r- J 
 
 ESS 
 
 
 
 HUH ^^jfiup -. . — -> - *«<T% , J| 
 
 Oraftlirtnif 1 
 
 H HI 
 
 ♦ v.* 
 
 - > 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 
SECOND 
 MEMOIR on BABYLON: 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ANCIENT 
 
 DESCRIPTIONS OF BABYLON AND THE REMAINS 
 
 STILL VISIBLE ON THE SITE. 
 
 SUGGESTED BY THE " REMARKS" OF MAJOR RENNEL 
 PUBLISHED IN THE ARCHJEOLOGIA. 
 
 BY 
 
 CLAUDIUS JAMES RICH, Esq. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND 
 
 BROWN, PATERNOSTER ROW; AND J. MURRAY, 
 
 ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1818. 
 
PRIN7ED BY RICHARD AUD ARTUKTi T dl'LOTi, IHOBLISS. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 My first very imperfect Memoir made its 
 appearance in an oriental literary Journal, 
 published in Vienna, and called the Mines de 
 V Orient. So numerous were the typographi- 
 cal errors of that edition, that my Essay was 
 in many places scarcely recognisable even by 
 myself. My friends were of opinion that it 
 ought to be republished in England ; and an 
 edition of it was printed from the Mines de 
 V Orient, which was received with indulgence 
 by the Public, notwithstanding the many in- 
 accuracies which I fear must have been re- 
 tained. I have not seen a copy of the English 
 edition, and therefore in the following Memoir 
 I beg to be understood as referring entirely 
 to the original German one. 
 
MEMOIR 
 
 CN 
 
 THE RUINS OF BABYLON. 
 
 ON my first visit to Babylon I was struck by the 
 want of accuracy in the accounts of all travellers 
 who had visited that celebrated spot. The ruins 
 appeared to me to merit a very minute description 
 and delineation • but such a work it was evident 
 would occupy much more time, and require more 
 extensive information, than I was then in possession 
 of; and I deferred the accomplishment of it to a 
 more favourable conjuncture. In the meantime I 
 was anxious to give some notion of the real state of 
 the ruins : I therefore drew up a short account, 
 accompanied by an illustrative sketch, which I ven- 
 tured to offer to the public, principally with a view 
 to excite the attention of the learned, and induce 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 them to transmit to me such remarks as might enable 
 me to accomplish my design in a more perfect man- 
 ner than I could hope to do by my own unassisted 
 efforts. It was no part of my object at that stage 
 of the inquiry to bring forward my own specula- 
 tions, had I then been qualified to do so ; and I 
 purposely abstained from any remarks which did 
 not tend to throw light on my account of the 
 ruins,, and stimulate the attention without mislead- 
 ing the judgement of those who applied themselves 
 to the subject. But having hitherto sufficiently se- 
 parated observation from opinion,, I now venture to 
 lay before the public the result of better informa- 
 tion and more matured opinions. I have been more 
 particularly induced to enter into a discussion on 
 the correspondence between the accounts of the 
 ancient historians and the ruins I visited,, by a pa- 
 per written by Major Rennel*, professedly " to vin- 
 dicate the truth and consistency of ancient history, 
 as well as his own account of Babylon in the Geo- 
 graphy of Herodotus/' as he ' ' conceives my former 
 statements to be at variance with commonly received 
 
 * Remarks on the Topography of Ancient Babylon, sug- 
 gested by the recent Observations and Discoveries of Claudius 
 James Rich, Esq., communicated to the Society of Antiqua- 
 ries by Major Rennel ; — from the Archseologia, London, 181,6, 
 pp. 22. 
 
opinions." Diffident as I am in opposing my ideas 
 to such an authority, I feel myself called upon to 
 state that I cannot coincide with Major Rennel, 
 either in his interpretation of the ancient writers or 
 in his deductions from the actual appearance of the 
 ruins. I shall therefore make his Remarks the basis 
 of the present dissertation, as they appear to me to 
 contain all that can be said in favour of the old 
 theory, with many additional particulars ; and also 
 because this method will afford me an opportunity 
 of supplying some of the deficiencies of my former 
 Memoir, and possibly of throwing some new light 
 on the subject. 
 
 The sum of Major Rennel's argument is as fol- 
 lows : The Euphrates divided Babylon into two 
 equal parts ; one palace, with the Tower of Belus, 
 stood on the east of it, and the other immediately 
 opposite it, on the west — each occupying central 
 situations in their.respective divisions; or rather, the 
 palaces and temple together formed the central 
 point of the city, and were separated from each 
 other by the river. — Now, in my account of the 
 ruins it is said that there are no, remains on the 
 western bank; therefore the river must formerly 
 have run through the ruins described by me on the 
 eastern side, so as to have divided them into two 
 equal portions. But there are certain mounds laid 
 
 b2 
 
down in my plan, which render it evident that the 
 river could not have run in that direction. These 
 mounds must consequently be referred to a town of 
 more recent construction, of whose existence Ma- 
 jor Rennel himself acknowledges we have no other 
 evidence. 
 
 I shall now state in general terms what I have to 
 object to this theory. None of the ancients say on 
 which side of the river the Tower of Belus stood. 
 The circumstance of there having been two palaces 
 in Babylon is extremely questionable. There are 
 no traces whatever on the spot, of any such chartge 
 in the river as Major Rennel imagines. The sup- 
 position of the existence of a more recent town, 
 merely for the purpose of getting rid of the diffi^ 
 culty, cannot be allowed in the absence of all histo- 
 rical and traditional evidence, when the appearance 
 of the ruins themselves is decidedly against it. 
 And finally, the descriptions of the ancient histo- 
 rians may be reconciled with the present remains, 
 without having recourse to any such conjectures. 
 — When a person ventures to disagree with such a 
 writer as Major Rennel, it behoves him to state his 
 reasons very particularly. I shall therefore proceed 
 to develop the opinions which I have just stated. 
 
 Before we enter on any topographical inquiry in 
 which we have to reconcile observation with his- 
 
tory, — if we consider how different are the talents 
 required for narrative and description, how nume- 
 rous are the sources of error, and how devoid the an- 
 cients were of that minute accuracy and patient re- 
 search which are required in this critical age, — so 
 far from taking their accounts of places and posi- 
 tions in the strictest and most literal sense of which 
 they are susceptible, we might allow them a very 
 considerable latitude, without calling their general 
 veracity in question. Instead of making this allow- 
 ance, however, writers have too frequently seemed 
 to expect a precision from the old historians in their 
 accounts of very remote places, which could only 
 be reasonably looked for in the treatises of professed 
 topographers ; and to have tried the very scanty 
 accounts we have of many ancient places, by a 
 stricter standard than many modern descriptions 
 would bear. We naturally wish to make the most 
 of what we possess in the smallest quantity, and to 
 seize with avidity on a single word which may help 
 us through the obscurity of antiquity, or enable us 
 to establish a favourite hypothesis. The testimony 
 of the ancients who have been on the spot must of 
 course be placed far above those who merely copy 
 others, whose statements, however high their rank 
 in literature may be, must be received with much 
 caution ; and when their descriptions in either case 
 
do not accord with what we now see, it is much 
 safer to say that they were mistaken, than to attempt 
 forcing a resemblance. It would require a separate 
 memoir to prosecute this subject to the extent which 
 would be necessary to show the various causes of 
 error, give examples of the mistakes and inaccura- 
 cies even of professed travellers, and prove how 
 often we have rendered the ancients accountable 
 for much more than they ever dreamt of themselves. 
 I the more readily refrain from such an inquiry at 
 present, as it is not necessary to my subject to carry 
 it so far. I have thought it requisite to state my 
 general opinion of the ancients as topographical 
 authorities ; but in reconciling the present remains 
 of Babylon to their accounts, I shall not have occa- 
 sion to contend for the latitude which may com- 
 monly be allowed to them. I shall on the contrary 
 show that I am willing to adhere much closer to 
 the only one of them whose authority is of any va- 
 lue in this case, than Major Rennel seems to be 
 aware of. 
 
 Those who have investigated the antiquities of 
 Babylon have laid much stress on the authority of 
 Diodorus, probably adverting more to the quantity 
 than the quality of the information he supplies. 
 He never was on the spot: he lived in an age when, 
 as he himself tells us, its area was ploughed over : 
 
he has therefore recourse to Ctesias ; and it must be 
 owned that the want of discrimination in the an- 
 cients, and the credulity of Diodorus himself, were 
 never more strongly exemplified than in his choice of 
 a writer who confounds the Euphrates with the Ti- 
 gris, and tells us that Semiramis erected a monument 
 to her husband, which from the dimensions he spe- 
 cifies must have been of superior elevation to Mount 
 Vesuvius, and nearly equal to Mount Hecla. (A.) 
 If these are not ec fairy tales/' I certainly know not 
 to what the term can be applied. When an author 
 can in so many instances be clearly convicted of ig- 
 norance and exaggeration, we are certainly not 
 justified in altering what is already before our eyes, 
 to suit it to his description. We have only the very 
 questionable authority of Ctesias for the second pa- 
 lace, and the wonderful tunnel under the river ; 
 but even he does not say whether the Tower of 
 Belus stood on the east or west side. Herodotus, 
 who will ever appear to greater advantage the more 
 he is examined and understood, is the only histo- 
 rian who visited Babylon in person; and he is in 
 every respect the best authority for its state in his 
 time. The circumference he assigns to it has been 
 generally deemed exaggerated; but after all we 
 cannot prove it to be so. He says nothing to de- 
 termine the situation of the Palace (for he speaks 
 
but of one) and Temple; he has no mention of east 
 or west, or of proximity to the river. It is true, it 
 has been attempted to establish from him, that the 
 Temple was exactly in the centre of one of the 
 halves into which the city was divided by the river; 
 which, by the way, if clearly made out, would not 
 agree with Major Rennel's position of it on the 
 river's banks : but the error appears to have arisen 
 from translating ps<rog, centre. Herodotus's words 
 are, h ^(pctpasi skcct s goo Tyg 7rcXiog STSTsi%t(rTO zv [aso-oo, 
 
 £]/ 700 7}£V TU (3ocO-lXYjtOC, 7TSpt^o0X00 TS ^ISyuKoO T£ XCCl 
 
 Irryjupoo' sv ^e too &T£goo, Aiog BjjAcj ipov ^ocKnoTrvXov, 
 %. t. A. (Herod. Wessel. p. 85.), in which I do not 
 see the necessity of adopting so mathematical a sig- 
 nification. (B.) Strabo, as might be expected, con- 
 tains much fewer particulars than Herodotus ; and 
 the other Grecian and Roman historians still less : 
 they are consequently of little use in a topographi- 
 cal inquiry. It appears, therefore, that none of 
 the ancients say whether the Tower of Belus was 
 on the east or the west of the Euphrates ; that its 
 position in the centre of the city, or even of one of 
 its divisions, is by no means clearly made out ; and 
 that while the description of the best ancient author 
 involves no difficulties, the only particulars which 
 embarrass us are supported by the sole testimony of 
 the worst. 
 
