CHAPTER II. CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS.

The Babylonian Empire, lying as it did between the thirtieth and

thirty-seventh parallels of north latitude, and consisting mostly of

comparatively low countries, enjoyed a climate which was, upon the

whole, considerably warmer than that of Media, and less subject to

extreme variations. In its more southern parts-Susiana, Chaldaea (or

Babylonia Proper), Philistia, and Edom---the intensity of the summer

heat must have been great; but the winters were mild and of short

duration. In the middle regions of Central Mesopotamia, the Euphrates

valley, the Palmyrene, Coele-Syria, Judaea, and Phoenicia, while the

winters were somewhat colder and longer, the summer warmth was more

tolerable. Towards the north, along the flanks of Masius, Taurus, and

Amanus, a climate more like that of eastern Media prevailed, the summers

being little less hot than those of the middle region, while the winters

were of considerable severity. A variety of climate thus existed, but a

variety within somewhat narrow limits. The region was altogether hotter

and drier than is usual in the same latitude. The close proximity of the

great Arabian desert, the small size of the adjoining seas, the want of

mountains within the region having any great elevation, and the general

absence of timber, combined to produce an amount of heat and dryness

scarcely known elsewhere outside the tropics.

Detailed accounts of the temperature, and of the climate generally, in

the most important provinces of the Empire, Babylonia and Mesopotamia

Proper, have been already given, and on these points the reader is

referred to the first volume. With regard to the remaining provinces, it

may be noticed, in the first place, that the climate of Susiana differs

but very slightly from that of Babylonia, the region to which it is

adjacent. The heat in summer is excessive, the thermometer, even in the

hill country, at an elevation of 5000 feet, standing often at 107°

Fahr. in the shade. The natives construct for themselves serdaubs,

or subterranean apartments, in which they live during the day, thus

somewhat reducing the temperature, but probably never bringing it much

below 100 degrees. They sleep at night in the open air on the flat roofs

of their houses. So far as there is any difference of climate at this

season between Susiana and Babylonia, it is in favor of the former. The

heat, though scorching, is rarely oppressive; and not unfrequently a

cool, invigorating breeze sets in from the mountains, which refreshes

both mind and body. The winters are exceedingly mild, snow being unknown

on the plains, and rare on the mountains, except at a considerable

elevation. At this time, however--from December to the end of

March--rain falls in tropical abundance; and occasionally there are

violent hail-storms, which inflict serious injury on the crops. The

spring-time in Susiana is delightful. Soft airs fan the cheek, laden

with the scent of flowers; a carpet of verdure is spread over the

plains; the sky is cloudless, or overspread with a thin gauzy veil; the

heat of the sun is not too great; the rivers run with full banks and

fill the numerous canals; the crops advance rapidly towards perfection;

and on every side a rich luxuriant growth cheers the eye of the

traveller.

On the opposite side of the Empire, in Syria and Palestine, a moister,

and on the whole a cooler climate prevails. In Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon

there is a severe winter, which lasts from October to April; much snow

falls, and the thermometer often marks twenty or thirty degrees of

frost. On the flanks of the mountain ranges, and in the highlands of

Upper and Coele-Syria, of Damascus, Samaria, and Judsea, the cold is

considerably less; but there are intervals of frost; snow falls, though

it does not often remain long upon the ground; and prolonged chilling

rains make the winter and early spring unpleasant. In the low regions,

on the other hand, in the _Shephelah_, the plain of Sharon, the

Phoenician coast tract, the lower valley of the Orontes, and again in

the plain of Esdraelon and the remarkable depression from the Merom lake

to the Dead Sea, the winters are exceedingly mild; frost and snow are

unknown; the lowest temperature is produced by cold rains and fogs,

which do not bring the thermometer much below 40°. During the summer

these low regions, especially the Jordan valley or Ghor, are excessively

hot, the heat being ordinarily of that moist kind which is intolerably

oppressive. The upland plains and mountain flanks experience also a

high temperature, but there the heat is of a drier character, and is

not greatly complained of; the nights even in summer are cold, the dews

being often heavy; cool winds blow occasionally, and though the sky is

for months without a cloud, the prevailing heat produces no injurious

effects on those who are exposed to it. In Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon the

heat is of course still less; refreshing breezes blow almost constantly;

and the numerous streams and woods give a sense of coolness beyond the

markings of the thermometer.

There is one evil, however, to which almost the whole Empire must have

been subject. Alike in the east and in the west, in Syria and Palestine,

no less than in Babylonia Proper and Susiana, there are times when

a fierce and scorching wind prevails for days together--a wind whose

breath withers the herbage and is unspeakably depressing to man. Called

in the east the Sherghis, and in the west the Khamsin, this fiery

sirocco comes laden with fine particles of heated sand, which at once

raise the temperature and render the air unwholesome to breathe. In

Syria these winds occur commonly in the spring, from February to April;

but in Susiana and Babylonia the time for them is the height of summer.

They blow from various quarters, according to the position, with respect

to Arabia, occupied by the different provinces. In Palestine the worst

are from the east, the direction in which the desert is nearest; in

Lower Babylonia they are from the south; in Susiana from the west or the

north-west. During their continuance the air is darkened, a lurid glow

is cast over the earth, the animal world pines and droops, vegetation

languishes, and, if the traveller cannot obtain shelter, and the wind

continues, he may sink and die under its deleterious influence.

The climate of the entire tract included within the limits of the Empire

was probably much the same in ancient times as in our own days. In the

low alluvial plains indeed near the Persian Gulf it is probable that

vegetation was anciently more abundant, the date-palm being cultivated

much more extensively then than at present; and so far it might appear

reasonable to conclude that the climate of that region must have been

moister and cooler than it now is. But if we may judge by Strabo’s

account of Susiana, where the climatic conditions were nearly the same

as in Babylonia, no important change can have taken place, for Strabo

not only calls the climate of Susiana “fiery and scorching,” but says

that in Susa, during the height of summer, if a lizard or a snake

tried to cross the street about noon-day, he was baked to death before

accomplishing half the distance. Similarly on the west, though there is

reason to believe that Palestine is now much more denuded of timber than

it was formerly, and its climate should therefore be both warmer and

drier, yet it has been argued with great force from the identity of the

modern with the ancient vegetation, that in reality there can have

been no considerable change. If then there has been such permanency of

climate in the two regions where the greatest alteration seems to have

taken place in the circumstances whereby climate is usually affected,

it can scarcely be thought that elsewhere any serious change has been

brought about.

The chief vegetable productions of Babylonia Proper in ancient times

are thus enumerated by Berosus. “The land of the Babylonians,” he

says, “produces wheat as an indigenous plant,” and has also barley,

and lentils, and vetches, and sesame; the banks of the streams and the

marshes supply edible roots, called gongoe, which have the taste

of barley-cakes. Palms, too, grow in the country, and apples, and

fruit-trees of various kinds. Wheat, it will be observed, and barley are

placed first, since it was especially as a grain country that Babylonia

was celebrated. The testimonies of Herodotus, Theophrastus, Strabo, and

Pliny as to the enormous returns which the Babylonian farmers obtained

from their corn lands have been already cited. No such fertility is

known anywhere in modern times; and, unless the accounts are grossly

exaggerated, we must ascribe it, in part, to the extraordinary vigor of

a virgin soil, a deep and rich alluvium; in part, perhaps, to a peculiar

adaptation of the soil to the wheat plant, which the providence of God

made to grow spontaneously in this region, and nowhere else, so far as

we know, on the whole face of the earth.

Besides wheat, it appears that barley, millet, and lentils were

cultivated for food, while vetches were grown for beasts, and sesame

for the sake of the oil which can be expressed from its seed. All grew

luxuriantly, and the returns of the barley in particular are stated at a

fabulous amount. But the production of first necessity in Babylonia

was the date-palm, which flourished in great abundance throughout the

region, and probably furnished the chief food of the greater portion

of the inhabitants. The various uses to which it was applied have been

stated in the first volume, where a representation of its mode of growth

has been also given.

In the adjoining country of Susiana, or at any rate in the alluvial

portion of it, the principal products of the earth seem to have been

nearly the same as in Babylonia, while the fecundity of the soil was but

little less. Wheat and barley returned to the sower a hundred or even

two hundred fold. The date-palm grew plentifully, more especially in the

vicinity of the towns. Other trees also were common, as probably konars,

acacias, and poplars, which are still found scattered in tolerable

abundance over the plain country. The neighboring mountains could

furnish good timber of various kinds; but it appears that the palm was

the tree chiefly used for building. If we may judge the past by

the present, we may further suppose that Susiana produced fruits in

abundance; for modern travellers tell us that there is not a fruit known

in Persia which does not thrive in the province of Khuzistan.

Along the Euphrates valley to a considerable distance--at least as

far as Anah (or Hena)--the character of the country resembles that of

Babylonia and Susiana, and the products cannot have been very different.

About Anah the date-palm begins to fail, and the olive first makes its

appearance. Further up a chief fruit is the mulberry. Still higher, in

northern Mesopotamia, the mulberry is comparatively rare, but its

place is supplied by the walnut, the vine, and the pistachio-nut.

This district produces also good crops of grain, and grows oranges,

pomegranates, and the commoner kinds of fruit abundantly.

