there is no record of Assyria fighting on after Carchemish. I tried to put an account on the Assyria page, mainly using George Roux- Ancient Iraq as source material, but of course it may not be accurate. What is clear is that Assyria and Mesopotamia as a whole seems to have descended into civil war after the death of Ashurbanipal (and possibly just before he died), and some of its former subject peoples began to ravage its empire and coalesce into alliances against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Siddim
The Battle of Siddim included King Amraphel, ruler of Shinar from the southern regions of Babylon. There are apparently issues with adding this to the article, but it would be wise to change that. All (3) are necessary to Babylon, Battle of Siddim, Shinar, and Amraphel.

Twillisjr (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read this article, Babylon was a specific city, more in central Mesopotamia than southern. Its rise to prominence and naming the region of Babylonia was actually well after the end of Sumer or Shinar.  One reason Hammurabi is no longer correlated with Amraphel is because it seems from chronology that Abraham's time was placed before Babylonia, in the days of Shinar / Sumer.  One of the cities of Shinar is called Babel in the Bible, generally assumed as the later Babylon, although the view that Eridu in the south was the old Babel seem to come up as well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point, as Abraham is discussed in the Book of Genesis between chapters 11-25, and Shinar's King Amraphel is mentioned in chapter 14. However, does this require an "earlier Babylon" or "ancient Babylon" article, or a sub-section of this article. Perhaps this will bring clarity to my above question. (In Addition), I believe the article "as is" indicates a false historical argument across the board involving the terms associated with both First Babylonian Dynasty and Sumu-abum. Twillisjr (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon re-reading your response, I also noticed that Eridu is mentioned, but does not appear in the text. Do you suppose Eridu could have been mentioned in the Book of Genesis and mistranslated as Babylon, or is it simply a method of dividing the Babylon in our discussion from the information in this article? Please note, Amraphel is not listed on the Sumerian King List. Twillisjr (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is more on the connection with Babel / Babylon at Eridu. The original site of Eridu seems to have been largely abandoned early on, before Ur was built nearby. But the passage about Amraphel mentions only Shinar, not Babel or Babylon, which so far is described only as a city within Shinar, wherever its location. You're right about the kinglist, and none of the names of Sumerian kings on the list were ever said to have dominated the regions by the Dead Sea either, except for Lugal-Anne-Mundu. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also a bit curious that Genesis 10 precedes Abraham and begins with the Hittites then continues into excerpts that include Nimrod. I've also noted a suspicious coincidence between the "Human-headed winged lion (lamassu)" containing "Nimrud" and the connection with Borsippa rather than Akkadia. There must be a connection between these pieces, trying to figure out what it is. Twillisjr (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we try to stick to a discussion of sources that can be used to improve the article please? We can't use our own reasearch. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Abraham would NOT have lived in Mesopotamia in early Sumerian times. There is no evidence whatsoever for Northwest Semitic speakers being in Mesopotamia prior to the Amorite period circa 20th to 16th centuries BC. Abraham and the Hebrews are almost certainly to have been one of the many wandering, semi-nomadic NorthWest Semitic groups who appeared in the region then. It is absolutely ridiculous to use the Bible as source material for Mesopotamian history, for three very good reasons;

1. Mesopotamian written records are far more numerous and detailed than those of the Bible

2. They were written by the Mesopotamians themselves, and not by foreigners who came later.

3. Mesopotamian records are far and away older, writing being invented by Mesopotamians circa 3500 BC, and Hebrews being unable to write until at least the 11th Century BC, and the Bible even later still.