9 
 
 It appears to me that Major Rennel's error (if I 
 may be allowed to use such an expression) proceeds 
 from his having fixed upon the Mujelibe to repre- 
 sent the Tower of Belus (an opinion which the 
 more I consider the appearance of that ruin the less 
 I am inclined to agree with), and reducing every 
 other part of Babylon to that centre. Having 
 settled this point, adopting the system of Diodorus, 
 he refers the remaining ruins to the old and new 
 Palaces ; but in order to justify this arrangement, 
 he is obliged to resort to the supposition of a change 
 in the course of the river. <c The several particu- 
 lars of the remains on the site required only the 
 presence of the river in a particular line of course 
 to complete the general description given by the 
 ancients*." The supposed change would therefore 
 certainly cut the Gordian knot, if we believe the 
 ruins on the east to be the only remains of Baby- 
 lon; but there are no traces whatever on the ground 
 in support of such an assumption. I carefully ex- 
 amined the whole of the ground between Hilla and 
 the Mujelibe, with a view to ascertain the possibi- 
 lity of a change; but I was totally unable to disco- 
 ver the smallest vestiges indicative of it. The same 
 examination was made by others, during my stay 
 
 " Remarks," p. 6. 
 
10 
 
 there, and since that time, with the same result. I 
 have long- been accustomed to observe the changes 
 in the courses of rivers, from having- lived ten years 
 on the banks of one subject to them in a most re- 
 markable degree. The Euphrates is by no means 
 so variable : the lowness of its banks affording a 
 facility for its discharging the superabundance of 
 its waters by the means of canals and inundations,, 
 renders it not liable to a complete alteration of 
 its course. The strong embankment built by the 
 Babylonian monarchs was intended to prevent the 
 overflow, not to secure its running in one chan- 
 nel ; and ever since the embankment was ruined, 
 the river has expended itself in periodical inun- 
 dations. This is the case in many parts of its 
 progress; for instance, at Feluja, the inundation 
 from whence covers the whole face of the country 
 as far as the walls of Bagdad ; and the river itself 
 has, to the best of my information, constantly flowed 
 at that place in the same channel, without any va- 
 riation. At Hilla, notwithstanding the numerous 
 canals drawn from it, when it rises it overflows 
 many parts of the western desert; and on the east 
 it insinuates itself into all the hollows and more le- 
 vel parts of the ruins, converting them into lakes 
 and morasses. This will sufficiently account for 
 many appearances in those ruins, which might sur- 
 
11 
 
 prise those who had not adverted to the circum- 
 stance. The Khezail district at such times is in 
 many parts completely inundated ; and still further 
 down, since a dyke which used to be kept up at a 
 considerable expense has been broken, the river 
 flows over the country as far as Bussora. But in 
 no part of the Euphrates have I ever been able to 
 discover traces of its having: altered its course. On 
 the other hand, the Tigris, which is much more rapid 
 than the Euphrates, has none of these regulating 
 valves to draw off its superfluous water, which con- 
 sequently breaks down its own banks. This is the 
 case during its course through the upper and middle 
 parts of the Pashalik, where it is confined between 
 high banks, and cannot be expended in inundations, 
 or drawn off by canals • but in the southern districts, 
 where it runs through the lowest part of the Beni 
 Lam country, the banks are level, there are many 
 drains, and it overflows readily. In those places it is 
 not subject to the variations of channel which cha- 
 racterize it during the earlier part of its course. 
 
 Having shown that the first part of Major Kennel's 
 theory is contradicted by a survey of the ground, I 
 have to state the reasons which induce me equally 
 to disagree with him in his second conjecture. 
 This part of the subject requires to be treated at 
 some length. 
 
12 
 
 As some of the ruins now seen would obstruct 
 the course of the Euphrates, supposed by Major 
 Rennel, he removes this difficulty by referring them 
 to another town. "The whole of the remains visi- 
 ble in the form of mounds, &c. do not belong ex- 
 clusively to the ancient city, but in part to a subse- 
 quent establishment, not recorded in history, and 
 perhaps of a date previous to the Mahometan con- 
 quest." (p. 5.) To this assumption I object, 
 
 1. The mounds or ruins rejected by Major Ren- 
 nel differ in no respect from those he admits ; they 
 appear to form a part of the plan which they help 
 to explain ; they are connected with, or dependent 
 on, the primitive mounds ; and no sort of evidence 
 can be drawn from their appearance or composi- 
 tion to call in question their being of equal anti- 
 quity. 
 
 2. It is granted by all, that the mounds of the 
 Kasr and Amran, with some others among them, 
 are a part of ancient Babylon. It appears very 
 improbable that any one should attempt to build on 
 such masses of decayed edifices, even in their pre- 
 sent state, when they have doubtless diminished, 
 and subsided into much greater solidity than at the 
 period Major R. assigns to his city. If ever a town 
 existed in this neighbourhood, it certainly would 
 not have been among or upon these heaps of rub- 
 
13 
 
 bish. The only mound which could have under- 
 gone a revolution of this nature is the Mujelibe, 
 which, whatever it may have been, certainly now 
 bears a striking resemblance to fortified artificial 
 mounts, like the castles of Kerkook, Arbil, and 
 many other places in these countries ;-^it might 
 even now be restored to its castellated state. I am 
 clearly of opinion, as I think every one must be 
 who has visited the spot, that either the whole of 
 the eastern ruins are Babylon, or they must be re- 
 ferred entirely to another establishment, and Ba- 
 bylon left out of the question. The Mujelibe, as 
 before observed, might possibly be excepted from 
 this decision, were it necessary, as it appears to be, 
 like the ruin at Nineveh*, rather an artificial mount 
 than a mass of decayed building. 
 
 3. One reason assigned by Major Rennel for sup- 
 posing a more recent town is, " that it is difficult 
 to reconcile the circular and other mounds of earth 
 with the description of the regular distribution of 
 streets in ancient Babylon" (p. 5.); though, in the 
 Geography of Herodotus, he is willing to allow that 
 there existed in each quarter of Babylon a circular 
 space surrounded by a wallf. I admit for a mo- 
 ment this regular distribution of streets. But Major 
 
 * Sec Note A. | Geography of Herod, p. 337. 
 
14 
 
 llennel receives the eastern ruins as the Tem- 
 ple and Palaces. Now it is clear that the regular 
 distribution of streets could never have been ob- 
 served in or near these buildings ; and so far from 
 excluding the boundary wall on account of its not 
 falling in with it, had any symptoms of such an 
 arrangement been observed here, it would have 
 been reason sufficient to pronounce at once that 
 the eastern ruins could neither represent the Pa- 
 laces nor the Tower. — After all, I find a difficulty 
 in believing that the whole area of Babylon was 
 divided into regular compartments by the intersec- 
 tion of lines of houses at right angles, like the sur- 
 face of a chess-board. This savours strongly of 
 an imaginary arrangement. It might have been 
 nearly true of some divisions or quarters, yet I 
 would nowhere vouch for its mathematical accu- 
 racy. The area of Babylon, we have every reason 
 to believe, was at all times very far from being 
 thickly built on ; a very considerable proportion of 
 ft was occupied by cultivation ; and the care with 
 which the river was fortified with an embattled 
 Avail and brazen gates, guarding each bank through 
 the whole extent of the town, seems indicative of 
 the scantiness of the houses, even on the river; 
 Avhich seems further illustrated by the ease with 
 which Cvrus turned the river, unknown to the in- 
 
15 
 
 habitants, entered by its dry channel, and lodged 
 his army safely in the town, within the fortifica- 
 tions by which it was guarded on the water side,, 
 before the Babylonians suspected what he was 
 about. 
 
 Major Rennel in another part of the " Remarks" 
 (p. 17-18) says, he Gannot persuade himself that 
 the parts of a building named the Kasr is a Ba- 
 bylonian structure. He believes it to be ff one 
 of a much later date, possibly coeval with the cir- 
 cular and other mounds of earth before mention- 
 ed;" i. e. subsequent to old Babylon, but before 
 the time of Islam. His principal objection is, that 
 it looks too fresh, " which," he observes, ff is not 
 the character of ruins more than 2000 years old." 
 Neither is it the character of buildings of the age 
 which he assigns to his supposed town, i. e. prior to 
 the introduction of Islam ; and if it be allowed to 
 have preserved its freshness so long, there can cer- 
 tainly be no difficulty in granting it the additional 
 number of years. In this pure and dry climate, 
 other evidence than its being fresh and unworn is 
 required to dispute the antiquity of a ruin which 
 has till very lately remained entirely covered up. 
 Whatever may be its appearance, the difficulties 
 which oppose its rejection from the ruins of Baby- 
 lon are very great, independent of the improbabi- 
 
16 
 
 lily of such a building having been erected on a 
 heap of rubbish. But it does not stand on the 
 mound which I have named after it, and which is 
 allowed to be Babylonian ; it is inclosed within the 
 mass,, and has been covered by it. The rubbish 
 has only been cleared oif its top part ; and its side 
 walls, though not perfectly laid open, yet are seen 
 to reach down very far below the general surface 
 of the mound, as my drawing shows. This build- 
 ing is indisputably connected with walls and frag- 
 ments similar to it, to be seen in various parts of 
 the same mound, quite in its heart, and at a great 
 depth, and which have been discovered in piercing 
 and hollowing out the heaps to find bricks : — some 
 of these walls are, I believe, on a level with the 
 plain itself. I cannot therefore doubt that the walls 
 are coeval with the mound itself by which they 
 have been covered ; or at least erected before the 
 buildings whose ruins formed the mound had crum- 
 bled into rubbish (for it is not pretended to refer 
 every ruin which remains of ancient Babylon to 
 the age of Nebuchadnezzar) ; and if they are con- 
 demned, the mound itself, consequently, and all the 
 mounds or heaps attached to it, cannot be admitted 
 to be a part of ancient Babylon. — I shall in the se- 
 quel have occasion to return to this subject. 
 
