the metropolis of the Babylonio-Chaldean empire, was situated in a wide plain on both sides of the River Euphrates, which divided it into two nearly equal parts. Ancient writers are not agreed as to who was the founder of this city,—some ascribing it to Semiramis, and others to Belus. It is generally supposed to have been the same with, or at least to have occupied the site of, the Babel of Nimrod's kingdom. The tower of Belus in like manner is supposed to have been the same with that of Babel; and indeed Babel is the only name given in the Hebrew or Chaldee of the Bible to this city. But by whomsoever it was founded, it was only after the fall of the Assyrian empire that it became the capital of the Eastern world; and Nebuchadnezzar was the person to whom it was chiefly indebted for those immense structures that made it one of the wonders of antiquity.

Of the accounts given of this city by ancient authors, that of Herodotus is undoubtedly the one upon which the historian greatest reliance can be placed. Not only is he the earliest profane writer upon this subject, but he is the only ancient historian that we know to have been there in person, and that, too, while it was yet in a state of tolerable preservation; and although he may be liable to the imputation of occasionally retailing marvellous stories, yet in no one instance, where he speaks from his own observation, can he be accused either of partiality or invention. Diodorus is by no means so well entitled to credit as Herodotus; for, never having been there in person, his account is taken from other writers, and chiefly from Ctesias, an author of no great authority. We have no proof that either Arrian or Strabo visited Babylon, though the treatise of the former is valuable from his information being derived from the notes of Aristobulus, and Ptolemy the son of Lagus, who were there with Alexander. Quintus Curtius also formed his account upon the reports of the followers of Alexander, many of whom kept journals of the expedition.

According to Herodotus, Babylon was built in the form of a square—each side of which was 120 stadia in length; its circumference being therefore 480 stadia, or 55 of our miles. It was surrounded by a wall 87 feet thick, and 350 feet high, outside of which was a vast trench filled with water, and proportioned in depth and width to the elevation of the wall. The earth taken out of the trench was made into bricks for the construction of the wall. These were baked in furnaces, and afterwards cemented by heated bitumen, and layers of reeds were interposed for thirty courses of bricks. Upon the extreme margins of the wall a number of buildings of one story were erected opposite each other, with sufficient space between them for a chariot drawn by four horses to turn round. Another wall encircled the city within this one, not much weaker, but more narrow. The city was divided into two parts by the River Euphrates, along each bank of which extended an embankment of furnace-dried bricks. There were in all 100 gates in the wall; that is 25 on each of the four sides, all of brass, the posts and lintels being of the same metal. The city, which contained several houses of three or four stories, was intersected by streets running from each of the gates, and crossing each other at right angles. Opposite the ends of the streets leading to the river were openings in the embankments with brazen gates, and steps leading down to the Babylon. river; and these gates were open by day but shut by night. It was by means of these gates, which had been left open, that Cyrus obtained access into the city.

In each of the two divisions of the city, in a conspicuous situation, was a walled inclosure, in the one of which was the palace, and in the other the temple of Belus. The latter inclosure was a square of two stadia, in the middle of which stood a solid tower of a stadium both in length and breadth. Upon this tower stood another tower, and another upon that, to the number of eight. The ascent to them was made in a circular form, leading round all the towers on the outside, with resting-places in the middle of the ascent. This temple, according to Strabo, was also a stadium in height; but this is not mentioned by Herodotus. Here was a large golden image of the god, and near it a golden table, the pedestal and pediment being of the same metal. These were said by the Chaldaeans to have been made out of 800 talents of gold. There was also in the temple a golden statue of 12 cubits—"but this," says Herodotus, "I did not see,"—and many other statues and sacred vessels. This tower stood till the time of Xerxes; who, on his return from his Grecian expedition, having first plundered it of its immense wealth, 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 clear away the rubbish; but the work proved too Herculean for such means, and his death happening soon after, put a stop to all further proceedings.

The palace of Nebuchadnezzar was eight miles in circumference, and splendidly decorated with statues of men and animals. On the opposite side of the river, according to Diodorus, stood the old palace of the kings of Babylon; but it was much inferior in size to the new one, being only about four miles in circumference. The two palaces were connected by means of a bridge of great beauty thrown across the river, as well as by a subterraneous passage.

