much lower level. It is paved with brick, plastered with asphalt, and is
of the same breadth as the southern Kasr Street. It passes between the
houses of Merkes and the sacred peribolos of Etemenanki, keeping close
to the latter, but at a sufficient distance from the secular dwellings
of the Babylonians. The first part of the street, as far as the great
gate of Etemenanki, had a flooring of kiln bricks overlaid with
paving-stones of turminabanda, which still lie undisturbed on the branch
leading to the gate (Fig. 36). They bear the same dedicatory inscription
as that on the Kasr: some of them, however, have in addition on the
underside the name of Sennacherib, the bloodthirsty Assyrian who while
still well disposed to the city often beautified it, only at last to
destroy it utterly, as he emphatically states in his Bavian inscription.
Nebuchadnezzar makes no reference to this work of one of his
predecessors, he only refers to that of his father Nabopolassar
(_Steinplatten_ inscription, col. 5, 12): “From Du-azag, the place of
the deciding of fates, the chamber of fate, to Aiburšabu, the street of
Babylon, opposite the ‘Lady’ Gate, he (Nabopolassar) had paved the
Procession Street of the great lord Marduk splendidly with paving-stones
of breccia” (trans. by Delitzsch). Of these paving-stones of
Nabopolassar there are certainly no remains that can be identified with
certainty. Just as Nebuchadnezzar made use of the blocks of Sennacherib
for his new building, so doubtless he would appropriate those of his
father.
[Illustration:
FIG. 36.—View of Procession Street, east of Etemenanki.
]
In addition to digging out the street on the east side of the peribolos
we also excavated a portion of it on the south side. Here we could trace
it between the peribolos and Esagila as far as the (Urash?) gate in the
Nabonidus wall and the Euphrates bridge there. In this whole length,
several superimposed pavements of baked brick, separated from each other
by shallow layers of earth, occurred rather frequently; all the upper
ones bear the stamp of Nebuchadnezzar, the bricks of the lowest pavement
are unstamped and smaller (32 centimetres): these may date from
Nabopolassar, but not necessarily. North of the Ishtar Gate we only find
Nebuchadnezzar’s brick stamps. Consequently the above-quoted passage
seems to refer to the section of the street between Esagila and the
Kasr. If so, the “Lady” Gate (bâb bilti) must be sought on the eastern
front of the Kasr, and Du-azag either in Esagila or in the peribolos of
Etemenanki. The Procession Street on the Kasr was called Aibur-shabu. To
this latter section only the above-quoted passage applies
(_Steinplatten_ inscription, col. 5, 38).
[Illustration:
FIG. 37.—Inscription referring to the Procession Street.
]
We found a brick, although not _in situ_ (Fig. 37), with an inscription
that refers to the construction of the street by Nebuchadnezzar, with a
number of fragments of similar content: “Nebuchadnezzar, King of
Babylon, he who made Esagila and Ezida glorious, son of Nabopolassar,
King of Babylon. The streets of Babylon, the Procession Streets of Nabû
and Marduk my lords, which Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, the father who
begat me, had made a road glistening with asphalt and burnt bricks: I,
the wise suppliant who fears their lordship, placed above the bitumen
and burnt bricks a mighty superstructure of shining dust, made them
strong within with bitumen and burnt bricks as a high-lying road. Nabû
and Marduk, when you traverse these streets in joy, may benefits for me
rest upon your lips; life for distant days and well-being for the body.
Before you will I advance (?) upon them (?). May I attain eternal age”
(trans. by Weissbach).
Here and there on the street, and also below the procession pavement,
are Babylonian graves. The adults are in large jars, the children in
shallow elliptical bowls of pottery. We have observed no traces of
monuments above ground, nor could we expect to find any in such a
position on the street, nor yet in the other usual places of burial—the
streets and squares of the city, on the fortification walls, and in the
ruins of fallen houses.
