It now rests with us to shew the identity of the existing remains. and of the city erected by Nimrod, and in this case again we must rest content with probability. Now it seems universally allowed that some part of the mounds are identi cal with the ruins described by Herodotus; how large a portion this may be we do not pretend to assert, but we have already stated that Mr. Rich includes a large proportion of the existing remains. We have only in continuation to give • our reasons for considering the buildings described by Hero dotus as identical with those referred to by Moses. In the first place, then, the former writer seems to speak of Babylon as a very ancient city in his time. and mentions it as a remark able occurrence that the tower of Belau was then standing ; he speaks of a long line of kings, and relates that Semiramis made some improvements in the city, thus implying that the city had been erected some considerable period before her reign. This queen is supposed to' have lived from twelve hundred to two thousand years before our era, thus bringing the erection of the city close upon that of Babel, as recorded in the Scriptures. Another proof of identity is seen in the nature of the materials used in the buildings, and in the manner of their erection, and in these matters the two accounts perfectly coincide. Moses, in that part of his nar rative already quoted, says,-- And they said one to another. Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly ; and they had brick for stone, and slime (bitumen) had they for mortar." The account of Herodotus, although of a inure detailed description, agrees in every particular with that just given ;—we need not refer to it here, as it has already been given in full. Again, is there not every reason to believe that the tower of Babel and that of Ileitis are one and the same edifice ? Herodotus evidently looks upon the tower as of very remote origin, as the oldest building in Babylon; indeed, it seems to be a building remarkable on many accounts, standing out distinct from all surrounding edifices, as well by its great height, as by its unusual construction ; it is apparently looked upon by all those who have seen it with a kind of awe, as though its erection, and every other thing connected with it, was entirely beyond their comprehen sion.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we venture to assert there will be considered sufficient evidence to satisfy any reasonable person of at least the probable identity between the buildings referred to in the Mosaical narrative, and the ruins now in existence, as described by recent travellers.
The remains of this great city do not afford us an oppor tunity of stating, with any preciseness, the style, so to speak, adopted in its architecture. The buildings generally are rude, and show hut little evidence of constructive science ; they are of gigantic proportions, and very massive, on which quality they rely chiefly for their strength ; their construc tion is indicative of greater antiquity than that of the Indian or Egyptian styles, for, whereas, in the latter, we find detached columns, in the Babylonian we see no traces of them ; i ideed, the .construction is altogether much heavier and of more barbarous appearance. The edifices were. almost universally composed of bricks, of which there were various qualities, some dried in the sun, others baked in a kiln ; there was also a finer sort, the clay of which, previous to being burned, was mixed up with chopped straw or reeds, and these last seem to have been used for facing walls built of the commoner sort of brick ; there is one peculiarity about them, however, which may not be overlooked, and this is the inden tation on their surface of certain marks arranged in parallel lines, termed arrow or nail-headed characters. These marks
are supposed to represent letters, or words; but, much learned labour has been given to the task, their signi fication has not been discovered, nor, indeed, the method of deciphering them determined upon : similar inscriptions have been found at Persepolis and Susa, also on some rocks near Argish, in Armenia, and sometimes, but very rarely, in Egypt. To return :—The bricks ww cre cemented together with hot bitumen, but were sometimes laid in clay, and at others in lime-mortar, and bonded together by straw, or reeds. The walls, as we have previously mentioned, were of great thick ness, strengthened at intervals by pilasters, or buttresses, which were sometimes adorned with niches. Columns were not made use of, the nearest approach to the idea being found in the large hollow piers which supported the hanging gardens. The principle of the arch clues nut seem to have been understood, although some authors have stated a con trary opinion ; no examples of its application have been found, and the fact of inconveniently large masses of sand stone been made use of in places where the arch would have been most applicable, as in the ease of the passage described by Mr. Rich, is, we think, a conclusive argument that the principle was not known. (For further information on this subject we refer to the article on Alton.) The work ing of metals seems to have been in extensive practice, as Ilerodotus tells us that all the gates were made of brass.
Although externally their buildings were of this rude description, the Babylonians evinced some taste in the interior decorations. Among other modes of ornamentation, they made use of coloured bricks. These bricks were painted while in a moist state, and the colours afterwards burnt in ; the subjects represented were usually animals, standing out in relief from the general surface, and richly painted in their natural colours. Statues likewise formed a very usual mode of decoration We have now only to notice that peculiar building, the Birs Nemroud, of which we have elsewhere given a descrip tion ; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to enter into detail here; we would only beg of our readers to notice its peculiar form, that of a pyramid, and remark, that if this tower be allowed to be the first erection of importance, it will very readily account for the circumstance of that form being so universal in other styles of very early date. This kind of erection is found, not only in Egyptian and Indian architec ture, hut also in other styles, whose connection with the Babylonian is not so easily accounted for ; and Humboldt, in speaking of a pyramidal mass of' ancient 'Mexico, says,—" It is impossible to read the descriptions which Ilerodotus and Diodorus Siculus have left us of the temple of Jupiter Belus, without being struck with the resemblance of that Babylonian monument to the teocallis of Anahuac." It is true that the pyramidal is that ffirm which would most naturally suggest itself to men unacquainted with the con trivances of art, but we venture to think, that the suggestion we have above thrown out, is not entirely unworthy of the attention and consideration of the curious.
I laving at length arrived at the conclusion of this article, we would apologize for having extended it to a length which some may be inclined to think unreasonable ; when, however, the interest attaching to such ancient remains, and the comparatively slight attention the subject has hitherto obtained, are considered, we feel confident of receiving the pardon of our readers.