Across the Euphrates, in Northern Syria, the country is less suited for

grain crops; but trees and shrubs of all kinds grow luxuriantly, the

pasture is excellent, and much of the land is well adapted for the

growth of cotton. The Assyrian kings cut timber frequently in this

tract; and here are found at the present day enormous planes, thick

forests of oak, pine, and ilex, walnuts, willows, poplars, ash-trees,

birches, larches, and the carob or locust tree. Among wild shrubs are

the oleander with its ruddy blossoms, the myrtle, the bay, the arbutus,

the clematis, the juniper, and the honeysuckle; among cultivated

fruit-trees, the orange, the pomegranate, the pistachio-nut, the

vine, the mulberry, and the olive. The adis, an excellent pea, and the

Lycoperdon, or wild potato, grow in the neighborhood of Aleppo. The

castor-oil plant is cultivated in the plain of Edlib. Melons, cucumbers,

and most of the ordinary vegetables are produced in abundance and of

good quality everywhere.

In Southern Syria and Palestine most of the same forms of vegetation

occur, with several others of quite a new character. These are due

either to the change of latitude, or to the tropical heat of the

Jordan and Dead Sea valley, or finally to the high elevation of Hermon,

Lebanon, and Anti-Lebanon. The date-palm fringes the Syrian shore as

high as Beyrut, and formerly flourished in the Jordan valley, where,

however, it is not now seen, except in a few dwarfed specimens near the

Tiberias lake. The banana accompanies the date along the coast, and

even grows as far north as Tripoli. The prickly pear, introduced from

America, has completely neutralized itself, and is in general request

for hedging. The fig mulberry (or true sycamore), another southern form,

is also common, and grows to a considerable size. Other denizens of

warm climes, unknown in Northern Syria, are the jujube, the tamarisk,

theelasagnus or wild olive, the gum-styrax plant (_Styrax officinalis_),

the egg-plant, the Egyptian papyrus, the sugar-cane, the scarlet

misletoe, the solanum that produces the “Dead Sea apple” (_Solanum

Sodomceum_), the yellow-flowered acacia, and the liquorice plant. Among

the forms due to high elevation are the famous Lebanon cedar, several

oaks and juniper, the maple, berberry, jessamine, ivy, butcher’s broom,

a rhododendron, and the gum-tragacanth plant. The fruits additional to

those of the north are dates, lemons, almonds, shaddocks, and limes.

The chief mineral products of the Empire seem to have been bitumen, with

its concomitants, naphtha and petroleum, salt, sulphur, nitre, copper,

iron, perhaps silver, and several sorts of precious stones. Bitumen was

furnished in great abundance by the springs at Hit or Is, which were

celebrated in the days of Herodotus; it was also procured from Ardericca

(Kir-Ab), and probably from Earn Ormuz, in Susiana, and likewise from

the Dead Sea. Salt was obtainable from the various lakes which had no

outlet, as especially from the Sabakhab, the Bahr-el-Melak, the Dead

Sea, and a small lake near Tadmor or Palmyra. The Dead Sea gave also

most probably both sulphur and nitre, but the latter only in small

quantities. Copper and iron seem to have been yielded by the hills of

Palestine. Silver was perhaps a product of the Anti-Lebanon.

It may be doubted whether any gems were really found in Babylonia

itself, which, being purely alluvial, possesses no stone of any kind.

Most likely the sorts known as Babylonian came from the neighboring

Susiana, whose unexplored mountains may possess many rich treasures.

According to Dionysius, the bed of the Choaspes produced numerous

agates, and it may well be that from the same quarter came that “beryl

more precious than gold,” and those “highly reputed sard,” which Babylon

seems to have exported to other countries. The western provinces may,

however, very probably have furnished the gems which are ascribed

to them, as amethysts, which are said to have been found in the

neighborhood of Petra, alabaster, which came from near Damascus, and the

cyanus, a kind of lapis-lazuli, which was a production of Phoenicia. No

doubt the Babylonian love of gems caused the provinces to be carefully

searched for stones; and it is not improbable that they yielded besides

the varieties already named, and the other unknown kinds mentioned by

Pliny, many, if not most, of the materials which we find to have

been used for seals by the ancient people. These are, cornelian,

rock-crystal, chalcedony, onyx, jasper, quartz, serpentine, sienite,

haematite, green felspar, pyrites, loadstone, and amazon-stone.

Stone for building was absent from Babylonia Proper and the alluvial

tracts of Susiana, but in the other provinces it abounded. The Euphrates

valley could furnish stone at almost any point above Hit; the mountain

regions of Susiana could supply it in whatever quantity might be

required; and in the western provinces it was only too plentiful. Near

to Babylonia the most common kind was limestone; but about Had-disah on

the Euphrates there was also a gritty, silicious rock alternating with

iron-stone, and in the Arabian Desert were sandstone and granite. Such

stone as was used in Babylon itself, and in the other cities of the

low country, probably either came down the Euphrates, or was brought

by canals from the adjacent part of Arabia. The quantity, however, thus

consumed was small, the Babylonians being content for most uses with

the brick, of which their own territory gave them a supply practically

inexhaustible.

The principal wild animals known to have inhabited the Empire in ancient

times are the following: the lion, the panther or large leopard, the

hunting leopard, the bear, the hyena, the wild ox, the buffalo (?), the

wild ass, the stag, the antelope, the ibex or wild goat, the wild sheep,

the wild boar, the wolf, the jackal, the fox, the hare, and the rabbit.

Of these, the lion, leopard, bear, stag, wolf, jackal, and fox seem to

have been very widely diffused, while the remainder were rarer, and,

generally speaking, confined to certain localities. The wild ass was

met with only in the dry parts of Mesopotamia, and perhaps of Syria, the

buffalo and wild boar only in moist regions, along the banks of rivers

or among marshes. The wild ox was altogether scarce; the wild sheep, the

rabbit, and the hare, were probably not common.

To this list may be added as present denizens of the region, and

therefore probably belonging to it in ancient times, the lynx, the

wildcat, the ratel, the sable, the genet, the badger, the otter, the

beaver, the polecat, the jerboa, the rat, the mouse, the marmot,

the porcupine, the squirrel, and perhaps the alligator. Of these the

commonest at the present day are porcupines, badgers, otters, rats,

mice, and jerboas. The ratel, sable, and genet belong only to the north;

the beaver is found nowhere but in the Khabour and middle Euphrates;

the alligator, if a denizen of the region at all exists only in the

Euphrates.

The chief birds of the region are eagles, vultures, falcons, owls,

hawks, many kinds of crows, magpies, jackdaws, thrushes, blackbirds,

nightingales, larks, sparrows, goldfinches, swallows, doves of fourteen

kinds, francolins, rock partridges, gray partridges, black partridges,

quails, pheasants, capercailzies, bustards, flamingoes, pelicans,

cormorants, storks, herons, cranes, wild-geese, ducks, teal,

kingfishers, snipes, woodcocks, the sand-grouse, the hoopoe, the green

parrot, the becafico, the locust-bird, the humming-bird (?), and

the bee-eater. The eagle, pheasant, capercailzie, quail, parrot,

locust-bird, becafico, and humming-bird are rare; the remainder are all

tolerably common. Besides these, we know that in ancient times ostriches

wore found within the limits of the Empire, though now they have

retreated further south into the Great Desert of Arabia. Perhaps

bitterns may also formerly have frequented some of the countries

belonging to it, though they are not mentioned among the birds of the

region by modern writers.

There is a bird of the heron species, or rather of a species between

the heron and the stork, which seems to deserve a few words of special

description. It is found chiefly in Northern Syria, in the plain of

Aleppo and the districts watered by the Koweik and Sajur rivers. The

Arabs call it Tair-el-Raouf, or “the magnificent.” This bird is of a

grayish-white, the breast white, the joints of the wings tipped with

scarlet, and the under part of the beak scarlet, the upper part being of

a blackish-gray. The beak is nearly five inches long, and two thirds of

an inch thick. The circumference of the eye is red; the feet are of a

deep yellow; and the bird in its general form strongly resembles the

stork; but its color is darker. It is four feet high, and covers a

breadth of nine feet when the wings are spread. The birds of this

species are wont to collect in large flocks on the North Syrian rivers,

and to arrange themselves in several rows across the streams where they

are shallowest. Here they squat side by side, as close to one another as

possible, and spread out their tails against the current, thus forming a

temporary dam. The water drains off below them, and when it has reached

its lowest point, at a signal from one of their number who from the bank

watches the proceedings, they rise and swoop upon the fish, frogs, etc.,

which the lowering of the water has exposed to view.

Fish are abundant in the Chaldaean marshes, and in almost all the

fresh-water lakes and rivers. [PLATE. VIII., Fig.] The Tigris and

Euphrates yield chiefly barbel and carp; but the former stream has also

eels, trout, chub, shad-fish, siluruses, and many kinds which have

no English names. The Koweik contains the Aleppo eel (_Ophidium

masbacambahis_), a very rare variety; and in other streams of

Northern Syria are found lampreys, bream, dace, and the black-fish

(_Macroptero-notus niger_), besides carp, trout, chub, and barbel. Chub,

bream, and the silurus are taken in the Sea of Galilee. The black-fish

is extremely abundant in the Bahr-el-Taka and the Lake of Antioch.

Among reptiles may be noticed, besides snakes, lizards, and frogs, which

are numerous, the following less common species--iguanoes, tortoises of

two kinds, chameleons, and monitors. Bats also were common in Babylonia

Proper, where they grew to a great size. Of insects the most remarkable

are scorpions, tarantulas, and locusts. These last come suddenly in

countless myriads with the wind, and, settling on the crops, rapidly

destroy all the hopes of the husbandman, after which they strip

the shrubs and trees of their leaves, reducing rich districts in an

incredibly short space of time to the condition of howling wildernesses.

