Saturday, May 18, 2024






Amer Hanna Fatuhi, Ph.D.


This study is based on

Dr. Amer Hanna Fatuhi’s history books listed in the References Section.


 All images are created or modified by (atelier a) Art & Graphics Studio

The artwork is also made possible by the Telecommunication & Media Expert

Engineer & Multimedia Expert Nannar Amer



Due to the many phases of destruction that Babylon faced throughout its long and deep history, the Hanging Gardens probably represent one of the most challenging undertakings for archaeologists and excavators; however, this is not the case with historians. This position according to some scholars is not clear to archaeologists because we have not yet obtained conclusive indications concerning those gardens' upper stories' designs.

What makes this matter more intricate is that classic historians had mixed up the Babylonian ziggurat, the stepped E temen-na-ki tower, with the smaller Babylonian three-story stepped structure planted with trees and gardens. The ruins of that unique building and its wheels were discovered in the northeastern area of the southern palace of Nebuchadnezzar II.

 The geometrical/engineering principle implemented in building those gardens is the congruent sides of the triangle inscribed on a tablet uncovered in Ša-du-pu-um ki in Baghdad. This principle is derived initially from the axiom that “all right angles are equal.” A right corner is formed when two lines intersect each other perpendicularly. This postulate was known in Mesopotamia seventeen centuries before Euclid's axiom of the third century BC.

Since modern time scholars do not yet have clear-cut evidence advocating classical statements about the Hanging Gardens. We are left with no other choice but to consider the 1899-1917 | 1978-1979 unearthed three-story structure as an objective substitute for those spectacular gardens around which so many Greek tales were contrived.


When Koldewey excavated that structure's foundations in 1899-1917, he had no idea why it was built or its primary function. Thus he called it the House of Cellars. It consists of 14 domed hallways surrounded by an unusually thick wall. There were also wells with water raising mechanisms not known before in ancient Mesopotamia.

Those wells were connected by outlets forming the base for a hydraulic lift system with a chain pump (complicated mechanism). Accordingly, Koldewey announced in 1913 that that structure was the renowned Hanging Gardens based on what was mentioned in the writings of classical historians that the Hanging Gardens were built above a multi-cellar structure.




 Around 1857 A.D. and despite a lack of tangible evidence and limited discoveries on the one hand, and on the other hand, the dissatisfaction of many French, German, and other European scholars, the British Royal Asiatic Society (RAS) decided the name Assyriology was an accurate term! The British RAS scholars claimed that the cuneiform tablets that Layard discovered in Nineveh, the ancient capital of Assur from the period 668 – 627 BC, is the most ancient Mesopotamian writing system! 

However, in less than twenty years, thousands of tablets were collected from all over the Middle East. These tablets were inscribed with Cuneiform and Mesopotamian pictograph signs, not only two or three hundred years older than the ones discovered in Nineveh, but more than two thousand years, and in some cases more than three thousand years older, especially the tablets that were discovered in the Babylonian region, i.e., Kish, Eridu, Shuruppak, Lagash, Nippur, Ur, and Uruk.

Some European scholars suggested revisiting the term Assyriology and proposed other terms, including Cuneiformiology and Mesopotamialogy. This intention to right the wrongdoing by the RAS was what made Samuel Noah Kramer suggest the name Sumeriology in the first half of the 20th century. However, the RAS's British members ignored all the European scholars’ suggestions and insisted on using the wrong term, claiming there was no need to change what was in use worldwide for more than two decades. British experts’ arrogance and the government's political ambitions force the use of an inaccurate scientific term “no more and no less”!


Once again, the same course of conceit, pursuing fame, and other improper factors were behind the new inappropriate misleading claim suggesting another location for the famous Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the ancient world's seven wonders. Stephanie Mary Dalley FSA (née Page; March 1943) is another British scholar of the Ancient Near East. She retired as a Research Fellow from Oxford Oriental Institute. Dalley became known for her so-called investigation into the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and her naïve and incorrect proposal, which will be exposed and refuted in this documentary.

 However, before presenting and refuting Dalley’s misconception concerning the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that if this kind of irresponsible proposition is not confronted and stopped in time it would result in more absurd views and more ridiculous ideas.  Like the ones included in the book titled The City of Babylon by no other than Stephanie Dalley, which was published in June 2021 by Cambridge University Press. Below is a link to one of her interviews concerning the book.

BISI Webinar: Dr Stephanie Dalley on ‘The City of Babylon from c. 2000 BC to AD 116.



