New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-02-23
Nsn Orlsans Bully Crestent.
From tie Boston Atlas, Jan. 81 ~.
The Tower of Babel Not Discovered Yet
The Rosfon Travellers Story Exploded.

We are reluctant to dispe so agreeable an ausion
as this discovery of the Tower OF Babel by bringing
it to the tests of historical and geographical
science but the fact is that the researches OF NJ
Place in the great mound at Arbea, though highly
interesting and valuable, have more to do with the
Tower Of Babel than they have with Bunker Hill
Monument. II NJ. Place supposes that he has discov
cred the Tower of Babel at Arbea, he must be, even
for Frenchrnan, utterly ignorant Of the Bible; and
we are at loss to conceive how the reverend cores
pondent of the Traveller could for moment have
concurred in such suppositlon HIS assertion that
locality assigned to the structure, is directly
contradicted by the plain language of Scripture $50
the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the
face of all the earth and they left off to build the
city; therefore is the name Of 1t called Babei."
This conclusyely fixes the locality Babel and Baby
Ion are the same. The city, which in Hebrew is
called Babel in Greek is called Babylon The Tower
of Babel precisely the same thing as the Tower
Of Babylon. Now, the site of Babylon Is well known,
and there if anywhere must look for the remains,
if remains exist of the famous tower, and not at Ar
bella which lies three hundred miles north OF Babylon
The fact that bitunen is found at Arbela IS OF no I'M
portance, for btumen is found in many places in the
neghborhood Of the Tigrs and Euphrates, and IS no
where more plentiful than at Hit, on the Euphrates,
at no great distance from Babylon,
On the site of Babylon there still exists stipend
GUS ruins, preeminent among which are two vast
piles called by the Arabs the Muelebe and the Birs
Nimrod. The travellers who have explored and de-
scrbed the ruins of Babylon divided in opinion as
to which of these piles is entitled to be considered
the remains of the tower OF Babel. Mr.. Rich, by
whom they were first described, in 1911 decided in
favor Of the Brs Nimrod. Sir Robert ker Porter in
1873 advocated the claims of the Mnjeiebe; and, IN
this opinion the eminent geographer, Major Rennen
| conceded Mr.. Buckingham, subsequent traveller
! came to the same conclusion with Mr.. Rich. And nc
| man can say authortativey who is right or who is
wrong. The question, in all probability, admits oil nc
| decision.
The mound at Arbela, which NJ. Place has examin
ed and which the correspondent of the Traveller I'M
tn hay GjscnypypU
though we believe it has before been explored
In 1S4l was described by Fraser, in his work OF
Messopotamia and Assyria, as a large artlhcia
mound, go or 70 feet high, 300 yards in length b.
high, and the Birs Nimrod nearly $50 feet high, o
three or four times the height Of the ruin at Arbela
| Throughout Assyria and Messopotamia there ar
mnltitudes of ruins equal to- or greater than that a
Arbela. with quite as good claims to be CONSIDERS
the Tower of Babe-that is to say, no claims at all.
Fraser, whom we have already quoted, speaking Q
these ruins, says "That any portion OF the mound
now seen or the sites we have described, belongs t
those earliest cities of the world which are presume
to have there been erected, it would be more tina
rash to AFFIRM On the contrary. it is almost certal
that in the long period of more than 900 years whc
5 have elapsed since Nimrod founded his kingdom j
Shinar, every portion of the original fabrics mus
have moudered into dust, and that the huge mount
which astonish us in various parts-such as the Bl
NimrOd, Akerkoof, Workha, Mugeyer, Sunkhera,
hliveh Jibel Sanam and others-beong all to I,
LATER though stlll very relole ayes anu "ele eipr
erected at the instance of the Chadean presthoo
. in the days succeeding Bel or Pull, to the honor
e their various deities."
e These are unquestonably sound conclusions. 1t
idle at this age of the world, to look for remains
the Tower of Babel, of which the Bible gives no
scription whatever, except that, like all the rest
the Bab,lonan edices, it was built, or rather begl
to be built of bricks and btumen. Not single dett
by ,rhich it could be identified. The evidence
favor of the authenticity of the Scriptures has be-
wonderfully enlarged and strengthened by the rece
- genuine and unmstakable discoveries of Assyran al
n Babylonian antiquities and it is greatyto be desr
that it should not be complicated or embarrassed
of anything OF doubtful or merely fanciful character