The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4: Babylon: The History, Geography, And Antiquities Of Chaldaea, Assyria, Babylon, Media, Persia, Parthia, And Sassanian or New Persian Empire; With Maps and Illustrations.Rawlinson, George
History
The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4: Babylon: The History, Geography, And Antiquities Of Chaldaea, Assyria, Babylon, Media, Persia, Parthia, And Sassanian or New Persian Empire; With Maps and Illustrations.
Still there remain as objections to the identification of the great
temple with the Babil mound the two arguments already noticed. The Babil
mound has no appearance of stages such as the Birs presents, nor has it
even a pyramidical shape. It is a huge platform with a nearly level
top, and sinks, rather than rises, in the centre. What has become, it is
asked, of the seven upper stages of the great Belus tower, if this ruin
represents it? Whither have they vanished? How is it that in crumbling
down they have not left something like a heap towards the middle? To
this it may be replied that the destruction of the Belus tower has not
been the mere work of the elements--it was violently broken down either
by Xerxes, or by some later king, who may have completely removed all
the upper stages. Again, it has served as a quarry to the hunters after
bricks for more than twenty centuries; so that it is only surprising
that it still retains so much of its original shape. Further, when
Alexander entered Babylon more than 2000 years ago 10,000 men were
employed for several weeks in clearing away the rubbish and laying bare
the foundations of the building. It is quite possible that a conical
mass of crumbled brick may have been removed from the top of the mound
at this time.
The difficulty remains that the Babil mound is on the same side of the
Euphrates with the ruins of the Great Palace, whereas Herodotus makes
the two buildings balance each other, one on the right and the other
on the left bank of the stream. Now here it is in the first place to
be observed that Herodotus is the only writer who does this. No other
ancient author tells us anything of the relative situation of the two
buildings. We have thus nothing to explain but the bald statement of a
single writer--a writer no doubt of great authority, but still one not
wholly infallible. We might say, then, that Herodotus probably made a
mistake--that his memory failed him in this instance, or that he mistook
his notes on the subject. Or we may explain his error by supposing that
he confounded a canal from the Euphrates, which seems to have
anciently passed between the Babil mound and the Kasr (called Shebil by
Nebuchadnezzar) with the main stream. Or, finally, we may conceive
that at the time of his visit the old palace lay in ruins, and that the
palace of Nerig-lissar on the west bank of the stream was that of which
he spoke. It is at any rate remarkable, considering how his authority is
quoted as fixing the site of the Belus tower to the west bank, that, in
the only place where he gives us any intimation of the side of the river
on which he would have placed the tower, it is the east and not the west
bank to which his words point. He makes those who saw the treachery of
Zopyrus at the Belian and Kissian gates, which must have been to the
east of the city, at once take refuge in the famous sanctuary, which he
implies was in the vicinity.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account