I'd Like Your Opinion

[ishtar'sgate]

As we're all historical writers or readers in here I wonder if I could ask you something.

In my current WIP I can either go with a universally accepted historical 'fact' or with something else that's come to mind. My novel is set in ancient Babylon and I've come to the conclusion that there likely weren't any hanging gardens, at least not in the accepted sense.

Do you think readers will feel cheated if I don't include them? Although not overtly, I explain how something entirely different could have been confused and led to the story that has been passed down.

What do you think?

[firedrake]

I think it would work if you came up with an entirely different explanation. It could be quite a clever way of dealing with it.

[Puma]

Can you elaborate a little on your idea? I think a lot would depend on how plausible your explanation might be. Puma

[ishtar'sgate]

Thanks for your input firedrake and Puma. As for a plausible explanation, the kings had elaborate 'hangings' fixed to enormous marble pillars constructed in their rooftop gardens. The hangings would be of the beautiful embroidered work they were so famous for. It might look something like a double colonnade with the hangings attached between the columns. High on the roof the hangings would be visible for a long ways off. They were garden hangings not hanging gardens. At least that's what I planned to do. Plausible?

[pdr]

weren't the hanging gardens really a Ziggurat type structure full of plants?

Must have looked a bit like all those buildings which are car parks in Hawaii and each level has planters from which bougainvilleas cascade to the ground and hide the ugly cement structure.

You can do anything in your novel, ishtar, if you make it work and tell the readers why in a note.

[Puma]

The rooftop gardens were my concern. I'm not sure there's any evidence there was anything more than the rooftop gardens, possibly, as pdr said, in a Ziggurat type of structure as well as on conventional roofs. Anything beyond that would be pushing plausibility for me. But I think you'd be okay with your tapestries as long as there's some evidence things like that were made.

Off the wall, gang - plural of roof = ? I swear when I learned it, the plural was rooves like the plural for hoof - but now the dictionary doesn't even list it (and lists hoofs and hooves for hoof). Is my memory faulty? Puma

[donroc]

Anything green and floral hanging from a multi-story building would have impressed desert dwellers. Were not the Hanging Gardens one of the original Seven Wonders of the World? In any case, why not be your own architect?

I (soon to be 78) remember hooves but not rooves. Easy way out for the latter=rooftops.

[ishtar'sgate]

Thanks for your thoughts. Ziggurats may have had plants but it is generally thought not. They were stepped platforms with stairs leading to a shrine at the top. Built entirely for the use of the gods there is no mention of any substantial planting and irrigation although there may have been a bit. It was just a structure the gods used to come down from heaven, rest in the shrine area if they were tired and then descend into the netherworld.

When Koldewey uncovered the city he found a vaulted structure next to the palace that may have supported the garden but it subsequently turned out to be for grain storage.

I watched a recent documentary on the Seven Wonders and there is absolutely no archeaological evidence for the gardens and no evidence in the cuneiform tablets that Nebuchadnezzar or anyone else built such a garden. Kings always flaunted their building projects and if it was that great I'm sure it would have been included.

In any case, I appreciate your input and will take it into consideration when deciding how exactly to tackle this part of the novel. Thanks again.

[lkp]

I think it will work, as long as you make it interesting and connect it to the story. If it is just "guess what? not hanging gardens but tapestries instead," it could just be a gratuitous annoying detail.

It strikes me that other novels I have read about Babylon don't mention gardens one way or another, so you can just ignore them.

I just recently heard in another context, I remember not what, that scholars were doubting the existence of the hanging gardens so what you're proposing does not seem off the wall to me.

[jennontheisland]

I'm not sure why you have to mention the gardens at all.

Do there characters go there? Is the garden central to some plot point?

[ishtar'sgate]

lkp and jennotheisland - I expect they've been ignored for just that reason. No evidence. I guess it intrigues me. I can't help wondering how the story got started. I wanted to include something historically accurate that was really quite magnificent on its own and that could cause readers to think to themselves, "Hey wait a minute. Maybe that's how it got started." No major plot point just part of the backdrop but I like the setting to have a life of its own, kind of like a character.