[PLATE. VIII., Fig. 3.] If it were not for the locust-bird, which is

constantly keeping down their numbers, these destructive insects would

probably increase so as to ruin utterly the various regions exposed to

their ravages.

The domestic animals employed in the countries which composed the Empire

were, camels, horses, mules, asses, buffaloes, cows and oxen, goats,

sheep, and dogs. Mules as well as horses seem to have been anciently

used in war by the people of the more southern regions-by the Susianians

at any rate, if not also by the Babylonians. Sometimes they were ridden;

sometimes they were employed to draw carts or chariots. They were

spirited and active animals, evidently of a fine breed, such as that for

which Khuzistan is famous at the present day. [PLATE. VIII., Fig. 4.]

The asses from which these mules were produced must also have been of

superior quality, like the breed for which Baghdad is even now famous,

The Babylonian horses are not likely to have been nearly so good; for

this animal does not flourish in a climate which is at once moist and

hot. Still, at any rate under the Persians, Babylonia seems to have been

a great breeding-place for horses, since the stud of a single satrap

consisted of 800 stallions and 16,000 mares. If we may judge of the

character of Babylonian from that of Susianian steeds, we may consider

the breed to have, been strong and large limbed, but not very handsome,

the head being too large and the legs too short for beauty. [PLATE IX.,

Fig. 1.]

[Illustration: PLATE IX.]

The Babylonians were also from very early times famous for their

breed of dogs. The tablet engraved in a former volume, which gives a

representation of a Babylonian hound, is probably of a high antiquity,

not later than the period or the Empire. Dogs are also not unfrequently

represented on ancient Babylonian stones and cylinders. It would seem

that, as in Assyria, there were two principal breeds, one somewhat

clumsy and heavy, of a character not unlike that of our mastiff, the

other of a much lighter make, nearly resembling our greyhound. The

former kind is probably the breed known as Indian, which was kept up

by continual importations from the country whence it was originally

derived.[PLATE. IX., Fig. 2.]

We have no evidence that camels were employed in the time of the

Empire, either by the Babylonians themselves or by their neighbors, the

Susianians; but in Upper Mesopotamia, in Syria, and in Palestine

they had been in use from a very early date. The Amalekitos and the

Midianites found them serviceable in war; and the latter people employed

them also as beasts of burden in their caravan trade. The Syrians of

Upper Mesopotamia rode upon them in their journeys. It appears that

they were also sometimes yoked to chariots, though from their size and

clumsiness they would be but ill fitted for beasts of draught.

Buffaloes were, it is probable, domesticated by the Babylonians at an

early date. The animal seems to have been indigenous in the country, and

it is far better suited for the marshy regions of Lower Babylonia and

Susiana than cattle of the ordinary kind. It is perhaps a buffalo which

is represented on an ancient tablet already referred to, where a lion

is disturbed in the middle of his feast off a prostrate animal by a man

armed with a hatchet. Cows and oxen, however, of the common kind are

occasionally represented on the cylinders [PLATE IX., Fig. 4.], where

they seem sometimes to represent animals about to be offered to the

gods. Goats also appear frequently in this capacity; and they were

probably more common than sheep, at any rate in the more southern

districts. Of Babylonian sheep we have no representations at all on the

monuments; but it is scarcely likely that a country which used wool so

largely was content to be without them. At any rate they abounded in the

provinces, forming the chief wealth of the more northern nations.

CHAPTEE III. THE PEOPLE.

“The Chaldaeans, that bitter and hasty nation.”--Habak. 1. 6.

The Babylonians, who, under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, held the

second place among the nations of the East, were emphatically a mixed

race. The ancient people from whom they were in the main descended--the

Chaldaeans of the First Empire--possessed this character to a

considerable extent, since they united Cusbite with Turanian blood, and

contained moreover a slight Semitic and probably a slight Arian element.

But the Babylonians of later times--the Chaldaeans of the Hebrew

prophets--must have been very much more a mixed race than their earlier

namesakes--partly in consequence of the policy of colonization pursued

systematically by the later Assyrian kings, partly from the direct

influence exerted upon them by conquerors. Whatever may have been the

case with the Arab dynasty, which bore sway in the country from about

B.C. 1546 till B.C. 1300, it is certain that the Assyrians conquered

Babylon about B.C. 1300, and almost certain that they established

an Assyrian family upon the throne of Nimrod, which held for some

considerable time the actual sovereignty of the country. It was natural

that under a dynasty of Semites, Semitic blood should flow freely into

the lower region, Semitic usages and modes of thought become prevalent,

and the spoken language of the country pass from a Turanian or

Turano-Cushite to a Semitic type. The previous Chaldaean race blended,

apparently, with the new comers, and people was produced in which the

three elements--the Semitic, the Turanian, and the Cushite--held about

equal shares. The colonization of the Sargonid kings added probably

other elements in small proportions, and the result was that among

all the nations inhabiting Western Asia there can have been none so

thoroughly deserving the title of a “mingled people” as the Babylonians

of the later Empire.

In mixtures of this kind it is almost always found that some one element

practically preponderates, and assumes to itself the right of fashioning

and forming the general character of the race. It is not at all

necessary that this formative element should be larger than any other;

on the contrary, it may be and sometimes is extremely small; for it does

not work by its mass, but by its innate force and strong vital energy.

In Babylonia, the element which showed itself to possess this superior

vitality, which practically asserted its pre-eminence and proceeded to

mold the national character, was the Semitic. There is abundant

evidence that by the time of the later Empire the Babylonians had become

thoroughly Semitized; so much so, that ordinary observers scarcely

distinguished them from their purely Semitic neighbors, the Assyrians.

No doubt there were differences which a Hippocrates or an Aristotle

could have detected--differences resulting from mixed descent, as

well as differences arising from climate and physical geography; but,

speaking broadly, it must be said that the Semitic element, introduced

into Babylonia from the north, had so prevailed by the time of the

establishment of the Empire that the race was no longer one sui generis,

but was a mere variety of the well-known and widely spread Semitic type.

We possess but few notices, and fewer assured representations, from

which to form an opinion of the physical characteristics of the

Babylonians. Except upon the cylinders, there are extant only three or

four representations of the human forms by Babylonian artists, and

in the few cases where this form occurs we cannot always feel at all

certain that the intention is to portray a human being. A few Assyrian

bas-reliefs probably represent campaigns in Babylonia; but the Assyrians

vary their human type so little that these sculptures must not be

regarded as conveying to us very exact information. Tho cylinders are

too rudely executed to be of much service, and they seem to preserve

an archaic type which originated with the Proto-Chaldaeans. If we might

trust the figures upon them as at all nearly representing the truth,

we should have to regard the Babylonians as of much slighter and sparer

frames than their northern neighbors, of a physique in fact approaching

to meagreness. The Assyrian sculptures, however, are far from

bearing out this idea; from them it would seem that the frames of

the Babylonians were as brawny and massive as those of the Assyrians

themselves, while in feature there was not much difference between the

nations. [PLATE IX., Fig. 3.] Foreheads straight but not high, noses

well formed but somewhat depressed, full lips, and a well-marked rounded

chin, constitute the physiognomy of the Babylonians as it appears

upon the sculptures of their neighbors. This representation is

not contradicted by the few specimens of actual sculpture left by

themselves. In these the type approaches nearly to the Assyrian, while

there is still, such an amount of difference as renders it tolerably

easy to distinguish between the productions of the two nations. The eye

is larger, and not so decidedly almond-shaped; the nose is shorter, and

its depression is still more marked; while the general expression of the

countenance is altogether more commonplace.

These differences may be probably referred to the influence which

was exercised upon the physical form of the race by the primitive

or Proto-Chaldaean element, an influence which appears to have

been considerable. This element, as has been already observed, was

predominantly Cushite; and there is reason to believe that the Cushite

race was connected not very remotely with the negro. In Susiana, where

the Cushite blood was maintained in tolerable purity--Elymseans and

Kissians existing side by side, instead of blending together--there was,

if we may trust the Assyrian remains, a very decided prevalency of a

negro type of countenance, as the accompanying specimens, carefully

copied from the sculptures, will render evident. [PLATE IX., Fig. 6.]

The head was covered with short crisp curls; the eye was large, the nose

and mouth nearly in the same line, the lips thick. Such a physiognomy

as the Babylonian appears to have been would naturally arise from an

intermixture of a race like the Assyrian with one resembling that which

the later sculptures represent as the main race inhabiting Susiana.

Herodotus remarks that the Babylonians wore their hair long; and this

remark is confirmed to some extent by the native remains. These in

general represent the hair as forming a single stiff and heavy curl at

the back of the head (No. 3). Sometimes, however, they make it take the

shape of long flowing locks, which depend over the back (No. 1), or

over the back and shoulders (No. 4), reaching nearly to the waist.

Occasionally, in lieu of these commoner types, wo have one which closely

resembles the Assyrian, the hair forming a round mass behind the head

(No. 2), on which we can sometimes trace indications of a slight wave.

[PLATE X., Fig. 1.] The national fashion, that to which Herodotus

alludes, seems to be represented by the three commoner modes. Where

the round mass is worn, we have probably an Assyrian fashion, which the

Babylonians aped during the time of that people’s pre-eminence.