 * Actually, Babylonian records are just as susceptible to bias and propaganda as any other nation's records, and the historian looks at all angles from all sources objectively, not turning a blind eye in any direction. Hebrew records in the Bible are amazingly detailed compared to what many people at the time wrote, these cannot be simply ignored because someone "doesn't like" them. And please name one Mesopotamian record that is dated anywhere near 3500 BC?  The earliest archaeological evidence found to date is a few clay bricks or cones dated to the reign of Enmebaragesi, and bearing simply the name "King Enmebaragesi".  That's at least a millennium after the date you give. There is also no agreement that Hebrews were illiterate before the 11th century.  Alphabetic writing was developed where? In Canaan of all places, home of Ugarit, Byblos, etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to be a bit cautious with using the Book of Genesis as a source, Til - it doesn't have a single date of composition, and parts of it date from all over - a tiny part of chapter 49 is written in archaic Hebrew and is probably very old, while a slightly larger part is in late-period Hebrew, tho not so late as Second Temple, but the bulk of it is in middle-period Hebrew and can't be from earlier than the 8th century BC. The part that deals with Nimrod is in this mid-period language. See Hendel's essay in this collection. PiCo (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be a bit more cautious with definitive-sounding assertions such as "can't be from earlier than the 8th century BC" since nobody to date has established any way of proving this that is convincing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only repeating what Hendel says, but he's pretty categorical. PiCo (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you just took Hendel's word for it and expect me to do the same? Like I said, not very convincing without any proof. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I took Hendel's word because he's a professor and I'm not. But that essay isn't just setting out his own ideas, he's summarising accepted scholarship. PiCo (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to have got any further past the scientific method than the "hypothesis" stage - certainly not "conclusion" or "proof". Otherwise, you'd think there'd be some "smoking gun" proving "this couldn't have existed before 800 BC" but I have yet to see it. Instead, it is reliant on the "documentary hypothesis" so how could it not be hypothetical? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hendel isn't talking about the documentary hypothesis, he's talking about the division of the Hebrew used in the bible into various periods - quite a different field. There is a smoking gun for that, in the form of epigraphic evidence (inscriptions where the Hebrew grammar can be matched to the grammar used in various parts of the bible - the use of various forms of the personal pronoun, for example, which changes over time). PiCo (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * His assertions are completely tied to the documentary hypothesis, I just read them. He believes he can confidently estimate what century 'J' and 'P' were written in. So this is based on when he believes the grammar can be "matched"?  But even he is cautious enough to begin by noting that there is much controversy among different views.  That is not really much of a smoking gun like referring to an event known to have occurred in the 8th century or something. The only Hebrew text we have as you know is the Masoretic, aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls. That was finalized around 100 AD. Who knows how many copyists would have gradually 'updated' the grammar from more archaic forms as Hebrew changed over the centuries? Is he expecting that the Masoretic text (surely the one he was using) preserve original Bronze-Age grammar throughout? So that is why I say he seems to be clear that he is speaking hypothetically. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I accept your point below that this discussion isn't contributing to the article. If you want to continue discussing I'm happy to do so, but I don't think we should be clogging up the talk page here. Anyway, just a note about J and P: in current parlance they no longer mean documents, but bodies of similar material - J material can come from anywhere and any time, and is usually taken to form the basic bedrock of the Torah stories. P material is an expansion on J. That's the usual understanding these days, anyway, from what I've read - DH terminology but without documents. PiCo (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's no need for us to argue this here, as there are apparently no suggestions on the table for Babylon. This thread was started by someone last year who thought Amraphel should be mentioned in this article, but I disagree because he isn't technically associated with "Babylon" in the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2013
Please add the new reconstruction site Babylon 3D at www.kadingirra.com

Taha2010 (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.-- TOW  07:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a new virtual reconstruction site "Babylon 3D" at http://www.kadingirra.com, please add it to the external links list.

Not done: It isn't clear that your request would conform with our guidelines about external links. Please discuss this with the editors who frequent this article and see if you can reach a consensus for this change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

With regard to this quote near the top of the first section of the article: "...the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC (Circa 2000 BC)." If I understand correctly, the First millennium BC would be 1000 -1 BC. The second would be 2000-1001 BC. And the Thrid would be 3000-2001 BC. Therefore, the BEGINNING of the 3rd millennium BC would be around 3000 BC, not 2000 BC.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable and I would verify and make that correction in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.185.13 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

small dating convention correction
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, "by the beginning of the 3rd millenium BC (circa 2000 BC)" should be changed to "by the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC (Circa 2000 BC)". Because, whereas the first century AD begins with the year 1, the first century BC begins with the year 100 BC. Similarly for millennia.

TimGregg (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 27 November 2013
41.189.229.147 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Destruction of Babylon" (Iraq) prophesied in The Revelation Chapter 14, 16-18
I added the following... 'But most scholars recognize that the prophecy of the "destruction of Babylon" in The Revelation Chapter 14, 16-18 - like all prophecies from The Revelation'' - must coincide with the return of the Christ<ref<citation needed</ref<. - Omnireligious (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC) '''
 * Please do not add ambiguous interpretations of scripture to historical articles in a manner that falsely implies they have broad support from scholars.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "citation needed" is not a citation or a reference. If you're going to add something while saying "citation needed," don't add it at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock of User:Brad Watson, Miami. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ce/bce
I was surprised to find an article still using ad and bc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.183.170.149 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you're obviously new. Welcome! And—if you're curious and interested in editing yourself—kindly stop by, , and sometime. (Nominally, the last two are about article titles, but we tend to use them as guidelines for any naming disputes.) —  Llywelyn II   10:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Completely unnecessary. . — Llywelyn II   10:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Alt names
We need them, absolutely. We don't need them (and shouldn't have them) in the infobox and cluttering up the lead sentence. Fixt. — Llywelyn II   10:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ishtar Gate in Berlin is not a reproduction - it is a reconstruction
I am not a native english speaker, but the phrase " A reproduction of the Ishtar Gate is located in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin." seems to be wrong. It should be " A reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate is located in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.". As a proof look at the wiki-page of "Ishtar Gate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_Gate. The word "reproduction" is only used for the Ishtar Gate in Iraq built under Saddam Hussein.

