THE CHIEFS OF HILLAH.--PRESENT OF LIONS.--THE SON OF THE
GOVERNOR.--DESCRIPTION OF THE TOWN.--ZAID.--THE RUINS OF
BABYLON.--CHANGES IN THE COURSE OF THE EUPHRATES.--THE WALLS.--VISIT
TO THE BIRS NIMROUD.--DESCRIPTION OF THE RUIN.--VIEW FROM
IT.--EXCAVATIONS AND DISCOVERIES IN THE MOUND OF BABEL.--IN THE
MUJELIBE OR KASR.--THE TREE ATHELE.--EXCAVATIONS IN THE RUIN OF
AMRAN.--BOWLS, WITH INSCRIPTIONS IN HEBREW AND SYRIAC CHARACTERS.--THE
JEWS OF BABYLONIA.
My first care on arriving at Hillah was to establish friendly relations
with the principal inhabitants of the town as well as with the Turkish
officer in command of the small garrison that guarded its mud fort. Osman
Pasha, the general, received me with courtesy and kindness, and during the
remainder of my stay gave me all the help I could require. On my first
visit he presented me with two lions. One was nearly of fall size, and was
well known in the bazars and thoroughfares of Hillah, through which he was
allowed to wander unrestrained. He was accustomed to help himself at the
stalls of the butchers, and from the wicker boats of the fishermen; and
when full, he allowed the boys to play their pranks upon him. He was
taller and larger than a St. Bernard dog, and, like the lion, generally
found on the banks of the rivers of Mesopotamia, was without the dark and
shaggy mane of the African species. The other lion was but a cub, and had
recently been found by an Arab in the Hindiyah marshes. Unfortunately it
fell ill of the mange, to which the animal when confined is very liable,
and soon after died. The other was too old to be sent to England by land,
and I was thus unable to procure specimens for this country of the
Babylonian lion, which has not, I believe, been seen in Europe.
The Mudir, or governor of Hillah, was Shabib Agha, the head of one of the
principal families of the town. He claimed a kind of hereditary right to
this office. He was aged and infirm, suffering from asthma, and little
able to manage public affairs, which were chiefly confided to his youngest
and favorite son, a boy of about twelve years old. It was with this child
that, in common with the inhabitants of Hillah, I transacted business. He
received and paid visits with wonderful dignity and decorum. His notes and
his inquiries after my health and wants were couched in the most eloquent
and suitable terms. He showed a warm and affectionate interest in my
welfare and in the success of my undertakings which was quite touching.
Every morning he crossed the river with a crowd of secretaries, slaves,
and attendants, to ascertain by personal inspection whether I needed any
help. He was a noble boy, with black sparkling eyes, and a bright olive
complexion. He wore the long silken robes of a town Arab, with the fringed
keffieh or striped headkerchief of the Bedouin falling over his shoulders.
On the whole, he made as good and active a governor as I have often met
with in an Eastern town, and was an instance of that precocity which is
frequently seen in Eastern children. A cordial friendship was soon
established between us, and, during my stay at Hillah, Azeez Agha, for
such was his name, was my constant guest.
From the principal people of Hillah, as well as from Shabib Agha (the
father of Azeez), I received every help. Like most towns in this part of
Turkey, it is peopled by Arabs, once belonging to different tribes, but
now forgetting their clanships in a sedentary life. They maintain,
however, a friendly intercourse with the Bedouins and with the wild
inhabitants of the marshes, being always ready to unite with them in
throwing off their obedience to the Sultan, and frequently maintaining for
some time their independence.
At the time of my visit, its inhabitants were anxiously waiting the result
of the expedition of Abde Pasha against the rebellious tribes. Their
allegiance to the Turkish governor and the consequent payment of taxes
depended upon its success. If the Pasha were beaten they would declare
openly in favor of the Arabs, with whom, it was suspected, they were
already in communication. The Hindiyah marshes are within sight of the
town, and the Kazail (the tribe that dwell in them) ravaged the country to
its gates. I was consequently unable to do more than visit the celebrated
ruin of the Birs Nimroud. To excavate in it in the then disturbed state
of the country was impossible.
Hillah may contain about eight or nine thousand inhabitants. The Euphrates
flows through the town, and is about two hundred yards wide and fifteen
feet deep; a noble stream, with a gentle current, admirably fitted for
steam navigation. The houses, chiefly built of bricks taken from the ruins
of ancient Babylon, are small and mean. Around the town, and above and
below it for some miles, are groves of palm trees, forming a broad belt on
both sides of the river. In the plain beyond them a few canals bear water
to plots cultivated with wheat, barley and rice.
