Part 35

Although the larger halls may have been lighted in this manner, yet the inner chambers must have remained in almost entire darkness. And it is not improbable that such was the case, to judge from modern Eastern houses, in which the rooms are purposely kept dark to mitigate the great heat. The sculptures and decorations in them could then only be properly seen by torchlight. The great courts were probably open to the sky, like the courts of the modern houses of Mosul, whose walls are also adorned with sculptured alabaster. The roofs of the large halls must have been supported by pillars of wood or brick work. It may be conjectured that there were two or three stories of chambers opening into them, either by columns or by windows. Such appears to have been the case in Solomon's temple; for Josephus tells us that the great inner sanctuary was surrounded by small rooms, "over these rooms were other rooms, and others above them, equal both in their measure and numbers, and these reached to a height equal to the _lower part_ of the house, for the upper had no buildings about it." We have also a similar arrangement of chambers in the modern houses of Persia, in which a lofty central hall, called the Iwan, of the entire height of the building, has small rooms in two or three separate stories opening by windows into it, whilst the inner chambers have no windows at all, and only receive light through the door. Sometimes these side chambers open into a center court, as we have suggested may have been the case in the Nineveh palaces, and then a projecting roof of woodwork protects the carved and painted walls from injury by the weather. Curtains and awnings were no doubt suspended above the windows and entrances in the Assyrian palaces to ward off the rays of the sun.

Although the remains of pillars have hitherto been discovered in the Assyrian ruins, we now think it highly probable, as suggested by Mr. Fergusson, that they were used to support the roof. The modern Yezidi house, in the Sinjar, is a good illustration not only of this mode of supporting the ceiling, but of the manner in which light may have been admitted into the side chambers. It is curious, however, that no stone pedestals, upon which wooden columns may have rested, have been found in the ruins; nor have marks of them been found on the pavement. We can scarcely account for the entire absence of all such traces. However, unless some support of this kind were resorted to, it is impossible that the larger halls at Kouyunjik could have been covered in. The great hall, or house, as it is rendered in the Bible, of the forest of Lebanon was thirty cubits high, upon four rows of cedar pillars with cedar beams upon the pillars. The Assyrian kings, as we have seen, cut wood in the same forests as King Solomon; and probably used it for the same purpose, namely, for pillars, beams and ceilings. The dimensions of this hall, 100 cubits (about 150 feet) by 50 cubits (75 feet), very much resemble those of the center halls of the palaces of Nineveh. "The porch of pillars" was fifty cubits in length; equal, therefore, to the breadth of the hall, of which, we presume, it was a kind of inclosed space at the upper end, whilst "the porch for the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment * * * * covered with cedar wood from one side of the floor to the other," was probably a raised place within it, corresponding with a similar platform where the host and guests of honor are seated in a modern Eastern house. Supposing the three parts of the building to have been arranged as we have suggested, we should have an exact counterpart of them in the hall of audience of the Persian palaces. The upper part of the magnificent hall in which we have frequently seen the governor of Isfahan, was divided from the lower part by columns, and his throne was a raised place of carved headwork adorned with rich stuffs, ivory, and other precious materials. Suppliants and attendants stood outside the line of pillars, and the officers of the court within. Such also may have been the interior arrangements of the great halls in the Assyrian edifices.

We have already described the interior decorations of the Assyrian palaces, and have little more to add upon the subject. The walls of Kouyunjik were more elaborately decorated than those of Nimroud and Khorsabad. Almost every chamber explored there, and they amounted to about seventy, was paneled with alabaster slabs carved with numerous figures and with the minutest details. Each room appears to have been dedicated to some particular event, and in each, apparently, was the image of the king himself. In fact, the walls recorded in sculpture what the inscriptions did in writing--the great deeds of Sennacherib in peace as well as in war. It will be remarked that, whilst in other Assyrian edifices the king is frequently represented taking an active

## part in war, slaying his enemies, and fighting beneath a besieged

city, Sennacherib is never represented at Kouyunjik otherwise than in an attitude of triumph, in his chariot or on his throne, receiving the captives and the spoil. Nor is he ever seen torturing his prisoners, or putting them to death with his own hand.

There were chambers, however, in the palace of Sennacherib, as well as in those at Nimroud and Khorsabad, whose walls were simply coated with plaster, like the walls of Belshazzar's palace at Babylon. Some were probably richly ornamented in color with figures of men and animals, as well as with elegant designs; or others may have been paneled with cedar wainscoting, as the chambers in the temple and palaces of Solomon, and in the royal edifices of Babylon. Gilding, too, appears to have been extensively used in decoration, and some of the great sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like the cherubim in Solomon's temple. The cut on page 445 gives a beautiful representation of the interior of the palaces. It is taken from the halls of the palace of Sennacherib.

