The King’s garden in Jerusalem is first referred to in 2 Kings 25: 4, but nothing is known of its plan or appearance in antiquity.
The description of the garden of Alcinous in the Odyssey may owe its inspiration to Sennacherib’s garden;51 the great Church Father Gregory of Nazianz actually associated them, and it has been noticed that they had the same dimensions, about 120 m × 120 m.52 Whether the suggestion of influence is acceptable depends upon the disputed date for ‘Homer’s’ composition: whether a single author completed the entire work which soon became canonical, or whether revisions and additions continued to be made to a core narrative over quite a long period of time. The unitarians propose an 8th-century date—too early to allow influence from Sennacherib’s World Wonder—whereas the analysts propose additions and revisions down to the 6th century, which would allow the possibility of influence from 7th-century Assyria. Alcinous’ palace and garden are both described using terms that apply to Assyrian palaces and gardens, but not to those of the east Mediterranean at that time.
Outside the courtyard but stretching close up to the gates, and with a hedge running down on either side, lies a large orchard of four acres, where trees hang their greenery on high, the pear and the pomegranate, the apple with its glossy burden, the sweet fig and the luxuriant olive. Their fruit never fails nor runs short, winter and summer alike. It comes at all seasons of the year. … The garden is served by two springs, one led in rills to all parts of the enclosure, while its fellow opposite, after providing a watering place for the townsfolk, runs under the courtyard gate towards the great house itself. Such were the beauties with which the gods had adorned Alcinous’ home.53
Bronze-clad thresholds, brazen palace walls, silver-plated columns and lintels: these are all known from late Assyrian buildings; the walled garden outside the palace rather than within a courtyard, near the doors, exuberant with pomegranates and figs which are fruits normally associated not with the Mediterranean at that time but with lands further east. These features have been invoked as likely influences from Assyria.
One of the defining features of Sennacherib’s garden was the pillared walkway, the peristyle which looked out across the garden to a wonderful view beyond, a combination of features found elsewhere in the Hellenistic Near East. Given that this aspect of the World Wonder is described by Q. Curtius Rufus and by Philo, it would have been the dream of every ambitious ruler to adopt that feature of the Nineveh garden. Owing to its status as a World Wonder, Sennacherib’s garden would have been the prototype and the main source of inspiration.
There is an obvious comparison at Pergamum with the Great Altar which is surrounded on three sides by a lofty peristyle overlooking a tremendous view across the Caicus river. The kings responsible for designing and building it were Eumenes II (197–159 BC) and Attalus II (158–138 BC), whose ‘Asianizing topophilia’ has been emphasized in recent research.54
Another likely imitation, also on a spectacular scale, is the winter palace of Herod the Great (c.73–04 BC) at Jericho. Here not only was there a pillared portico overlooking the garden, with a great view beyond across the Wadi Qelt, but also the highly visible viaduct, the artificial hill on which a smaller palace was built; and the semi-circular terraces in the centre of the grand façade of the sunken garden. Although there was a large swimming pool, it was an architectural, rectangular structure within the main palace compound, and cannot be compared with the ‘natural’ lake of the Original Drawing IV 77 (see Figure 60). It was more closely comparable with Egyptian gardens in which symmetry and axial planning were dominant.55 Herod was a builder of palaces on an extravagant scale, not only at Jericho, but also in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Herodium, and he had World Wonders in mind, for Josephus wrote that a tower he built in Jerusalem ‘was as strong and as extensive a building as the Pharos of Alexandria’.56
Fig. 60 The third winter palace of Herod the Great at Jericho, isometric re construction drawing showing colonnade overlooking garden with flowing water, artificial landscaping, and pavilion.