Amongst the inhabitants of Hillah with whom I became acquainted was one
Zaid, a Sheikh of the Agayl, a very worthy, hospitable fellow. He lived in
Hillah, where his house, open to every traveller, was a place of meeting
for the Arabs of the Desert from Nejd to the Sinjar. To keep up this
unbounded hospitality he had a date grove and a few sheep, and cultivated
a little land outside the walls of the town. He was thus supplied with
nearly all that was necessary for an Arab entertainment.[195] He usually
accompanied me in my expeditions, and proved an invaluable guide. With one
Ali, also a chief of the Agayl, a man of wit and anecdote, though somewhat
of a buffoon, and with other Sheikhs, he usually spent the evening with
me, relating Arab stories, and describing distant regions and tribes,
until the night was far spent.
Having thus established relations with the principal inhabitants of the
town, who could assist or interrupt me, as they were well or ill
disposed, I could venture to commence excavations in the most important
ruins on the site of Babylon. Half concealed among the palm trees on the
eastern banks of the Euphrates above Hillah, are a few hamlets belonging
to Arabs, who till the soil. From them I was able to procure workmen, and
thus to make up, with the addition of my Jebours, several parties of
excavators. They were placed under the superintendence of Latiff Agha and
an intelligent Chaldaean Christian of Baghdad, who had entered my service.
[Illustration: Plan of Part of the Ruins of Babylon on the Eastern Bank of
the Euphrates.]
The ruins of Babylon have been frequently described[196], so that I shall
here only give a general sketch of them, without entering into accurate
details of measurements and distances; at the same time referring my
reader to the accompanying plan, which will enable him to understand the
position of the principal mounds.
The road from Baghdad to Hillah crosses, near the village of Mohawill, a
wide and deep canal still carrying water to distant gardens. On the
southern bank of this artificial stream is a line of earthen ramparts,
which are generally believed to be the most northern remains of the
ancient city of Babylon. From their summit the traveller scans a boundless
plain, through which winds the Euphrates, with its dark belt of evergreen
palms. Rising in the distance, high above all surrounding objects, is the
one square mound, in form and size more like a natural hill than the work
of men's hands. This is the first great ruin to the east of the river, and
the Arab, as I have said, names it "Babel."
The traveller, before reaching this ruin, still about four miles distant,
follows a beaten track winding amidst low mounds, and crossing the
embankments of canals long since dry, or avoiding the heaps of drifted
earth which cover the walls and foundations of buildings. Some have here
traced the lines of the streets, and the divisions between the inhabited
quarters of ancient Babylon. As yet no traces whatever have been
discovered of that great wall of earth rising, according to Herodotus, to
the height of 200 royal cubits, and no less than fifty cubits broad; nor
of the ditch that encompassed it. The mounds seem to be scattered without
order, and to be gradually lost in the vast plains to the eastward.
But southward of Babel, for the distance of nearly three miles, there is
almost an uninterrupted line of mounds, the ruins of vast edifices,
collected together as in the heart of a great city. They are inclosed by
earthen ramparts, the remains of a line of walls which, leaving the foot
of Babel, stretched inland about two miles and a half from the present bed
of the Euphrates, and then turning nearly at right angles completed the
defences on the southern side of the principal buildings that mark the
site of Babylon, on the eastern bank of the river. Between its most
southern point and Hillah, as between Mohawill and Babel, can only be
traced low heaps and embankments, scattered irregularly over the plain.
It is evident that the space inclosed within this continuous rampart,
could not have contained the whole of that mighty city, whose magnificence
and extent were the wonder of the ancient world. The walls of Babylon,
according to Herodotus, measured 120 stadia on each side, and formed a
perfect square of 480 stadia, or nearly sixty miles. Several later writers
have repeated his statement. Strabo and Diodorus Siculus have however
reduced the circuit of the city to 385 and 360 stadia; and such, according
to Clitarchus, were its dimensions when it yielded to Alexander.
The existing remains within the rampart agree as little in form as in size
with the descriptions of Babylon; for the city was a perfect square. Mr.
Rich, in order to explain these difficulties, was the first to suggest
that the vast ruin to the west of the Euphrates, called the Birs Nimroud,
should be included within the limits of Babylon. There is no doubt that,
by imagining a square large enough to include the smaller mounds scattered
over the plains from Mohawill to below Hillah on one side of the river,
and the Birs Nimroud at its south-western angle on the other, the site of
a city of the dimensions attributed to Babylon might be satisfactorily
determined. But then it must be assumed, that neither the outer wall nor
the ditch so minutely described by Herodotus ever existed.
According to the united testimony of ancient authors, the city was
divided by the Euphrates into two parts. The principal existing ruins are
to the east side of the river; there are very few remains to the west,
between Hillah and the Birs Nimroud. Indeed, in some parts of the plain,
there are none at all. This fact might, to a certain extent, be explained
in the following manner. To this day the Euphrates has a tendency to
change its course and to lose itself in marshes _to the west_ of its
actual bed. We find that the low country on that side was subject to
continual inundations from the earliest periods, and that, according to a
tradition, Semiramis built embankments to restrain the river.
