BABYLON, the capital of the ancient kingdom of Babylonia or Chaldaea, situated about long. 44.20. E. lat. 32. 30. N. Semiramis is said by some, and Belus by others, to have founded this city. But by whomsoever Babylon was founded, Nebuchadnezzar was the person who completed it, and made it one of the wonders of the world. The most famous works in and about the city were the walls, the temple of Belus, Nebuchadnezzar’s palace, the hanging gardens, the banks of the river, the artificial lake, and the canals.

The city was surrounded with walls, eighty-seven feet in thickness, 350 feet in height, and 480 furlongs, or sixty of our miles, in compass. Such, at least, is the statement of Herodotus, who was himself at Babylon. Diodorus Siculus, however, diminishes the circumference of these walls very considerably, and takes some what from their height as given by Herodotus. It is observed, that those who make the height of these walls but fifty cubits, speak of them as they existed after the time of Darius Hystaspes, who had caused them to be greatly reduced. These walls formed a square, each side of which was 120 furlongs, or fifteen miles, in length; and they were built of large bricks cemented together with bitumen. The city was encompassed, without the walls, with a vast ditch filled with water, and lined with bricks on both sides; and, as the earth that had been dug out of it served to form the bricks, we may judge of the depth and largeness of the ditch from the height and thickness of the walls. In the whole compass of the wall there were an hundred gates, that is, twenty-five on every one of the four sides, all formed of brass. Between each two of these gates, at proper distances, were three towers, and four more at the four corners of this great square, and three between every corner and the next gate on either side; and these towers were ten feet higher than the walls. But this is to be understood only of those parts of the walls where towers were needed for defence; for in some parts of them, which rested upon a morass and were inaccessible to an enemy, the labour and cost of such defences were spared. The whole number, then, of these towers amounted to no more than 250. From every one of the twenty-five gates on each side of this square there ran a straight street, extending to the corresponding gate in the opposite wall; whence the whole number of the streets must have been only fifty; but then they were each about fifteen miles in length, one half of them, or twenty-five, crossing the other twenty-five at right angles. Besides these whole streets, however, we must reckon four half streets, consisting of rows of houses facing the four inner sides of the walls. But these four half streets were properly the four sides of the city within the walls, and each of them was 200 feet broad, the whole streets being about 150 feet broad. By this intersection of the fifty streets the city was divided into 676 squares, every one of four furlongs and a half on the side, or two miles and a quarter in compass. Round these squares, on every side towards the streets, stood the -houses, many of which were several stories in height, and adorned with all manner of embellishment; while the space within each of these squares was occupied by fields or gardens, either for pleasure or convenience.

A branch of the Euphrates divided the city into two parts, running through the midst of it from north to south; and over it, in the very middle of the city, was a bridge a furlong or rather more in length. This bridge is said to have been built with wonderful art, in order to supply a defect in the bottom of the river, which was all sandy. At its opposite ends were two palaces, namely, the old palace on the east side, and the new one on the west side of the river; the former of which occupied four of the squares above mentioned, and the latter nine. The temple of Belus occupied another of these squares.

The whole city stood in a large flat or plain, in a very fat and deep soil; that part or half of it situated on the east side of the river constituted the old city, and the other on the west was added by Nebuchadnezzar, while both were included within the vast square bounded by the walls already mentioned. The form of the whole was probably borrowed from Nineveh, which was also 480 furlongs in circuit. It is supposed that Nebuchadnezzar, who had destroyed the old seat of the Assyrian empire, intende» that this new one should rather exceed it; and that in order to fill it with inhabitants, he transported thither vast numbers of captives from other countries.

According to the description of Herodotus, Babylon must have covered ten times as large a space as London. It is certain, however, that much of the ground was occupied with fields and gardens; and hence it was rather an inclosed district, with groups of buildings interspersed, than a city in the modern sense of the term.

