THE EXCAVATIONS AT BABYLON
[Illustration: Logo]
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
[Illustration:
COLOURED ENAMELLED VASE.—Page 236
_Frontispiece._
]
THE EXCAVATIONS AT BABYLON
BY
ROBERT KOLDEWEY
TRANSLATED BY
AGNES S. JOHNS
WITH 255 ILLUSTRATIONS AND PLANS
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1914
COPYRIGHT
PREFACE
It is most desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that the excavation
of Babylon should be completed. Up to the present time only about half
the work has been accomplished, although since it began we have worked
daily, both summer and winter, with from 200 to 250 workmen. This is
easily comprehensible when we consider the magnitude of the undertaking.
The city walls, for instance, which in other ancient towns measure 3
metres, or at the most 6 or 7 metres, in Babylon are fully 17 to 22
metres thick. On many ancient sites the mounds piled above the remains
are not more than 2 or 3 to 6 metres high, while here we have to deal
with 12 to 24 metres, and the vast extent of the area that was once
inhabited is reflected in the grand scale of the ruins.
The gradual progress of the excavations, important and stimulating as it
is for the explorers, appears of less interest to those who take little
share in it or who look back on it after a lapse of years. As such an
excavation never affords any guarantee of further continuance, those
points must first be settled which appear to be of the highest interest
in view of the results already attained. Accordingly the site of the
excavations varies at different times in a manner which is rarely
voluntary, and must generally be regarded as a logical development
dictated by considerations of inherent necessity. Here we shall only
deal with the external sequence of the principal events.
The excavations were commenced on March 26, 1899, on the east side of
the Kasr to the north of the Ishtar Gate. At my first stay in Babylon,
June 3–4, 1887, and again on my second visit, December 29–31, 1897, I
saw a number of fragments of enamelled brick reliefs, of which I took
several with me to Berlin. The peculiar beauty of these fragments and
their importance for the history of art was duly recognised by His
Excellency R. Schöne, who was then Director-General of the Royal
Museums, and this strengthened our decision to excavate the capital of
the world empire of Babylonia.
By the end of 1899 the Procession Street of Marduk was opened up as far
as the north-east corner of the Principal Citadel and a cross-cut was
driven through the north front of the Principal Citadel.
1900. The Temple of Ninmach was excavated, January-March; the centre of
Amran, where we ascertained the site of Esagila, April-November; and the
centre of the Principal Citadel, June-July. The south-east part of the
Southern Citadel as far as the throne-room with the ornamental and
enamelled bricks was begun in July and continued till July 1901, while
the following up of the Procession Street in the plain continued till
November 1902.
1901. A cross-cut over the ridge of mounds between Kasr and Sachn was
effected, February-April; the south-west building of the Kasr was
examined, April-May; and the excavations at Ishin aswad with the Ninib
Temple carried out, July-December.
1902. The Ishtar Gate was excavated, February-November; the temple “Z,”
January-February; overlapping work at Borsippa, February-April; and
Fara, June 1902–March 1903.
1903. The north-east corner of the Southern Citadel with the vaulted
building was explored, December 1902–January 1904.
1904. The mounds of Homera were worked through with the Greek theatre,
January-April; and the inner city wall was begun in April. In the
Southern Citadel the excavation was carried farther west, and the
eastern portion of the palace of Nabopolassar was excavated, April
1904–February 1905.
1905. The inner city wall was partially opened up, January-March. The
excavations, by order of the Turkish Government, were temporarily
deferred, April 7–June 23; the two mud walls to the north of the
Southern Citadel were commenced in June, and the Sargon wall with the
beginning of the Arachtu wall was verified.
1906. The western boundary of the Southern Citadel with the two bastions
on the north-west was excavated, and also the moat wall of Imgur-Bel,
the Persian Building, and the south-west corner of the Southern Citadel,
till June 1907.
1907. From the Persian Building a long exploration trench was carried
through the western quarter, December 1906–March 1907; the eastern ends
of the two mud walls in front of the Ninmach Temple were excavated,
June-October, and a small piece of the outer wall near Babil, June-July.
In October the southern quay wall of the canal south of the Kasr was
followed up farther and the excavations in Merkes were begun, which with
varying degrees of activity have been carried on up to the present time,
May 1912.
1908. The main work lay in Merkes. It led _inter alia_ to the uncovering
of the earliest strata that have yet been reached and that belong to the
period of the earliest Babylonian kings. In February, as a lengthy
secondary piece of work, the opening up of Sachn was begun at the Tower
of Babylon and lasted till June 1911. Also in July a cut was made
through the quarter to the west of Sachn, which brought to light the
Arachtu wall and the Nabonidus wall at this place.
1909. The main work still lay in Merkes, where the strata of the
dwellings of Nebuchadnezzar’s period were laid bare in large connected
areas.
1910. In January the main work was transferred to the north-east strip
of the Kasr, where the northern ends of the two walls that flank the
Procession Street were brought to light, that now—May 1912—are almost
finished. Here also the lengths of wall that project eastwards were
opened up. As an additional piece of work the following up of the
Arachtu wall from the Kasr to Amran was begun with the embankment walls
of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus that lay in front of it, April
1910–January 1911; this led to the discovery of the stone bridge over
the Euphrates, August-November. The researches in Merkes were carried on
with the opening up of more private houses and the Temple of Ishtar of
Agade, November 1910–October 1911. Also, as a secondary piece of work,
the outer walls of the temple of Esagila were identified, December
1910–July 1911.
1911. The main work on the north-east corner of the Kasr was continued,
and the great stone wall with the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar emerged
in April. The secondary work of the previous year was, as we have
already said, carried farther; for example, a considerable part of the
network of streets in Merkes towards the south was traced.