The changes in its course to which the Euphrates was thus liable, appear
only to have taken place _to the west_ of its present bed. After the most
careful examination of the country, I could find no traces whatever of its
having at any time flowed much further than it now does to the east,
although during unusual floods it occasionally spreads over the plain on
that side. The great mounds still rising on the eastern bank prove this.
Supposing, therefore, the river from different causes to have advanced and
receded during many centuries, between the Hindiyah marshes and its
present channel, it will easily be understood how the ruins, which may
once have stood on the western bank, have gradually been washed away, and
how the existing flat alluvial plain has taken their place. In this manner
the complete disappearance of the principal part of the western division
of the city may, I think, be accounted for.
It is more difficult to explain the total absence of all traces of the
external wall and ditch so fully and minutely described by Herodotus and
other ancient writers, and, according to their concurrent accounts, of
such enormous dimensions. If a vast line of fortifications, with its
gates, and equidistant towers, all of stupendous height and thickness,
did once exist, it is scarcely to be believed that no part whatever of it
should now remain. Darius and other conquerors, it is true, are said to
have pulled down and destroyed these defences; but it is surely impossible
that any human labor could have obliterated their very traces. Even
supposing that the ruins around Hillah do not represent the site of
ancient Babylon, there are no remains elsewhere in Mesopotamia to
correspond with those great ramparts. If there had been, they could not
have escaped the researches of modern travellers.
But Herodotus states that, in the midst of each division of the city,
there was a circular space surrounded by a lofty wall: one contained the
royal palace; the other, the temple of Belus. There can be little
difficulty in admitting that the mounds within the earthen rampart on the
eastern bank of the river might represent the first of these fortified
inclosures, which we know to have been on that side of the Euphrates. It
is not impossible, as Rich has suggested, that the Birs Nimroud--around
which--as it will be seen--there are still the traces of a regular wall,
may be the remains of the second; or that the gradual changes in the
course of the river just described, may have completely destroyed all
traces of it.
It may be inferred, I think, from the descriptions of Herodotus and
Diodorus Siculus, that Babylon was built on the same general plan as
Nineveh. It must not be forgotten, also, that the outer walls of Nineveh
as well as those of Babylon have entirely disappeared. Are we to suppose
that the historians in their descriptions confounded them with those
surrounding the temples and palaces; and that these exterior
fortifications were mere ramparts of mud and brushwood, such as are still
raised round modern Eastern cities? Such defences, when once neglected,
would soon fall to dust, and leave no traces behind. I confess that I can
see no other way of accounting for the entire disappearance of these
exterior walls.[197]
I will now describe the results of my researches amongst the ruins near
Hillah. Parties of workmen were placed at once on the two most important
mounds, the Babel of the Arabs (the Mujelibe of Rich) and the Mujelibe
(the Kasr of the same traveller). I was compelled, as I have stated, to
abandon my plan of excavating in the Birs Nimroud. This great pile of
masonry is about six miles to the south-west of Hillah. It stands on the
very edge of the vast marsh, formed by the waters of the Hindiyah canal,
and by the periodical floods of the Euphrates. The plain between it and
the town is, in times of quiet, under cultivation, and is irrigated by a
canal derived from the Euphrates near the village of Anana.
Shortly after my arrival at Hillah I visited the Birs Nimroud, accompanied
by Zaid, and a party of well-armed Agayls. This was unfortunately the only
opportunity I had of examining these remarkable ruins during my residence
in Babylonia.[198] The country became daily more disturbed, and no Arabs
could be induced to pitch their tents near the mounds, or to work there.
The Birs Nimroud, "the palace of Nimrod" of the Arabs, and "the prison of
Nebuchadnezzar" of the Jews; by old travellers believed to be the very
ruins of the tower of Babel; by some, again, supposed to represent the
temple of Belus, the wonder of the ancient world; and, by others, to mark
the site of Borsippa, a city celebrated as the highplace of the Chaldean
worship, is a vast heap of bricks, slag, and broken pottery. The dry
nitrous earth of the parched plain, driven before the furious south wind,
has thrown over the huge mass a thin covering of soil in which no herb or
green thing can find nourishment or take root. Thus, unlike the
grass-clothed mounds of the more fertile districts of Assyria, the Birs
Nimroud is ever a bare and yellow heap. It rises to the height of 198
feet, and has on its summit a compact mass of brickwork, 37 feet high by
28 broad,[199] the whole being thus 235 in perpendicular height. Neither
the original form or object of the edifice, of which it is the ruin, have
hitherto been determined. It is too solid for the walls of a building, and
its shape is not that of the remains of a tower. It is pierced by square
holes, apparently made to admit air through the compact structure. On one
side of it, beneath the crowning masonry, lie huge fragments torn from the
pile itself. The calcined and vitreous surface of the bricks fused into
rock-like masses, show that their fall may have been caused by lighting;
and, as the ruin is rent almost from top to bottom, early Christian
travellers, as well as some of more recent date, have not hesitated to
recognise in them proofs of that divine vengeance, which, according to
tradition, arrested by fire from heaven the impious attempt of the first
descendants of Noah. Even the Jews, as it would appear, from Benjamin of
Tudela, at one time identified the Birs Nimroud with the Tower of Babel.
