Printer Friendly

Babylon revisited: archaeology and philology in harness.

The recent publication of cuneiform texts relating to Babylon allows a reassessment of the city's topography, and sheds light on the remains discovered by Robert Koldewey and more recent excavators. A comparison of the archeological and documentary evidence relating to selected structures of the city provides examples of the ways in which archaeology and philology can successfully complement each other.

It has long been a truism that in the study of the civilization of ancient Mesopotamia the field of enquiry is too vast to be encompassed adequately by most individuals. The result of this fact is that a situation has necessarily developed in which two different sets of scholars toil away separately at rediscovering the lost glories of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians. On the one hand are the archaeologists who excavate in the ruin mounds of Iraq, Syrian Mesopotamia and southeast Turkey, and process the material finds and scientific results of these labours. On the other are the experts in the Sumerian and Akkadian (Assyrian and Babylonian) languages who decipher the clay tablets and other inscriptions produced by such excavations, and reconstruct from this documentation the history, political structures and intellectual, social and economic life of the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia. This division of effort between excavators and linguists is less of a drawback than at first it might seem, for in those matters of detail with which most scholarly research is absorbed an ignorance of the whole picture is not necessarily fatal to progress.

But there are areas where a knowledge of both worlds is essential. One is social history, where obviously a balanced picture can only be obtained from a combination of evidence drawn from the excavation of material remains with data yielded by the study of such things as letters, administrative records and legal documents. Another is topography: where a site is excavated to such a degree that the lay-out of the settlement and its main features are properly understood, and where there is extensive documentation of the settlement's topographical features in the written sources, then archaeology and philology can be of real benefit to each other. A case in point is Babylon, the great imperial city which first came to prominence under the famous King Hammurapi (1792-50 BC in the conventional chronology). The last wholesale rebuilding of the city's monumental structures was conducted by the kings of the Chaldaean dynasty (625-539 BC), particularly Nabopolassar, Nebuchad-nezzar II and Nabonidus. It is their public works -- palaces, fortifications, streets and temples -- that were preserved, after the city's gradual decline and final abandonment centuries later, for the modern excavator. Parts of the site were thoroughly mined for inscribed clay tablets in the 1870s and '80s, officially by Hormuzd Rassam, working on behalf of the British Museum, and unofficially by local people, who were keen to supply the new market in such objects that the interest of European museums had created. But scientific excavation had to wait for the German expedition led by Robert Koldewey, which worked at the site from 1899 to 1917 and uncovered the principal buildings and the lay-out of some of the city's streets and defences (Koldewey 1990: 15-302). Further work by the Iraqi Directorate of Antiquities, from 1958 to the present, has largely concentrated on a programme of restoration, but has made intermittent discoveries of its own (for recent bibliography see Koldewey 1990: 437-40). A German expedition was also briefly active at Babylon in the early 1970s, while an Italian survey team from the University of Turin examined various parts of the site in the 1970s and '80s. Babylon is of course a big city -- the urban area proper, inside the double inner city walls, covers approximately 400 ha -- and the prospects of excavating it in its entirety, or even of retrieving the plan of the whole city by the archaeological methods which have yielded impressive results at the older, Sumerian city at Abu Salabikh, are nil. Nevertheless, the results of excavation work so far, though limited in territorial extent and confined by the westward shift in the bed of the river to the eastern half of the town, produce quite a satisfactory picture of the city's topography.

The documentary evidence for the topography of Babylon was first presented by Eckhard Unger more than 60 years ago (Unger 1930; 1931). Though challenged from time to time (Wetzel 1944: plan 1; Gurney 1974; George 1979; 1986), the conclusions he came to there, and in particular the town plan that he drew up to accompany them, have been repeated virtually unchanged ever since. It is now necessary -- and high time, too -- substantially to revise Unger's ideas, and to consign his town plan once and for all to the wastepaper basket. This revision is largely made possible because over the years the textual material relating to the topography of Babylon has vastly increased. Unger's texts included a mere seven fragments of the principal documentary witness to the topography of Babylon, a text now called 'Tintir = Babylon'. The manuscript sources of this text currently number 60. Three related documents were available to him, and this number has also been greatly expanded, to 16. Now that the documentary evidence for the topography of Babylon has been collected again (George 1992: texts nos. 1-17) it is possible to present to a wider readership -- and to develop -- some of the results achieved by a new synthesis of archaeological and textual evidence.