[Illustration: PLATE X.]

Besides their flowing hair, the Babylonians are represented frequently

with a large beard. This is generally longer than the Assyrian,

descending nearly to the waist. Sometimes it curls crisply upon the

face, but below the chin depends over the breast in long, straight

locks. At other times it droops perpendicularly from the cheeks and the

under lip.15 Frequently, however, the beard is shaven off, and the whole

face is smooth and hairless.

The Chaldaean females, as represented by the Assyrians, are tall

and large-limbed. Their physiognomy is Assyrian, their hair not very

abundant. The Babylonian cylinders, on the other hand, make the hair

long and conspicuous, while the forms are quite as spare and meagre as

those of the men.

On the whole, it is most probable that the physical type of the later

Babylonians was nearly that of their northern neighbors. A somewhat

sparer form, longer and more flowing hair, and features less stern

and strong, may perhaps have characterized them. They were also, it

is probable, of a darker complexion than the Assyrians, being to some

extent Ethiopians by descent, and inhabiting a region which lies four

degrees nearer to the tropics than Assyria. The Cha’ab Arabs, the

present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearly

black; and the “black Syrians,” of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to

represent the Babylonians.

Among the moral and mental characteristics of the people, the first

place is due to their intellectual ability. Inheriting a legacy

of scientific knowledge, astronomical and arithmetical, from the

Proto-Chaldaeans, they seem to have not only maintained but considerably

advanced these sciences by their own efforts. Their “wisdom and

learning” are celebrated by the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and

Daniel; the Father of History records their valuable inventions; and an

Aristotle was not ashamed to be beholden to them for scientific data.

They were good observers of astronomical phenomena, careful recorders of

such observations, and mathematicians of no small repute. Unfortunately,

they mixed with their really scientific studies those occult pursuits

which, in ages and countries where the limits of true science are not

known, are always apt to seduce students from the right path, having

attractions against which few men are proof, so long as it is believed

that they can really accomplish the end that they propose to themselves.

The Babylonians were astrologers no less than astronomers; they

professed to cast nativities, to expound dreams, and to foretell events

by means of the stars; and though there were always a certain number

who kept within the legitimate bounds of science, and repudiated the

astrological pretensions of their brethren, yet on the whole it must

be allowed that their astronomy was fatally tinged with a mystic and

unscientific element.

In close connection with the intellectual ability of the Babylonians

was the spirit of enterprise which led them to engage in traffic and

to adventure themselves upon the ocean in ships. In a future chapter

we shall have to consider the extent and probable direction of this

commerce. It is sufficient to observe in the present place that the same

turn of mind which made the Phoenicians anciently the great carriers

between the East and West, and which in modern times has rendered

the Jews so successful in various branches of trade, seems to have

characterized the Semitized Babylonians, whose land was emphatically “a

land of traffic,” and their chief city “a city of merchants.”

The trading spirit which was thus strongly developed in the Babylonian

people led naturally to the two somewhat opposite vices of avarice and

over-luxuriousness. Not content with honorable gains, the Babylonians

“coveted an evil covetousness,” as we learn both from Habakkuk and

Jeremiah. The “shameful custom” mentioned by Herodotus, which required

as a religious duty that every Babylonian woman, rich or poor, highborn

or humble, should once in her life prostitute herself in the temple of

Beltis, was probably based on the desire of attracting strangers to

the capital, who would either bring with them valuable commodities

or purchase the productions of the country. The public auction of

marriageable virgins had most likely a similar intention. If we may

believe Curtius, strangers might at any time purchase the gratification

of any passion they might feel, from the avarice of parents or husbands.

The luxury of the Babylonians is a constant theme with both sacred

and profane writers. The “daughter of the Chaldaeans” was “tender and

delicate,” “given to pleasures,” apt to “dwell carelessly.” Her young

men made themselves “as princes to look at--exceeding in dyed attire

upon their heads,”--painting their faces, wearing earrings, and clothing

themselves in robes of soft and rich material. Extensive polygamy

prevailed. The pleasures of the table were carried to excess.

Drunkenness was common. Rich unguents were invented. The tables groaned

under the weight of gold and silver plate. In every possible way

the Babylonians practised luxuriousness of living, and in respect of

softness and self-indulgence they certainly did not fall short of any

nation of antiquity.

There was, however, a harder and sterner side to the Babylonian

character. Despite their love of luxury, they were at all times brave

and skilful in war; and, during the period of their greatest strength,

they were one of the most formidable of all the nations of the East.

Habakkuk describes them, drawing evidently from the life, as “bitter and

hasty,” and again as “terrible and dreadful--their horses’ hoofs swifter

than the leopard’s, and more fierce than the evening wolves.” Hence they

“smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke”--they “made the

earth to tremble, and did shake kingdoms”--they carried all before them

in their great enterprises, seldom allowing themselves to be foiled by

resistance, or turned from their course by pity. Exercised for centuries

in long and fierce wars with the well-armed and well-disciplined

Assyrians, they were no sooner quit of this enemy, and able to take an

aggressive attitude, than they showed themselves no unworthy successors

of that long-dominant nation, so far as energy, valor, and military

skill constitute desert. They carried their victorious arms from the

shores of the Persian Gulf to the banks of the Nile; wherever they went,

they rapidly established their power, crushing all resistance, and fully

meriting the remarkable title, which they seem to have received from

those who had felt their attacks, of “the hammer of the whole earth.”

The military successes of the Babylonians were accompanied with needless

violence, and with outrages not unusual in the East, which the

historian must nevertheless regard as at once crimes and follies. The

transplantation of conquered races--a part of the policy of Assyria

which the Chaldaeans adopted--may perhaps have been morally defensible,

notwithstanding the sufferings which it involved. But the mutilations of

prisoners, the weary imprisonments, the massacre of non-combatants, the

refinement of cruelty shown in the execution of children before the eyes

of their fathers--these and similar atrocities, which are recorded of

the Babylonians, are wholly without excuse, since they did not so much

terrify as exasperate the conquered nations, and thus rather endangered

than added strength or security to the empire. A savage and inhuman

temper is betrayed by these harsh punishments--a temper common in

Asiatics, but none the less reprehensible on that account--one that led

its possessors to sacrifice interest to vengeance, and the peace of

a kingdom to a tiger-like thirst for blood. Nor was this cruel temper

shown only towards the subject nations and captives taken in war.

Babylonian nobles trembled for their heads if they incurred by a slight

fault the displeasure of the monarch; and even the most powerful class

in the kingdom, the learned and venerable “Chaldaeans,” ran on one

occasion the risk of being exterminated, because they could not expound

a dream which the king had forgotten. If a monarch displeased his court,

and was regarded as having a bad disposition, it was not thought enough

simply to make away with him, but he was put to death by torture. Among

recognized punishments were cutting to pieces and casting into a

heated furnace. The houses of offenders were pulled down and made into

dunghills. These practices imply a “violence” and cruelty beyond the

ordinary Oriental limit; and we cannot be surprised that when final

judgment was denounced against Babylon, it was declared to be sent, in

a great measure, “because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the

land-of the city, and all that dwelt therein.”

It is scarcely necessary to add that the Babylonians were a proud

people. Pride is unfortunately the invariable accompaniment of success,

in the nation, if not in the individual; and the sudden elevation of

Babylon from a subject to a dominant power must have been peculiarly

trying, more especially to the Oriental temperament. The spirit which

culminated in Nebuchadnezzar, when, walking in the palace of his

kingdom, and surveying the magnificent buildings which he had raided on

every side from the plunder of the conquered nations, and by the labor

of their captive bands, he exclaimed, “Is not the great Babylon which

I have built by the might of my power and for the honor of my

majesty?”--was rife in the people generally, who, naturally enough,

believed themselves superior to every other nation upon the earth.

“I am, and there is none else beside me,” was the thought, if not

the speech, of the people, whose arrogancy was perhaps somewhat less

offensive than that of the Assyrians, but was quite as intense and as

deep-seated.

The Babylonians, notwithstanding their pride, their cruelty, their

covetousness, and their love of luxury, must be pronounced to have been,

according to their lights, a religious people. The temple in

Babylonia is not a mere adjunct of the palace, but has almost the same

pre-eminence over other buildings which it claims in Egypt. The vast

mass of the Birs-i-Nimrud is sufficient to show that an enormous amount

of labor was expended in the erection of sacred edifices; and the costly

ornamentation lavished on such buildings is, as we shall hereafter find,

even more remarkable than their size. Vast sums wore also expended on

images of the gods, necessary adjuncts of the religion; and the whole

paraphernalia of worship exhibited a rare splendor and magnificence. The

monarchs were devout worshippers of the various deities, and gave much

of their attention to the building and repair of temples, the erection

of images, and the like. They bestowed on their children names

indicative of religious feeling, and implying real faith in the power

of the gods to protect their votaries. The people generally affected

similar names--names containing, in almost every case, a god’s name

as one of their elements. The seals or signets which formed almost a

necessary part of each man’s costume were, except in rare instances, of

a religious character. Even in banquets, where we might have expected

that thoughts of religion would be laid aside, it seems to have been the

practice during the drinking to rehearse the praises of the deities.

