The Size and Significance of The Babylon

La transition
entre l’empire achéménide

et les royaumes hellénistiques
(vers 350-300 av. J.-C.)
Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la
« Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide
et de l’empire d’Alexandre » et le « Réseau international
d’études et de recherches achéménides » (GDR 2538
CNRS), 22-23 novembre 2004,
sous la direction de
Pierre Briant et Francis Joannès

persika 9
Éditions
de Boccard
2006
De Boccard
11 rue de Médicis
75006 Paris
téléphone :
(33) 01 43 26 00 37
télécopie :
(33) 01 43 54 85 83
deboccard@deboccard.com
www.deboccard.com
Conception graphique :
Thierry Sarfis
Réalisation :
Salima Larabi, Collège de France
ISBN 978-2-7018-0213-8
© De Boccard 2006
Abréviations bibliographiques et muséographiques (p. 7)
Introduction, Pierre Briant, Collège de France et Francis Joannès, Université Paris 1 (p. 11-15)
De l’Esagil au Mouseion : l’organisation de la recherche scientifique au

IVe siècle avant J.-C., Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Université de Toronto (p. 17-36)
Bibliographie (p. 33).
Aspects chronologiques de la période de transition (350-300), Tom Boiy,

Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven et Fonds de la recherche scientifique - Flandre (Fwo - Vlaanderen)
(p. 37-100)
1 Formules de datation des années 350-300 dans les textes cunéiformes (p. 41) 2 Formules de data-
tion des années 350-300 dans les inscriptions, papyrus et ostraka araméens (p. 58) 3 La chronologie
et la reconstruction de l’histoire politique de la période 350-300 (p. 64) Annexe 1 (p. 87) Annexe 2
(p. 89) Bibliographie (p. 96).
La Babylonie méridionale : continuité, déclin ou rupture ?, Francis Joannès,

Université Paris 1 − UMR 7041 et GDR 2538 (CNRS) (p. 101-135)
1 Les conséquences visibles de la conquête (p. 104) 1.1 Aspects chronologiques (p. 104)
1.2 Aspects juridiques et administratifs (p. 108) 1.3 Deux épisodes emblématiques ? (p. 112)
2 La transition dans la région d’Uruk et d’Ur : les facteurs de continuité (p. 118) 2.1 Les struc-
tures religieuses et la place du dieu Anu (p. 118) 2.2 Les archives familiales d’Uruk (p. 120)
2.3 Répartition thématique des données textuelles (p. 124) 2.4 L’apport des textes d’Ur (p. 127)
2.5 La place des terres de fonction (p. 129) Conclusion (p. 129) Bibliographie (p. 133).
Agricultural Management, Tax Farming and Banking : Aspects of

Entrepreneurial Activity in Babylonia in the Late Achaemenid and
Hellenistic Periods, Michael Jursa, Institut für Orientalistik, Vienna et GDR 2538
(CNRS) (p. 137-222)
1 The archive (p. 138) 2 The nature of the business of Mªrånu and Ea-tabtanâ-bulli† (p. 139)
3 The types of income managed/leased by Mªrånu and his son (p. 147) 4 The letter orders in the
archive (p. 156)
5 The records of deposit of the late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods in context (p. 157)
5.1 Formal aspects (p. 157) 5.2 A hypothesis (p. 161) 5.3 Records of deposit in earlier
periods (p. 165) 5.4 Negotiable promissory notes, ‘cheques’ and credit transfer (‘giro’) (p.167)
5.5 Prosopographical and archival aspects (p. 169) 5.6 The records of deposit (rod) and promis-
sory notes (pn) in the Mªrånu archive (p. 175)

6 Other activities of Mªrånu (p. 176) Summary (p. 176) Appendix (p. 178) Bibliography (p. 218).
Iranica in post-Achaemenid Babylonian Texts, Matthew W. Stolper, Oriental
Institute (Chicago) et GDR 2538 (CNRS) (p. 223-260)
Introduction (p. 223) 1 Survival or Recurrence of Common Nouns (p. 227) 2 Acculturation
(p. 234) 3 Translation, Replacement, Coinage (p. 236) In Conclusion (p. 238) Appendix (p. 241)
Bibliography (p. 256).
The Size and Significance of the Babylonian Temples under the

Successors, Robartus J. van der Spek, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (p. 261-307)
Introduction (p. 262) 1 Temples (p. 264) 2 Esagila (p. 266) 3 Unbuilt parts of the city (p. 275)
4 The number of personnel in the temple (p. 277) 5 Destruction of the temples and city (p. 277)
Conclusion (p. 278) Appendix 1 (p. 280) Appendix 2 (p. 284) Bibliography (p. 304).
L’Asie mineure en transition, Pierre Briant, Collège de France et GDR 2538 (CNRS)
(p. 309-351)
1 Sources et problèmes : un état de la question (p. 309) 1.1 L’Asie mineure : récentes synthèses
(p. 309) 1.2 Archéologie et histoire (p. 311) 1.3 Monnayages d’Alexandre et monnayages aché-
ménides (p. 312) 1.4 De Darius à Alexandre (p. 314) 1.5 D’Alexandre aux diadoques (p. 317)
1.6 L’apport des sources épigraphiques (p. 320)
2 Langues et cultures (p. 322) 2.1 De Xanthos à Kaunos (p. 322) 2.2 Iraniens et culture iranienne
en Asie mineure hellénistique (p. 328)
3 Héritages achéménides, traditions macédoniennes, innovations hellénistiques (p. 330)
3.1 Alexandre et Priène (p. 330) 3.2 Le système de la dôrea : à propos de l’inscription de
Mnésimachos (p. 336) Bibliographie (p. 343).
Aspects d’une transition : l’économie du monde égéen (350-300),

Raymond Descat, Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3, Institut Ausonius (p. 353-373)
Introduction (p. 353) 1 Le temps de l’économie (p. 354) 2 Population et production (p. 357) 3 Le
commerce du blé (p. 359) 4 Le développement de l’usage de la monnaie (p. 364) 5 L’économie de
la cité et l’économie du roi : la place du Pseudo-Aristote (p. 365) Bibliographie (p. 372).
L’Égypte en transition : des Perses aux Macédoniens, Michel Chauveau,

École pratique des hautes études et GDR 2538 (CNRS) – Christophe Thiers, FRE 2742
(CNRS - Université Montpellier 3) (p. 375-404)
1 État des sources (p. 375) 2 La structure idéologique du pouvoir dans l’Égypte du iv e siècle
(p. 378) 3 L’administration (p. 380) 4 Les nouveaux pouvoirs face au clergé égyptien (p. 382)
5 Structure sociale et émigration (p. 383) 6 Économie et commerce (p. 385) Annexe 1 (p. 388)
Annexe 2 (p. 390) Bibliographie (p. 400).
La Transeuphratène en transition (c. 350-300), André Lemaire, École pratique
des hautes études et GDR 2538 (CNRS) (p. 405-441)
1 Aspects généraux (p. 406) 2 Études régionales (p. 409) Bibliographie (p. 431).
Le destin des résidences et sites perses d’Iran dans la seconde moitié

du IVe siècle avant J.-C., Rémy Boucharlat, UMR 5133, Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient
et de la Méditerranée (CNRS - Université Lyon 2) et GDR 2538 (CNRS) (p. 443-470)
1 Suse (p. 443) 1.1 Données archéologiques, numismatiques, épigraphiques (p. 443) 1.2 Quelques
sources textuelles (p. 448)
2 Persépolis et sa région (p. 451) 2.1 Données archéologiques, numismatiques, épigraphiques
(p. 451) 2.2 Quelques sources textuelles (p. 456)
3 Pasargades (p. 458) 3.1 Données archéologiques, numismatiques, épigraphiques (p. 459)
3.2 Quelques sources textuelles (p. 461)
4 Autres résidences perses (p. 462) 5 Tombes de l’élite (p. 463) Conclusions (p. 464) Bibliographie
(p. 466).
Concluding Remarks, Amélie Kuhrt, University College London et GDR 2538 (CNRS)
(p. 471-476)
References (p. 476).
The Size and Significance of the
Babylonian Temples under the
Successors
Robartus J. van der Spek, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
« After this [= the building of the palace] she [= Semiramis] built in the centre of the
city (en mes™i t™i polei) a temple of Zeus (hieron Dios) whom, as we have said, the Babylonians
call Belus. Now since with regard to this temple the historians are at variance, and since time
(chronos) has caused the structure to fall in ruins, it is impossible to give the facts concerning
it. But all agree that it was exceedingly high, and that in it the Chaldaeans made their observations
of the stars, whose risings and settings could be accurately observed by reason of the height of the
structure. [5] Now the entire building was ingeniously constructed at great expense of bitumen
(asphalt™s) and brick (plinthos), and at the top of the ascent Semiramis set up three statues of
hammered gold, of Zeus, Hera, and Rhea. (...) [9] But all these were later carried off as spoil
by the Persians, while as for the palaces and other buildings, time (chronos) has either entirely
effaced them or left them in ruins ; and in fact in Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at
this time, and most of the area within its walls (entos teichous) is given over to agriculture. »
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, II 9.4-5, 9 (C. H. Oldfather, Loeb).
« Here too is the tomb of Belus, now in ruins, having been demolished by Xerxes, as
it is said. It was a quadrangular pyramid of baked brick, not only being a stadium in height,
but also having sides a stadium in length. Alexander intended to repair this pyramid ; but it
would have been a large task and would have required a long time (for merely the clearing
away of the mound (h™ chous) was a task for ten thousand men for two months), so that
he could not finish what he had attempted ; for immediately the king was overtaken by disease
and death. None of his successors cared for this matter ; and even what was left of the city was
neglected and thrown into ruins, partly by the Persians and partly by time and by indifference
of the Macedonians to things of this kind, and in particular after Seleucus Nicator had fortified
Seleuceia on the Tigris near Babylon, at a distance of about three hundred stadia therefrom. For
not only he, but also all his successors, were strongly interested in Seleuceia and transferred the
royal residence (to basileion) to it. What is more, Seleuceia at the present time (nun) has become
larger than Babylon, whereas the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate
to say what one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia : “The
Great City is a great desert”. »
Strabo, Geography, XVI 1.5 (H. L. Jones, Loeb).
R. J. van der Spek . The Size and Significance of the Babylonian Temples under the Successors 261
Introduction
When trying to figure out the condition of the city of Babylon in the days of Alexander
on the basis of the classical sources 1, one is confronted with a set of difficulties. In the first
place we have the reports of Greek authors before Alexander, like Herodotus and Ctesias.
Since the contemporary authors of Alexander the Great are lost, we have to resort to writ-
ers of much later centuries like Diodorus Siculus (ca. 30 B.C.), Strabo (ca. 64 B.C. − after
A.D. 21), Curtius (first century A.D.), Pliny (A.D. 23/4-79), Pausanias (fl. c. A.D. 150) and
Arrian (c. A.D. 86-160). These authors in their descriptions of Babylon mix information
they gathered from early authorities like Herodotus and Ctesias, authors of the Hellenistic
age and reports of their own age.
When we look at the descriptions of Babylon referring to the time of the entry of
Alexander into Babylon, the impression is given of a huge city. It was « a well fortified »
city and « its beauty and antiquity » struck Alexander ; it had a « citadel » and a « palace »
in which Alexander could live (Curtius) ; the people came out « in mass » ; about the ter-
ritory between Gaugamela and Susa it is said that « all of it was inhabited » (Arrian). In
comparison with Susa « Alexander preferred Babylon, since he saw that it far surpassed
the others, not only in its size, but also in other respects. » (Strabo).
The temple of Bel was rich and had a large endowment of land and gold (Arrian) and
was still standing in the time of Pliny (Pliny). Alexander sacrificed in the temple according to
the instructions of the Chaldaeans (Arrian). On the other hand, Arrian states that all temples
had been razed to the ground by the Persians (Arrian). As we shall see below, the latter state-
ment contradicts the cuneiform evidence, which shows that at least sixteen temples survived
far into the Hellenistic period. Diodorus’ story that only « the tomb of Belus » (which prob-
ably refers to the ziqquråtu, the temple tower Etemenanki) had been demolished by the
Persians is closer to the truth (Diodorus XVII 112.1-2 ; cf. Appendix for the references).
What emerges from the time of the later authors is that by 30 B.C. (Diodorus’ flo-
ruit), the city of Babylon had declined. Diodorus tells us that the temple of B™los was in
ruins. He reports that the temple was once « exceedingly high » and that the astronomers
made their observations from its top. The palaces and other buildings (which buildings ?)
were in ruins. The city was inhabited and the walls were still there, but a great deal of
the area was turned into arable land. If Pliny is to be believed, the temple of Bel was still
standing in the first century A.D.. This building must have been Esagila, since all classical
sources agree that the ziqqurat (pyramis ; taphos tou B™lou) had been destroyed by the time
of Alexander. The poor condition of the temple tower is confirmed by cuneiform tablets
and archaeological research (Wetzel 1957, p. 30-31).
1 A selection of classical and cuneiform sources is given in the Appendix.
262 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

Thanks to the availability of cuneiform and archaeological evidence it is possible to
make a more balanced assessment of the condition of Babylon in the Hellenistic period
(for a detailed discussion, see Boiy 2004). From this information we learn that Babylon
did not decline as rapidly as the classical sources imply. Let us mention a few examples.
The palace was capable of housing a king in 187 B.C., when Antiochus III stayed for at
least two weeks in Babylon, lived in the palace, made sacrifices to the Babylonian gods,
and visited the royal garden on the West bank (AD III, p. 330-333, no. −187 ‘rev. 3’-18’ ; cf.
Van der Spek 1995). There is evidence that the palace of Nebuchadnezzar started to decay
in the first century B.C. Excavation reports tell us that in the Parthian period (but note
that « the Parthian period » covers 367 years, 141 B.C. − A.D. 226) common people settled
in the area and built houses and graves there 2. This is more or less confirmed now by an
unpublished Babylonian chronicle of the 130s B.C., which mentions people who were
living in the palace (the Bagayasha chronicle ; see Appendix, Text 1).
The walls of Babylon were still standing and functioning in 123 B.C. In that year the
gates of the wall could be closed because of the fighting with the Arabs who surrounded
the city (cf. AD III, p. 298/9, no. −122 D ‘rev.’ 9’-10’). This means, that if the story of
Diodorus (XVII 115.1) that Alexander tore down the city wall to a distance of 10 stadia
(= 2 km) in order to use the baked tiles for the funeral pyre of Hephaestion is true, the
walls must have been rebuilt.
If we look at the reason for the decay of Babylon, the classical authors present
three : the Persians (in particular Xerxes), time (chronos), and neglect of the Macedonian
kings. Of these explanations « time » is probably the most correct. Cities built with mud
and baked bricks are very vulnerable to decay and in constant need of repair. If repairs are
neglected, walls and buildings will gradually crumble off. Hence, if we have evidence that
palace, temple and walls were in regular use, they must have been repaired continually.
And we have such evidence. The walls were in reasonable condition in 123 B.C., pos-
sibly even in the time of Diodorus and Pliny. The palace was in good shape in 187 B.C.,
exactly 400 years after the Babylonian captivity of the Judaeans by Nebuchadnezzar, whose
royal robe was still kept in the treasure house of the temple (AD II p. 323-333, no. −187 A
‘rev. 11’). That reconstructions on the palace were carried out in the Persian as well as in
the Hellenistic period is confirmed by excavations (Wetzel 1957 ; Hauser 1999). To remain
in our transition period : Darius III as well as Alexander stayed in the palace. Darius was
there on the eve of the battle of Gaugamela (Curtius IV 9.2), Alexander stayed there after
the battle of Gaugamela for over a month and again a period of one or two months at
2 Cf. Koldewey 1990, p. 182 ; Wetzel 1957, p. 27 (on the basis of graves found in the grand court before
the throne room) ; Hauser 1999, p. 214, n. 37. Oelsner reckons with the possibility of the use of
the palace as « Wohnviertel » (Oelsner 1986, p. 115, 377 n. 431).
the end of his life 3. The real decay of the palace must have started in the Parthian period,
when the kings apparently did not use the palace and common people occupied the site.
The palace suffered the fate of the palace of Diocletian in Split, which has now turned
into a city instead of a palace.
It is the main objective of this paper to get an idea of the size and significance of
the city of Babylon in the early years of the Macedonian occupation, i.e. from Alexander
to Seleucus I.
1 Temples
The cuneiform documents show the existence of the following temples in Hellenistic
Babylon (cf Boiy 2004, p. 275-7).
— Esagila, temple of Marduk (passim). Cf. George 1993, p. 139, no. 967.
— Egišhurankia, temple of Belet Ninua (= the Lady of Nineveh), located on the
Western side of the Euphrates (AD I, p. 226, no. −321 : r. 13’and 14’, a diary concerning
month III of year 2 of Philip (August 322 B.C.) mentioning the fact that debris of Esagila
was removed to the West Bank). Simply called temple of B™let Ninua (AD II, p. 454 sqq,
No. −171 H obv. 12’ (SE 141). George 1993, p. 95, no. 409.
— Egißnugal, temple of Sin (ABC 11 : 6’, 7’, 9’ = BCHP 5 : 9, 10, 12 (SE 25¿) ; AD III,
p. 216, no. −132 B r. 26 (SE 179 )). George 1993, p. 96, no. 419 = p. 114, no. 654.
— Enitenna, temple of Sin (ABC 11 : 6’, 7’, 9’ (not noticed by Grayson) = BCHP
5 : 9, 10, 12). George 1993, p. 132, no. 870.
— Eturkalamma, temple of Ishtar of Babylon = temple of Beltia (BRM I 99 : 26 ;
CT 49 153 : 3 ; 155 : 3 ; 164 : 3 (= Van der Spek 1998, nos. 18, 8, 15 and 31 ; Rahimesu
Archive, Parthian period, 94-93 B.C.) ; AD I, p. 190/1, no. −328, r. 24’ (25 Nov. 329 B.C.).
George 1993, p. 151, no. 1117.
— Ehursagsikilla, temple of Gula, = Egalmah ? (BRM I 99 : 27 ; CT 49, 150 : r. 24
(= Van der Spek 1998, nos 18 and 13) ; AD III, p. 134, no. −140A obv. 22 (cf. Boiy 2004,
p. 91). (cf. George 1992, p. 305-6 ; part of Esagila : George 1993, p. 102, no. 488.
— Ehursagkuga, temple of Gula (BRM I 99 : 28 ; CT 49, 150 : 25 = Van der Spek 1998,
nos. 18 and 13). George 1993, p. 101, no. 485.
— Ehursagtilla, temple of Ninurta in Babylon ; Temple of Ninurta (AD II, p. 234,
no −198 B r. 13 ; coll. George 1997, no. 18). George 1993, p. 102, no. 489.
3 For a discussion of the cuneiform evidence concerning the battle of Gaugamela and Alexander’s entry
into Babylon, see Briant 2003, p. 79-84, and p. 562-565 for a discussion of the earlier literature.
The diary concerning Alexander’s entry into Babylon is reproduced in the Appendix, Text 2.