Whatever may have been the original edifice, of which the Birs Nimroud is
the ruin, or whoever its founder, it is certain that as yet no remains
have been discovered there more ancient than of the time of
Nebuchadnezzar. Every inscribed brick taken from it--and there are
thousands and tens of thousands--bear the name of this king. It must,
however, be remembered, that this fact is no proof that he actually
founded the building. He may have merely added to, or rebuilt an earlier
edifice. Thus, although it would appear by the inscriptions from Nimroud,
that the north-west palace was originally raised by a king who lived long
before him whose name occurs on the walls of that monument, yet not one
fragment has been found of the time of that earlier monarch. Such is the
case in other Assyrian ruins. It is, therefore, not impossible that at
some future time more ancient remains may be discovered at the Birs.
I will now describe the ruins. It must be first observed, that they are
divided into two distinct parts, undoubtedly the remains of two different
buildings. A rampart or wall, the remains of which are marked by mounds of
earth, appears to have inclosed both of them. To the west of the high
mound, topped by the tower-like pile of masonry, is a second, which is
larger but lower, and in shape more like the ruins on the eastern bank of
the Euphrates. It is traversed by ravines and water-courses, and strewed
over it are the usual fragments of stone, brick, and pottery. Upon its
summit are two small Mohammedan chapels, one of which, the Arabs declare,
is built over the spot where Nimroud cast the patriarch Abraham into the
fiery furnace, according to the common Eastern tradition. Not having been
able to excavate in this mound, I could not ascertain whether it covers
the remains of any ancient building.
Travellers, as far as I am aware, have hitherto failed in suggesting any
satisfactory restoration of the Birs. It is generally represented, without
sufficient accuracy, as a mere shapeless mass. But if examined from the
summit of the adjoining mound, its outline would at once strike any one
acquainted with the ruins to the west of Mosul, described in a former of
this work.[200] The similarity between them will be recognised, and it
will be seen that they are all the remains of edifices built upon very
nearly, if not precisely, the same plan. The best published
representations of the Birs Nimroud appear to me to be those contained in
a memoir of that accurate and observing traveller, the late Mr. Rich.
The mound rises abruptly from the plain on one face, the western, and
falls to its level by a series of gradations on the opposite. Such is
precisely the case with the ruins of Mokhamour, Abou-Khameera, and Tel
Ermah. The brickwork still visible in the lower parts of the mound, as
well as in the upper, shows the sides of several distinct stages or
terraces. I believe the isolated mass of masonry to be the remains of one
of the highest terraces, if not the highest, and the whole edifice to have
consisted, on the eastern or south-eastern side, of a series of stages
rising one above the other, and, on the western or north-western, of one
solid perpendicular wall. The back of the building may have been painted,
as, according to Diodorus Siculus,[201] were the palaces of Babylon, with
hunting or sacred scenes, and may have been decorated with cornices or
other architectural ornaments. There were no means of ascent to it. Nor
was it accessible in any part unless narrow galleries were carried round
it at different elevations.
It is probable that the ascents from terrace to terrace consisted of
broad flights of steps, or of inclined ways, carried up the centre of each
stage. Such we may judge, from the descriptions of Diodorus, was the form
of some of the great buildings at Babylon. The ascents to the different
terraces of the hanging gardens, he says, were like the gradines of a
theatre.[202] There are certainly traces of them in the mounds in the
Desert west of Mosul, if not in the Birs Nimroud. Herodotus states that
the temple of Belus at Babylon consisted of a series of towers. His
description is not very clear, but it may be inferred that the various
parts of the structure were nearly square. The base was undoubtedly so,
and so also may have been the upper stories, although generally
represented as round. There is nothing in the word used by Herodotus
([Greek: purgos]) to show that they were circular, and that they were
solid masses of masonry appears to me to be evident, for upon the upper
one, was constructed the temple of the god. The ascent, too, was on the
outside. Without, however, venturing to identify the Birs Nimroud with the
ruins of this temple, it may be observed that it is highly probable one
uniform system of building was adopted in the East, for sacred purposes,
and that these ascending and receding platforms formed the general type of
the Chaldaean and Assyrian temples.