 As Major Renncl appears generally inclined to 
 
17 
 
 receive so literally the statements of the ancients, 
 even of Diodorus, it is a little surprising that he 
 has not adverted to the dimensions assigned by that 
 writer to the Palaces : he would have seen, that so 
 far from warranting the belief of the eastern ruins 
 comprising the remains of all the public edifices of 
 Babylon (viz. the new Palace of 60 stades in cir- 
 cumference, the old one of 30 stades, and the Tem- 
 ple of Belus of 8 stades), it is evident that they will 
 only answer to the new Palace, with its Acropolis. 
 It is true, Diodorus places his largest palace on the 
 west: but an author who confounds the Tigris with 
 the Euphrates may without injustice be suspected 
 of a topographical inaccuracy of this nature. (C.) 
 Indeed, whether we do or do not admit the autho- 
 rity of Diodorus, the best conclusion to be drawn 
 from the appearance and plan of these ruins is, that 
 they represent the whole of the royal precincts, in- 
 cluding the hanging gardens*. The ruins of the 
 Palace of Babylon might well resemble in every re- 
 spect those we see on the eastern bank of the Eu- 
 
 * We should form a very incorrect notion of the residence of 
 an eastern monarch, if we imagined it was one building which 
 in its decay would leave a single mound, or mass of ruins- 
 Such establishments always consist of a fortified inclosure, the 
 area of which is occupied by many buildings of various kinds, 
 without symmetry or general design, and with large vacant 
 spaces between them. 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 phrates : the mound called by Major Rennel "the 
 rampart of new Babylon" will answer perfectly to 
 the outer wall of the Palace,, for which its extent is 
 by no means too great; and thus all difficulties im- 
 mediately vanish, without the necessity of turning 
 the river or building a new town. This could 
 hardly have failed striking Major Rennel also., had 
 he not set out by assuming the Mujelibe to be the 
 Tower of Belus ; which, if the supposition of the 
 Palace having been situated here be just, must cer- 
 tainly be looked for in a different direction — each 
 being said to be seated within its own division of 
 the city. In fact, there is not the slightest reason 
 to believe that the Tower was situated on or near 
 the river, though we may safely infer that such a 
 stream must have been taken advantage of in pla- 
 cing the Palace. Had the Palace and Tower been 
 so very near each other, it would probably have 
 been remarked by Herodotus, whose authority Ma- 
 jor Rennel is willing to abandon in this particular. 
 From what I have before said, it may be seen that 
 I cannot receive the Mujelibe as the Tower of Be- 
 lus, even independent of its position. 
 
 Having said so much of the general state of the 
 eastern ruins, I have but a few words to add con- 
 cerning the particular parts of them, about which 
 Major Rennel seems to think I have not been suf- 
 
19 
 
 ficiently explicit in my former Memoir. I was 
 fearful of becoming 1 tedious by expatiating on mis- 
 shapen heaps of rubbish, which are much better 
 understood by a drawing, except — like the mound 
 of the Kassr — they happen to contain within their 
 general mass some peculiarity worthy of remark. 
 It is on this account, and not because I had not 
 examined them, that I passed the little heaps which 
 lie between the Kassr and the Mujelibe without 
 particular mention, after having satisfied myself 
 that they contained nothing which required one. 
 They are in fact nothing more than low heaps, or 
 traces of building extending in that direction, of 
 no elevation or determined form, precisely as I have 
 laid them down in my plan. Major Rennel seems, 
 however, to consider them as requisite to the for- 
 mation of his theory. He calls them the "north- 
 east mounds," in the sketch of the site of ancient 
 Babylon (drawn chiefly from the information con- 
 tained in my Memoir) which he has prefixed to his 
 "Remarks;" has assigned them a place, form, and 
 magnitude to which they are by no means entitled*, 
 and conjectures them to be the ruins of the least 
 and oldest of the palaces mentioned by Diodorus. 
 I observe some other alterations from my plan, 
 
 * Vide the Sketch prefixed to his "Remarks," &c. (D.) 
 c 2 
 
m 
 
 which are not wholly immaterial : especially an 
 opening between the south-west angle of the moiind 
 called the Kassr, and the arm which ought to 
 connect it with the north-west angle of that of 
 Amran. I suppose I have to attribute these to the 
 person who engraved the plan for the English edi- 
 tion of my Memoir,, as Major Rennel would doubt- 
 less have noticed the alterations, had they come 
 from himself. But there is another error., which I 
 have to attribute to my own want of precision. 
 The mounds placed to the right and left of the 
 Mohawil road by Major Rennel should be by no 
 means so frequent, or of such magnitude : he was 
 probably deceived by the looseness of my expres- 
 sion, that <c the whole country between Mohawil 
 and Hillah exhibits at intervals traces of building." 
 But there should have been none at all south of 
 Jumjuma, or between the ruins laid down in my 
 plan and the town of Hilla. 
 
 Of the mound of Amran I was not aware that it 
 was possible to say any thing more, after having de- 
 scribed its form and general appearance, as it of- 
 fers no peculiarity meriting attention. It is com- 
 posed, like the rest, of earth, or rubbish formed by 
 the decomposition of bricks and other materials. 
 The canal of Mohawil Major Rennel seems in- 
 clined to think may have been the ditch of Baby- 
 
21 
 
 Ion. I confess this is a probability which did not 
 strike me when I was on the spot; and I saw no 
 reason to doubt its ever having been different from 
 what it is at present, — a canal cut from the Eu- 
 phrates to water some government lands which 
 are let out for an annual rent. It is crossed by a 
 bridge of one small arch, and differs in no respect 
 from the multitude of other canals which traverse 
 this country. 
 
 In the foregoing remarks I have taken for granted, 
 what indeed appears tobe nowthegeneral belief, that 
 the ruins at Hilla are those of Babylon. I have myself 
 no doubt of the fact : but as Major Rennel has 
 hinted a possibility of there having been another 
 town here, I think it but fair to state all that can 
 be urged in favour of such a supposition. The ca- 
 nals which run along the southern side of the Mu- 
 jelibe are called New and Old Neel, the latter of 
 which is said to be very ancient. This fact be- 
 comes interesting when we find Al Neel men- 
 tioned in history as the name of a place or district; 
 but the notices we have of this place are very few 
 and meager. Abulfeda* says Al Neel is a place be- 
 tween Bagdad and Coufah. In Assemani I find a 
 Bishop of Al Neel, Nilus, in Babylonia mentioned 
 
 * Takzeeem til Boldan. 
 
c )9 
 
 sis 
 
 in A.D. 1028. He was one of the suffragans in 
 the Patriarch's own province. Amrus, in the Life 
 of St. Elias, says there was but one bishop for 
 Naamania, Al Neel, and Badraya (a village near 
 Koche); from which there is some reason to infer 
 that those places were near each other*. The 
 Turkish geographer mentions Al Neel in his list of 
 the districts of Bagdad ; and in the particular de- 
 scription says no more than "Nil is a district con- 
 taining several villages, with much cultivation and 
 many gardens f:" but he does not say where it is 
 situated. D'Herbelot mentions a christian Arabian 
 poet, surnamed Al Neele, A.H. 608. D'Anville 
 marks in his map of the Euphrates and Tigris 
 a place named Nil, or Nilus, on the west bank of 
 the Euphrates, below Hilla, at the mouth of the 
 canal of CoufahJ. I am ignorant of the authority 
 on which he has introduced this place into his Me- 
 moir and map : but as he places Kassr Ibn Hobeira 
 on the same canal, it is to be inferred that he is mis- 
 taken as to its position. Seif ud Doulah is said to 
 have succeeded in A.H. 479 to his father's posses- 
 sions, the districts of Hilla, Al Neel, &c.§ 
 
 * Assemani, vol. iii. p. 766. + Jehan Numa, p. 462. 
 
 % D'Anville, VEuphrate et le Tigre, p. 126. 
 § Modern Universal History, vol. ir. p. 372. 
 

 23 
 
 I am not able to trace Al Neel further back in 
 history than 1000 of Christ. 
 
 These, it must be confessed, will at first sight 
 appear but very scanty materials to form any deci- 
 sive judgement on so important a point. When we 
 consider them attentively, however, several parti- 
 culars may be inferred from them of considerable 
 use in the present question. The obscurity in 
 which it is involved is in itself a presumptive proof 
 of its little importance. The name is evidently 
 derived from the canal. This latter circumstance 
 might lead us to infer that there was no town at all 
 of this name, but that it was merely a canal and 
 district containing several villages, as indeed is ex- 
 pressly stated by the Turkish geographer. Such 
 are the modern districts of this country, which take 
 their names from the canal which waters it; but 
 none contain any town which would leave the 
 slightest traces a few years after its destruction. 
 As instances, I may mention Dujjeil and Khalis, 
 neither of which districts contains any place with 
 these names. The expression of Abulfeda is one 
 of those equivocal words which occur too often in 
 the Oriental languages. soJu may mean either a 
 district or town: and a person now commonly says 
 he is going to Khalis, or he has lived at Dujjeil; by 
 which he may mean any of the villages contained 
 
24 
 
 within that district ; and its having been a bishopric 
 is in the East no proof of its size — either a whole 
 district or a very insignificant village may have en- 
 joyed this honour; and we see that at one period 
 the bishopric of AINeel was united with two others. 
 I have myself no doubt that Al Neel was always,, as 
 it is now, the name of a district, and that it con- 
 tained no remarkable place ; in which belief I am 
 further justified by the information obligingly com- 
 municated to me by H. H. the Pasha,, from the re- 
 gister office of Bagdad. But as some people may 
 possibly differ with me,, I shall consider it also un- 
 der a different point of view., and endeavour to an- 
 ticipate every objection. 
 
