The Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Conclusions

Well! Now we've done a whole lot of useful things:

1. We've put the authors into chronological order so we can see how they connect with each other
2. We've shown that Herodotus' failure to mention the gardens is irrelevant
3. We've highlighted contemporary western bias for and against the rival creators
4. We've uncovered the truth-hierarchy system driving the writers
5. We've decoded the conflict and its original resolution
6. And we've shown that our contemporary emphasis on information rather than process has confused the issue

So now we can draw some conclusions. Well, I shall, anyway. Bearing in mind that the ultimate truth always eludes us, I nonetheless conclude that the closest we can get is this:

1. The Hanging Gardens were real
2. They were (apparently) built by Semiramis, the human queen and co-founder of Babylon
3. The best description of them comes from Ctesias
4. Nebuchadnezzar had nothing to do with the issue

 

What Next?

Remember that these conclusions are drawn from a careful treatment of incomplete material that is quoted out of context on the web.

Serious scholars would now make it their business to get hold of the best translations of the complete texts and read them carefully through. They'd read what the translators have to say about those texts, too, and find out what the relevant historians and art historians have to say. They'd also get the best information possible on the archaeology of Babylon, and compare the findings with the texts. And they'd go, physically, to Babylon and look, measure, think, take notes. And then they'd come home and think some more.

Are you up for it?