The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1857-04-23
The Tower of Ba bel mot Discovered Yet:-The
Boston Travellers Story Exploded.

We are relucaant to dispel so agreeable an illusion
as the discovery of the Tower of Babel, by bringing
it to the severe test of historical and geographical
science but the fact is, that the researches OfM. Place
in the great mound at Arbela. though highly interest
ing and valuable, have no more to do with the Tower
Of Babel than they have with Bunker Hill Monument.
I'm. Place suppeses that he has discovered the Tow |
er of Babel at Arbeta, he must be, even for a French |
man, unusually ignorant of the Bible; and we are at
a loss to conceive how the reverend correspondent Of
the TroEeIer could for a moment have c0ncnrTed in
such a supposEtion. His assertion that no locality
WAS assigned torthe structure, is directly contradicted
by the plain language of scripture so the Lord
scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of
the earth; and they left off to build the city; therefore
is the namegof 1T called Babel" This cenelusively
fixes the ~localit.. Babel and Babylon are the same.
The city, which in Hebrew is called Babel, in Greek
is called Babylon. The Tower of Babel means pre-
cisely the same thing as the Tower of Babylon. Now,
the site of Babylon is we'll known, and there, if any,
where, We mist look for the remains, If remains
exist, of the famous tower, and not at IArbela, which
lies 300 miles north of Babylon. The fact that btu
men is found at Arbela, is of no Importance, for
bitumenzis found in many places in the neighbOrhOed
of the Tigris and Euphrates, and is no where more
plentiful than at Hit, on the Euphrates, at no great
distance above Babylon.
On the site of Babylon there still exists stupendous
ruins, preeminent among which are two vast piles,
called by the Arabs the Mujelebee and the Birs MIN
rod. The travellers who have explored and described
the ruins of Babylon, are divided In opinion as to
which Of these piles is entitled to be considered the
remains OF the low f OF BABEL. MP. hhch, by whom
they were first described, in 1911, decided in favor of
the Birs Nimred. Sir Robert Ker Porter, in 1918,
advocated the claims of the Mujelebee; and in this
opin on the eminent geographer, Major Rennell, coin
cided. Mr.. Buckingham, a subsequent traveller, came
to the same conclusion with Dir. Rich. And no man
can say authoritatively who is right, or who is wrong.
The question, in all probability, admits of no decision.
The mound at Arbela, which NJ. Place has examined,
and which the correspondent of the Traveller i'm
ARMED him to have discovered, has been long known,
though we believe it has never before been explored.
In 1871 it was described by Fraser, in his work on
Mesopotamiar and Assyfia, as ga large artificial
mound, SO or 20 feet high, 800 yards in length by
200 ina breadth. /, The Mujelebee at Babylon is $50
feet high, and the Birs Nimred nearly 250 feet high,
or three OF four times as high as the ruin OF Arbela.
Throughout Assyria and Mesopotamia there are mul-
tstudes of ruins equal to, or greater than that at Ar
bella, with quite as good claims to beleonsidered the
Tower of Babel, that is to say, with no claims at all.
Fraser. whom we have already quoted, speaking OF
these ruins, says:s as s
-stThat any portion of the mounds now seen, or the
sites we have described, belongs to those earliest cities
Of the verdi, which are presumed to have been there
erected. it would be more than rash to AFFIRM On
the contrary, it Is almost certain that, in the long
1er;od az more than 1000 years, which have ELAPSED
since Nimrod founded his kingdom in Shinar, every
-5rf;orf of the original fabrics must have mouldered
inFo inst, and that the huge mounds which astonish
q. In various parts-such as the Birs Nimrod, AlIker-
Foof: BForkpa, Mugeyer, Sunkhera, zibiiseb, Jbe
Ssnssu and others-beiOng all 70 hr later though