 I think it will readily be conceded that Al Neel 
 — supposing it to have been a town named after 
 the canal — could not have been a place of any mag- 
 nitude : or, to speak more precisely, there is not 
 the slightest reason to believe it could have been as 
 large as Hilla. We have no records which give it 
 any high antiquity ; nor is there any necessity for 
 placing it at the mouth of the canal. We have in- 
 deed examples of the contrary in Nahrouan, Naher 
 Malcha, and many other places. We thus come at 
 some important conclusions. Whatever ruins the 
 town of Neel — if ever such a place existed — may 
 be believed to have left, we have no positive reason 
 
25 
 
 for supposing; them to occupy this spot : and a place 
 even much larger and more important than Hilla 
 could not leave remains in any degree resembling, 
 either in magnitude or composition, those we now see 
 on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Were it neces- 
 sary, innumerable instances might be adduced from 
 the ruins of well-known places in this neighbourhood 
 in support of this assertion : and to showthat theeast- 
 ern ruins must be wholly the remains of public build- 
 ings, the large cities of Ctesiphon and Seleucia will 
 suffice; — neither of them has left vestiges of more than 
 their walls (if we except the Tank Kesra), and indeed 
 those of Seleucia have almost totally disappeared. 
 
 I will go further, and state my opinion that, 
 even should it be imagined by any one that there 
 was a town on the north side of the canal and 
 at the base of the Mujelibe (the only spot where 
 it could have been situated), and that it was con- 
 siderable enough to have had a castle the size of 
 that curious ruin, — this supposition makes no dif- 
 ference whatever in the opinion I have expressed. 
 I will take for an example the modern town of Ar- 
 bil, which has an artificial mount at least as large as 
 the Mujelibe, and much higher. This mount, which 
 is of the highest antiquity, and probably existed in 
 the days of Alexander, has been crowned by a suc- 
 cession of castles in different ages. The present is 
 
26 
 
 a Turkish building, and contains within its walls 
 (as the others doubtless did) a portion of the town, 
 consisting of two mahallas or parishes : the remain- 
 der of the town is situated at the foot of the mount, 
 and would, if abandoned, in a few years leave not a 
 single vestige behind. Precisely the same obser- 
 vation holds good of the still more considerable city 
 and castle of Kerkook. We may therefore, I pre- 
 sume, safely decide, that in no case is there the 
 slightest reason to confound the ruins of Al Neel, 
 whatever that place may have been, with the re- 
 mains on the eastern side of the Euphrates, and 
 which I have ventured to call the Palace of Ba- 
 bylon. 
 
 I am aware that some people may at first possibly 
 conceive a hasty idea that Al Neel is the town 
 whose existence was supposed by Major Rennel, in 
 order to remove the obstacles to his theory of the 
 change in the course of the river. In the former 
 part of this Memoir I have shown the impossibility 
 of buildings being placed in mounds which are 
 themselves decayed buildings. It is, besides, out of 
 the question to suppose that a town of a size suffi- 
 cient to require an inclosure like that which I be- 
 lieve to have been the wall of the Palace, and Ma- 
 jor Rennel "the rampart of new- Babylon/' should 
 have been inserted, as it were, in the different hoi- 
 
27 
 
 lows and vacant spaces of the ruins,, with no reason 
 in the world to choose so awkward and inconvenient 
 a situation ; and any villages which may have been 
 placed within the inclosure (like the one we now 
 find there) are obviously of no account. The only 
 situation, as I have already remarked., where a town 
 could have been placed, is either at Hilla or to the 
 north of the Neel. 
 
 Before the foundation, or rather augmentation, 
 of Hilla by Seif ud Doulah, A.H. 495, there was 
 a place there, named Al Jamaein, or The two 
 Mosques*. The name Hilla, which was given it 
 after its having been enlarged and fortified, is de- 
 rived from an Arabic root, signifying to rest, or 
 take up one's abode. 
 
 I therefore repeat my belief, formed from the 
 inspection of the ruins about Hilla, that they are of 
 one character, and must be received altogether 
 as a part of Babylon, or wholly rejected without 
 reserve. And I must here state what seems to 
 me to be the best evidence for their antiquity, 
 independent of their appearance, dimensions, and 
 correspondence with the descriptions of the an- 
 cients. — The burnt bricks of which the ruins are 
 principally composed, and which have inscriptions 
 
 * Abulfeda. 
 
28 
 
 on them in the cuneiform character, only found in 
 Babylon and Persepolis, are all invariably placed in 
 a similar manner, viz. with their faces or written 
 sides downwards. This argues some design in 
 placing them, though what that might have been it 
 is now impossible to say. It, however, proves suf- 
 ficiently that the buildings must have been erected 
 when the bricks were made, and the very ancient 
 and peculiar form of characters on them in use. 
 When these bricks are found in more modern con- 
 structions, as in Bagdad and Hilla, they are of 
 course placed indifferently, without regard to the 
 writing on them. In the greatest depth in the ex- 
 cavations at the Kassr, at the subterraneous passage 
 or canal, I have myself found small pieces of baked 
 clay covered with cuneiform writing, and some- 
 times with figures indisputably Babylonian : — these 
 shall be described when I come to speak of the Ba- 
 bylonian antiques. Had the ruins been more re- 
 cent than is here presumed, these inscriptions would 
 not have been found in this order and manner, and 
 we should in all probability have found others in 
 the character or language then in use. Thus, had 
 the town been Mahometan or Christian, we might 
 reasonably expect to meet with fragments of Coufic 
 or Stranghelo. There is another equally remark- 
 able circumstance in these ruins, and which is al- 
 
29 
 
 most conclusive with respect to their antiquity. In 
 the very heart of the mound called the Kassr, and 
 also in the ruins on the bank of the river, which 
 have been crumbled and shivered by the action of 
 the water, I saw earthen urns filled with ashes, 
 with some small fragments of bones in them j and 
 in the northern face of the Mujelibe I discovered a 
 gallery filled with skeletons inclosed in wooden cof- 
 fins. Of the high antiquity of the sepulchral urns 
 no one will for an instant doubt ; and that of the 
 skeletons is sufficiently ascertained, both from the 
 mode of burial, which has never been practised in 
 this country since the introduction of Islam, and 
 still more by a curious brass ornament which I 
 found in one of the coffins. These discoveries are 
 of the most interesting nature ; and though it is 
 certainly difficult to reconcile them with any theory 
 of these ruins, yet in themselves they sufficiently 
 establish their antiquity. The two separate modes 
 of burial too are highly worthy of attention. There 
 is, I believe, no reason to suppose that the Babylo- 
 nians burned their dead ; the old Persians we know 
 never did. It is not impossible that the difference 
 may indicate the several usages of the Babylonians 
 and Greeks, and that the urns may contain the 
 ashes of the soldiers of Alexander and of his suc- 
 cessors. 
 
30 
 
 I have now clone with the eastern ruins. — Major 
 Rennel considers me as the first who established 
 the fact of there being no ruins on the western 
 banks of the river: but Beauchamp states the same 
 fact in the clearest and most positive manner. His 
 words are, " Je me suis soigneusement informe des 
 Arabes dont la profession est d'enlever les bricques 
 de ces ruines pour construire les edifices de Hella, 
 si en creusant la terre de l'autre cote du fleuve, 
 c'est a dire de la rive occidentale du fleuve, on y 
 trouvait des bricques — ils m'ont repondu non*." 
 And he goes so far as to express an opinion that 
 Babylon never occupied both sides of the river — 
 <c Je ne suis pas tout-a-fait du sentiment de M. 
 d'Anville., qui partage Babylone de deux cotes du 
 fleuve." {Mem. de VAcademie des Inscriptions, 
 v. 48. Notes to M. de S te Croix's Dissertation on 
 Babylon.) (E.) 
 
 It now remains for me to notice the most inter- 
 esting and remarkable of all the Babylonian re- 
 mains, viz. the Birs Nemroud. — If any building may 
 be supposed to have left considerable traces, it is 
 certainly the Pyramid or Tower of Belus; which 
 
 * It is true, indeed, that Beauchamp speaks only from infor- 
 mation which he received from others, and -which applies rather 
 to subterranean remains than to ruins on the surface of the 
 earth. 
 
31 
 
 by its form, dimensions, and the solidity of its con- 
 struction, 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 pre- 
 sent day, in nearly as perfect a state as the pyra- 
 mids of Egypt. Even under the dilapidation which 
 we know it to have undergone at a very early pe- 
 riod, we might reasonably look for traces of it after 
 every other vestige of Babylon had vanished from 
 the face of the earth. When, therefore, we see 
 within a short distance from the spot fixed on, both 
 by geographers and antiquarians, and the tradition 
 of the country, to be the site of ancient Babylon, a 
 stupendous pile, which appears to have been built 
 in receding stages, which bears the most indispu- 
 table traces both of the violence of man and the 
 lapse of ages, and yet continues to tower over the 
 desert, the wonder of successive generations, — -it is 
 impossible that their perfect correspondence with 
 all the accounts of the Tower of Belus should not 
 strike the most careless observer, and induce him 
 to attempt clearing away the difficulties which have 
 been suggested by Major Rennel against its re- 
 ception within the limits of Babylon. I am of 
 opinion 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 
 
32 
 
 ancients had actually assigned a position to the 
 Tower irreconcileable with the Birs, it would be 
 more reasonable to suppose that some error had 
 crept into their accounts, than to reject this most re - 
 markable of ah* the ruins. But there is no necessity 
 for either supposition. From the view of the an- 
 cient historians I have taken in the foregoing part 
 of this Memoir, it will appear that none of them 
 has positively fixed the spot where the Tower of 
 Belus stood ; and if we receive the dimensions of 
 Babylon assigned by the best of the ancient histo- 
 rians — himself an eye-witness — both the Birs and 
 the eastern ruins will fairly come within its limits. 
 Against receiving his testimony we have only our 
 own notions of probability. We have reduced the 
 dimensions merely because they do not accord with 
 our ideas of the size of a city : but we know Baby- 
 lon to have been rather an inclosed district than a 
 city ; and there can of course be no hesitation in 
 abandoning less accurate evidence, and receiving 
 the statement of Herodotus, if there be any traces 
 on the spot to justify it. 
 