We are told by Nicolas of Damascus that the Babylonians cultivated two

virtues especially, honesty and calmness. Honesty is the natural, almost

the necessary virtue of traders, who soon find that it is the best

policy to be fair and just in their dealings. We may well believe that

this intelligent people had the wisdom to see their true interests,

and to understand that trade can never prosper unless conducted with

integrity and straightforwardness. The very fact that their trade did

prosper, that their goods were everywhere in request, is sufficient

proof of their commercial honesty, and of their superiority to those

tricks which speedily ruin a commerce.

Calmness is not a common Oriental virtue. It is not even in general

very highly appreciated, being apt to strike the lively, sensitive, and

passionate Eastern as mere dulness and apathy. In China, however, it

is a point of honor that the outward demeanor should be calm and placid

under any amount of provocation; and indignation, fierceness, even

haste, are regarded as signs of incomplete civilization, which the

disciples of Confucius love to note in their would-be rivals of the

West.

We may conceive that some similar notion was entertained by the proud

Babylonians, who no doubt regarded themselves as infinitely superior

in manners and culture, no less than in scientific attainments, to the

“barbarians” of Persia and Greece. While rage boiled in their hearts,

and commands to torture and destroy fell from their tongues, etiquette

may have required that the countenance should be unmoved, the eye

serene, the voice low and gentle. Such contrasts are not uncommonly

seen in the polite Mandarin, whose apparent calmness drives his European

antagonist to despair; and it may well be that the Babylonians of the

sixth and seventh centuries before our era had attained to an equal

power of restraining the expression of feeling. But real gentleness,

meekness, and placability were certainly not the attributes of a people

who were so fierce in their wars and so cruel in their punishments.

CHAPTEE IV. THE CAPITAL.

Babylon, the capital of the Fourth Monarchy, was probably the largest

and most magnificent city of the ancient world. A dim tradition current

in the East gave, it is true, a greater extent, if not a greater

splendor, to the metropolis of Assyria; but this tradition first appears

in ages subsequent to the complete destruction of the more northern

city; and it is contradicted by the testimony of facts. The walls of

Nineveh have been completely traced, and indicate a city three miles in

length, by less than a mile and a half in breadth, containing an area of

about 1800 English acres. Of this area less than one tenth is occupied

by ruins of any pretension. On the admitted site of Babylon striking

masses of ruin cover a space considerably larger than that which at

Nineveh constitutes the whole area of the town. Beyond this space

in every direction, north, east, south and west, are detached mounds

indicating the former existence of edifices of some size, while the

intermediate ground between these mounds and the main ruins shows

distinct traces of its having been built upon in former days.

Of the actual size of the town, modern research gives us no clear and

definite notion. One explorer only has come away from the country with

an idea that the general position of the detached mounds, by which the

plain around Hillah is dotted, enables him to draw the lines of the

ancient walls, and mark out the exact position of the city. But the very

maps and plans which are put forward in support of this view show that

it rests mainly on hypothesis; nor is complete confidence placed in the

surveys on which the maps and plans have been constructed. The English

surveys, which have been unfortunately lost, are said not to have placed

the detached mounds in any such decided lines as M. Oppert believes them

to occupy, and the general impression of the British officers who were

employed on the service is that “no vestige of the walls of Babylon has

been as yet discovered.” [PLATE XI.]

[Illustration: PLATE XI.]

For the size and plan of the city we are thus of necessity thrown back

upon the reports of ancient authors. It is not pretended that such

reports are in this, or in any other case, deserving of implicit

credence. The ancient historians, even the more trustworthy of them, are

in the habit of exaggerating in their numbers; and on such subjects as

measurements they were apt to take on trust the declarations of their

native guides, who would be sure to make over-statements. Still in

this instance we have so many distinct authorities--eyewitnesses of the

facts--and some of them belonging to times when scientific accuracy had

begun to be appreciated, that we must be very in credulous if we do not

accept their witness, so far as it is consentient, and not intrinsically

very improbable.

According to Herodotus, an eye-witness, and the earliest authority on

the subject the _enceinte_ of Babylon was a square, 120 stades (about 14

miles) each way--the entire circuit of the wall being thus 56 miles, and

the area enclosed within them falling little short of 200 square miles.

Ctesias, also an eyewitness, and the next writer on the subject, reduced

the circuit of the walls to 360 stades, or 41 miles, and made the area

consequently little more than 100 square miles. These two estimates are

respectively the greatest and the least that have come down to us. The

historians of Alexander, while conforming nearly to the statements of

Ctesias, a little enlarge his dimensions, making the circuit 365, 368,

or 385 stades. The differences here are inconsiderable; and it seems to

be established, on a weight of testimony which we rarely possess in such

a matter, that the walls of this great town were about forty miles in

circumference, and enclosed an area as large as that of the Landgraviat

of Hesse-Homburg.

It is difficult to suppose that the real city--the streets and

squares--can at any time have occupied one half of this enormous area,

A clear space, we are told, was left for a considerable distance inside

the wall--like the _pomaerium_ of the Romans--upon which no houses

were allowed to be built. When houses began, they were far from being

continuous; gardens, orchards, even fields, were interspersed among

the buildings; and it was supposed that the inhabitants, when besieged,

could grow sufficient corn for their own consumption within the walls.

Still the whole area was laid out with straight streets, or perhaps one

should say with roads (for the houses cannot have been continuous

along them), which cut one another everywhere at right angles, like the

streets of some German towns. The wall of the town was pierced with a

hundred gates, twenty-five (we may suppose) in each face, and the roads

led straight to these portals, the whole area being thus cut up into

square blocks. The houses were in general lofty, being three or even

four stories high. They are said to have had vaulted roofs, which were

not protected externally with any tiling, since the climate was so dry

as to render such a protection unnecessary. The beams used in the houses

were of palm-wood, all other timber being scarce in the country; and

such pillars as the houses could boast were of the same material. The

construction of these last was very rude. Around posts of palm-wood

were twisted wisps of rushes, which were covered with plaster, and then

colored according the taste of the owner.

The Euphrates ran through the town, dividing it nearly in half. Its

banks were lined throughout with quays of brick laid in bitumen, and

were further guarded by two walls of brick, which skirted them along

their whole length. In each of these walls were twenty-five gates,

corresponding to the number of the streets which gave upon the river;

and outside each gate was a sloped landing place, by which you could

descend to the water’s edge, if you had occasion to cross the river.

Boats were kept ready at these landing-places to convey passengers from

side to side; while for those who disliked this method of conveyance

a bridge was provided of a somewhat peculiar construction. A number

of stone piers were erected in the bed of the stream, firmly clamped

together with fastenings of iron and lead; wooden drawbridges connected

pier with pier during the day, and on these passengers passed over; but

at night they were withdrawn, in order that the bridge might not be used

during the dark. Diodorus declares that besides this bridge, to which he

assigns a length of five stades (about 1000 yards) and a breadth of 30

feet, the two sides of the river were joined together by a tunnel, which

was fifteen feet wide and twelve high to the spring of its arched roof.

The most remarkable buildings which the city contained were the two

palaces, one on either side of the river, and the great temple of

Belus. Herodotus describes the great temple as contained within a square

enclosure, two stades (nearly a quarter of a mile) both in length and

breadth. Its chief feature was the _ziggurat_ or tower, a huge solid

mass of brick-work, built (like all Babylonian temple-towers) in stages,

square being emplaced on square, and a sort of rude pyramid being thus

formed, at the top of which was the main shrine of the god. The basement

platform of the Belus tower was, Herodotus tells us, a stade, or rather

more than 200 yards, each way. The number of stages was eight. The

ascent to the highest stage, which contained the shrine of the god, was

on the outside, and consisted either of steps, or of an inclined plane,

carried round the four sides of the building, and in this way conducting

to the top. According to Strabo the tower was a stado (606 feet 9

inches) in height; but this estimate, if it is anything more than a

conjecture, must represent rather the length of the winding ascent than

the real altitude of the building. The great pyramid itself was only 480

feet high; and it is very questionable whether any Babylonian building

ever equalled it. About half-way up the ascent was a resting-place with

seats, where persons commonly sat a while on their way to the summit.

The shrine which crowned the edifice was large and rich. In the time

of Herodotus it contained no image; but only a golden table and a large

couch, covered with a handsome drapery. This, however, was after the

Persian conquest and the plunder of its principal treasures. Previously,

if we may believe Diodorus, the shrine was occupied by three colossal

images of gold--one of Bel, one of Beltis, and the third of Rhea or

Ishtar. Before the image of Beltis were two golden lions, and near them

two enormous serpents of silver, each thirty talents in weight. The

golden table--forty feet long and fifteen broad--was in front of these

statues, and upon it stood two huge drinking-cups, of the same weight as

the serpents. The shrine also contained two enormous censers and three

golden bowls, one for each of the three deities.

At the base of the tower was a second shrine or chapel, which in the

time of Herodotus contained a sitting image of Bel, made of gold, with

a golden table in front of it, and a stand for the image, of the same

precious metal. Here, too, Persian avarice had been busy; for anciently

this shrine had possessed a second statue, which was a human figure

twelve cubits high, made of solid gold. The shrine was also rich

in private offerings. Outside the building, but within the sacred

enclosure, were two altars, a smaller one of gold, on which it was

customary to offer sucklings, and a larger one, probably of stone, where

the worshippers sacrificed full-grown victims.

The great palace was a building of still larger dimensions than the

great temple. According to Diodorus, it was situated within a triple

enclosure, the innermost wall being twenty stades, the second forty

stades, and the outermost sixty stades (nearly seven miles), in

circumference. The outer wall was built entirely of plain baked brick.