1912. Besides proceeding with the digging at the north-east corner of
the Kasr and at Merkes, the excavation was begun of the buildings with
the great surrounding wall in the west of the Southern Citadel which had
been cut by the exploration trench of 1907.
The digging is carried out by the general administration of the Royal
Museums in Berlin, present Director-General His Excellency W. Bode, in
conjunction with the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, President His
Excellency von Hollmann, under the patronage of H.M. the Emperor of
Germany.
For many of the translations of inscriptions I am indebted to the
kindness of Professor Delitzsch.
My scientific collaborators were: W. Andrae, March 26, 1899–February 1,
1903; B. Meissner, March 26, 1899–April 13, 1900; F. Weissbach, February
22, 1901–February 22, 1903; A. Nöldeke, May 8, 1902–January 11, 1908; F.
Baumgarten, May 8, 1902–March 26, 1903; F. Langenegger, March 29,
1903–September 23, 1905; J. Jordan, March 29–August 3, 1903; G.
Buddensieg, March 24, 1904, until now; O. Reuther, October 16, 1905,
until now; F. Wetzel, December 15, 1907, until now; J. Grossmann,
December 24, 1907–January 10, 1908; K. Müller, May 13, 1909–February 29,
1912.
Among the earlier explorers who have dealt with the ruins of Babylon are
the following: 1811, Rich (_Narrative of a Journey to the Site of
Babylon in 1811_, London, 1839); 1850, Layard (_Nineveh and Babylon_,
London, 1853); 1852–1854, Oppert (_Expédition scientifique en
Mésopotamie_, Paris, 1863); 1878–89, Hormuzd Rassam (_Asshur and the
Land of Nimrod_, New York, 1897).
It involves no depreciation of the labours of our predecessors when we
say that they are superseded in almost every detail by the results of
our many years of excavations, so far as the knowledge of the city ruins
are concerned, and thus it would hardly be worth while to controvert
expressly their numerous errors.
Further, my view of the purpose of the various buildings has altered
during the course of the excavations, especially in relation to the
literary sources. This is the natural result of gradual progress in
research, never working with conclusive material.
In addition to the continuous reports of the excavations in the
_Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, the following have
also been published in the _Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_: vol. i., Koldewey, _Die Hettitische
Inschrift_, 1900; vol. ii., Koldewey, _Die Pflastersteine von
Aiburschabu_, 1901; vol. iv., Weissbach, _Babylonische Miscellen_, 1903;
vol. xv., Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Babylon_, 1911; all published by
Messrs. J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig.
The Babylonian inscriptions which are of importance to us will be found
in the above-mentioned works, and also for the most part in the
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_ (E. Schrader), vol. iii. part ii.
Berlin, 1890, and in the _Neubabylonische Königsinschriften_, S.
Langdon, Leipzig, 1912. The latter work I only met with after the close
of this present volume, so that I have not been able to make use of it.
For the convenience of the reader, an appendix is added giving the
principal statements of the classical authors so far as they refer to
Babylon.
ROBERT KOLDEWEY.
BABYLON, _May 16, 1912_.
For the English translation special thanks are due to Dr. GÜTERBOCK for
the trouble he has taken in reading the proofs, and the courtesy he has
shown in suggesting alterations in the difficult architectural terms.
The use of the term “moat wall” has been decided on for the massive
brickwork of the fosse in preference to the word revetment as more
accurately expressing the nature of the construction, although the
expression is not used in describing modern fortifications.
AGNES S. JOHNS.
CAMBRIDGE, _April 1914_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
1. THE OUTER CITY WALLS 1
1. THE MOUND BABIL. CANALS. BRICK ROBBERS 6
1. GENERAL VIEW OF THE CITY 12
1. THE EUPHRATES AND ITS COURSE 16
1. THE KASR. THE ASCENT AND PROCESSION STREET 23
1. THE ISHTAR GATE. THE EXPANSION JOINT 31
1. THE WALL DECORATIONS OF BULLS AND DRAGONS 38
1. THE PROCESSION STREET SOUTH OF THE ISHTAR GATE 49
1. THE TEMPLE OF NINMACH. MUD WALLS LAID WITH REEDS 55
10. THE SOUTHERN CITADEL 65
11. THE EAST FRONT OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL 68
12. THE EASTERN COURT OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL 72
13. THE CENTRAL COURT OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL 90
14. THE VAULTED BUILDING. HANGING GARDENS OF SEMIRAMIS 91
15. THE PRINCIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL 100
16. THE PALACE OF NABOPOLASSAR 113
17. THE FORTIFICATION WALLS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PALACE
OF NABOPOLASSAR 121
18. THE WESTERN EXTENSION 125
19. THE PERSIAN BUILDING. PERSIAN ENAMELLED BRICKS 127
20. THE WALLS OF THE FORTIFICATIONS AND QUAYS TO THE WEST AND
NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL 131
21. THE MOAT WALL OF IMGUR-BEL 132
22. THE ARACHTU WALL OF NABOPOLASSAR AND THE WALL OF SARGON THE