 The whole height of the Birs Nemroud above 
 the plain to the summit of the brick wall is two 
 hundred and thirty-five feet (235). The brick wall 
 itself which stands on the edge of the summit, and 
 was undoubtedly the face of another stage, is thirty- 
 
seven (37) feet high. In the side of the pile a 
 little below the summit is very clearly to be seen 
 part of another brick wall, precisely resembling the 
 fragment which crowns the summit, but which still 
 encases and supports its part of the mound. This is 
 clearly indicative of another stage of greater extent. 
 The masonry is infinitely superior to any thing of 
 the kind I have ever seen ; and leaving out of the 
 question any conjecture relative to the original de- 
 stination of this ruin, the impression made by a 
 sight of it is, that it was a solid pile, composed in 
 the interior of unburnt brick, and perhaps earth or 
 rubbish ; 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 
 ruinous 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. The facing of fine 
 bricks has partly been removed, and partly covered 
 by the falling down of the mass which it supported 
 and kept together. I speak with the greater con- 
 fidence of the different stages of this pile, from my 
 own observations having been recently confirmed 
 and extended by an intelligent traveller*, who is of 
 
 * Mr. Buckingham. 
 D 
 
34 
 
 opinion that the traces of four stages are clearly 
 discernible. As I believe it is his intention to lay 
 the account of his travels before the world, I am 
 unwilling to forestall any of his observations ; but I 
 must not omit to notice a remarkable result arising 
 out of them. The Tower of Belus was a stadium 
 in height; therefore, if we suppose the eight towers 
 or stages which composed the Pyramid of Belus to 
 have been of equal height, according to Major Ren- 
 nePs idea, which is preferable to that of the Count 
 de Caylus (see Mem. de VAcademie, vol. xxxi.), we 
 ought to find traces of four of them in the fragment 
 which remains, whose elevation is 235 feet; and 
 this is precisely the number which Mr. Bucking- 
 ham believes he has discovered. This result is the 
 more worthy attention, as it did not occur to Mr. B. 
 himself. 
 
 The Birs Nemroud is apparently the Tower of 
 Belus of Benjamin of Tudela, who says it was de- 
 stroyed by fire from heaven — a curious remark, as 
 it proves he must have observed the vitrified masses 
 on the summit. M. Beauchamp speaks of it under 
 the appellation of Brouss (F): he never visited it 
 himself; indeed the undertaking is not always prac^ 
 ticable without a strong escort. The excellent Nie-» 
 buhr, whose intelligence, industry, and accuracy 
 cannot be too often praised, suspects the Birs to 
 
 
35 
 
 have been the Tower of Belus. He gives a very 
 good account of it even from the hasty view which 
 circumstances would allow of his taking : te Au sud 
 ouest de Helle a 1J mille, et par consequent a 1' 
 ouest de l'Euphrate, on trouve encore d'autres restes 
 de l'ancienne Babylone : ici il y a toute une colline 
 de ces belles pierres de murailles dont j'ai parle ; 
 et au dessus il y a une tour qui a ce qui parait est 
 interieurement aussi toute remplie de ces pierres 
 de murailles cuites ; mais les pierres de dehors (qui 
 sait combien de pieds d'epaisseur) sont perdues par 
 le terns dans cette epaisse muraille, ou plutftt dans 
 ces grands tas de pierres : il y a ici et la de petits 
 trous qui percent d'un cote jusqu'a l'autre; sans 
 doute pour y donner un libre passage a Pair, et pour 
 empScher au dedans Phumidite, qui auroit pu nuire 
 au batiment." ( Voyage, vol. ii. p. 236.) In this de- 
 scription the Birs may be recognised, even through 
 the obscurity of a job translation. 
 
 After this, I was certainly surprised to find that 
 Major Rennel not only excludes it from the limits of 
 Babylon, but even doubts the mound being artificial. 
 So indisputably evident is the fact of the whole mass 
 being from top to bottom artificial, that I should as 
 soon have thought of writing a dissertation to prove 
 that the Pyramids are the work of human hands, as 
 of dwelling on this point. Indeed, were there any 
 
 d2 
 
 
3b' 
 
 thing' equivocal in the appearance of the mound 
 itself, the principles of physical geography utterly 
 forbid the supposition of there being an isolated 
 hill of natural formation in ground formed by the 
 depositions of a river; and therefore, if any travel- 
 ler fancied he saw a natural hill at Musseil, or any 
 other place in that direction, he was most unques- 
 tionably mistaken. 
 
 The same reasons prove that there could never 
 have been bitumen springs in Babylon. (See Geog. 
 of Herod, p. 369.) Diodorus, indeed, does not say, 
 as Major Rennel supposes, that bitumen was found 
 in Babylon, — but in Babylonia, which is a very dif- 
 ferent thing*. 
 
 The Birs Nemroud is in all likelihood at present 
 pretty nearly in the state in which Alexander saw 
 it; if we give any credit to the report that ten thou- 
 sand men could only remove the rubbish, prepara- 
 tory to repairing it, in two months. If, indeed, it 
 required one half of that number to disencumber it, 
 the state of dilapidation must have been complete. 
 The immense masses of vitrified brick which are 
 seen on the top of the mount appear to have marked 
 its summit since the time of its destruction. The 
 rubbish about its base was probably in much greater 
 quantities, the weather having" dissipated much of 
 it in the course of so many revolving ages ; and, 
 
37 
 
 possibly, portions of the exterior facing of fine brick 
 may have disappeared at different periods. 
 
 In the foregoing observations I have endeavoured 
 to show that the ruins of Babylon in their present 
 state may be perfectly reconciled with the best de- 
 scriptions of the Grecian writers, without doing vi- 
 olence to either. I feel persuaded that the more 
 the subject is investigated the stronger will the con- 
 formity be found; but it is one in which the spirit of 
 system would be peculiarly misplaced : and I am so 
 far from being bigoted to my own opinions, that 
 should I in the course of my researches happen to 
 discover particulars which may reasonably appear 
 to militate against them, I will be the first to lay 
 them before the public. 
 
 ■ 
 Bagdad, July 1817. 
 
 nq ^rfaid 
 n 
 
 P.S. Since writing the above I have received an 
 extract from the Supplement to the fifth edition of 
 the Encyclopaedia Britannic a, containing a summary 
 of my former accounts of Babylon, with the author's 
 own ideas on the subject. It is peculiarly gratify- 
 ing to me to find that my opinions have the confir- 
 mation of such a writer. 
 
 - 
 
to 
 
 f A ") Pao-e 7 
 
 If, rejecting the measurements of Ctesias, it be admitted 
 that there was at Nineveh a monument of this very an- 
 cient and durable form, I think the remains of it are still 
 to be seen among traces which yet exist of that city. 
 Opposite the town of Mousoul is an inclosure of a rect- 
 angular form, corresponding with the cardinal points of 
 the compass; the eastern and western sides being the 
 longest, the latter faciiig the river. The area, which is 
 now cultivated and offers no vestiges of building, is too 
 small to have contained a town larger than Mousoul ; 
 but it may be supposed to answer to the Palace of Ni- 
 neveh. The boundary, which may be perfectly traced 
 all round, now looks like an embankment of earth or 
 rubbish, of small elevation ; and has attached to it, and 
 in its line, at several places, mounds of greater size and 
 solidity. The first of these forms the south-west angle; 
 and on it is built the village of Nebbi Yunus (described 
 and delineated by Niebuhr as Nurica), where they show 
 the tomb of the prophet Jonas, much revered by the 
 Mahometans. 
 
 The next, and largest of all, is the one which may be 
 supposed to be the monument of Ninus. It is situated 
 near the centre of the western face of the inclosure, and 
 is joined like the others by the boundary wall; — the na- 
 

 39 
 
 tives call it Koyunjuk Tepe. Its form is that of a trun- 
 cated pyramid, with regular steep sides and a flat top : it 
 is composed, as I ascertained, from some excavations of 
 stones and earth, the latter predominating sufficiently to 
 admit of the summit being cultivated by the inhabitants of 
 the village of Koyunjuk, which is built on it at the north- 
 east extremity. The only means I had at the time I vi- 
 sited it of ascertaining its dimensions was by a cord 
 which I procured from Mousoul. This gave 178 feet for 
 the greatest height, 1850 feet the length of the summit 
 east and west, and 1147 for its breadth north and south. 
 In the measurement of the length I have less confidence 
 than in the others, as I fear the straight line was not very 
 correctly preserved ; and the east side is in a less perfect 
 condition than the others. The other mounds on the 
 boundary wall offer nothing worthy of remark in this 
 place. Out of one in the north face of the boundary 
 was dug, a short time ago, an immense block of stone, 
 on which were sculptured the figures of men and animals. 
 So remarkable was this fragment of antiquity, that even 
 Turkish apathy was roused, and the Pasha and most of 
 the principal people of Mousoul came out to see it. 
 One of the spectators particularly recollected, among the 
 sculptures of this stone, the figure of a man on horse- 
 back with a long lance in his hand, followed by a great 
 many others on foot. The stone was soon afterwards 
 cut into small pieces for repairing the buildings of Mou- 
 soul, and this inestimable specimen of the arts and man- 
 ners of the earliest ages irrecoverably lost. Cylinders 
 like those of Babylon, and some other antiques, are oc- 
 casionally found here ; but I have never seen or heard 
 of inscriptions. From the assurances given me by the 
 
40 
 
 Pasha of Mousoul, I entertain great hopes that any mo- 
 nument which may be hereafter discovered will be re- 
 scued from destruction. A ruined city, as Major Rennel 
 justly observes, is a quarry above ground. It is very 
 likely that a considerable part of Mousoul, at least of 
 the public works, was constructed with the materials 
 found at Nineveh. Koyunjuk Tepe has been dug into 
 in some places in search of them ; and to this day stones 
 of very large dimensions, which sufficiently attest their 
 high antiquity, are found in or at the foot of the mound 
 which forms the boundary. These the Turks break into 
 small fragments, to employ in the construction of their 
 edifices. The permanent part of the bridge of Mousoul 
 was built by a late Pasha wholly with stones found in the 
 part of the boundary which connects the Koyunjuk with 
 Nebbi Yunus, and which is the least considerable of all. 
 The small river Khausar traverses the area above de- 
 scribed from east to west, and divides it nearly into two 
 equal parts : it makes a sweep round the east and south 
 sides of Koyunjuk Tepe, and then discharges itself into 
 the Tigris above the bridge of Mousoul. It is almost 
 superfluous to add that the mount of Koyunjuk Tepe is 
 wholly artificial. 
 