Dalley might be very good at deciphering Cuneiform script, which means that she might be a good linguist, however, the Iraqi National Museum and the schools of archaeology all over Iraq have tens and tens of Cuneiform decipherers who might be more credible than her.  It is a proven fact that someone might be the best linguist but that does not make him/her a great poet or novelist.

Furthermore, the most important fact here is that Dalley never trained as an archaeologist at Mesopotamian historical sites. Compared to the renowned Sir Leonard Woolley, Hans Baumann, Georges Roux, Joan Oates, H. W.F. Saggs, Fawzi Rashid, Fritz Krischen, Bahija Khalil Ismail, Benno Landsberger, Samuel Noah Kramer, and other iconic historians/archaeologists, she is just an average historian. In fact, her Mesopotamian knowledge in the field of archaeology does not exceed her 1962 visit to Iraq when she was a teenager accompanied by David Oates, a family friend when he was directing an expedition in Nimrud, northern Iraq, as well as working for one year between 1966 and 1967 at Tell al-Rimah as Epigrapher (decipher/linguist).


Dalley’s main problem is that every time she makes a statement to present a new falsified, presumptive idea, she comes up with more problems than solutions, and she sounds like she is purposely shooting her own foot  (i.e.,  at minute 38:08 of the above-mentioned video, she states out of the blue concerning the famous Lion of Babylon: "It is a symbol of Assyrian royalty" which is no more than an irresponsible and absurd statement). 

Ironically, Dalley built her entire hypothetical conclusion based on a fairytale. Dalley falsely hypothesized about an Assyrian booty relic of a four-inch-tall ivory plaque depicting Ethiopian or Nubian art, which was dumped in a well 70 feet deep among other ivories around 705 BC at Shalmaneser Fortress in Kalkhu, almost 25 years before Esarhaddon assumed the thrown in Nineveh!

 The Lion of Babylon is a finished common sculpture similar in its style and technique to many lion sculptures from Eridu to Jemdet Nasr periods. You can learn about the lioness ivory ornament and other non-Mesopotamian ivory booties by reading the compelling illustrated book, Assyria, written by Andre Parrot. 

Dalley’s fictitious story concerning the Lion of Babylon was made up to justify her baseless confused points concerning this Babylonian National Symbol. Her shallow story is the most ridiculous claim to the point that not even beginner historians no matter how hard they try can swallow. For example:

If the final destination of the statue was Babylon, then why would Esarhaddon have the statue carved in Egypt and then transported when it was unfinished through an endless desert to Babylon?


Why would Esarhaddon decide to carve the lion in Egypt on basalt stone when limestone and sandstone were the main stones of ancient Egypt?

 Why would Esarhaddon use Egyptian basalt when Hatti was one of the main basalt resources closest to Mesopotamia since the sixth millennium BC?

 Why would Esarhaddon, on his way back to Mesopotamia, go to Babylon and leave the lion there, when the Euphrates route is closer to Esarhaddon’s capital Nineveh?

How could Dalley claim that Esarhaddon and his mother murdered Sennacherib to justify the unfinished work of the statue when both historical and Biblical records state otherwise?

In fact, any beginner historian who specializes in Mesopotamia knows that Arda-Mulissu and the other brother, Nabû-šarru-uṣur, murdered their father [Sennacherib] in 681.

If she considers herself a historian, then why did Dalley not know that according to all the reliable historical records, Esarhaddon, the legitimate heir avenged his father by defeating his brothers in a famous six-week-long civil war?


 There is not one Mesopotamian tablet or record connecting Assyria or Esarhaddon to the Lion of Babylon, yet out of the blue, Dalley did not hesitate to sell her fictional and false claim concerning the Lion of Babylon that is considered one of the major Chaldean Babylonian National symbols.

Finally, there is no historical record whatsoever concerning the carving period of the Lion of Babylon although a few historians believe it goes back to the old Babylonian period. The lack of definite resources concerning the carving time of the statue also applies to the other Babylonian famous lions, i.e., the Lion of Eridu as well as the Lions of Shaduppum. All we know is that these statues are considered a Proto-Kaldi's common style. See Chaldean Legacy, PP 45-51.


Questioning the fictitious story of Dalley’s presumption concerning Esarhaddon and the Lion of Babylon can tell a lot about Dalley’s poor Mesopotamian knowledge as well as her questionable character. 

