the river bank upon a massive projecting banquette like the older moat
wall, the Arachtu wall, and the north wall of the Principal Citadel.
This arrangement can thus be clearly recognised as a peculiarity of
walls that lie on a water-channel. Towers, alternately broad and narrow,
are placed at a distance of about 19 metres from each other. The broad
ones are 7.3, the narrow ones 6.3 metres wide. In some of these towers
there are fittings for double doors, from which a somewhat steep ramp
leads down to the river. The walls are in very bad condition, and it is
impossible to say whether there were similar doors in every tower, or,
if not, at what length of interval. The pavement is .47 above zero. In
the north, a short distance in front of the Southern Citadel, the wall
for two mesopyrgia bends somewhat towards the west to unite by a tower
with the Western Outworks (p. 144). In this tower was the outflow of the
eastern canal that flowed past the Southern Citadel. The bend is
obviously contrived in order to include the Western Outworks of the
Southern Citadel in the city area.
Not far from the north-western corner of the peribolos we made a
cross-cut through the high mounds that cover the wall, and here we found
also the Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. The cut has
been continued for some length to the north on the other side of the
depression caused by the river-bed, and there it yielded walls of
burnt-brick buildings of considerable thickness, but the river wall that
corresponds with that on the left bank we have not yet uncovered. This
excavation is very far from complete. The wall is apparently the same
that was called by Herodotus (i. 180) αἱμασιή, which joined on to the
wings of the outer city wall, and which Ctesias (Diodorus, ii. 3) called
κρηπίς.
XXXIV
THE ARACHTU WALLS AT THE PERIBOLOS OF ETEMENANKI
Immediately in front of the northern portion of the west front of the
peribolos there lies the Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, of which we saw
the commencement in the north at the Southern Citadel. As soon as we
began the cross-cut mentioned above, we came on a length of wall in
which was an inscribed brick that explained its purpose. Later on in the
farther reaches of the wall we found numerous bricks of the same kind
_in situ_. The text is identical with that already quoted on page 138
_et seq._ The wall lies lower than the burnt-brick kisu of the peribolos
wall at this point. The Arachtu wall, which stands in water, reaches up
only to .33 metres below zero with its ruins, while the kisu of the
peribolos extends down to 2.24 metres above zero. The upper level of the
river banquette lies without any intermediate space in front of the
Nebuchadnezzar wall, which is 6 metres thick, and is exactly at zero
level. The Nabopolassar wall consists of unstamped 31–centimetre bricks,
the facing wall of 33–centimetre bricks, with the Nebuchadnezzar stamp.
The smooth front of both walls faces west, the back is left rough as it
was built up against the bank behind.
Both walls extend as far as the northern corner of the peribolos. From
there the Nabopolassar wall runs in a straight line northwards to a
distance of about 20 metres from the Southern Citadel, where it breaks
off in ruins. Its line runs approximately on the western boundary of the
additional building, and must therefore originally have made a curve in
order to join at its commencement with the Sargon wall. From the
Nebuchadnezzar wall a branch turns off at a very sharp angle at the
above-mentioned place, and runs exactly in the direction of the ancient
moat wall. Another branch joins on here with a doubly-grooved expansion
joint, and runs in the direction of the northern part of the Nabonidus
wall. Thus there are parts of four walls close together here, all of
which belong to four consecutive changes in direction. At the same place
a culvert passes through each of the walls, which must have carried off
the surface water that collected to the north of the peribolos. Somewhat
farther to the north we came upon two descending stairways in the
Nabopolassar wall, which were walled up in a second building period.
They are similar to those in the gateways in the Nabonidus wall.
The three walls are so near together, and follow so closely in the same
direction, that if we prefer to consider the Arachtu to be a canal of
the Euphrates, it here lies so close to the Euphrates that its existence
is very problematic. The Euphrates wall of Nabonidus has here obviously
replaced the Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, which further argues for the
identity of the Euphrates and the Arachtu (see p. 140). That the
Nabonidus wall and the stone bridge are buildings on the Euphrates, no
systematic investigator can doubt. Otherwise we must assume that besides
the two buildings found by us there existed yet a second embankment wall
of Nabonidus which lay on the Euphrates, and a second stone bridge that
led over the Euphrates. Without wishing to anticipate further research,
I am inclined to assume the Arachtu to be, not a canal nor an arm of the
Euphrates, but a semicircular widening of the river (see Hommel, _op.
cit._ p. 283, note 1, Arach) (moon, fem. Arachtu?), which possessed a
special name, and for which the name Arachtu could be used as well as
that of Euphrates, as in the case of the Binger Lock on the Rhine.