 I hope to make Nineveh the subject of a future Me- 
 moir. It is possible that the Larissa of Xenophon, with 
 its pyramid, whose base was one plethron, and height 
 two, was no other than Nineveh with the sepulchre of 
 Ninus (see Anabasis, lib. 3). — I cannot quit this subject 
 without remarking a curious coincidence ; At Messila, a 
 Median town six parasangs above Larissa, Xenophon 
 saw the base of a wall built of hewn shell?/ stone, Hv U jj 
 »cpij7ri$ Ai'flov £5otov KoyynjXi«jQv y x. t. h. At Mousoul I have 
 
41 
 
 seen pieces of this stone, which is a complete conglome- 
 ration of small shells. 
 
 (B.) PageS. 
 
 When I remarked in my former Memoir that the 
 words of Herodotus, stating the basement story of the 
 Tower of Belus to be craSiou xu\ to ^xoj xa) to sugoj, should 
 be translated " of a stadium in length and breadth" and 
 not "height and breadth," I had not seen Wesseling's 
 edition of Herodotus ; by which I find that the reading 
 which makes Herodotus guilty of an absurdity that would 
 reduce him to a level with Ctesias, originated in an error 
 which had long ago been exploded. (Vide Herod. Wess. 
 p. 85, note.),; ^o/I o*> 
 ■ ■■■ 
 
 wodfi hwn 
 tni fliGon \i lorn ° 
 
 Some observations occur here respecting the Palace 
 or Palaces, which ought not to be omitted. In the 
 Geography of Herodotus, p. 355, it is said (from Diodo- 
 rus) that the lesser palace is on the east, where is also 
 the brazen statue of Belus. Lest it should be conceived 
 that this statement contains some allusion to the Tem- 
 ple of Belus, and consequently be used to establish the 
 position of that building, it is proper to give the whole 
 passage from Diodorus : " In place of the fictile earthen 
 images of beasts (which ornament the walls of the large 
 palace) are here (in the smaller palace) the brazen sta- 
 tues of Ninus and Semiramis, of the prefects, and also 
 of Jupiter who is named by the Babylonians Belus." 
 (Diod. lib. ii. c. 8.) 
 
42 
 
 In the same work, p. 337, Major Rennel, in giving an 
 account of Babylon according to the notions of Herodo- 
 tus, says : " In the centre of each division of the city is a 
 circular space, surrounded by a wall ; in one of these 
 stands the royal palace, which fills a large and strongly 
 defended space : the Temple of Jupiter occupies the 
 other." And yet in the "Remarks" he objects to the 
 inclosure which I suppose may have contained the Pa- 
 lace, on account of its being circular. Neither is the de- 
 scription he has given from Herodotus, as quoted above, 
 reconcileable with what he says a little further on, on 
 the authority of Diodorus, — that the Palace was a square 
 of \\ mile. (See Geog. of Herod, p. 354.) But the truth 
 is, that neither does Herodotus mention the circle, nor 
 Diodorus the square. There is certainly no reason to 
 believe that the Palace was of the latter form. 
 
 ■ 
 
 bJJ Icj (D-) Pa g e 19 - 
 
 I must here remark that Tauk Kesra, the palace of 
 the Sassaniau kings, is not built of Babylonian bricks, as 
 has been supposed ; and that the masonry is strikingly 
 inferior to that of Babylon. 
 
 (E.) Page 30. 
 
 The same note to the curious and learned Memoir of 
 M. de Sainte Croix contains a discussion concerning the 
 latitude and longitude of Hilla, and its distance from 
 Bagdad, by M. Beauchamp. Niebuhr gives the lati- 
 tude of Hilla 32° 2S', which would make its distance 
 from Bagdad amount to 21f leagues of 25 to a degree. 
 
43 
 
 M. Beauchamp, from an observation of the transit of 
 Mercury over the sun, on the 5th November 1789, makes 
 it 5 degrees to the west of Bagdad, which lie calls being 
 very nearly under the same meridian — " sous le me me 
 meridien a tres peu pres." He is of opinion that the di- 
 stance given by Niebuhr's observation (22 leagues) is a 
 little too much, because only 18 leagues are reckoned in 
 performing the journey, the whole of the way being over 
 a desert as flat as a table. He says that in two journeys 
 he made from Bagdad to Hilla he counted 16£ hours 
 ordinary pace of a caravan. Niebuhr supposes 13 to 14 
 German miles, 13|- of which would be just 22£ leagues 
 of 25 to the degree. From this distance, which appears 
 overrated, M. Beauchamp concludes that Niebuhr's lati- 
 tude is too small : his own observation gave 32° 40'; but 
 he deducts 5' for the error of his instrument, which error 
 he did not ascertain, but only supposed — he does not say 
 why. This, he says, will be found to correspond better 
 with the reckoned distance. The latitude of Babylon 
 will then, according to him, be 32° 37'. He observes that 
 even if the rate of going of a horseman at a walk be rec- 
 koned at one league of 20 to a degree (and which I be- 
 lieve will generally be found to come near the truth), it 
 will bring the latitude of Hilla to 32° 32' and Babylon to 
 32° 34', which comes nearer his observation than that of 
 Niebuhr. (See Mem. de VAcad. des Inscr. vol. xlviii. 
 p. 31.) I hope on my next visit to Babylon to ascertain 
 correctly its longitude and latitude, both by astronomical 
 observations and measurement. In my sketch the mag- 
 netic variation was not allowed ; it is at Bagdad 8° 44' 
 west, and at Bussora 9°. 
 
(F.) Page 34. 
 
 It appears on examination that the Brouss or Broussa 
 of M. Beauchamp* is no other than the Birs Nemroud 
 (which Major Rennel calls throughout the "Remarks" 
 Nimrod Birs). The situation two leagues south-east of 
 Hilla, and the name, which seems to be only a corrupt 
 pronunciation of Birs or Burs, all sufficiently point out 
 the correspondence between the Birs Nemroud and 
 Brouss. It is true, Beauchamp says it is only one league 
 from the banks of the river; and Major Rennel, in his 
 sketch, makes it rather more than two : but Beauchamp 
 was never at the Birs himself; and he must either speak 
 from mere conjecture, or from the careless report of some 
 person of the country. 
 
 Major Rennel says that the Broussa of Beauchamp is 
 called Boursa by the Arabs, and he concludes it to be 
 the Barsita of Ptolemy, or Borsippa of Strabo. It would 
 appear that he has some other authority for Boursa, 
 which he does not mention. Boursa in Arabic means a 
 sandy desert, or the dwelling-places of evil spirits, either 
 being very remote from the appellation of Celestial, 
 which d'Anville gives it in fixing it at Samawa, much 
 lower down the Euphrates. In my first Memoir I speak 
 of the ruins of Boursa near the village of Jerbouiya, 
 which is about four leagues below Hilla, and about half 
 an hour from the river. I only met with one man at 
 Hilla who recognised the name of Boursa ; and he was 
 found out for me by the governor. It is necessary here 
 to explain that I asked for Boursa by name, from having 
 
 * Geog. of Herod, p. 370. Mem. de VAcud. vol. xlviii. 
 
45 
 
 just read the passage in the Geography of Herodotus re- 
 lating to it. This I am aware is a mode of inquiry 
 which sometimes in the East leads to error: but what- 
 ever may be thought of the name, I have no doubt con- 
 cerning the ruins at Jerbouiya, which I have heard de- 
 scribed by several persons who had visited them. Should 
 any one be tempted to imagine, from the similarity of 
 names, and the conjecture that Boursa is Borsippa, that 
 the ruins at the Birs Nemroud are those of the sacred 
 Tower of the Chaldeans, I can only appeal to the ap- 
 pearance of the Birs itself. To suppose that the Birs is 
 Borsippa, and not Babylon, would be to believe that 
 there existed a Temple and Tower at the former place 
 perfectly resembling the gigantic monument of Belus, 
 both in form and proportions ; and that the Temple of 
 Borsippa has resisted the hand of time, which has obli- 
 terated that of Babylon. 
 
 I must not finish this Memoir without correcting two 
 inaccuracies of my former one. Tahmasia was, I find, 
 built by jShah Tahmas, and not by Nadir Shah, as I was 
 inaccurately informed at Hilla ; and the Khan half way 
 between Bagdad and Hilla is not called Khan Bir Yu- 
 nus, or Jonas's Well, but Bir-un-nous (incorrectly for 
 nisf), i, e. The Well of the Half-way. 
 
 
' 
 
 ■ . 
 woJesd 
 
 uJa<mJ; ........ 
 
 i 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 BABYLONIAN ANTIQUES. 
 
 Having given an account of the ruins of Babylon, 
 it will perhaps be expected that I should describe 
 the monuments of the arts, manners, and religion of 
 past ages which are found among them, and which 
 are as yet but imperfectly known to the public. But 
 to enter fully into this subject would require an at- 
 tention of which I am not now capable, and time 
 which I have it not in my power to bestow. I must 
 therefore at present content myself with merely of- 
 fering specimens of some of the most interesting of 
 these fragments ; and I console myself with the hope 
 that I may thus supply some materials to those who 
 are infinitely more capable of using them than I can 
 ever expect to be. 
 
 Hilla is the general depot for antiques found 
 throughout all this country, especially on the banks 
 of the Euphrates, from Raka to Samawa*. The 
 
 * I ha?e even been offered at Hilla English and Russian cop- 
 per coins, common European seals of false carnelian ? and a head 
 of Frederic the Great in blue claw ! 
 