One great work of Nebuchadnezzar was the temple of Belus. But the wonderful tower connected with it was built many ages before, and is supposed to have been the same structure with the tower of Babel. This tower is said by Herodotus to have been composed of eight pyramidal ones raised above one another, and to have been a furlong in height. The ascent to the top was by means of stairs on the outside passing round it. Until [7:4:267]the time of Nebuchadnezzar, it is thought that this tower was the only temple of Belus; but that king made great additions to it by erecting vast edifices round it, in a square of two furlongs on every side, and a mile in circumference. On the outside of these buildings was a wall which inclosed the whole; and in this wall were several gates, all of solid brass, leading into the temple. In the temple thus enlarged were several images or idols of massive gold, and one of them, forty feet in height, is supposed to have been that which Nebuchadnezzar consecrated in the plains of Dura.—On the east side of the river stood the old palace of the kings of Babylon, which was four miles in circumference; and opposite to it, on the other side of the river, was the new palace built by Nebuchadnezzar, eight miles in circumference, and consequently four times as large as the old one.

But nothing was more wonderful at Babylon than the hanging gardens, which Nebuchadnezzar formed in complaisance to his wife Amyte; who, being a Mede, and retaining a strong predilection for the mountains and forests of her own country, was desirous of having something like them at Babylon. They are said to have contained a square of four plethra, or 400 feet, on each side; and to have consisted of terraces raised one above another, and carried up to the height of the wall of the city, the ascent from terrace to terrace being by steps ten feet wide. The whole pile consisted of substantial arches upon arches, and was strengthened by a wall 22 feet thick surrounding it on every side. The floors on each of them were constructed in this order: first, on the tops of the arches was laid a bed or pavement of stones, sixteen feet long and four feet broad, over which was a layer of reeds mixed with a great quantity of bitumen; and this again was covered with two courses of bricks closely cemented together with plaster; while over all these were placed thick sheets of lead, on which was laid the earth or mould of the garden. This floorage was designed to retain the moisture of the mould, which was deep enough to give root to the largest trees, that were planted upon every terrace, together with a great variety of other vegetables pleasing to the eye. Upon the uppermost of these terraces was a reservoir, supplied with water from the river by means of an engine; and from this reservoir the gardens on the other terraces were irrigated, as occasion required.

The other works attributed to Nebuchadnezzar by Berosus and Abydenus, were the embankments on the side •of the river, the artificial canals, and the great artificial lake said to have been formed by Semiramis. The canals were cut out on the east side of the Euphrates, to convey the waters of the river, when it overflowed its banks, into the Tigris, before they reached Babylon. The site of the lake was to the west of Babylon; and, according to the lowest computation, it was 40 miles square, 160 in compass, and in depth 35 feet, as Herodotus states. This lake was dug to receive the waters of the river, while the embankments were building on each side of it. But both the lake and the canal which led to it were preserved after that work was completed, being found of great use, not only to prevent all overflowings, but to keep water 11 the year, as in a common reservoir, to be let out on proper occasions by sluices for the improvement of the land.

The embankments were built of bricks and bitumen, on both sides of the river, to keep it within its channel, and extended on each side throughout the whole length of the city and even farther, according to some, who reckon their ongitudinal extent 160 furlongs, or twenty miles; whence it is concluded they must have commenced two miles and a half above the city, and been continued an equal distance below it, the length of the city being no more than fifteen miles. Within the city they were raised from the bottom of the river, and were of the same thickness with the walls of Babylon itself. Opposite to each street, on either side of the river, was a brazen gate in the embankment wall, with stairs leading down from it to the river; and these gates were open by day, but shut by night.

The tower or temple stood till the time of Xerxes; but that prince, on his return from his Grecian expedition, having first plundered it of its immense wealth, demolished the whole, and laid it in ruins. Alexander, on his return to Babylon from his Indian expedition, proposed to rebuild it, and accordingly set 10,000 men to work to clear away the rubbish; but the work proved too herculean for such means, and his death happening soon after, a stop was put to all further proceedings in this design. After the death of the Macedonian conqueror, the city of Babylon began to decline apace; which was chiefly owing to the proximity of Seleucia, built by Seleucus Nicator, and peopled with 500,000 persons drawn from Babylon.