Nothing, however, at Babylon, was more wonderful than the hanging gardens which Nebuchadnezzar constructed in compliance with a wish of his queen Amytis, to possess elevated groves such as she had enjoyed on the hills around her native Echatana. For this purpose an artificial mountain was reared, in the form of a square, of four plethra or 400 feet on each side, with terraces rising one above another to a height overlooking the walls of the city; the ascent from terrace to terrace being by steps ten feet wide. The terraces were reared to their various stages on ranges of regular piers, which, forming a kind of vaulting, rose in succession, one over the other, to the required height of each terrace, the whole being bound together by a wall 22 feet thick. The floor of each terrace or garden was formed in the following manner: on the tops of the piers was first laid a pavement of flat stones, 16 feet in length and 4 in breadth, 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; and in order to provide a sufficient depth for the largest trees to take firm root, immense hollow piers were built and filled with earth. Upon the uppermost of these terraces was a large reservoir, supplied with water from the river by means of an engine; and from this reservoir the terraces were irrigated, as occasion required.

Canals were cut out on the east side of the river, above the town, to prevent any inconvenience from its swellings, by conveying the superabundant waters into the Tigris. The principal of these was the Naher Malcha, or Royal Canal. A lake was dug to the west of the city to receive the waters of the river while the embankments on each side of it were building. This lake is said to have been 160 miles in circuit, and 35 feet in depth. After the completion of the Babylonian embankments, the lake and the canal which led to it were preserved, having been found very useful as a reservoir, Lake, from which, by means of sluices, the water was let out on certain occasions, for the irrigation of the land.

Such is the description given by ancient historians of this Extent city, which must have been much larger than we can form an idea of by comparison with the largest modern cities. Much doubt has been cast upon the statements of Herodotus as to the immense size of this city; but even taking the account of Diodorus, who ascribes to it the least extent of any of the ancient authors, it had a circuit of 41 of our miles, while Herodotus makes it 55 miles. Moreover, if we confine the city to the limits assigned by Diodorus, it will not include all the existing remains; whereas the limits assigned by Herodotus include all those venerable ruins in the vicinity of Hillah, that still astonish us by their stupendous dimensions. The accuracy and truthfulness of Herodotus whenever he speaks, as in this instance, from his own observations, entitle him to greater credit than Diodorus, who had his account only at second-hand. Nor, when we consider the vast pyramids of Egypt, or the wall of China, is there any reason to doubt the ability of Nebuchadnezzar or others to raise these immense walls and structures with their tens of thousands of captives. Authors have attempted to reduce the extent of the city as given by Herodotus, by questioning the length of the stadium used by him. Ukert, however, has satisfactorily shown that the Greeks had not different standards of measurement, but always used the Olympic stadium. The differences between the distances of places as given by the ancients, compared with their modern measurements, are accounted for by these distances not being measured, but computed by the number of stadia that a good traveller could perform in a day, which would vary considerably according to circumstances. It seems most probable, however, that in this instance Herodotus converted the Babylonian measurements into Grecian stadia. (See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities—Art. Mensura.)

We cannot, however, suppose that the population of Babylon bore any proportion to its size, or that in this respect it resembled our densely peopled modern towns. It is generally supposed that it at no period contained more than two millions of inhabitants. It indeed rather resembled an enclosed district, where every house was a villa, than a closely built town. The statement of Herodotus that some of the houses were three or four stories high, clearly indicates that they were not generally of that height; and probably most of them had only one story. Quintus Curtius says positively that there was pasture and arable land in the inclosure, sufficient to support the whole of the population during a long siege; and Xenophon reports, that when Cyrus took Babylon (which event happened at night), the inhabitants of the opposite quarter of the town were not aware of it till the third part of the day, i.e., three hours after sunrise; which was very possibly owing to the great distance of one cluster of houses from another, since, had they been connected with each other in regular streets, the noise and confusion would, I think, have spread the information of the event with much greater rapidity."—(Rich.)

The destruction of Babylon has generally been referred to the migration of its inhabitants to Seleucia, about 300 years before Christ. How long it survived the establishment of that colony does not appear; all we know is, that, in the time of Diodorus, the greater part of its area was ploughed up; and St Jerome in the fourth century describes it as a hunting park of the Parthian kings.