48 
 
 most interesting of these antiques are the Sassanian 
 and Babylonian. It is of the latter only of which I 
 now propose to speak. Most of them contain spe- 
 cimens of the very curious and primitive system of 
 writing found only in the Babylonian monuments ; 
 and those of Persia of the age of its history*. The 
 cuneiform, or, as it has sometimes been called, the 
 arrow-headed, character baffled the in°enuitv of the 
 decypherer, till Dr. Grotefend of Frankfort, unde- 
 terred by the ill success of his predecessors, applied 
 himself to the task with a judgement and resolution 
 which secured success. The result, so creditable to 
 his industry and learning, and the process by which 
 he obtained it, which he very ingenuously submits 
 
 * In the first period of the history of Persia I include the 
 whole of its sovereigns down to the extinction of the native race 
 by the Macedonian conquest, without any reference to the fan- 
 ciful divisions of Ferdusi in his string of romances, which has 
 by some unaccountably been entitled an epic poem, and by 
 others a history. It probably bears the same relation to the 
 ancient history of Persia as the romances of Brute and the acts 
 of Arthur's worthies do to that of Britain. Dr. Grotefend's 
 first efforts have already done something towards maintaining 
 the veracity of the venerable historians of Greece against the 
 fictions of Mohammedan Persian literature ; and much more may 
 be expected, provided we can obtain a more intimate acquaint- 
 an ce with the Zend and other ancient languages of Persia, which 
 is an object highly worthy the attention of our learned country- 
 men in India. 
 
 
49 
 
 to the public, are to be round partly in Prot, t|eeren^ 
 work on the Politics, Intercourse, and Commerce 
 of the principal Nations of Antiquity*, and partly 
 in the fourth and fifth volumes of the Mines de 
 I' Orient ; but it is to be hoped that he will soon be 
 prevailed upon to communicate to the world his va- 
 luable labours in a separate and more perfect form. 
 
 Dr. Grotefend, who professes to be rather the 
 decypherer than the translator of the cuneiform in- 
 scriptions, and who engages merely to open the way 
 to those whose attention has been much devoted to 
 the study of the ancient languages of Persia, has 
 however succeeded in translating some of the in- 
 scriptions on the ruins of Persepolis, and one from 
 those of Pasargadae. He observes that there are 
 three varieties of those inscriptions, distinguished 
 from each other by the greater complication of the 
 characters formed by the radical signs of a wedge 
 (or arrow) and an angle. Each inscription \s re- 
 peated in all the three species. The first or simplest 
 species decyphered by Dr. Grotefend is in Zend, 
 the language of Ecbatana; and there are grounds 
 for believing that the remaining ones are translation* 
 
 * Ideen uber die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der 
 vornehmsten Volker der alien Welt y by Prof. A. H. L. Ileeren, 
 3d edition, Gottingen, 1815, — a very interesting work} which 
 ouirht to be translated into English. 
 
50 
 
 into the languages of the other capitals of the Per^ 
 sian empire, Susa and Babylon. This conjecture 
 acquires force from the fact of one of the species 
 of cuneiform writing discovered at Babylon corre- 
 sponding, or nearly so, with one of the Persepolitan 
 species. 
 
 The cuneiform is the most ancient character of 
 which we have any knowledge. It is difficult to say 
 in what country it was invented ; but its use was 
 common to the great nations of antiquity, the Me- 
 dian, Persian, and Assyrian ; and, as Prof. Heeren 
 very justly observes, it is in all likelihood the Assy- 
 rian writing of Herodotus, and that which Darius 
 Hystaspis engraved on the pillars which he set up 
 on the banks of the Bosphorus. The inscriptions 
 decyphered by Dr. Grotefend are of the times of 
 Cyrus, Darius Hystaspis, and Xerxes. Notwith- 
 standing the obscurity in which its history is in- 
 volved, it is not difficult to fix the period in which it 
 fell into disuse. From its peculiar form it is evident 
 that it must have been confined, like the sacred cha- 
 racter of the Egyptians, to inscriptions on stone 
 and other hard substances ; and there must conse- 
 quently have been another mode of writing better 
 calculated for ordinary use, which probably resem- 
 bled the Zend character of Anquetil-Duperron. The 
 sacred or lapidary character must have fallen into 
 
51 
 
 disuse upon Alexander's conquest, when neither the 
 Persians nor Babylonians had any monuments to 
 erect or events to record. The native princes who 
 wrested the throne of Persia from his feeble succes- 
 sors adopted the Greek language and character in 
 their coins and inscriptions ; and all recollection of 
 the cuneiform writing must have perished during 
 the long period in which they held the sceptre of 
 Iran. The Sassanians, the professed restorers of 
 the ancient rites and usages of Persia, could not 
 therefore have had it in their power to recall the use 
 of this obsolete mode of writing ; and accordingly 
 we find the monuments and coins of that dynasty 
 inscribed with a character having an analogy with 
 the Hebrew, Phenician, or Palmyrene, which has 
 been decyphered by the first orientalist of any age 
 or country, in whose excellent, work, " Memoir es sur 
 diver ses antiquites de la Perse/' the fullest informa- 
 tion on the Sassanian antiquities may be found. 
 
 The foregoing observations relate to the Perse- 
 politan inscriptions. With respect to those of Ba- 
 bylon, Dr. Grotefend, from the scarcity of speci- 
 mens, is yet only acquainted with two kinds ; and 
 he has not attempted to decypher them, though he 
 has furnished some useful tables of comparison for 
 those who may be inclined to attempt the task*. 
 
 * See Mines de V Orient, vol. iv. and v. 
 
 E 
 
 <> 
 
52 
 
 Adopting his principles of classification, I shall di- 
 vide the Babylonian inscriptions into three species, 
 in the order of their complication. I have attempted 
 to account for the coexistence of three different 
 writings and languages in the Persepolitan inscrip- 
 tions. For the reason of there being three species of 
 Babylonian writing, of which one only corresponds 
 with those of Persepolis, I cannot offer any probable 
 conjecture. They are never found together, or in 
 the same antiques, as in Persia; but the supposition 
 of different ages will not solve the difficulty. A strict 
 comparison of the different kinds will show whether 
 or no they express different languages *. 
 
 No. I is a black stone of an irregular shape (in 
 part broken and defaced), about one foot in length 
 and 7^ inches in breadth. The figures on it, a and 6, 
 have been supposed to represent the zodiac of the 
 Babylonians : c is all that is now legible of the in- 
 scription, which once covered the lower part of the 
 
 * la the moment of sending off this Memoir I saw a letter 
 from Dr. Grotefend, by which it appears that that learned and 
 ingenious person, from a close examination of some specimens 
 which have recently been communicated to him, is of opinion 
 that the three species of Babylonian writing here spoken of are 
 only varieties of different modes of writing the same characters, 
 and that there is in fact but one real kind of Babylonian cunei- 
 form writing. Those who consider the importance of the un- 
 dertaking will rejoice to learn that Dr. Grotefend is prosecuting 
 his inquiries with unremitting ardour. 
 
stone, aiid is in the first species of Babylonian cunei- 
 form writing. I saw an antique perfectly resem- 
 bling this in the Royal Library at Paris, and I believe 
 it has been described by Mr. Millin and noticed by 
 Dr. Grotefend. This stone was brought to me by a 
 peasant while I was examining the ruins of Babylon. 
 
 No. 2 is a stone two feet in length, nineteen in 
 breadth, and nine inches in thickness : it is broken at 
 the bottom. On the front is the sculpture a, and on 
 the right side the inscription b belonging to the 
 first species. 
 
 No. 3 is a head of red granate, a little larger than 
 the drawing. It contains the inscription b } which 
 is somewhat defaced, but which also appears to be 
 of the first species. The antique c is a brass orna- 
 ment which I found in a coffin with a skeleton in 
 the Mujelibe, and is introduced here for the pur- 
 pose of comparison with a. Both appear to have 
 been destined for the same use; and in place of the 
 ring or shank by which the brass ornament was 
 suspended, there is a hole drilled through a. The 
 age of b is sufficiently evident from its character and 
 appearance ; and that of a is placed beyond all 
 doubt by the cuneiform inscription : from both, the 
 antiquity of the skeleton may be inferred, a was 
 brought to me at Bagdad from Hilla, but I have not 
 been able to discover in what part of the ruins it 
 
54 
 
 was found. The first species of Babylonian cunei- 
 form writing- agrees with the third Persepolitan. 
 
 No. 4 is an inscription copied from a piece of 
 baked clay, in shape like a barrel, being thicker in 
 the centre than at the ends. It is 4 j inches long 
 and 1 J in diameter. The inscription is perfect, and 
 the lacunae which are seen in the copy are not ille- 
 gible places, but exist in the original. The cha- 
 racter is in the second species of cuneiform writ- 
 ing-, of which no specimen has hitherto been pub- 
 lished. This species also occurs on small pieces of 
 baked clay of a darker and finer quality than the 
 bricks ; they are generally covered with writing, 
 and have also sometimes figures on the edges in 
 slight relief. I found some of these pieces of clay 
 in the sewer or subterranean canal at the founda- 
 tions of the Kassr, the antiquity of which is thus in 
 some measure established. To ascertain in what 
 particular part of the ruins each antique is found, is 
 a curious and important subject of investigation ; 
 but one which the little reliance that can be placed 
 on the words of the natives, and the extraordinary 
 manner in which they sometimes deceive without 
 the slightest apparent motive, render very difficult, 
 I shall, however, never lose sight of it. 
 
 No. 5 is a small piece of clay of this size, which 
 contains an inscription only on one side. The writ- 
 
55 
 
 ing is of the second species, and the letters slope a 
 little, which is frequently the case in inscriptions of 
 this kind. 
 
 I have lately received a small piece of brick of a 
 very fine quality, with a varnished surface, from 
 Mousoul. It was found among the ruins of Nineveh, 
 and contains an inscription in cuneiform letters so 
 minute and difficult to read that I have not yet been 
 able to determine to what class it is to be assigned. 
 