As can now be seen, the text 'Tintir = Babylon' is essentially a scholarly compendium which glorified the city of Babylon as a great religious centre. The title derives from its first line, 'Tintir (is a name of) Babylon, on which glory and jubilation are bestowed'. The text is reconstructed from Babylonian and Assyrian clay tablets dating from the 7th to 1st centuries BC, but it was probably compiled in the era of Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1225 BC), when ancient scholars began to advocate for Babylon and its god, Marduk, a cosmological and theological supremacy to match its long-established political pre-eminence. Most of the text is given over to the exhaustive listing of the names and epithets of the city and its religious buildings, and this acts as a statement of Babylon's position at the centre of the nation's religious life. Only Tablet IV and part of Tablet V, a small proportion of the extant text, are of topographical interest, but even so they constitute an invaluable aid to our efforts at reconstructing the city's lay-out. Tablet IV collects the ceremonial, Sumerian names of the city's 43 temples, beginning with E-sangil, the famous cult-centre of Marduk. The text groups the temples according to quarter: 14 in the quarter Eridu, four in Ka-dingirra, two in Shuanna, three in Newtown, and so on. The latter part of Tablet V begins by listing the city's walls, Imgur-Enlil and its forward rampart, Nimitti-Enlil; its waterways, including the Arahtu, as the Euphrates was known locally, and the eastern canal, Libil-hengalla; its city gates -- Urash, Zababa, Marduk, Ishtar, Enlil, King's, Adad and Shamash; and its streets, including Ay-ibur-shabu, the famous Processional Way that led from the town centre to the Ishtar Gate. However, no topographical details are given at this point, and the compiler's interest evidently lay in the names of these features -- as full of religious significance as those of temples and shrines -- rather than in their location. By contrast the text ends with a purely topographical account of the 10 quarters of the city. Each quarter is identified by two well-known landmarks, and now that the text is almost completely recovered each can be plotted on the map with confidence. Thus the quarters along the east bank of the Euphrates are, from north to south, Kadingirra, which the text records as lying between the Ishtar and Grand Gates; Eridu, between the Grand and Market Gates; and Shuanna, between the Market and Urash Gates. The Grand and Market Gates are not listed as gates on the city wall and are evidently to be located well inside the city, near the centre. The names may be relics of a time when Babylon was enclosed by a city wall of smaller circuit than Imgur-Enlil. Away from the river are the quarters Newtown and Kullab, which between them occupy the ground between the Ishtar and Marduk Gates. Inside the Zababa Gate is a quarter the name of which, written with the signs TE.|E.sup.ki~, is uncertain. In the west four quarters are listed. One of these, Kumar, is located by means of three landmarks, two temples and a third interior gate. About the gate nothing more is known, but the temples are famous old foundations and are likely to have been situated in the ancient nucleus of the city, thus immediately across the river from the central quarter of Eridu. Two quarters are said to lie on the river, Tuba at the Shamash Gate, which fixes it in the south, and the quarter Lugalirra Gate, which will thus lie north of Kumar. The fourth quarter lies inside the city wall at the Adad Gate, but its name is not satisfactorily deciphered.

The accurate plotting on the map of the various city quarters has no intrinsic archaeological value, of course, but it has one consequence that is of great archaeological significance. Since the list of temples groups the city's sanctuaries topographically, quarter by quarter, the exact siting of the quarters allows the approximate location within the city boundaries of those many temples that still remain buried. For example, of the 14 sanctuaries listed in Tablet IV for Eridu, which was clearly the religious centre of the city, the sites of only two, E-sangil and the ziqqurrat, E-temen-anki, are known at present, but now the other 12 can confidently be sought in the same vicinity. Many of them are no doubt buried near E-sangil under the huge ruin-mound Amran ibn Ali. A different kind of problem is posed by the quarter Kadingirra. There four temples have been excavated, but only two produced foundation documents and so could be identified for certain: they are the sanctuaries dedicated to the Mother Goddess in her names Belet-ili and Ninmah, and to the goddess Ishtar as Belet-Akkade, the Lady of Akkad. Tablet IV of 'Tintir = Babylon' lists only four temples in that quarter (lines 15-18): E-ningidar-kalamma- the temple of Nabu of the summa haru; E-mashdari the temple of Belet- Akkade; E-hili-kalamma the temple of Ashratum; E-mah the temple of Belet-ili: (all) in Ka-dingirra.