If I am wrong and the word "reproduction" means as well, that the original Ishtar Gate was moved from Iraq to Berlin and does not give the impression that this gate is not the "real" gate from Babylon than I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.184.202 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to reconstruction. However, it should be noted that reconstruction in this context may refer to either a restoration of an original structure or a new construction that replicates the style of a structure that no longer exists.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Reconstruction" should pretty much never be used. "Reproductions" are only new copies; "restorations" are only refurbishments of the originals; and "reconstructions" are properly only proposed copies based on ideas of a lost original but (as noted) gets misused often enough that it should be avoided. In any case, is the one in Berlin the original? Then, no, it's not a reproduction. — Llywelyn II   02:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion
More at the EB articles. Note that some points may be dated, though. — Llywelyn II   02:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Babylon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060612204629/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2006/04/13/news/babylon.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/13/news/babylon.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051210184039/http://www.metropolismag.com:80/html/content_0699/ju99monu.htm to http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0699/ju99monu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015
The babylonians destroyed the city state of Urmomspussy

The Christians (and Messianic Jews) will be the ones that shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations...

173.13.82.114 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to the Information Bar/Gray Rectangle Containing Information at the Top Right Area of the Page in the Main Article
I think that it should mention that the demonym of Babylon is Babylonian. Other pages about (present-day) regions/countries that I've looked at contain the region's/country's demonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C004:4900:3140:8224:79D7:A093 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The name "Babylon" revisisted
Hi all,

It would be great to see the etymology section get more coherent and readable. Just now I folded in some etymology material (unfortunately lacking in footnotes) from lower in the article. This material furthers the idea—whose currently footnoted sources are Liane Jakob-Rost, Joachim Marzahn, Babylon (1990), and Dietz Otto Edzard, Geschichte Mesopotamiens (2004)—that "gate of god" is a folk etymology imposed retrospectively on a place name that came from somewhere else. I added a sentence on the conventional viewpoint that "Babylon" is a translation of "Ca-dimirra" (there are other spellings and interpretations also) which meant "gate of god" in Sumerian (or "Turanian").

An anonymous comment on this page in 2004 makes the same point:

"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"

However, I have not seen a source which shows pictures of these four characters 𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 and explains that they say "Babylon"—an unfortunate situation when the article displays them prominently as the second "word" of text and twice at the top of the infobox. Please forgive me if I am being obtuse somewhere or should accept more readily that KA-AN-RA-KI (as mentioned in a 1905 dictionary of Assyrian, formerly cited only on the wiktionary page 𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠, now cited in this article also) obviously mean 𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 and 𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠 only.

It was a bit disheartening to see this page in Budge, who is not exactly considered a crank nobody, invoking characters which look rather different. Okay, I can see the fourth one is probably 𒆠 ('ki') and if you squint a little the rest of them in clumped-together form could be 𒊏 ('ra'). But I'm not really seeing 𒆍𒀭 which after all are supposed to say "KA-DIN" or "KA-DIM" or "KA-AN" or "BAB-IL".

Anyway, I will keep looking around for some better sources and I hope some people with more experience will jump in with thoughts and advice. Optimistically, groupuscule (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babylon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421000617/http://www.iraqimage.com/pages/browse/Babylon.html to http://www.iraqimage.com/pages/browse/Babylon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing a paragraph and placing it as a note
Referencing the paragraph under "Persian conquest" in parenthesis that starts out "Herodotus also described a moat," this seems like extraneous information that is interesting, but isn't relevant to the overall section. I propose making it a note instead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, the parenthetical paragraph seems a little unwieldy and out of place. At the same time, Herodotus's description of Babylon is one of very few descriptions of the city from classical antiquity and possibly should be highlighted in the article text. Maybe there is another place this could be done. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Babylon
What are the characteristic of Ancient Babylon and modern day Babylon - what are the spiritual attributes and ways and beliefs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:8804:A300:8823:10C9:647A:9580 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No distinction made between city and kingdom/province: MAJOR problem!
Article needs to be reworked accordingly. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"Abandoned 141 BC"?
The info box w/ the map and other data contains the line "Abandoned 141 BC". Yet nothing in the "Hellenistic period" section, which should cover it, notes that date; rather, it indicates a slow undated decline. Nor does the next section on "Renewed Persian rule" recognize it. I note that http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/Middleeastweb/factfile/Unique-facts-MiddleEast4.htm declares "By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity" [my emphasis], but that is not the same thing. Other online sources confirm that date for the Parthian invasion.