[donroc]

Hanging Gardens, a euphemism for the hanging of criminals and traitors from a specific place? Just thinkin'. :Shrug:

[ishtar'sgate]

Hanging Gardens, a euphemism for the hanging of criminals and traitors from a specific place? Just thinkin'. :Shrug:
Now THAT would be a twist.:)

[donroc]

The ropeadope manuever to plotting. :D

[Puma]

The first list of Wonders of the Ancient World was made up by Herodotus - correct? The Temple at Halicarnassus, the pyramids, the statue of Zeus at Olympus, the temple at Ephesus, the Colossus at Rhodes, the Pharos at Alexandria, the Hanging Gardens ... how many of those are disputed today as not being actual things that were in existence?

I think the safest course is to make sure however you describe them is consistent with Herodotus - and the gardens were documented by others in the ancient world too.

I'm not saying you can't incorporate your idea, but when you start going up against something that has been held as true or actual for a long time, treading lightly is probably the safest idea. Puma

[pdr]

just for you to think about, ishtar, is that feeling when spotting an oasis after several days in the desert. All that lovely green. Crossing the prairies in summer in the 60s it was all gold brown and dust, and then one came into Regina which had man made lakes, irrigation and flowers. Wow!

Maybe the hanging gardens had that effect.

Didn't ancient gods have plants associated with them, wouldn't they have been grown in their ziggurats?

As Puma says, maybe Herodotus was right. He was proved so over the others.

Is roof - rooves American, Puma?
I can only remember roof - roofs?
My OED doesn't show rooves.

[frimble3]

You could combine the two? It must have taken a lot of resources to haul enough water and soil up to the top of a structure to make and maintain a lavish garden. Maybe it was partially live plants, spaced out to make the most of limited resources, and with your tapestries/hangings used as filler/background? The tapestries would look rich and lush even in the dry season, and blowing in the wind would add movement. Or, embroidered flowers could be hung in the spring, to make the sturdy foliage plants look more showy.

[WildScribe]

I would take care with adding a detail like this without explaining it a bit. As for a deeper explanation, I LOVE author notes at the end of historical fiction.

[timewaster]

I don't know textiles fade very quickly in the sun - any hangings would have to be renewed often - which would be very labour intensive - did they even have the right kind of dyes?
I don't think it would work for me because I can't imagine the effect being of hanging gardens and I can't see what purpose outdoor tapestries would serve.

[Lady Ice]

I'd feel like it was a bit of an anti-climax. Either show hanging gardens or don't. I'm not sure how plausible the tapestries are- they would get damaged by the weather, even if there were the dyes and materials to make them. Surely they'd want to make their garden look pretty by making the plants look nice and having loads of exotic foliage?

[ishtar'sgate]

Kings were always trying to impress each other and they DID decorate their gardens with monstrous tapestries slung between pillars. I guess they didn't worry too much about the time and expense required to make more of them if they faded.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to try scenes with and without the gardens and see which ones feel right. I'm a bit of a nitpicker and I don't think they existed but readers might expect the gardens. Thanks for everyone's input. It's good to have a variety of opinions before making a decision.

[MissMacchiato]

I agree that if the gardens don't need to be mentioned in order to further the plot, then I'd leave them out.

The great thing about history though, is that no one really knows what happened, so in essence, you can say whatever you like. On the downside, people will have a certain image in their head of what the hanging gardens should be - so to mention them as being something so radically different from what they are expecting might end up working against, rather than for your story.

That's just my 2 cents - having lots of opinions before making a decision is my preferred way of working as well :)

[Lhun]

Not really sure what kind of evidence you would except for the gardens. There are multiple historical contemporary accounts of them. Since they've supposedly been destroyed by earthquakes, any physical evidence of them would be impossible to identify. Especially since the city was inhabited until close to 900 years after the destruction of the gardens.
So, i wouldn't buy the alternative explanation. Why not just leave out any mention at all?