The edifice, of which this remarkable ruin is the remains, was built of
kiln-burnt bricks. Fragments of stone, marble, and basalt, scattered
amongst the rubbish, show that it was adorned with other materials. The
cement by which the bricks were united is of so tenacious a quality, that
it is almost impossible to detach one from the mass entire. The ruin is a
specimen of the perfection of the Babylonian masonry.
I will not enter into the many disputed questions connected with the
topography of Babylon, nor will I endeavor to identify the various
existing ruins with the magnificent edifices described by ancient authors.
The subject was fully investigated by the late Mr. Rich, and the published
controversy between him and Major Rennell, has left little to be added. A
theory, first I believe put forward by Col. Rawlinson, that the ruins
around Hillah do not mark the site of the first Babylon, which must be
sought for further to the south, as far even as Niffer, has, I presume,
been abandoned. There cannot, however, be a doubt that Nebuchadnezzar
almost entirely rebuilt the city, and perhaps not exactly on the ancient
site; a conjecture, as I have shown, perfectly in accordance with
Scripture and with Eastern customs.[203] An accurate survey of the ruins
is now chiefly required. Recent travellers are of opinion that the Birs
Nimroud cannot be identified, as conjectured by Rich, with the temple of
Belus, but that it marks the site of the celebrated Chaldaean city of
Borsippa, which Rich traced four leagues to the south of Hillah, in some
mounds called Boursa by the Arabs. Until more authentic information be
obtained from inscriptions and actual remains, the question cannot, I
think, be considered as settled.
From the summit of the Birs Nimroud I gazed over a vast marsh, for Babylon
is made "a possession for the bittern and pools of water."[204] In the
midst of the swamps could be faintly distinguished the Arab settlements
which showed the activity of a hive of bees. Light boats were skimming to
and fro over the shallow water, whilst men and women urged onwards their
flocks and laden cattle. The booming of the cannons of the Turkish army,
directed against the fort of Hawaina, resounded in the distance; and the
inhabitants of the marsh were already hurrying with their property to
safer retreats in anticipation of the fall of their stronghold.
To the south-west, in the extreme distance, rose the palm-trees of Kifil,
casting their scanty shade over a small dome, the tomb of Ezekiel. To this
spot annually flock in crowds, as their forefathers have done for
centuries, the Jews of Baghdad, Hillah, and other cities of Chaldaea, the
descendants of the captives of Jerusalem, who still linger in the land of
their exile. Although tradition alone may place in the neighbourhood of
Babylon the tomb of the prophet, yet from a very early period the spot
appears to have been sought in pilgrimage by the pious Hebrew. I visited
the edifice some years ago. It is now but a plain building, despoiled of
the ornaments and manuscripts which it once appears to have contained.
Benjamin of Tudela, gives a curious and interesting description of it,
which the reader will find well worth examining.[205]
We galloped back from the Birs Nimroud to Hillah, crossing the dreary and
deserted plain without meeting any of those marauders who were wandering
over the face of the country.
I remained in Hillah until the 19th December, riding every day to the
ruins on the eastern bank of the river, and personally superintending the
excavations. The first trenches were opened in the great mound of Babel,
about five miles from the gate of Hillah, and three quarters of a mile
from the river. I sought the subterranean passage opened and described by
Mr. Rich, and on removing the rubbish I soon came to "the quadrangular
funnel, about thirteen feet square, of burnt brick and bitumen," which he
had discovered. After the lapse of forty years, it had been once more
completely filled with earth. The workmen again entered the underground
chamber in which Mr. Rich found a coffin of wood, containing a skeleton
still well preserved.
Beneath this masonry were found several entire coffins, precisely similar
to that discovered by Mr. Rich. They still held skeletons, more or less
entire, which fell to pieces as soon as exposed to the air. No relic or
ornament had been buried with the bodies. The wood of the coffins was in
the last stage of decay, and could only be taken out piecemeal. A foul and
unbearable stench issued from these loathsome remains, and from the
passages which had become the dens of wild beasts, who had worked their
way into them from above. It was almost impossible to stay for many
minutes under ground. Even the Arabs were compelled to leave their work
after a few days.
On the northern side of the mound, above these places of sepulture, are
the remains of a massive wall of sun-dried brick. The masonry is not
united by bituminous cement, as in the vaults, but apparently by simple
mud, as in modern Arab buildings, and between each course of bricks are
spread thin layers of reeds still perfectly preserved.
The coffins discovered at Babel are of a comparatively recent period, and
are not pure Babylonian. At the very earliest they may be of the time of
the Seleucidae, but I am inclined to think that they are even of a still
later date. It is evident that they were buried after the destruction of
the edifice covered by the mound.