The middle and inner walls were of the same material, fronted with

enamelled bricks representing hunting scenes. The figures, according to

this author, were larger than the life, and consisted chiefly of a great

variety of animal forms. There were not wanting, however, a certain

number of human forms to enliven the scene; and among these were two--a

man thrusting his spear through a lion, and a woman on horseback aiming

at a leopard with her javelin--which the later Greeks believed to

represent the mythic Ninus and Semiramis. Of the character of the

apartments we hear nothing; but we are told that the palace had three

gates, two of which were of bronze, and that these had to be opened and

shut by a machine.

But the main glory of the palace was its pleasure-ground--the “Hanging

Gardens,” which the Greeks regarded as one of the seven wonders of the

world. This extraordinary construction, which owed its erection to the

whim of a woman, was a square, each side of which measured 400 Greek

feet. It was supported upon several tiers of open arches, built one over

the other, like the walls of a classic theatre, and sustaining at each

stage, or story, a solid platform, from which the piers of the next tier

of arches rose. The building towered into the air to the height of at

least seventy-five feet, and was covered at the top with a great mass of

earth, in which there grew not merely flowers and shrubs, but tress

also of the largest size. Water was supplied from the Euphrates through

pipes, and was raised (it is said) by a screw, working on the principal

of Archimedes. To prevent the moisture from penetrating into the

brick-work and gradually destroying the building, there were interposed

between the bricks and the mass of soil, first a layer of reeds mixed

with bitumen, then a double layer of burnt brick cemented with gypsum,

and thirdly a coating of sheet lead. The ascent to the garden was by

steps. On the way up, among the arches which sustained the building,

were stately apartments, which, must have been pleasant from their

coolness. There was also a chamber within the structure containing the

machinery by which the water was raised.

Of the smaller palace, which was opposite to the larger one, on the

other side the river, but few details have come down to us. Like the

larger palace, it was guarded by a triple enclosure, the entire circuit

of which measured (it is said) thirty stades. It contained a number of

bronze statues, which the Greeks believed to represent the god Belus,

and the sovereigns Ninus and Semiramis, together with their officers.

The walls were covered with battle scenes and hunting scenes, vividly

represented by means of bricks painted and enamelled.

Such was the general character of the town and its chief edifices, if we

may believe the descriptions of eye-witnesses. The walls which enclosed

and guarded the whole--or which, perhaps one should rather say,

guarded the district within which Babylon was placed--have been already

mentioned as remarkable for their great extent, but cannot be dismissed

without a more special and minute description. Like the “Hanging

Gardens,” they were included among the “world’s seven wonders,”

and, according to every account given of them, their magnitude and

construction were remarkable.

It has been already noticed that, according to the lowest of the ancient

estimates, the entire length of the walls was 360 stades, or more than

forty-one miles. With respect to the width we have two very different

statements, one by Herodotus and the other by Clitarchus and Strabo.

Herodotus makes the width 50 royal cubits, or about 85 English feet,

Strabo and Q. Curtius reduced the estimate to 32 feet. There is still

greater discrepancy with respect to the height of the walls. Herodotus

says that the height was 200 royal cubits, or 300 royal feet (about 335

English feet); Ctesias made it 50 fathoms, or 300 ordinary Greek feet;

Pliny and Solinus, substituting feet for the royal cubits of Herodotus,

made the altitude 235 feet; Philostratus and Q. Curtius, following

perhaps some one of Alexander’s historians, gave for the height 150

feet; finally Clitarchus, as reported by Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo,

who probably followed him, have left us the very moderate estimate of 75

feet. It is impossible to reconcile these numbers. The supposition that

some of them belong properly to the outer, and others to the inner wall,

will not explain the discrepancies--for the measurements cannot by any

ingenuity be reduced to two sets of dimensions. The only conclusion

which it seems possible to draw from the conflicting testimony is that

the numbers were either rough guesses made by very unskilful travellers,

or else were (in most cases) intentional exaggerations palmed upon them

by the native ciceroni. Still the broad facts remain--first, that the

walls enclosed an enormous space, which was very partially occupied by

buildings; secondly, that they were of great and unusual thickness;

and thirdly, that they were of a vast height--seventy or eighty feet at

least in the time of Alexander, after the wear and tear of centuries and

the violence of at least three conquerors.

The general character of the construction is open to but little doubt.

The wall was made of bricks, either baked in kilns, or (more probably)

dried in the sun, and laid in a cement of bitumen, with occasional

layers of reeds between the courses. Externally it was protected by a

wide and deep moat. On the summit were low towers, rising above the

wall to the height of some ten or fifteen feet, and probably serving as

guardrooms for the defenders. These towers are said to have been 250 in

number; they were least numerous on the western face of the city, where

the wall ran along the marshes. They were probably angular, not round;

and instead of extending through the whole thickness of the wall, they

were placed along its outer and inner edge, tower facing tower, with

a wide space between them--“enough,” Herodotus says, “for a four-horse

chariot to turn in.” The wall did not depend on them for its strength,

but on its own height and thickness, which were such as to render

scaling and mining equally hopeless.

Such was Babylon, according to the descriptions of the ancients--a

great city, built on a very regular plan, surrounded by populous suburbs

interspersed among fields and gardens, the whole being included within a

large square strongly fortified enceinte. When we turn from this picture

of the past to contemplate the present condition of the localities, we

are at first struck with astonishment at the small traces which remain

of so vast and wonderful a metropolis. “The broad walls of Babylon”

are “utterly broken” down, and her “high gates burned with fire.”

“The golden city hath ceased.” God has “swept it with the bosom of

destruction.” “The glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’

excellency,” is become “as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.” The

traveller who passes through the land is at first inclined to say that

there are no ruins, no remains, of the mighty city which once lorded it

over the earth. By and by, however, he begins to see that though ruins,

in the common acceptation of the term, scarcely exist--though there are

no arches, no pillars, but one or two appearances of masonry even yet

the whole country is covered with traces of exactly that kind which it

was prophesied Babylon should leave. Vast “heaps” or mounds, shapeless

and unsightly, are scattered at intervals over the entire region where

it is certain that Babylon anciently stood, and between the “heaps” the

soil is in many places composed of fragments of pottery and bricks, and

deeply impregnated with nitre, infallible indications of its having once

been covered with buildings. As the traveller descends southward from

Baghdad he finds these indications increase, until, on nearing the

Euphrates, a few miles beyond Mohawil, he notes that they have become

continuous, and finds himself in a region of mounds, some of which are

of enormous size.

These mounds begin about five miles above Hillah, and extend for a

distance of about three miles from north to south along the course of

the river, lying principally on its left or eastern bank. The ruins on

this side consist chiefly of three great masses of building. The most

northern, to which the Arabs of the present day apply the name of

BABIL--the true native appellation of the ancient citys--is a vast pile

of brick-work of an irregular quadrilateral shape, with precipitous

sides furrowed by ravines, and with a flat top. [PLATE X., Fig.,3.] Of

the four faces of the ruin the southern seems to be the most perfect.

It extends a distance of about 200 yards, or almost exactly a stade,

and runs nearly in a straight line from west to east. At its eastern

extremity it forms a right angle with the east face, which runs nearly

due north for about 180 yards, also almost in a straight line. The

western and northern faces are apparently much worn away. Here are

the chief ravines, and here is the greatest seeming deviation from the

original lines of the building. The greatest height of the Babil mound

is 130 or 140 feet. It is mainly composed of sun-dried brick, but shows

signs of having been faced with fire-burnt brick, carefully cemented

with an excellent white mortar. The bricks of this outer facing bear the

name and titles of Nebuchadnezzar. A very small portion of the original

structure has been laid bare enough however to show that the lines

of the building did not slope like those of a pyramid, but were

perpendicular, and that the side walls had, at intervals, the support of

buttresses.

This vast building, whatever it was, stood within a square enclosure,

two sides of which, the northern and eastern, are still very distinctly

marked. A long low line of rampart runs for 400 yards parallel to the

east face of the building, at a distance of 120 or 130 yards, and a

similar but somewhat longer line of mound runs parallel to the north

face at rather a greater distance from it. On the west a third line

could be traced in the early part of the present century; but it appears

to be now obliterated. Here and on the south are the remains of

an ancient canal, the construction of which may have caused the

disappearance of the southern, and of the lower part of the western

line. [PLATE XII., Fig. 1.]

[Illustration: PLATE XII.]

Below the Babil mound, which stands isolated from the rest of the ruins,

are two principal masses--the more northern known to the Arabs as EL

KASR, “the Palace,” and the more southern as “the mound of Amran,” from

the tomb of a reputed prophet Amran-ibn-Ali, which crowns its summit.