[timewaster]

Kings were always trying to impress each other and they DID decorate their gardens with monstrous tapestries slung between pillars. I guess they didn't worry too much about the time and expense required to make more of them if they faded.

No Kings probably wouldn't however I don't think tapestries look like gardens.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to try scenes with and without the gardens and see which ones feel right. I'm a bit of a nitpicker and I don't think they existed but readers might expect the gardens. Thanks for everyone's input. It's good to have a variety of opinions before making a decision.

Gardens too are a sign of wealth and power and access to water.
In Harare the colonial houses all had green lush well watered gardens - it is a massive symbol of power.

[Kallithrix]

Off the wall, gang - plural of roof = ? I swear when I learned it, the plural was rooves like the plural for hoof - but now the dictionary doesn't even list it (and lists hoofs and hooves for hoof). Is my memory faulty? Puma

The plural of 'roof' is totally 'rooves' - I learnt that as well (and learnt rather than learned) because I'm a Brit and that's the way we roll. :-)

And as a finickety stickler for all things Blighty, I don't approve of this American bastardisation of our beautiful, complicated, eccentric and nonsensical English language. If I see another Brit spell it 'thru' or 'airplane' I'm gonna chuck a wobbler...

[whacko]

I thought the Hanging Gardens were actually terraced, like pdr's Ziggurat. I'll maybe do some more checking because I believe that Archimedes invented his famous screw to transport water up the hillside. An invention, fact fans, that is still being used in sewage plants to this day.

ETA - after literally seconds of ceaseless research...I give you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_screw

[Kallithrix]

...I doubt they existed as Greek and Roman historians have described them, but there's no smoke without fire - I think it more likely that there was some kind of impressive garden that gave rise to the story than that it materialised out of nowhere. Whether this garden was a roof top terrace with trailing vines and flowers slung from columns I don't know.

As for your idea about it being a garden of hangings rather than a hanging garden... well, you would need to know where we got the phrase 'hanging garden' from to answer that. Is it is a translation from Greek? Latin? It's very tempting for people to attribute anything unexplanable to misinterpretation, but you have to know the mechanics of manuscript transmission in order to see where and how the error could have occured (and people often forget that languages like Greek and Latin are inflected, so misinterpretations based on mere word order do not occur as they do in English).

Anyway, is there a single word in Greek or Latin that means both 'hanging' as in a tapestry and 'hanging' as in dangling that could make the misunderstanding plausible?

In short... I don't have the knowledge to comment whether the misunderstanding is plausible, but my instinct is that it's an aetiological invention by an archaeologist who couldn't come up with another explanation :-)

[ishtar'sgate]

Anyway, is there a single word in Greek or Latin that means both 'hanging' as in a tapestry and 'hanging' as in dangling that could make the misunderstanding plausible?



Actually I wasn't considering a single word in Greek or Latin but rather the cuneiform tablets themselves. As much as possible I look for translations of original texts and some of what I've found so far leads me to believe we may be a bit off base. Even Robert Koldewey didn't think what he'd found had anything to do with hanging gardens. I located some diary notes made by a woman who'd been at the dig and she verifies that's what he said.

[Kallithrix]

Actually I wasn't considering a single word in Greek or Latin but rather the cuneiform tablets themselves. As much as possible I look for translations of original texts and some of what I've found so far leads me to believe we may be a bit off base. Even Robert Koldewey didn't think what he'd found had anything to do with hanging gardens. I located some diary notes made by a woman who'd been at the dig and she verifies that's what he said.

Ok, so we're talking about a misinterpretation of cuneiform (seems more plausible, seeing as it's a much more obscure language) but then surely the misunderstanding must date back to before whoever it was that wrote about 'hanging gardens' - so my question is still 'Where do we get this phrase from?'

