Part 10

On the north, in order to support the later fortification wall, a thick foundation has been laid immediately in front of the palace. The base of this foundation is arranged on the same principle as on the southern side, with separate projecting stepped blocks (Fig. 74). Above this foundation the wall, with its closely set projecting courses, gradually extended so close to the palace wall that it actually touched it (see Fig. 69), and farther up, where they have now perished, the two must have formed one combined wall. From this point the proper towered fortification wall, which still stretches from here eastwards, may have continued on the same line. We do not know, however, in which form it originally extended westward beyond the ancient palace, for here the foundations, as well as the palace itself, were completely destroyed to make room for the junction with the western extension.

[Illustration:

FIG. 75.—Drains between wall of Southern Citadel and the mud wall. ]

Along the north front of the palace there is a walled-in drain which collected the water of the palace and of the top of the fortification walls, and carried it off to the west (Fig. 75). The level of the intermediate space between the palace and the mud wall was originally very deep, but in the course of successive alterations it was gradually raised in about the same degree as the palace pavement. Fig. 75 shows the peculiar construction of these drains. Above the low side walls are placed either plain bricks or moulded bricks of half-moon shape, set edgeways. Larger drains, such as that of the Principal Court or those in the Principal Citadel, are roofed over with corbelled courses, but in these small drains vaulting is obviously avoided. Yet smaller drains were constructed of two flat brick courses placed together at the lower edge and closed in with bricks laid flat, thus forming a triangular section, such as occurs in the north-west corner of Sachn. The top of the fortification walls is regularly drained by means of vertical gutters inserted in the towers; if the towers were built of burnt brick, these gutters are simply carried down inside the towers at a distance of one brick from the front. This kind of gutter is found in the towers on the south side of Nabopolassar’s palace, and in the east part of the north wall. In walls of mud brick, however, it was of course necessary to construct the gutters of burnt brick, and thus the gutter forms a vertical shaft inserted in the mud brick building which surrounds it on three sides (see Fig. 95), while the fourth side lies flush with the outer wall. We shall meet with this remarkable construction, which often attains very considerable proportions, both in the inner and outer town walls, as well as in some of the temples.

XVIII THE WESTERN EXTENSION

To the west of the palace of Nabopolassar there is an additional building 40 metres in breadth, the lower courses of which, judging by the stamps on the bricks, date from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and the upper courses from that of Neriglissar. It is the last addition actually made to the Southern Citadel which concerns it alone. The later buildings are connected with the Principal Citadel, and include with it the Southern Citadel, which points to an extension of the whole towards the north and west (Fig. 76).

[Illustration:

FIG. 76.—Western part of the Southern Citadel. ]

From the first it was intended that this building should be on the same level as the eastern portion. The foundations, however, are different. The walls stand on a broadly widened base, and all the chambers are filled in to the intended pavement level with brickwork. Small deep spaces are frequently left in this filling near the corners of the chambers, and perhaps were used in some way in marking out the lines of the building. Elaborate precautions are taken to guard the west wall against damp. A high bank was piled up against it which reached almost to the “moat wall of Imgur-Bel,” and on the north and south was supported by low walls of brick rubble. In order to insulate the wall it was washed over with asphalt, and overlaid with plaited matting, on which bricks were set edgeways. Thus the wall carries, so to speak, a course of upright bricks in addition to the usual jointing material. The supporting walls connect with the corners of the palace by grooved expansion joints.

Of the arrangement of the chambers there is little to report, as here also the excavations are not far advanced. The northern of the two gateways is protected by a projecting tower, which had one large doorway in front and two small ones at the sides, an unusual arrangement, not found elsewhere in Babylon.

On the south-west corner, in the rubbish, was found the lower part of a large inscribed 8–sided prism.

XIX THE PERSIAN BUILDING

The space between the palace and the “moat wall of Imgur-Bel” divides into two parts, of which the more southern is filled in with a packing of broken brick in mud. A peculiarity of this packing is that the horizontal joints of the courses are almost as deep as the bricks themselves, and this again indicates Persian work, so far as we have learnt to know it in Susa. The northern portion, on the other hand, was filled in with sand, supporting a building which for the greater part has perished, but of which sufficient remains still exist to enable us to assign it unhesitatingly to the time of the Persian kings.

[Illustration:

FIG. 77.—Apadana of Xerxes in Persepolis. ]

The foundation trenches still exist, containing some scanty remains of good brickwork, which permit us to recognise a ground-plan of the type of an apadana, as it appears in the well-known palaces of Persepolis (Fig. 77), a pillared hall with a pillared fore-hall, flanked, in front, by two towers. It is remarkable that the distinctive character of this beautiful type of building should always have been mistaken in a most unaccountable manner. The reconstructions which have been so widely circulated even in the most recent handbooks show only the pillars, while the whole of the surrounding walls and the fronting towers are omitted. When confronted with such a representation the scholar receives much the same impression that a naturalist would experience if a boned turkey were offered him for serious study.

The pavements in the chambers as well as on the square to the north of the building consist of a flooring of lime mortar and pebbles in three layers: a coarse thick bottom layer—the festucatio of Vitruvius,—a fine shallow layer, and lastly a thin overlay of a fine red colour. This is entirely Greek, and it is a pleasure to meet with this fine coating we know so well in Athens, in Babylon of the fifth century. There are remains of a pavement made in exactly the same fashion in the ruins of Babil, where, according to the parallel inscription to the great _Steinplatten_ inscription (_K.B._ iii. 2, p. 31), Nebuchadnezzar also built an _appa danna_.

Among the scanty but varied remains of this building, fragments of a plinth of black limestone found on the ruins show sufficient cuneiform signs to enable us to recognise without difficulty the remains of the name of King Darius (Fig. 78), and bases of columns of the same material reproduce precisely the forms of the bases of Persepolis (Fig. 79). Bricks, which like those of Persepolis are not made of clay, but of an artificial mass of lime mixed with sand, bear representations in coloured enamels (Fig. 80). Here, as in the enamelled bricks of the Ishtar Gate, the fields are separated by lines of black glaze. There are ornaments and figures both flat and in relief, the figures with rich garments decorated with the woven patterns of the Persian guard of Persepolis. A woman’s face in white enamel is the only piece of the sort that we possess up to the present time.

[Illustration:

FIG. 78.—Inscription from the Persian building. ]

[Illustration:

FIG. 79.—Base of column from Persian building. ]

We can here recall what Diodorus, whose description was derived from Ctesias, the body surgeon of King Artaxerxes Mnemon, reports of the polychrome decorations of the royal castle of Babylon. To begin with, he quotes (ii. 8) that there were two castles, one on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, on the modern mound “Babil,” and the other on the western bank, the modern “Kasr.” He continues:

τοῦ μὲν γὰρ [εἰς τὸ] πρὸς ἑσπέραν κειμένου μέρους ἐποίησε τὸν πρῶτον περίβολον ἑξήκοντα σταδίων, ὑψηλοῖς καὶ πολυτελέσι τείχεσιν ὠχυρωμένον, ἐξ ὀπτῆς πλίνθου· ἕτερον δ’ ἐντὸς τούτου κυκλοτερῆ κατεσκεύασε, καθ’ ὃν ἐν ὠμαῖς ἔτι ταῖς πλίνθοις διετετύπωτο θηρία παντοδαπὰ τῇ τῶν χρωμάτων φιλοτεχνίᾳ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀπομιμούμενα. οὗτος δ’ ὁ περίβολος ἦν τὸ μὲν μῆκος σταδίων τετταράκοντα, τὸ δὲ πλάτος ἐπὶ τριακοσίας πλίνθους, τὸ δ’ ὕψος, ὡς Κτησίας φησίν, ὀργυιῶν πεντήκοντα· τῶν δὲ πύργων ὑπῆρχε τὸ ὕψος ὀργυιῶν ἑβδομήκοντα. κατεσκεύασε δὲ καὶ τρίτον ἐνδοτέρω περίβολον, ὃς περιεῖχεν ἀκρόπολιν, ἧς ἡ μὲν περίμετρος ἦν σταδίων εἴκοσι, τὸ δὲ μῆκος καὶ πλάτος τῆς οἰκοδομίας ὑπεραῖρον τοῦ μέσου τείχους τὴν κατασκευήν. ἐνῆσαν δ’ ἔν τε τοῖς πύργοις καὶ τείχεσι ζῷα παντοδαπὰ φιλοτέχνως τοῖς τε χρώμασι καὶ τοῖς τῶν τύπων ἀπομιμήμασι κατεσκευασμένα. τὸ δ’ ὅλον ἐπεποίητο κυνήγιον παντοίων θηρίων ὑπάρχον πλῆρες, ὦν ἦσαν τὰ μεγέθη πλέον ἢ πηχῶν τεττάρων. κατεσκεύαστο δ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἡ Σεμίραμις ἀφ’ ἵππου πάρδαλιν ἀκοντίζουσα, καὶ πλησίον αὐτῆς ὁ ἀνὴρ Νίνος παίων ἐκ χειρὸς λέοντα λόγχῃ.

The length of the walls are exaggerated about fourfold, and the other measurements yet more, but the three periboli are easily recognisable, as we shall see later. The middle one was laid out κυκλοτερῆ, which may certainly be rendered “annular, enclosed in itself, not open on one side, like the outer peribolos.” In any case it must not be translated “circular,” for a circular peribolos is found nowhere in Babylon. In the central peribolos there were representations of wild animals in naturalistic colours, which were applied to the bricks while they were still moist. These are obviously the lions, bulls, and dragons of the Procession Street and the Ishtar Gate. The central peribolos of Diodorus enclosed both the Southern and the Principal Citadel. On the walls and towers in the third peribolos, which can be no other than the Southern Citadel, there were also representations, coloured to life, of a chase of wild beasts, in which Ninus and Semiramis themselves took an active part. On no other site have we found human figures on the brick enamels, and had there been any, they could hardly have escaped us. We can scarcely doubt, therefore, that Diodorus was describing the enamels of the Persian building, and that the white face of a woman is the same that Ctesias recognised as a portrait of Semiramis. Whether Diodorus included among the wild animals those on the sides of the gateways of the other courts of the third peribolos—or, as we now call it, the Southern Citadel—may remain uncertain; it is a matter of no consequence. It is, however, a most unusual incident in the history of art, that we should have been able to recover by excavation at the present day such works of art described by a celebrated historian of antiquity, and in the very place where he beheld them.

[Illustration:

FIG. 80.—ENAMELLED ARTIFICIAL BLOCK FROM PERSIAN BUILDING. ]

XX THE WALLS OF THE FORTIFICATIONS AND QUAYS TO THE WEST AND NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL.

We must now turn to the consideration of the fortifications that are connected both directly and indirectly with the Southern Citadel. It is not always easy to gain a clear idea of these structures. In course of time the walls are displaced, the area enlarged, ancient walls are demolished, and the whole appearance of the place altered. All this occurred to a marked extent during the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Of the period previous to that we have only the Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, and the supporting wall of the Assyrian Sargon north-west of the palace of Nabopolassar, which are marked A and S on the plan (Fig. 81). We will first examine those various walls in order to learn their purport and their extent, and then attempt to realise this somewhat complicated system of fortifications in its entire aspect and gradual formation.

[Illustration:

FIG. 81.—The north-west corner of the Southern Citadel.

A1 Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, 1st period. A2 Arachtu wall, 2nd period. A3 Arachtu wall, 3rd period. ÄG Older moat wall. B Wells. G Graves. GI Moat wall of Imgur-Bel. NL Northern mud wall. NP Palace of Nabopolassar. NS Northern wall of Southern Citadel. PZ Parallel intermediate wall. QW Cross wall with outlets for water. S Sargon wall. SL Southern wall of mud brick. VM Connecting wall. WS Western part of the Southern Citadel. WV Western outworks of the Southern Citadel. ]

XXI THE MOAT WALL OF IMGUR-BEL

We began our investigation of the western portion of the Southern Citadel, so far as we have carried it at present, by cutting a long and wide trench (Figs. 84, 85), which, in its western part, laid bare the walls of the western outworks, which in places are remarkably thick.

[Illustration:

FIG. 82.—The moat wall of Imgur-Bel, west of the Southern Citadel. ]

[Illustration:

FIG. 83.—Inscribed brick from the moat wall of Imgur-Bel. ]

[Illustration:

FIG. 84.—Trench on the west of the Southern Citadel, during excavation. ]

[Illustration:

FIG. 85.—Trench on the west of the Southern Citadel, completely excavated. ]

Not far from the Southern Citadel the trench brought to light two walls, of which the thicker one on the west replaced the older and narrower one (ÄG) (Fig. 81); they cannot therefore both have been standing at the same time. In the upper courses of the thicker wall (GI, cf. fig. 82) there is a large number of bricks placed closely together, all of which bear the following inscription (Fig. 83): “Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, the exalted prince, the nourisher of Esagila and Ezida, son of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, am I. Since Nabopolassar, my father, my begetter, made Imgur-Bel the great Dûr of Babylon, I, the fervent suppliant, worshipper of the Lord of lords, dug its fosses and raised its banks of asphalt and baked bricks mountain high. Marduk, great Lord, behold with contentment the costly work of my hands, mayest thou be my helper, my standbye! Length of days send as a gift” (trans. by Delitzsch). Here then we have the slope, the escarpment of the most celebrated and earliest fortification of Babylon that bore the name of Imgur-Bel, “grace of Bel.” Nebuchadnezzar explicitly refers to an Imgur-Bel that was built by Nabopolassar. This Imgur-Bel of Nabopolassar no longer exists, with the exception possibly of some fragmentary remains, but we have a foundation record of Nabopolassar that concerns it. The cylinder, which is small and in excellent condition, was found in the Southern Citadel (_u_ 22) close to the Citadel wall, in rubbish south of the Vaulted Building, and therefore not _in situ_. The text on it runs: “Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, the chosen of Nabu and Marduk, am I. Imgur-Bel, the great Dûr of Babylon, which before me had become weak and fallen, I founded in the primeval abyss. I built it anew with the help of the hosts, the levies of my land. I caused Babylon to be enclosed by it towards the four winds of heaven. I set up its top as in the former time. Dûr, speak to Marduk my Lord on my behalf” (trans. by Delitzsch). From this it appears that the Imgur-Bel of Nabopolassar formed a quadrilateral, closed on all sides, and that it was constructed of burnt brick, as the deep foundations would be neither necessary nor possible for crude brick. The old part of the eastern city wall may thus have formed a portion of the Imgur-Bel of Nabopolassar. The wall of the moat unites on the south with the Citadel wall by a grooved expansion joint, but the groove is cut in the moat wall, which originally extended farther to the south and is older than the Citadel wall at this point. In the north it turns in an easterly direction, and the corner is marked by an immense bastion. On the outer side in the angle of the bastion there are two well shafts hewn out of the brickwork, the openings closed with a grating of pierced stone slabs.

Farther to the north the wall is still buried under the rubbish as far as its eastern termination, where it starts again from another great outstanding bastion to the north of the Ishtar Gate, and there rests against the exactly similarly constructed bastion of the older moat wall.

This older moat wall runs on almost the same lines as the later one, but somewhat within it. Like the latter it is laid with asphalt and reeds, but has smaller unstamped bricks, measuring 32 × 32 centimetres. In the trench near the Persian building we found it at a great depth, and excavated the northern portion of it with the corner bastion, in the angle of which is a well, this time a walled one. A tablet that referred to the construction of this well was found close by. The wall rests on a broad foundation banquette, and stretches in an easterly direction, ending with a substantial tower at the Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, and reappearing at the Ishtar Gate with the above-mentioned outstanding bastion. Here we can recognise a later addition, a raising of the wall, for the strengthening of which powerful beams are jointed in. The lower part has a slight batter, and was later washed over with asphalt, like the walls of Nabopolassar’s palace, which we have already described.

In the well-built but not deeply-founded cross wall, between the bastion and the Ishtar Gate, a broad doorway with a flight of steps led down westward from the level of the earlier Procession Street.

It is possible that the bastions were symmetrically repeated on the other side of the street, but the site has not yet been excavated.

XXII THE ARACHTU WALL OF NABOPOLASSAR AND THE WALL OF SARGON THE ASSYRIAN.

North-west of the palace of Nabopolassar, and deep below the three fortification walls which here lie in front of the Southern Citadel, there are the remains of four ancient walls, the discovery of which has been of great importance for the topography of Babylon. All four are the rounded-off corners—if we may call them so—of quay walls which slope sharply on their north and west fronts. All four are built with a lavish number of stamped and inscribed bricks, so that no doubt whatever can exist as to their use and name.

Each of these quay walls represents a rebuilding of the one behind it, and indicates a thrusting forward of the quay front to the north and west. They consist of good burnt brick, and are for the most part laid in pure asphalt (section on Fig. 87).

The wall of Sargon is the thickest, but with its crown it only attains a height of .27 metres below zero, where it is covered over with a thick layer of asphalt. Above this burnt brick has never been laid, crude brick may have been, but there is nothing to show it. Where the wall abuts on the line of the Southern Citadel it is cut away to make room for the new building. The corner is formed of a circular projecting bastion. In one special course of the front of the bastion, as well as of the straight extent of the wall, in one continuous row, there are inscribed bricks (Fig. 86) with the following legend: “To Marduk! the great Lord, the divine creator who inhabits Esagila, the Lord of Babil, his lord; Sargon the mighty king, King of the land of Assur, King of all, Governor of Babil, King of Sumer and Akkad, the nourisher of Esagila and Ezida. To build Imgur-Bel was his desire: he caused burnt brick of pure kirû to be struck, built a kâr with tar and asphalt on the side of the Ishtar Gate to the bank of the Euphrates in the depth of the water (?), and founded Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel mountain high, firm upon it. This work may Marduk, the great lord, graciously behold and grant Sargon, the prince who cherishes him, life! Like the foundation stone of the sacred city may the years of his reign endure” (trans. by Delitzsch).

[Illustration:

FIG. 86.—Inscribed brick from the Sargon wall. ]

The two great fortifications of Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel, so far as Sargon marks them out as his work, are no longer to be recognised. They must have been destroyed by the buildings of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar on the Southern Citadel. These cannot, however, have stood exactly over our wall, which is only 8 metres broad. Two ordinary fortification walls, such as the two mud walls which stand here above the walls of Sargon, with their intermediate space of one metre filled in with rubbish, occupy with the outer spring of their towers a breadth of 23 metres. Thus they must have lain behind, and Sargon’s wall must have served practically to protect the bank, exactly as we have already observed in the moat wall of Imgur-Bel.

[Illustration:

FIG. 87.—Section through fortification walls north of the Southern Citadel.

A1 Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, 1st period. A3 Arachtu wall of Nabopolassar, 3rd period. AG Older moat wall. GI Moat wall of Imgur-Bel. NL Northern mud wall. NS Northern wall of the Southern Citadel. PZ Parallel intermediate wall. R Ruins of an older mud-brick wall. S Sargon wall. SL Southern mud-brick wall. ]

It is an important point that Sargon mentions the position of his wall: on the side of the Ishtar Gate to the bank of the Euphrates. This shows that in Sargon’s time the Euphrates flowed here.

[Illustration:

FIG. 88.—Stamped brick of Nabopolassar’s Arachtu wall. ]

The Nabopolassar inscriptions on the bricks of his wall that directly adjoins the Sargon wall are, some of them stamped, some chiselled, and some written. They are, however, placed without any sort of method, mixed together in close proximity in all three periods of the wall. In the stamped legend (Fig. 88) the king states that he had bright burnt bricks struck, and with them made the wall of the Arachtu. Thus in the time of Nabopolassar the Arachtu must have flowed here, and indeed at exactly the same place where, according to the Sargon bricks, the Euphrates flowed. The difficulties raised by this circumstance, as well as by a number of statements in the Babylonian literature, may be overcome in two different ways. Either Arachtu is only another term for Euphrates, or we must arrive at the somewhat involved conclusion that in course of time the Euphrates frequently changed its bed and had interchanged with that of the Arachtu. In this case the ancient Euphrates must be supposed to have described a curve or bow towards the west, the chord of which was the Arachtu in its straight southward course, thus forming an island of half-moon shape. This would have been the position of affairs which Sennacherib happened upon when he cast the zikurrat Etemenanki into the Arachtu.