A further likely imitation was set in the heart of Rome: the Domus Aurea. Built by Nero (AD 37–68) with its centre on the Oppian hill, a palatial villa had pillared porticoes looking out across the hills of Rome. It was set into a garden terraced on an artificially created landscape. The extensive grounds featured at least one pavilion, and contained a lake at the heart of an extraordinary arrangement of monumental buildings.57 At that time Roman soldiers, stationed in the Near East to control the growing power of Parthia, would have brought back to Rome tales of the wonders of Mesopotamia. At that time too, the poem of Antipater claiming to have seen the Hanging Garden was in circulation, likewise the descriptions of Strabo and Diodorus Siculus, and Josephus’ account. Nineveh was enjoying a great revival under the local rule of a stratēgos. Most likely, therefore, Nero had the World Wonder of ‘Babylon’ specifically in mind when he designed his complex on such a grand scale, incorporating so many of Sennacherib’s design features. The Domus Aurea was soon replaced by other buildings; the lake was drained and the Colosseum was built where it had been.
In conclusion, the Assyrian tradition of a landscape garden set beside a palace continued long after the decline of the Assyrian empire. Distinct from courtyard gardens, mortuary gardens, and temple gardens, it had symbolic value for displaying the king’s wisdom, his control over nature, his widespread influence, his ability to override seasonal decay, his role as propagator of fertility, and his dedication to agriculture and horticulture. From Jerusalem to Pergamum, from Jericho to Rome, one finds traces of the influence that came from Nineveh, spreading out widely into distant lands.
9
Defeat and Revival
Nineveh after 612 BC
A ruin—yet what ruin! from its mass
Walls, palaces, half-cities have been rear’d
Byron, ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage’ 143.1–2
Saith the Lord: ‘And shall I not spare Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons?’
Jonah 4: 11
An accepted truth until recent times has been the utter destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, total abandonment of one of the ancient world’s biggest and longest-lived cities. Had Nineveh been utterly destroyed and looted when the Assyrian empire came to an end, how could Sennacherib’s garden with its complex watering system have been a World Wonder famed in Seleucid and Parthian times? If neither the garden nor the inscriptions were available to Greek writers, how would the detailed descriptions of those authors have been possible, and how would the knowledge that a screw raised water there have been transmitted? If the garden was ruined, is it possible that the Classical accounts relied upon the panels of sculpture showing the garden, if we suppose that they survived the fall of Assyria and remained visible, at least in Alexander’s time, and perhaps for many centuries afterwards (see Figures 61, 62)?
In theory datable texts referring to a particular city should match archaeological evidence for the occupation of the site. In the case of Nineveh, however, around the time of its sack in 612 BC, there was a hugely significant change in material used for writing: inorganic clay, which survives only for cuneiform writing, gave way to organic parchment and papyrus, which do not survive. In addition, the city was no longer a royal residence and so it no longer boasted new commemorative inscriptions in stone. Those changes—from solid textual evidence to lack of it—reinforce the impression that Nineveh was utterly destroyed. That impression is strengthened by the survival of ivory ornaments, metal objects and other valuables. It was supposed they would have been looted in the aftermath of the sack unless the destruction had been so complete as to preclude later access.
Fig. 61 View of Nebi Yunus, the second citadel mound at Nineveh.
Fig. 62 View of Nimrud with winged gateway-colossus in foreground, mound of Ninurta temple and ziggurat on horizon.
In the mid 19th century Rawlinson and Layard, both well-educated men, knew the Old Testament thoroug
hly, and many of their contemporaries still believed that the Hebrew text was the word of God. Indeed, some Europeans still supposed that the Hebrew language was the very tongue that God spoke, the first language of mankind, so that all later languages were derived from it: they had made lists of words in German that sounded like Hebrew words, and interpreted the similarities as proof that German (among all other tongues) was derived ultimately from Hebrew.1 A French understanding of the same concept had been satirized by Voltaire, who supposedly overheard this pronouncement in the 18th century: ‘What a dreadful pity that the bother at the Tower of Babel should have got language all mixed up; but for that, everyone would always have spoken French.’ Such a belief allowed a literal understanding of biblical text.