IX
THE TEMPLE OF NINMACH
Passing out of the Ishtar Gate, we find ourselves on a high open space
before the east front of the Southern Citadel, where stood its great
portal. Like the street and the palace itself, it is raised to the same
level as the rest of the Citadel by means of artificial piling up of
materials in several distinct stages. In the north-east corner stands
the temple of Ninmach, “the great mother” (Fig. 38). Its entrance façade
faces the north, immediately opposite one wing of the Ishtar Gate, to
which it is joined by a short wall containing a doorway. At the
south-east corner a mud brick wall begins, which also has a gate, and
which probably was intended to form the boundary of the temple square,
but of which only a short piece now remains. In this manner the secular
area was entirely excluded from the sacred precincts.
Immediately in front of the temple entrance was a small altar of mud
brick surrounded by an area of kiln brick, the edge of which was defined
by tilted bricks fixed edgeways in the ground.
The temple, like all others hitherto found by us, is composed of mud
brick, but we must not judge of its original appearance by the present
condition of the ruins; its walls were covered with a white plaster that
gave it the appearance of marble. The designs employed in laying out
this temple were borrowed from military architecture. Towers in close
proximity to each other are placed on the walls and especially beside
the gateways. None of their upper portions now exist, but we believe we
have sufficient evidence to prove that, like those of fortifications,
they were crowned with the usual stepped battlements. In addition, these
sacred buildings possessed a very characteristic form of decoration
which is absent in fortresses and other secular buildings. This consists
of vertical grooves carried from top to bottom of the walls, either
rectangular in section or stepped, as here in the temple of Ninmach. In
other temples, as at Borsippa or the earliest Esagila, in place of the
grooves there are semicircular fillets. Cornices, friezes, and the like,
as well as columns or entablatures, are entirely absent in Babylonia.
[Illustration:
FIG. 38.—Ground-plan and section of Ninmach Temple.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 39.—Bronze ferrule of doorpost, Emach.
]
In the gateway the three upper floorings lie superimposed and separated
from each other by layers of earth. They are very instructive and show
that they pertain to the last three raisings of the temple-level. That
the temple was raised twice previously we learn from the cella. Under
each pavement at the gate there is a channel which carried off the
rain-water from the building, and on each side of the entrance, also
under the pavement, is one of those remarkable structures formed of six
bricks placed together which we found in connection with almost every
doorway of any importance in the temples. One of these was empty, but in
the eastern one was deposited a bird in earthenware, and with it a
fragment of pottery with an almost illegible inscription. Such deposits
may probably be termed offerings, and every one of these small caskets
which is now empty certainly contained gifts which in course of time
have perished and disappeared. The exact significance attached to them
by the Babylonians we do not know; the inscriptions found on some of the
clay figures on other sites do not make this clear.
The entrance was fitted with double doors. The base of the doorposts
stood in a bronze ferrule (Fig. 39), and turned in stone sockets of
considerable dimensions. The brick cavities in which these sockets were
inserted are well preserved, the stone sockets themselves have
disappeared, as in most other cases. The two blocks of brickwork by
which the old pivot sockets were partially covered were in some way
which cannot now be clearly recognised used as foundations for the stone
sockets of the later, higher pavement. The door could be very strongly
barricaded, apart from the bolts which we may safely take for granted,
by a beam that was propped against it from the inside. For the admission
of this beam there was a slight depression in the pavement and also a
stone which rose slightly above its level exactly as at the Urash Gate,
and at the Citadel gateway at Sendjirli. The usual method of fastening
was undoubtedly by beams which could be drawn out of the wall, as we
shall see them in the ancient gate of the Southern Citadel. The prop was
intended merely to strengthen the fastenings in troubled times and
enable the priests of Emach to defend their sanctuary as a stronghold.
The towers and parapets of the external walls may also have helped in
this case.
[Illustration:
FIG. 40.—Court in Ninmach Temple.
]
When we leave the vestibule, as we may well name the first chamber at
the gateway, we find ourselves in the court, which was proportionately
large and certainly open to the sky, and which gave more or less direct
access to the remaining chambers. Immediately opposite lies the entrance
to the cella (Fig. 40), indicated by towers decorated with grooves. From
here it must have been possible to behold through the open cella-doors
beyond, in the mystic twilight of the Holy of Holies, the cultus image
on its pedestal. To the right was a brick-lined well which must have
played an important part in the service of the cult. Immediately in
front of the entrance to the cella, in the asphalt covering of the
pavement, three circular depressions may be observed, in which metal
vases, now lost, appear to have stood. Similar cavities may also be seen
near the centre of the court. One would expect incense-burners,
thymiateria, here, but of these we have no knowledge.