There can be little doubt that the ruins in the vicinity of Hillah, a small town on the banks of the Euphrates, about forty-eight miles S. of Baghdad, are those of the ancient Babylon. 1st, The whole district has been known from the most ancient times by the name of El-areth Babel, i.e., the Land of Babel. 2d. Its position on the Euphrates, and its distance from the bituminous fountains of Is or Hit, as given by Herodotus and from Seleucia, as given by Strabo. 3d. The character and extent of these ruins. If these be not the ruins of the ancient Babylon, there are no remains elsewhere in Mesopotamia to correspond with the vast edifices of that great city.

The traveller who has devoted most time and patience to the illustration of Babylon and its ruins is Mr Rich, who, during the many years that he resided at Baghdad as British resident, had great facilities and opportunities for the task he undertook. Among the travellers who visited these ruins before his time was Pietro della Valle, who was there in 1616, and has left a fuller account of them than any previous traveller. In 1657 a Carmelite monk, named Vincenzo Maria di S. Caterina di Sienna, sailed up the Euphrates from Bassorah; but his account of the various places which he passed is so mixed up with geographical errors as to be almost unintelligible. A few years later, another Roman Catholic missionary, Père Emmanuel de S. Albert, visited and described the ruins, with much greater minuteness and accuracy than his predecessor. Niebuhr visited them in 1765, and mentions that the place was still called Ard-Babel, and that on both sides of the Euphrates were mounds or little hills full of bricks. M. Beauchamp, who resided for some years at Baghdad as the pope's vicar-general, had frequent opportunities of visiting and examining the ruins. He drew up, on the spot, a memoir, which was read before the Académie des Belles Lettres, and printed in their journal for December 1790.

According to Rich, the ruins of Babylon, on the eastern side of the Euphrates, may be said to commence at Mohawil; the whole country between that and Jumjuma, two miles from Hillah, exhibiting at intervals traces of building, in which are discoverable burnt and unburnt bricks, and bitumen. Three mounds, in particular, attract attention from their magnitude, Amran, Kasr, and Mujelibé.

In proceeding northwards from Hillah, and 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. Just below the highest part of it is a small dome, in an oblong inclosure, said to contain the body of a son of Ali, named Amran, together with seven of his companions, all slain at the battle of Hillah. This, however, is one of those frauds not uncommon with the natives, Ali having had no such son. Mr Rich distinguishes this mound by the name of Amran.

North of Amran is a valley of 550 yards in length, crossed by lines of ruins of little elevation, and to this succeeds the second grand mass of ruins, which is nearly a square of 700 yards in length and breadth. This is the most interesting part of the ruins of Babylon; every vestige discoverable in it showing it to have been composed of buildings far superior to any other edifice, in the eastern quarter, of which we have any traces. It has, however, been excavated and hollowed out in every direction by workmen, in extracting the bricks, which are of the finest description. In these excavations, walls of burnt brick, laid in lime mortar of a very good quality, are seen; and in addition to the substances generally strewned on the surfaces of these mounds, are found fragments of alabaster vessels, fine earthenware, marble, and great quantities of varnished tiles, the glazing and colouring of which are remarkably fresh. Here Mr Rich found a lion of colossal dimensions standing on a pedestal of a coarse gray granite, and of rude workmanship;—in the mouth was a circular aperture into which a man might introduce his fist. A part of this ruin, called by the natives the Kasr or palace, but which term Rich applies to the whole mass, is so remarkably fresh in appearance, that it was only after a minute inspection that he was satisfied as to its being a Babylonian remain. It consists of several walls and piers (which face the cardinal points) eight feet in thickness, in some places ornamented with niches, and in others strengthened by pilasters and buttresses, built of fine burnt brick (still perfectly clean and sharp), laid in lime cement of such tenacity that it is extremely difficult to extract them whole. The tops of these walls are broken, and may have been much higher; and some detached walls of the same kind standing at different distances show what remains to have been only a small part of the original fabric. A little to the N.E. of this ruin is the famous tree called by the Arabs Atheloh, and which they affirm to have flourished in the ancient Babylon, having been preserved by God from the destruction which overwhelmed that city, that it might afford shelter to the Khalif Ali after the battle of Hillah. They assert that there is no other tree of the kind in the world; it is, however, believed to be a species of tamarisk. Its trunk, which was once enormous, is now so worn away, that nothing more than one side of it remains; yet it bears spreading and ever-green branches, which are peculiarly beautiful, being adorned with long tress-like tendrils resembling heron-feathers growing from a central stem. These slender and delicate sprays bending towards the ground give the whole the appearance of a weeping willow, while their gentle waving in the wind produces a low and melancholy sound.