The Kasr mound is an oblong square, about 700 yards long by 600 broad,

with the sides facing the cardinal points. [PLATE XII., Fig. 2.] Its

height above the plain is 70 feet. Its longer direction is from north

to south. As far as it has been penetrated, it consists mainly of

rubbish-loose bricks, tiles, and fragments of stone. In a few places

only are there undisturbed remains of building. One such relic is a

subterranean passage, seven feet in height, floored and walled with

baked brick, and covered in at the top with great blocks of sandstone,

which may either have been a secret exit or more probably an enormous

drain. Another is the Kasr, or “palace” proper, whence the mound has

its name. This is a fragment of excellent brick masonry in a wonderful

state of preservation, consisting of walls, piers, and buttresses, and

in places ornamented with pilasters, but of too fragmentary a character

to furnish the modern inquirer with any clue to the original plan of the

building. The bricks are of a pale yellow color and of the best possible

quality, nearly resembling our fire-bricks. They are stamped, one and

all, with the name and titles of Nebuchadnezzar. The mortar in which

they are laid is a fine lime cement, which adheres so closely to the

bricks that it is difficult to obtain a specimen entire. In the dust

at the foot of the walls are numerous fragments of brick, painted, and

covered with a thick enamel or glaze. Here, too, have been found a few

fragments of sculptured stone, and slabs containing an account of the

erection of a palatial edifice by Nebuchadnezzar. Near the northern edge

of the mound, and about midway in its breadth, is a colossal figure of a

lion, rudely carved in black basalt, standing over the prostrate figure

of a man with arms outstretched. A single tree grows on the huge ruin,

which the Arabs declare to be of a species not known elsewhere, and

regard as a remnant of the hanging garden of Bokht-i-nazar. It is a

tamarisk of no rare kind, but of very great ago, in consequence of

which, and of its exposed position, the growth and foliage are somewhat

peculiar.

South of the Kasr mound, at the distance of about 800 yards, is the

remaining great mass of ruins, the mound of Jumjuma, or of Amran. [PLATE

XII., Fig. 3.] The general shape of this mound is triangular,107 but it

is very irregular and ill-defined, so as scarcely to admit of accurate

description. Its three sides face respectively a little east of north,

a little south of east, and a little south of west. The south-western

side, which runs nearly parallel with the Euphrates, and seems to have

been once washed by the river, is longer than either of the others,

extending a distance of above a thousand yards, while the south-eastern

may be 800 yards, and the north-eastern 700. Innumerable ravines

traverse the mound on every side, penetrating it nearly to its centre.

The surface is a series of undulations. Neither masonry nor sculpture is

anywhere apparent.

All that meets the eye is a mass of debris; and the researches hitherto

made have failed to bring to light any distinct traces of building.

Occasionally bricks are found, generally of poor material, and bearing

the names and titles of some of the earlier Babylonian monarchs; but the

trenches opened in the pile have in no case laid bare even the smallest

fragment of a wall.

Besides the remains which have been already described, the most

remarkable are certain long lines of rampart on both sides of the river,

which lie outside of the other ruins, enclosing them all, except the

mound of Babil. On the left bank of the stream there is to be traced,

in the first place, a double line of wall or rampart, having a direction

nearly due north and south, which lies east of the Kasr and Amran

mounds, at the distance from them of about 1000 yards. Beyond this is a

single line of rampart to the north-east, traceable for about two miles,

the direction of which is nearly from north-west to south-east, and a

double line of rampart to the south-east, traceable for a mile and a

half, with a direction from northeast to south-west. The two lines in

this last case are from 600 to 700 yards apart, and diverge from one

another as they run out to the north-east. The inner of the two meets

the north-eastern rampart nearly at a right angle, and is clearly a

part of the same work. It is questioned, however, whether this line of

fortification is ancient, and not rather a construction belonging to

Parthian times.

A low line of mounds is traceable between the western face of the Amran

and Kasr hills, and the present eastern bank of the river, bounding a

sort of narrow valley, in which either the main stream of the Euphrates,

or at any rate a branch from it, seems anciently to have flowed.

On the right bank of the stream the chief remains are of the same kind.

West of the river, a rampart, twenty feet high, runs for nearly a mile

parallel with the general line of the Amran mound, at the distance of

about 1000 yards from the old course of the stream. At either extremity

the line of the rampart turns at a right angle, running down towards the

river, and being traceable towards the north for 400 yards and towards

the south for fifty or sixty. It is evident that there was once, before

the stream flowed in its present channel, a rectangular enclosure, a

mile long and 1000 yards broad, opposite to the Amran mound; and there

are indications that within this _enceinte_ was at least one important

building, which was situated near the south-east angle of the enclosure,

on the banks of the old course of the river. The bricks found at this

point bear the name of Neriglissar.

There are also, besides the ramparts and the great masses of ruin above

described, a vast number of scattered and irregular heaps of hillocks

on both sides of the river, chiefly, however, upon the eastern bank.

Of these one only seems to deserve distinct mention. This is the mound

called El Homeira, “the Red,” which lies due east of the Kasr, distant

from it about 800 yards--a mound said to be 300 yards long by 100 wide,

and to attain an elevation of 60 or 70 feet. It is composed of baked

brick of a bright red color, and must have been a building of a very

considerable height resting upon a somewhat confined base. Its bricks

are inscribed along their edges, not (as is the usual practice) on their

lower face.

The only other ancient work of any importance of which some remains are

still to be traced is a brick embankment on the left bank of the stream

between the Kasr and the Babil mounds, extending for a distance of

a thousand yards in a line which has a slight curve and a general

direction of S.S.W. The bricks of this embankment are of a bright red

color, and of great hardness. They are laid wholly in bitumen. The

legend which they bear shows that the quay was constructed by Nabonidus.

[PLATE XIII.]

[Illustration: PLATE XIII.]

Such then are the ruins of Babylon--the whole that can now with

certainty be assigned to the “beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency”--the

“great Babylon” of Nebuchadnezzar. Within a space little more than three

miles long and a mile and three quarters broad are contained all the

undoubted remains of the greatest city of the old world. These remains,

however, do not serve in any way to define the ancient limits of the

place. They are surrounded on every side by nitrous soil, and by low

heaps which it has not been thought worth while to excavate, but which

the best judges assign to the same era as the great mounds, and believe

to mark the sites of the lesser temples and the other public buildings

of the ancient city. Masses of this kind are most frequent to the north

and east. Sometimes they are almost continuous for miles; and if we take

the Kasr mound as a centre, and mark about it an area extending five

miles in each direction (which would give a city of the size described

by Ctesias and the historians of Alexander), we shall scarcely find a

single square mile of the hundred without some indications of ancient

buildings upon its surface. The case is not like that of Nineveh, where

outside the walls the country is for a considerable distance singularly

bare of ruins. The mass of Babylonian remains extending from Babil to

Amran does not correspond to the whole _enceinte_ of Nineveh, but to the

mound of Koyunjik. It has every appearance of being, not the city, but

“the heart of the city”--the “Royal quarter” outside of which were the

streets and squares, and still further off, the vanished walls. It may

seem strange that the southern capital should have so greatly exceeded

the dimensions of the northern one. But, if we follow the indications

presented by the respective sites, we are obliged to conclude that there

was really this remarkable difference.

It has to be considered in conclusion how far we can identify the

various ruins above described with the known buildings of the ancient

capital, and to what extent it is possible to reconstruct upon the

existing remains the true plan of the city. Fancy, if it discards the

guidance of fact, may of course with the greatest ease compose plans

of a charming completeness. A rigid adherence to existing data will

produce, it is to be feared, a somewhat meagre and fragmentary result;

but most persons will feel that this is one of the cases where the maxim

of Hesiod applies--“the half is preferable to the whole.”

[Illustration: PAGE 182]

The one identification which may be made upon certain and indeed

indisputable evidence is that of the Kasr mound with the palace built

by Nebuchadnezzar. The tradition which has attached the name of Kasr or

“Palace” to this heap is confirmed by inscriptions upon slabs found on

the spot, wherein Nebuchadnezzar declares the building to be his “Grand

Palace.” The bricks of that part of the ruin which remains uncovered

bear, one and all, the name of this king; and it is thus clear that

here stood in ancient times the great work of which Berosus speaks as

remarkable for its height and splendor. If a confirmation of the fact

were needed after evidence of so decisive a character, it would be found

in the correspondence between the remains found on the mound and the

description left us of the “greater palace” by Diodorus. Diodorus

relates that the walls of this edifice were adorned with colored

representations of hunting scenes; and modern explorers find that the

whole soil of the mound, and especially the part on which the fragment

of ruin stands, is full of broken pieces of enamelled brick, varied in

hue, and evidently containing portions of human and animal forms.

But if the Kasr represents the palace built by Nebuchadnezzar, as is

generally allowed by those who have devoted their attention to the

subject, it seems to follow almost as a certainty that the Amran mound

is the site of that old palatial edifice to which the erection

of Nebuchadnezzar was an addition. Berosus expressly states that

Nebuchadnezzar’s building “adjoined upon” the former palace, a

description which is fairly applicable to the Amran mound by means of a

certain latitude of interpretation, but which is wholly inapplicable to

any of the other ruins. This argument would be conclusive, even if it

stood alone. It has, however, received an important corroboration in the

course of recent researches. From the Amran mound, and from this part

of Babylon only, have monuments been recovered of an earlier date than

Nebuchadnezzar. Here and here alone did the early kings leave memorials

of their presence in Babylon; and here consequently, we may presume,

stood the ancient royal residence.

If, then, all the principal ruins on the east bank of the river, with

the exception of the Babil mound and the long lines marking walls

or embankments, be accepted as representing the “great palace” or

“citadel” of the classical writers we must recognize in the remains west

of the ancient course of the river-the oblong square enclosure and

the important building at its south-east angle--the second or “smaller

palace” of Ctesias, which was joined to the larger one, according to

that writer, by a bridge and a tunnel. This edifice, built or at any

rate repaired by Neriglissar, lay directly opposite the more ancient

part of the eastern palace, being separated from it by the river, which

anciently flowed along the western face of the Kasr and Amran mounds.

