Part 2

100. North-east corner of Principal Citadel, from the north 161

101. The basalt lion in the Principal Citadel 162

102. The Shamash-resh-ussur stela 163

103. The Hittite stela, obverse 165

104. The Hittite stela, reverse 165

105. Pavement slab of Adad-nirari 166

106. Doorway with drain, in north wall of the Principal Citadel 171

107. Plan of the northern bastions, north-east of Kasr 172

108. Ascent to the Acropolis. Homera in the background 175

109. Stone wall of Northern Citadel, from west looking east 176

110. Stone wall of Northern Citadel with inscription 177

111. Inscription on the stone wall of the Northern Citadel 178

112. Doorway with canal in stone wall 179

113. Canal in front of the Northern Citadel, on the north 180

114. Plan of Esagila and Etemenanki 184

115. East side of the peribolos of Etemenanki 185

116. Esarhaddon’s Etemenanki inscription 186

117. Sardanapalus’ Etemenanki inscription 186

118. Nebuchadnezzar’s Etemenanki inscription 187

119. Reconstruction of the peribolos, with the tower of Babylon, the temple of Esagila, the quay wall of Nabonidus, and the Euphrates bridge 188

120. Duck weight with inscription 190

121. Upper part of a stela with divine emblems 191

122. The western pier of the bridge over the Euphrates 198

123. Plan of the mound Amran 205

124. Section through Esagila 206

125. Sardanapalus’ Esagila brick 207

126. Esarhaddon’s Esagila brick 208

127. Esarhaddon’s Esagila Babylon brick 209

128. Terra-cotta figure from brick casket at Esagila 210

129. The excavation of Esagila 213

130. Tomb of Amran Ibn Ali 214

131. Later buildings on northern slope of Amran 217

132. Alabaster figure with asphalt perruque 218

133. A slipper sarcophagus 219

134. Esarhaddon’s Adad kunukku from Esagila 221

135. Marduk-nâdin-shum’s Marduk kunukku 221

136. Plan of Ishin aswad 224

137. Ground-plan of temple “Z” 225

138. Cella façade in temple “Z” 225

139. Reconstruction of temple “Z” 226

140. Figure of Papsukal from temple “Z”—front view 227

141. Figure of Papsukal from temple “Z”—back view 227

142. Plan of Epatutila 230

143. Section of Epatutila 231

144. Epatutila foundation cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar 232

145. Figure from brick casket of Epatutila, restored 232

146. Papsukal figure from principal cella postament in Epatutila 232

147. Ruins of Epatutila 233

148. Terra-cotta apes, male and female 234

149. Early horseman, glazed 235

150. Later horseman (Parthian?) 235

151. Woman in covered litter, on horseback 235

152. Coloured enamelled vase _Coloured plate—_ _Frontispiece_

153. Schematic diagram of the transfer of the upper levels (A, B, left) of a mound of debris to lower-lying region (A, B, on the right) 237