This means that all the temples of this quarter have been excavated. The temple list accordingly provides names for the two that could not be certainly identified by inscription, Temples D I and D II, excavated in 1979 by the Iraqis. The larger one was dedicated, as already suspected from circumstantial evidence, to the important god Nabu, and the smaller to the minor goddess Ashratum.

A similar situation existed in the quarter Shuanna, where two temples had been discovered but, in the absence of documentary evidence, only that of the god Ninurta was identified. Tablet IV lists two temples (lines 19-20):

E-hursang-tilla the temple of Ninurta; E-shasurra the temple of Ishhara: (both) in Shuanna.

This information impels us to conclude that the near neighbour of Ninurta's temple, the building dubbed Temple Z by its excavators, must be the temple dedicated to the goddess Ishhara.

The lay-out of the city known to the text's compiler agrees well with the details yielded by the inscriptions of Neo-Babylonian kings and by the explorations of modern excavators. The exercise in town-planning that gave Babylon its distinctive regularity of plan had evidently already been carried by the time 'Tintir = Babylon' was compiled. If it seems remarkable that town-planning should have been necessary in the 13th century BC, or even a little earlier, one may recall in passing that the military successes and political centralization of Hammurapi's dynasty had brought a new prosperity to Babylon, and it had probably become desirable to bring order and, especially, protection to the urban sprawl that may be imagined to have grown up around the city's ancient nucleus. Utilizing both textual and excavated evidence it is possible to present a sketch map of Babylon that differs markedly from the plans commonly reproduced, which are all ultimately based on Unger's now out-of-date work. The differences lie not so much in physical characteristics, which are of course fixed by survey and excavation, but in the identification of the city quarters and the placing of the gates in the city wall. It is not only the location of quarters, temples and gates on the town plan that is aided by the study of the textual evidence. There are occasions when we are fortunate enough to possess texts which yield detailed descriptions of structures which have also been recovered by archaeology, and study of these is especially rewarding. A number of documents are concerned with the measurements and interior chambers of the great cult-centre of Marduk, the temple known ceremonially by the Sumerian name of E-sangil. Koldewey reached the floor of this building by sinking a huge pit 21 m into the ruin mound known today as Amran ibn Ali. The depth of the pit prevented the uncovering of more than a small section of the temple's central courtyard and adjacent chambers, but the ground plan of the Neo-Babylonian building was recovered in large part by tunnelling horizontally along the walls from the bottom of the pit. The contents of one of the chambers adjoining the courtyard included a raised platform of brick set into the floor in front of a niche, a feature which showed that the chamber was a chapel (Room 12, see FIGURES 5-6). Enough was known of Neo-Babylonian temples for Koldewey to be aware that this modest affair was a cult-room but could not be the principal shrine of the temple, so he dubbed Room 12 'Cella C' and proposed that it be identified with the chapel of the god Ea, Marduk's father, and further with the sanctuary of Serapis which, according to Arrian, was visited by the generals of Alexander the Great as he lay dying (Koldewey 1911: 43).

This romantic view remained unchallenged until the recent discovery of a text which speaks of a 'throne-dais |an emplacement for a divine statue~ which is situated in the chapel of the god Ninurta off the courtyard, on the north wall opposite the doorway', and identifies it with the dais of the god Asarre, an aspect of Marduk (George 1992: text no. 6, l. 31). Such a description implies that the chapel of Ninurta was adjacent to the north side of a courtyard, and that it was reached by a doorway pierced in the south wall of the chapel, opposite the divine statue. It is a fortunate coincidence that the entire north side of the central courtyard of E-sangil was exposed by Koldewey's pit, together with the chambers behind it, one of these being Room 12. As can be seen from the plan, the lay-out of this chamber accords exactly with the text: the brick platform lies against its niche on the north wall of the chapel, exactly opposite the doorway (gate l) leading to the courtyard. So Room 12 is now positively identified as 'the chapel of Ninurta off the courtyard', and its platform as the emplacement for a statue of Marduk in his manifestation as Asarre.