— Esabad, temple of Gula on the west side of the Euphrates (Tuba district)
(BCHP 8 : r 17’ ; Rahimesu archive 94-93 B.C., passim, cf. Van der Spek 1998). George 1993,
p. 137, no. 944.
— Enamtila, temple of Enlil in the Kumar district on the west side of the Euphrates
(AD II, p. 94/5, no. −234 : 12 (SE 77). George 1993, p. 130, no. 849.
— Day-One-Temple = Akitu temple¿ (Van der Spek 1998, p. 225) ; first attestation :
AD II, p. 202, no. −204 C : r 17 (204 B.C.) ; Rahimesu Archive, Van der Spek 1998, nos. 14,
16, 18, 21, 23 and 24 ; et passim.
— Temple of Anunitu (Text on Arses and Alexander : Van der Spek 2003, p. 300,
no. 2 : 7’). George 1993, p. 124, no. 775 = p. 139, no. 965 s.v. Esaggašarra.
— Temple of Ea (dBE) (AD II, p. 426, no. −175 obv. 9’-10’ (SE 136) ; CT 49, 152 : 9
= Van der Spek 1998, no. 9). George 1993, p. 108, no. 569 s.v. Ekarzaginna (part of Esagila
complex) or ibidem p. 85, no. 282 s.v. Eešmah, a temple of Ea in the Western city quarter
Kumar (cf. Boiy 2004, p. 91).
— Temple of Madanu (CT 49, 157 : 6-8 = Van der Spek 1998, no. 10). George 1993,
p. 137, no. 936.
— Temple of Nabu-ßa-Harê (AD III, p. 502/3, no. −77 B r. 16’). George 1993, p. 132,
no. 878.
— Temple of Nergal (CT 49, 187 : 4’ ; AD III, p. 256/7, no. −126 B r. 10’ ; p. 320,
no. 118A : 21). The existence of a temple of Nergal prior to the Hellenistic period is not
attested (Boiy 2004, p. 92).
— Temple of Ninlil (BRM I 99 : 45 = Van der Spek no. 18). A temple of Ninlil is
attested here for the first time (cf. Boiy 2004, p. 92).
— Temple of Zababa and Ninlil. Two documents from the Rahimesu Archive record
expenditures from the cashbox of the property of Zababa and Ninlil (CT 49, 156 : 3, BRM I
99 : 2 = Van der Spek 1998 nos. 14 and 18). A temple of Zababa and Ninlil is otherwise
unknown, except the Akitu temple at Kish (OECT X 231 : 1-2 ; cf. George 1993, p. 171,
no 1435.) Zababa was the main god of Kish (Hursagkalamma), which is located closely to
Babylon. It should not be excluded that the authority of Rahimesu extended over Kish, as
there are close administrative connections with Cuthah and Borsippa as well. A contract
from Kish dated to 12. V. 7 Alexander IV = 29 August 310 B.C. concerning 26 jars of beer
(Watelin − Langdon 1930, p. 20, nr. 159) testifies to the fact that the temple of Zababa of
Kish functioned in the early Diadochi period.
2 Esagila
Esagila was the main temple of Babylon, the temple of the head of the pantheon, Marduk.
Esagila probably was the name of the entire temple complex in the city quarter Eridu in
Babylon. This includes in the first place the ziqquratu (temple tower), called Etemenanki.
It is likely that when the removal of the debris of Esagila is mentioned (in chronicles,
diaries and administrative documents — see below), it will be the removal of the mound
of Etemenanki, as was ordered by Alexander the Great. However, we should not press the
argument too far : clearing the dust of Esagila is a continuing concern due to the regular
decay of mud brick walls. See for instance chronicle BCHP 8 (BM 32266 ; date lost) : r 22’
[ITI BI SAHA]R.HI.A šá ma-la-k[u] šá dEN i[d-de-e-ku-’], « [That month, deb]ris of the pro-
cession road of Bel was re[moved] ». In the astronomical diary AD I, p. 356/7, no. −266 A :
13’ mention is made of « removing of debris of the small court yard » (de-ku-ú šá SAHAR.
HI.A šá KISAL.BÀN.DA ; 5.II.45 SE = 30 April 267 B.C.). In 93 B.C. 20 shekel of silver was
expended for the removal of debris of some road (CT 49, 163 = Van der Spek 1998, no. 2 :
6-7). In the same year 3.5 mahat = 3.5 obols was spent for the removal of dust from the
roof of the Day-One-Temple (CT 49, 154 = Van der Spek 1998, no. 16 : 9-11). These texts
are from the so-called Rahimesu Archive (c. 93 B.C.), which testify to the regular repair
of doors and walls. The Babylonian Talmud still refers to removal of dust by donkeys in
the first centuries of the Common Era (Geller 2000, p. 1).
A second argument for the assumption that the term Esagila includes more tem-
ples is given by Andrew George on the basis of the regular occurrence of a gate called KÁ
DUMU.NUN.NA šá É.SAG.GÍL, « The Gate of the Son of the Prince of Esagila ». George
(1992, p. 397) assigns this gate to Eturkalamma, the Ishtar temple, on the basis of BTT 6 :
rev. 19 where it is called « the outer gate of Ishtar ». Cf. also Boiy 2004, p. 82-3.
A third argument may be found in the fact that the board of shatammu (president
of the temple) and kinishtu (temple board of temple functionaries) of Esagila acts as a kind
of city council for the Babylonian population (cf. Van der Spek 1987).
On the basis of the information in the classical sources one might ask the ques-
tion whether the temple of Marduk was still standing, when Alexander entered Babylon.
Had it not been razed to the ground by Xerxes after his suppression of two revolts by the
Babylonian pretenders Bel-shimanni and Shamash-eriba ?
The question of the date of these revolts and the destruction of the temple and
the suppression of the cult of Marduk by Xerxes has been a hot issue in the last decades,
and I do not want to repeat this discussion. A few main points though. The date of the
revolts, given by M. San Nicolò (1934) and F. Th. de Liagre Böhl (1962) as the 2nd year
of Xerxes’ reign, has been questioned recently by Robert Rollinger (1993, p 218-226), who
argued that it is impossible to suggest any date and by Pierre Briant, who — on the basis

of Arrian VII 17.2 — suggested that the second revolt took place after Xerxes’ return from
Athens, hence 479 B.C. (Briant 1992).
The revolts are not reported in the Greek sources, but the destruction of the temple
by Xerxes or « Persians » is given by late authors as Strabo and Arrian and modern schol-
arship has connected the two events. The information as given by Arrian and Strabo was
generally believed and confirmation was found in a report in Herodotus that Xerxes had
removed a statue from the temple, which was supposed to be the main cult object. (Hdt I
183). First doubts have been expressed by Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin White (1987).
They correctly pointed to the fact that many scholars, starting with Olmstead, had been
careless readers and easily quoted each other without check. Herodotus only says that
Xerxes removed a certain statue of a man (andrias) and thereby killed a priest who tried
to prevent it. What kind of statue is not mentioned (it might have been the statue of a
Babylonian king). Herodotus, however, stresses the fact that a cult statue (agalma) of Zeus
(= Marduk) was still standing in his time (Kuhrt, Sherwin-White 1987, p. 71-2). It must be
noted that Herodotus nowhere says that Xerxes destroyed the temple or ziqqurat. In addi-
tion, cuneiform evidence from the later Achaemenid period until the end of the cuneiform
documentation in the later Parthian period attests to the fact that Babylonian cult practices
continued (cf. Kuhrt 1987 ; Rollinger 1993, p. 53-66 ; Linssen 2004). A destruction of the
temples by Xerxes cannot be confirmed by contemporary sources. The information on it
is late and may well have been distorted or even invented. I suggested that the invention
was first made by the Babylonian astrologers who urged Alexander to rebuild « the tomb
of Belus, which had been demolished by Persians » (Diod. XVII 112.3), in order to make the
fate of Babylon look like the fate of Athens in 480 B.C. (Van der Spek 2003, p. 334, n. 17).
The fact that Arrian says that Xerxes demolished the temple « when he returned from
Greece » suggests the same connection between the destruction of Athens and Babylon.
However, in a recent article Caroline Waerzeggers (2003/4) again stood up for the
old theory that the revolts are best to be dated to Xerxes’ second regnal year and that
Babylon was punished by serious suppressive measures against the Babylonian religious
elite. Her main argument is that in the second year of Xerxes many temple archives in
Babylon, Borsippa, Sippar and Kish had fallen into disuse. This can hardly be a coin-
cidence. Of special interest is the fact that the ending of archives was a not universal
phenomenon. It concerned archives relating to the Babylonian temple elite, consisting of
prebend holders. Other archives which covered year 2 or started later « belong to a class
of homines novi whose social world and economic interests were far removed from those of
the Babylonian aristocrats whose archives break off in the summer of Xer. 02. In traditional
Babylonian society these entrepreneurs occupied a lower position (none of them seems to
have had or used a family name), but their success derived from their association with the
Persian conquerors. » (p. 159). Furthermore, the south of Babylonia (Uruk) is not affected
by « the end of archives ». This is explained by the fact that the sphere of influence of the
pretenders did not reach that far.
I find the argumentation of Caroline Waerzeggers startling and convincing. It
explains a lot of phenomena in a satisfactory and coherent way : the fact that many, but
not all archives ended ; the fact that the archives in question ended suddenly in the second
year of Xerxes. It also put a few salient factors of the cuneiform material of the Hellenistic
period in a new light, when we compare the texts from Uruk and Babylon.
1. In Babylon the use of the tria nomina, mentioning family ancestors, has become
exceptional, while in Uruk the practice remained common.
2. From Uruk a huge amount of prebend texts (sales, leases) is preserved, from
Babylon none. In Babylon administrative texts concerning rations (kurummatu) abound,
increasingly paid in money, not in kind. The only text concerning a prebendary holder
from Babylon I know, is CT 49, 160 = Van der Spek 1998, no. 24 : 9 (lúEN.MEŠ GIŠ.ŠUB.
BA.MEŠ). The text in question, dating to 93 B.C., is a lease of the right to collect and
administer the income of the cashbox of the Day-One-Temple, where it is stated that the
lease does not appertain to the rights of the prebendaries. This kind of prebend differs
substantially from the right to the leftovers of the sacrificial meals of the gods, as is still
common in Uruk and Nippur (for two prebendary texts from Nippur dating to 154 and
152 B.C. : see Van der Spek 1992, p. 250-260).
However, what « the end of archives » does not imply is the destruction of the
temple in the second year of Xerxes. The suppression of the revolt may have caused some
damage to the city, but a systematic destruction of the temple tower would have required
a massive effort as is proven by the application of 10.000 troops by Alexander to complete
the job (and even he did not complete it, as we shall see below). It is much more likely
that the suppression concerned people involved in the uprising, rather than buildings. The
tower may gradually have started to decay due to lack of interest of the Persian kings after
Xerxes for the maintenance of the temple, so that indeed time (chronos) was the main
enemy of the tower. However it may be, Herodotus knows nothing about destruction.
He describes the ziqqurat as still standing in his time (es eme) and says that a temple was
on top of it (I 181). If the temple were destroyed, it would give us another argument that
Herodotus never visited Babylon (cf. Rollinger 1993).
Moreover, the ending of the archives does not only concern Babylon, but also
Borsippa, Kish and Sippar. One would expect destruction to those temples as well, but
that does not seem to be the case. Michael Jursa in his discussion of the end of the Ebabbar
archive of Sippar concludes :
« The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that the temples were a seat of
anti-Achaemenid activity, prompting Xerxes to have at least the upper echelons of the
temple administrations removed after his victory. There is no evidence for what exactly
he did at Sippar. The fact that the Ebabbar archive is manifestly « dead », that is, not