Such is the description we have received from ancient historians of the grandeur of this city. Many of the moderns, however, are of opinion that their accounts are greatly exaggerated. The remarks of Goguet on this subject are particularly deserving of attention, as embodying sound sense and judicious criticism. We come now to give some account of the ruins of Babylon as they are described by modern travellers.

Amongst all the remains of ancient grandeur, there are none perhaps which possess equal interest with the ruins of Babylon; none, except those of Egypt, which present so many striking images to the imagination, or carry back the mind into such a depth of antiquity. It happens fortunately that their site, through the learned investigations of Major Rennell, may be considered as completely fixed to the small district situated immediately to the north of the village called Hillah.^[1. Hillah is nine miles from Mohawil, and nearly forty-eight from Bagdad. (Rich’s Memoir on Babylon.) ] Its position on the Euphrates, the fountains of bitumen at Hit or Heet, the distance from the ascertained position of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, and the character of the surrounding country, combine in establishing this point beyond a doubt. The appellation of ruins, in its proper sense, cannot, however, be applied to the present remains of Babylon, which consist almost wholly of bricks, fragments, and rubbish, piled, as it were, in masses, and serving as quarries for the construction of new cities. In this condition, nevertheless, they have deservedly attracted the attention of modern travellers; and interesting notices have been successively given by Della Valle, Niebuhr, Ives, Otter, and Beauchamp. But the recent observations of Mr Rich, enlightened by the previous inquiries of Major Rennell, have been so much more careful and complete, that they nearly supersede all prior information. We shall therefore, in the first place, give a view of the objects which presented themselves to Mr Rich in traversing this celebrated ground; and then offer some remarks respecting those ancient edifices, of which these objects are to be considered as the remains.

Mr Rich commenced his observations at Hillah, and proceeded to the north, along the eastern bank of the Euphrates. After passing some smaller mounds, he came to a vast mass, 1100 yards in length and 800 in its greatest breadth, whilst its most elevated part rose 50 or 60 feet above the level of the plain. It consists almost wholly of earth formed from decomposed brick, and strewed with various species of fragments. The name of Amran is given to it from a tradition, seemingly unfounded, of a son of Ali having been buried in it. Then, after traversing[7:4:268] a valley 550 yards in length, and crossed by some smaller ruins, he came to the second grand mass, forming nearly a square of 700 yards every way. This part of the ruins is extremely interesting, containing several walls in a pretty entire state: these are eight feet thick, in some places ornamented with niches, in others strengthened by pilasters and buttresses. Some remains of painting and sculpture are still to be seen on them. The bricks are of the very finest kind, and cemented with lime. We may here observe that the city, as Major Rennell suspected, appears to have been built partly of burnt and partly of unburnt bricks. Three kinds of cement have also been used. The unburnt bricks are in general merely bound together with reeds or chopped straw, which are still found in great quantities. The burnt bricks are cemented, partly with bitumen, but more frequently with lime; a material, the use of which had escaped the notice of observers previous to Mr Rich. He states it to be much the most efficacious of any. Bricks cemented with bitumen could be easily separated; but where good mortar had been used, no power of art could detach them from the wall, without breaking them in pieces. Some parts of the edifice in question have been deeply excavated, with a view to the removal of the bricks; but the workmen have been intimidated in consequence of the rubbish having fallen in and buried some of their number; and they have given up the walls, on account of the extreme tenacity with which they are cemented. This edifice is called by the natives the Kasr or palace.