Quite frankly, I am shocked at how could any decent professional archeologist or credible historian specialized in Mesopotamia would give Dalley a platform to spread deceptions or even a pass for such nonsense!



Back to the main subject, Dalley suggested that the Hanging Gardens building was not situated in Babylon and was not built by Nebuchadnezzar II. These claims were made according to her feeble speculations in Nineveh and construction during Sennacherib's reign!

Since Dalley published her misleading theory of the Hanging Gardens and attributed them to the wrong place, time, and king, some Content Creators on social media have produced videos and articles supporting her inconsistent theory. Unfortunately, tens of papers and videos followed her deceptive path like sheep and out of ignorance on one hand, and on the other hand, the excitement of the so-called cracking of a long-known mystery sponsored by Oxford University.

Her theory is mainly based on manipulating historical records and fabricating alternative narratives that the Mesopotamian historical and geographic facts could easily refute. 

1. Dalley intentionally planned on confusing readers concerning the image of the Assyrian gardens between Sennacherib 705-681 BC, which he has nothing to do with the gardens’ image and the in-ground garden bed of Ashurbanipal 669–631 BC. She also claims that Sennacherib loved Babylon when in fact he destroyed Babylon and razed the greatest city of the ancient world to the ground. Ashurbanipal, the grandson of Sennacherib, was not less brutal than his grandfather. Ashurbanipal is known for burning Babylon down and looting its massive libraries and other Babylonian cities’ tablet archives, the largest known today as Ashurbanipal Library!  It is also worth noting, that the Ashurbanipal Library is not the oldest Mesopotamian library as claimed by many incompetent resources compared to the oldest ones discovered in the Babylonian region, i.e., Uruk, Sippar, Lagash, Nippur, Dur-Kurigalzu, and Shaduppum.


The below excerpt from Sennacherib's record can easily expose such an untrustworthy statement made by Dalley claiming Sennacherib loved Babylon: "As a hurricane proceeds, I attacked it and, like a storm, I overthrew it . . . Its inhabitants, young and old, l did not spare and with their corpses I filled the streets of the city . . . The town itself and its houses, from their foundations to their roofs I devastated, I destroyed, by fire I overthrew . . . In order that in future even the soil of its temples be forgotten, by water I ravaged it, I turned it into pastures. 'To quiet the heart of Ashur, my lord, that peoples should bow in submission before his exalted might, I removed the dust of Babylon for presents to the (most) distant peoples, and in that Temple of the New Year Festival (in Assur) I stored up (some) in a covered jar." ~ Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq, PP 322-323. 

2. Dalley’s shallow knowledge concerning Mesopotamian art and architecture led her to be confused between Sennacherib 705-681 BC, who established a water canal, or aqueduct, which was a traditional system in ancient Iraq, and a mural bas-relief in the Ashurbanipal Palace, ignoring the fact that Mesopotamian artists did not rely on a three-dimensional view in their murals. This technique is also known as the vanishing point, used by Italian artists during the Renaissance c. 1300 AD, almost two thousand years after the death of Sennacherib. However, the engraved mural used the common Mesopotamian layer technique, it merely depicts distances and not heights.


3. Dalley admits at minute 1:00:37 of her interview on the link below that the German archaeologist Robert Koldewey had found two wells and a very interesting water-raising mechanism by the building that Koldwey called the house of cellars and the Iraqi archaeologists called the vaulted structures (aka The Hanging Gardens) in the 1978 academic Journal of Archaeology, Vol. XXXV 1978, No 1-2, PP 127-136. However, she intentionally dodges these scientific facts: the wells, the complicated water-raising mechanism, and the building that was built upon vaulted structures according to the classical historians by foolishly stating that "it’s way away from anywhere that you could bring water from"!

What proves her intentional manipulation of the truth and the misleading proposition is that she claims that to water the gardens "You would have to get it [the water] through all sorts of walls of palaces and fortifications".


This is an insane claim, simply because Dalley not only ignored the two discovered wells by the gardens building but also ignored (or maybe was not even aware) that the major Babylonian canal Libil-khegalla cut through the old city almost thirty (30) meters from Nebuchadnezzar’s palace/ The Hanging Gardens.

On top of that, Dalley purposely ignored or concealed the fact that the Euphrates River is only three hundred (300) meters from the garden building. Any layman could easily figure out that the two wells by the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Libil-Khegalla Canal, and even the Euphrates River, disprove Dalley’s unreliable statement "it’s [The Hanging Gardens] way away from anywhere that you could bring water from."