A mile to the N. of the Kasr, or fully five miles from Mujelibé, Hillah, and 950 yards from the river bank, is the mound called by the Arabs Mujelibé, or overturned. Its shape is oblong; its height irregular; and its sides face the cardinal points. The northern side is 200 yards in length, the southern 219, the eastern 182, and the western 136; and the elevation of the S.E. or highest angle is 141 feet. The western side, which is the least elevated, is the most interesting, on account of the appearance of building it presents. Near its summit appears a low wall composed of unburnt bricks, mixed up with chopped straw or reeds, and cemented with clay-mortar of great thickness, having between each layer of bricks a layer of reeds. On the N. side are also some vestiges of a similar construction. The S.W. angle is crowned by something like a turret or lantern; the other angles are in a less perfect state, but may originally have been ornamented in a similar manner. All the sides are worn into furrows, which in some instances are of great depth. The summit is covered with heaps of rubbish, in which layers of broken burnt bricks cemented with mortar have been found, and also entire bricks with inscriptions. Scattered over the whole are fragments of pottery, brick, bitumen, pebbles, vitrified brick or scoria, and even shells, bits of glass, and mother-of-pearl. In the northern face, near the summit, is a niche or recess high enough for a man to stand upright in, at the back of which is a low aperture leading to a small cavity, whence a passage branches off to the right, sloping upwards in a westerly direction till it loses itself in the rubbish. Being informed that in this place, about four years previously, a human body had been found, swathed in a wrapper partially covered with bitumen, and inclosed in a coffin of mulberry wood, Rich was induced to excavate here. He dug into a shaft or hollow pier 60 feet square, lined with fine brick, laid in bitumen and filled with earth; in this was found a brass spike, some earthen vessels, and a beam of date-tree wood. After digging some way farther, they came to a narrow passage nearly ten feet high, flat on the top, and exhibiting both burnt and unburnt bricks; the former with inscriptions on them, and the latter, as usual, laid with a layer of reeds between each row, except in one or two courses near the bottom, where they were cemented with bitumen. In a continuation of this passage to the eastward, he discovered a wooden coffin containing a skeleton in good preservation. Under the head of the coffin was Babylon. A round pebble; attached to the coffin on the outside was a brass bird, and inside an ornament of the same material, which had apparently been suspended to some part of the skeleton. A little farther, the skeleton of a child was found. About 70 yards from the foot of the Mujelibé, on the northern and western sides, are traces of a low mound of earth which may have formed an inclosure round the whole.

Mr Rich, after examining the eastern side of the Euphrates, proceeded to take a survey of the remains on the western side of that river. He found the whole bank to be a flat, intersected by canals, the principal of which were the Tajja or Ali Pacha's trench and the canal of Tahmasia. The only vestiges were two small mounds of earth opposite the mass of Amran, overgrown with grass, forming a right angle with each other, and a little farther on two similar ones. These did not exceed 100 yards in extent, and the place was called by the peasants Anana.