At the time of the final raising of the floor-level, the mud façade of
the cella was provided with a slight dressing of kiln bricks, of which
there are now only scanty remains. The caskets for offerings at each
side of the entrance are there. Originally rectangular, they are much
distorted by the settling down of the walls: this also caused a
curvature of the pavement, which has been re-levelled in the corners by
means of asphalt and broken brick.
The cella had an ante-chamber of similar size, and both have a small
side chamber. This side chamber we have termed the Adyton, without any
further ground for doing so than the analogy with Greek temple cellae.
It appears probable that the secular folk were not allowed to penetrate
beyond the ante-chamber. Access to the cella was evidently intentionally
rendered difficult by the postament, which projected almost as far as
the door—a peculiarity which we shall find with most of the cellae. The
postament of the upper floor-level is no longer there. Its principal
adjustments could still be traced on the floor and by the fragments of
asphalt that cling to the niche in the hinder wall. Below, and almost
beneath it, are two postaments lying one above another of burnt brick
and bitumen which bear witness to two earlier periods during which the
temple was in use. These postaments always rose very slightly above the
floor-level, and had a low step in front. Still farther down, at the
edge of the foundation, below the postament was the casket of burnt
brick usual in this position and containing a small pottery figure of a
man holding a slender gold staff in his hand. In other temples we shall
see this better preserved. At a still greater depth the excavations
reached a natural stratum of alternate sand and mud, as though water had
flowed here for some considerable time.
[Illustration:
FIG. 41.—Emach cylinder inscription of Sardanapalus.
]
In the Adyton at the end of the foundations at one corner lay the
foundation cylinder of Sardanapalus (Fig. 41). This was surrounded by
sand, and near by lay tablets of the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the
cylinder cannot have been found in the place where it was deposited by
Sardanapalus, though certainly not far off. For Nebuchadnezzar must have
read the four last lines of this document with the same awe with which
we read it to-day: “Who with cunning deed shall destroy this record of
my name ... bring to the ground, or alter its position, him may Ninmaḫ
before Bel, Sarrateia bespeak to evil, destroy his name, his seed in the
lands!” (trans. by Delitzsch).
Sardanapalus refers to the founding of the temple in line 13: “At that
same time I caused E-maḫ, the temple of the goddess Ninmaḫ in Babil, to
be made new.” It can no longer be proved whether and how far the lower
part of the walls date back to the time of Sardanapalus. The two lower
postaments have no stamp on their bricks, nor has the upper pavement.
That the raising of the pavement that Nebuchadnezzar considered
necessary was his work is proved by tablets bearing his name which have
been found below, and especially by the stamps of the burnt-brick wall
which the king caused to be erected round the temple.
[Illustration:
FIG. 42.—Kisu inscription of Emach.
]
This “Kisu,” as the wall is named on the inscriptions, was built with
the object of strengthening the external walls of the building as the
floor-level was heightened. The mass of new material brought in for this
work must have pressed very seriously on the outer walls, and rendered
such strengthening necessary. We find the same method adopted for
several monumental buildings as they were raised in height. It was a
special delight to the Babylonians to seize the opportunity afforded by
rebuilding to raise the level. To build higher and yet higher always on
the same ground plan is the characteristic tendency of all restorers of
buildings.
In the debris of the Kisu, which was largely destroyed by early
plunderers, we have found a considerable number of inscribed bricks that
refer to the rebuilding of the temple, and to the Kisu (Fig. 42):
“Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, son of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon,
am I. E-maḫ, the temple of Ninmaḫ in Babylon, have I built anew to
Nin-maḫ the Princess, the Exalted, in Babylon. I caused it to be
surrounded with a mighty Kisu of bitumen and burnt brick,” etc. (trans.
by Winckler). The inscription is identical with that on small cylinders
now in various museums, but of which we have found none (_K.B._ iii. 2,
p. 67). We see here what Nebuchadnezzar meant by “mighty”: it is a wall
2.02 metres thick.
The heightening of the floor-level involved also the raising of the
immediate surroundings, apparently to about the same level. The upper
floor lies at about the same height as the old Procession Street.