Possibly it was the haven of Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar mentions his own wall among others in the Eharsagila
cylinder (_K.B._ iii. 2, p. 41, l. 41): “I ... built the embankment
walls of the Arachtu of asphalt and burnt brick, and strengthened it by
means of the embankment walls that my father had made.”
XXXV
ESAGILA, THE TEMPLE OF MARDUK
(A. THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING)
The ancient celebrated temple, Esagila, according to Jastrow “the lofty
house” (_Religion of Babylonia_, p. 639), the temple of Marduk, lies
beneath the hill of Amran Ibn Ali (Fig. 123) buried to a depth of 21
metres below the upper level of the hill. We have already excavated some
part of it, and by means of deep shafts and galleries we have
established the ground-plan and the different divisions. There are two
buildings adjacent to each other; the principal one on the east is very
regularly and magnificently planned, of the Western Annex we have only
recovered the outer circuit. We will first survey the principal
building.
The temple is almost square, with its northern front of 79.3 metres and
its western front of 85.8 metres long. Inside it is a court 31.3 metres
broad and 37.6 metres long. On the west of this court, as we learn from
the mighty-towered façade, there was the principal cella, that of
Marduk. The chambers are not yet excavated. On the south side towards
the east there is a smaller cella, which can be recognised as such by
the niche in the wall. The cella lies on the east side of a square,
which on the west side has a door leading to a small chamber which may
also be the remains of a cella.
[Illustration:
FIG. 123.—Plan of the mound Amran.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 124.—Section through Esagila.
]
A third cella has been excavated on the north side of the court. It is
apparently the sanctuary of the god Ea, who in Greek times was
identified with Serapis (see _Tempel von Babylon_, p. 43). It was here
that the generals of Alexander sought counsel of the god with regard to
his illness, whether the king should permit himself to be transported
hither in search of healing. Doors lead north to two chambers behind the
cella, an arrangement that is not found in any other cella. If my
expressed opinion is correct these chambers may have been the
dormitories in which oracular dreams could be secured. In the cella,
which also had a side chamber at the east end, the postament for the
statue still stands in front of the niche. Imprinted on the asphalt
covering of its flat top we found traces of a wooden throne, which,
during the conflagration, had become charred and broken up. Of the
richly carved work some fragments could still be recognised, the figures
that supported the throne, holding the water vase with which Ea, god of
the abyss of waters, was usually represented, a fine head of a dragon, a
fish, and so forth.
The paved floor with its wash of asphalt is slightly dominated by the
postament, which has in front of it a shallow step flanked by two small
balustrades.
[Illustration:
FIG. 125.—Esagila brick of Sardanapalus.
]
The pavement was repeatedly raised, and with it the mighty door sockets
and the postament (Fig. 124). Of the six pavements the two upper ones
are Nebuchadnezzar’s, and the two middle ones are of Sardanapalus, who
states on the stamps of his brick, 33 × 33 centimetres (Fig. 125), that
he made the “bricks of Esagila and Etemenanki.” In this pavement there
was one, 40 × 40 centimetres, brick of Esarhaddon, which, according to
the stamp, belonged to “the pavement of Esagila” (Fig. 126). The name of
the temple is therefore fully established by inscription as Esagila. On
bricks found by us in the vicinity, Esagila is often mentioned in
conjunction with Etemenanki or with Babylon (Fig. 127). The two lower
pavements have no stamps. The walls of the court at this lower and more
ancient level are adorned with mouldings, while the walls above are
plain.
At the doors, and in front of the wall piers, we again found the brick
caskets; in one of these lay a clay figure of a bearded man with bull’s
feet, and holding a palm or something of the kind (Fig. 128).
[Illustration:
FIG. 126.—Esagila brick of Esarhaddon.
]
The upper pavement lies on an average 4.5 metres above zero. The
enclosing walls, which, including the 2–metres-thick kisu, are 6 metres
thick, consist, like the entire building, of mud brick, and the kisu of
32 × 32–centimetre unstamped burnt brick; it must therefore be older
than the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who does not appear to have carried out
any vigorous restoration here.
The treatment of the walls is similar to that of Emach in an intensified
form. Here every tower is placed between two flanking towers, thus
forming a unit of three towers. This also occurs in the great temple of
Nebo in Borsippa. Exactly in the middle of each side there is a great
gateway elaborated with massive projecting towers. Paved ramps, with
side balustrades, lead up to the three gateways on the north, west, and
south. All is on a larger scale than in other temples. The symmetrical
planning which in other temples leaves much to be desired, is here
remarkably accurate, and here alone is an entrance to be found on each
side.
[Illustration:
FIG. 127.—Esagila and Babylon brick of Esarhaddon.
]
Although from the outside these gateways all appear to be alike, the
east gate must have been the principal entrance, as it has a passage
through a magnificent vestibule that leads direct to the court, while
the entrance through the north and south doors leads first into a small
vestibule and then through a corridor that runs by the side of it. On
the walls of the court also doorways and towers are symmetrically
alternated.
[Illustration:
FIG. 128.—Terra-cotta figure from brick casket at Esagila.
]
A considerable similarity exists between our temple and the description
of the “temples” that lay near the zikurrat given in Smith’s summary of
an inscription (see p. 192 _et seq._). Smith was not then aware of the
difference between Esagila and the Bel sanctuary of Herodotus. His
“temples” have measurements and proportions which, on account of their
disproportionate length, are entirely impossible as such. For enclosed
chambers they are far too widely spanned. They can therefore only be
measurements of the area of separate parts of the temples, including the
adjacent walls. If all of these are added together we find that they
amount almost exactly to the occupied area of Esagila. Furthermore,
these areas can with ease be arranged so as to fill in the ground plan
of Esagila with very few discrepancies.
Then again the principal cellae are here, that of Marduk and of Zarpanit
in the west, and that of Ea in the north, while that of Anu and Bel may
at least find its counterpart in the double cella in the south of
Esagila. Thus the measurements of Smith’s “temples” must have been taken
either directly from Esagila or perhaps from the temple on the top of
the zikurrat, which must then have had much the same dimensions and
arrangements as Esagila. It is to be expected that the further
excavations of Esagila will throw light on these most interesting
questions.
Allusions to Esagila, and information regarding its rebuilding and
endowment, are, of course, very frequent in Babylonian inscriptions,
especially in those of Nebuchadnezzar, who calls himself the “fosterer
of Esagila” on every one of his millions of bricks. In the
_Steinplatten_ inscription he says (col. 2, 30, _K.B._ iii. 2, p. 15):
“Silver, gold, costly precious stones, bronze, mismakannu—and cedar
wood, all conceivable valuables, great (?) superabundance, the product
of the mountains, the wealth of the sea, a heavy burden, a sumptuous
gift, I brought to my city of Babil before him, and deposited in
Esagila, the palace of his lordship, a gigantic abundance. Ekua, the
chamber of Marduk, lord of the gods, I made to gleam like the sun. Its
walls I clothed with solid (?) gold instead of clay (?) or chalk (?),
with lapis and alabaster the temple area. Kaḫilisir, or the ‘door of
state,’ as also the Ezida gate of Esagila, I caused to be made bright as
the sun—Du-azag, the place of the naming of destiny, that is
Ub-šu-ukkenna, the chamber of destiny, in which at Zakmuk or the New
Year, on the 8th and 11th day, the ‘King of the gods of heaven and of
earth’ the lord of the gods takes up his abode, while the gods of heaven
and of earth, reverentially awaiting him, bow before him, at the place
where he allotteth the destiny of eternal duration as the lot of my
life:—the same chamber, the chamber of majesty, the chamber of the
lordship of the wise one among the gods, the exalted Marduk, that an
earlier king had furnished with silver, I clothed with shining gold, a
magnificent adornment. The outfit of the temple of Esagila I beautified
with solid (?) gold, the Kua-ship with sarîr and stones like unto the
stars of heaven.—The temples of Babil I caused to be re-established and
I took care of them. I covered the top of Etemenanki with blue glazed
burnt brick.—My heart impels me to build Esagila, I keep it perpetually
before mine eyes. The best of my cedars, that I brought from Lebanon,
the noble forest, I sought out for the roofing over of Ekua, the chamber
of his lordship, with deliberate care, the mightiest cedars I covered
with gleaming gold for the roofing of Ekua. The šîbi below the roofing
cedars I decorated with gold and precious stones. For the restoration of
Esagila I make supplication every morning to the king of gods, the lord
of lords” (trans. by Delitzsch).
The four doors of Esagila are mentioned by Neriglissar in his cylinder
inscription (_K.B._ iii. 2, p. 73): “Esagila and Ezida I beautified. The
temples I placed in order, noble worship (?) I adhered to (?)
perpetually. The bronze serpents ... (?) on the face of the walls (i-na
ki-si-i) of the doorways of Esagila which ... are placed standing at the
‘door of the Rising Sun,’ at the ‘door of the Setting Sun,’ at the ‘door
of Abundance,’ at the ‘door of ...’ (which) no earlier king had erected,
I the humble, the submissive, who am learned in the worship of the gods,
have erected. Eight serpents standing upright (sirruš) ... (?) which
hiss deadly poison against the nefarious and the foe, I have clothed
with a covering of shining silver; and at the door of the Rising Sun, at
the door of the Setting Sun, at the door of Abundance, and at the door
of ... on the walls of these self-same doors according to ancient
custom ... silver ... in accordance with its exalted destiny, set up
in ...” (trans. by Bezold). The eight sirrush were undoubtedly on the
balustrades of the entrance ramps, two at each gate.
Herodotus calls the temple the κατω νηος, in which, according to him,
there was a great seated statue of Zeus, that like the throne, the
footstool, and table was formed of gold of the weight of 800 talents.
Small objects found on the pavement show that this must have remained
open as late as the Seleucid period. Thus the building existed long
unroofed, and crumbled into an accumulation of rubbish amounting to 4 or
5 metres high. Then the mud walls fell down flat, and in this position
we found them (Fig. 129), and over them rubbish of all sorts was
accumulated for a long period, which, during our excavations, appeared
in most unpleasant guise as a horrible, black, powdery mass. At a height
of 14 metres above zero mud-brick houses begin once more, which become
poorer in the higher parts of the midden, until at last they almost
entirely disappear. The upper layer certainly contains traces of
habitation, and among them many Arabic glazed sherds, but scarcely
walls, and the Babylon of that period, whose inhabited area was confined
to this mound, must have presented a somewhat miserable aspect. As
Hilleh was founded in the eleventh century A.D., we may assume that
Babylon ceased to be inhabited at that time. The sacred tomb of Amran
Ibn Ali (Fig. 130), somewhat to the south of the temple, consists of two
cupolas inside the walls of a court, against which various halls and
secondary buildings are placed. It is the latest building on the town
site of Babylon, for the Euphrates flowed previously where the village
of Kweiresh now lies.
[Illustration:
FIG. 129.—The excavation of Esagila.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 130.—Tomb of Amran Ibn Ali.
]
XXXVI
THE EASTERN ANNEX (B) OF ESAGILA
On the east front of Esagila there lies an annex, of which so far we
have only excavated the external ground-plan by means of underground
galleries. The quadrangle projects at the south beyond the line of the
principal temple. Like it, it consists of mud brick with a kisu of burnt
brick. The north front measures 89.4, the east front 116 metres. In
addition to several doors there are four gateways that lead into the
interior, two close to the principal building on the north and on the
south, and two at the east, of which the northern one, placed in a
shallow recess of the enclosing wall, may be regarded as the main
entrance. They all have the usual towered façade, and the walls have the
closely placed grooved towers.
The method of excavation was as follows. We dug out narrow galleries
following the wall lines deep down, and rendered them accessible from
the hill level by means of narrow shafts. On one side of these shafts
stepped recesses were constructed, of a man’s height, each of which
afforded standing room for a workman. As many as twelve men could stand
in these recesses one above another, who could reach the baskets of
earth and pass them on to the next man in succession without changing
their place. Above-ground the earth was carried off in trucks and thrown
somewhat to the side, thus preventing the accumulation of heaps near the
opening of the shaft.
Our first digging, by which we ascertained the existence of Esagila at
this place, was an open excavation. We cut a trench half-way up the hill
from the north, thus making a road for our tramway. At the end of this
trench, which lay at about the centre of the hill, we marked out a
square space about 40 metres each way, which we contracted slightly as
we descended deeper. After much toil and difficulty, and notwithstanding
incessant reiterated assertions both from Europeans and Arabs that we
were working in an entirely wrong direction, the pavement of Esagila was
at length reached, and on the 23rd November 1900 the inscribed bricks of
Sardanapalus and Esarhaddon were found. To accomplish this eight months’
work was necessary, and the removal of about 30,000 cubic metres of
earth.
XXXVII
THE LATER BUILDINGS ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF AMRAN
Immediately at the entrance to the hill Amran, the above-mentioned
tramway trench cut through some buildings of later—apparently
Parthian—times, which would be well worthy of being completely
excavated. We have hitherto only been able, however, to widen the trench
slightly to east and west. A pillared hall can be seen, a peristyle with
several chambers, the walls of crude brick still standing to a
considerable height in the mass of the hill (Fig. 131). The pillars
consist of brick rubble laid in mud and plastered over with gypsum, a
method of building which is characteristic of the later Grecian and
Parthian periods. By the walls there were peculiar small mud
constructions thickly covered with gypsum; flat shallow pans supported
by tiny columns sharply contracted half way up their height. What they
were intended for I do not know.
Somewhat farther to the north there lies a Stoa built in the same way,
of coupled semi-columns, of which we have excavated 23 transoms without
arriving at the end. A similar series is near the Bridge Gateway.
Several pillars of the peristyle of a house also came to light on the
east side of the Eastern Annex. All these remains lie at about the same
height of 10 metres above zero, which is about 6 metres higher than the
Nebuchadnezzar pavement of Esagila. At Amran it is hardly possible to
dig at this level without coming upon such pillars. A similar
unmistakable introduction of Greek pillared architecture can be observed
in all ruined sites which flourished at the time of the Neo-Babylonian
kings, as at Nippur, where the great palace belongs to this period, but
which Fisher has strangely ascribed to the Mycenaean period (_Journal of
the Archaeological Institute of America_, vol. viii. 1904, No. 4, p.
403). Meanwhile it appears that the Babylonian house grouped round a
courtyard was also at this period still in use by the autochthonous
population, while the Greek insisted on having his pillars even in this
land, the climate of which was so unpropitious to columnar art.
[Illustration:
FIG. 131.—Later buildings on northern slope of Amran.
]
Near the railway trench to the westward of the first-mentioned house
there was a large number of Graeco-Parthian burials. Pottery sarcophagi
and wooden coffins, surrounded by brickwork, lie here as low as 80
centimetres above zero. Some of them are rich in small plastic deposits.
There are alabaster statuettes of women with finely worked wigs of black
asphalt and inlaid eyes (Fig. 132). One type is lying on the hip, and
another is standing, and both occur also in hollow terra-cotta. They
vary between the older fine and animated style and the later dry
lifeless treatment. The ancient Babylonian forms, such, for instance, as
those of the Ninmach terra-cottas (p. 277), have entirely disappeared by
this time, and are superseded by Greek models. Simultaneously with these
decidedly graceful pieces there occurs, sometimes in the same coffin,
another style of modelling, which strikes one as rather barbaric. They
are small nude female figures made from cylindrical bones flattened on
one side and carved on the face. There were seven of these pieces in one
grave, which differ greatly from one another in style. All alike have a
coarsely formed body with disproportionately broad hips, while the head
is frequently very finely worked.
[Illustration:
FIG. 132.—Alabaster figure with asphalt perruque.
]
Some of the alabaster and clay figures certainly wore genuine tiny
garments, as is shown by the movable jointed arms. The corpse itself
frequently wears a naturalistic wreath of leaves or a narrow diadem of
very thin gold fastened by a band that was inserted in two holes. The
face was often wrapped in pieces of thin gold-leaf.
In addition to the plain wooden coffins, others are found, though not
_in situ_, very richly decorated. The remains of one of these lay in the
western cross-cut at the peribolos, rich with the gilded bases of small
pillars, the channellings of which were overlaid with glass fillets,
gilded cupids, and the like, all made of gypsum and specially adapted
for fitting on to wood. The sarcophagus in which the wooden coffin was
placed was built of bricks, with a gable roof formed of bricks placed
edgeways, and tilted up over the opening, the whole bedded in a liberal
supply of gypsum mortar.
[Illustration:
FIG. 133.—A slipper sarcophagus.
]