But although there are no ruins in the immediate vicinity of the river, by far the most stupendous and surprising mass of all the remains of Babylon is situated in this desert about six miles to the S.W. of Hillah. It is called by the Arabs Birs Nimroud, and by the Jews Nebuchadnezzar's Prison. It is a mound, of an oblong figure, the total circumference of which is 762 yards. At the eastern side it is not more than 50 or 60 feet high, and is cloven by a deep furrow; but at the western it rises in a conical form to the height of 198 feet; and has on its summit a solid pile of brick 37 feet high by 28 in breadth, and diminishing in thickness to the top. It is perforated by small square holes disposed in rhomboids. The bricks are of the finest description, with inscriptions on them, and so well cemented, apparently with lime mortar, that it is nearly impossible to extract one of them entire, though the layers are so close together that it is difficult to discern what substance is between them. The other parts of the summit of this hill are occupied by immense fragments of brick-work of no determinate figure, tumbled together and converted into solid vitrified masses, as if they had undergone the action of the fiercest fire or been blown up with gunpowder. The whole of this mound is channelled by the weather, and strewed with the usual fragments, and with pieces of black stone, sandstone, and marble. No reeds were discernible in any part, a circumstance which Mr Rich thinks may be an argument for the superior antiquity of this ruin. At the foot of the mound, a step may be traced scarcely elevated above the plain, exceeding in extent, by several feet each way, the true or measured base; and there is a quadrangular inclosure surrounding the whole as at the Mujelibé, but much more perfect and of greater dimensions. At a short distance, and parallel with its eastern face, is a mound not inferior to the Kasr in elevation, but much longer than broad. There are numerous other mounds besides those described, but the principal of them are beyond any possible limits that can be ascribed to Babylon; as the ruins called by the natives Boursa, four leagues below Hillah, and which Mr Rich conjectures to be the Borsippa of Strabo, and the Barsita of Ptolemy. Such was the state of the ruins of this ancient city when visited by Mr Rich: we shall now give a short account of Mr Layard's recent visit, and conclude with an attempt to identify some of these remains with parts of the ancient city.

The successes that attended the labours of Mr Layard among the ruins of Nineveh induced him to turn his attention also to those of Babylon. He accordingly proceeded there with a party of workmen; but after various excavations, the discoveries were far less numerous and important than he had anticipated, "nor did they tend to prove that there were remains beneath the heaps of earth and rubbish which would reward more extensive excavations." This is to be accounted for by the city having been built in the midst of an alluvial country far removed from the hills, and with no quarries of alabaster or limestone such as existed near Nineveh. The people were therefore content to use such building materials as were to be found on the spot, and made bricks with the mud of their alluvial soil, while bitumen and other substances from the vicinity furnished them with an excellent cement; and the walls of their temples and palaces were coated with mortar and plaster. The ornaments and paintings on these would consequently not be so durable as the sculptures on the slabs and stones of Nineveh.

During Mr Layard's stay at Babylon, the troubled state of the country prevented him from making more than a hurried visit to Birs Nimroud. In the mound of Mujelibé he sought the subterranean passage which had been previously opened and described by Mr Rich; and on removing the rubbish, he soon came to that part of the passage where Mr Rich found the coffin of wood, containing a skeleton still well preserved. "The entrances to other galleries which had not been explored, were still closed with large burnt bricks, amongst which were a few square stones inscribed on one edge with two lines of cuneiform characters, containing the name and titles of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldees, the inscription usually found on Babylonian bricks. It was evident that they had originally belonged to an edifice erected by that monarch, and had been taken from its ruins to form this covering to the vaults and tombs. Beneath this masonry were found several entire coffins precisely similar to that discovered by Mr Rich. They still held skeletons more or less entire, which fell to pieces as soon as exposed to the air. No relic or ornaments had been buried with the bodies. The wood of the coffins was in the last stage of decay, and could only be taken out piecemeal." "The coffins discovered at Babel (Mujelibé) are of a comparatively recent period, and are not pure Babylonian. At the very earliest, they may be of the time of the Seleucidae, but I am inclined to think that they are even of a still later date. It is evident that they were buried after the destruction of the edifice covered by the mound. Upon that great heap over the fallen palace or temple, was probably raised one of those citadels which formed the defences of a city built long after the destruction of the Babylonian empire and its magnificent capital, and which resisted the arms of Demetrius Poliorcetes. Of this stronghold the thick wall of sun-dried brick on the northern side is probably the remains."—(Layard.) The masonry of this wall is not united by bituminous cement, but apparently by simple mud, as in modern Arab buildings. Excavations and trenches were made in other parts of this mound, but without any important results.

Numerous relics were found similar to those that had already been brought to this country by other travellers: among these were arrow-heads in bronze and iron, small glass bottles, some coloured or ornamented, and vases of earthenware of various forms and sizes, sometimes glazed with a rich blue colour. These are considered to belong to a period subsequent to the fall of the empire; the earliest probably about the time of the Greek occupation, and the latest about the sixth or seventh century of the Christian era. Mr Layard judging, therefore, that the remains of the ancient edifice, if any still existed, were to be sought far beneath the surface, opened tunnels at the foot of the mound, nearly on a level with the plain. On the eastern, western, and southern sides, they soon came to remains of solid masonry, evidently of the ancient building. On the eastern side eight or ten piers and several walls branching in various directions were uncovered, but no plan could be traced, nor any remains of sculptured stone or painted plaster discovered.

In the Kasr, the loose nature of the ruins prevented him from making any extensive excavations, and the only object of interest discovered was a fragment of limestone, on which were sculptured parts of two figures undoubtedly of gods, with the name of one of them inscribed in Babylonian characters. Excavations were made in several of the smaller mounds, but without any important results. In the mound Amran, or Amzan ben Ali, no traces of masonry were discovered, but some specimens of glass, and several terracotta figures, lamps, and jars were found. Among these were five cups or bowls of earthenware, and fragments of some others, covered on the inner surface with letters written in a kind of ink. The characters upon them are in form not unlike the Hebrew, and on some they resemble the Sabaean and Syriac. Similar relics have been found in other ruins near Babylon. Mr Thomas Ellis, of the manuscript department in the British Museum, was the first to decipher these inscriptions. The subjects are amulets or charms against evil spirits, diseases, and every kind of misfortune; one of them being a bill of divorce to the devil and other evil spirits. The writers were evidently Jews, probably descendants of those who were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon; and they must have been written long prior to any known existing manuscripts of the ancient Hebrew or Chaldean languages, as, except in one case, there are no divisions between the words; nor are there any vowel points.

—(Layard's Nineveh and Babylon.)

The identification of the present ruins with parts of the ancient city has been found to be a matter of considerable difficulty. We are told that the city was built upon both sides of the river, and that its principal buildings were the tower or temple of Belus, Nebuchadnezzar's palace, and the hanging gardens; and the principal existing ruins are the mounds of Amran, Kasr, Mujelibé, and Birs Nimroud. The principal question has been, whether the Birs Nimroud or the Mujelibé represents the tower of Belus. Herodotus states that the tower and palace stood on opposite sides of the Euphrates; and previous to the time of Rich it was the received opinion that the latter had stood on the W. and the former on the E. side of that river. This was Mr Rich's opinion on visiting the Birs Nimroud; and on examining that ruin he could not help exclaiming, that "had this been on the other side of the river, and nearer the great mass of ruins, no one could doubt of its being the remains of the tower." As to the side of the river on which the tower stood, this is not expressly stated by any ancient author, and it had only been inferred from an ambiguity in the account of Diodorus. Notwithstanding the distance of the Birs Nimroud from the other remains, it would have been included within the city, if we consider as correct the account of Herodotus, who, as has been already said, is the most trustworthy of our ancient historians on this subject. If the Birs Nimroud form no part of the ruins of Babylon, it is surprising that it is not noticed by any ancient author, in giving an account of that city, which is scarcely credible, seeing that it is a mass of ruins "by far the most stupendous and surprising" of any that are allowed to belong to that city. It has been supposed, from Herodotus' having used the term ἐπίστροφος in his description of the tower and palace, that they must each have been in the centre of their respective divisions. Though this term may generally be translated "in the centre," there is the highest authority for saying that, when used as it is in this case, it is very frequently applied to an object as lying in the way, or occupying a conspicuous position.—See Schneider's Greek Lexicon, by Passow.

Pietro della Valle was the first to assert that Mujelibé was the ancient tower, and his statement was followed, among others, by Major Rennell, author of the Geography of Herodotus. The opinion given out by Mr Rich that the Birs Nimroud might possibly represent the tower, called forth an article from Major Rennell in the Archaeologia, in vindication of his own account of Babylon in the Geography of Herodotus. This was ably answered by Mr Rich in his Second Memoir of Babylon. Major Rennell rejects the idea that the Birs Nimroud was the temple of Belus, mainly on the ground that its distance was too great from the river and the rest of the ruins, to have been included in the circuit of the ancient city. According to him, the Mujelibé represents this temple, and considering this as certain, he proceeds to dispose of the other ruins in conformity with that. To make good this hypothesis, he is obliged to have recourse to the supposition that the river originally ran through the present ruins. This is denied by Mr Rich. "I carefully examined," says he, "the whole of the ground between Hillah and Mujelibé, with the view to ascertain the possibility of a change; but I was totally unable to discover the smallest vestiges indicative of it. The same examination was made by others during my stay, and since that time with the same result." This is also corroborated by Mr Layard, who says:—"After the most careful examination of the country, I could find no traces whatever of its having at any time flowed much farther than it now does to the east."

But the assertion that the river never flowed much farther to the eastward than it does at present, involves the question of what has become of the ruins on its western side, as it is expressly stated that the city stood upon both sides of the river. Niebuhr, who visited the spot in 1765, states that there were then mounds or little hills which were discovered to be full of bricks on both sides of the river; and Mr Rich says that he found opposite the mass of Amran two small mounds of earth overgrown with grass, and a little farther on two similar ones. Sir R. K. Porter seems to have subjected the plain on the western side of the Euphrates to a more minute examination, for the purpose of finding, if possible, some traces of the second palace. About 50 yards N.W. of Amna, a small village on the western bank of the river, 3 miles N.W. of Hillah, he found a considerable ridge of mounded earth 14 feet high, running due N. for 300 yards, and then, forming a right angle, continued on in that direction till it met the river. On the face of this ridge terminating at the water-edge, courses of sun-dried bricks are still distinctly visible; though the level of this land is now so equal with that of the river, that no traces are visible of any corresponding embankment on the other side. Some trifling mounds were observed a little to the S. of the village. After riding onward for about a mile to the S.W. in the direction of the Birs Nimroud, he found the vegetation gradually disappear, and the ground become perfectly sterile, presenting evident signs of its having been once covered with buildings. These indications increased at every step for more than a mile, when he came to another and more conspicuous range of mounds, the most considerable of which was about 35 feet high. From the top of this he observed that the face of the country, both to the N. and S., for more than a mile either way, bore the same hillocky appearance; besides being thickly scattered with those fragments of past habitations which in all Babylonian ruins have so particularly marked their character. "Here," says Sir R. K. Porter, "I think it is possible I may have found the site of the old or lesser palace; which, probably, was the temporary abode of Alexander during his inspection of his workmen, while clearing away the ruins of its fallen superstructures from the base of the temple of Belus. In the midst of the labour, and after having been engaged nearly two months in that attempt, we are told that he died; but previous to the event, he ordered himself to be removed from his residence on one side of the river to his palace on the other, and the eastern having been the more stately of the two, we can hardly entertain a doubt of its having also been the conqueror's more stationary habitation. Hence, there seems good reason to conclude, that it was on some spot amongst the ruins of the Kasr that the Macedonian hero breathed his last." Beyond this mass of mounds which, for perspicuity, he designates the Lesser Palace, and in the same direction (S.W.), he crossed a space of high grass and rank weeds for nearly a mile. He then found the plain again arid and undulated with multitudes of mounds, but of inferior elevation to those last described; these, too, were attended by the usual exterior fragments of ruins, spreading in a circular form for rather more than half a mile in width; then followed more than a mile of cultivated land to a canal which he crossed, and half a mile more brought him to an extensive wood of date trees, in the bosom of which stands the village of Tahmasia. For two miles the cultivation continued, and at the end of this vast tract opened before him, covered with every minor vestige of former buildings, which appearances continued all the way to the eastern verge of the boundary around Birs Nimroud, a distance of nearly three-quarters of a mile. The remains seemed to him not only to establish the fact that the western plain of the Euphrates sustained its portion of the city of Babylon as well as the eastern bank, but that Birs Nimroud, otherwise the temple of Belus, did actually stand in one division of the city.

Mr Layard thinks that the fact of there being few remains on the western side may be accounted for from the Euphrates having a tendency to change its course in that direction, and to lose itself in the marshes to the W. of its actual bed. The low country on that side was subject to continual inundations from the earliest period; and Arrian states that the western quarter of the city was surrounded and defended by enormous marshes, which prevented all access to it. "Supposing, therefore, the river from different causes to have advanced and receded during many centuries, between the Hindiyah marshes and its present channel, it will easily be understood how the ruins which may once have stood on the western bank have gradually been washed away, and how the existing flat alluvial plain has taken their place."—(Layard.)

Captain Mignan, who has published the result of a most careful and meritorious survey of these ruins, adopts the opinion of Major Rennell, and asserts that the Birs Nimroud formed no part of the ancient Babylon. His description of the ruins, however, seem to tell rather against than for his opinion. The comparative claims of the two structures cannot bear comparison. The Mujelibé is an irregular oblong mass, little more than half the height of its rival, and composed almost entirely of the inferior material of sun-dried bricks. The Birs Nimroud, on the contrary, is much more elevated than any of the other remains, is built of the finest materials, and is of a form such as the tower is described to have been, having been evidently built in successive receding stages. Mr Buckingham is of opinion that the traces of four stages are clearly discernible. The opinion that this structure formed a part of the ancient city is strengthened by the observations of Captain Mignan, that instead of standing solitary, as had generally been supposed, it is surrounded by extensive ranges of ruins, bearing in their shattered fragments every mark of ancient importance. "If any building," says Mr Rich, "may be supposed to have left considerable traces, it is certainly the Pyramid or Tower of Belus, which, by its form, dimensions, and the solidity of its construction, was well calculated to resist the ravages of time; and if human force had not been employed, would, in all probability, have remained to the present day in nearly as perfect a state as the Pyramids of Egypt." "I am of opinion," he continues, "that this ruin is of a nature to fix of itself the locality of Babylon, even to the exclusion of those on the eastern side of the river; and if the ancients had actually assigned a position to the tower irreconcilable with the Birs, it would be more reasonable to suppose that some error had crept into their accounts than to reject this most remarkable of all the ruins."

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 the river, whence, indeed, the gardens were artificially watered. Now, modern Babylon presents near the river no ruins of any magnitude except those of the Amran, Kasr, and Mujelibé. It seems, therefore, unquestionable that some of these must be the remains of those immense structures. "In the Kasr we have remains of a pile, sumptuous in its material, of the finest furnace-baked brick, and magnificent for its extent, occupying a central position among the conspicuous ruins on the eastern bank, and inclosed on three sides by immense embankments answering to the description left us by Herodotus of the strong interior wall which surrounded the palace"—(Dr Trall in Edin. Phil. Journal, vol. xix.) The Mujelibé is by Mr Rich supposed to be the hanging gardens, and this is the generally received opinion, although some would give the preference to Amran, from its lying nearer the river. The opinion of Mr Rich seems to be strengthened by the piers discovered here by Mr Layard, and from no traces of masonry having as yet been found in the mound of Amran. The Amran and the embankment may probably have formed part of the defences of the city towards the river. It has been supposed that Diodorus is incorrect in stating that there were two palaces, especially as he is not supported by Herodotus or any other ancient authority; and as he wrote only from hearsay, that he might 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 ornament, somewhat favours this conjecture. It is possible, however, that Sir R. K. Porter may be right in his supposition that he had found the site of the Lesser Palace. It thus seems extremely probable that the palace and the hanging gardens were situated on the eastern side of the Euphrates, and the tower of Belus on the western; that the Birs Nimroud was included within the walls of the ancient city, and is the remains of the tower of Belus, and that the Kasr represents the palace; while the Mujelibé not improbably corresponds to the hanging gardens.—See Rich's First and Second Memoirs on the Ruins of Babylon, 1815 and 1818; Major Rennell, On the Topography of Ancient Babylon, in Archaeologia, vol. xviii.; Sir R. K. Porter's Travels, London, 1822; "Remains of Babylon," in Edin. Review, vol. xlviii.; Mignan's Travels in Chaldea, Lond., 1829; Buckingham's Travels in Mesopotamia; Ainsworth's Researches in Babylonia, Lond, 1838; Keppell's Personal Narratives; Dr Trall, On Ruins of Babylon, in Edin. Phil. Journal, vol. xix.; Nineveh and Persepolis, by Vaux, Lond, 1850; Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, London, 1853. (D.R.)