joined to the outer wall. Large as they are, they have none of the
characteristics of temples. Two large buildings lay on the east side,
each with a large court surrounded by deep chambers uniform in size. In
the corner there is a dwelling grouped round a courtyard, and on the
south side there are four similar ones, which, although smaller, are
very large and dignified mansions. At the east of the northern part the
usual small private houses form an independent line of street.
[Illustration:
FIG. 119.—Reconstruction of the peribolos, with the tower of Babylon,
the temple Esagila, the quay wall of Nabonidus, and the Euphrates
bridge. The tower is shown incomplete. (B) Bridge. (ET) Etemenanki.
]
Two doors in the north and ten elaborate gateways with an inner court
and towered façade afforded access to the interior. The two eastern of
these and the four at the south are placed at the end of deep recesses
formed by the outer wall being carried back, thus forming roomy
forecourts. The four southern gateways have the typical towered façade
also on the side that faces inwards. The southern gate on the east side,
which was the largest, is destroyed, but we can reconstruct it without
difficulty.
Very little remains of the south-east corner. Near the south-west corner
a chambered wall projects to the north, and with the outer wall forms a
long narrow court in which there were no other chambers than those
formed in the wall. Apparently this narrow court extended as far as the
northern gateway in the western wall, and here apparently it joined at
right angles another wall which extended here in the same line as the
northern front of the great building on the east side; of this wall,
however, only the western end now exists. It skirted a northern area, in
which the above-mentioned private houses lay.
We have thus three divisions inside the peribolos: the northern court
(NH on Fig. 114) with the small houses, the long narrow western court
(WH), and the principal court (HH) which contained the zikurrat of
Etemenanki (ET) and all the other monumental buildings (Fig. 119).
Low down on the north, close to the zikurrat, there were ancient
buildings orientated in an entirely different direction, and on the east
front, also at a great depth, there lay a large ancient building (Ä),
over which the main building of the peribolos was carried. Neither of
these had anything to do with the sanctuary as such.
We can only hazard a guess as to the purpose of all those buildings. The
wall chambers are adapted by their simplicity to house a number of
pilgrims, who could dwell there and have direct access to the great
courts. The buildings in the south I take to have been priests’
dwellings. Under no circumstances can they have been temples, as all the
necessary features are absent, such as the towered façade and the
postament niche. The priests of Etemenanki must have occupied very
distinguished positions as representatives of the god who bestowed the
kingship of Babylon, and the immense private houses to the south of our
peribolos agree very well with the supposition in regard to this Vatican
of Babylon, that the principal administrative apparatus would be housed
there. The numerous chambers of the two great buildings in the east will
be recognised by all as store-rooms where the property of the sanctuary
and the things needed for processions, etc., could be stored. In one of
these chambers, which for the most part are not yet cleared, we found a
great stone weight in the form of a duck (Fig. 120), the usual form of
such weights. It weighs 29.68 kilogrammes and, according to the
chiselled inscription on it, was called a “correct talent.” All the
buildings are much ruined, often as low down as beneath the ancient
pavement. In the north-east corner of the peribolos a stela with emblems
of the gods was found (Fig. 121).
[Illustration:
FIG. 120.—Duck weight with inscription.
]
The main approach lay between the two store-houses just mentioned, where
from the existence of a specially deep and wide recess we can surmise a
specially large gateway, which, though it exists no longer, admits of
easy reconstruction. The turminabanda pavement of the Procession Street
reaches as far as this, and continues in the recess where the
paving-blocks still lie that bear the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar on
their edge. Some of these have the name and title of Sennacherib on the
under side (cf. Fig. 36).
[Illustration:
FIG. 121.—Upper part of a stela with divine emblems.
]
In the Ripley-cylinder of Neriglissar (_K.B._ iii. 2, p. 79) the
peribolos is called “lânu ma-ḫir-tim.” According to Muss-Arnolt’s
dictionary the words mean “enclosure” and “storehouse.” With the
exception of these two words I give Bezold’s translation, which
otherwise only requires correction in slight details: “The peribolos of
the store-houses of Esagila to the north, wherein the consecrated temple
treasury of Esagila rests (trans. by Delitzsch, ‘wherein the priests of
Esagila dwell’) whose foundations an earlier king laid but did not build
its summit, (this building) had sunk in its foundations, its walls were
fallen down, its joints were loosened, and its base had become weak.