Numerous deep trenches opened on the surface of the mound, and several
tunnels carried into its sides at different levels, led to no other
discovery than that of numerous relics of a doubtful period, such as are
found in large numbers, in a more or less perfect state, amongst all
Babylonian ruins, especially after heavy rains have washed away the loose
soil, or have deepened the ravines. The most interesting were arrowheads
in bronze and iron, small glass bottles, some colored, others ribbed and
otherwise ornamented, and vases of earthenware of various forms and sizes,
sometimes glazed with a rich blue color. These, and in general what
travellers have found, may be set down as of the time of the Greek
occupation, and some as late as the sixth or seventh century of the
Christian era.
[Illustration: Jug of Soapstone, from the Mound of Babel.]
At Babel was also found, at some depth below the surface, a curious jug,
which I should have been inclined to believe altogether modern, had there
not been one nearly similar in form, and of the same substance, in Mr.
Rich's collection in the British Museum, and consequently, it may be
presumed, obtained from the same ruins. It is of soapstone, rudely carved
and ornamented, and resembles in shape the vessels still used by the Arabs
for ablutions.
Scattered over the mound, and at a little depth beneath the surface, were
numerous bricks, bearing the usual superscription of Nebuchadnezzar. No
ancient masonry was, however, discovered, from which these bricks had been
detached.
It was thus evident that the remains of the original edifice, if any still
existed, were to be sought far beneath the surface, and I accordingly
opened tunnels at the very foot of the mound nearly on a level with the
plain. A few days labor enabled me to ascertain that we had at last found
the ancient building. On the eastern side the workmen soon reached solid
piers and walls of brick masonry, buried under an enormous mass of loose
bricks, earth, and rubbish. We uncovered eight or ten piers and several
walls branching in various directions, but I failed to trace any plan, or
to discover any remains whatever of sculptured stone or painted plaster.
During the remainder of my stay in Babylonia, workmen continued to
excavate in this part of the mound, uncovering a confused heap of ruins
and standing masonry. The enormous accumulation of loose rubbish above
them, not a hard compact mass, as at Nineveh, but continually crumbling
and falling in, exposed the men to a risk scarcely warranted by the
results of their labors. I much doubt whether even more extensive
excavations would lead to any important discoveries. It is possible,
however, that detached inscriptions or sculptured slabs might be
obtained.
On the western and southern sides of the mound were also discovered, at
the very base, remains of solid masonry. The bricks bore the usual
superscription of Nebuchadnezzar, and were firmly cemented together with
fine white mortar. It is thus evident that a vast edifice once stood
either on the level of the plain, or raised upon enormous piers and
buttresses of brickwork, and that the tombs, and any traces of building
that may exist on or near the present surface of the mound, are of a more
recent period. I will not attempt to decide whether Babel be the remains
of a great palace of Nebuchadnezzar, of the celebrated hanging gardens, or
of a temple.
The only remains of building not covered by soil and sand, but still
standing above ground, on the site of Babylon, and part of the ancient
city, are about one mile to the south of the mound last described. It is
the Kasr, or Palace, of Rich, a name by which it is now generally known to
travellers, but the Arabs call it the Mujelibe, or the "overturned." It
rises on the river bank, and is about seven hundred yards square. The
principal part of this great ruin consists of loose bricks, tiles, and
fragments of stone; but nearly in the centre a solid mass of masonry,
still entire, and even retaining traces of architectural ornament,
protrudes from the confused heap of rubbish. Piers, buttresses, and
pilasters may be traced; but the work of destruction has been too complete
to allow us to determine whether they belong to the interior or exterior
of a palace. I sought in vain for some clue to the general plan of the
edifice. Upon nearly every brick is clearly and deeply stamped the name
and titles of Nebuchadnezzar, and the inscribed face is always placed
downwards. This wonderful piece of masonry is so perfect, and of so fresh
a pale yellow color, that it seems but the work of yesterday, although it
is undoubtedly part of a building which stood in the midst of old Babylon.
This ruin has for ages been the mine from which the builders of cities
rising after the fall of Babylon have obtained their materials. To this
day there are men who have no other trade than that of gathering bricks
from this vast heap and taking them for sale to the neighbouring towns and
villages, and even to Baghdad. There is scarcely a house in Hillah which
is not almost entirely built with them; and as the traveller passes
through the narrow streets, he sees in the walls of every hovel a record
of the glory and power of Nebuchadnezzar.
A large number of the fragments of brick found in this ruin are covered
with a thick enamel or glaze. The colors have resisted the effects of
time, and preserve their original brightness. Parts of figures and
ornaments may still be traced on many specimens. The principal colors are
a brilliant blue, red, a deep yellow, white, and black. We learn from
ancient authors that the walls of the palaces of Babylon were painted with
the figures of men and animals, and there can be no doubt that these
enamelled bricks are from the walls of an edifice. Fragments of glass,
Babylonian gems and cylinders, small bronze figures, and other relics of
this nature are occasionally found on the mound by the Arabs, and are
bought by the Jews of Hillah, who sell them again to European travellers.