Pleasing as it is to make this identification, it is not all that the texts tell us about this chamber. The text 'Tintir = Babylon' includes as Tablet II a list of 'seats' of the gods in E-sangil, many of which are pedestals for divine symbols. These symbols were modest but effective representations of the great divine powers of the universe, and before them offerings were made as to the gods themselves. Certainly two, probably three of these small shrines are associated by the text -- which remains fragmentary -- with a chapel of Ninurta. Two are inside the chapel, and these form a natural pair, being dedicated to all the gods collectively in their traditional divisions of Igigi, the gods of heaven, and Anunnaki, the gods of the underworld. A third, dedicated to a deity whose name is broken, was apparently situated outside in the courtyard. The Sumerian ceremonial names of all three shrines, E-umusha-Asalluhi, E-abzu-Asalluhi and E-arazu-gishtuku-Asalluhi, pay homage to the god Marduk in his name Asalluhi, a variant form of Asarre, who is, of course, the resident of the chapel's throne-dais. Another text, still unpublished, tells us that the statue of Asarre in the chapel of Ninurta was the third of seven statues of Marduk in Babylon, and that it was made of marhushu, an imported stone of some rarity. So the bare and empty chamber exposed by Koldewey is now identified as a secondary cult-room of Marduk, given a name and populated with divine inhabitants. It becomes easier to envisage the activities that went on in this chamber, as the gods were attended in the semi-darkness by a select band of priests chosen to conduct in secret the sacred rituals of the temple. E-sangil is not the only excavated structure at Babylon about which we now have detailed documentary evidence, but before passing on to another it would be sensible to use Marduk's temple to highlight a problem which draws attention to the limitations of the material. A metrological text found at Asshur in Assyria and first translated by Eckhard Unger (Unger 1931: 250-52) purports to present the exterior and interior dimensions of E-sangil, chamber by chamber, as seen in two cross-sections of the temple building. The fragment edited by Unger has been joined to a second fragment and reedited (George 1992: text no. 14), and despite the still very fragmentary state of the tablet, significant new data are now recovered. Most importantly, the overall external dimension of the temple building on its longer side is given as 170 cubits, which is the equivalent of about 85 metres -- there are almost exactly two Neo-Babylonian cubits to the metre. This figure tallies extremely well with the result obtained by archaeology: the mean length of the longer east and west fronts of the excavated Neo-Babylonian temple is 86 m. This agreement also confirms what is suspected on other evidence, that the cross-section with the overall dimension of 170 cubits is that of the axis running roughly south-north. Confirmation of the accuracy of the text's data is provided by the dimensions of the central courtyard. In the south-north cross-section of the text this space, known appropriately as the Court of Bel (Bel is a title of the god Marduk), is measured at 77 cubits, or about 38.5 m. The excavators' mean length is 37.535 m. However, there the correspondence between the documentary and the archaeological evidence ceases. Insofar as the ancient measurements are preserved, the size, number and lay-out of the rooms along the two cross-sections of the text do not always agree with the archaeological record. There are a number of explanations that could account for this discrepancy. First, the text may be corrupt. Second, the ground-plan retrieved by Koldewey's tunnelling workmen may be inaccurate: mud-brick walls are not always easy to distinguish from fill, even under the most favourable conditions. But third, and most likely, is the possibility that text and archaeology bear witness to different rebuildings of the temple. On this hypothesis the text describes the temple as it was at some time before its final rebuilding, since the temple excavated is E-sangil in obviously the most recent of successive reconstructions, major and minor.

The last wholesale rebuilding of Marduk's temple was the initiative of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, who commissioned the project at the beginning of his reign (680-669 BC). The further work recorded by his successor, Asshurbanipal (668-627 BC), and later by the Chaldaean king Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC), comprised the completion, embellishment and final refurbishment of the temple, without, as it seems, major structural alterations. As is well known, Esarhaddon's comprehensive rebuilding of the temple was made necessary by the destructive rage of his father Sennacherib, who razed Babylon and its temples in 689 BC in the effort to achieve a final solution to the enduring political problem of his reign, the insubmissiveness of the Babylonians. The metrological text -- which dates to the 8th or 7th centuries, but no later than 614 BC, when the city of Asshur was sacked by the Medes -- is thus best seen as describing the temple as it was before the devastation wrought by Sennacherib. The temple is of the same overall dimensions as that rebuilt by Esarhaddon, and major features such as the central courtyard are also of like size, but the disposition of the lesser chambers and service rooms is different. It was the custom of royal rebuilders of temples in the Neo-Babylonian period to keep exactly to the former dimensions of the structure in question, for both practical and cosmological reasons, and Esarhaddon does indeed remark that he rebuilt E-sangil to its previous design: I laid its foundation platform directly on top of its ancient footings, according to its original plan: I did not fall short by one cubit, nor did I overshoot by half a cubit.