cut off by a catastrophic event, but set aside after having been sifted and after important
documents had been sorted out and removed, does not support the idea that there was
extensive destruction of the temple — no-one would have taken the trouble to go sys-
tematically through thousands of clay tablets while a hostile Persian army was at the gates,
and there would have been little point in such an operation later, if the Achaemenids had
had destroyed the temple and disrupted the cult entirely. The internal evidence argues for
a cleanup of the archives under a new administration which definitely intended to con-
tinue its work, I believe, and the revolts against Xerxes and their aftermath seem the only
plausible scenario for the installation of such a new group of bureaucrats by the Persian
rulers. » (Jursa 2004, p. 193).
As regards Babylon, it may have been the case that the temple tower was never fin-
ished, as was suggested by Von Soden (1971). Evidence for that may be found in Genesis 11,
where we read that the people of Shinear (Babylonia) said « Go to, let us build us a city and
a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven. » (11 : 4), a definition which seems to be quoted
from Nabopolassar’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s building inscriptions (Langdon 1912, p. 60,
nr. 1, I : 38-9 [Marduk ordered « to make its summits to reach heaven »] and ibid. p. 146,
nr. 17, II : 7-11 [I (Nebuchadnezzar) « took in hand to raise the summit of Etemenanki
to heaven »]. As is well known, the building was not finished, because the Lord con-
founded their language (which may be a rendering of the fact that in Babylonia a lot of
languages were spoken due to the Assyrian and Babylonian deportation policy). The fact
that Nebuchadnezzar claims that he finished the building is not an objection to the theory.
These inscriptions were made before and deposited in the foundations.
Later generations, especially the priests in the time of Alexander, blamed Xerxes for
the bad state of preservation and hence dated it to the latter’s return from Greece, as if he
repeated his destruction of Athens.
Whatever the case : the sanctuary of Marduk, i.e. Esagila stricto sensu, still stood in
the days of Alexander and still functioned. It must be noted that the religious function of
the ziqqurat was not very important for the cult. The god lived in the temple and received
there his daily meals (offerings). The tower may be compared with towers of churches. The
daily offerings in the temple, however, were still performed ; several rituals were observed
at least until the end of the record of the astronomical diaries in the first century B.C.,
but probably longer (Linssen 2004 ; Geller 1997).
The temple tower will indeed have been in a bad state of preservation, and, posing
as a good Babylonian king, whose task it was to maintain the temples, and because he was
indeed susceptible to the advice of the Babylonian astrologers that he could avoid his death
by restoring the temple, Alexander decided to rebuild the temple tower completely. The
decision is recorded in connection both with his first and with his second visit to Babylon.
Arrian reports that Alexander ordered the repair of « the temples, Xerxes destroyed »
(plural !) and in particular the temple of Bel, right after his arrival in Babylon in
October 331 B.C. (Arr. Anab. III 16.4). This information may be confirmed by a message
sent by Alexander from Sippar to the Babylonians, as reported by the Astronomical diaries
(see Appendix, Text 2).
It is Arrian’s contention, however, that nothing came of the restoration of the temple
and that the restoration of the temple was sabotaged by the Babylonian priests, who did
not like to use the resources of the temple : « The god Belus had a large endowment of
land and gold from the Assyrian kings, from which in old times the temple was kept in
repair and the sacrifices were offered to the god, but at that time the Chaldaeans were
in enjoyment of the revenues of the god, as there was nothing on which to spend the
surpluses » (Arr., Anab., VII 17 3-4). This representation of the conditions of the rebuild-
ing of the temple tower is interesting in many respects. Alexander by his order to rebuild
Etemenanki actually did nothing, gave not a penny subvention, but probably ordered that
tithes of the landed estates, once given by the Assyrian (and Babylonian) kings (hence
not Alexander), had to be used for the clearing of the site of Etemenanki and the subse-
quent rebuilding of the tower. Alexander left Babylon after 34 days (Curtius V 1. 39), left
a garrison of Macedonian soldiers and a spendthrift treasurer, Harpalus, who spent the
treasures to give himself and his concubines a good life. All this drove up the prices of
food and wages to an extreme height (cf. Badian 1961 ; Van der Spek 2000, p. 299-305).
Though Alexander did nothing, the tithes were indeed pledged for the removal of the
debris of Esagila, as is known from several administrative documents. We have four such
documents and they testify to the fact that at least the people mentioned here donated a
lot of money :
CT 49, 6 (6.XI. year 6 Alexander = 5 Febr. 327 B.C.)
Baruqå, the slave of Nabarzanu : 60 shekels
CT 49, 5 (5.XII. 9 Alexander = 5 March 327 B.C.)

Iddin-Bel, son of Bagaparta 120 shekels
[60 shekel for Belet-Akkadi-....., his son
+ 60 shekel for Sinumarsu ?, the parchment scribe of Theodotus ?]
Bel-šuma-lišir-šu, son of Šumija¿ 62.5 shekels
Marduk-belšunu, son of Bel-iddina 20 shekels
Bel-ahhe-uΩur, son of Bel-uΩuršu 5 shekels
Stolper 1993, p. 68-70 (18.X.11 Alexander = 26 January 325 B.C.)

Rumahat-Bel, the parchment scribe of the house of the mašennu,
on behalf of Ati’–Bel, head of ... 124 shekels
Jursa 1997, p. 133, no. 51 (n.VI.12 Alexander = September 325 B.C.)

Tanittu-Bel, son of Šulum-Babili (less than 1 mina = 60 shekel) [x shek]els

These documents are well known, but nobody, including myself, ever realized how
much money these people donated. The three simple documents, in which the amount
of money is preserved, record a total of 391.5 shekels of silver, donated by only 7 per-
sons = 55 shekel on average. Four people gave 60 shekel, one even 124.
We happen to know, thanks to a document published by Michael Jursa, that the
wages of the people who did the work on the removal of the debris of Esagila amounted
to 4 shekels per month (Jursa 2002, p. 120-121). This document is dated to 321 B.C., and
wages may have been high in that period. It was a time of inflation and high food prices,
so in 327 and 325 the wages may have been lower. However that may be, a donation of
60 shekels is enough to maintain 15 workers during one month even in case of the high
prices of 321 B.C. The total of these simple three documents was enough to pay 97 work-
ers for one month. The donators probably were tenants of part of the temple land, given
by « the Assyrian kings » encumbered with the obligation to pay tithes (bºt ritti or bºt
ilki). Another explanation might be that the « tithes » were simple voluntary donations
(discussion Jursa 1998, p. 86-90). Whatever the case, although the Babylonians could have
done more, since the tithes were pledged but the work had not yet started, nevertheless
Alexander had done nothing.
When Alexander returned, the « Chaldaeans » will have reminded Alexander of his
promise to rebuild the city, thereby adding the threat that Marduk could become angry
and cause his death, if he failed to fulfil his promise. Alexander proved susceptible to
these warnings and indeed now ordered 10,000 soldiers to work on it (cf. Arrian VII 17.3 ;
Diodorus XVII 112.1-3 ; Strabo, Geogr. XVI 1.5). Alexander did not get the job finished. His
untimely death may have been one reason, but his efforts to remove part of the wall of
Babylon for the erection of a funeral pyre for Hephaestion will not have helped either
(Diod. VII 115.1), nor the work on the port of Babylon destined to harbour the fleet which
had been built for the conquest of Arabia (Arr. Anab. VII 19.3-6).
Moreover, the work continued, as shown by the above mentioned administrative
document recording wages paid to labourers dated to 321 B.C. The chronicles and the
astronomical diaries also frequently mention the removal of the dust of Esagila. The first
diary in question concerns August 322 B.C. : AD I, p. 226-7, no. −321 : rev. 14’ SAHAR.
HI.A šá É-sag-gíl a<na> BAL.RI dUTU.ŠÚ id-de-ku-ú, « the debris of Esagil was removed to
the opposite west bank ». This is in conflict with the archaeological data, which suggest
that the rubble was removed to the Homera area (Wetzel et al. 1957, p. 2). As a matter of
fact, both things may have happened.
The Babylonian chronicles also refer to the removal of the debris of Esagila
(or sometimes the occasional interruption in the work). First, the so-called Diadochi
Chronicle (= B. C. 10 ; but see now also BCHP 3) obverse line 25 = 6’, referring to the
4th year of Philip = 320/9 B.C. ; reverse 13’, referring to year 7 of Antigonus = year 6
of Alexander IV = 311/ 0 B.C. [mentioning the fact that in that year the rubble was not
removed] and year 7 of Alexander IV = 310/09 B.C. [possibly again mentioning the inter-
ruption in the removal of the debris, apparently due to the continuous fighting between
the troops of Antigonus and Seleucus during these years]. Second, chronicle BCHP 5 :
5 (= ABC 11 : 2), probably dating to 287/6 B.C., also refers to the removal of the debris
or the interruption of it. If some of the chronicles indeed refer to the interruption of the
removal of the debris, one must conclude that the normal state of affairs was that work
on it continued.
The man who made the final effort in removing the debris of Esagila, and who
showed real interest in Babylon and its temples, was Antiochus I. He resided in Babylon
as crown prince from 293 B.C. (or perhaps earlier) until the death of his father in 281 B.C.
As king he retained his interest in the city.
It is generally assumed that the foundation of Seleucia (date unknown ; somewhere
between 305 and 300) caused the rapid decay of Babylon. We discussed the relevant clas-
sical sources. To a certain degree it is true. If Babylon really had been chosen capital of the
Seleucid empire, it would have grown in population, size and number of buildings, etc.
Now it turned into a provincial city, though with a glorious past and as a centre of science
(cf. paper Beaulieu, this volume). Nevertheless, the kings continued to visit Babylon and
continued to reside occasionally in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace. But even if one assumes
that there was a great drain from Babylon towards Seleucia, one should keep in mind
that a city cannot be built in one day or one year. For decades Seleucia must have been a
building excavation, a place full of dust, noise and unfinished buildings and roads, hardly
a nice place for a king or prince to live in. So it is quite reasonable to assume that for the
time being Babylon in fact remained the capital of the Seleucid empire or at least of the
Upper Satrapies. Recently published Babylonian chronicles indeed attest that Antiochus,
the crown prince and co-ruler with his father Seleucus, preferred to live in Babylon rather
than in Seleucia. A very interesting chronicle in this respect is the « Antiochus and Sin
Chronicle » (Appendix, Text 3). The most interesting information from this chronicle
is that Antiochus, the crown prince, visited Babylon, showed interest in two temples of
Sin and sacrificed there according to Babylonian practice, at the instruction of a certain
Babylonian, probably the shatammu. The second point is that Antiochus started the reset-
tlement of Macedonians from Babylon to Seleucia. They were probably destined to increase
the number of Macedonian citizens (polºtai) in the new city. That Seleucia had a more or
less Macedonian constitution is indicated by the fact that an epistates was appointed there
and that the council of elders was called peliganes (see comments on Bagayasha Chronicle,
Appendix, Text 1). At the same time a heavy taxation (miksu dannu) was imposed on the
Babylonian population. About the reason one can only speculate : war effort, food for the
Seleucians, the fact that the phoros imposed on the Macedonians had now to be paid by
the remaining Babylonians. Note that Antiochus imposed new taxes in 274 and 273 as well
(cf Doty 1977 ; Van der Spek 1993 ; AD I, p. 344-7, no. −273 B r. 30’-32’ ; 36’-38’).

An interesting aspect of this chronicle is the date of the tablet and the fact that
Antiochus is referred to as mar šarri ša bºt r™dªti, « son of the king of the succession
house » = « crown prince ».
It must be kept in mind that this was the first time in Babylonian tradition that a
co-ruler was appointed, in a situation where the co-ruler was clearly subordinate to the
real king. It could not be compared with Shamash-shuma-ukin and Kandalanu who were
real kings of Babylonia next to Assurbanipal, who are recorded as such in Babylonian king
lists. In the Seleucid king lists Seleucus remained the king of Babylon until his death in
281 B.C. to be succeeded by his son as such only after that date. Hence, the Babylonians
found the solution in choosing a title which was expressly used for crown princes, who
had been designated as successors : mar šarri ša bºt r™dªti, « the son of the king of the suc-
cession house » (AHW I 134 s.v. bºtum B ; II 981 s.v. ridûtum 4b ; CAD R 326 s.v. ridûtu
in bºt ridûti, « residence of the crown prince, administrative center. »). While in a dating
formula Antiochus could be named « king » next to his father, this did not seem appro-
priate in a running text where the real reigning king was not mentioned. In addition, the
expression mar šarri ša bºt r™dªti has a precedent in two chronicles of the Neo-Babylonian
Chronicle Series, viz. the Chronicle concerning the Later years of Nabopolassar (ABC 4 :
6 and 28) and the Chronicle concerning the Early years of Nebuchadnezzar II (ABC 5 : 1).
In both cases it is the young crown prince Nebuchadnezzar, destined to be the successor
to Nabopolassar, who is designated that way.
It is not impossible that the chronicler made a comparison between Nebuchadnezzar
and Antiochus on purpose. Nabopolassar and Seleucus could both be seen as the founders
of a new dynasty, who both had designated their eldest son for succession. This observa-
tion fits in well with Amélie Kuhrt’s observation of Berossus’ « depiction of Nabopolassar,
who rose from the position of governor to found the most glorious phase of Babylonian
history and re-established order after a lengthy war of liberation (F 7) ; much of this was
accomplished with the help of his son Nebuchadnezzar, whose consolidation and extension
of his father’s achievements after the latter’s death culminated in the extensive programme
of reconstruction within Babylonia (F 8). What better models than this famous father
and son could be found to prefigure the activities of Seleucus I and his son and succes-
sor, Antiochus, almost exactly three hundred years later, who by their closely comparable
behaviour could be presented as the direct heirs of Babylonia’s greatest and most pious
kings ? » (Kuhrt 1987, p. 56).
Berossus must have worked on his Babyloniaka in the 290s or 280s, exactly the
period in which this chronicle was composed. In view of the fact that Berossus must have
belonged to the scholarly elite of Babylon, it is not rash to assume that Berossus knew the
chronicler who wrote this very chronicle personally. They may have drunk a pint of beer
together in a Babylonian pub. Our chronicler may even have been Berossus himself.
The second point that leads to the supposition that the chronicler refers to
Antiochus’ period as co-ruler, is that he acts as a ruler. He visits temples, performs offer-
ings, orders the removal of the dust of Esagila, and functions as an arbitrator in conflicts.
He seems to have been the actual ruler in Babylonia.
The clearing of the site of Esagila (actually the temple tower Etemenanki) is usually
and not without reason attributed to Alexander the Great, as we have discussed above.
However, the work has not been completed in Alexander’s lifetime. Several cuneiform
documents refer to the « removal of the debris of Esagila » after Alexander’s death. A new
Babylonian chronicle, found by Irving Finkel in the British Museum, seems to mention the
fact that the work has been done by crown prince Antiochus. The chronicle reports a visit
of the crown prince to « the ruin of Esagila ». During this visit Antiochus made offerings
on top of « the ruin of Esagila » (see Appendix, Text 4). This text is of prime importance
for the understanding of the reconstruction of the temple. Antiochus is reported to have
made sacrifices on the ruins of Esagila, i.e. probably the mound of Etemenanki. He probably
made the offerings in the Babylonian fashion. Suddenly, however, an accident happened :
the prince fell on his face, probably due to the broken ground. It was recorded by the scribe,
since it had to be considered a bad omen. That it was a bad omen in Greek perception is
illustrated by Plutarch, who mentioned a comparable omen for Antigonus, just before the
battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.) : « Moreover, Antigonus, when his phalanx was already forming
and he was leaving his tent, stumbled and fell prone upon his face, injuring himself severely ;
but he rose to his feet, and stretching out his hands towards heaven prayed that the gods
would grant him victory, or a painless death before his defeat. » (Plut. Demetrius 29.2).
As a matter of fact, Antiochus reacted in the same manner. After the incident he made
an offering « in the Greek fashion ». Greeks were not accustomed to prostrate themselves for the
gods. They prayed standing up with their hands raised, as Antigonus did. Secondly, his stumbling
may well have raised his anger, so that he wished to remove the rubble of the temple once and
for all as soon as he could and in a grand and royal manner : with wagons and with elephants.
So it seems that the clearing of the site of Etemenanki was now finished at last, at
the instruction of Antiochus, with the employment of his army and his elephants. The
rebuilding could start. The reverse of the tablet is very difficult to understand. It seems to
concern a conflict between workmen, in which the crown prince is asked to intervene.
There is more evidence that not only debris was removed, but active building activi-
ties were pursued in the period when Antiochus I was king. The astronomical diaries
report about year 37 SE (275-4 B.C.) : « That year, a large number of bricks for the recon-
struction of Esa[gila] were moulded above Babylon and below Babylon » (AD I, p. 347,
no. −273 B : r. 38’). In this year Antiochus was in Sardes, but in the next year he went
to Syria in order to fight against Ptolemy I who had invaded that country (AD I, p. 345,
no. −273 B r. 29’ 30’). It may have been then that Antiochus I in Syria conceived the
idea of reconstructing Esagila and Ezida, if we may believe the last extant royal inscrip-

tion from Mesopotamia : « When I conceived the idea of (re)constructing Esagila and
Ezida, I formed with my august hands (when I was) in the land of Hatti (Syria) the (first)
brick for Esagila and Ezida with the finest oil and brought (it with me) for laying of
the foundation of Esagila and Ezida. And in the month Addaru, the 20th day, the 43rd
year [= 27 March 268 B.C.], I did lay the foundation of Ezida, the (only) true temple of
Nabû, which is in Borsippa. » (ANET3, p. 317 ; cf. Weissbach 1911, p. 132-5 ; Austin 1981,
no. 189 ; Kuhrt − Sherwin-White 1991). In any case in SE 41 (271/0) B.C. Antiochus was
still encamped in Syria (AD I, p. 355, no. −270 B r. 18), but the inscription seems to imply
that he laid down the first brick in 268 B.C. in Borsippa in person.
3 Unbuilt parts of the city