ASSYRIAN 137
23. THE WESTERN OUTWORKS 144
24. THE THREE GREAT FORTIFICATION WALLS NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN
CITADEL 145
25. THE INNER CITY WALL. NIMITTI-BEL CYLINDER 150
26. THE PRINCIPAL CITADEL. THE BASALT LION 156
27. THE FORTIFICATION WALLS OF THE PRINCIPAL CITADEL 169
28. THE NORTHERN CITADEL 174
29. RETROSPECT OF THE KASR 181
30. THE PERIBOLOS OF ETEMENANKI. THE TOWER OF BABEL 183
31. THE EUPHRATES BRIDGE 197
32. THE BRIDGE GATEWAY 199
33. THE WALL OF NABONIDUS 200
34. THE ARACHTU WALLS AT THE PERIBOLOS OF ETEMENANKI 202
35. ESAGILA, THE TEMPLE OF MARDUK 204
36. THE EASTERN ANNEX (B) OF ESAGILA 214
37. THE LATER BUILDINGS ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF AMRAN 215
38. THE OTHER PARTS OF THE HILL OF AMRAN IBN ALI 223
39. TEMPLE “Z” 223
40. EPATUTILA, THE TEMPLE OF NINIB 229
41. THE EXCAVATIONS TO THE NORTH OF THE NINIB TEMPLE 236
42. MERKES 239
43. THE SMALL OBJECTS, PRINCIPALLY FROM MERKES 244
44. THE GRAVES IN MERKES 271
45. THE TERRA-COTTA FIGURES 277
46. THE GREAT HOUSE IN MERKES 286
47. THE TEMPLE OF ISHTAR OF AGADE 296
48. THE GREEK THEATRE 300
49. THE NORTHERN MOUND OF HOMERA 308
50. THE CENTRAL MOUND OF HOMERA 310
51. RETROSPECT 311
52. APPENDIX 314
53. SMITH’S ESAGILA TABLET 327
PUBLICATIONS OF THE GERMAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY 328
INDEX 329
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
1. Plan of the ruins of the city of Babylon
_facing_ 1
2. Part of the outer city walls; ground-plan 3
3. Plan of the mound “Babil” 7
4. Section of a canal when newly constructed (B), and
after long use (C) 8
5. View of the mound “Babil” 9
6. General view of Babylon, seen from the north-west 13
7. The Euphrates in 1911 17
8. The Euphrates, seen looking north from the
Expedition House in 1907 17
9. A djird, opposite Kweiresh 20
10. Arab at work on a canal in the neighbourhood of
Babylon 21
11. The hooked plough in Babylon 21
12. Doorway of the Expedition House in Kweiresh 22
13. Plan of the Kasr 23
14. Paving block of the Procession Street 25
15. Beginning of the excavations on March 26, 1899,
with the pavement of the Procession Street on the
east side of the Kasr 27
16. The lion of the Procession Street
_Coloured plate, facing_ 28
17. Cross-section of a lion relief (B) and of an
Assyrian relief (A) 29
18. Eastern end of the mud-brick wing, at the Ishtar
Gate, from the north 32
19. General view of the Ishtar Gate from the north 33
20. Gold plaque from grave in the Nabopolassar Palace 34
21. Section through the Ishtar Gate 35
22. Grooved expansion joints at the Ishtar Gate 36
23. View of the Ishtar Gate from the west 37
24. The two eastern towers of the Ishtar Gate 39
25. Enamelled reliefs at the Ishtar Gate, beginning of
excavations, April 1, 1902 40
26. The bull of the Ishtar Gate
_Coloured plate, facing_ 43
27. A bull, not enamelled 43
28. Inscription from the Ishtar Gate 44
29. Enamelled wall length of the Ishtar Gate
_Coloured plate, facing_ 45
30. The enamelled piece of wall 45
31. The sirrush of the Ishtar Gate
_Coloured plate, facing_ 47
32. A sirrush, not enamelled 47
33. Leg of a sirrush and of a raptorial bird 48
34. Limestone projectiles 50
35. Canal to the south of the Kasr 51
36. View of Procession Street, east of Etemenanki 53
37. Inscription referring to Procession Street 54
38. Ground-plan and section of Ninmach Temple 56
39. Bronze ferrule of doorpost, Emach 57
40. Court in Ninmach Temple 58
41. Emach cylinder inscription of Sardanapalus 60
42. Kisu inscription of Emach 61
43. Reconstruction of Southern Citadel, from the north 66
44. Complete plan of Southern Citadel 67
45. Arched doorway in Southern Citadel 69
46. Eastern part of Southern Citadel 73
47. An alabastron 74
48. Brick stamps of Nebuchadnezzar 76
49. Stamped brick of Nebuchadnezzar, omitting father’s
name 77
50. Brick stamp of Evil-Merodach 78
51. Brick stamps, Nebuchadnezzar, Neriglissar, and
Nabonidus 79
52. Aramaic addition on Nebuchadnezzar brick 80
53. Aramaic addition on Nebuchadnezzar brick 81
54. Excavations in Southern Citadel, from the north 83
55. The six-lined Lebanon inscription from Southern
Citadel 85
56. The eight-lined standard inscription from Southern
Citadel 85
57. Inscribed bricks in situ, Southern Citadel 87
58. Base of column, Southern Citadel 89
59. Vaulted Building, from the south-west 92
60. Arches of the Vaulted Building 93
61. Abutments of arches of the Vaulted Building 94
62. Section through the Vaulted Building 95
63. The central part of the Southern Citadel 101
64. Decoration of the Throne-Room
_Coloured plate, facing_ 104
65. Position marks on the enamelled bricks 105
66. Bases of late columns in court 36, Southern Citadel 109
67. Ramps between the Nebuchadnezzar and Nabopolassar
Palaces 111
68. Space between the Nabopolassar Palace and Citadel
wall, on the south 115
69. North wall of the Nabopolassar Palace 117
70. Statuette of Papsukal in Nabopolassar Palace 119
71. Wall of two-ridged bricks in Southern Citadel 120
72. Door in south wall of Southern Citadel 121
73. South wall of Nabopolassar Palace, from the west 122
74. Foundation of fortification wall north of the
