ESSAY IV. PRESENT STATE OF THE RUINS. 571 by the merest conjecture. The earliest of the Mesopotamian explorers' imagined that it included within it the Birs Nimrud, which is six miles from the Euphrates; but the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar make it certain that this vast ruin marks the site of a distinct town.2 4. The only ruins which can be confidently assigned to the ancient Babylon are the group of mounds upon the Euphrates, a little above Hillah, which cover a space about three miles long and from one to two miles broad, and are almost entirely inclosed within an irregular triangle, formed by two long lines of rampart (GG in the plan) and the river. These ruins are generally said to consist of three great masses of brick work, the northernmost of which (Rich's Mujel libeh) is known to the Arabs as BABIL (A in the plan), the central as the Kasr or Palace (B), and the southernmost (c) as the mound of Amrám. Besides these principal buildings there are various lesser ruins, among which the most remarkable are two long Rich, Second Memoir, pp. 31-2; Ker Porter, vol. ii. p. 382. 2 M. Oppert admits that the Birs Nimrud marks the site of the ancient VOL. II. Borsippa, but he supposes this place to have been a sort of second citadel (Acropolis minor) to Babylon, and to have lain between the outer and the inner walls. 2Q 572 THEIR POSITION, APP. BOOK ¡II. parallel lines of rampart (FF) having a direction nearly north and south, which shut in the central and southern ruins on the east, and a similar single line (H), running from east to west, which bounds the central mass of ruins (the Kasr) towards the north. Less noticeable, but still of some visible importance, are some ruins on each side of the Euphrates (DD in the plan) parallel with the mound of Amrám, and an embankment along the river (E) nearly in the same locality. There are also two shorter lines of low mounds (II) to the west of the principal ruins, with a space between them, from which extends both northwards and southwards a depression of the soil which looks like an ancient river-bed, and which is only interrupted seriously at one point (K) by an irregular mass of rubbish nearly filling up the channel. Beyond the ruins thus described, towards Hillah on the south and towards Mohawill on the north, are low heaps and embankments scattered irregularly over the plain. On the western side of the river, besides the ruin already mentioned (D), there are a number of lesser mounds; and both here and towards the east the ground is everywhere covered with fragments of brick and with nitre, the sure marks of former buildings.3 5. The difficulty which immediately strikes the observer, who, acquainted with the descriptions of Babylon given by the ancient writers, casts his eye over the mass of ruins above described, is their position, almost without exception, on the left bank of the river. The ancients unanimously declare that the Euphrates flowed through Babylon; and that the most important buildings were placed on the opposite sides of the stream. The Temple of Belus and the Royal Palace-the two chief edifices-are said to have been separated by the river, each forming a stronghold or fortress in its own division of the town. Now although it must be granted that the Euphrates, having a general tendency to run off to the westward, has done much to obliterate the 3 The particulars of this account are chiefly taken from Rich (First Memoir), Ker Porter (vol. ii. pp. 337-380), and Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 4902), corrected from the personal recollections of Sir H. Rawlinson and Dr. Hyslop, the latter of whom was engaged with Captain Jones in the recent surveys. Reference has also been made to the letters of M. Fresnel in the Journal Asiatique for June and July, 1853, and to the general description of Mr. Loftus (Chaldæa, ch. ii.). Besides the description of our author (i. 178-183), the most important are those of Diodorus (ii. 7, et seqq.), which is probably derived from Ctesias, and of Berosus, as reported by Josephus (Ant. Jud. x. 11). This last seems to have been derived by Berosus directly from Nebuchadnezzar's monuments, and, if it were less corrupt, would be invaluable. Herod, i. 181. Diod. Sic. ii. 8. Strab. xvi. § 5, p. 1049. Plin. H. N. vi. 26, &c. Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 493. 6 ESSAY IV. ON THE LEFT BANK OF THE EUPHRATES. 