Then my lord the great Marduk inspired me to raise up the building,
entrusted me (?) with the splendour (?) and the regulation of the temple
tribute. In order to incur no Shiddim and no offences, I dug up the
ancient foundation stone and read it (its records). On its ancient
foundation stone I based it (the building), its summit I raised like a
mountain, I made firm its threshold and fixed the doors in its doorway.
The firm Kisu I built of asphalt and burnt brick (?)” According to this
the Kisu of burnt brick which was found in the excavations on the west
side was of Neriglissar.
The original of the second Babylonian text that refers to the enclosure
has disappeared. We possess only an epitome of it given by Smith[3]
(Hommel, _Geographie Vorderasiens und Nordostafrikas_, p. 315, and
Thureau-Dangin, _Journal asiatique_, janvier 1909). But the statements
can only be reconciled with the existing remains with great difficulty,
and then only in general. The measurements given for the three courts
should agree with the ruins, at least as regards the relations of length
to breadth, but this is not so whether we take the measurement of the
walls outside or of the open space within the courts. The only possible
solution appears to me to be that we take the measures given as those of
the “great court” to be meant for the south-east portion, including the
buildings surrounding it, that we take the “court of Ishtar and Zamana”
to mean what we call the north court, and the third to mean the inner
open space of our great court. But even so there are difficulties. Under
these circumstances we need not attach any great importance to the
measurements given for the alleged 7 stages of the tower. Those
uncertainties are caused by the fact that the original inscription is
not at hand, we do not know the object for which these statements were
made (see App. p. 327).
Footnote 3:
Smith’s Etemenanki Inscription:—
I have discovered a Babylonian text, giving a remarkable account of
the temple of Belus at Babylon, and as my approaching departure for
Nineveh does not allow me time to make a full translation of the
document, I have prepared a short account for your readers, giving the
principal points in the arrangement and dimensions of the building....
First, I must remark on the Babylonian measures used, that they are
principally the cubit, equal to about one foot eight inches English,
and the gar or sa, equal to 12 cubits, or 20 feet English; but there
is another series of numbers used in measuring, consisting apparently
of numbers of barleycorns arranged in sixties, thus the first number
is a length of 11. 33. 20, which consists of 11 × 3600 ÷ 33 × 60 ÷ 20
barleycorns, or 1155 feet 7 inches. The barleycorn was the standard
unit of measure among the Babylonians, and for this reason was used
sometimes in measures of length without the other terms.
First in the tablet we have the measure of the outer court, called the
“Grand Court,” which is given at 11. 33. 20 in length (that is about
1156 feet) and 9 in breadth (that is, 900 feet). There is a
calculation as to the area of this court, which I pass over, and come
to the next court called the “Court of Ishtar and Zamama.” This space
is reckoned as 10. 33. 20 in length (1056 feet) and 430 (450 feet) in
breadth. There is again here a calculation of the area which I omit.
Round the court were 6 gates admitting to the temples. These were: 1,
the grand gate; 2, the gate of the rising sun (east); 3, the great
gate; 4, the gate of the Colossi; 5, the gate of the Canal; and 6, the
gate of the tower-view.
The next division is the space or platform apparently walled, and
called a ki-galli, sur, or birut. It is uncertain if this was paved,
and its extent is also uncertain. It is stated as a square, 3 ku in
length, and 3 ku in breadth, but the value of the ku is uncertain. The
4 walls faced the cardinal points, in this agreeing with the other
parts, all the buildings having their sides east, west, north, and
south.
There were 4 gates, one in the centre of each side of this division:
1, the gate of the rising sun (east); 2, the southern gate; 3, the
gate of the setting sun (west); 4, the northern gate.
Inside stood some building or enclosure, the name of which is damaged.
It was 10 gar long and 10 gar broad (200 feet by 200), connected with
the great Ziggurat or tower, which was the inner and crowning edifice
of the group. Round the base of the Ziggurat or tower were ranged the
chapels or temples of the principal gods, on its 4 sides and facing
the cardinal points.
On the eastern side stood a sanctuary or temple 70 or 80 cubits long
and 40 cubits broad (117 or 133 feet by 67), with 16 shrines, the
principal being the shrines devoted to the god Nebo and Urmit, or
Tasmit his Wife. Nebo was considered the eldest son of Bel, the great
deity of the temple.