 As a matter of fact, the two wells, the Libil-Khegalla Canal, and the Euphrates River are much closer and more accurate to watering the gardens than bringing water from the distant Gomel River through the Jerwan aqueduct.

On the other hand, one of her so-called strong points that prove the Gardens were built in Nineveh is Sennacherib’s water canal, aka Jerwan Aqueduct, which has its water source starting at Khinis monumental complex. Dalley’s supposition suggests that it is fine for Sennacherib to bring water from the Khinnis located in Bavian, Duhok Governorate through the Jerwan aqueduct north of Mosul in the Nineveh Province of modern Iraq to water the gardens of Sennacherib’s palace located in Nineveh (80) Kilometers almost (50) Miles from Khannis water source located on the right-hand side of the Gomel River.

 To those who are unaware of the above-mentioned historical-geographical facts, the Jerwan aqueduct was dug during the time of Sennacherib to redirect the Gomel River and the canal to be used to bring sweet water to his capital city and the surrounding areas. This whole project covers an area of over 3,500 km2 located in northern Mesopotamia, between the Nineveh Plain of Mosul and the modern-day Duhok province, and has nothing to do with watering Dalley’s fictitious Hanging Gardens. 

4. More importantly, any simple peasant from the Nineveh Plain who relies on rainfall uses rainfed agriculture for farming knows that there is no need to invent complex irrigation technology.  All water wheels for irrigation have been used in central and southern Iraq, not in the north, which sustains its agriculture through rainfall and not through irrigation. 

5. Concerning Stephanie Dalley - Archimedes' Screw and the Date Palm Tree of Babylon, all I can say is that it's just another supposition because Dalley has once again built her entire wrongful theory on one uncommon palm tree trunk when every Iraqi knows that the real date palm trunk looks totally different as shown in the accompanying slide.

Dalley, who is not native to Mesopotamia, does not even know that there are 622 registered Iraqi date palm species. As kids, we used to climb them knowing exactly where to put our small feet to fit the spaces in the trunk. 

Nothing in the Iraqi date palm looks like Archimedes' Screw and even the one Dalley used has both horizontal and somewhat oblique angles. The accompanied slide depicts ancient and modern date palm trunks and none looks like the one Dalley used to create her false claim. Plus, whoever did the sketch has purposely manipulated the actual shape and diagonal the horizontal lines to fit Dalley’s unfounded theory. However, our next image proves beyond doubt that Dalley is wrong.

Babylonians were the masters of math, geometry, and science which led them to invent the water clock way before Sennacherib's time. More importantly, there is not one tangible discovery (tablet or engraved work) that connects Archimedes' Screw to Dalley’s imaginary Sennacherib watering mechanism theory. 

6. Berossus (Bēl-rē'u-šu) was falsely smeared and accused by Dalley, who stated that for political reasons, Berossus had attributed the Hanging Gardens to Babylon. Dalley also out of overconfidence judged and dismissed the hard work of prominent German, French, American, and Native Iraqi archeologists in a very disrespectful way claiming that "there was a desperation to find them [The Hanging Gardens] in Babylon and they couldn’t".

Such character assassination and biased allegations ignore the fact that Berossus was one of the essential Babylonian intellectuals during the Hellenistic era and that he is a native Babylonian who knew firsthand every single detail of Babylon. Koldwey’s in-depth excavations in Babylon and position concerning the Hanging Gardens of Babylon location is quite superior compared to Dalley’s short visit and baseless proposition.


Furthermore, Dalley’s mocking and smearing of Berossus tells a lot about Dalley’s character, especially for those who do not know that Berossus was as stated a native Babylonian who taught Greek, philosophy, math, and science at Kos Island, where they installed an impressive statue of him out of appreciation and admiration. Such remarkable status does not apply to Dalley who practically proved that her knowledge concerning Babylon is below poor. 

Berosus was the main source for classical historians in confirming the biblical narrative of the Tower of Babel; however, many secular scholars thought the tower was a fictional story made up for a spiritual cause. Other scholars doubted the foundations of the tower that was discovered by the Germans during Koldwey’s excavations in Babylon from March 26, 1899, to March 11, 1917. This matter continued to be somewhat controversial up until the two fragments of black stone making up the Tower of Babylon stele with pictures of the ziggurat in Babylon [the tower] and King Nebuchadnezzar II were found near the É-sagila temple. Berossus was correct and those who doubted him were wrong. This fact also applies to the Hanging Gardens and Koldwey’s excavations in Babylon.