A mile to the north of the Kasr, and about half a mile from the river, is a mass equally remarkable. It is an irregular oblong, the sides being respectively 200, 219,182, and 136yards in length; and the greatest elevation 141 feet. Near the summit of the western side appears a low wall, built of unburnt bricks, cemented with reeds and straw. The summit is covered with heaps of rubbish, and with innumerable fragments of pottery, brick, bitumen, pebbles, vitrified brick, and even shells, bits of glass, and mother of pearl. There are many dens of wild beasts in this part of the ruins, and most of the cavities are filled with bats and owls. As there appeared a niche or recess near the summit of the northern face, Mr Rich caused it to be dug into. The workmen successively extracted two wooden coffins, containing skeletons in high preservation. He was of opinion that the whole passage, whatever might be its extent, would have proved to have been occupied in, the same manner.

This mass, denominated the Mujelibĕ, being the most elevated part of these remains, has been considered by most travellers as the Tower of Belus, which formed one of the two grand features in the wonders of ancient Babylon. The other was the palace, with its hanging gardens; and this had been clearly pointed out by ancient authorities as on the side opposite to the tower of Belus. The tower then being on the eastern, the palace was to be sought on the western bank of the river. With the exception, however, of a slight notice collected by D’Anville, modern travellers had given no information of any ruins situate in that quarter. Major Rennell very properly pointed out this as a grand object of investigation lor future inquirers. Mr Rich, on reaching the summit of the Mujelibĕ, whence he commanded an extensive view across the river, was much surprised at discovering no trace of any ruins whatever. Not satisfied with this distant view, he crossed and carefully surveyed the ground, but could discern only some mounds of small dimensions, which conveyed no idea of the immense structures of which he was in search. Before leaving this neighbourhood, however, he went to visit a tower, which had been imperfectly observed by Niebuhr, about six miles southwest of Hillah, and beyond the site assigned to ancient Babylon. Our traveller, who had formed no high expectations from this object, was struck with the utmost amazement at its magnitude and grandeur, which decidedly surpassed any thing he had yet witnessed among these interesting remains. It consists of a mound of an oblong figure, 762 yards in circumference; rises in a conical form to the height of 198 feet; and has on its summit a solid pile of brick 37 feet high, diminishing in thickness to the top. The bricks are of the finest description, with inscriptions on them, and so well cemented with lime that it is nearly impossible to extract one of them entire. This ruin is called by the Arabs the Ľirs Nimrod. Every thing remarkable is by them ascribed to Nimrod; but the meaning of the term Birs seems unknown even to themselves. By the Jews it is called Nebuchadnezzar’s Prison. At a trifling distance to the east is a mound equal in elevation to the Kasr, and all around are traces of ruins to a considerable extent.

Mr Rich having thus described these ruins, begins very cautiously to form conjectures respecting their origin and nature. At the first sight of the Birs Nimrod he had involuntarily exclaimed, that if the situation rendered it possible, this certainly must be the tower of Belus. Besides its extraordinary magnitude, there is some appearance of its being built in stages, as described by ancient authors; and the mound on the east might correspond to the temple, which occupied part of the quadrangular inclosure that surrounded the tower. After considering these circumstances, Mr Rich is led on to inquire whether it be so certain as is generally supposed that the tower of Belus must be found on the eastern side of the river, and the palace and hanging gardens on the western. But after some acute remarks his path becomes entangled, and he is obliged to stop without arriving at any satisfactory distribution of the objects which had fallen under his observation. The subject is certainly involved in much darkness and uncertainty; but as it is of considerable interest, we shall present our readers with such observations as its consideration has suggested to us.

