Page:A History of Art in Chaldæa & Assyria Vol 2.djvu/76

58 A History of Art in Chald/Ea and Assyria Euphrates has been found; we may even be tempted to doubt that it ever existed. 1 But we cannot doubt that the two sections of the town were put in communication one with another by a stone bridge ; the evidence on that point is too clear to admit of question.- The descriptions of the structure give us a high idea of the engineering skill of the Chaldseans. To build such a bridge and insure its stability was no small undertaking. The river at this point is about 600 feet wide, and from twelve to sixteen deep at its deepest part. 3 We need hardly say that for many centuries there has been no bridge over the Euphrates either in the neigh- bourhood of Babylon or at any other point in Mesopotamia. As for the quays, Fresnel found some parts in very good preservation in 1853. 4 At the point where this discovery was made the quay was built of very hard and very red bricks, completely covered with bitumen so as to resist the action of the water for as long as possible. The bricks bore the name of Nabounid, who must have continued the work begun by Nebuchadnezzar. The description given by Herodotus of the way in which Babylon was built and the circulation of its inhabitants provided for must also be taken as applying to the Royal City. " The houses are mostly three and four stories high ; the streets all run in straight lines, not only those parallel to the- river, but also the cross-streets which lead to the waterside. At the river end of these cross-streets are low gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the great gates in the outer wall, of brass and open on the water." 5 We ma)' perhaps form some idea of Babylon from the appear- ance of certain parts of Cairo. Herodotus seems to have been 1 Herodotus says nothing of the tunnel; Diodorus alone mentions it (ii. ix. 2). Sec Oppert on this subject. He believes in its existence {Expedition scientifique, vol. i. p. 193). 2 Herodotus, i. 186; Diodorus, ii. viii. 2. Diodorus, following Ctesias, greatly exaggerates the length of the bridge when he puts it at fifty-five stades (3,032 feet). Even if we admit that the Euphrates, which in ancient times lost less of its waters in the adjoining marshes than it does now, was then considerably wider than at present, we can hardly account for such a difference. On the subject of this bridge see Oppert, Expedition &c, vol. i. pp. 1 91-193. 3 La yard, Discoveries, p. 489. 4 See Oppert, Expedition &c, vol. i. pp. 184, 185. Herodotus mentions these quays (ii. 180, 186). Diodorus (ii. viii. 3), gives them a length of 160 stades (nearly 18e miles), which seems a great exaggeration. 5 Herodotus, i. 180.