573 ruins which originally stood upon the right bank, yet it can scarcely be thought that this cause is sufficient to account for the entire disappearance of a building so vast as both these are said to have been. We ought to find traces both of the palace and of the temple, and they ought to be separated either by the main stream of the Euphrates or at least by a branch from it— which is certainly not the case at present with any of the important ruins. The suggestion that the Birs-Nimrud represented the old temple of Belus, though it is distant eight or nine miles from the true Babylon, originated in the supposed necessity of finding one or other of the two great buildings among the ruins still existing to the west of the stream. The Birs is the only ruin of any magnitude on the right bank at present, and the vast dimensions ascribed to Babylon by the ancients would allow of its being included within the ancient enceinte. The identification, however, of the Birs with Borsippa-a town quite distinct from Babylon, which is rendered certain by the monuments❞—entirely disposes of this theory; and we are left to the alternative of supposing that one or other of the two buildings has perished, or of finding the remains of both in the ruins on the east or left bank. It is the opinion of those best qualified to judge that in the great northern mound, which the Arabs call Babil, may be recognised the ancient temple of Belus 10 or Bel-Merodach; while the central and northern mounds, known as the Kasr and the mound of Amrám, mark together the site of the royal residence,' including both the old palace (Amrám) and that more modern erection (the Kasr), which was not improperly called by Nebuchadnezzar Taprati-nisi, "the Wonder of Mankind." 2 8 6. With respect to the difficulty which arises from the position of both these two ruins on the left bank, it may be observed that a large canal, called by Nebuchadnezzar "the Shebil," is said by him to have bounded his palace on the north; and that this canal, which may either have run east in the line assigned it in the accompanying plan, or have left the Euphrates higher up and have been carried in a south-east direction to the head 7 This was strongly urged by Rich (Second Memoir, p. 32) and Ker Porter (vol. ii. p. 383), who were the first to propose the identification of the Birs with the Temple of Belus. It is echoed by Niebuhr (1. s. c.), and Fresnel (Journ. Asiatique, Juillet, 1853, p. 24). 9 See Beros. Fr. 14, p. 508; Strab. xvi. p. 1050; Steph. Byz. ad voc., &c. 574 MOUND OF BABIL, APP. BOOK III. of the great reservoir, must most certainly have intervened between the palace and the temple, and may therefore be the watercourse which Herodotus regarded as the true river. It was not, however, the only or course of the stream is of 7. The mound of Babil, which it is proposed to identify with the temple of Belus, is an oblong mass composed chiefly of unbaked brick, rising from the plain to the height of 140 feet,' and having at the top a broad flat space, broken with heaps of rubbish, and otherwise very uneven. The northern and southern faces of 3 Standard Inscription, 1. s. c. Sippara was situated on both sides of the river (whence the dual form Sepharvaim) about the site of the modern Mosaib. The Euphrates below this point was known to the Babylonians as the "river of Sippara;" just as in Arabian times, when Sippara had become Sura, it was known as the Nahr-Sura. 4 This is Mr. Rich's estimate (First Memoir, p. 28), but as he over-estimates the height of the Birs by nearly one-third, no great dependence can be placed upon it. ESSAY IV. THE TEMPLE OF BELUS. 575 the mound are about 200 yards in length," the eastern and western are respectively 182 and 136 yards. All the faces, and especially that which looks to the west, present at intervals some appearance of brickwork, the bricks being sun-dried, and cemented, not with bitumen, but with mud, a thin layer of reeds occurring between each course of the brick. Tunnels driven into the base of the mound on a level with the plain, show that the structure was formerly coated with a wall of burnt brick masonry, supported by numerous piers and buttresses of the same material. These baked bricks, as well as most of those which are found loose among the rubbish wherever it is dug into, bear the name of Nebuchadnezzar, and were laid in a fine white mortar. 8. The general character of this building, its square shape, its solid construction, its isolated grandeur, mark it as the ziggurat or tower of a Babylonian temple. It closely resembles 5 The exact measurements given by Mr. Rich are, for the north face 200 yards, and for the south 219 (First Memoir, p. 28). Sir R. Ker Porter makes them respectively 551 and 552 feet (ii. p. 340). 6 Sir R. K Porter makes these two sides of equal length, and gives them only 230 feet (1. s. c.). 7 Rich, First Memoir, p. 29. Sir H. Rawlinson regards this brick-work as Parthian. (See note on Book i. ch. 179.) 8 Mr. Layard drove these tunnels, and has related the results in his "Nineveh and Babylon," pp. 503-5. |