154. Schematic diagram of section through Babylonian house ruins, with wells 238

155. Plan of Merkes 241

156. View of street in Merkes 243

157. First dynasty tablets 245

158. Labyrinthine lines on a tablet 245

159. Drawing on a tablet 246

160. Pottery urn with tablets 247

161. Bowls 247

162. Aramaic incantation bowl 248

163. Beakers 249

164. Vases 249

165. Storage jars, on ring stands below 250

166. Large storage jars 250

167. Fragments of Greek vases 251

168. Flasks 251

169. Flat circular vases 252

170. Lamps 253

171. Glazed rhyton 255

172. Glass goblet and jug 255

173. Ancient glass 256

174. Earthenware bell 256

175. Woman on a beaker or omphalos 257

176. Earthenware boat 258

177. Earthenware boats with animal inside 258

178. Stone vessel 259

179. Basalt bowl for rubbing out grain 259

180. Ancient Babylonian rubbing-mill, in use by an Arab 260

181. Prehistoric utensils 260

182. Prehistoric implements 261

183. Swords, lance-head, and knives, in bronze 262

184. Bronze arrow-heads; prehistoric flint knife and saws 262

185. Chain of onyx beads from grave in Merkes 263

186. Grave deposits of gold, glass, and shell, from Merkes 264

187. Leg-bones, each with five anklets, from Merkes 265

188. Gold ornaments 266

189. Bronze fibulae 267

190. Rings and their seal impressions 267

191. Cylinder seals and signet with their impressions 268

192. Stone amulets 269

193. Greek coins in a jar 270

194. Two vertebrae, a boar’s tusk, and three bone joints prepared as sword handles 270

195. Double-urn burial from Merkes 272

196. Trough coffin, with lid 273

197. Trough coffin, opened 273

198. Crouching burial 274

199. Brick grave from Merkes 274

200. Anthropoid sarcophagus, north-east of Kasr 275

201. Deposits from a coffin 276

202. Female figure with folded hands (Ninmach?) 278

203. Woman with folded hands, old Babylonian style 278

204. Woman and child 278

205. Woman and child, Graeco-Parthian style 279

206. Woman and child, Graeco-Parthian style 279

207. Seated woman and child 279

208. Woman with hands supporting breasts 279

209. Woman with hands supporting breasts 279

210. Woman with hands supporting breasts, Graeco-Parthian style 280

211. Woman with arms hanging down 280

212. Male figure with goblet (Anu?) 281

213. Man with folded hands 281

214. Man with folded hands, Parthian style 281

215. Bearded male figure, seated (Marduk?) 281

216. Man with flower in his hand 281

217. Woman with flower in her hand 281

218. Woman holding palm branch (?) 282

219. Woman holding palm branch (deity) 282

220. Woman holding palm branch, Greek style 282

221. Terra-cotta amulet 283

222. Musician with double flute 283

223. Lute-player 283

224. Lute-player 283

225. Woman with harp 284

226. Woman with tambourine 284

227. Woman reclining 284

228. Woman reclining 284

229. Pottery mask 284

230. Pottery mask 285

231. Greek terra-cotta 285

232. Greek terra-cotta 285

233. Greek terra-cotta 286

234. Cupid as a jar handle 286

235. Reconstruction of the Great House in Merkes 287

236. Ground-plan of the Great House in Merkes 288

237. Section of the Great House in Merkes 289

238. Steps to roof in village of Kweiresh 290

239. North-east corner of the Great House in Merkes 291

240. Façade of house with doorway, brick grave in front, Merkes 292

241. Ground-plan of house in Fara (Shuruppak) 293

242. Ground-plan from Telloh 294

243. Papsukal figure, from foundation casket of Ishtar temple 296

244. Ground-plan of temple of Ishtar of Agade, Merkes 297

245. Section of temple of Ishtar of Agade, Merkes 297

246. Ground-plan of Ezida, the temple of Nebo, in Borsippa 298

247. Temple of Ishtar of Agade in Merkes; view of cellafaçade 299

248. Inscription from Greek theatre 301

249. Plan of the mounds, Homera 302

250. General view of the Greek theatre 303

251. Statue pedestals in orchestra 304

252. View of proscenium pillars 305

253. Plan of Greek theatre, restored 306

254. Gypsum decorations of Greek theatre 307

255. Section through the northern mound of Homera 308

I THE OUTER CITY WALLS

In the time of Nebuchadnezzar the traveller who approached the capital of Babylonia from the north would find himself where the Nil Canal flows to-day, face to face with the colossal wall that surrounded mighty Babylon (Fig. 1). Part of this wall still exists and is recognisable at the present time in the guise of a low earthen ridge about 4 to 5 kilometres in length. Up to the present we have only excavated a small part, so that it is only possible to give a detailed description of the most noteworthy features of these fortifications, that were rendered so famous by Greek authors.

There was a massive wall of crude brick 7 metres thick, in front of which, at an interval of about 12 metres, stood another wall of burnt brick 7.8 metres thick, with the strong wall of the fosse at its foot, also of burnt brick and 3.3 metres thick (Fig. 2). The fosse must have been in front of this, but so far we have not searched closely for it, and therefore the counterscarp has not yet been found.

Astride on the mud wall were towers 8.37 metres (about 24 bricks) wide, that projected beyond the wall on both its faces. Measured from centre to centre these towers were 52.5 metres apart. Thus there was a tower at intervals of about 100 ells, for the Babylonian ell measured roughly half a metre.

Owing to the unfinished state of the excavations it is not yet possible to say how the towers on the outer wall were constructed. The space between the two walls was filled in with rubble, at least to the height at which the ruins are preserved and presumably to the crown of the outer wall. Thus on the top of the wall there was a road that afforded space for a team of four horses abreast, and even for two such teams to pass each other. Upon this crown of the wall the upper compartments of the towers faced each other like small houses.

This broad roadway on the summit of the wall, which was of world-renown owing to the descriptions of it given by classical writers, was of the greatest importance for the protection of the great city. It rendered possible the rapid shifting of defensive forces at any time to that part of the wall which was specially pressed by attack. The line of defence was very long; the north-east front, which can still be measured, is 4400 metres long, and on the south-east the ruined wall can be traced without excavation for a length of 2 kilometres. These two flanks of the wall certainly extended as far as the Euphrates as it flowed from north to south. With the Euphrates they enclosed that part of Babylon of which the ruins exist at the present time, but according to Herodotus and others they were supplemented on the other side of the Euphrates by two other walls, so that the town site consisted of a quadrangle through which the Euphrates flowed diagonally. Of the western walls nothing is now to be seen. Whether the traces of a line of wall to the south near the village of Sindjar will prove to have formed part of them has yet to be ascertained.