The huge lion described by Rich still exists half buried in the rubbish.
The animal stands over a man with outstretched arms, which has led some
imaginative travellers to see in the group a representation of Daniel in
the lions' den. The figures are in black basalt, either so barbarously
executed as to show very little progress in art, or left unfinished by the
sculptor. It would scarcely be worth removal.
Near the northern edge of the ruin is the solitary tree Athele,
well-known to the Arabs, and the source of various traditions. It is said
to have stood in the hanging gardens of Babylon, and to have been saved by
God from the general destruction which overwhelmed the impious city, that
Ali might tie his horse to its trunk after the defeat of the enemies of
the Prophet in the great battle of Hillah. No other tree of the same kind
exists, according to the same tradition, in the whole world. It is,
however, I believe, a species of tamarisk, whose long feathery branches
tremble in the breeze with a melancholy murmur well suited to the desolate
heap over which it may have waved for a thousand years.
It was a hopeless task to excavate in a shapeless heap of rubbish of such
vast extent, which had already been explored in every direction. With the
exception of the solitary pile of masonry rising in the centre, the ruin
consisted of little else than of shattered brickwork. I continued,
however, a few of the tunnels already opened, but the falling rubbish,
which had more than once overwhelmed the seekers after bricks, soon
compelled me to desist. The only relic of any interest I was fortunate
enough to discover was a fragment of limestone, on which were parts of two
figures, undoubtedly those of gods. The name of one deity is added in
Babylonian characters to its sculptured image. It is probably only a small
portion of a slab or frieze containing a series of similar figures; but I
was unable, after a careful and prolonged search, to find any other
pieces. The fragment, however, is interesting, as showing that the
Babylonians portrayed their divinities in the same manner as the
Assyrians. They wear the same high head-dress ornamented with feathers and
rosettes, the long curled hair and beard, and the embroidered garments,
and they hold the same staff with a ring as the gods in the rock
sculptures of Bavian.
With the exception of a few rudely engraved gems and enamelled bricks,
this was the only relic I obtained from the Mujelibe.
Excavations were carried on for some days in the smaller mounds scattered
over the plain between Babel and the ruin last described, but without any
results, except the discovery of the remains of brick masonry, of a few
earthen vases, and of some fragments of glass.
The last ruin I examined was a mound of great extent, sometimes called by
the Arabs Jumjuma, from a neighbouring village of that name, and
sometimes, as stated by Rich, Amran ben Ali, from a Koubbe, or small domed
tomb, of a Mohammedan saint on its summit. No masonry is here seen as in
the Mujelibe. All remains of buildings, if there be any still existing,
are deeply buried beneath the loose nitrous earth. It is traversed by
innumerable ravines, and its form and level are equally irregular. I
opened trenches in various parts, but could find no traces of an edifice
of any kind. Some small objects of considerable interest, were, however,
discovered. Although not of the true Babylonian epoch, they are, on more
than one account, highly important.
The mound of Amran, as well as nearly all those in Babylonia, had been
used as a place of burial for the dead long after the destruction of the
great edifices whose ruins it covers. Some specimens of glass, and several
terracotta figures, lamps, and jars, dug out of it, are evidently of the
time of the Seleucidae or of the Greek occupation. With these relics were
five cups or bowls of earthenware, and fragments of others, covered on the
inner surface with letters written in a kind of ink. Similar objects had
already been found in other Babylonian ruins. Two from the collection of
the late Mr. Stewart had been deposited in the British Museum, and
amongst the antiquities recently purchased by the Trustees from Colonel
Rawlinson are eight specimens, obtained at Baghdad, where they are
sometimes offered for sale by the Arabs; but it is not known from what
sites they were brought. The characters upon them are in form not unlike
the Hebrew, and on some they resembled the Sabaean and Syriac. These bowls
had not attracted notice, nor had the inscriptions upon them been fully
examined before they were placed in the hands of Mr. Thomas Ellis, of the
manuscript department in the British Museum, a gentleman of great learning
and ingenuity as a Hebrew scholar. Mr. E. has succeeded, after much labor,
in deciphering the inscriptions.[206]
Little doubt can, I think, exist as to the Jewish origin of these bowls:
and such being the case, there is no reason to question their having
belonged to the descendants of those Jews who were carried captive by
Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon and the surrounding cities. These strangers
appear to have clung with a tenacity peculiar to their race to the land of
their exile. We can trace them about Babylon from almost the time of their
deportation down to the twelfth century of the Christian era, when the
Hebrew traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, wandered over the regions of the
East and among the cities of the captivity to seek the remnant of his
ancient nation. During the Persian dominion in Mesopotamia we find them
enduring tortures and persecutions rather than help to rebuild a temple
dedicated to a false god.[207] In the time of the Roman supremacy in the
East they appear to have been a turbulent race, rebelling against their
rulers and waging civil war amongst themselves. They had celebrated
schools in many cities of Assyria and Chaldaea.