Estimates of the size of the population of a city are often hampered by the fact that it is
unknown how many parts of the city were uninhabited open spaces. A large part of the
area of Babylon consisted of palace and temples. Some parts may have been ruinous due
to neglect and warfare. Some parts were used for agriculture or horticulture. The temples
and the palace we discussed already. A « Royal Garden » existed on the West Bank of the
Euphrates opposite the royal palace, as is recorded in Greek as well as in cuneiform sources
(cf. Van der Spek 1995). However, the so-called « Hanging Garden » (kremastos k™pos/
paradeisos) of Babylon may well have been mythical (cf. Dalley 1996). The famous « hang-
ing gardens » only occur in late Greek texts. Herodotus nor Arrian (based on Ptolemy and
Aristobulus) knew them. It is not mentioned in the cuneiform descriptions of Babylon nor
in the building inscriptions of its supposed constructor, Nebuchadnezzar II. The fact that
Berossus describes it (apud Josephus, Against Apion 141) may in fact be attributed to a later
redactor of his work, Alexander Polyhistor (Verbrugghe − Wickersham 2000, p. 29).
Another garden mentioned in the cuneiform sources of the Hellenistic period is the
Juniper Garden. It was an important garden in which important buildings were located,
like three temples of the healing goddess Gula, the Council house of the Shatammu and
the Kinishtu. It occurs in astronomical diaries and administrative documents 4.
4 Astronomical Diaries :
AD I, no. −328 rev. 24’ (13 VIII 8 Alex. III = 25 Nov. 329 B.C. ; « the garden which is between Esagila
and Eturk[alamma ....] » — not necessarily the Juniper Garden). AD I, no. −277 C obv. 3’ (VIII
30 SE = 22 Oct. − 19 Nov. 278 B.C. ; broken context). AD I, no. −270 B rev. 15’ (24 XII 41 SE =
24 March 270 B.C. : the ritual of the covering of the kettle drum is performed in this garden.
AD II, no. −240 obv. 7’ (VIII 71 SE = 1-29 Nov. 241 B.C. ; thieves are interrogated in the Juniper
Garden, and convicted.
The Juniper Garden is also mentioned in an unpublished Babylonian chronicle,
now in the British Museum. From this chronicle we learn that it was situated near the
Urash Gate and that it included a so-called « service estate, » i.e. an estate encumbered
with the obligation to perform services for a higher authority. (See Appendix, Text 5) The
Juniper garden must have occupied a sizable area within the walls of Babylon.
AD II, no −168 A rev. 19’ (VIII. 143 SE = 15 Nov. − 13 Dec. 169 B.C. ; location of « the old store
house (bºt buš™) ». Valuables are moved to¿ the « new store house » which is located adjoining
the east wall of the old store house. In the chronicle concerning the Juniper Garden (BCHP 8),
edited in the Appendix below, this storehouse is apparently also at issue.
AD III, no −140 A rev. 8’ (24 III 171 SE = 4 July 141 B.C. ; broken context. Possibly visited by
Antiochos, son of Ariobarzanes, who was appointed General of Akkad by the new Parthian
conquerors.
AD III, no. −93 A rev. 25 (V 218 SE = 31 July − 39 Aug. 94 B.C. ; location of the bºt milki, « the
House of Deliberation », where the shatammu and the kinishtu met and received letters from
the king.
AD III, no. −79 rev. 4’ (II 232 SE = 28 April − 27 May 80 B.C. ; the shatammu, the « Babylonians »
= the kinishtu, and valuables are mentioned in a broken context. The storehouse and the House
of Deliberation were apparently still there.
Administrative documents :
— The Esagila Archive (Late Achaemenid − Early Hellenistic) :
Jursa 1997, p. 130-133, no. 50 : r. 27’ « 78 litres (barley) : Nabu-kuΩur-šu, the gate keeper of the
Juniper Garden » (in a ration list of the month Adar (XII) of year 9, Alexander IV¿ = 18 February −
19 March 307 B.C.. If Jursa’s dating to Alexander IV is correct the ration (78 litres — others even
get 180 litres) is fairly rich in a time of severe high prices right after or still during the Babylonian
war between Antigonus and Seleucus. This observation would suggest month Adar year 9 of
Alexander the Great = 1-30 March 327 B.C., when prices were still on the Late Achaemenid
level. Cf. ration for possibly the same person in the broken ration list (ration not preserved)
CT 49, 13 : r. 9’ (month III year 2 Alexander IV = 27 May − 25 June 316 B.C.).
— The Rahimesu Archive (Parthian) :
CT 49, 150 (= Van der Spek 1998, no. 13) : 23-26 (1 XI 218 SE = 24 January 93 B.C.) : « the
Juniper Garden, surrounding the temple Ehursagsikilla, temple of Gula, (and) Ehursagkuga,
temple of Gula ». Same formula in BRM I 99 (= Van der Spek 1998, no. 18) : 26-28 (14 XII2 218
SE = 15 April 93 B.C.).
Chronicles :
ABC 13A = BCHP 7, rev. 8 (broken context).
BM 47737 (Joannès 2000, p. 194-200) : 2-4 « [Thieves],who had entered the Juniper garden
illegally [and] had taken [ X from the property of B™l,] B™ltia, Ištar van Babylon and the [great]
gods [....] were burned with fire. (Month VIII 34 SE = October − November 278 B.C.).

4 The number of personnel in the temple
Not only the buildings, but also the number of people working and living in or off the
temple give information on the size and significance of temples. We have some information
about the number of personnel in early Hellenistic Babylon thanks to the so-called Esagila
archive, i.e. a collection of ration lists of the Late Achaemenid − Early Hellenistic period
(Boiy 2004, p. 226-263, esp. 240-1 ; Jursa (1997, p. 129-135 and 2002, p. 109-112). From
Beaulieu’s paper (this volume) we learn that at least 14 astronomers (« Enuma Anu Enlil
scribes ») were in service in the transition period (YBC 11549, year 6 of Alexander IV ?). A
cuneiform ration list, dated to the 6th year of Antigonus, i.e. 312/1 B.C., lists 50 lamenta-
tion priests, adding that it concerns only half of the number (CT 44, 84 ; cf. Boiy 2004,
p. 267-9). Thus 100 of these people were in the service of the temple. 18 bakers are known
from two ration lists (CT 49, 27 and TBER 10 (AO 6027) ; cf. Boiy 2004, p. 251). Three
ration lists preserve the names of 34 millers (Boiy 2004, p. 249-50). As late as 93 B.C.
a scribe of the millers is recorded, who receives money for the purchase of 540 liters of
barley, to be used in one month, i.e. 18 liters a day (Van der Spek (1998a) no. 11 : 7-9 ; 13 :
8-11 ; 18 : 5-8). In addition the millers receive 2,5 shekels (ca. 5 drachms) as monthly wages
(ibid., next lines) 5.
These numbers suggest that the Babylonian temples were sizable and active organi-
zations with a substantial work force of several hundred and probably thousand persons
involved in cult, agriculture and manufacture.
5 Destruction of the temples and city

It is difficult to assess how much Babylon did suffer from the heavy warfare that took
place after the death of Alexander. The Diadochi chronicle mentions a lot of street fighting
and it will have damaged the city. Several times plundering, weeping and mourning are
mentioned. The Successors liked using water in their military strategy. It is reported about
5 The fact that a scribe was needed for the administration of the millers suggests that
still a large number of millers were in function. The amounts, however, are small
and suggest that there were only few millers left in the temple service. The solu-
tion of this problem may be that these expenses, made out of the offertory box
of a temple, were only made for the daily offerings for the gods (18 liters per day)
and not for feeding the temple personnel, and that the wages were only paid for
this particular job.
Eumenes and Seleucus (Diod. XIX 13.1-5). If my interpretation of the Diadochi Chronicle
is correct, Seleucus used water in order to capture the city as well (see Appendix, Text 6,
for the relevant lines of the reverse of the Diadochi Chronicle).
The distress of Babylon in the period of the early successors can also be viewed from
the prices mentioned in the astronomical diaries. The prices jump to extreme heights, up
to 7.5 litres for a shekel or even only 6 litres (1 sutu) according to the Diadochi chronicle.
Yet, Babylon seems to have recovered. The prices of the period between 300 and 140 B.C.
are mostly quite acceptable ; in the 290s 180 litres (1 kur) for a shekel (cf. Van der Spek
2000, p. 299-305).
Conclusion
This paper intends to show some of the features of the city of Babylon and its temples
in the time of Alexander the Great and the early successors. The city must have retained
a lot of its ancient glory and it appealed to the fantasy of Alexander. He considered it a
worthy residence for his new empire and he had certainly in mind to aggrandize it, but
not much came of it. The fighting after his death must have damaged the city. Seleucus I,
possibly inspired by jealousy of Ptolemy’s Alexandria, ordered to build a new city, which
should be the new royal residence. Yet, Babylon did not fall into oblivion. Alexander and
the successors probably admired the ancient buildings and the science of the astronomers.
Antiochus I seems to have tried to restore and rebuild ancient temples like Esagila and
Ezida, as is testified by his royal inscription from Ezida, by his offerings on the site of
Etemenanki and the final clearing of the site. He must have stayed quite often in Babylon,
especially when Seleucia was not yet a nice place to live. At the same time he really took
efforts to make the foundation of Seleucia successful as a Macedonian foundation by
removing the Macedonian settlers/garrison soldiers from Babylon to it. Antiochus, how-
ever, was no saint. He paid respect to Babylon and its past as long as it fitted him. He
could also disregard ancient traditions by making sacrifices « in the Greek fashion » and
he imposed heavy taxes as he saw fit.
Later classical sources tell that quite some land within the city walls was given
over to agriculture. That feature is not unique for Babylon, but with the decline of the
population, the use of arable land within the city will have increased. Perhaps we have to
understand « the service estate » (bºt ilki) in the Juniper Garden accordingly. The estimate
of the real size of habitation and population remains very hazardous. In view of the size of
the city, the number of the personnel of the temple, the descriptions in the classical authors
and the impression it made on Alexander and his contemporaries, Babylon must have been
a big city when Alexander appeared at its gates, apparently larger than Athens.

Babylon will have declined, but not immediately. It is my impression that Babylon
retained a lot of its prestige during the entire Seleucid period. It was the center of advanced
astronomical science (cf. Rochberg 2004). It was certainly not a cultural backwater, as was
assumed by Verbrugghe and Wickersham (2000, p. 15). Antiochus IV (or III ?) found the
city interesting enough to introduce a new Greek colony, which survived at least into the
2nd century A.D. (cf. Van der Spek 2003 and 2005). But the end of Babylon is not the
subject of this article.
Appendix 1 : Greek and Latin authors on Babylon
« Moving on to Babylon Alexander was met by Mazaeus, who had taken refuge in the city
(urbs) after the battle (of Gaugamela). He came as a suppliant with his grown-up children
to surrender himself and the city. Alexander was pleased at his coming, for besieging so
well-fortified a city would have been an arduous task. (...)
[19] A large number of the Babylonians had taken up position on the walls, eager
to have a view of their new king, but most went out to meet him, [20] including the man
in charge of the citadel (arx) and the royal treasury (regia pecunia), Bagophanes. Not to
be outdone by Mazaeus in paying his respects to Alexander, Bagophanes had carpeted the
whole road with flowers and garlands and set up at intervals on both sides silver altars
heaped not just with frankincense, but with all manner of perfumes. [21] Following him
were his gifts — herds of cattle and horses, and lions, too, and leopards, carried along in
cages. [22] Next came the Magi chanting a song in their native fashion, and behind them
were the Chaldaeans, then the Babylonians, represented not only by priests, but also by
musicians with their national instrument. (The role of the latter was to sing the praises of
the Persian kings, that of the Chaldaeans to reveal astronomical movements and regular
seasonal changes.) [23] At the rear came the Babylonian cavalry, their equipment and that
of the horses suggesting extravagance rather than majesty.
Surrounded by an armed guard, the king instructed the townspeople (oppidani) to
follow the rear of his infantry ; then he entered the city on a chariot and went into the
palace (regia). The next day he made an inspection of Darius’ furniture and all his treasure,
[24] but it was the city itself, with its beauty and antiquity, that commanded not only
the attention of the king, but of all the Macedonians. And with justification. »
Q. Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, 5.1.17 ; 19-24 (translation John
Yardley, Penguin Classics).
« The reason why he [Darius III] fled towards Media [after the battle of Gaugamela]
was that he thought Alexander after the battle would take the route to Susa and Babylon,
since all of it was inhabited and the road itself was easy for the baggage trains, and
besides, Babylon and Susa were the obvious prize of the war, whereas the route to Media
was not easy for a large force. [3] Darius was not mistaken, for leaving Arbela Alexander at
once advanced on the road to Babylon. He was already near Babylon, and was leading his
force in battle order, when the Babylonians came to meet him in mass, with their priests
and rulers, each section of the inhabitants bringing gifts and offering surrender of the
city (polis), the citadel (akra) and the treasure (ta chr™mata). [4] On entering Babylon
Alexander directed the Babylonians to rebuild the temples Xerxes destroyed, and
especially the temple of B™l (B™los), whom the Babylonians honour more than any other
god. He appointed Mazaeus satrap (satrap™s) of Babylon and Apollodorus of Amphipolis

