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 respective ly 200, 219, 182, and 136 yards in length ; 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 sum mit is covered with heaps of rubbish, and with in numerable 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 be occu pied in the same manner.
This mass, denominated the Mujelibe, being the most elevated part of these remains, has been consider-, ed 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 was clearly pointed out, by ancient authorities, to be 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 excep tion, however, of a slight notice, collected by D'An vile, modern travellers had given no information of any ruins situate in that quarter. Major Rennell very properly pointed out this as a grand ob ject of investigation for future inquirers. Mr Rich, on reaching the summit of the Mujelibe, • 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 di mensions, which conveyed no idea of the immense structures of which he was in search. Before leav ing this neighbourhood, however, he went to visit a tower, which had • been imperfectly observed by Niebuhr, about six miles south-west of Hellah, 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 sur passed any thing he had_yet witnessed among these interesting remains. It consists of a mound of an oblong figure, 762 yards in circumference. 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, di minishing 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 im possible to extract one of them entire. This ruin is called by the Arabs the Birs. 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 Ne buchadnezzar's Prison. At a trifling distance to the, east is a mound equal in elevation to the Kass ; anfl 4 all around are traces of ruins to a considerable ex ' tent.
Mr Rich having thus described these ruins, begins very cautiously to form conjectures respecting their Origin and nature. At the first sight of the Bins Nimrod, he had involuntarily exclaimed that, if the situation rendered it this certainly must be the tower of Belus. Besides its extraordinary mag nitude, there is some appearance of its being built in stages, as described by ancient authors ; and the mound on the east may correspond to the temple, which occupied part of the quadrangular inclosure that surrounded the tower. After considering these circumstances, Mr Rich 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 appropriation 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 inte rest, we shall present our readers with such observa tions as its consideration has suggested to us.
It is stated by ancient writers, in the most posi tive 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 Mujelibe. It seems unquestion able, therefore, that these, if any, must be the remnant of those immense structures. Then, follow ing 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 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 au thority for there being two palaces. Herodotus and Curtius, the former an eye witness, 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 grand est and most extensive of all, should not have left the slightest trace of its existence. It may therefore deserve consideration, whether Diodo rus, who wrote only from hearsay, might not have been deceived by varying accounts of one palace, into the idea that there were two. The striking similarity in his two descriptions, as to situation, plan, and ornament, somewhat favours the conjecture. We are sensible that it is a bold one ; 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 die eastern.