As early as the third century Hebrew travellers visited Babylon, and some
of them have left records of the state of their countrymen. The Babylonian
Talmud, compiled in the beginning of the sixth century, contains many
valuable notices of the condition of the Jewish colonies in Babylonia, and
enumerates more than two hundred Babylonian towns then under the Persian
rule, inhabited by Jewish families. In manuscripts of the eighth and ninth
centuries we have further mention of these colonies.
In the twelfth century, Benjamin of Tudela found no less than twenty
thousand Jews dwelling within twenty miles of Babylon, and worshipping in
the synagogue, built, according to tradition, by the prophet Daniel
himself. In Hillah alone were ten thousand persons and four synagogues,
and he gives the number of families and of their places of worship, in
every town he visited, keeping during his journey an exact daily
itinerary, which includes nearly all the stations on the modern caravan
routes. Allowing for some exaggeration on the part of this traveller, it
is still evident that a very considerable Jewish population lived in the
cities of Babylonia. It has greatly diminished, and in some places has
entirely disappeared. A few families still linger at Hillah, and in
Baghdad the principal native trade and money transactions are carried on
by Jews, who are the bankers and brokers of the governors of the city, as
they no doubt anciently were of the Abasside Caliphs.
According to their own tradition these Hebrew families were descended from
the Jews of the captivity. They still preserved their pedigrees, and
traced their lineage to the princes and prophets of Judah. Their chief
resided at Baghdad, and his title was "Lord Prince of the Captivity." He
was lineally descended, according to his people, from king David himself.
Even Mohammedans acknowledged his claim to this noble birth, and called
him "Our Lord, the Son of David." His authority extended over the
countries of the East as far as Thibet and Hisdostan. He was treated on
all occasions with the greatest honor and respect, and when he appeared in
public he wore robes of embroidered silk, and a white turban encircled by
a diadem of gold.[208]
We may then safely conclude, that these earthen bowls belonged to Jews of
Babylonia and Chaldaea. Similar relics have been found as I have stated in
many ruins near Babylon. I discovered an entire bowl, as well as many
fragments, at Niffer. Nearly at the same time, several were dug out of a
mound about half-way between Baghdad and Hillah, but they were
unfortunately dispersed or destroyed before I could obtain possession of
them. On all these sites during the first centuries of the Christian era,
dwelt Jewish families.
As no date whatever is found in the inscriptions, it is difficult to
determine the exact time when they were written. We must endeavour to form
some opinion upon such internal evidence as they may afford. Mr. Ellis
remarks, that, "as this is the first time anything of the kind has been
examined in Europe, he can only hazard a conjecture from the forms of the
letters, which are, certainly, the most ancient known specimens of the
Chaldaean, and appear to have been invented for the purpose of writing the
cuneiform character in a more cursive and expeditious manner."[209] In
support of this conjecture he cites the language of the Assyrian
inscriptions as closely resembling that on the bowls. The relics, however,
are evidently of different dates. The most ancient might be referred to
the second or third century before Christ, but may be of a later period.
Others are undoubtedly of a more recent date, and might even have been
written as late as the fifth century of our era. The Syriac characters on
the latter bowl appear to have marks of a Sabaean or Mendean origin, and on
a bowl from Mr. Stewart's collection there is an inscription,
unfortunately almost destroyed and no longer decipherable, in that
peculiar character still used by the Sabaeans of Susiana.
In the forms of expression and in the names of the angels, these
inscriptions bear a striking analogy to the apocryphal book of Enoch,
which is supposed to have been written by a Jew of the captivity, shortly
before the Christian era. That singular rhapsody also mentions the
"sorceries, incantations, and dividing of roots and trees," which appear
to have been practised by the Jews at that period, and to be alluded to on
the bowls.[210]
As to the original use of these vessels it is not improbable, as
conjectured by Mr. Ellis, that the writing was to be dissolved in water,
to be drank as a cure against disease, or a precaution against the arts of
witchcraft and magic. Similar remedies are still resorted to in the East
in cases of obstinate illness, and there are Mullahs who make the
preparation of such charms their peculiar profession. The modern
inscriptions generally consist of sentences from the Koran, interspersed
with various mystic signs and letters. But if such was their object, it is
evident that they could not have been used for that purpose, as the
writing upon them is perfectly fresh, and it is essential that it should
be entirely washed into the water to make the remedy efficacious. As they
were found at a considerable depth beneath the surface in mounds which had
undoubtedly been used as places of sepulture, I am rather inclined to
believe that they were charms buried with the dead, or employed for some
purpose at funeral ceremonies, and afterwards placed in the grave.