At Kouyunjik, the pavement slabs were not inscribed as at Nimroud; but those between the winged bulls, at some of the entrances, were carved with an elaborate and very elegant pattern. The doors were probably of wood, gilt, and adorned with precious materials, like the gates of the temple of Jerusalem, and their hinges appear to have turned in stone sockets, some of which were found in the ruins. To ward off the glare of an Eastern sun, hangings or curtains, of gay colors and of rich materials, were probably suspended to the pillars supporting the ceiling, or to wooden poles raised for the purpose, as in the palaces of Babylon and Shushan.

Layard's researches have satisfied him that a very considerable period elapsed between the earliest and latest buildings discovered among the mounds of Nimroud. We incline to this opinion, but differ from the surmise that the ruins of Nimroud and the site of Nineveh itself are identical. The dimensions of Nineveh, as given by Diodorus Siculus, were 150 stadia on the two longest sides of the quadrangle, and 90 on the opposite; the square being 480 stadia, 60 miles; or, according to some, 74 miles. Layard thinks, that by taking the four great mounds of Nimroud, Kouyunjik, Khorsabad and Karamles, as the corners of a square, the four sides will correspond pretty accurately with the 60 miles of the geographer, and the three days' journey of the prophet Jonah.

The parallelogram, or line of boundary, being thus completed, we have now to ascertain how far it accords with the localities of the researches; and we find that it not only comprehends the principal mounds which have already been examined, but many others, in which ruins are either actually, or almost certainly, known to exist. Another important object of remark connected with this subject, is the thickness of the wall surrounding the palace of Khorsabad, which Botta states to be fifteen metres, _i.e._, forty-eight feet, nine inches, a very close approximation to the width of the wall of the city itself, which was "so broad as that three chariots might be driven upon it abreast." This is about half the thickness of the wall of Babylon, upon which "six chariots could be driven together," and which Herodotus tells were eighty-seven feet broad, or nearly double that of Khorsabad. The extraordinary dimensions of the walls of cities is supported by these remains at Khorsabad. The Median wall, still existing, in part nearly entire, and which crosses obliquely the plain of Mesopotamia from the Tigris to the banks of the Euphrates, a distance of forty miles, is another example. The great wall of China, also, of like antiquity, we are told, "traverses high mountains, deep valleys, and, by means of arches, wide rivers, extending from the province of Shen Si to Wanghay, or the Yellow Sea, a distance of 1,500 miles. In some places, to protect exposed passages, it is double and treble. The foundation and corner stones are of granite, but the principal part is of blue bricks, cemented with pure white mortar. At distances of about 200 paces are distributed square towers or strong bulwarks." In less ancient times, the Roman walls in our own country supply additional proof of the universality of this mode of enclosing a district or guarding a boundary before society was established on a firm basis. It may be objected against the foregoing speculations on the boundary of Nineveh, that the river runs within the walls instead of on the outside. In reply, we submit that when the walls were destroyed, as described by the historian, the flooded river would force for itself another channel, which in process of time would become more and more devious from the obstructions offered by the accumulated ruins, until it eventually took the channel in which it now flows.

Babylon was the most beautiful and the richest city in the world. Even to our age, it stands as a marvel. It was built about 3,000 years ago, but did not reach the summit of its magnificence until about 570 years Before Christ, when Nebuchadnezzar lavished almost an endless amount of wealth upon it.

Its magnitude was 480 furlongs, or sixty miles, in compass. It was built in an exact square of fifteen miles on each side, and was surrounded by a brick wall eighty-seven feet thick and 350 feet high, on which were 250 towers, or, according to some writers, 316. The top of the wall was wide enough to allow six chariots to drive abreast. The materials for building the wall were dug from a vast ditch or moat, which was also walled up with brickwork and then filled with water from the River Euphrates. This moat was just outside of the walls, and surrounded the city as another strong defence.

The city had 100 brass gates, one at the end of each of its fifty streets. The streets were 150 feet wide and ran at right angles through the city, thus forming 676 great squares. Herodotus says besides this there was yet another wall which ran around within, not much inferior to the other, yet narrower, and the city was divided into two equal parts by the River Euphrates, over which was a bridge, and at each end of the bridge was a palace. These palaces had communication with each other by a subterranean passage.

To prevent the city from suffering from an overflow of the river during the summer months, immense embankments were raised on either side, with canals to turn the flood waters of the Tigris. On the western side of the city an artificial lake was excavated forty miles square, or 160 miles in circumference, and dug out, according to Megasthenes, seventy-five feet deep, into which the river was turned when any repairs were to be made, or for a surplus of water, in case the river should be cut off from them.