Is it appropriate to show that invasion's date as a date of abandonment? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 3 years later, the question remains: when did the CITY of Babylon cease to exist? The article's conflation of city & kingdom/province "hides" (but not really) the failure to provide such essential info. Arminden (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Date of Babylon
Shouldn't it be 6th to 18 centuries? Putting it the other way around is numerically backwards.Aang15 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The 18th century BCE comes before the 6th century BCE.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Location of Babylon
Based on a map of Canaan, the city of Babylon was located on the north of the Persian sea in ancient Babylonia - currently Jordan. It was located in the Chaldean region of the current city Zarqa, Jordan. With the disappearance of the Persian sea, it's exact location is still unknown. Based on the map of Canaan it is most likely located between Zarqa and Russeifa or between Zarqa and Qasr. Snaf2k (talk) • contribs) 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A 400 year old map from when cartography's approach was "give a vague idea of what might be somewhat in that direction" is not a reliable source.
 * We have found Babylon's ruins. We have found inscriptions in there identifying them as Babylon's ruins.  We found them 200 years ago, and all research since then has confirmed that, yep, it's Babylon.  Modern academics have written about this.  Please try using professionally-published mainstream academic sources instead of saying we don't know where something is when we've damn well known for 200 years! Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but there is no accurate "professionally-published mainstream academic sources" for the region that existed 2,000 years ago (I took this map from Wikipedia, so possibly it's an academic source), only assumptions and findings of some other ancient cities of ancient Persian Empire, just like pyramids in Egypt - nobody really knows, just assumes they are Egyptian. This map accurately depicts Armenia, Caspian sea, Israel, Jordan and Syrian cities with their current locations, so what exactly tells you that it's not accurate? Or you assume it was harder to map the Saudi Arabian peninsula with the Gulf of Persia than all those cities?