The excavations carried on up to the present time have yielded no surrounding walls beyond this fortification. The circuit extended for about 18 kilometres. Instead of this, Herodotus gives about 86 kilometres and Ctesias about 65 kilometres. There must be some error underlying this discrepancy. The 65 kilometres of Ctesias approximate so closely to four times the correct measurement that it may well be suspected that he mistook the figures representing the whole circumference for the measure of one side of the square. We shall later turn more in detail from the testimony of the ancient writers to the evidence of the ruins themselves. Generally speaking, the measurements given are not in accordance with those actually preserved, while the general description, on the contrary, is usually accurate. Herodotus describes the wall of Babylon as built of burnt brick. To an observer from without it would no doubt appear as such, as only the top of the inner mud wall could be seen from outside. The escarp of the fosse was formed of the square bricks that are so extraordinarily numerous in Babylon, that measure 33 centimetres and bear the usual stamp of Nebuchadnezzar. Those of the brick wall are somewhat smaller (32 centimetres) and unstamped. These smaller unstamped bricks are common previous to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but nevertheless they may very well date from the early years of his reign, as we shall see farther on. To what period the mud-brick wall may be assigned we do not yet know; it is certainly older. It apparently possessed an escarp, of which there are some scanty remains within the great brick wall. It appears to have been cut through on the outside by the latter.

Up to the present we have found about 15 of the towers on the mud wall only. They are the so-called Cavalier towers, and project both at the front and the back, thus placed astride on the wall. They were, of course, higher than the walls, but we can get no clue from the ruins as to the height of walls or towers, as only the lower parts remain. The towers are 8.36 metres wide and are placed 44 metres apart. Thus on the entire front there were about 90, and on the whole circumference—provided the town formed a square—there must have been 360 towers. How many there were on the outer wall we do not know. Ctesias gives the number as 250. No gateway has yet been found, which is not surprising, considering the limited extent of the excavations.

During the Parthian period these lines of fortification can have been no longer in a condition to afford protection. On the town side of the mud wall there are Parthian sarcophagi, inserted in holes dug in the wall itself.

While the foundations of the brick wall are below the present water-level, the mud wall stands on an artificial embankment. As a general rule mud walls were not provided with deep foundations. The mortar employed for the mud wall was clay, and for the brick wall bitumen was used. The same method of construction can be recognised in other parts of the city, where it is better preserved and can be more satisfactorily studied.

At the northern end of our line of wall, which encloses the mound of ruins, called “Babil,” with a hook-like curve, the inner wall also was built of brick. This appears, at least, from the two deep trenches left by plunderers which occur here, but it must be inferred pending excavation. The digging for the valuable bricks which occurred in recent times has left deep traces in the otherwise smooth surface of the ground which we do not find in the attempted demolitions of more ancient times.

For this reason, with the exception of the portion near Babil there is nothing to be seen of the burnt-brick wall without excavating, while the mud wall, which has merely suffered from the ravages of time, has left behind a clearly marked line of ruins of some height. The town wall of Seleucia on the Tigris, likewise a mud wall, stands out similarly above its mounds of debris to a considerable height. It cannot therefore be said that a burnt-brick wall of 480 stadia, the gigantic dimensions recorded by Herodotus, must necessarily have left considerable and unmistakable traces, and it is not this consideration that leads us to doubt the existence of an encircling wall of such dimensions, which has been accepted as an established fact since Oppert’s excavations in Babylon. Neither does the immense size of itself demand dismissal as fantastic. The great wall of China, 11 metres high and 7.5 metres broad, with its length of 2450 kilometres, is just 29 times as long as that of Herodotus. There are other overwhelming considerations which we shall investigate later. In any case the city, even in circumference, was the greatest of any in the ancient East, Nineveh itself not excepted, which in other respects rivalled Babylon. But the period in which the fame of Babylon’s vast size spread over the world was the time of Herodotus, and then Nineveh had already ceased to exist.

A comparison with modern cities can scarcely be made without further consideration. It must always be remembered that an ancient city was primarily a fortress of which the inhabited part was surrounded and protected by the encircling girdle of the walls. Our great modern cities are of an entirely different character, they are inhabited spaces, open on all sides. A reasonable comparison can, therefore, only be made between Babylon and other walled cities, and when compared with them Babylon takes the first place, both for ancient and modern times, as regards the extent of its enclosed and inhabited area.

Nebuchadnezzar frequently mentions this great work in his inscriptions. The most important passage occurs, in his great _Steinplatten_[1] inscription, col. 7 l. 22–55: “That no assault should reach Imgur-Bel, the wall of Babylon; I did, what no earlier king had done, for 4000 ells of land on the side of Babylon, at a distance so that it (the assault) did not come nigh, I caused a mighty wall to be built on the east side of Babylon. I dug out its moat, and I built a scarp with bitumen and bricks. A mighty wall I built on its edge, mountain high. Its broad gateways I set within it and fixed in them double doors of cedar wood overlaid with copper. In order that the enemy who devised (?) evil should not press on the flanks of Babylon, I surrounded it with mighty floods, as is the land with the wave-tossed sea. Its coming was like the coming of the great sea, the salt water. In order that no breach should be made in it, I piled up an earthen embankment by it, and encompassed it with quay walls of burnt brick. The bulwark I fortified cunningly and made the city of Babylon into a fortress” (cf. H. Winckler, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vol. iii. 2, p. 23). It can hardly be expected that we can yet reach absolute certainty as to the meaning of all the details here given. That can best be afforded by a complete excavation, which is urgently to be desired.

Footnote 1:

Usually called in England The East India House Inscription.

II THE MOUND BABIL