On the northern side stood 2 temples, one devoted to the god Hea, the
other to Nusku. The temple of Hea was 85 cubits long and 30 broad (142
feet by 50 feet), and that of Nusku was a square, 35 cubits each way
(58 feet by 58 feet).
On the southern side stood a single temple dedicated to the two great
gods Anu and Bel. This was 70 cubits long and 30 cubits broad (117
feet by 50 feet).
On the western side were the principal buildings, consisting of a
double house, with a court between the two wings. On the one side the
wing was 100 cubits long and 65 cubits broad (166 feet by 108 feet),
and the space between them was 35 cubits wide (58 feet). The building
at the back was 125 cubits long and 30 cubits broad (208 feet by 50
feet). I do not properly comprehend the disposition of the buildings
of this side, and my description of the position of the western
temples must be taken as conjectural. In these western chambers stood
the couch of the god, and the throne of gold mentioned by Herodotus,
besides other furniture of great value. The couch is stated to have
been 9 cubits long and 4 cubits broad (15 feet by 6 feet 8 inches).
In the centre of these groups of temples stood the grandest portion of
the whole pile, the great Ziggurat, or temple tower, built in stages,
its sides facing the cardinal points.
The bottom or first stage was a square in plan 15 gar in length and
breadth, and 5½ gar in height (300 feet square, 110 feet high). This
stage appears to have been indented or ornamented with buttresses.
The next or second stage of the tower was also square, being 13 gar in
length and breadth, and 3 gar in height (260 feet square, 60 feet
high). The epithet applied to this stage is obscure; it had probably
sloping sides.
The third stage differs widely from the lower ones, and commences a
regular progressive series of stages, all of equal height. It was 10
gar in length and breadth, and 1 gar in height (200 feet square, 20
feet high).
The fourth stage was 8½ gar in length and breadth, and 1 gar in height
(170 feet square, 20 feet high).
The fifth stage was 7 gar in length and breadth, and 1 gar in height
(140 feet square, 20 feet high).
Probably by accident, the dimensions of the sixth stage of the tower
are omitted in the inscription, but they can be easily restored in
accordance with the others. This stage must have been 5½ gar in length
and breadth, and 1 gar in height (110 feet square, 20 feet high).
On this was raised the seventh stage, which was the upper temple or
sanctuary of the god Bel. This building had a length of 4 gar, a
breadth of 3½ gar, and a height of 2½ gar (80 feet long, 70 feet
broad, and 50 feet high).
Thus the whole height of this tower above its foundation was 15 gar or
300 feet, exactly equal to the breadth of the base; and, as the
foundation was most probably raised above the level of the ground, it
would give a height of over 300 feet above the plain for this grandest
of Babylonian temples ... (see App. p. 327).
Herodotus (i. 181) names the group of buildings “the brazen-doored
sanctuary of Zeus Belus.” The zikurrat inside the sanctuary he describes
as a massive tower on which stood a second, third, up to an eighth
tower, above which was a “great temple.” This is the sole ground for our
conception of the “terraced towers” of Mesopotamia. In Khorsabad there
was the ruin of a tower, where the excavators suspected similar
retreating stages to have existed, but Place clearly formed his
conclusion under the long-accepted suggestion drawn from the description
given by Herodotus, and the ruins themselves no longer exist. In the
words of Herodotus himself, however, there is nothing whatever about
stepped terraces. He speaks of 8 towers standing one above another, but
he does not say that each was smaller than the one below it. I myself
desired to accept the general conception of stepped towers, but I know
of no safe ground for such a conception. The only remedy I can see for
this difficulty is to excavate the best-preserved zikurrat we possess,
that of Borsippa.
From the ruins as they now exist before excavation, we must assume that
a colossal stairway led up from the south to the top of the immense mass
of building. Steps in antiquity were always extremely steep, as we have
found them here, and the height and breadth were usually the same, so
according to the measurements of the length of the foundations of the
steps we may take their height to have been 50 metres.