general (strat™gos) of the troops left behind with Mazaeus, and Asclepiodorus son of Philo
to collect the taxes (tous phorous). [5] (...) At Babylon too he met the Chaldaeans, and
carried out all their recommendations on the Babylonian temples (ta hiera ta en
Babyl≤ni), and in particular sacrificed to B™l, according to their instructions. »
Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, III 16. 2-5 (translation P. A. Brunt, Loeb
Classical Library [Brunt translated B™los erroneously as Baal]).
« The temple of Belus (ho tou B™lou ne≤s) was in the centre of the city (en mes™i t™i
polei ... t≤n Babyl≤ni≤n), unequalled in size, and made of baked brick with bitumen for
mortar ; [2] like the other shrines of Babylon (ta alla hiera ta Babyl≤ni≤n), Xerxes had
razed it to the ground (kateskapsen) when he returned from Greece ; and Alexander had
it in mind to rebuild it, some say on the original foundations, and that for this reason he
ordered the Babylonians (tous Babyl≤nious) to remove the earth (ton choun ekpherein) ;
other say that he even wished to make it even larger than the old one. [3] But since those
charged with the work had been slack in handling it after his departure [in 331 B.C.], he
planned to complete it now with the help of his entire army. The god Belus had a large
endowment of land and gold from the Assyrian kings, [4] from which in old times the
temple was kept in repair and the sacrifices were offered to the god, but at that time the
Chaldaeans were in enjoyment of the revenues, as there was nothing on which to spend the
surpluses. All this made Alexander suspect that they did not desire him to enter Babylon,
so that the rapid completion of the temple would not deprive them of the benefit of these
moneys. »
Arrian,The Anabasis of Alexander VII 17. 1-4 (P. A. Brunt, Loeb).
« After this [= the building of the palace] she [= Semiramis] built in the centre
of the city (en mes™i t™i polei) a temple of Zeus (hieron Dios) whom, as we have said, the
Babylonians call Belus. Now since with regard to this temple the historians are at variance,
and since time (chronos) has caused the structure to fall in ruins, it is impossible to
give the facts concerning it. But all agree that it was exceedingly high, and that in it the
Chaldaeans made their observations of the stars, whose risings and settings could be accu-
rately observed by reason of the height of the structure. [5] Now the entire building was
ingeniously constructed at great expense of bitumen (asphalt™s) and brick (plinthos), and
at the top of the ascent Semiramis set up three statues of hammered gold, of Zeus, Hera,
and Rhea. (...) [9] But all these were later carried off as spoil by the Persians, while as
for the palaces and other buildings, time (chronos) has either entirely effaced them or
left them in ruins ; and in fact in Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time,
and most of the area within its walls (entos teichous) is given over to agriculture. »
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, II 9.4-5, 9 (C. H. Oldfather, Loeb).
« They [the Chaldaeans] told their envoys also to urge upon the king [Alexander]
that he must under no circumstances make his entry into the city ; [2] that he could
escape the danger if he re-erected the tomb of Belus which had been demolished by the
Persians, but he must abandon his intended route and pass the city by »
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, XVII 112.1-2.
« Alexander carried off with him all the wealth in Persis to Susa, which was also
full of treasures and equipment ; and neither did he regard Susa as the royal residence (to
basileion), but rather Babylon, which he intended to build up still further ; and there too
treasures lay stored. (...) [10] At all events, Alexander preferred Babylon, since he saw
that it far surpassed the others, not only in its size, but also in other respects. »
Strabo, Geography, XV 3. 9-10 (H. L. Jones, Loeb Classical Library).
« Here too is the tomb of Belus, now in ruins, having been demolished by Xerxes,
as it is said. It was a quadrangular pyramid of baked brick, not only being a stadium in
height, but also having sides a stadium in length. Alexander intended to repair this pyra-
mid ; but it would have been a large task and would have required a long time (for merely
the clearing away of the mound (h™ chous) was a task for ten thousand men for two
months), so that he could not finish what he had attempted ; for immediately the king
was overtaken by disease and death. None of his successors cared for this matter ; and even
what was left of the city was neglected and thrown into ruins, partly by the Persians and
partly by time and by indifference of the Macedonians to things of this kind, and in
particular after Seleucus Nicator had fortified Seleuceia on the Tigris near Babylon, at a
distance of about three hundred stadia therefrom. For not only he, but also all his succes-
sors, were strongly interested in Seleuceia and transferred the royal residence (to basileion)
to it. What is more, Seleuceia at the present time (nun) has become larger than Babylon,
whereas the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say what
one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia : « The Great
City is a great desert ».
Strabo, Geography, XVI 1.5.
« Secondly [= as second example of Seleucus’ piety], when he founded Seleucea

on the river Tigris and brought to it Babylonian colonists (Babyl≤nious ... synoikous), he
spared the wall of Babylon as well as the sanctuary of Bel, near which he permitted
the Chaldaeans to live. »
Pausanias, Description of Greece, I 16.3 (W. H. S. Jones, Loeb).
« The temple of Jupiter Belus in Babylon is still standing (Durat adhuc ibi Iovis
Beli templum) – Belus was the discoveror of the science of astronomy ; but in all respects

the place has gone back to a desert, having been drained of its population by the proxim-
ity of Seleucia, founded for that purpose by Nicator not quite 90 miles away, at the point
where the canalised Euphrates joins the Tigris. »
Pliny, Naturalis Historia, VI 121-122 (W. H. S. Jones, Loeb).
Appendix 2 : Cuneiform sources on Babylon
Text 1. The Bagayasha Chronicle (130s B.C.) [BCHP 18]
A. BM 35229 + 35518 + 35621

B. BM 35189 + 46018 + 46216 (Sp. III, 295 + 81-7-6, 464 + 81-7-6, 678)
(Joins by Irving Finkel)
Description of the tablet

The original tablet is broken into many pieces, of which seven have been identified and
joined by Irving Finkel in such a way that we now have the upper right part and the lower
bottom part of the obverse of the tablet. The two parts do not join. Probably, however,
not much space was left between them.
A. : Length : 8.5 cm, width : 7 cm, thickness 3 cm.
B. : Length : 12.5 cm., width 6 cm (line 6), thickness left edge 3 cm, right edge 3.5 cm. The
bottom edge (3 cm.) is partly preserved and inscribed. Seven so-called « firing holes » (the
purpose of which is unknown) are preserved on the left edge. A few traces of cuneiform
signs are preserved on the reverse of Sp III 295.
A.
Obverse
(...)
4’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. UN.M]EŠ¿ KUR GA.NAG.MEŠ-šú-n[u u D]AM¿.MEŠ-šú-nu
ú-maš-ši-ru-ú nap-har-šú-nu UD.D[U.MEŠ (.. ..)]
5’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x a-na šu-zu-ub-bu KIN./GI4\. A.MEŠ as-ra-a-tú ù pa-ši-
ra-a-tú x [.. .. .. ..]
6’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..lúŠÀ].TAM É.SAG.ÍL lúA.MEŠ E.[KI l]úÌR.MEŠ LUGAL UN.MEŠ
i-©u-tu TA lúpu-l [i-te-e]
7’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..U]N.MEŠ šú-nu-tú šá ina É !.GAL.MEŠ LUGAL a[š-b]u-ú
nap-har-ri-iš ik-kil-lu na x x ri x [.. .. .. ..]
(...)
19’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] GUR lúpu-li-te-e šá ina E.ki iš x ERÍN-ni
Su-bir4ki [(...)]
20’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. š]á INIM dIM iΩ-bat KASKAL UD 10.KAM
lúGAL.ERÍN.MEŠ KUR URI.KI [(.. ..)]
21’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] /m\ Ba-a-a-ga-šá-a UD¿.DU.MEŠ {UD 20

KAM} UD 10.KAM UN.MEŠ x [.. .. .. (.. ..)]

22’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] x ana É.ZI.DA u lúBAR.ZIP.MEŠ lìb-bi nu¿
[.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(...)
B.
2’ x [ .. mB]a-ga-a-a-šá-a [l]úŠ[EŠ LUGAL .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..]
3’ NÍG./BA¿\-šú-nu lúpe-li-ga-na-a-n[u .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..]
lú {GAL} ERÍN.MEŠ šú-nu-tú GUR.MEŠ-nim-ma TA E.K[I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
4’
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ SAR-su SAR-ma šil-lat-su IR-ma a[l- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. ]
6’ u UN.MEŠ šú-nu-tú šá ina É.GAL.MEŠ LUGAL¿ š[á ina E.ki áš-bu-ú .. .. ..] x [.. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
lú
7’ pu-li-te-e u lúERÍN.MEŠ šú-nu-[tú šá ina E.KI á]š¿-bu-ú a-na [ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
8’ MU-a-tim LAL-ú lú <UN.MEŠ> GAL-a u TUR BA¿ [.. .. .. .. ..]x-šú ina MÈ i-dag-g[al
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ]
lú
9’ NUN MU-a-tim i-gu-ug-ma x[.. .. .. .. .. ..]x ina UKKIN ERÍN.MEŠ x [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(...)
17’ (...) UN.MEŠ šú-nu-tú]
18’ šá ina É.GAL.MEŠ MU-a-[tim UD].DU.MEŠ GAL¿-ba-ki lúŠÀ.TAM É.SAG.GÍL lúA.MEŠ
[E.KI .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
19’ 3 UDU.NITA SIZKUR.SIZKUR. [.. ..] MEŠ HUL ù UZ.TUR.MUŠEN šu-ku-u[l-ti .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
20’ t,u-ub lìb-bi ina KUR G[AR-an-m]a UN.MEŠ šá as-ra-a-tú u pa-ši-ra-[a-tú .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
21’ DÙ.MEŠ šá GIM ú-[Ωur-tú] lúIa-’a-man-nuki šá ana LUGAL x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
22’ ina NÍG.GU7 ana x [..]x.niš-šú IGI-šú ana KÁ SIKIL.LA KÁ.[GAL-i .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
23’ x x [ .. .. ..K]Á SIKIL.LA KA.GAL-i šá É.SAG.GÍL x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..]
(...)
28’ (...) UN.MEŠ šu-nu-ti]
29’ [šá ina] É.GAL LUGAL šá ina E.KI áš-bu-ú ana [lìb-b]i x UD¿.DU¿.MEŠ UD 11.K[AM
lúŠÀ.TAM É.SAG.GÍL u lúE.KI.MEŠ lúUKKIN šá É.SAG.GÍL x UDU.NITA.MEŠ]
30’ [ana lúNUN M]U-a-tim GUB.MEŠ-niš-šú ana dAG u dNa-na-a DÙ-ma [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
31’ [.. .. .. ..] ana dÉ.kur-ri-tum dÉ.sur-ri-tum u DINGIR.MEŠ URU šá x[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
Translation
A.
Obverse
(...)
4’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. the peop]le of the land, their sucklings, [their wi]ves, they
released. All of them wen[t out (.. ..)]
5’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x in order to save mess[enger]s the captive and the
released women¿ x(x)[ .. .. .. ..]
6’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. the sha]tammu of Esagila, the Babylonians, the slaves of
the king, a few people from among the pol[itai]
7’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] these [pe]ople, who [li]ve in the royal palaces, all of
them [raised¿] a cry of distress .. .. .. .. .. [.. .. .. ..]
(...)
19’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] returnedsg. The politai, who are in Babylon,
(verb) ; the troops of Subartu [(.. ..)]
20’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. to the city of Š]a-pi-Adad¿ he took the road. On
the 10th day, the general (strat™gos) of Babylonia [(.. ..)]
21’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] Bagayasha led them out. {The 20th day}
The 10th day, the people x [.. .. .. (.. ..)]
22’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x [went] to Ezida and the Borsippaean(s)
within .. [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(...)
B.
1’ [.. .. .. .. befo]re him went [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
2’ x [.. .. B]agayasha, the b[rother of the king, into Babylon arrived .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
3’ their gifts the peliganes [presented to him.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
4’ these troops (?) returned hither and from Babyl[on .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ he made captives from him and he plundered from him and .. [ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ]

6’ and these people, who [live] in the royal palaces wh[ich are in Babylon .. .. ..] x
[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
7’ the politai and these troops, [who li]ve [in Babylon .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. . The troops¿]
8’ aforementioned retreated. The <people>, great and small, at his [.. .. .. .. ..] in battle
stand by watching¿ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
9’ this prince became angry and x[.. .. .. .. .. ..]x in the army meeting [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(…)
17’ (…) these people]
18’ who are in this palace [we]nt out and wailed¿. The shatammu of Esagila (and)
the [Babylon]ians [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
19’ 3 sheep for off[ering]s and x x x fattened ducks [provided .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. ..].
20’ Joy of heart [was¿] established in it and the people who are captured and released¿
[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
21’ made in the Greek fashion, that to the king x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..]
22’ as food for x[.. they established] before him, to the Sikilla Gate, the [Great] Gate
[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
23’ x x [.. .. ..] the Sikilla [G]ate, the Great Gate of Esagila x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
(…)
28’ (...) these people]
29’ [who] live in the royal palace, went into it. Day 11t[h, a prince entered Borsippa.
The shatammu of Esagila/Ezida and the Babylonians/Borsippaeans (?) x fattened offer-
ing animals]
30’ [for the prince af ]orementioned established for him. For Nabu and Nanaia he per-
formed them. [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
31’ [..] /to\ the goddesses Ekurritu, Esurritu and the city gods of /which […..]
(…)
Comments
This is a preliminary edition of some lines which are relevant for this article. It is not the
place here to discuss this tablet in detail as it will be published in its entirety elsewhere.
It is important for us here that it may present an indication that people started to live in
the palace. However, it might also suggest that in time of warfare people had fled into
the palace and were locked in. Unfortunately, the verb used in our chronicle, ašåbu, « to
sit down », is a little ambiguous. It may refer to a temporary stay (« to stay somewhere
temporarily (on a journey, on a flight, etc. »), but also to a longer residence « to reside and
live somewhere, to have a domicile » (CAD A2, 386).
Whatever the case, so much of the palace was still there that people could be locked
in. And if people really lived within the palace, it must have been the beginning of this
process, as the prince was angry and they were driven out. The text (like many others) also
suggests that the temple of Babylon as well as of Borsippa functioned normally and that
even minor goddesses as Ekurritu and Esurritu were venerated in Borsippa.
Of special interest are the people referred to as peligananu in B 3’, apparently a
Babylonianized version of the Macedonian word peliganes, the council of elders. The word
is derived from the Macedonian word pelioi meaning « old men » (gerontes, cf. Strabo VIII
329, fg. 2 [epitome Vaticana]). It is attested in a Greek inscription from Laodicea ad
Mare, dating to month Audnaios 138 of the Macedonian Seleucid Era = Kislev 137 of
the Babylonian Seleucid Era = November/December 175 B.C. = the first regnal year of
Antiochus IV, containing a decision of the peliganes (Roussel 1942/3, p. 21-32, lines 22-
3). The name is also found in the corrupted form Adeiganes in Polybius 5.54.10, which
describes measures taken by Hermeias in Seleucia-on-the-Tigris after the suppression of
the revolt of Molon against Antiochus III.
G. R. F. Assar has argued convincingly that this Bagayasha was none other than the
Bacasis, who was appointed praefectus of Media by the Parthian king Mithridates I. Assar
also maintains that this Bacasis was Mithradates’ brother (Assar 2001, p. 18 ; 2006, p. 95-96).
According to the traditional dating Mithradates reigned from ca. 171-139/8 B.C.. He was the
real founder of the Parthian empire, whose core was in Hyrcania on the SE of the Caspian Sea.
Soon after 148 B.C. he conquered Media and appointed Bacasis as governor (Justin 41.6.7).
Text 2. Astronomical Diary concerning month VII, Darius III =

Accession year Alexander, = 8 October – 5 November 331 B.C.
(AD I, p. 178-9, no. −330 A r. 1’-15’ ; cf. emendations in Van der Spek 2003, p. 298-9 ; here
with a new calculation of the missing part of the tablet, cf. http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/
chronicles/bchp-alexander/astronomical_diary-330_01.html ), esp. 4’-5’.
Reverse
1’ [.. ..] x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ITI
BI KI.LAM]
2’ [a]-na 1 GÍN K[Ù.BABBAR še-im .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
3’ [I]TU BI TA 1 E[N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. ..]

4’ ana E.KI GIN-ku um-ma /É.SAG.ÍL\ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ u DUMU.MEŠ E.KI a-na NÍG.GA É.SAG.ÍL [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
6’ /UD\ 11.KAM ina URU UD.KIB.NUN.KI t,è-e-mu šá mA-l[ek-sa-an-dar-ri-is .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
7’ [um-m]a¿ a-na É.MEŠ-ku-nu ul er-ru-ub UD 13.KA[M .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
8’ [KÁ.SI]KIL.LA KÁ ka-mi-i šá É.SAG.GÍL ù .. [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
9’ [.. .. ..] UD 14.kam lúIa-ma-na-a-a MU-tim GU4 [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
10’ [.. TI] (blank) LUGÚD.DA.MEŠ uzu ME.HÉ.ME[Š .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
11’ [UD ..-KAM m]A-lek-sa-an-dar-ri-is LUGAL ŠÚ ana E.KI K[U4.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
12’ [ANŠE.KU]R.RA.MEŠ ù ú-/nu-ut\ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..]
13’ [lúŠÀ.TAM¿] u DUMU.MEŠ E.KI u UN./MEŠ\ [KUR¿ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
14’ [.. .. .. KU]Š ši-piš-tú ana [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. ..]
15’ [.. .. .. .. ..]x um-ma x[ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
..]
Reverse
1’ [.. ..] x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. That
month (= VII = Tashritu), the exchange value]
2’ for 1 shekel of [silver was : barley : ... ; dates : ... ; mustard : ... ; cress : ... ; sesame :
... wool : ...]
3’ That month (VII = Tishri), from the first until [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . On the nth day messengers]
4’ came to Babylon (saying) as follows : « Esagila [will be restored .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ and the Babylonians [will give their tithes] to the treasury of Esagila [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
6’ On the 11th day (18 October 331) in Sippar an order of Al[exander, the king of the
world, to the Babylonians (...) was sent]
7’ [as follow]s : « Into your houses I shall not enter. » On the 13th day (20 October 331)
[Greeks entered]
8’ [the Sikil]la gate, the Outer gate of Esagila and [they prostrated themselves. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
9’ [.. .. ..]. The 14th day (21 October), these Greeks a bull, [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
10’ [n] short [ribs, n] fatty tissues (of the intestines as sacrifice) [sacrificed .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
11’ [On the nth day] Alexander, the king of the world, entered Babylon [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
12’ [Hor]ses and equipment [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. ..]
13’ [The šatammu¿] and the Babylonians and the people [of the land¿ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ]
14’ [.. .. ..] a parchment letter to [the Babylonians .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
15’ [.. .. ..] as follows : [« .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
Comments
I admit that my restorations of lines r. 4’ and 5’ are highly speculative, but they are fitting
in with the context, conform to Arrian’s message and also conform to cuneiform docu-
ments relating to tithes given to the temple for the removal of the dust of Esagila during
Alexander’s reign and well before his return to Babylon in 323 B.C. A reference to removal
of debris is made in a tantalizing mutilated tablet, which also mentions Arses, Alexander
and the temple of Anunitu (Van der Spek 2003, p. 300, no. 2).
Text 3. Chronicle concerning Antiochus, the crown prince, and the

temples of Sin (ABC 11=BCHP 5)
Rm 757 + BM 32440 + 32581 + 32585 + 32410 + unnumbered fragment
Previous editions
Grayson 1975 (ABC no. 11), p. 119-121, photo’s Plate xix ; copy plate I ; Glassner 1993
(CM no. 32), p. 210-211 ; Glassner 2004 (MC no. 32), p. 248-50 ; Del Monte 1997 (TBE),
p. 194-197.
All editions, except Glassner’s, are based on BM 32440 + 32581 + 32585 ; the other
fragments have been joined by Irving Finkel.

The tablet is certainly a one column tablet. The upper left edges are pre-
served, the right edge is missing, but not many signs are missing at the end
of lines 7 and 8. The thickness at the upper edge is 2.5 cm, at the broken
middle edges 4.2 cm. The bottom edge is broken ; the thickness there is
3.8 cm. Hence more than half of the tablet is preserved. The length of the
tablet is 11.8 cm, the width 11.5 cm. The original tablet measured approxi-
mately 15 x 12 cm.
Obverse
1 /MU 20+5¿ KAM ITI\ [KI]N ITI BI mA[n¿ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
2 ina URU Ba¿-ši-i AN TA UR[U .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
3 ITI DU6 ITI BI 1-en LÚ /NA or TE ¿\ x[ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
4 [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]/ x x \ [.. .. .. ..] /x x x\ [.. .. .. ..]
5 [.. .. .. .. ..] KU 4 -ub MU BI SAHAR . HI . A šá É. SAG . Í [ L (...)
id-di-ku-ú]
6 [MU .. ¿ KAM ITI ..] ITI BI UD 20 KAM mAn-ti- ¥ -uk-su DUMU LUGAL
[šá É UŠ-tum]
7 [ana E.KI KU4 UD 2]7.KAM a-na BAR-tum ú-ma-mu ana BAL-ri
dUT[U UD.DU (or ŠÚ.A) .. ..]
8 [ITI .. UD .. K] AM DUMU LUGAL šá É UŠ-tum ina qí-bi šá 1-en

lúDUMU E.[KI]
9 [.. .. .. .. ..] gi-nu-ú šá 30 É.GIŠ.NU11.GAL u 30 EN.TE.[EN.NA .. ..

..]
10 [mAn-ti- ¥ -uk-s]u DUMU LUGAL ina É d30 É.GIŠ.NU11.GAL u É [d30
EN.TE.EN.NA]
11 [KU4 DUM]U LUGAL MU-/tim\ uš-kin-nu DUMU LUGAL 1-en UDU.
NITA ana nin-[da-be-e .. .. ..]
12 [.. .. uš-ki]n-nu ina É d30 É.GIŠ.NU11.GAL u É d30 EN.T[E.EN.NA ..
.. ..]
13 [ITI BI DUMU LUGAL T]A E.KI ana URU É Gu-ra-’ UD.DU ITI [.. ..
.. ..]
14 [.. ..-i]s¿-ta-tum T[A UR]U Si-lu-ku-a lúÉRIN.MEŠ-šú [.. .. .. ..]
15 [.. .. .. .. UG]U-hi LUGAL [.. .. ] ku ŠÉ[Š.. ..] /ITI\ .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
16 [.. .. .. .. .. ..]x KÙ.GI [ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
Lacuna ca. 15 lines
Reverse
Lacuna ca. 4 lines
1’ [MU n.KAM ITI .. ITI B]I UD 28 ¡.KAM A.MEŠ ana lìb-/bi\ x[ .. .. ..]
2’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..] UD 28.KAM mP[u¿- l]u¿-ut,¿-t,u-da-a lúE-man-na-a
3’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..] ITI ZÍZ ITI B[I UD] /28\ mAn-ti- ¥-ku-su DUMU LUGAL
4’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..l]ú{A (erased)} SIPA x[. .. .. ..] x ana URU É Gu-r[ a-’ .. ..]
5’ [.. .. .. ú-ma-m]u ina BAL.RI dUTU [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
6’ [ITI .. IT]I BI mAn-ti- ¥-ku-su DUMU L[UGAL šá É UŠ-tum]
7’ [lúMa-ak-k]a-/da\-na-a-a ma-la šá ina E.KI [šá mA-lik-sa-an-dar (?) LUGAL]
8’ [ina E.KI] ú-še-ri-bu{KU4}-’ TA E.K[I ana URU Si-lu-ku-a]
9’ [šá ina muh-h]i ÍD MAŠ.GÚ.GÀR ú-še-šib ú-[.. .. .. ..] x [.. .. .. ..]
10’ [.. .. .. .. ..] x mi-ik-su dan-nu ana E.KI [.. .. .. .. ..]
11’ [ITI BI mAn-ti- ¥-u]k¿-ku-su DUMU LUGAL šá É [UŠ-tum .. .. ..] /DA\ A[.. .. ..]
12’ [MU .. KAM IT]I APIN ITI BI UD 20[+ 1¿ KAM .. lì]b¿-bi 10 UDU.NITÁ.MEŠ
UD.[MEŠ]
13’ [.. .. .. .. ..] ŠUK ana lúDUMU E.K[I.MEŠ .. lì]b-bi 10 UDU.NITÁ.M[U]-tim x [.. .. ..]
14’ [.. .. .. .. ..]-’ ina lìb-bi [É.SA]G.GÍL ana /dEN dAG\ u dGA[ŠAN¿-ia(¿)]
15’ [.. .. .. .. ..] x TA [.. .. ..] UD 22 K[AM. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
16’ ina maš x x [ .. .. .. .. .. ITI GAN] ITI BI U[D ...KAM .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
lúUN.MEŠ KUR i[a¿.. .. .. ..] x EGIR-šú a-a-x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
17’
18’ [..] UD 18 KAM šá ITI [.. .. .. ] -ka-an x x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
19’ ITI ZÍZ ITI BI U4-mu NU ZU m[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
20’ /ana\ URU Se-lu-uk-ia-a [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
Translation
1 /Year 20+5¿, month Elul (VI)\. That month A[ntiochus, the crown prince..........]
2 in the city of Bashº above the city […… .]
3 Month Tishri (VII). That month a certain ..[...........]
4 [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]/ x x \ [.. .. .. ..] /x x x\ [.. .. .. ..]
5 [..........] That year debris of Esagi[la was (not¿) removed]
6 [Year .., month ..]. That month, the 20th day, Antiochus, the [crown] prince
7 [entered Babylon. Day 2]7, [they moved] the animals to the [east (or : west)] side
(of the river) to outside regions/for putting out to pasture.
8 [Month .., ..]th [day], the crown prince at the instruction of a certain Bab[ylonian]
9. [performed] regular [offerings] for Sin of Egišnugal and Sin of Enit[enna].
10 [Antiochu]s, the son of the king, [entered11] the temple of Sin of Egišnugal and in
the tem[ple of Sin of Enitenna]

11 [and the s]on of the king aforementioned prostrated himself. The son of the king
[provided] one sheep for the offering
12 [of Sin and he bo]wed down in the temple of Sin, Egišnugal, and in the temple of
Sin, En[itenna].
13 [That month, the son of the king] departed [fr]om Babylon to Bit Gura. Month
[ … That month]
14 [the epi]states¿¿ [led] his troops out[of ] Seleucia
15 [to .. .. .. ..] towards the king [ .. ..]ku anoi[nted¿ .. ..] /Month\ [.. . That month ..
.. ..
16 [.. .. .. .. ..] gold [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
ca. 15 lines missing
Reverse
Lacuna of ca. 4 lines
1’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. Month Kislºmu (IX). That month], 28th day, water in[to .. .. ..]
2’ [.. .. Month Îeb™tu (X). That month], 28th day, P[ol]yteudas¿, the Greek,
3’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..]. Month Shaba†u (XI). That month, [day 2]8th, Antiochus, the son of
the king,
4’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..] the herdsman[. .. ..] to the city of Bit Gur[a’ .. ..]
5’ [.. .. .. .. the anima]ls on the [east (or : west)] side [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
6’ [Month ..]. That month Antiochus, the crown [prince],
7’ settled9 [the Mace]donians, as many as there were in Babylon, [whom king
Alexander¿]
8’ [into Babylon] had forced to enter, from Babylon [into Seleucia]
9’ [which is o]n the Tigris. .. [.. .. ..] x [.. .. .. ..]
10’ [.. .. .. ..] x a heavy taxation (share of the yield) upon Babylon [he imposed]
11’ [That month, Antio]chus, the crown princ[e .. .. ..] .. .. [.. ..]
12’ [Year x, mo]nth Arahsamna (VIII). That month, the 20[+th] day. [Fro]m¿ 10 pure
sheep [.. .. .. .. ..]
13’ [.. .. .. ] as ration¿ to the Babylo[nians. Fro]m¿ the 10 sheep aforementioned [.. ..
.. ..]
14’ [they provid]ed¿ ; within [Esa]gila /to Bel, Nabu and Beltia (?)\
15’ [.. .. .. .. ..] .. É [.. .. ..] day 22t[h .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
16’ x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]. That month, day [..th, .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..].
17’ The people of the land x[ .. .. ..] .. .. .. .. [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
18’ [Month .. . That month], 18th day of month [.. .. .. ] .. .. .. .. [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
19’ Month Shaba†u (X). That month, on an unknown day, PN[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..]
20’ /to\ Seleucia [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
Comments
The date of the chronicle is difficult to establish. The left upper part of the tablet is dam-
aged. Yet traces are left. Traces of MU (« year »), KAM (determinative for an ordinal num-
ber) and ITI ( »month ») are fairly clear, but the most important sign, the year number,
is difficult to recover. In view of the fact that Antiochus was made co-ruler with the title
« king » in SE 17 or 18, i.e. in 295 or 294 B.C. 6, and Antiochus is named « crown prince »
rather than « king, » one would suspect that the tablet predates 294 B.C. However, the
traces of the year number show fairly clearly two angle bars (Winkelhaken) + a number
of vertical wedges (5 ?), which means that the chronicle describes events of his period as
co-ruler. In any case, it postdates the foundation of Seleucia, since the city probably is
mentioned reverse l. 8’ and certainly 20’.
Text 4. Chronicle concerning the Crown Prince and the « Ruin of

Esagila » (BCHP 6)
BM 32248 + 32456 + 32477 + 32543 + 76-11-17 unnumbered (joins by I. Finkel)

The present state of the tablet is made up of five fragments, joined by I. Finkel. The left
and right edges are preserved and measure ca. 2.5 cm thickness. The width of the tablet
is 10 cm and the lines contain ca. 14-18 signs. The broken upper edge measures 4 cm, the
lower 2.8 cm, which indicates that possibly the upper half of the tablet is lost, and that not
much is missing from the bottom end. The length of the tablet, as preserved, is 11 cm.
Transliteration
Obverse
1’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]x-nu [(..)]
2’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] ana E.KI
3’ K[I¿¿ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..].MEŠ x šá dEN
4’ ana lúD[UMU.M]EŠ E.KI [lúUKKIN šá É.SAG.]GÍL S[UM]-in u PAD dINNIN
5’ ina muh-hi ni-ip-lu šá /É.SAG.GÍL\[x iš-k]u-nu ina muh-hi ni-ip-lu
6’ šá É.SAG.GÍL in-da-qut GU4./MEŠ\.H[I.A¿ ù ] PAD.dINNIN GIM GIŠ.HUR
7’ KUR Ia-a-ma-nu DÙ-uš lú/DUMU\ LUGAL [lúERÍN.ME]Š-šú gišGIGIR.MEŠ-šú
8’ (v) AM.SI.MEŠ<-šú> SAHAR.HI.A šá É.SA[G].G[ÍL i]d-de-ku-ú
6 The last tablet dated to Seleucus as sole ruler is MLC 2654 (19.II.17 SE = 13 May 295 B.C.) ; the first
tablet dated to Seleucus and Antiochus (BM 109941 from Uruk) is from 1.VIII.18 SE = 18 Nov.
294 B.C. (cf. Oelsner 1986, p. 271, 505-6).

9’ x[x.ME]Š¿ ina maš-ka-/an¿\ É.SAG.GÍL GU7-’ [ITI] BI UD 17¿.KAM
10’ IZI ŠUB /ina qé-reb ERI.DU10\.KI ana tar-©i /x\ [x ina]/lìb\-bi ÙR¡-šú GÁL
11’ ITI SIG ITI B[I .. .. .. .. .. ..] X [.. .. ..]X ÍD MAŠ.GÚ.GÀR
12’ /i\-bir-ma a-na [.. .. .. .. ..] a-la-ku iq-bi il-lik ana | EGIR-šú GUR-ur
13’ [I]TI KIN ITI BI [lúia-a-ma]-na-a-a ina KA LUGAL ana m[u]h-hi
14’ [ x É.SA]G.GÍL É.ZI.D[A] /É¿\.MEZ¿.LA[M¿ ma]-ha-zi x [.. ..]
15’ [.. .. ..]x ITI ŠE ITI [BI ..] lúDUMU E.KI LÚ.ME[Š .. ..]
16’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] E.KI.MEŠ X[.. .. ..]
17’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] KA MAH/IL [.. .. ..]
Broken off (3 lines missing ?)
The reverse is not reproduced here, because it is hard to understand. The crown prince
seems to settle a dispute about workmen.
Translation
1’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] .. .. [(..)]
2’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] to Babylon
3’ wi[th¿¿ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] .. .. of B™l
4’ to the Bab[ylon]ians (of ) [the assembly of Esa]gila he [gav]e and an offering
5’ on the ruin of /Esagila\ they¿¡ [arran]ged. Upon the ruin
6’ of Esagila he fell. Oxen [and ] an offering in the Greek7’ fashion
7’ he made. The son of the king, his [troop]s, his wagons,
8’ (and) <his> elephants removed the debris of Esagila.
9’ /x x\ on the empty lot of Esagila they ate. That [month], 17¿ day,
10’ a stroke of lightning /within Eridu\ against the x [building] in the middle of its roof
took place.
11’ Month Simanu (III). Th[at] month [ .. .. .. .. .. ..] x [.. .. ..]x the Tigris
12’ he crossed and he said to go to [.. .. .. .. ..]. He went, (but) he returned.
13’ [Mo]nth Ulªlu (VI). That month, [Gre]eks at the command of the king to [.. .. ]
14’ [... Esa]gila, Ezid[a] /E¿\.mez¿.la[m¿, san]ctuaries x [.. ..]
15’ [.. .. ..]x Month Adar (XII). [That] month, the Babylonians[.. ..]
16’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] Babylonians x[.. .. ..]
17’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] .. .. .. [.. .. ..]
Broken off (3 lines missing ?)
Commentary
5’-6’ : « Upon the ruin of Esagila he fell »
The verb in question is in-da-qut, perfect of maqåtu, « to fall down ». At first sight one is
inclined to interpret this expression as a pious prostration of the king for the gods. This
interpretation, however, is probably wrong. In the first place, the proper word for that
act is the verb šukênu, like it is used very often in astronomical diaries and chronicles of
this period. Secondly, the verb maqåtu has quite another connotation. It rather refers to
accidents, to collapse. The CAD gives the following translations : « to fall down ; to col-
lapse ; to fall to the ground, into a pit ; to fall upon something ; to swoop down, to suffer
a downfall, » all very negative in tone. In only a few instances a meaning in the sense of
« prostrating oneself » is attested. It occurs in the Amarna letters, in which the Akkadian
has got strong West-Semite influences, and it is always followed by ana š™p™, « for the feet
of ». (CAD Š3, p. 242-3, s.v. maqåtu 1.c.2’). So the conclusion must be that Antiochus
simply fell on his face when he tried to perform offerings on the ruin of Esagila. It was
recorded by the scribe, since it had to be considered a bad omen.
6’-7’ : « An offering in the Greek fashion he made. »