These words do not preclude the possibility that the interior plan of the temple underwent some alterations. The lesson of a comparison of the archaeological with the documentary evidence is that this possibility has become a distinct probability.

As useful to our purpose as the texts which treat E-sangil is another metrological text: one which, when complete, described the circuit of the inner walls of Babylon in great detail (George 1992: text no. 15). The fragment that we have, which is Neo-Babylonian, covers the southeastern section of the wall, from the Zababa Gate to the River Euphrates, and, less informatively, part of the western wall. The measurements given in the text for the landmarks to be found on the wall are precise. Thus a distance of 7611/2 cubits, a figure roughly equal to 380 m, separates the Urash Gate from a sanctuary of the god Zariqu, while another cultic location, a chapel or temple of the goddess Gula, is reported to lie between the sanctuary of Zariqu and the Zababa Gate (though here the relevant measurements are not extant). The stretch of wall in question, running from the Zababa Gate to the river, has only been partly excavated. Three sections have been examined: one from the Zababa Gate to a little way past the corner of the wall in the east, now in part restored by the Iraqi authorities; a short section of less than 100 m midway along the southeastern stretch; and the final section of about 275 m to the Urash Gate and 90 m beyond it, to the river walls. Where they can be compared the ancient figures in cubits tally very closely with the results of the modern survey, and this gives us confidence in the other data presented in the text. The implications of the text for archaeology ought to be that one could very easily find the sanctuary of Zariqu, even if only traces of its foundations, by reference to the measurement given in the text. The temple of Gula ought not to be too hard to locate, either, some way further east. Another benefit to be gained from this text is the settlement once and for all of the question of whether there was a gate in an intermediate position on this stretch of wall, between those of Zababa and Urash. Unger maintained, on very slender evidence, if any, that somewhere here was the location of the Enlil Gate, and most plans of the city slavishly reproduce his idea. But in the text all the landmarks that fall between the Zababa and Urash Gates are preserved; there is no room for a third gate. So there can be no point in looking for the Enlil Gate -- or any other -- on this stretch of the city wall. This discovery confirms what was already suspected, that the order of the city gates given in Tablet V of the text 'Tintir = Babylon' is topographical, and follows the wall along its circuit from the east bank at the Urash Gate to the west bank at the Shamash Gate.

If these cases are clear examples of philology coming to the aid of archaeology the balance can be redressed by other data presented in the same text. The point where the eastern city wall meets the southern end of the river wall was very carefully examined and planned by Koldewey's team. Their results were plotted by Wetzel, whose plan is adapted as FIGURE 7. The plan shows the inner city wall -- a double fortification comprising the wall proper, Imgur-Enlil, fronted by a secondary rampart, Nimitti-Enlil -- terminating at a slightly oblique angle to the river 90 m west of the Urash Gate, just short of the quay wall of Nabopolassar. This wall was abutted on the river side by a second quay wall, constructed by Nabopolassar's successor, Nebuchadnezzar II. The gap between the ends of twin ramparts of the city wall and the inner face of Nabopolassar's quay wall can be read from the sections as varying between about 6.6 m and 5.2 m. According to Section A-A the width of the upper part of Nabopolassar's wall appears to be just over 3.3 m, and the width of the upper part of Nebuchadnezzar's wall is a little over 2.8 m. The two quay walls are separated by a step on the outer side of the foundations of Nabopolassar's wall, which measures about 1.6 m. Some 32 m beyond this double wall Nabonidus, the last Chaldaean king of Babylon, built another, much larger, river wall. So much for the archaeological evidence. The metrological text presents the figure of 181 cubits as the measurement of the wall from the Urash Gate to its terminus, which at a ratio of 2:1 is a very good equivalent to the figure obtained by the excavators. Then comes a structure of which the name is broken, 'the . . . of the quay', with the note that 'it is left free', i.e. a space empty of fortification. The measurement at the beginning of the line is lost, but clearly this is the gap observed by the excavators between the end of the city wall and the side of the quay wall. The breadth of the quay wall is given next, and at 6 1/2 cubits it is passingly accurate in comparison with the figure of 3.3 m extracted from Wetzel's section. The text then continues with a measurement, again lost, for a structure that is also broken but must be '|the base of the~ quay', i.e. the step in the wall's foundation. It then gives 208 cubits, about 104 m, as the distance from the 'base of the quay to the Euphrates', an unoccupied area which must have comprised sloping mud foreshore for most of the year, but which was necessary in spring and early summer to accommodate a river swollen with floodwater. From a comparison of the two sets of data, archaeological and documentary, it is clear that the situation described in the metrological text is that which obtained before the construction of Nebuchadnezzar's supplementary quay wall, not to mention Nabonidus's river wall. The building of the quay wall on the east bank of the Euphrates was one of the great works of Nabopolassar's reign, and although upstream in the palace area excavations revealed the remains of an earlier quay built by Sargon II of Assyria (who ruled Babylon 709-705 BC), it may be that he was the first king to consolidate the entire riverbank in this way (on the river defences of Babylon see George 1992: 352-6). It seems very likely that the metrological text is an accurate survey of the state of the defences of Babylon at the end of the reign of Nabopolassar, or at the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. Quite possibly this survey was commissioned in his first regnal year, 604 BC, or thereabouts, by Nebuchadnezzar as a prelude to his much-vaunted continuation of his father's work on the city walls. This, then, is a case where the balance is redressed, and archaeology comes to the aid of philology.