Based on finding at Aral sea, it has almost dried out in just 40 years, so 400 years - or actually few millenniums - can do a huge impact on the region and the Persian sea that disappeared, 2,000 years ago, extended water route from the Persian Gulf all the way to Jordan/Babylonia. Most likely Persian sea disappeared on purpose to drown Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Neba, since many historical texts say Adman and Moab could face the similar destiny, meaning water canal, connecting Persian sea and those 5 cities, was built in between Adman and Moab to drown those cities. The current findings you mention can't accurately tell which 2,000-year-old city exactly was found since the Persian Empire covered almost the whole of the Middle East. The finding you talking about north of the Persian Gulf, in Iraq could easily be Persepolis or Ur and not Babilon. In some maps it shows Chaldea and Babilon are near each other and since the Chaldean region in Jordan, there is no point looking for Babilon in Iraq because those could be just ancient Persian cities with similar markings. Also, considering how accurate the cities are represented, it can be seen that Babilon was just a little bit higher in latitude than Jerusalem, which makes location near the Persian Gulf completely inaccurate and the possibility of changing the flow of Euphrates and Tigris toward Baghdad in a later time frame for agricultural purposes. Snaf2k (talk)
 * You really need to stop assuming that just because you don't know something that it's unknown. The article has over ninety citations to reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research, let alone bad original research that ignores the entire existence of academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, we know where Persepolis is located as well, for about 400 years now. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If academic publications have discussed serious alternative hypotheses for the location of lost cities, that might be fine to include on Wikipedia. But personal fringe theories and your own alternative interpretations of old maps is not something that we can ever include. There is no point putting forward those ideas here and expecting them to be debated and then included. They won't be unless reliable references to past published academic discussion of those theories can be provided. A map image on its own does not suffice. See also  this reply to your similar point at the talk page of Sodom and Gomorrah. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * : Thank you guys for pointing out about academic research again, sorry I didn't have time to do any presentations or recording which source gave me the specific ideas, except the map, which was already present in Wikipedia. However, if you read the first paragraph you will notice the same things: "a number of scholars believe", a lot of "estimations", "cuneiform records about Babilon found elsewhere in Mesopotamia". The whole first paragraph about Babylon is full of theories and assumptions. That is why I collected info from the Book of Judges, Book of Genesis, Kabbalah, geographical changes in the Middle Eastern region over centuries, Dead Sea Scrolls, talks from the Bible and Testaments, Alexander The Great's conquests, and few more and summarized it with the map that shows very accurate locations of ancient cities with their current locations. Instead of gathering again all the citations from all the sources I went through - it was easier to just point to this map, since it's mentioned it was written on human skin - map on a human skin must be no joke, at least in my understanding plus how precisely it shows locations. So, maybe instead of bashing me because of another scholars belief (mine), just look through the texts mentioned when you have time and you will find citations to most of my theory about its location and don't forget geographic changes that occurred over those milleniums if even Middle Eastern Aral sea almost disappeared in just 40 years. Please, you all welcome to go through the sources I mentioned and make it more "academical" - I just put my "scholar's belief" here as well, just like mentioned in very first paragraph about Babylon. Ian Thompson, Nick Moyes you are welcome to make it more academic, since I gave you my past sources so maybe with your help all the assumptions and theories of scholars will become facts in the first paragraph. It just consumes more time than I thought and I don't have time to go through them again. Snaf2k (talk)
 * this seems like classical original research, something we don't allow. If you really think this complies with [[WP:VERIFY you can go try to convince the folks at WP:NORN, the noticeboard where we discuss original research.  Doug Weller  talk 19:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Snack2000: It's your job to cite already-published modern academic sources for your claims. You are welcome to take your ideas to an academic publisher.
 * "No original research" means that if you're editing here, you're not a scholar as far as we're concerned. Get published by an academic publishing company (e.g. Brill Publishers or Oxford UP), then we'll talk.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon my late interjection, but I don't see how the 1692 map brought forth by Snaf2k suggests a different location for the ancient city of Babylon. Actually this map clearly locates Babylon on the bank of the Euphrates River, north of its confluence with the Tigris. (Admittedly the Euphrates looks like it gets quite wide south of Babylon; I don't know if this is a recognized historical reality.) The "Persian Sea" is the Persian Gulf. The map greatly compresses the east-west axis, and the Arabian Peninsula, perhaps due to the author's greater ignorance of that area, or perhaps due to a choice of emphasis based on the subject matter: A Map of Canaan With the Adjacent Countries: Very Useful for the Understanding of the Old Testament. Consequently, "Babylonia" looks on the map like it's in an equilateral triangle with the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. This apparent distance is probably the source of confusion. But if you look at all the other landmarks, such as the location of Armenia and Ninevah on the Tigris, I think you'll find that the map accords closely with the present-day understanding. This should come as no surprise since the same location was said to have been visited by Pietro della Valle in 1616, and may have been known through continuous tradition by the locals.
 * That being said, the article at present does not make clear how a positive identification of this site as Babylon is possible. Did archaeologists discover a big "Welcome to Babylon" sign, or are they making inferences from tradition and the presence of a castle and walls? From similarities between the shape and size of the ruins to the descriptions of Herodotus and Strabo? Archaeologist Stephanie Dalley is well known for showing that the name "Babylon" was used for multiple different cities, including Ninevah, where she believes the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" were actually located. So, for those who assert in the comments above that this issue is settled, I challenge them to bring forth the evidence which proves their case, and use it to improve the article for the benefit of future readers. Respectfully, - groupuscule (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking your time. Like I've mentioned: I don't really have time to cite all the material from: Book of Judges, Book of Genesis, Kabbalah, geographical changes in the Middle Eastern region over centuries, Dead Sea Scrolls, materials from the Bible and Testaments, Alexander The Great's conquests, and few more. However it seems my discussion brings more attention than inconsistences in the Wikipedia page, and I understand how famous it could actually make someoneone who finds the exact locations, could even lead to Noble prize probably - so feel free to use the sources mentioned above, you would be able to find supporting facts for everything I mentioned. If I had more time, I'd do it myself.. but I don't. I could only direct you to the ancient map and list of my sources, which were used as a basis for my findings. Snaf2K (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2019 (EST)
 * The sources you mention, such as books of the bible, are primary sources. Wikipedia articles should only provide interpretations of primary sources based on reliable secondary sources. As has already been indicated by others, the location of ancient Babylon is already known. The map of Canaan you provided is... let's just say... not great, but accounting for the distorted proportions, the location of Babylon is pretty much where it actually is.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

need help
Could someone add Classical Syriac ܒܒܠ\ܒܒܝܠ (Bāvēl or Bāveyl) to the list? thx Shuraya (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)