We do not know the complete height of the tower. Nabopolassar, however,
lays great stress on it (M’Gee, _Zur Topographie Babylons_, A. i.), and
so does Nebuchadnezzar (M’Gee, B. vi.) in his cylinder inscription of
Etemenanki. Nabopolassar says: “At this time Marduk commanded me ...;
the tower of Babylon, which in the time before me had become weak, and
had been brought to ruin, to lay its foundation firm on the bosom of the
underworld, while its top should stretch heavenwards” (trans. by
Delitzsch). Nebuchadnezzar says: “To raise up the top of Etemenanki that
it may rival heaven, I laid to my hand.” In both inscriptions mud brick,
burnt brick, asphalt, mud, and mighty cedars of Lebanon are mentioned as
the materials employed. The latter could scarcely have been employed
otherwise than to roof in the temple on the top of the tower.
In distinction to this upper temple Herodotus calls Esagila lying before
it to the south the κάτω νηός, the lower temple. In the upper temple,
according to Herodotus, there was only a golden table and a κλίνη, and
according to Ctesias three gold figures of Zeus, Hera, and Rhea. My
opinion is that the designation of the zikurrat as bearing a temple is
confirmed by this. The Babylonian term only expresses height, and
nothing that can suggest stages. It is obvious that the roof of so lofty
a temple would be welcomed by the Babylonian astronomers as a platform
for their observations. It would be necessary for them to be raised
above the thick atmosphere of the plain. Owing to excessive dryness, the
air is almost opaque at a distance, and the horizon up to a height of 10
or 20 grades is a dusky circle of dust, through which the sun and moon
often assume torn and distorted forms, if their setting can be seen at
all.
It is true that during the summer we have no clouds, with the exception
of the _Bachura_, a type of weather that occurs at the beginning of
August, but we have sandstorms, through which the sun appears like a
blood-red disc. The greatly-renowned clearness of the Babylonian sky is
largely a fiction of European travellers, who are rarely accustomed to
observe the night sky of Europe without the intervention of city lights.
The original complete height of the tower of Babylon we do not know. The
east side of the peribolos, which is almost similar to the north side,
measures 409 metres in round numbers. For the entire sacred enclosure
Herodotus gives a measure of 2 square stadia, and 1 stadion as the side
length of the area of the zikurrat; the ruins themselves show 90 metres.
But what is all this written information in comparison with the
clearness of the evidence we gain from the buildings themselves, ruined
though they are. The colossal mass of the tower, which the Jews of the
Old Testament regarded as the essence of human presumption, amidst the
proud palaces of the priests, the spacious treasuries, the innumerable
lodgings for strangers—white walls, bronze doors, mighty fortification
walls set round with lofty portals and a forest of 1000 towers,—the
whole must have conveyed an overwhelming sense of greatness, power, and
wealth, such as could rarely have been found elsewhere in the great
Babylonian kingdom.
I once beheld the great silver standing statue of the Virgin, over
life-size, laden with votive offerings, rings, precious stones, gold and
silver, borne on a litter by forty men, appear in the portal of the dome
of Syracuse, high above the heads of the assembled crowds, to be brought
out in festival procession with inspiring music and among the fervent
prayers of the people into the garden of the Latomia. After the same
fashion I picture to myself a procession of the god Marduk as he issued
forth from Esagila, perhaps through the peribolos, to proceed on his
triumphant way through the Procession Street of Babylon.
Herodotus must have seen the enclosure in a comparatively good state of
preservation. Under Alexander it needed repairs, and 600,000 days’ wages
were spent on clearing out the precincts and removing the rubbish
(Strabo, xvi. 1). During the eleven years of our work we have expended
about 800,000 daily wages for the great clearance of Babylon.
Before we pass to the temple of Esagila, which was so closely connected
with Etemenanki (p. 204), we will inspect the walls that lie to the west
of the enclosure, and the Euphrates bridge.
XXXI
THE EUPHRATES BRIDGE
The Procession Street which, with its strongly-asphalted brick pavement,
runs close to the southern side of the peribolos, ended in the west at
the land pier of a bridge of burnt brick and asphalt. Seven river piers
have been excavated. The western one differs somewhat in plan, and may
have been the end pier on the bank at that side (Fig. 122), but this is
not yet certain. The complete length of this bridge, as far as we have
made it out, amounted to 123 metres, and the pier lengths of 21 metres
may have exceeded the breadth of the roadway very considerably. The
piers are 9 metres wide and are placed 9 metres apart. They are built
with a very marked batter. Their bricks are of the small size 31 × 31
centimetres and are unstamped, from which we may conclude that the
building dates from Nebuchadnezzar’s first period or from Nabopolassar.