The biblical account given by Nahum described the fall of Nineveh in apocalyptic terms, prophesying that fire, flood, sword, and scattered people would leave the city ‘empty, void and waste’. ‘All who look on you will turn their backs on you and say, “Nineveh is a ruin”.… The gates of your country stand wide open to the foe.… All who hear the news of you clap their hands at your downfall.’2 A spectacular account of the fall of Nineveh was given by Ctesias a couple of centuries after the event. His words, retold by Diodorus Siculus, were also regarded as essentially trustworthy until recently; having described the last Assyrian king ‘Sardanapalus’ as an effete monarch drenched in perfumes and drained by sexual excesses, he wrote: ‘Because he was a man of this character, not only did he end his own life in a disgraceful manner, but he caused the total destruction of the Assyrian empire.’3 Ctesias, we now think, had written this in a satirical vein, mischievously transposing events and inventing salacious details.4 His account transposes the last king of Assyria with the earlier, rebellious brother of Ashurbanipal, who became king in Babylon and lived some thirty-six years before the historical fall of Nineveh. It muddles Nineveh with Babylon.5 No wonder that Greeks were confused.
Historians in modern times could not resist the temptation to pen purple passages with sweeping generalizations, relying on a literal reading of Ctesias. Sidney Smith, writing in 1925, stated: ‘The disappearance of the Assyrian people will always remain an unique and striking phenomenon in ancient history. Other, similar kingdoms and empires have indeed passed away, but the people have lived on … No other land seems to have been sacked and pillaged so completely as was Assyria … the Assyrians seem to have been unduly devoted to practices (sc. “of a libidinous complexion”) which can only end in racial suicide.’6
A false certainty that Nineveh was annihilated in 612 BC encouraged the first excavators to preclude the possibility of subsequent habitation there. The primary excavator was Henry Austen Layard, whose popular book Nineveh and its Remains was published in 1850, and Nineveh and Babylon appeared in print three years later. His declared aim had been to find Assyrian sculptures to enrich the collections of the British Museum, and so he tunnelled alongside the walls of the great palaces.7 (See Figure 63) In doing so he bypassed evidence for later history contained in layers deposited above the 7th-century buildings. Although Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology was already popular, strict observation of stratigraphy and a scientific approach to archaeology had yet to emerge from an antiquarian approach to excavation.8
Layard was sure that Nineveh was utterly destroyed when the Medes and Babylonians sacked the city. The plain reading of Nahum was apparently supported by the eye-witness observations recorded by Xenophon when he marched through the area two centuries later.9 Quoting Xenophon’s Anabasis as proof, Layard wrote in 1853:
The first ascertained date from which our enquiry must commence, is the destruction of Nineveh by the combined armies of Cyaxares King of Persia and Media, and Nabopolassar, king of Babylon … It must, I think, be readily admitted that all the monuments hitherto discovered in Assyria are to be attributed to a period preceding the Persian conquest … When Xenophon passed over the remains of Nineveh, its very name had been forgotten.10
Fig. 63 Layard excavated at Nineveh by tunnelling to reach the Assyrian buildings, bypassing later settlement.
British excavators at Nineveh in the 1920s shared the same understanding. By the time they published their results, cuneiform texts were being edited in a more-or-less coherent manner, and so it appeared conclusive that no cuneiform texts later than 612 BC contained references to Nineveh.11 Confirmation of their understanding seemed to come from the cuneiform Chronicle concerning the Fall of Nineveh, first published in 1923, which stated categorically that Nineveh was ‘turned into mounds and heaps’.12 They wrote: ‘After the sack of Nineveh in 612 BC the site remained deserted until the third century BC, and probably later.’13 All evidence for destruction in the palaces was assigned to events of the late 7th century BC. No later events were considered to have caused burning in the palaces and temples because they were supposed already to have been reduced to dust.14 Likewise, when excavations in 1987–90 revealed the skeletons of soldiers lying where they fell in the Halzi gate of the city,15 the excavator unquestioningly assigned the date of 612 BC to the slaughter.