The exact position of the bridge cannot be fixed. With regard to the

tunnel, it is extremely unlikely that any such construction was ever

made. The “Father of History” is wholly silent on the subject, while

he carefully describes the bridge, a work far less extraordinary.

The tunnel rests on the authority of two writers only--Diodorus and

Philostratus--who both wrote after Babylon was completely ruined. It

was probably one of the imaginations of the inventive Ctesias, from whom

Diodorus evidently derived all the main points of his description.

Thus far there is no great difficulty in identifying the existing

remains with buildings mentioned by ancient authors; but, at the point

to which we are now come, the subject grows exceedingly obscure, and it

is impossible to offer more than reasonable conjectures upon the true

character of the remaining ruins. The descriptions of ancient writers

would lead us to expect that we should find among the ruins unmistakable

traces of the great temple of Belus, and at least some indication of the

position occupied by the Hanging Gardens. These two famous constructions

can scarcely, one would think, have wholly perished. More especially,

the Belus temple, which was a stade square, and (according to some) a

stade in height, must almost of necessity have a representative among

the existing remains. This, indeed, is admitted on all hands; and the

controversy is thereby narrowed to the question, which of two

great ruins--the only two entitled by their size and situation to

attention--has the better right to be regarded as the great and

celebrated sanctuary of the ancient Babylon.

That the mound of Babil is the _ziggurat_ or tower of a Babylonian

temple scarcely admits of a doubt. Its square shape, its solid

construction, its isolated grandeur, its careful emplacement with the

sides facing the cardinal points, and its close resemblance to other

known Babylonian temple-towers, sufficiently mark it for a building

of this character, or at any rate raise a presumption which it would

require very strong reasons indeed to overcome. Its size moreover

corresponds well with the accounts which have come down to us of the

dimensions of the Belus temple, and its name and proximity to the other

main ruins show that it belonged certainly to the ancient capital.

Against its claim to be regarded as the remains of the temple of

Bolus two objections only can be argued: these are the absence of any

appearance of stages, or even of a pyramidical shape, from the present

ruin, and its position on the same side of the Euphrates with the

palace. Herodotus expressly declares that the temple of Belus and

the royal palace were upon opposite sides of the river, and states,

moreover, that the temple was built in stages, which rose one above the

other to the number of eight. Now these two circumstances, which do not

belong at present to the Babil mound, attach to a ruin distant from it

about eleven or twelve miles--a ruin which is certainly one of the most

remarkable in the whole country, and which, if Babylon had really been

of the size asserted by Herodotus, might possibly have been included

within the walls. The Birs-i-Nimrud had certainly seven, probably eight

stages, and it is the only ruin on the present western bank of

the Euphrates which is at once sufficiently grand to answer to the

descriptions of the Belus temple, and sufficiently near to the other

ruin to make its original inclusion within the walls not absolutely

impossible. Hence, ever since the attention of scholars was first

directed to the subject of Babylonian topography, opinion has been

divided on the question before us, and there have not been wanting

persons to maintain that the Birs-i-Nimrud is the true temple of

Belus, if not also the actual tower of Babel, whose erection led to the

confusion of tongues and general dispersion of the sons of Adam.

With this latter identification we are not in the present place

concerned. With respect to the view that the Birs is the sanctury

of Belus, it may be observed in the first place that the size of the

building is very much smaller than that ascribed to the Belus temple;

secondly, that it was dedicated to Kebo, who cannot be identified with

Bel; and thirdly, that it is not really any part of the remains of the

ancient capital, but belongs to an entirely distinct town. The cylinders

found in the ruin by Sir Henry Eawlinson declare the building to have

been “the wonder of Borsippa;” and Borsippa, according to all the

ancient authorities, was a town by itself--an entirely distinct place

from Babylon. To include Borsippa within the outer wall of Babylon is to

run counter to all the authorities on the subject, the inscriptions, the

native writer, Berosus, and the classical geographers generally. Nor

is the position thus assigned to the Belus temple in harmony with the

statement of Herodotus, which alone causes explorers to seek for the

temple on the west side of the river. For, though the expression which

this writer uses does not necessarily mean that the temple was in the

exact centre of one of the two divisions of the town, it certainly

implies that it lay towards the middle of one division--well within

it--and not upon its outskirts. It is indeed inconceivable that the

main sanctuary of the place, where the kings constantly offered their

worship, should have been nine or ten miles from the palace! The

distance between the Amran mound and Babil, which is about two miles, is

quite as great as probability will allow us to believe existed between

the old residence of the kings and the sacred shrine to which they were

in the constant habit of resorting.

Still there remain as objections to the identification of the great

temple with the Babil mound the two arguments already noticed. The Babil

mound has no appearance of stages such as the Birs presents, nor has it

even a pyramidical shape. It is a huge platform with a nearly level

top, and sinks, rather than rises, in the centre. What has become, it is

asked, of the seven upper stages of the great Belus tower, if this ruin

represents it? Whither have they vanished? How is it that in crumbling

down they have not left something like a heap towards the middle? To

this it may be replied that the destruction of the Belus tower has not

been the mere work of the elements--it was violently broken down either

by Xerxes, or by some later king, who may have completely removed all

the upper stages. Again, it has served as a quarry to the hunters after

bricks for more than twenty centuries; so that it is only surprising

that it still retains so much of its original shape. Further, when

Alexander entered Babylon more than 2000 years ago 10,000 men were

employed for several weeks in clearing away the rubbish and laying bare

the foundations of the building. It is quite possible that a conical

mass of crumbled brick may have been removed from the top of the mound

at this time.

The difficulty remains that the Babil mound is on the same side of the

Euphrates with the ruins of the Great Palace, whereas Herodotus makes

the two buildings balance each other, one on the right and the other

on the left bank of the stream. Now here it is in the first place to

be observed that Herodotus is the only writer who does this. No other

ancient author tells us anything of the relative situation of the two

buildings. We have thus nothing to explain but the bald statement of a

single writer--a writer no doubt of great authority, but still one not

wholly infallible. We might say, then, that Herodotus probably made a

mistake--that his memory failed him in this instance, or that he mistook

his notes on the subject. Or we may explain his error by supposing that

he confounded a canal from the Euphrates, which seems to have

anciently passed between the Babil mound and the Kasr (called Shebil by

Nebuchadnezzar) with the main stream. Or, finally, we may conceive

that at the time of his visit the old palace lay in ruins, and that the

palace of Nerig-lissar on the west bank of the stream was that of which

he spoke. It is at any rate remarkable, considering how his authority is

quoted as fixing the site of the Belus tower to the west bank, that, in

the only place where he gives us any intimation of the side of the river

on which he would have placed the tower, it is the east and not the west

bank to which his words point. He makes those who saw the treachery of

Zopyrus at the Belian and Kissian gates, which must have been to the

east of the city, at once take refuge in the famous sanctuary, which he

implies was in the vicinity.

On the whole, therefore, it seems best to regard the Babil mound as the

ziggurat of the great temple of Bel (called by some “the tomb of Belus”)

which the Persians destroyed and which Alexander intended to restore.

With regard to the “hanging gardens,” as they were an erection of less

than half the size of the tower, it is not so necessary to suppose that

distinct traces must remain of them. Their debris may be confused with

those of the Kasr mound, on which one writer places them. Or they may

have stood between the Kasr and Amran ruins, where are now some mounds

of no great height. Or, possibly, their true site is in the modern El

Homeira, the remarkable red mound which lies east of the Kasr at the

distance of about 800 yards, and attains an elevation of sixty-five

feet. Though this building is not situated upon the banks of the

Euphrates, where Strabo and Diodorus place the gardens, it abuts upon

a long low valley into which the Euphrates water seems formerly to have

been introduced, and which may therefore have been given the name of

the river. This identification is, however, it must be allowed, very

doubtful.

The two lines of mounds which enclose the long low valley above

mentioned are probably the remains of an embankment which here confined

the waters of a great reservoir. Nebuchadnezzar relates that he

constructed a large reservoir, which he calls the Yapur-Shapu, in

Babylon, and led water into it by means of an “eastern canal”--the

Shebil. The Shebil canal, it is probable, left the Euphrates at some

point between Babil and the Kasr, and ran across with a course nearly

from west to east to the top of the Yapur-Shapu. This reservoir seems to

have been a long and somewhat narrow parallelogram, running nearly from

north to south, which shut in the great palace on the east and protected

it like a huge moat. Most likely it communicated with the Euphrates

towards the south by a second canal, the exact line of which cannot be

determined. Thus the palatial residence of the Babylonian kings looked

in both directions upon broad sheets of water, an agreeable prospect in

so hot a climate; while, at the same time, by the assignment of a double

channel to the Euphrates, its floods were the more readily controlled,

and the city was preserved from those terrible inundations which in

modern times have often threatened the existence of Baghdad.

The other lines of mound upon the east side of the river may either be

Parthian works, or (possibly) they may be the remains of some of those

lofty walls whereby, according to Diodorus, the greater palace was

surrounded and defended. The fragments of them which remain are so

placed that if the lines were produced they would include all the

principal ruins on the left bank except the Babil tower. They may

therefore be the old defences of the Eastern palace; though, if so,

it is strange that they run in lines which are neither straight nor

parallel to those of the buildings enclosed by them. The irregularity

of these ramparts is certainly a very strong argument in favor of

their having been the work of a people considerably more barbarous and

ignorant than the Babylonians. [PLATE XIV.]

[Illustration: PLATE XIV.]