There are rectangular cavities in the piers in which, as far as we can
judge, strengthening baulks of wood once lay 50 centimetres apart. Above
this, at a distance of 2 metres, there was a second similar course of
wood. The sides of the piers are convex and meet in a point in front
facing the current on the north. The back is also slightly curved. Thus
the ground-plan of the pier follows the water-line of a ship.
Herodotus (i. 186), Diodorus (ii. 8, after Ctesias), and others speak of
this bridge. They report that stone blocks were used for it, and it is
very probable that the brick piers were roofed over with stone, on which
the rafters for the roadway were laid. We have seen in the north wall of
the Kasr that Nebuchadnezzar bound his blocks together with dove-tail
clamps, and this is also reported of the bridge. Diodorus calls special
attention to the peculiar shape of the piers, which is specially adapted
to the requirements of the current. The measurements here also do not
agree on all points. The length is given as 5 stadia, the breadth 30
feet, and the distance between the piers 12 feet. But it appears to me
rash to argue from this lack of agreement the existence of a second
stone bridge. This is the most ancient stone bridge of which we have any
record, and its well-deserved fame is evident from the fact that it was
the only one remarked on in the scanty reports of the ancient
historians.
[Illustration:
FIG. 122.—The western pier of the bridge over the Euphrates.
]
The ancient bed of the river is clearly marked just in the vicinity
where a long depression between the mounds of ruins extends to the
village of Kweiresh. In the south-west, close to the bridge head, one of
these mounds of ruins rises to a considerable height. Its western side
is worn away by the modern Euphrates into a vertical steep declivity,
and the mud walls of the houses that stand out between the usual rubbish
in the mound are here laid bare and clearly visible. They extend down
below the usual level of the water.
Among the Babylonian texts that refer to the bridge, it is described by
Nebuchadnezzar as the work of Nabopolassar in the E-ulla cylinder
(M’Gee, B. ii. col. 1, 8): “The embankment wall of Arachtu ... from the
Ishtar Gate to the Urash Gate, my father, my begetter, had built with
asphalt and brick, had erected piers of burnt brick for the crossing
over of the Euphrates” (see _K.B._ iii. 2, p. 21, l. 7, and p. 41, l.
38). The meaning of the words _ma-ka-at a-bar-ti Purâti_ as “bridge over
the Euphrates” was kindly given me as early as the year 1904 by
Lehmann-Haupt.
XXXII
THE BRIDGE GATEWAY
Between the land pier of the bridge, and the first river pier, a gateway
was inserted that lay in the line of a long fortification wall that
stretches to the north with stamped bricks in it of Nabonidus. As usual
with city gateways, it had an inner court and two massive fronting
towers. The bricks, so far as we can see, have Nebuchadnezzar’s stamp,
and, like the wall itself, are laid in asphalt. In the entrance lies a
brick pavement of many courses, and also the great southern door socket
of the west door. In the middle of the east doorway there is a brick set
upright, which projects slightly above the pavement and served as a stop
for the leaves of the door. The pavement is 3.10 metres above zero,
rather higher than that of the Procession Street, and above it 12 metres
of the rubbish of the Amran hill is still piled. The gateway was
inserted partly in the land and partly in the river pier, and both are
cut away to some extent to accommodate the later building.
As we have followed the Arachtu wall from the Southern Citadel up to the
peribolos, and as this is the first great gateway in this vicinity after
the Ishtar Gate, this building must, I think, according to the
inscription just referred to, be the Urash Gate. It is, therefore, a
matter of indifference whether our building is the same that existed in
Nebuchadnezzar’s time, or whether it is later and dates from Nabonidus,
for in the latter case a gateway that bore the name of the Urash Gate
existed previously and in much the same place if not on exactly the same
spot. It is possible that the massive brickwork that lies immediately to
the west of the land pier belonged to this earlier gateway. This
consists of two projections, between which there is a stepped wall.
The excavations here are still incomplete.
XXXIII
THE WALL OF NABONIDUS
We have not yet followed the fortification wall connected with the
gateway just described far to the south. The ruins here lie deep under
the rubbish of the Amran mound, and are difficult to get at. On the
north the excavations have laid open this wall as far as the village of
Kweiresh.