6. Some British historians tried to give explanations far from reality about the writings of Flavius Josephus (37 AD), Diodorus Siculus (c. 45 BC), and other scholars who wrote about the Hanging Gardens of Babylon on the pretext that they were talking about the Ashurbanipal bas-relief mural discovered c. 1846 AD. Such an irresponsible explanation ignores the fact that none of the classical historians were aware of the Ashurbanipal bas-relief mural that was buried and forgotten for over 600 hundred years.

Dalley and those who are supporting her misleading theory, for unknown reasons, also ignored the fact that Nineveh, the Assyrian last capital, at that time was no longer in existence after centuries of destruction, so how could the classical historians talk about a bas-relief that they are not even aware of?

On the other hand, German, French, American, Russian, and Iraqi archaeologists and historians, i.e., Dr. Bahija Khalil Ismael, Dr. Fawzi Reschid, and Bashir Youssif Francis have unquestionably confirmed that the unique refrigerator building of Babel discovered at Nebuchadnezzar II’s Palace is the most likely site for the Hanging Gardens. To learn about this subject read Chaldean Legacy, PP 155-159.

7. Dalley argues that Nebuchadnezzar II’s records did not mention the Hanging Gardens, ignoring the fact that we have not found most of Nebuchadnezzar II records and those of many other great Babylonian kings.

The flooding of Babylon twice by Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal, the Euphrates River's diversion in the Cyrus era, the 482 BC vast destruction of Artaxerxes, and the vast destruction of Nebuchadnezzar palace with dynamite in 1889 by the Ottomans erased the history of thousands of years, including countless records of Nebuchadnezzar II.

In 521 B.C., the Babylonians appointed their king, Nebuchadnezzar IV, and the city rebelled. Darius’s gigantic army defeated the rebel army and captured Babylon. The Persians destroyed Babylon’s defenses, pulled down all the city gates, and burned its landmarks and libraries, and the Chaldean king and his inner circle of warriors and leading followers were impaled inside the city.

In 482 B.C., Babylon revolted in September against the Achaemenid Empire's occupation, killing Zophyrus the Persian ruler, and defeating Ahasuerus/Xerxes’s Persian army. The brutal king sent an enormous army under his brother-in-law Megabysus’ command to capture the city at the beginning of October.

The Persian military destroyed the temples and took away the idol of the Babylonian god Marduḫ, burning the glorious Chaldean capital and its main structures, including schools and libraries. Once again, over three thousand leading Chaldean revolutionists were impaled inside the city around October 6, 482 BC. The question here is, “How many of Nebuchadnezzar II’s records were either destroyed or buried and hidden to this day to survive those massive waves of destruction?”

8. Mesopotamian civilization especially the Babylonian region was built with clay as most of the buildings and temples were constructed of mudbrick. However, the important temples and palaces were made of fired bricks. The fired bricks proved to be the most suitable materials to stand for thousands of years. 

However, the laughable point is that Dalley who is an alien to the land and its environment has ignored this fact and intentionally mocked the Babylonian builders by making jokes about planting trees on top of brick-made structures, which according to her naive view "would be absolute disastrous”. Her discreditable point was made to convince her unaware readers that bricks are insufficient construction materials, which also makes them accept her misleading theory.


However, the joke is on Dalley, because it seems she either did not tell the truth to her readers or she is not aware of the common basic technique used to build temples, ziggurats, and palaces in the Babylonian region. The fired brick technique allowed the Mesopotamian builders to maintain adequate room temperature and create massive arches and domes, which also survived for over seven thousand years.

The brilliant Mesopotamian builders also used isolating layers mixed with asphalt. This unique technique was studied and explained in detail by many scholars - non-Iraqis and Iraqis, including my professor Dr. Fawzi Reschid in his 1991 book, Nebuchadnezzar II.

The fired-brick technique was also mentioned in many studies published in Sumer, the official academic journal of archaeology & history, published by the state organization of Antiquities and Heritage, Baghdad since 1945. Planting trees and other plants played a significant role in these buildings for two major purposes, aesthetic and functional. More technical details are available in the book titled, Chaldean Legacy, PP 155-159

Finally, it is worth mentioning that planting trees on the Babylonian palace roofs is common in Sumer and Akkad, a traditional practice still used in Baghdad and other provinces nowadays, unlike Nineveh, which is already famous for its natural forests and colder weather.

Any ordinary observer could quickly figure out that Sennacherib or the Jerwan Canal's only purpose was to provide sweet water for the palace and the surrounding areas. Trees surrounded Sennacherib’s palace, some in front, and others at a distance or near it, but there was not a single tree on the palace's roof. Those who have visited the area can easily confirm that the canal was not built to plant trees. The landscape around it, front and behind, is full of plants and trees. However, there is not one tree hanging on the roof of the palace or the aqueduct.

When it comes to highly regarded and fair-minded Mesopotamialoists for example, Sir Leonard Woolley, Seton Lloyd, Joan Oates, and Irving Finkel, I tip my hat in respect.

However, it seems that there are some so-called academics still thinking that they are living in the British colonial era, and therefore they are entitled to be superior to other German, French, American, and even native Iraqi archaeologists who know their native land like the back of their palms.

Unfortunately, such an unrealistic illusion would allow them to suggest whatever they like, thinking that the rest of the world will follow. 

The fact of the matter is that every single speculation that Dalley came up with whether concerning the Lion of Babylon or The Hanging Gardens of Babylon is historically inaccurate and scientifically false, baseless, shallow, and naive. In fact, Dalley is not utterly wrong, but her inappropriate groundless theories are stone dead.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR | Amer Hanna Fatuhi, Ph.D.

 Fatuhi is a scholar of ancient history and native Mesopotamians.  He is also a professional writer, art critic, and an established visual artist, creator of the “Logogramism” art style, 1988-1992.

Fatuhi studied engineering, fine arts, and history. Throughout his extensive and solid creative career, Fatuhi received many International and National Awards and Honours including iaa/UNESCO 1984.

He is also considered one of ten worldwide creative Artists/Writers ~ World Literature Today academic magazine, 2009



 Fatuhi, Amer Hanna, The Jews of Babylon, Past & Present, U.S., 2024

Fatuhi, Amer Hanna, Chaldean Legacy, U.S., 2021

Fatuhi, Amer Hanna, The Untold Story of Native Iraqis, U.S., 2012

Chaldeans Since the Early Beginning of Time (In Arabic), U.S. 2004 / Iraq 2008 | |


You can also watch Mesopotamian Knowledge video titled The Hanging Gardens of Babylon Were in Babylon at the link below:

Nippur is the First Neutral City-state in History



~ Amer Hanna Fatuhi, Ph.D. 

“Neutrality is a cornerstone of Swiss foreign policy and prohibits Switzerland from participating in armed conflicts and joining military alliances. The international community officially recognized Switzerland's neutrality in 1815.”

However, five thousand years before Switzerland, neutrality was practiced in Mesopotamia. Three city-states were known for that practice: Eridu(Nun-ki), Babylon (KÁ DINGER RA Ki / Nun-ki), and Nippur (En-lil Ki). However, the only city that continued to practice neutrality was Nippur. 

To better understand this subject, Eridu had only one ruling dynasty and that was before the Great Flood period. Post that dynasty Eridu practiced neutrality, and became a religious city that never had a a ruling dynasty up to its last days. Babylon had totally a different history because it started as a Sacred City with no ruling dynasties until the first Old Babylonian dynasty was established in Babylon c. 1900 BC although some historians consider Babylon's involvement in politics has started during the Isin I dynasty c. 2020 BC. 

Conclusion: Thus, Nippur is considered the first ever Neutral City-state in history.

يعتبر الحياد (عدم الإنحياز) حجر الزاوية في السياسة الخارجية السويسرية، مما يمنع سويسرا من المشاركة في النزاعات المسلحة والانضمام إلى التحالفات العسكرية. أعترف المجتمع الدولي رسمياً بحياد سويسرا في عام 1815. مع ذلك، فأن سويسرا ليست أول من طبق سياسة عدم الإنحياز، إذ قبل خمسة آلاف سنة من ممارسة سويسرا لسياسة الحياد، كان الحياد معروفاً ويُمارس في بلاد ما بين النهرين. حيث عُرِفت ثلاث دويلات مدن بإتباعها لسياسة عدم الإنحياز، وهيّ: إريدو (نون-كي)، بابل (باب إيلو – نون-كي)، وﻨﻴﭘور (إنليل-كي). ومع ذلك، فإن المدينة الوحيدة التي استمرت في تطبيق ممارسة الحياد هي ﻨﻴﭘور. لذلك تعتبر ﻨﻴﭘور أو دولة مدينة في التاريخ مارست سياسة عدم الإنحياز. ~ د. عامر حنا فتوحي 

Courtesy of