Near to the old palace stood the Tower of Babel. This prodigious pile consisted of eight towers, each seventy-five feet high, rising one upon another, with an outside winding staircase to its summit, which, with its chapel on the top, reached a height of 660 feet. On this summit is where the chapel of Belus was erected, which contained probably the most expensive furniture of any in the world. One golden image forty feet high was valued at $17,500,000, and the whole of the sacred utensils were reckoned to be worth $200,000,000. There are still other wonderful things mentioned. One, the subterraneous banqueting rooms, which were made under the River Euphrates and were constructed entirely of brass; and then, as one of the seven wonders of the world, were the famous hanging gardens; they were 400 feet square and were raised 350 feet high, one terrace above the other, and were ascended by a staircase ten feet wide. The terraces were supported by large vaultings resting upon curb-shaped pillars and were hollow and filled with earth, to allow trees of the largest size to be planted, the whole being constructed of baked bricks and asphalt. The entire structure was strengthened and bound together by a wall twenty-two feet in thickness. The level of the terrace was covered with large stones, over which was a bed of rushes, then a thick layer of asphalt, next two courses of bricks likewise cemented with asphalt, and finally plates of lead to prevent leakage, the earth being heaped on the platform and terrace and large trees planted. The whole had the appearance from a distance of woods overhanging mountains.

The great work is affirmed to have been effected by Nebuchadnezzar to gratify his wife, Anytis, daughter of Astyages, who retained strong predilection for the hills and groves which abounded in her native Media.

Babylon flourished for nearly 200 years in this scale of grandeur, during which idolatry, pride, cruelty, and every abomination prevailed among all ranks of the people, when God, by His prophet, pronounced its utter ruin, which was accordingly accomplished, commencing with Cyrus taking the city, after a siege of two years, in the year 588 Before Christ, to emancipate the Jews, as foretold by the prophets. By successive overthrows this once "Glory of the Chaldees' Excellency," this "Lady of Kingdoms," has become a "desolation" without an inhabitant, and its temple a vast heap of rubbish.

The ancient Tower of Babel is now a mound of oblong form, the total circumference of which is 2,286 feet. At the eastern side it is cloven by a deep furrow and is not more than fifty or sixty feet high, but on the western side it rises in a conical figure to the elevation of 198 feet, and on its summit is a solid pile of brick thirty-seven feet in height and twenty-eight in breadth, diminishing in thickness to the top, which is broken and irregular and rent by large fissures extending through a third of its height; it is perforated with small holes.

The fire-burnt bricks of which it is built have inscriptions on them, and so excellent is the cement, which appears to be lime mortar, that it is nearly impossible to extract one whole. The other parts of the summit of this hill are occupied by immense fragments of brickwork of no determinate figure, tumbled together and converted into solid vitrified masses, as if they had undergone the action of the fiercest fire, or had been blown up by gunpowder, the layers of brick being perfectly discernible. These ruins surely proclaim the divinity of the Scriptures. Layard says the discoveries amongst the ruins of ancient Babylon were far less numerous and important than could have been anticipated. No sculptures or inscribed slabs, the paneling of the walls of palaces, appear to exist beneath them, as in those of Nineveh. Scarcely a detached figure in stone, or a solitary tablet, has been dug out of the vast heaps of rubbish. "Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground." (Isaiah xxi. 9.)

The complete absence of such remains is to be explained by the nature of the materials used in the erection of even the most costly edifices of Babylon. In the vicinity there were no quarries of alabaster, or of limestone, such as existed near Nineveh. The city was built in the midst of an alluvial country, far removed from the hills. The deposits of the mighty rivers which have gradually formed the Mesopotamian plains consist of a rich clay. Consequently stone for building purposes could only be obtained from a distance. The black basalt, a favorite material amongst the Babylonians for carving detached figures, and for architectural ornaments, as appears from fragments found amongst the ruins, came from the Kurdish Mountains, or from the north of Mesopotamia.