Southern Citadel 123
75. Drains between Southern Citadel wall and the mud
wall 124
76. Western part of the Southern Citadel 126
77. Apadana of Xerxes in Persepolis 128
78. Inscription from the Persian building 129
79. Base of column from Persian building 129
80. Enamelled artificial block from Persian building
_Coloured plate, facing_ 130
81. The north-west corner of the Southern Citadel 132
82. The moat wall of Imgur-Bel, west of the Southern
Citadel 133
83. Inscribed brick from the moat wall of Imgur-Bel 134
84. Trench west of the Southern Citadel, during
excavation 134
85. Trench west of the Southern Citadel, completely
excavated 135
86. Inscribed brick from the Sargon wall 138
87. Section through fortification walls north of the
Southern Citadel 139
88. Stamped brick of Nabopolassar’s Arachtu wall 140
89. Inscribed brick of Nabopolassar’s Arachtu wall 141
90. Chiselled brick of Nabopolassar’s Arachtu wall 142
91. View of north-west corner of the Southern Citadel,
with the Arachtu walls 143
92. Space between the two mud walls 149
93. Northern end of the inner city wall, from the
south-east 151
94. System of the inner city walls 152
95. Drain in the inner city wall 153
96. Nimitti-Bel foundation cylinder of Sardanapalus 154
97. Drain through inner city wall 155
98. Brickwork blocks in the Principal Citadel 157
99. Inscribed paving blocks—above, Evil-Merodach;
below, Nebuchadnezzar 159
100. North-east corner of Principal Citadel, from the
north 161
101. The basalt lion in the Principal Citadel 162
102. The Shamash-resh-ussur stela 163
103. The Hittite stela, obverse 165
104. The Hittite stela, reverse 165
105. Pavement slab of Adad-nirari 166
106. Doorway with drain, in north wall of the Principal
Citadel 171
107. Plan of the northern bastions, north-east of Kasr 172
108. Ascent to the Acropolis. Homera in the background 175
109. Stone wall of Northern Citadel, from west looking
east 176
110. Stone wall of Northern Citadel with inscription 177
111. Inscription on the stone wall of the Northern
Citadel 178
112. Doorway with canal in stone wall 179
113. Canal in front of the Northern Citadel, on the
north 180
114. Plan of Esagila and Etemenanki 184
115. East side of the peribolos of Etemenanki 185
116. Esarhaddon’s Etemenanki inscription 186
117. Sardanapalus’ Etemenanki inscription 186
118. Nebuchadnezzar’s Etemenanki inscription 187
119. Reconstruction of the peribolos, with the tower of
Babylon, the temple of Esagila, the quay wall of
Nabonidus, and the Euphrates bridge 188
120. Duck weight with inscription 190
121. Upper part of a stela with divine emblems 191
122. The western pier of the bridge over the Euphrates 198
123. Plan of the mound Amran 205
124. Section through Esagila 206
125. Sardanapalus’ Esagila brick 207
126. Esarhaddon’s Esagila brick 208
127. Esarhaddon’s Esagila Babylon brick 209
128. Terra-cotta figure from brick casket at Esagila 210
129. The excavation of Esagila 213
130. Tomb of Amran Ibn Ali 214
131. Later buildings on northern slope of Amran 217
132. Alabaster figure with asphalt perruque 218
133. A slipper sarcophagus 219
134. Esarhaddon’s Adad kunukku from Esagila 221
135. Marduk-nâdin-shum’s Marduk kunukku 221
136. Plan of Ishin aswad 224
137. Ground-plan of temple “Z” 225
138. Cella façade in temple “Z” 225
139. Reconstruction of temple “Z” 226
140. Figure of Papsukal from temple “Z”—front view 227
141. Figure of Papsukal from temple “Z”—back view 227
142. Plan of Epatutila 230
143. Section of Epatutila 231
144. Epatutila foundation cylinder of Nebuchadnezzar 232
145. Figure from brick casket of Epatutila, restored 232
146. Papsukal figure from principal cella postament in
Epatutila 232
147. Ruins of Epatutila 233
148. Terra-cotta apes, male and female 234
149. Early horseman, glazed 235
150. Later horseman (Parthian?) 235
151. Woman in covered litter, on horseback 235
152. Coloured enamelled vase
_Coloured plate—_ _Frontispiece_
153. Schematic diagram of the transfer of the upper
levels (A, B, left) of a mound of debris to
lower-lying region (A, B, on the right) 237
154. Schematic diagram of section through Babylonian
house ruins, with wells 238
155. Plan of Merkes 241
156. View of street in Merkes 243
157. First dynasty tablets 245
158. Labyrinthine lines on a tablet 245
159. Drawing on a tablet 246
160. Pottery urn with tablets 247
161. Bowls 247
162. Aramaic incantation bowl 248
163. Beakers 249
164. Vases 249
165. Storage jars, on ring stands below 250
166. Large storage jars 250
167. Fragments of Greek vases 251
168. Flasks 251
169. Flat circular vases 252
170. Lamps 253
171. Glazed rhyton 255
172. Glass goblet and jug 255
173. Ancient glass 256
174. Earthenware bell 256
175. Woman on a beaker or omphalos 257
176. Earthenware boat 258
177. Earthenware boats with animal inside 258
178. Stone vessel 259
179. Basalt bowl for rubbing out grain 259
180. Ancient Babylonian rubbing-mill, in use by an Arab 260
181. Prehistoric utensils 260
182. Prehistoric implements 261
183. Swords, lance-head, and knives, in bronze 262
184. Bronze arrow-heads; prehistoric flint knife and
saws 262
185. Chain of onyx beads from grave in Merkes 263
186. Grave deposits of gold, glass, and shell, from
Merkes 264
187. Leg-bones, each with five anklets, from Merkes 265
188. Gold ornaments 266
189. Bronze fibulae 267
190. Rings and their seal impressions 267
191. Cylinder seals and signet with their impressions 268
192. Stone amulets 269
193. Greek coins in a jar 270
194. Two vertebrae, a boar’s tusk, and three bone joints
prepared as sword handles 270
195. Double-urn burial from Merkes 272
196. Trough coffin, with lid 273
197. Trough coffin, opened 273
198. Crouching burial 274
199. Brick grave from Merkes 274
200. Anthropoid sarcophagus, north-east of Kasr 275
201. Deposits from a coffin 276
202. Female figure with folded hands (Ninmach?) 278
203. Woman with folded hands, old Babylonian style 278
204. Woman and child 278
205. Woman and child, Graeco-Parthian style 279
206. Woman and child, Graeco-Parthian style 279
207. Seated woman and child 279
208. Woman with hands supporting breasts 279
209. Woman with hands supporting breasts 279
210. Woman with hands supporting breasts,
Graeco-Parthian style 280
211. Woman with arms hanging down 280
212. Male figure with goblet (Anu?) 281
213. Man with folded hands 281
214. Man with folded hands, Parthian style 281
215. Bearded male figure, seated (Marduk?) 281
216. Man with flower in his hand 281
217. Woman with flower in her hand 281
218. Woman holding palm branch (?) 282
219. Woman holding palm branch (deity) 282
220. Woman holding palm branch, Greek style 282
221. Terra-cotta amulet 283
222. Musician with double flute 283
223. Lute-player 283
224. Lute-player 283
225. Woman with harp 284
226. Woman with tambourine 284
227. Woman reclining 284
228. Woman reclining 284
229. Pottery mask 284
230. Pottery mask 285
231. Greek terra-cotta 285
232. Greek terra-cotta 285
233. Greek terra-cotta 286
234. Cupid as a jar handle 286
235. Reconstruction of the Great House in Merkes 287
236. Ground-plan of the Great House in Merkes 288
237. Section of the Great House in Merkes 289
238. Steps to roof in village of Kweiresh 290
239. North-east corner of the Great House in Merkes 291
240. Façade of house with doorway, brick grave in front,
Merkes 292
241. Ground-plan of house in Fara (Shuruppak) 293
242. Ground-plan from Telloh 294
243. Papsukal figure, from foundation casket of Ishtar
temple 296
244. Ground-plan of temple of Ishtar of Agade, Merkes 297
245. Section of temple of Ishtar of Agade, Merkes 297
246. Ground-plan of Ezida, the temple of Nebo, in
Borsippa 298
247. Temple of Ishtar of Agade in Merkes; view of
cellafaçade 299
248. Inscription from Greek theatre 301
249. Plan of the mounds, Homera 302
250. General view of the Greek theatre 303
251. Statue pedestals in orchestra 304
252. View of proscenium pillars 305
253. Plan of Greek theatre, restored 306
254. Gypsum decorations of Greek theatre 307
255. Section through the northern mound of Homera 308
[Illustration:
EXPLANATION OF THE LETTERING
A The mound Amran.
ADK Ancient ruined village of Kweiresh.
AE Ancient Euphrates bed.
AK Ancient ruined canal.
AN Ancient Nil canal.
AS Outer city wall.
B The mound Babil.
DA The village of Ananeh.
DD The village of Djumdjumma.
DK The village of Kweiresh.
DS The village of Sindjar.
E Euphrates.
EM E-Mach, the temple of Ninmach.
EP E-Patutila, the temple of Ninib.
ES E-Sagila, the temple of Marduk.
ET E-Temenanki, the tower of Babylon.
F Fields.
FK Farm of Karabet.
G Tomb of Amran Ibn Ali.
GM Garden wall.
H The mound Homera.
IA Ishin aswad.
IS Inner city wall.
K The mound Kasr.
M Merkes.
MR Remains of walls.
N The Nil canal.
NB The Nil bridge.
NK New canal.
P Palms.
S Sachn.
T The Greek theatre.
TI Temple of Ishtar of Agade.
W Road.
WBH Road from Bagdad to Hilleh.
Z Temple Z of some unknown divinity.
FIG. 1.—PLAN OF THE RUINS OF THE CITY OF BABYLON.
]
I
THE OUTER CITY WALLS
In the time of Nebuchadnezzar the traveller who approached the capital
of Babylonia from the north would find himself where the Nil Canal flows
to-day, face to face with the colossal wall that surrounded mighty
Babylon (Fig. 1). Part of this wall still exists and is recognisable at
the present time in the guise of a low earthen ridge about 4 to 5
kilometres in length. Up to the present we have only excavated a small
part, so that it is only possible to give a detailed description of the
most noteworthy features of these fortifications, that were rendered so
famous by Greek authors.
There was a massive wall of crude brick 7 metres thick, in front of
which, at an interval of about 12 metres, stood another wall of burnt
brick 7.8 metres thick, with the strong wall of the fosse at its foot,
also of burnt brick and 3.3 metres thick (Fig. 2). The fosse must have
been in front of this, but so far we have not searched closely for it,
and therefore the counterscarp has not yet been found.
Astride on the mud wall were towers 8.37 metres (about 24 bricks) wide,
that projected beyond the wall on both its faces. Measured from centre
to centre these towers were 52.5 metres apart. Thus there was a tower at
intervals of about 100 ells, for the Babylonian ell measured roughly
half a metre.
Owing to the unfinished state of the excavations it is not yet possible
to say how the towers on the outer wall were constructed. The space
between the two walls was filled in with rubble, at least to the height
at which the ruins are preserved and presumably to the crown of the
outer wall. Thus on the top of the wall there was a road that afforded
space for a team of four horses abreast, and even for two such teams to
pass each other. Upon this crown of the wall the upper compartments of
the towers faced each other like small houses.
This broad roadway on the summit of the wall, which was of world-renown
owing to the descriptions of it given by classical writers, was of the
greatest importance for the protection of the great city. It rendered
possible the rapid shifting of defensive forces at any time to that part
of the wall which was specially pressed by attack. The line of defence
was very long; the north-east front, which can still be measured, is
4400 metres long, and on the south-east the ruined wall can be traced
without excavation for a length of 2 kilometres. These two flanks of the
wall certainly extended as far as the Euphrates as it flowed from north
to south. With the Euphrates they enclosed that part of Babylon of which
the ruins exist at the present time, but according to Herodotus and
others they were supplemented on the other side of the Euphrates by two
other walls, so that the town site consisted of a quadrangle through
which the Euphrates flowed diagonally. Of the western walls nothing is
now to be seen. Whether the traces of a line of wall to the south near
the village of Sindjar will prove to have formed part of them has yet to
be ascertained.
[Illustration:
FIG. 2.—Part of the outer city walls; ground-plan.
]
The excavations carried on up to the present time have yielded no
surrounding walls beyond this fortification. The circuit extended for
about 18 kilometres. Instead of this, Herodotus gives about 86
kilometres and Ctesias about 65 kilometres. There must be some error
underlying this discrepancy. The 65 kilometres of Ctesias approximate so
closely to four times the correct measurement that it may well be
suspected that he mistook the figures representing the whole
circumference for the measure of one side of the square. We shall later
turn more in detail from the testimony of the ancient writers to the
evidence of the ruins themselves. Generally speaking, the measurements
given are not in accordance with those actually preserved, while the
general description, on the contrary, is usually accurate. Herodotus
describes the wall of Babylon as built of burnt brick. To an observer
from without it would no doubt appear as such, as only the top of the
inner mud wall could be seen from outside. The escarp of the fosse was
formed of the square bricks that are so extraordinarily numerous in
Babylon, that measure 33 centimetres and bear the usual stamp of
Nebuchadnezzar. Those of the brick wall are somewhat smaller (32
centimetres) and unstamped. These smaller unstamped bricks are common
previous to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but nevertheless they may very
well date from the early years of his reign, as we shall see farther on.
To what period the mud-brick wall may be assigned we do not yet know; it
is certainly older. It apparently possessed an escarp, of which there
are some scanty remains within the great brick wall. It appears to have
been cut through on the outside by the latter.
Up to the present we have found about 15 of the towers on the mud wall
only. They are the so-called Cavalier towers, and project both at the
front and the back, thus placed astride on the wall. They were, of
course, higher than the walls, but we can get no clue from the ruins
as to the height of walls or towers, as only the lower parts remain.
The towers are 8.36 metres wide and are placed 44 metres apart. Thus
on the entire front there were about 90, and on the whole
circumference—provided the town formed a square—there must have been
360 towers. How many there were on the outer wall we do not know.
Ctesias gives the number as 250. No gateway has yet been found, which
is not surprising, considering the limited extent of the excavations.
During the Parthian period these lines of fortification can have been no
longer in a condition to afford protection. On the town side of the mud
wall there are Parthian sarcophagi, inserted in holes dug in the wall
itself.
While the foundations of the brick wall are below the present
water-level, the mud wall stands on an artificial embankment. As a
general rule mud walls were not provided with deep foundations. The
mortar employed for the mud wall was clay, and for the brick wall
bitumen was used. The same method of construction can be recognised in
other parts of the city, where it is better preserved and can be more
satisfactorily studied.
At the northern end of our line of wall, which encloses the mound of
ruins, called “Babil,” with a hook-like curve, the inner wall also was
built of brick. This appears, at least, from the two deep trenches left
by plunderers which occur here, but it must be inferred pending
excavation. The digging for the valuable bricks which occurred in recent
times has left deep traces in the otherwise smooth surface of the ground
which we do not find in the attempted demolitions of more ancient times.
For this reason, with the exception of the portion near Babil there is
nothing to be seen of the burnt-brick wall without excavating, while the
mud wall, which has merely suffered from the ravages of time, has left
behind a clearly marked line of ruins of some height. The town wall of
Seleucia on the Tigris, likewise a mud wall, stands out similarly above
its mounds of debris to a considerable height. It cannot therefore be
said that a burnt-brick wall of 480 stadia, the gigantic dimensions
recorded by Herodotus, must necessarily have left considerable and
unmistakable traces, and it is not this consideration that leads us to
doubt the existence of an encircling wall of such dimensions, which has
been accepted as an established fact since Oppert’s excavations in
Babylon. Neither does the immense size of itself demand dismissal as
fantastic. The great wall of China, 11 metres high and 7.5 metres broad,
with its length of 2450 kilometres, is just 29 times as long as that of
Herodotus. There are other overwhelming considerations which we shall
investigate later. In any case the city, even in circumference, was the
greatest of any in the ancient East, Nineveh itself not excepted, which
in other respects rivalled Babylon. But the period in which the fame of
Babylon’s vast size spread over the world was the time of Herodotus, and
then Nineveh had already ceased to exist.
A comparison with modern cities can scarcely be made without further
consideration. It must always be remembered that an ancient city was
primarily a fortress of which the inhabited part was surrounded and
protected by the encircling girdle of the walls. Our great modern cities
are of an entirely different character, they are inhabited spaces, open
on all sides. A reasonable comparison can, therefore, only be made
between Babylon and other walled cities, and when compared with them
Babylon takes the first place, both for ancient and modern times, as
regards the extent of its enclosed and inhabited area.
Nebuchadnezzar frequently mentions this great work in his inscriptions.
The most important passage occurs, in his great _Steinplatten_[1]
inscription, col. 7 l. 22–55: “That no assault should reach Imgur-Bel,
the wall of Babylon; I did, what no earlier king had done, for 4000 ells
of land on the side of Babylon, at a distance so that it (the assault)
did not come nigh, I caused a mighty wall to be built on the east side
of Babylon. I dug out its moat, and I built a scarp with bitumen and
bricks. A mighty wall I built on its edge, mountain high. Its broad
gateways I set within it and fixed in them double doors of cedar wood
overlaid with copper. In order that the enemy who devised (?) evil
should not press on the flanks of Babylon, I surrounded it with mighty
floods, as is the land with the wave-tossed sea. Its coming was like the
coming of the great sea, the salt water. In order that no breach should
be made in it, I piled up an earthen embankment by it, and encompassed
it with quay walls of burnt brick. The bulwark I fortified cunningly and
made the city of Babylon into a fortress” (cf. H. Winckler,
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vol. iii. 2, p. 23). It can hardly be
expected that we can yet reach absolute certainty as to the meaning of
all the details here given. That can best be afforded by a complete
excavation, which is urgently to be desired.
Footnote 1:
Usually called in England The East India House Inscription.
II
THE MOUND BABIL
[Illustration:
FIG. 3.—Plan of the mound “Babil.”
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 4.—Section of a canal when newly constructed (B), and after long
use (C).
]
Following the ridge of the ruined city wall from the excavated portion
farther to the north-west, one reaches a gap in the wall where it was
ruthlessly broken down by later canals, now themselves dried up (Fig.
3). They were forerunners of the present Nil Canal. The Arabic word
_nil_ denotes the blue colour which is generally produced by indigo, and
has given its name to various watercourses on Arab soil; the name of the
Egyptian Nile is probably connected with it. The Nil Canal runs to-day a
few hundred metres to the north-east along the city wall and roughly
parallel with it. The embankments of these canals, which in places are
of immense height, intersect the plain with a sharp line. The contrast
with the plain is most striking when they are seen on the horizon, where
the mirage comes to their aid and makes them look like hills of some
importance. At first sight, also, they appear to be entirely out of
proportion with the small amount of water that flows so slowly through
the canal. That, however, is only the case where the canal has been in
use for some long time. When the canal is first constructed each
embankment, under normal circumstances, consists of no more than half of
the earth which is dug out, as these irrigation works, wherever the lie
of the ground permits, are so arranged that the surface of the water may
be higher than the surrounding plain. Only in this way would it be
possible with comparatively small expenditure, and without special
machinery for raising water, to provide the field with a gentle supply
of the fructifying moisture. But the Euphrates at the period of high
water, when the irrigation takes place, bears a quantity of material in
suspension that is specially valuable for agriculture. If the water
stands quiet for long, as it does in a lake, it becomes clear as glass,
and is no longer suitable for irrigation, it is “dead,” as the Arabs
say. As the water flows slowly through these canals it deposits this
precious material in the canal-beds, and especially sand and mud in
great quantities. Thus it is necessary every year to clear out the
canals, and the material thrown out on to the embankments continually
raises them in height (Fig. 4). Obviously there must come a moment in
the history of each canal when it is more expensive to clear it out than
to construct a new one, and thus every canal bears within it the germ of
its own destruction. The sanding up of the canal-bed is naturally more
insistent in portions nearest the river, and hence it is that this canal
displacement occurs so frequently in the neighbourhood of the
river-course. On the way from Bagdad to Hilleh in the neighbourhood of
the Euphrates, one crosses extraordinarily numerous groups of abandoned
canals, most of which are nothing else than the older courses of the
same irrigation system that is in use to-day.
[Illustration:
FIG. 5.—View of the mound “Babil.”
]
This explanation must be borne in mind when bewildered by the first
sight of these ruined canals, either in reality or on a plan. As one
approaches the mound Babil from the north or the east—the mound, by the
way, which alone has preserved its ancient name to the present day—one
encounters the annoyance of this ruthless disturbance of the ground; it
is hardly possible to see the mound till one has climbed the embankment
nearest to it, but the impression is then all the more striking (Fig.
5).
The mound rises with a steep slope to the height of 22 metres above the
plain. Its area forms a square of about 250 metres, and this hill,
consisting of broken brick or clayey earth, is pierced by deep ravines
and tunnels, while on the north and south-west remains of walls of very
considerable height are still standing, with courses of mud brick held
together by layers of well-preserved reed stems. They date from a later
period, and may have belonged to a fort which was erected in Sassanide
or Arabic times on the already ruined Babylonian building.