It is stated by ancient writers, in the most positive and circumstantial manner, that the palace, with its grand appendage of hanging gardens, was situate upon, or very near to the river, whence, indeed, the gardens were artificially watered. Now, modern Babylon presents, near to the river, no ruins of any magnitude, except those on its eastern bank,—the Amran, Kasr, and Mujelibĕ. It seems unquestionable, therefore, that these, if any, must be the remnant of those immense structures. Then, following Herodotus, we must look for the tower of Belus on the western side of the river. But here we are crossed by the statement of Diodorus, to which Mr Rich does not seem to have fully adverted. That author reports that there were two palaces built on the opposite sides of the Euphrates, of which by far the most extensive and magnificent was that on the western bank. This Major Rennell naturally infers to be the one which other writers call the palace. But it deserves notice that Diodorus is the only authority for there being two palaces. Herodotus and Curtius, the former an eyewitness, mention only one, and evidently entertain no idea that any more existed. It seems also quite unaccountable, that while inferior structures exhibit vast piles of ruins, this western palace, which must have been the grandest and most extensive of all, should not have left the slightest trace of its exist* ence. It may therefore deserve consideration whether Diodorus, who wrote only from hearsay, might not have been deceived, by varying accounts of one palace, and thus led to form the idea that there were two. The striking similarity in his two descriptions, as to situation, plan, and [7:4:269]ornament, somewhat favours the conjecture. We are sensible that it is a bold orfe; but can only say, that without it the aspect of modern Babylon is wholly inexplicable; for it seems quite ascertained that there are no ruins of any magnitude close to the river, unless on one side, which is the eastern. It may not be amiss, therefore, to follow out the supposition, and to inquire how far, by its aid, the ancient and the recent descriptions can be brought to accord.

Ancient Babylon consisted of an immense square, divided by the Euphrates into two nearly equal parts. It is distinctly stated by Herodotus, that the palace and tower were in divisions opposite to each other. If, then, the ruins on the eastern side be the palace, we must look to the western for the tower. And there we find the Birs Nimrod, a stupendous pile, the dimensions and character of which are precisely such as the tower, in a state of total dilapidation, might have been expected to exhibit. Yet, to its really being the remains of that edifice, the objections are formidable. First, its distance of nearly ten miles from the Mujelibé would, to include it within the city, require an extension even of the vast limits assigned by Major Rennell. But it is certain that the extent of Babylon was immense; that it rather resembled an inclosed district than a city. A great part of its area was under cultivation; and it has even been asserted, that the produce raised within the walls could, in case of siege, support its immense population. Without resting on the authority of Herodotus, although it be confirmed by Pliny, even the dimensions of Strabo, reckoned according to his own estimate of the stadium, would give upwards of eleven miles to each side of the square. But it is supposed that the palace and tower must each be in the centre of their respective divisions; an arrangement certainly incompatible with the actual situation of the ruins. The expression of Herodotus, no doubt, is εv μi<sω, in the middle; which Major Rennell has translated centre. We doubt much, however, if this expression can be understood in so precise and mathematical a sense. It is familiarly said that a building is in the middle or heart of a city, when it is completely inclosed within it, and surrounded by its buildings, even though it may approach to one of its extremities. No one, we suppose, would hesitate to say that Pall-mall or Westminster Abbey was in the middle of London. Such, it appears to us, might be the present meaning, especially since the palace, being upon the river, could not, geometrically speaking, be in the middle of its division. The Kasr above described seems pretty exactly what we should expect in the ornamented and inhabited part of the palace. The Mujelibé, Mr Rich conceives, might be the hanging gardens. We would suggest the mound of Amran as a more probable situation, from its vicinity both to the river and to the palace, while the Mujelibé is at an inconvenient distance ^ Ĝm both. This last structure, from Mr Rich’s observations, seems decidedly to suggest the idea of a royal sepulchre. Of such structures, several are mentioned in Babylonish history, particularly that of Ninus, said to have been built within the palace, and of extraordinary elevation. (Diod. lib. ii. cap. 7.)

Since the above was written and published in the Supplement to the last edition, we have had an opportunity f consulting Mr Rich’s second memoir. It does not contain many additional facts; but the examination made on this occasion tended strongly to confirm his first conjecture, that the Birs Nimrod is the remains of the tower of Belus. « The masonry,” says Mr Rich, “is infinitely superior to any thing I have ever seen; and leaving out of the question any conjecture relative to the original destination of this ruin, the impression made by a sight of it is, that it was constructed in receding stages, and faced with fine burnt bricks, having inscriptions on them, laid in a very thin layer of lime cement; and that it was reduced by violence to its present ruined condition. The upper stories have been forcibly broken down, and fire has been employed as an instrument of destruction, though it is not easy to say precisely how or why.” This result is to us gratifying, since he appears to have come to the same conclusion which, as above expressed, we had drawn from the facts stated in the first memoir. Mr Rich indeed adds, that just on closing this memoir, he received at Bagdad a copy of our volume, and expresses in very handsome terms his satisfaction at the coincidence. Mr Buckingham’s more recent observations tend altogether to confirm Mr Rich’s views. On examination he discovered traces of four stages in this pile; and admitting the original height to be a stadium, as Herodotus states, the stadium to be 500 feet, and the stages or stories to be equal, it will follow that vestiges of four stories should exist within the existing elevation of 235 feet.

Very recently, however, Captain Mignan has published the result of a most careful and meritorious survey of these ruins, with interesting representations of their present condition. This writer, supported by the high authority of Major Rennell, adopts an opinion decidedly opposite. According to him, the Birs Nimrod has no concern whatever with ancient Babylon. The tower of Belus, the most memorable among its structures, is, according to him, the edifice above described, called the Mujelibé. To us, however, all the facts stated by this traveller, and his representations of these remains, which are the best yet given to the public, appear to refute his own opinion, and confirm that which we had previously formed. Let us take a comparative view of these two structures, which contend for the honour of representing the grandest of Babylonie monuments. The Mujelibé is an irregular oblong, without any correspondence as to dimensions, only about half the height of its rival ruin, and composed almost entirely of the inferior material of sun-dried bricks. The Birs Nimrod, on the contrary, is of a form manifestly pyramidal, as the tower is described to have been. It is coated with the very finest materials employed in the construction of Babylon, is much more elevated than any of the other remains, and bears evident marks of having formerly risen considerably higher. There are also manifest traces of its having been built in successive stages. The one, therefore, presents in itself every mark of having been the tower of Belus, the other presents none. Our opinion is much strengthened by the observations of Captain Mignan himself, that this structure, instead of standing solitary, as has been generally supposed, is surrounded by extensive ranges of ruins, bearing in their shattered fragments every mark of ancient importance. There hence appears no room to doubt that this quarter was completely included within the vast circuit of ancient Babylon. When we learn also from Mr Buckingham that the ground to the south of this structure is covered with extensive marshes, and even lakes, and find the ancient authorities describing the approach to the south-west gate of Babylon to be through obstacles of this very description, the conclusion that the Birs was within the limits of Babylon seems no longer to admit of doubt. The idea of Captain Mignan, that it was an advanced bastion of defence, seems not at all to agree with its extraordinary elevation, its superior workmanship, and the fine materials of which it is composed.

Both Buckingham and Mignan observed a long, hollow space, damp, and sometimes marshy, through which, instead of its present course, it might be supposed that the Euphrates anciently flowed. We do not very much admire[7:4:270] the system of supposing changes in the grand features of nature, with the view of adapting them to modern hypotheses. That a canal, perhaps artificial, may have anciently been conducted through this hollow, seems probable enough, though by no means established; but the breadth of the supposed channel, stated by Captain Mignan at not more than 160 yards, seems quite insufficient to contain the main body of the river, which, from his plan, appears to occupy about three times that space.

Mr Rich collected sundry antiquities among the ruins. These were bricks or pieces of hardened clay, gems, slabs of stone, and bits of brass with engraved figures or characters. But no Babylonian coins or darics have been discovered at Hillah. (See Memoirs on the Ruins of Babylon, by Claudius James Rich, Esq. Lond. 1815, 1818, 8vo.; Buckingham’s Travels in Mesopotamia; Mignan’s Travels in Chaldea, 1829.)