Round this older Kisu, which exactly follows the outer lines of the
temple with all its projections, there runs a later one, which has only
large tower projections in some places. It is built with
Nebuchadnezzar’s bricks, and its foundations are not so deep as those of
its predecessor. Towards the south there appear to be remains of a third
Kisu of still shallower foundation.
In the south behind the temple, as low down as the ancient Kisu, are
buildings of mud brick which we have not sought further. They show that
the Citadel square was formerly occupied by buildings of a private
character.
To whom the two upper pavements which still remain in the entrance
doorway may be ascribed cannot be stated with certainty. In this case we
cannot place much reliance on the Nebuchadnezzar stamps. On the upper
pavement stood an entirely unimportant construction of Nabonidus bricks.
This building in later years was demolished and levelled above the upper
pavement, and on it was erected a building of mud brick on the lines,
however, of the ancient temple. So little of it now remains that it is
impossible to make out its purpose with any certainty.
In order to secure more strength for the building, wooden clamps were
inserted about half-way between the bottom of the foundations and the
main flooring, which reached from the outer walls to those opposite. We
found the holes left by them in the walls of the north-east room, and in
chamber W 2.
At about each 8th course there is a thick layer of reeds laid crossways
over each other, which have now rotted to a white powder. They were
certainly intended in some way to strengthen the walls, but it is now
difficult to estimate the length of time for which they served this
purpose.
The angles of the walls at the gates were secured by the insertion of
pieces of wood washed over with tar. A plank of wood, the height of a
brick course, lay in the jamb, and another, one course higher on each
side, thus forming a frame, which probably also served as an attachment
for the door or door casing.
We should, of course, wish to give a clearer explanation of the object
and use of the various parts of the building, but this is a difficult
matter. We have very little information as to the usages of the cult
connected with the temple. It is therefore of great importance that in
Babylon we have not only one, but a series of four temples, in which the
arrangement of the chambers is clearly repeated. From these we can
conclude with certainty that for a temple the towered façade, the
vestibule, the court, the cella with its postament in the shallow niche,
were regarded as indispensable. It is not difficult to recognise the
small side-chamber near the cella as the store-place for the various
requirements of the cult. The chamber next the vestibule can be
identified with some certainty as either a waiting-room or the porter’s
lodge. The long narrow passages near the cella are remarkable; others
exactly similar have been found in other temples. They would be well
adapted to enclose the ramps or staircases that led to the flat roof,
and some part of them may, in fact, have been used for that purpose. But
it is by no means easy to understand why two such arrangements so
completely alike as G 1, G 2, G 3 and O 3, G 4, G 5 should have been
placed close together. I might provisionally suppose that these passages
represent the remains of a more ancient and certainly an unknown type of
ground-plan. The whole arrangement gives an impression that the original
Babylonian house was essentially a four-sided walled enclosure, inside
which opposite the entrance, separated from the enclosing wall by a
narrow intermediate space, stood a detached house of one room. In course
of its development other single chambers were added, which were built
near the other sides of the enclosing wall. The intermediate space would
make it possible to guard the main house from any danger from robbers
who might break through the outer walls. But this, as we have said, is
all hypothetical, and entirely depends on the result of further
research.
No cultus image has been found. In many temples the postaments are
supported on gigantic and deep foundations although their height above
the flooring is invariably very slight. We may conclude from this that
they were intended to bear heavy weights. Herodotus (i. 183) states that
the seated statue of Marduk in the temple Esagila with its accessories
weighed 800 talents of gold, and speaks of another sacred statue 12 ells
high in massive gold. It is obvious that such costly statues could not
survive to a later period. Their immense value was their certain ruin.