 The third class of Babylonian writing is that 
 found on the bricks and cylinders. The Babylonian 
 bricks have been described in other places, and 
 some specimens of them are already before the pub- 
 lic. The antiquary is aware that the custom of 
 stamping letters on bricks was not peculiar to Ba- 
 bylon, and that examples of it occur in the ruins of 
 Greece. Among the scanty remains of Seleucia on 
 the Tigris I found numbers of bricks with impres- 
 sions on them ; but from the coarseness of the ma- 
 terials and inferiority of workmanship I have never 
 been able to discover any writing. The stamps with 
 which the bricks of Babylon are impressed, are on 
 the contrary cut very neatly and applied with care ; 
 and even some precaution appears to have been 
 taken to preserve the writing, for they are all 
 placed with their faces or written part downwards; 
 and what is very remarkable, when laid in bitumen. 
 
5 a 
 
 that cement is never found adhering to the face, 
 though it always sticks to the back of the brick. 
 The people employed in the ruins of Babylon to 
 procure bricks, told me that this was effected by 
 strewing some powdered lime over the bitumen 
 when the brick was laid on its face in it ; but I 
 know not what authority they have for this opinion. 
 In my first Memoir I doubted that reeds had ever 
 been employed where bitumen was used; I have since 
 seen some bricks with bitumen adhering to them, on 
 which the impression of a reed mat was so strongly 
 marked as to induce me to change my opinion. 
 
 The number and variety of the stamps bear no 
 proportion to the number of the bricks. I have as 
 yet only seen four kinds, with some varieties of 
 each. 
 
 No. 6 is an inscription of seven lines, of which 
 Dr. Grotefend has only seen an imperfect copy. 
 Septilinear inscription is the most common of all : 
 out of nineteen bricks taken at random, fourteen 
 were of this sort. There are several varieties of 
 this kind, differing from each other only in a cha- 
 racter or two. 
 
 No. 7 is an inscription of six lines. The speci- 
 men here given is remarkable by deviating in many 
 places from the other kind of brick inscriptions, 
 especially in the omission of almost the whole series 
 
57 
 
 of characters which forms the fifth line in the sep^ 
 tilinear inscriptions. 
 
 No. 8 is an inscription of three lines. One of 
 this kind has been seen by Dr. Grotefend, from 
 which this specimen differs a little. 
 
 No. 9 is an inscription in four lines, which is 
 the rarest kind of all, and no specimen of it has ever 
 been published. 
 
 The Babylonian cylinders are among* the most 
 remarkable and interesting of the antiques. They 
 are from one to three inches in length : some are of 
 stone, and others apparently of paste or composition 
 of various kinds. Sculptures from several of these 
 cylinders have been published in different works ; 
 and Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are specimens of my 
 own collection. Some of them have cuneiform writ- 
 ing on them (as in Nos. 12 and 13) which is of the 
 third species; but has the remarkable peculiarity that 
 it is reversed, or written from right to left, every 
 other kind of cuneiform writing being incontestably 
 to be read from left to right. This can only be ac- 
 counted for by supposing they were intended to roll 
 off impressions. The cylinder No. 11 was found in 
 the site of Nineveh. I must not omit mentioning in 
 this place, that a Babylonian cylinder was not long- 
 ago found in digging in the field of Marathon, and 
 is now in the possession of Mr. Fauvel of Athens. 
 
58 
 
 The cylinders are said to be chiefly found in the ruins 
 at Jerbouiya. The people of this country are fond 
 of using them as amulets., and the Persian pilgrims 
 who come to the shrines of Ali and Hossein frequent- 
 ly carry back with them some of these curiosities. 
 
 Small figures of brass or copper are also found at 
 Babylon. No Babylonian coins have as yet been 
 discovered,, nor have I ever seen any Darics brought 
 from Hilla. The true Babylonian antiques are ge- 
 nerally finished with the utmost care and delicacy, 
 whilst the Sassanian (which may possibly form the 
 subject of a further Memoir) are of the rudest de- 
 sign and execution. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED BY RICHARD AND ARTHUR TAYLOK. 
 
 ALE RE 1 FLAJ1JIA1I. 
 
59 
 
 Books of Travels published by Longman, Hurst, 
 Rees, Orme, and Brown, Paternoster -row. 
 
 1. MEMOIR on the RUINS of BABYLON. By Claudius 
 James Rich, Esq., Resident for the Honourable East India Com- 
 pany at the Court of Bagdad. With three plates. Second edit. 
 
 2. MEMOIRS on EUROPEAN and ASIATIC TURKEY, 
 from the Manuscript Journals of modern Travellers in those 
 Countries. Edited by Robert Walpole, A.M. Second edition. 
 In one vol. 4to. Illustrated with plates. Price 3/. 3s. bds. 
 
 This Work contains Manuscript Journals, and Remarks on 
 parts of Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, by late Travel- 
 lers ; and the Statistics, Antiquities, Natural History, and Geo- 
 graphy of those Countries are elucidated by Drawings and Obser- 
 vations, which have never yet been before the Public, and which 
 will communicate information, as correct as it is new. 
 
 3. A JOURNEY through PERSIA to CONSTANTINO- 
 PLE in the years 1808 and 1809, in royal 4to, with twenty-eight 
 maps, and engravings. By James Morier, Esq. Price 31. 13s. 6d. 
 bds. 
 
 4. A SECOND JOURNEY through PERSIA to CONSTAN- 
 TINOPLE, between the years 1810 and 1816. With a Journal 
 of the Voyage by the Brazils and Bombay to the Persian 
 GuLrii ; together with an Account of the Proceedings of His 
 Majesty's Embassy under His Excellency Sir Gore Ouseley, Bart. 
 K.S.L. By James Morier, Esq., late His Majesty's Secretary 
 of Embassy and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Persia. 
 In royal 4to, with maps, coloured costumes, and other engravings 
 from the designs of the author. Price 31. \3s. 6d. bds. 
 
 5. A JOURNEY from INDIA to ENGLAND, through 
 Persia, Georgia, Russia, Poland, and Prussia, in the year 1817. 
 By Lieut.-Coe. JOHNSON, C.B. In 4to, illustrated with nu- 
 merous engravings. Price 2/. 2s. bds. 
 
 6. A DESCRIPTION of the CHARACTER, MANNERS, 
 and CUSTOMS of the PEOPLE of INDIA, and their Institu- 
 tions, Religious and Civil. By the Abbe J. A. Dubois, Mission- 
 ary in the Mysore. Translated from the French Manuscript. 
 In 4to. Price 2/. Is. bds. 
 
 " During the long period that I remained amongst the natives 
 
60 
 
 (between 17 and 18 years), I made it my constant rule to live as 
 they did, conforming exactly in all things to their manners, to 
 their style of living and clothing, and even to most of their pre- 
 judices. In this way I became quite familiar with the various 
 tribes that compose the Indian nation, and acquired the confi- 
 dence of those "whose aid was most necessary for the purpose of 
 my work." — Preface, page 15. 
 
 7. An ACCOUNT of the KINGDOM of CAUBUL, and its 
 Dependencies in Persia, Tartary, and India; comprising a View 
 of the Afghaun Nation, and a History of the Dooraunee Mon- 
 archy. By the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstoxe, of the Hon. 
 East India Company's Service, Resident at the Court of Poona, 
 and late Envoy to the King of Caubul. Price 3/. 135. 6d. bds. 
 In one vol. 4to, illustrated by two maps and fourteen plates, 
 thirteen of which are coloured. 
 
 8. TRAVELS in BELOOCHISTAN and SINDE; accom- 
 panied by a Geographical and Historical Account of those Coun- 
 tries. By Lieut. Henry Pottinger, of the Hon. East India 
 Company's Service, Assistant to the Resident at the Court of 
 His Highness the Peishwa, and late Assistant and Surveyor with 
 the Missions to Sinde and Persia. In 4to, with a large two-shect 
 map of the country, &c. Price 2/. 5s. bds. 
 
 9. TRAVELS of ALI BEV, in Morocco, Tripoli, Cyprus, 
 Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and Turkey, between the years 1803 and 
 1807. Written by Himself. In two vols., 4to, with nearly 100 
 engravings. Price 61. 6s. bds. 
 
 10. JOURNAL of a RESIDENCE in INDIA. By Maria 
 Graham. In one vol., 4to. The second edition. Price 1/. 11 s.6d. 
 bds., illustrated by cngraviogs. 
 
 11. LETTERS on INDIA. By Maria Graham. In 8vo, 
 with nine etchings and a map of the North of India. Price 14$. bds. 
 
 12. TRAVELS to discover the SOURCE of the NILE, in the 
 years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, and 1773. By James 
 Bruce, of Kinnaird, Esq. F.R.S. The third edition, corrected 
 and enlarged. To which is prefixed The Life of the Author, 
 by Alexander Murray, D.D., Professor of Oriental Lan- 
 guages in the University of Edinburgh. In seven vols., 8vo, 
 with an eighth volume, in royal 4to, consisting of engravings, 
 chiefly by Heath. Price 6/. 6s. bds. 
 
»u^ 
 
 fc'i 
 
 
 '"■ 
 
 #* 
 
 ■ - 
 
 W 
 
 . . 
 
 Urn " 
 
 ~ ■ 
 
 
 ; :WU 
 
 "?'J <J 
 
 
 f 'sS 
 
 3 5 .' 
 
 r i 
 
 r m -- 
 
 rf 
 
 M 
 
 = 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
8^7 
 
 
 mm 
 
 i 
 
 ■i 
 
 i 
 
 £ 
 
 
 i 
 
 it 
 
 J 
 
 ft* 
 
! 
 
 x 
 
 i 
 
 'a 
 *3 
 
5W 
 
 r 
 
** 
 
 * "* 
 
 B 
 
 - 
 
 
 ■ft* 
 
 
 * 
 
 _ i ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 HBfl 
 'HI HMi 
 
 
 MriS 
 
 EM Id 
 
 . I ■ I 
 
 
 «f 
 
 ■ 
 
 K 
 
 I 
 
 ■1 
 
 
 
 ,4M^ 
 
 
 ■1 
 
 * 
 
 f%|MK 
 
 •;