Nineveh became a byword for utter ruin and desolation. The statement that Arbaces the Mede levelled ‘Ninus’ to the ground belongs to the hyperbole of triumph.16 Similarly Lucian (c. AD 115–180) put into the mouth of the ferryman from the Underworld, visiting the upper world to report on the brevity of life and achievement:
Well, as for Nineveh, skipper, it was wiped out long ago. There isn’t a trace of it left, and one can’t even guess where it was. Babylon is over there, the place with great towers and a huge wall around it, but before long it will be just as hard to find as Nineveh.17
Lucian was relaying a stereotype based ultimately on the misunderstood language of destruction, and the fall of tyrants executed by divine retribution.
Research eventually showed that such phrases as ‘turned into mounds and heaps’ should not be taken literally. For instance the Elamites of Susa in Iran turned the great city of Ur into mounds and heaps late in the third millennium BC, and the town Apqu suffered the same fate around 900 BC, but both places were flourishing soon afterwards. Similarly the Elamite capital Susa, comprehensively looted, demolished and depopulated by Ashurbanipal around 646 BC, nevertheless recovered sufficiently to re-establish an independent kingdom and to receive back its captured gods in 625 BC. At Nineveh the walls of the South-West Palace were some 12 m thick in places, and were protected on each side by high stone facings which were still in place in Layard’s day. It would have taken a superhuman and unnecessary effort to destroy more than a part of the buildings. Conquerors at that time would often select a few symbolic targets for devastation. The misleading phrases used in chronicles and Assyrian annals were borrowed from the language and imagery of formal lamentation, a type of liturgical text which we now know was used to promote revival, and so was used on ceremonial occasions when a sacred building was repaired.18 The favour of the gods’ return was implored by exaggerating current wretchedness. And they did return, as the biblical prophet Jonah made clear in his vain appeal to God, begging him to carry out his foretold punishment on a sinful people.19
The civil war that preceded the end of empire lasted for about eighteen years, roughly 627–609 BC. This is known because three names were omitted from the list of the last kings of Assyria recorded by the mother of Nabonidus, who evidently had not supported their factions.20 That period of unrest would have weakened the Assyrian heartland, but would not necessarily have dealt a death-blow to the city.
Recent historians have accepted less readily the description penned by Xenophon and the account given by Ctesias, and looked with a more open mind at archaeological evidence.21 Although a heavy ash layer was found in parts of the palaces on Kouyunjik22 from a fire that had badly damaged many of the sculptured stone panels, and a city gate had been demolished, there is no definite evidence to show whether the fire raged in 612 or as the result of a later conquest. A later capture of Nineveh around 538 BC is mentioned by Athenaeus:
Another capture took place around 90 BC by Tigranes of Armenia which Strabo recounted,24 and yet another by Mithridates around AD 50, mentioned by Tacitus.25
Layard was sufficiently observant and thoughtful to recognize evidence for later occupation at Nineveh, and eventually had doubts about his earlier assumptions and the dating derived from them. Towards the end of Nineveh and Babylon he mentioned that Nineveh had belonged to the Parthian and Sassanian Persians according to the two Roman historians, Tacitus in the 1st century AD and Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th;26 and he decided that some excavated material originally ascribed to the late Assyrian period, both at Nineveh and at Khorsabad, belonged to Hellenistic times.27 In his day it was impossible to make a clear distinction between Assyrian and later, non-Greek art. The most obvious example of such confusion was a carved ‘door-lintel’ 1.83 m long, which George Smith discovered lying in Sennacherib’s palace and considered to be an example of Assyrian sculpture. We now know that the style is Parthian, and so the lintel (if that was its function) belongs to the Roman period. Layard’s successor as excavator at Nineveh, Hormuzd Rassam, did not publish an account until several decades later, when he wrote: ‘There is no doubt that the main destruction of the palaces was the work of the Sassanians,’28 for he found that many of the Assyrian palace sculptures had been re-used in ‘a large building of some well-to-do Sassanian or Arab’ in the vicinity; and he also discovered a hoard of 145 Sassanian silver coins in the North Palace.29
The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced Page 20