Thus if we attempt to form an idea of the appearance of a temple statue
we must have recourse to the terra-cottas. They are found by many
thousands over the entire city area. Only a few of these are uninjured,
by far the largest number are in small fragments. These, however, even
when they are very small, can be recognised as belonging to a well-known
type. Great as is the number of these terra-cottas, the number of
different types is proportionately small. They appear to have been used
as a species of household gods, and they are all of the same modest
size, about 12 centimetres high. They are moulded, and the design is
only on the front, the back is smooth and merely rounded; thus they are
absolutely full face. The men are clothed, but the women are nude until
the Greek times, when the woman with a child in her arms appears for the
first time draped. All other female types remain unclothed up to the
latest period. With regard to technique, in the later Greek period a
slight change was introduced, and a mould was made for the back as well
as for the front of the figure; the two edges must have been fastened
together, leaving the inside hollow. These terra-cottas now show only
the yellowish, or occasionally reddish, colour of the burnt clay, but
originally they were painted, as we learn from some few better-preserved
specimens. Of the time of Nebuchadnezzar and earlier there are some that
appear to be glazed in one colour; but the glaze is always so much
decayed that it is impossible to say whether or not the figures were
originally glazed in a variety of colours.
The characteristic form of each of these somewhat rare types of
divinities occurs with such convincing similarity in the numerous
examples of each type that the cultus image of the respective gods in
their temples must have had the same form. Now, if we find in, or near,
one temple a considerable number identical in type, we are, in some
measure, justified in forming from them a conjectural restoration of the
divine image. We must bear in mind, however, that coincidence may here
play a part. In any case, I am quite prepared later to modify the
conclusions here put forward with regard to each temple, in favour of
what may be thought more solid and more probable considerations.
The terra-cottas of the Ninmach temple (cf. Fig. 202) show the type of a
standing female figure, with hands laid in one another and folded in the
Babylonian fashion, with well-dressed hair, a necklet, and several
anklets. The figure is thoroughly symmetrical, the face round and full,
and exactly in accord with the Arab ideal of feminine beauty.
The tablets found in the temple contain lists of the delivery of
building materials, of workmen, and of others who did not work. Also the
name of an architect, Labashi, occurs.
Emach, as this temple of Ninmach was called, has provided us with the
type of the Babylonian temple which, previous to our excavations, was
entirely unknown. The consideration of all the other temples will be
much more quickly accomplished, as it will only be needful to bring
forward the individual peculiarities of each temple.
X
THE SOUTHERN CITADEL
[Illustration:
FIG. 43.—Reconstruction of Southern Citadel, from the north. The
excavation of the western part is incomplete.
N. Temple of Ninmach. I. Ishtar Gate.
]
The southern, most ancient part of the Acropolis of Babylon we have been
accustomed to distinguish as the Southern Citadel (Figs. 43, 44). This
also was not all built at one time but at successive periods. The oldest
part lies between the squaring lines _i_ to _m_ of the Kasr plan (cf.,
for the squares, Fig. 13). Here apparently stood a palace of
Nabopolassar, which Nebuchadnezzar preserved in order to dwell there
during the building of the eastern portion. This eastern side in front
of the ancient palace, which was originally unoccupied or only built
upon with private houses, was enclosed by a fortification wall of which
certain of the more ancient parts still remain, such as the arched door
on the eastern side. Nebuchadnezzar’s first work consisted in rebuilding
the surrounding walls of the eastern part of this fortress with burnt
brick, raising the whole square to a higher level, and placing on it a
new palace. The new part was connected for a time with the older, lower
portion by ramps (Fig. 67), which have been discovered uninjured beneath
the pavement. The second building period of Nebuchadnezzar also renewed
the ancient palace, raised it to the same height, and extended the
western boundary as far as the squaring line _g_ of the Kasr plan. Thus
the whole formed a connected uniform building of quite unusual size. The
further and later important enlargement of the palace by Nebuchadnezzar,
which extended to the north and the west of the Southern Citadel, we
will consider later. In the meantime we will turn to the inspection of
the Southern Citadel, which presents itself as being uniformly the work
of Nebuchadnezzar. Neriglissar’s work consisted of a restoration of the
upper parts of the western portion. Nabonidus repaved the great court
with fine large bricks, many of which still remain in position, and
Artaxerxes built an Apadana against the west front, of which the
foundations, as well as enamelled bricks and fragments of marble pillars
and inscriptions, have been found (_f_ 25 in plan). (Cf. p. 127 _et
seq._)
[Illustration:
FIG. 44.—Complete plan of Southern Citadel. N. Ninmach Temple. I.
Ishtar Door.
]
XI
THE EAST FRONT OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL