Part 14

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.