I'm asking because I honestly don't know anything about this subject, and I'm interested :-)

[ishtar'sgate]

Nope, not talking about misinterpretation of cuneiform either. Here's the thing. As you likely know from your reserch on Egypt, kings bragged about their accomplishments. Nebuchadnezzar was no exception. He wrote at length about the enormous walls he built, his palaces, the canals, the huge copper doors to the city and the temples. But he never mentioned anything about a garden. If it had been that magnificent wouldn't he have bragged about it? He bragged about all the animals he imported and the area he made for them but nothing about a special garden. Herodotus, writing in 450BC, so about 100 years later, didn't mention them. Strabo, writing in the first century BC talked about them although it would have been all second hand as he never saw them and they were reputedly destroyed in an earthquake in the 2nd century BC. But Strabo also reported, according to the same word-of-mouth accounts, that the city god came down to sleep in the chamber on top of the ziggurat, so...

In any case, there are cuneiform descriptions of the ziggurat itself having plantings up its sides and as it was the tallest building in the city and even towerered over the huge walls, it might have been those plantings that people saw. The palace was built on a gigantic platform, partly to avoid water damage from the river but mostly so the palace could be effectively guarded at only one point of entry. The king had a sitting area on the top of the palace and it is easy to believe (at least for me) that people would have described both of these things together - seeing the plantings on the ziggurat and seeing the gigantic tapestry 'hangings' (as the were referred to) fastened to marble pillars on the king's rooftop.

Perhaps if I tie those two things together in some way people could draw their own conclusions about a possible merging of these two sights as one approached the city. What do you think?

[Kallithrix]

Nope, not talking about misinterpretation of cuneiform either. Here's the thing. As you likely know from your reserch on Egypt, kings bragged about their accomplishments. Nebuchadnezzar was no exception. He wrote at length about the enormous walls he built, his palaces, the canals, the huge copper doors to the city and the temples. But he never mentioned anything about a garden. If it had been that magnificent wouldn't he have bragged about it? He bragged about all the animals he imported and the area he made for them but nothing about a special garden. Herodotus, writing in 450BC, so about 100 years later, didn't mention them. Strabo, writing in the first century BC talked about them although it would have been all second hand as he never saw them and they were reputedly destroyed in an earthquake in the 2nd century BC. But Strabo also reported, according to the same word-of-mouth accounts, that the city god came down to sleep in the chamber on top of the ziggurat, so...

In any case, there are cuneiform descriptions of the ziggurat itself having plantings up its sides and as it was the tallest building in the city and even towerered over the huge walls, it might have been those plantings that people saw. The palace was built on a gigantic platform, partly to avoid water damage from the river but mostly so the palace could be effectively guarded at only one point of entry. The king had a sitting area on the top of the palace and it is easy to believe (at least for me) that people would have described both of these things together - seeing the plantings on the ziggurat and seeing the gigantic tapestry 'hangings' (as the were referred to) fastened to marble pillars on the king's rooftop.

Perhaps if I tie those two things together in some way people could draw their own conclusions about a possible merging of these two sights as one approached the city. What do you think?

Yes, it's very interesting that there's no evidence of Nebuchadnezzar bragging about such a magnificent garden, if it existed (although as an oft quoted saying goes, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

BUT...

If you want to try and explain why the term 'hanging gardens' came about, my question STILL stands - where did this phrase come from? What is the first extent occurence of this term?

[ishtar'sgate]

If you want to try and explain why the term 'hanging gardens' came about, my question STILL stands - where did this phrase come from? What is the first extent occurence of this term?

Primarily it came from myths. The first specific mention of it was around 400BC but it wasn't an eyewitness account. Much of what was written in those days had no real basis in fact. Scribes were not recording history, they were extolling the virtues of kings because they were paid by kings to write favorably about them and unfavorably about someone else. Once you start reading about two different kings claiming victory for the same war or kings who said they behaved a certain way when they won when archaeological evidence proves otherwise, then much of what is recorded becomes suspect. You learn to read between the lines and basically you have to decide what to believe -is it legend or myth or is it fact-based.

[donroc]

So let it be written, so let it be truth. :D

[ishtar'sgate]

So let it be written, so let it be truth. :D

Yeah, that's what I think.