It is the first time that we expressis verbis hear about offerings made « in the Greek fash-
ion ». It occurs later in BCHP 9 (= ABC 12) : rev. 6’-7’ (SE 31, the last year of Seleucus I
(280 B.C.)), in BCHP 11 (about the invasion of Ptolemy III in Babylon, SE 66 = 246/5 B.C.),
in BCHP 18 B 21’ (the Bagayasha Chronicle, see above) and in the Astronomical Diary con-
cerning year SE 143 (169 B.C.). It reminds us to the fact that even if a Seleucid king made
offerings in an indigenous temple, he not necessarily conformed to local traditions.
Text 5.Chronicle concerning a service field (bı̄t ilki) in the Juniper

garden (BCHP 8)
BM 32266 = 76-11-17, 1994

The fragment is the lower left part of a larger tablet. The lower left edge is preserved and
has a thickness of 2 cm as has the worn out lower edge. The broken upper edge measures
3.5 cm. The written surface of the obverse measures 5x5 cm, of the reverse 6x6 cm. Not
too much is lost on the right sides : see rev. lines 21’ and 22’.
The script of the tablet has a resemblance with the other documents of the early third
century and it is likely that this tablet belongs to the same group.
Lacuna
1’ [.. .. .. .. M]EŠ šá d[ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
2’ [.. .. .. ..] x il x [ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
3’ [.. .. .. a-n]a PAD.dIN[NIN .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
4’ [.. .. .. .. ..] u¿ DUMU¿ LUGAL ana E.KI [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ [..] x x x šá LUGAL ana muh-hi KÙ.BABBAR [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]

6’ [..] at x x u šu-kut-tum KÙ.BABBAR [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
7’ /ina\ É dul-lu.MEŠ IGI.MEŠ u x[.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
8’ ina GIŠ.KIRI6 ŠEM.LI ina É il-[ki .. .. .. .. .. ..]
9’ ina É il-ki il-lak¿ ana É [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
10’ ù 2 LÚ /TU.É\.[ME]Š x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
11’ traces
Reverse
12’ [ l]ú TU.É.MEŠ ¿ x ’ x x qu-um x
13’ u 1 + en lúE-man-na-a-a ana É /il\-ki šá /d\ [.. .. .. .. a-na]
14’ ši-pir DINGIR.MEŠ-ú-tu šá ina l[ìb-b]i É x[ .. .. .. .. .. ..]
15’ TA ki-di-šú id-ke-e ITI x ITI BI x [.. .. .. .. .. ..]
16’ [b]i-ki-tum u si-ip-du ina É il-ki [GAR.MEŠ .. .. KÁ.MEŠ]
17’ É.SA.BAD TAB-ú x x x TA NA4 u x[.. .. .. .. .. ..]
18’ [T]A UD 22 šá ITI ZÍZ EN TIL ITI ŠE ina lìb-bi ina É i[l-ki]
19’ [ina GIŠ.KI]RI6 ŠEM.LI pa-na-at KÁ.GAL dURAŠ E[N ¿ .. .. .. ..]
20’ [h]a-ri-©u EN muh-hi A.MEŠ ina lìb-bi ta-[mir-tum]
21’ [TAR.MEŠ] ina il-©u EZEN u ri-iq-du ina É [il-ki GAR.MEŠ]
22’ [ITI BI SAHA]R.HI.A šá ma-la-k[u] šá dEN i[d-de-e-ku-’]
23’ (traces)
remainder lost
Translation
Lacuna
1’ [.. .. .. ..]s of the god [ X .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
2’ [.. .. .. ..] .. .. .. [ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
3’ [.. .. .. fo]r the offe[ring of .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
4’ [.. .. .. ] and¿ the son¿ of the king to Babylon [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ [.. .. ..] of the king¿ concerning the silver [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
6’ [..] .. .. .. and silver jewellery [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
7’ /in\ the workshops they received and x[.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
8’ in the Juniper garden in the service estate[.. .. .. .. .. the service (ilku)]
9’ in the service estate he will perform.¿ To the [...] temple/estate¿ [.. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
10’ and 2 temple enterers x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
11’ (traces)
Reverse
12’ [ the] temple enterers .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
13’ and a certain Greek to the service estate of the /god\ [.. .. .. .. .. for]
14’ the service to the gods, which within the [...] temple/estate¿ x[ .. .. .. people]
15’ from its environment he mustered. Month x. That month [.. .. .. .. .. ..]
16’ weeping and mourning in the service estate [he/was established. The gates of ]
17’ Esabad they locked. x x x with ? stone and x[.. .. .. .. .. ..]
18’ [fr]om 22 Shebat (XI) until the end of Adar (XII) within the se[rvice] estate
19’ [in] the Juniper [Gard]en in front of the Uraš Gate t[o¿ the .. .. ..]
20’ [a mo]at to the water in the ir[rigated land]
21’ [they dug.] In joy a festival and dancing party in the [service] estate [was held].
22’ [That month, deb]ris of the procession road of Bel was re[moved].
23’ traces
Remainder lost
Commentary
The nature of this tablet is not easy to establish. In view of line 22’ it seems to be a chron-
icle, but the rest of the tablet more looks like a kind of court proceeding. The substance
of the conflict seems to be that a certain Greek mustered people (temple personnel) who
worked on a service estate of a temple. The complaint may have been that the service was
supposed to be done for the temple, not the king. The story has a happy end thanks to the
digging of a new canal for the irrigation ; possibly not more than a mere eyewash.
It is difficult to date this tablet. It seems that chronicles BCHP 5 (ABC 11), 7
(ABC 13A) and this one were written by one and the same scribe. All three have the same
peculiar spelling for the word « Greek » as lúE-man-na-a ( BCHP 5 : rev. 2’ ; BCHP 7 : rev. 5’
and this one rev. 13’), instead of the common lúIa-man-na-a-a. The spelling lúE-man-na-
a-a is also attested in Astronomical Diary No. −324 A obv’ 15, unfortunately in a broken
context, concerning months I-VI of the 12th year of Alexander the Great = 7 April to 30
September 325 B.C. The name of that scribe is partly known : he was the astronomer [...]-
Bel¿, son of Mušallim-Bel, probably the same person or the brother of Bel-apla-iddin, son
of Mušallim-Bel, descendant of Mušezibu = possibly Belephantes, the Chaldaean astrologer
who warned Alexander the Great for his predicted death in Babylon (Van der Spek 2003,
p. 333). The writing with lúE-ma-na-a-a is attested in an administrative document (BM
79001) dated to year 4 or 5 of Antigonus.
Obv. 8’, 9’ ; rev. 13’, 16’, 18’, 21’ Bºt ilki, « service estate » :
(bºt ilki ; obv. 8’, 9’, rev. 13’, 16’, 18’). A bºt ilki is a « real estate encumbered with an ilku
obligation » (CAD I/J 81a s.v. ilku A in bºt ilki). Ilku refers to « services performed for a
higher authority in return for land held » ; « delivery of part of the yield of land held from
a higher authority, also payment in money or manufactured objects in lieu of produce. »
(CAD I/J, p. 73, s.v. ilku A). The word is well known since the Old Babylonian period (bºt
ilki not attested after the OB period). In more recent periods of Mesopotamian history,

in the Murashû archive from Nippur (end of 5th century B.C.), the word was used an
annual tax levied on military fiefs in lieu of military obligations (cf. Stolper 1985, p. 25).
The expression ilku alåku = to perform the ilku duty, referring to military or other obliga-
tions or to deliveries (CAD I/J s.v. ilku A p. 76-78 passim) ; see also CAD A1, p. 309, s.v.
alåku 3c, « to serve, to do service ».
Obv. 7’
É dul-lu (bºt dulli) can be either « cultivated field » or « workshop (?) » (CAD D p. 177 s.v.
dullu in bºt dullu). It seems that in this broken context the interpretation workshop is to
be preferred in view of the mentioning of silver jewellery in the previous line.
Obv. 8’, Rev. 19’

Rev. 17
Esabad, « House of the Open Ear », temple of Gula, goddess of healing and a patroness
of doctors, in west Babylon (George 1993, p. 137, no. 944). As we noted above, there were
two other temples of Gula in Babylon, both situated in the Juniper garden and apparently
on the East Bank. From this chronicle one would be inclined to think that Esabad was
situated in the Juniper garden as well.
Text 6.The Diadochi Chronicle (ABC 10 = BCHP 3)
BM 34660 + 36313 (= Sp III 143 + 80-6-17, 39)
Previous editions
Smith 1924 (BHT), p. 124-149 ; copy plates xv-xvii ; Grayson 1975 (ABC no. 10), p. 115-119,
photographs plate xviii ; Glassner 1993 (CM no. 30), p. 207-209 ; id. 2004 (MC no. 30),
p. 242-6 ; Del Monte 1997 (TBE), p. 183-194.

The tablet as preserved consists of two pieces, which were edited as separate fragments
in the previous publications. Irving Finkel, however, found out that the fragments join.
The upper part (BM 36313) is almost completely destroyed, probably by when the tablet
was dug up. The upper edge, however, is preserved, so that we have an idea about the
length of the tablet and the number of lines. The lower part (BM 34660) is inscribed
on both sides. The total length of the tablet as we have it is 17 cm, the upper fragment
ca. 7.5 cm, the lower part 9.5 cm. The width is about 6 to 6.5 cm. The upper edge is
inscribed with the last lines of the reverse. The thickness of the tablet at the left side is
2 cm, at the right side 3.8 cm. The thickness only increases, so that at least the right half
of the tablet is lost, but probably more. Probably two thirds to three fourths of the tablet
are lost. Cornelia Wunsch, who studied the tablet intensively, concluded that it is most
likely that the tablet was a four-column document. In two lines we are able to reconstruct
the entire content : rev. 14’ and 32’. So we know that the lines of the columns consisted
of approximately 28-29 signs (single vertical wedges, being a personal marker or the sign
for ana = « to », not included).
At the lower side of the tablet not much is lost, in view of the curvature, which
returns to nearly the thickness of the upper edge. Since there are traces on the utter end
of the tablet, which seems to be the beginning of the edge, line 41 might well be the last
line of the obverse.
We adopt a new numbering of the lines, which takes the traces of the upper part
into account and gives a better idea of the size of the original text. The line numbering of
Grayson’s edition is added.
Reverse
1’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..] x x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
2’ [BAL.RI dUTU.U]D./DU\.A u BAL.RI dUTU.ŠÚ /šá\ BAR¿ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..]
3’ [mSi-lu-uk]-ku iq-bi um-ma MU 7.KAM mAn-ti-g[u-nu-su lú GAL.ERÍN.MEŠ MU 6.KAM
mA-lik-sa-an-dar A-šú šá]
4’ /KI.MIN u\ mSi-lu-uk-ku lúGAL lúERÍN.MEŠ ŠID.MEŠ ITI S[IG4 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. ..]
mSi-lu-uk-ku lúŠÀ.TAM É.MES.LAM it-ta-[sah¿ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’
6’ É.GAL ŠUII-su NU KUR ITI BI 30¿ GÚ¿.UN¿ KÙ¿.BA[BBAR¿] /šá\ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..]
7’ ITI NE mSi-lu-uk-ku áš-šú ©a-bat É.GAL /a-na¿\[.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ina A.MEŠ/
kima a-bu-bu]
8’ is-pu-UB-ma ÍD UD.KIB.NUN.KI NU is-kir /ana muh¿-hi¿\ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....
.. .. .. ..]
9’ ina lìb-bi ip-qid /ITI KIN\ mSi-lu-uk-ku TA E.KI ana [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. ..]
10’ šá ina muh-hi ÍD MAŠ.GÚ.GÀR NIM.MEŠ ana UD.DU /ana\ Pa-ar-s[a.KI .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
11’ ITI APIN t,ab-ti ù /x-tum\ ¿ ana IGI KÚR.MEŠ /im\ [x x] x x x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. ..]
lúERÍN KUR Gu-ti-i ù lúERÍN.MEŠ /AN\ DU-x x/a-na\ [.. .. .. ..] x x [.. .. .. .. .. ..]
12’
13’ MU BI [SA]HAR.HI.A šá É.S[AG]-Í[L] l[a¿ id-de-ku-ú]

Translation
1’ [.. .. .. .. .. ..] x x [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
2’ [the ea]st [bank] and the west bank ... [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
..Month I/II]
3’ [Seleu]cus spoke as follows : « You willpl countl. 4’ year 7 of Antig[onus the general
as year 6 of Alexander, son of ]
4’ /idem and\ Seleucus, the general. » Month Sim[annu (III = 31 May − 29 June 311) ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
5’ Seleucus [remov]ed the shatammu of Emeslam (from office) [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..]
6’ He did not capture the palace. That month, 30 talents of silver, which/of [.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
7’ Month Ab (V = 29 July − 27 Aug.). Seleucus, in order to capture the palace, to [X
went, the defences with water/like a deluge]
8’ he levelled ( ? ?) and he did not dam the Euphrates. Against [the palace he set out
and captured it ; Patrocles as general]
9’ within it he entrusted. Month Elªlu (VI = 28 Aug. − 25 Sep.), Seleucus from Babylon
to [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
10’ which (is) on the Tigris went up. In order to make a sortie to Pers[is he defeated the
troops of the land of Gutium and the troops of ...]
11’ In the month Marcheshwan (VIII = 26 Oct. − 24 Nov. 311) there was goodwill and
.. .. in respect to the enemies [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
12’ The troops of the land of Gutium and the troops of the /X\ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..]
13’ That year, debris of Es[ag]i[l] [was] n[ot ¡¿ removed]
Comments
The reverse of the tablet (probably column IV of a four-column tablet) describes the war
between (troops of ) Seleucus and (troops of ) Antigonus for Babylon. Diodorus Siculus
has a brief description of the events, as if everything had taken place in 312 B.C. (XIX.90-
92 and 100.3-7). In fact the struggle extended over a longer period, 311-308 or even longer
(Cf. Geller 1990 ; Van der Spek 1992, p. 243-250) and Antigonus seems to have taken part
in person (cf. Wheatley 2002). In the month Nisan of 311 B.C. Seleucus returned from
Egypt in Babylon and before month Siwan (III), i.e. before 31 May, he introduced a new
dating system on the basis of regnal years of king Alexander IV (since 317 B.C.), adding
his own name in the dating formula as « general ». Note that this did not refer to his posi-
tion as satrap of Babylonia, but as « general » tout court, hence claiming that he had taken
over Antigonus’ title « strategos of Asia ». Small wonder that Seleucus was not included in
the peace treaty of 311 B.C..
Antigonus seems for a while to have taken over the countryside of Babylonia,
appointing there a satrap of his own in competition to Seleucus’ position. The struggle
must have had a devastating effect on the city and countryside of Babylon. The commodity
prices rose to incredible heights, as is remarked by the chronicler (Cf. Van der Spek 2000
and Van der Spek − Mandemakers 2003)
3’-4’
For the restoration : cf. Oelsner 1974, p. 136f n. 33 ; Van der Spek 1992, p. 245f ; Stolper 1990 ;
Geller 1990, p. 2 n. 8. The lines refer to a new dating system introduced after the capture of
Babylon in the end of May 311 B.C.. After the expulsion of Antigonus, Seleucus took the
title « strat™gos ». Since it is evidently intended as a succession to Antigonus as « strat™gos »
in the previous dating system, no other interpretation is possible that Seleucus consid-
ered himself the new « strat™gos of Asia », a claim probably accepted by none of the other
Diadochi, so that it did not even enter the literary tradition.
5’
it-ta-[…] at the end of the line can be derived from a dozen verbs. The shatammu of
Emeslam (temple of Nergal in Cuthah) must be object of the verb. The derivation from
nasåhu (ittasah), « to remove from office » (cf. CAD NII, p. 1), makes sense.
6’-8’
These lines describe Seleucus’ attempt to capture the palace. Cf. Diod. XIX.91.4.
8’
The first sign is written over an erasure, but it seems to represent GIŠ = is/i©/iz. Grayson
reads iz-bu-ub-ma (from zabåbu) « was in a frenzy ». However, the relevant attestations
of the verb referenced in CAD are N-stem, come from a collection of terrestrial omens,
fiumma ålu, and describe the behaviour of horses. Geller therefore prefers to read i©-bu-ub-
ma (from ©abåbu), « to spread wings, » and explains : « the latter term can simply mean « to
fly » … which is normally metaphoric for fleeing as well ; cf. the analogous term naprušu
« to fly, to flee » (Geller 1990, p. 2 n. 11). However, this metaphoric use of ©abåbu is not
attested in the dictionaries. Seleucus is not necessarily the subject of the sentence. Since
all these translations convey no real meaning we suspect that a scribal error is made. We
suggest reading is-pu-un !. Three arguments may be presented for this emendation. 1. All
three signs are written over other signs, as so often in this chronicle. Our scribe was fairly
careless. 2. The translation makes sense. Sapånu means « to level, to devastate, to destroy,
to smooth », and especially used in relation with water (A.MEŠ) and deluge (abªbu). So
we suggest that Seleucus levelled something (defences) with water from the Euphrates and
that he afterwards neglected to dam the Euphrates, so that the land was inundated. Note