As matters now stand, Babylon is unique among the cities of ancient Mesopotamia in furnishing the evidence necessary to permit detailed studies of the kind illustrated by the examples given here. This is not because of any lack of archaeological material, but results from a bias in documentary sources. Though there are also texts which yield topographical information about other great cities of ancient Mesopotamia, such as Nippur, Uruk and Asshur, the huge majority of the textual evidence that we possess relates to Babylon. The fact that this is so can be put down to two factors, one cultural, the other accidental. First, in the middle and late 1st millennium BC, the period from which come the bulk of the texts of topographical importance, Babylon was the political and religious capital of southern Mesopotamia, and the intellectual capital of the cuneiform world. This elevated status engendered an interest in the city and its features that was certainly more intense than that felt for other centres, and perhaps compares with the modern regard for Jerusalem and Rome. Nevertheless, and here we come to the second factor, the proportion of the extant textual material that comes from Babylon and towns in its immediate vicinity, such as Borsippa and Kish, remains unduly large, even though a century of exploration at other sites has passed since Hormuzd Rassam's workmen uncovered the cuneiform libraries of Babylon. This in itself accounts for the existence in Assyriology of what may be termed the 'Babylon effect', a bias towards the great city stemming from the sheer number of documents that hail from it.

References

BERGAMINI, G. 1977. Levels of Babylon reconsidered, Mesopotamia 12: 111-52.

GEORGE, A.R. 1979. The cuneiform text Tin.|tir.sup.ki~ = Ba-bi-lu and the topography of Babylon, Sumer 35: 226-32.

1986. The topography of Babylon reconsidered, Sumer 44: 7-24

1992. Babylonian topographical texts. Leuven: Peeters. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40.

GURNEY, O.R. 1974. The fifth tablet of the 'Topography of Babylon', Iraq 36: 39-52.

KOLDEWEY, R. 1911. Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. 15th Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 1990. Das wieder erstehende Babylon. 5th edition, ed. Barthel Hrouda. Munich: C.H. Beck. (1st edition 1912. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.)

UNGER, E. 1930. Zur Topographie von Babylon nach der keilinschriftlichen Uberlieferung, in Wetzel 1930, 84-109.

1931. Babylon, die heilige Stadt. Berlin: De Gruyter. (2nd edition 1970, ed. R. Borger.)

WETZEL, F. 1930. Die Stadtmauern von Babylon. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. 48th Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.

1944. Babylon zur Zeit Herodots, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 48: 45-68.

WETZEL, F. & F.H. Weissbach. 1938. Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon, Esagila und Etemenanki. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. 59th Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.
COPYRIGHT 1993 Antiquity Publications, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:George, A.R.
Publication:Antiquity
Date:Dec 1, 1993
Words:5167
Previous Article:The Berlin Wall: production, preservation and consumption of a 20th-century monument.
Next Article:A social prehistory of European languages.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters