entirely with the importance, the size, and the splendour of the Ishtar
Gate. With its walls which still stand 12 metres high, covered with
brick reliefs, it is the largest and most striking ruin of Babylon
and—with the exception of the tower of Borsippa which, though now
shapeless, is higher—of all Mesopotamia (see ground-plan on Fig. 46).
[Illustration:
FIG. 18.—Eastern end of the mud-brick wing, at the Ishtar Gate, from
the north.
]
It was a double gateway. Two doorways close together, one behind the
other, formed into one block by short connecting walls, lead through the
walls of crude brick (Fig. 18), which are equally closely placed. At a
later period the latter formed a transept which stood out square across
the acropolis and afforded special protection to the inner part, the
Southern Citadel (cf. the restored view, Fig. 43). Apparently these
walls were originally connected directly with the inner town wall still
extant at Homera, for inscriptions found there prove conclusively that
to it belonged the name Nimitti-Bel, while the Ishtar Gate is itself
frequently spoken of in other inscriptions as belonging to both
Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel. Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel are the two
oft-mentioned celebrated fortress walls of Babylon, of which we shall
presently speak (p. 150 _et seq._).
[Illustration:
FIG. 19.—General view of the Ishtar Gate from the north.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 20.—Gold plaque from grave in the Nabopolassar Palace (scale 3:
1).
]
Of each of the two gateways two widely projecting towers close to the
entrance are still standing (Fig. 19), and behind them a space closed by
a second door. This space, which is generally called the gateway court,
although it was probably roofed in, shows clear signs that its primary
object was to protect the leaves of the double door which opened back
into it from the weather, and also that it strengthened the
possibilities of the defences. In the case of smaller gates which do not
possess these interior chambers, the leaves of the doors were inserted
in the thickness of the wall, which afforded a protection; an embrasure
which is absent in the gateways. On the northern gate the gateway
chamber lies transversely, on the southern it extends along the central
axis. Here also it is enclosed with walls of such colossal thickness
that it may be supposed to have supported a central tower of great
height, but nothing remains in proof of this. This assumption is
delineated in Fig. 21, while in Fig. 43 it is taken for granted that the
gateway chamber was commanded by the towers. Here, as in all the other
buildings, we have little to guide us as to the superstructure. Among
the ornaments in a grave in the Southern Citadel was a rectangular gold
plate (Fig. 20) which on the face represents a great gateway. On it,
near the arched door, we see the two towers overtopping the walls, while
on their projecting upper part triangular battlements and small circular
loopholes can be seen. Of the latter we found thick wedge-shaped stones
under the blue enamelled bricks, and also part of the stepped
battlements in blue enamel which, on the whole, may have had an
appearance of triangles.
[Illustration:
FIG. 21.—Section through the Ishtar Gate.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 22.—Grooved expansion joints at the Ishtar Gate.
]
The gateway itself was not placed immediately in the mud wall, but
between four wing-like additions of burnt brick, in each of which was a
doorway. Thus the Ishtar Gate had three entrances, the central one with
fourfold doors, and one to right and left, each with double doors. The
foundations of the main building are so deep that, owing to the present
high water-level, we could not get to the foot of them (Fig. 21). The
gateway wings are not carried down so far, and the walls that stretch
northward still less. It is conceivable that those parts of the wall
where the foundations are specially deep do not sink so much in the
course of time as those of shallower foundations, and settlement is
unavoidable even with these, standing as they do upon earth and mud.
Thus where the foundations are dissimilar there must be cleavages in the
walls, which would seriously endanger the stability of the building. The
Babylonians foresaw this and guarded against it. They devised the
expansion joint, which we also make use of under similar circumstances.
By this means walls that adjoin each other but which are on foundations
of different depths are not built in one piece. A narrow vertical space
is left from top to bottom of the wall, leaving the two parts standing
independent of each other. In order to prevent any possibility of their
leaning either backwards or forwards, in Babylon a vertical fillet was
frequently built on to the less deeply rooted wall, which slid in a
groove in the main wall (Fig. 22). The two blocks run in a guide, as an
engineer would call it. In the case of small isolated foundations, the
actual foundation of burnt brick rests in a substructure of crude brick
shaped like a well, filled up with earth, in which it can shift about at
the base without leaning over, which gives it play like the joints of a
telescope. In this way the small postament near the eastern tower of our
gate is constructed, and also the round one which stands to the westward
of it on the open space in front of the gate (Fig. 23). On these
postaments and on similar ones in the northern gateway court and in the
intermediate court must “the mighty bronze colossi of bulls and the
potent serpent figures” have stood which Nebuchadnezzar placed in the
entries of the Ishtar Gate (_Steinplatten_ inscription, col. 6).
[Illustration:
FIG. 23.—View of the Ishtar Gate from the west.
]
Where the southern door adjoined its western buttress there were some
remarkable and rather considerable ancient cavities in the wall, for
which I cannot discover any certain explanation. They were filled with
earth, and had not been meddled with in modern times. Later than these,
but also of ancient times, there is a well hewn out in the northern
wing. A narrow staircase led down to it, and could only be reached by a
passage 50 centimetres wide cut through the wall, which opened on to the
space in front of the gate. The exit was hidden away in a corner, and
almost entirely concealed.
VII
THE WALL DECORATIONS OF BULLS AND DRAGONS
[Illustration:
FIG. 24.—The two eastern towers of the Ishtar Gate.
]
The decoration of the walls of the Ishtar Gate consisted of alternated
figures of bulls and dragons (_sirrush_). They are placed in horizontal
rows on the parts of the walls that are open to observation by those
entering or passing (Fig. 24), and also on the front of both the
northern wings, but not where they would be wholly or partially
invisible to the casual observer. The rows are repeated one above
another; dragons and bulls are never mixed in the same horizontal row,
but a line of bulls is followed by one of sirrush. Each single
representation of an animal occupies a height of 13 brick courses, and
between them are 11 plain courses, so that the distance from the foot of
one to the foot of the next is 24 courses. These 24 courses together
measure almost exactly 2 metres, or 4 Babylonian ells, in height. As
these bricks change their standard when in use as binders or stretchers
at the corners, the reliefs on one side of a corner are invariably
either one course higher or lower than on the wall on the adjoining
side.
[Illustration:
FIG. 25.—Enamelled reliefs at the Ishtar Gate, beginning of the
excavation, April 1, 1902.
]
From top to bottom of the wall there are 9 rows of these animals visible
in relief. The two lowest rows are frequently under the water-level,
which has risen so considerably in recent years. In 1910, however, it
was possible to penetrate as low as some of these reliefs. Above there
was a row of bulls in flat enamels, a good portion of which was found
_in situ_ on the south-east pier of the north gate (Fig. 25). Above this
must have been at least one row of sirrush and one of bulls in flat
enamels, and a row of sirrush in enamel reliefs; the whole ruin was
bestrewn with an extraordinary number of fragments from these upper
rows. Those fragments have recently been brought to Europe, and it now
remains to determine from them the actual numbers of the figures, so far
as they can be counted. When this is done, we shall be able to decide
whether or not there were more of these rows. The succession of the rows
in the meantime may be schematized thus:—
Row 13. Sirrush in enamelled relief.
„ 12. Bulls in enamelled relief.
„ 11. Sirrush in flat enamel.
Upper level of pavement of shadu and turminabanda stone.
„ 10. Bulls in flat enamel, the top row of those found still _in
situ_.
„ 9. Bulls in brick relief, carefully worked.
Older road pavement of burnt brick.
„ 8. Sirrush in brick relief.
„ 7. Bulls in brick relief.
Traces of an older pavement (?).
„ 6. Sirrush in brick relief.
„ 5. Bulls in brick relief.
„ 4. Sirrush in brick relief.
„ 3. Bulls in brick relief.
„ 2. Sirrush in brick relief, in 1910 only above water-level.
„ 1. Bulls in brick relief, in 1910 only above water-level.
Each of the 8 lower rows contained at least 40 animals, and the upper 5
rows 51 animals. For in the latter there were certainly 5 more on the
south-eastern angle of the northern gateway court and 6 more on the
front of the northern wings. This gives a minimum number of 575 animals.
After the excavations 152 pieces were to be seen still in position, and
about as many more may yet be discovered in the part not yet uncovered.
The whole of this collection of creatures was certainly at no period
visible at the same time and from the same point of view. The level on
which the Ishtar Gate stood was repeatedly raised by artificial means.
The traces of the two last heightenings can be seen between the 10th and
11th and the 8th and 9th rows. The traces of a pavement between the 6th
and 7th rows are not clear. It is possible that when the gate was first
built the roadway lay at the same level as the surrounding plain, but
there is no proof of this. It may also be surmised that, for some time
at least, the lower part of the gate was used as such, but in any case
with the successive heightenings of the road the lower part of the
building gradually disappeared below the surface. The filling up shows
the existence of great foresight, and of most scrupulous care expended
on the work. The reliefs were carefully smeared over with mud, and those
of the 8th row were actually covered with a fine clean white stucco. On
the irregular surface of this covering the marks of the smearing hands
are clearly visible. The white plaster so catches the eye that at first
I imagined it to be the remains of a coating intended to be painted and
to ensure a more perfect moulding of the form and outline of the animal;
the obvious roughness of the work, however, precluded any such
conclusion.
Below the 8th row, that is below the older roadway, an unusual neglect
of the wall surface appears. The bricks are often reversed and laid
irregularly backwards or forwards, and thus in places the reliefs are
not fitted together (Figs. 26, 27). The asphalt often protrudes from the
joints and has run in thick black streaks over ground and figures alike.
None of these defects occur in the 9th course. The field of the reliefs,
on the contrary, is carefully smoothed to a fine surface with some
polishing instrument, and the animal figures are worked over with a
rasp. This seems to point to the conclusion that the lower rows were not
intended to stand out free and meet the eye, at any rate not for any
considerable length of time; and this also shows that when the gate was
built, it was intended from the first that the Procession Street and the
level of the old pavement should be raised. Even in the lowest courses
we find the 3–lined stamp that is characteristic of the latter half of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. No traces have been found of an earlier
building, though Nebuchadnezzar speaks of one.
[Illustration:
FIG. 26.—THE BULL OF THE ISHTAR GATE.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 27.—A bull, not enamelled.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 28.—Inscription from the Ishtar Gate.
]
In the great _Steinplatten_ inscription, col. 5 and 6, the king says:
“... Ištar-sâkipat-têbiša of Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel—both entrances of
the town gates had become too low owing to the filling up of the street
(sulû) of Babil. I dug out that town gate, I grounded its foundations
facing the water strong with bitumen and baked bricks, and caused it to
be finely set forth with baked bricks of blue enamel, on which wild oxen
and dragons (sir-ruš) were pictured. I caused mighty cedars to be laid
lengthways for its ceiling. Door leaves of cedar covered with copper,
thresholds and hinges of bronze I fitted into its gates. Lusty (?) wild
oxen of bronze and raging (?) dragons I placed at the thresholds. The
same town gateways I caused to be made glorious for the amazement of all
peoples” (trans. by Delitzsch).
[Illustration:
FIG. 29.—ENAMELLED WALL LENGTH OF THE ISHTAR GATE.
]
Between the two doorways, at the level of the topmost pavement, a great
block of limestone was found bearing the consecration inscription of the
Ishtar Gate (Fig. 28) which, with another lying by it, must have
belonged either to the jambs or the soffit of the door. The inscription
runs thus: “(Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, son of) Nabopolassar (King
of Babylon am I). The gate of Nana (Ishtar ... I built) with (blue)
enamelled bricks ... for Marduk my lord. Lusty bulls of bronze and
mighty figures of serpents I placed at their thresholds, with slabs (?)
of limestone (and ...) of stone I ... the enclosure of the bulls (...?)
Marduk, exalted lord ... eternal life ... give as a gift” (trans. by
Messerschmidt).
[Illustration:
FIG. 30.—The enamelled piece of wall.
]
The expression “uknû,” which here and in other inscriptions is used for
enamelled brick, properly denotes _lapis lazuli_. It corresponds in
fact, and possibly in derivation, with the Greek “kyanos.” The technique
of the enamel, the reference marks of the bricks, and the varied
colourings are precisely the same as we have already observed with the
lions (Figs. 29, 30).
The lion, the animal of Ishtar, was so favourite a subject at all times
in Babylonian art that its rich and lavish employment at the main gate
of Babylon, the Ishtar Gate, is by no means abnormal. With the bull, and
still more with the sirrush, the case is different. The bull is the
sacred animal of Ramman, the weather god. A pair of walking bulls often
form the base on which his statue stands, or his emblem the lightning is
frequently placed on the back of a recumbent bull. Similar
representations point to the sirrush as the sacred animal both of Marduk
and of Nabû. In the Babylonian pantheon of Nebuchadnezzar’s time, Marduk
occupied a very prominent position. To him belonged Esagila, the
principal temple of Babylon, and to him Nebuchadnezzar consecrated the
Procession Street and the Ishtar Gate itself. His animal, the sirrush,
frequently appears on carvings of this period, such as the seals and
boundary stones. This “dragon of Babylon” was the far-famed animal of
Babylon, and fits in admirably with the well-known story in the
Apocrypha of Bel and the Dragon. One may easily surmise that the priests
of Esagila kept some reptile, probably an arval, which is found in this
neighbourhood, and exhibited it in the semi-darkness of a temple chamber
as a living sirrush. In this case there would be small cause for wonder
that the creature did not survive the concoction of hair and bitumen
administered to it by Daniel.
The artistic conception of the sirrush (Figs. 31 and 32) differs very
considerably from that of the other fabulous creatures in which
Babylonian art is so exceedingly rich. Although not free from
impossibilities, it is far less fantastic and unnatural than the winged
bulls with human heads, or the bearded men with birds’ bodies and
scorpions’ tails, and similar absurdities.
[Illustration:
FIG. 31.—THE SIRRUSH OF THE ISHTAR GATE.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 32.—A sirrush, not enamelled.
]
As indicated by the Babylonian name it is a “walking serpent.” A
striking feature is the scaly coat and the great tail of a serpent’s
body. The head with the forked tongue is purely that of a serpent, and
is in fact that of the horned viper, so common in Arabia, which bears
the two erect horns, of which, as in the case of the bulls, only one is
visible in the purely profile attitude. Behind lie two spiral combs
similar to those so generously bestowed on the heads of the frequently
represented Chinese dragon. The tail ends in a small curved sting. The
legs are those of some high-stepping feline animal, probably a cheetah.
The hinder feet are those of a strong raptorial bird (Fig. 33) with
powerful claws and great horny scales. But the tarsal joint is not that
of a bird but of a quadruped, and the metatarsals are not anchylosed, or
only very slightly at the distal end. It is remarkable that, in spite of
the scales, the animal possesses hair. Three corkscrew ringlets fall
over the head near the ears, and on the neck, where a lizard’s comb
would be, is a long row of curls.
[Illustration:
FIG. 33.—Leg of a sirrush and of a raptorial bird.
]
This conjunction of scales and hair, as well as the marked difference
between the front and hinder extremities, is very characteristic of the
prehistoric dinosaur. Also the small size of the head in comparison with
the rest of the body, the carriage and disproportionate length of the
neck, all correspond with the distinctive features of this extinct
lizard. The sirrush is a proof of an unmistakable self-creative genius
in this ancient art and far exceeds all other fantastic creatures in the
uniformity of its physiological conceptions. If only the forelegs were
not so emphatically and characteristically feline, such an animal might
actually have existed. The hind feet of a lizard are often very similar
to those of birds.
VIII
THE PROCESSION STREET SOUTH OF THE ISHTAR GATE
The street pavement extended through the Ishtar Gate, and in the
southern gateway court the older pavement is still in place. Here there
are three layers of bricks set in asphalt, which curve upward near the
walls, forming a shallow trough (visible in Fig. 19). Its purpose must
have been to prevent the collected water soaking into the joints of the
walls. Similar curves in other places are the result of the unequal
settling of the lighter material of the filling below the pavement and
of the unyielding walls of baked brick, while a curve in the opposite
sense can often be remarked on the flooring of buildings of crude brick,
because the closely compressed mud wall settled with greater force than
the slightly compressed filling under the pavement.
On leaving the Ishtar Gate we cross the substructure of the threshold,
which rested on many layers of brick and must itself have been of stone.
On the south of the gate some later insignificant buildings, perhaps
Parthian, have clustered round it. These leave the entrance free, and
Nebuchadnezzar’s great paving-blocks of the upper roadway, over which
Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, and Darius must frequently have passed, are
still in position. Farther on only the lower pavement remains. It
extends parallel with the east front of the Southern Citadel as far as
the end of the mound, where it surrounds an altar (?) of mud brick.
A branch of the street leads to the principal entrance of the Southern
Citadel. A great number of limestone and turminabanda paving-stones
found in the southern portion originally formed part of the destroyed
upper pavement. It appears that during the Greek or Parthian periods
balls for projectiles were made out of this limestone, as many have been
found here. They divide into groups of various weights (Fig. 34). Some
measure 27.5 centimetres in diameter, and weigh 20.20–20.25 kilos;
others 19 centimetres, and 7–7.75 kilos; and others again 16
centimetres, and 4–4.5 kilos.
[Illustration:
FIG. 34.—Limestone projectiles.
]
South of the Citadel the street crosses a watercourse, which apparently
varied at different periods both in width and in name. In the time of
Nebuchadnezzar it was perhaps the canal “Libil-ḫigalla,” while in
Persian and Greek times it was the Euphrates itself that flowed here. We
dug a ditch here that extended from the mound to the recommencement of
the street, and which clearly showed the stratum to have been formed by
the deposit of water. The strata contain no ruins with the exception of
a canal, which in places is barely 3 metres broad. This canal is
constructed in later fashion with the ancient bricks of Nebuchadnezzar,
the best outside, the fragments inside, and all laid in mud. To the east
it soon comes to an end and disappears in the banked-up watercourse. To
the west it first widens out into a basin of three times its breadth,
where narrow steps lead down the embankments to the level of the water
(Fig. 35), and then once more narrows to its ordinary width. Farther to
the west we know nothing of it. At the narrow portions, at about the
height of the ancient water-level, courses of squared limestone of
considerable size were laid. In the western part the northern bank
contained a square opening many brick courses deep. The whole conveys
the impression of a kind of sluice, which perhaps served to connect a
watercourse in the east, of high water-level, with another in the west
of lower level. This construction may date from the time of Neriglissar,
when throwing a bridge across the canal to carry the Procession Street
presented no difficulty. In earlier times the street appears to have
been carried on a dam with walled embankments, which latter still exist
below the walls of the canal.
[Illustration:
FIG. 35.—Canal to the south of the Kasr.
]
The eastern canal, Libil-ḫigalla, was restored by Nebuchadnezzar,
according to _K.B._ iii. 2, p. 61: “Libil-ḫigalla, the eastern canal of
Babylon, which a long time previously had been choked (?) with
downfallen earth (?), and filled with rubbish, I sought out its place,
and I laid its bed with baked bricks and bitumen from the banks of the
Euphrates up to Ai-ibur-šabû. At Ai-ibur-šabû, the street of Babylon, I
added a canal bridge and made the way broad for the procession of the
great lord Marduk” (trans. by Winckler and Delitzsch). Neriglissar also
says of himself (_K.B._ i. 1, p. 75): “The eastern arm, which an earlier
king (indeed) dug, but had not constructed its bed, (this) arm I dug
(again) and constructed its bed with bricks and kiln bricks; beneficent,
inexhaustible water I led to the land” (trans. by Winckler).
To the north of the Citadel there is a similar canal constructed after
the same fashion, of which the vaulting still exists. My opinion is that
this canal conveyed to the east the water of the Euphrates, which was
probably still called “Arachtu” there, and that possibly it flowed round
the Kasr in somewhat irregular fashion, even in the Neo-Babylonian
period. This easterly body of water would then return to the Euphrates
by means of the canal just described. At the south-west corner of the
Kasr buildings, where they joined the wall of Nabonidus, the openings
through which the water escaped are still preserved in this wall.