that the two sentences are interconnected by the use of the enclitic -ma after is-pu-UB.
This means that the damming of the Euphrates in this context has nothing to do with
the damming of the Pallacottas. As a matter of fact, the diaries record the damming of
the Pallacottas canal in months VI and VII, not V. 3. Our scribe seems to have difficulties
with the sign ub : in obv. 8 he possibly wrote ub instead of ur ; here it is ub instead of un.
Perhaps he used the word abªbu in the previous line and became confused about that.
9’
Patrocles had been established as general (strat™gos) of Babylonia by Seleucus (Diod. XIX.
100.5)
9’-10’
Diod. XIX.92 : Seleucus crossed the Tigris in order to oppose Nicanor, the general
(strat™gos) of Media and Persis, who was aided on his turn by Persians under their satrap
Evager (Euagros, possibly Euagoras, satrap of Aria (Diod. XIX.48.2)). Seleucus was victori-
ous in this confrontation : Evager died and Nicanor fled.
11’-12’
This phrase probably does not refer to the peace treaty of 311 between Antigonus, Ptolemy,
Lysimachus and Cassander (Diod. XIX.105.1). It rather reflects the fact that after the death
of Evager « most of his soldiers went over to Seleucus », who « was comporting himself in
a way graciously to all » (Diod. 19.92.4-5)
Bibliography
ABC = Grayson 1975.

ANET3 = Pritchard 1969.
AD I, II, III = Sachs − Hunger 1988, 1989, 1996.
BCHP = Van der Spek − Finkel, forthcoming ; cf. <www.livius.org> Babylonian Chronicles.
Assar, G. R. F. 2001, « Recent Studies in Parthian History : Part II », The Celator 15, 1 (January),
p. 17-27 and 41.
Assar, G. R. F. 2006, « A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 165-91 B.C. », Electrum 11,
p. 87-158.
Austin, M. M. 1981, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. A Selection of
Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge.
Badian, E 1961, « Harpalus, » JHS 81, p. 16-43
Boiy, T. 2004, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon (OLA 136), Leuven.
Briant, P. 1992, « La date des révoltes babyloniennes contre Xerxès », StIr 21, p. 7-20.
Briant, P. 1994, « De Samarkhand à Sardes et de la ville de Suse au pays des Hanéens », Topoi 4,
p. 455-467.
Briant, P. 2003, Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre, Paris.
Dalley, S. 1996, « Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens : Cuneiform and classical sources
reconciled », Iraq 54, p. 45-58.
De Liagre Böhl, F. M. Th. 1962, « Die babylonische Praetendenten zur Zeit des Xerxes », BiOr 9,
p. 110-114.
Del Monte, G. F. 1997, Testi dalla Babilonia Ellenistica. Volume I. Testi Cronografici, Pisa,
Roma.
Doty, L. T. 1977, Cuneiform Archives of Hellenistic Uruk (Diss Yale), Ann Arbor.
Geller, M. J. 1997, « The Last Wedge », ZA 87, p. 43-95.
Geller, M. J. 2000, « The Survival of Babylonian Wissenschaft in Later Tradition », in :
S. Aro − R. M. Whiting (edd.), The Heirs of Assyria (Melammu Symposia I), Helsinki.
George, A. R. 1992, Babylonian Topographical Texts, Leuven.
George, A. R. 1993, House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, Winona Lake,
Indiana.
George, A. R. 1993a, « Babylon Revisited : Archaeology and Philology in Harness », Antiquity 67,
p. 734-746.
George, A. R. 1997, « The Quarters of Babylon in the Astronomical Diaries », NABU 1997/18.
George, A. R. 1999, « E-sangil and E-temen-anki, the Archetypal Cult-centre », in : J. Renger
(ed.), Babylon : Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der
Moderne (CDOG 2), Saarbrücken, p. 67-86.
Grayson, A. K. 1975, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS V), Locust Valley.

Hauser, S. R. 1999, « Babylon in arsakidischer Zeit », in : J. Renger (ed.), Babylon : Focus meso-
potamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne (CDOG 2),
Saarbrücken, p. 207-239.
Joannès, F. 2000, « Une chronique judiciaire d’époque hellénistique et le châtiment des sac-
rilèges à Babylone », in : J. Marzahn − H. Neumann − A. Fuchs (edd.), Assyriologica et
Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar
1997 (AOAT 252), Münster, p. 193-211.
Jursa, M. 1997, « Neu- und Spätbabylonische Texte aus den Sammlungen der Birmingham
Museums and Art Gallery », Iraq 59, p. 97-131.
Jursa, M. 1998, Der Tempelzehnt in Babylonien vom siebenten bis zum dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr.
(AOAT 254), Münster.
Jursa, M. 2002, « Florilegium babyloniacum : Neue Texte aus hellenistischer und spätachäme-
nidischer Zeit », in : C. Wunsch (ed.), Mining the Archives. Festschrift for Christopher Walker
on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Dresden, p. 107-130.
Jursa, M. 2004, « Accounting in Neo-Babylonian Institutional Archives. Structure, Usage, and
Implications », in : M. Hudson − C. Wunsch (edd.), Creating Economic Order. Record-keep-
ing, Standardization, and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East, Bethesda
MD, p. 145-198.
Koldewey, R & Hrouda, B. 19905, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, München.
Kuhrt, A. 1987, « Survey of Written Sources Available for the History of Babylonia under the
Later Achaemenids (concentrating on the period from Artaxerxes II to Darius III) »,
AchHist I, Leiden, p. 147-157.
Kuhrt, A. 1990, « Alexander and Babylon », AchHist V, Leiden, p. 121-130.
Kuhrt, A. & Sherwin-White, S. 1987, « Xerxes’ destruction of Babylonian temples », AchHist II,
Leiden, p. 69-78.
Kuhrt, A. & Sherwin-White, S. 1991, « Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology : the Cylinder of
Antiochus I from Borsippa », JHS 111, p. 71-86.
Langdon, S. 1912, Die neubabylonische Königsinschriften, Leipzig.
Linssen, M. J. H. 2004, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for
Hellenistic Cult Practice (CM 25), Leiden.
Oelsner, J. 1975/76, « Zwischen Xerxes und Alexander : babylonische Rechtsurkunden und
Wirtschaftstexte aus der späten Achämenidenzeit », WdO 8, p. 310-318.
Oelsner, J. 1986, Materialien zur babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit,
Budapest.
Olmstead, A. T. 1948, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago.
Pritchard, J. B. (ed.) 1969, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton,
3rd ed.
Renger, J. 1999, Babylon : Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in
der Moderne. 2. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24.-26. März
1998 in Berlin (CDOG 2), Saarbrücken.
Rochberg, F. 2004, The Heavenly Writing. Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian
Culture, Cambridge.
Rollinger, R. 1993, Herodots Babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische Untersuchung der Glaubwürdigkeits-
diskussion (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 84), Innsbruck.
Rollinger, R. 1998, « Überlegungen zu Herodot, Xerxes und dessen angeblicher Zerstörung
Babylons », AoF 25, p. 339-373.
Rollinger, R. 1999, « Xerxes und Babylon », NABU 1999/8.
Roussel, P. 1942/3, « Décret des péliganes de Laodicée-sur-Mer », Syria 23, p. 21-32.
Sachs, A. J. & Hunger, H. (edd.) 1988, 1989, 1996, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babylonia. Vol. I. Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C., Vol. II. Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165
B.C., Vol. III. Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C., Wien.
San Nicolò, M. 1934, « Zur Chronologie des Bêl-šîmanni und Šamaš-erîba (Parerga
Babylonica XIII) », ArOr 6, p. 335-338.
Sherwin-White, S. & Kuhrt, A. 1993, From Samarkhand to Sardis. A New Approach to the Seleucid
Empire, London.
Smith, S. 1924, Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon,
London.
Stolper, M. W. 1985, Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian
Rule in Babylonia, Leiden − Istanbul.
Van der Spek, R. J. 1987, « The Babylonian City », in : A. Kuhrt − S. Sherwin-White (edd.),
Hellenism in the East, London, p. 57-74.
Van der Spek, R. J. 1992, « Nippur, Sippar and Larsa in the Hellenistic Period », in : M. deJong-Ellis
(ed.), Nippur at the Centennial, Philadelphia, p. 235-260.
Van der Spek, R. J. 1993, « New Evidence on Seleucid Land Policy », in : H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg
et al. (edd.), De Agricultura. In Memoriam Pieter Willem de Neeve (1945-1990), Amsterdam,
p. 61-77.
Van der Spek, R. J. 1995, « Review of R. Rollinger, Herodots babylonischer Logos. Kritische
Untersuchung der Glaubwürdigkeitsdiskussion an Hand ausgewählter Beispiele (Innsbruck
1993) », Orientalia 64, p. 474-477.
Van der Spek, R. J. 1998, « Cuneiform Documents on Parthian History : The Raimesu Archive.
Materials for the Study of the Standard of Living », in : J. Wiesehöfer (ed.), Das Partherreich
und seine Zeugnisse. The Arsacid empire : sources and documentation. Beiträge des interna-
tionalen Colloquiums, Eutin (27. - 30. Juni 1996) (Historia Einzelschriften 122), Stuttgart,
p. 205-258.
Van der Spek, R. J. 2000, « The Effect of War on the Prices of Barley and Agricultural Land in
Hellenistic Babylonia », in : J. Andreau − P. Briant − R. Descat (edd.), Économie antique. La

guerre dans les économies antiques (Entretiens d’Archéologie et d’Histoire/Saint-Bertrand-
de-Comminges 5), Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, p. 293-313.
Van der Spek, R. J. 2001, « The Theatre of Babylon in Cuneiform », in : W. H. van Soldt et al.
(edd.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the occasion of
his sixty-fifth birthday (PIHANS 89), Leiden, p. 445-456.
Van der Spek, R. J. 2003, « Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian scholarship »,
AchHist XIII, Leiden, p. 289-346.
Van der Spek, R. J. 2005, « Ethnic Segregation in Hellenistic Babylon », in : W. H. van Soldt
(ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, Leiden, 1-4 July 2002 (PIHANS 102), Leiden, p. 393-408.
Van der Spek, R. J. & Finkel, I. L. (BCHP) Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period. http://
www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html
Verbrugghe, G. P. & Wickersham, J. M. 2000, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated.
Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Ann Arbor.
Von Soden, W. 1971, « Etemenanki von Asarhaddon nach der Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel
und dem Erra-Mythos », Ugarit Forschungen 3, p. 253-263.
Waerzeggers, C. 2003/4, « The Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’ »,
AfO 50, p. 150-173.
Watelin, L. Ch. & Langdon, S. 1930, Excavations at Kish III, Paris.
Weissbach, F. H. 1911, Die Keilschriften der Achaemeniden (VAB 3), Leipzig.
Wetzel, F., Schmidt, E. & Mallwitz, A. 1957, Das Babylon der Spätzeit, Berlin.
Wheatley, p. 2002, « Antigonus Monophthalmus in Babylonia, 310-308 B.C. », JNES 61,
p. 39-47.

The Size and Significance of The Babylon

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Size and Significance of The Babylon

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

La transition

entre l’empire achéménide

Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la

« Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide

et de l’empire d’Alexandre » et le « Réseau international

d’études et de recherches achéménides » (GDR 2538

CNRS), 22-23 novembre 2004,

Pierre Briant et Francis Joannès

De l’Esagil au Mouseion : l’organisation de la recherche scientifique au

Aspects chronologiques de la période de transition (350-300), Tom Boiy,

La Babylonie méridionale : continuité, déclin ou rupture ?, Francis Joannès,

Agricultural Management, Tax Farming and Banking : Aspects of

sory notes (pn) in the Mªrånu archive (p. 175)

The Size and Significance of the Babylonian Temples under the

Mnésimachos (p. 336) Bibliographie (p. 343).

Aspects d’une transition : l’économie du monde égéen (350-300),

L’Égypte en transition : des Perses aux Macédoniens, Michel Chauveau,

Le destin des résidences et sites perses d’Iran dans la seconde moitié

Robartus J. van der Spek, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

1 A selection of classical and cuneiform sources is given in the Appendix.

262 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

the palace as « Wohnviertel » (Oelsner 1986, p. 115, 377 n. 431).

264 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

266 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

268 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

CT 49, 5 (5.XII. 9 Alexander = 5 March 327 B.C.)

Stolper 1993, p. 68-70 (18.X.11 Alexander = 26 January 325 B.C.)

Jursa 1997, p. 133, no. 51 (n.VI.12 Alexander = September 325 B.C.)

270 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

272 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

274 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

3 Unbuilt parts of the city

Garden, and convicted.

edited in the Appendix below, this storehouse is apparently also at issue.

of Deliberation were apparently still there.

— The Esagila Archive (Late Achaemenid − Early Hellenistic) :

CT 49, 13 : r. 9’ (month III year 2 Alexander IV = 27 May − 25 June 316 B.C.).

— The Rahimesu Archive (Parthian) :

ABC 13A = BCHP 7, rev. 8 (broken context).

276 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

5 Destruction of the temples and city

278 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

280 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

« Secondly [= as second example of Seleucus’ piety], when he founded Seleucea

282 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

Text 1. The Bagayasha Chronicle (130s B.C.) [BCHP 18]

A. BM 35229 + 35518 + 35621

Description of the tablet

21’ [.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..] /m\ Ba-a-a-ga-šá-a UD¿.DU.MEŠ {UD 20

284 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

286 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

Text 2. Astronomical Diary concerning month VII, Darius III =

288 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

Text 3. Chronicle concerning Antiochus, the crown prince, and the

Rm 757 + BM 32440 + 32581 + 32585 + 32410 + unnumbered fragment

290 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

8 [ITI .. UD .. K] AM DUMU LUGAL šá É UŠ-tum ina qí-bi šá 1-en

9 [.. .. .. .. ..] gi-nu-ú šá 30 É.GIŠ.NU11.GAL u 30 EN.TE.[EN.NA .. ..

292 La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques

Text 4. Chronicle concerning the Crown Prince and the « Ruin of

BM 32248 + 32456 + 32477 + 32543 + 76-11-17 unnumbered (joins by I. Finkel)

Description of the tablet

294 B.C. (cf. Oelsner 1986, p. 271, 505-6).