The Babylonians were content to avail themselves of the building materials which they found on the spot. With the tenacious mud of their alluvial plains, mixed with chopped straw, they made bricks, whilst bitumen and other substances collected from the immediate neighborhood furnished them with an excellent cement. A knowledge of the art of manufacturing glaze, and colors, enabled them to cover their bricks with a rich enamel, thereby rendering them equally ornamental for the exterior and interior of their edifices. The walls of their palaces and temples were also coated, as we learn from several passages in the Bible, with mortar and plaster, which, judging from their cement, must have been of very fine quality. The fingers of a man's hand wrote the words of condemnation of the Babylonian empire "upon the plaster of the king's palace." Upon those walls were painted historical and religious subjects, and various ornaments, and, according to Diodorus Siculus, the bricks were enameled with the figures of men and animals. Images of stone were no doubt introduced into the buildings. We learn from the Bible that figures of the gods in this material, as well as in metal, were kept in the Babylonian temples. But such sculptures were not common, otherwise more remains of them must have been discovered in the ruins. The great inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, engraved on a black stone, and divided into ten columns, in the museum formed by the East India Company, appears to contain some interesting details as to the mode of construction and architecture of the Babylonian palaces and temples.

It may be conjectured that, in their general plan, the Babylonian palaces and temples resembled those of Assyria. We know that the arts, the religion, the customs, and the laws of the two kindred people were nearly identical. They spoke, also, the same language, and used, very nearly, the same written characters. One appears to have borrowed from the other; and, without attempting to decide the question of the priority of the independent existence as a nation and of the civilization of either people, it can be admitted that they had a certain extent of common origin, and that they maintained for many centuries an intimate connection. We find no remains of columns at Babylon, as none have been found at Nineveh. If such architectural ornaments were used, they must have been either of wood or of brick.

Although the building materials used in the great edifices of Babylon may seem extremely mean when compared with those employed in the stupendous palace-temples of Egypt, and even in the less massive edifices of Assyria, yet the Babylonians appear to have raised, with them alone, structures which excited the wonder and admiration of the most famous travelers of antiquity. The profuse use of color, and the taste displayed in its combination, and in the ornamental designs, together with the solidity and vastness of the immense structure upon which the buildings proudly stood, may have chiefly contributed to produce this effect upon the minds of strangers. The palaces and temples, like those of Nineveh, were erected upon lofty platforms of brickwork. The bricks, as in Assyria, were either simply baked in the sun, or were burned in the kiln. The latter are of more than one shape and quality. Some are square, others are oblong. Those from the Birs Nimroud are generally of a dark red color, while those from the Mujelibe are mostly of a light yellow. A large number of them have inscriptions in a complex cuneiform character peculiar to Babylon. These superscriptions have been impressed upon them by a stamp, on which the whole inscription was cut in relief. Each character was not made singly, as on the Assyrian bricks, and this is the distinction between them. Almost all the bricks brought from the ruins of Babylon bear the same inscription, with the exception of one or two unimportant words, and record the building of the city by Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabubaluchun. We owe the interpretation of these names to the late Dr. Hincks.

It may not be out of place to add a few remarks upon the history of Babylon. The time of the foundation of this celebrated city is still a question which does not admit of a satisfactory determination, and into which we will not enter. Some believe it to have taken place at a comparatively recent date; but if, as the Egyptian scholars assert, the name of Babylon is found on monuments of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, we have positive evidence of its existence at least in the fifteenth century Before Christ. After the rise of the Assyrian empire, it appears to have been sometimes under the direct rule of the kings of Nineveh, and at other times to have been governed by its own independent chiefs. Expeditions against Babylon are recorded in the earliest inscriptions yet discovered in Assyria; and as it has been seen, even in the time of Sennacherib and his immediate predecessors, large armies were still frequently sent against its rebellious inhabitants. The Babylonian kingdom was, however, almost absorbed in that of Assyria, the dominant power of the East. When this great empire began to decline Babylon rose for the last time. Media and Persia were equally ready to throw off the Assyrian yoke, and at length the allied armies of Cyaxares and the father of Nebuchadnezzar captured and destroyed the capital of the Eastern world.

Babylon now rapidly succeeded to that proud position so long held by Nineveh. Under Nebuchadnezzar she acquired the power forfeited by her rival. The bounds of the city were extended; buildings of extraordinary size and magnificence were erected; her victorious armies conquered Syria and Palestine, and penetrated into Egypt. Her commerce, too, had now spread far and wide, from the east to the west, and she became "a land of traffic and a city of merchants."

But her greatness as an independent nation was short-lived. The neighboring kingdoms of Media and Persia, united under one monarch, had profited no less than Babylon, by the ruin of the Assyrian empire, and were ready to dispute with her the dominion of Asia. Scarcely half a century had elapsed from the fall of Nineveh, when "Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldæans, was slain, and Darius, the Median, took the kingdom." From that time Babylonia sank into a mere province of Persia. It still, however, retained much of its former power and trade, and as we learn from the inscriptions of Bisutun, as well as from ancient authors, struggled more than once to regain its ancient independence.