The astoundingly deep pits and galleries that occur in places owe their
origin to the quarrying for brick that has been carried on extensively
during the last decades. The buildings of ancient Babylon, with their
excellent kiln bricks, served even in antiquity, perhaps in Roman times,
certainly in Parthian days, as a quarry for common use. Later centuries
appear to have done less to destroy the ruins, but in modern times the
quarrying for bricks has assumed far more important dimensions. About
twenty years ago, when the Euphrates first began to pour its life-giving
waters into the Hindiyeh, a side branch somewhat farther above Babylon,
near Musseyib, an attempt was made to head back the river into its old
bed by building up a dam, the _Sedde_, which with us has a somewhat evil
reputation. Building was carried on year after year without interference
at this dam, as long as the height of the water permitted, and that with
bricks from Babylon. Quite recently this outrage has been checked by the
powerful influence of Halil Bey, Director-General of the Ottoman
museums, and of Bedri Bey, the Turkish Commissioner on the excavations;
so now there is a well-grounded hope that the ruins of the most
celebrated city of the East, or perhaps of the world, shall go down to
posterity without further injury. Soon after the commencement of the
excavations I had interested myself in checking this spoliation, but
that was possible only for the Kasr, at Babil it still went on. Even at
the Kasr I had to drive these workers out of their pits, and we set the
people to work in our diggings, as the Arab is entirely indifferent as
to the method by which he earns his scanty wage. The only objectors were
the contractors, through whom the materials for the Sedde building were
sold. Very recently the latter also made an attack on the tower of
Borsippa, but their barbarous attempt was promptly stopped by the action
of the Turkish Government.
The robbers carried away the walls layer after layer, carefully leaving
the adjoining earth untouched, as the trench grew daily deeper, since a
downfall would render it inaccessible. This enables us to make some
instructive observations in the interior even before beginning our
excavations at this place.
It was a building consisting of many courts and chambers, both small and
large, a palace upon a substructure about 18 metres in height. The
latter is so constructed that the building walls throughout are
continuous and of the same thickness above and below, while the
intermediate spaces are filled up to the height of the palace floor with
earth and a packing of fragments of brick. As on part of the Kasr, the
floor consists of sandstone flags on the edge of which is inscribed,
“Palace of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, son of Nabopolassar, King of
Babylon.” There are also many portions of a limestone pavement that
consists of a thick rough under stratum, and a fine upper stratum half a
centimetre thick, and coloured a fine red or yellow. This pavement is
similar to those of the best Greek period, and it may be considered to
be an addition of the time of the Persian kings, or of Alexander the
Great and his successors. All the bricks stamped with the name of
Nebuchadnezzar, of which we learn more when we turn to the Kasr, were
laid either in asphalt or in a grey lime mortar, both of which also
occur at the Kasr.
All these things considered, it is impossible to doubt that Babil was a
palace of Nebuchadnezzar’s. The parallel passage in his great
inscription very probably refers to it (_K.B._ iii. 2, p. 31), col. 3 l.
11–29: “On the brick wall towards the north my heart inspired me to
build a palace for the protecting of Babylon. I built there a palace
like the palace of Babylon of brick and bitumen. For 60 ells I built an
_appa danna_ towards Sippar; I made a _nabalu_, and laid its foundation
on the bosom of the underworld, on the surface of the (ground) water in
brick and bitumen. I raised its summit and connected it with the palace,
with brick and bitumen I made it high as a mountain. Mighty cedar trunks
I laid on it for roof. Double doors of cedar wood overlaid with copper,
thresholds and hinges made of bronze did I set up in its doorways. That
building I named ‘May Nebuchadnezzar live, may he grow old as restorer
of Esagila’” (translated by H. Winckler). Various expressions remain
extremely obscure, and their explanation awaits the excavation of the
building. Especially should we like to know what was meant by the _appa
danna_. These words in Babylonian mean a “strong nose,” which taken
absolutely literally is nonsense. In this connection, however, as the
appendage of a palace they recall so strongly the _apadana_ with which
the Persian kings in Persepolis denoted their palaces that one can
hardly be mistaken in thinking there must be some esoteric connection.
An apadana in Persia had the ground plan of a many-fronted Hilani (see
Fig. 77), and it would be very interesting and of the highest importance
in the history of architecture to discover what a building of
Nebuchadnezzar’s in Babylon looked like, that at any rate, bore a name
so exactly similar in sound. It is only excavation that can give the
long-delayed answer to that question.
III
GENERAL VIEW OF THE CITY
[Illustration:
FIG. 6.—General view of Babylon, seen from the north-west.
]
The heights of Babil afford a fine view (Fig. 6) over the entire city,
especially towards evening when the long purple shadows cast on the
plain throw up the golden yellow outlines of the ruins in high relief.
No human habitation is in sight. The villages on the left bank of the
Euphrates—Kweiresh, where our house is, and Djumdjumma farther south—are
so buried among the green date palms that one can scarcely catch a
glimpse of even a wall. On the other bank are Sindjar and Ananeh also
concealed in the same way, although the latter village with the farm of
Karabet stands forward somewhat more clearly. The Euphrates is fringed
with palms which cluster more thickly near the water. To the south above
their ornamental crowns the minaret of Hilleh gleams, and in the blue
distance can be seen a somewhat pointed hill surmounted by a jagged
wall, the ruin of E-ur-imin-an-ki, the tower of Borsippa. Due east is
the mound of Oheimir, where are the ruins of the ancient Babylonian Kish
(?), towards the north the palms of Khan Mhauil are to be seen, and,
when the weather is favourable, Tell Ibrahim, the ancient Kutha. With
these exceptions all that is visible is the sombre dun-coloured desert.
The cultivated stretches are diminishing in extent and are only
noticeable for those few weeks in the year when they are clothed with
green.
To those accustomed to Greece and its remains it is a constant surprise
to have these mounds pointed out as ruins. Here are no blocks of stone,
no columns: even in the excavations there is only brickwork, while
before work commenced only a few brick projections stood out on the
Kasr. Here in Babylonia mounds form the modern representatives of
ancient glories, there are no columns to bear witness to vanished
magnificence.