Explorations in Bible lands during the 19th century - H. V. Hilprecht

DURING 19TU CENTURY: ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA 233
preserved ruin 1 goes far to explain the detached walls unearthed
in the lower strata of Tello.
With the exception of the Seleucido-Parthian building
just described, the few but important remains of Eninnu
and the ingeniously constructed brick columns of Gudea
above (p. ill) referred to, De Sarzec's excavations had so
far been comparatively unproductive of noteworthy architectural
results. They were more interesting and truly
epoch-making in
their bearing upon our knowledge of the
origin and development of ancient Babylonian art.
For the
rubbish which filled the chambers and halls of the palace
not only contained the ordinary pottery, iron instruments,
perforated stone seals in the forms of animals, 2 and other
objects characteristic of the last centuries preceding the
Christian era, but it also yielded numerous door-sockets of
Gudea and Ur-Bau re-used later in part, inscribed vases and
mace-heads, a large quantity of seal cylinders, 3 principally
1
Comp. mv " Report from Nuffar to the Committee of the Babyl. Exped.
in Philadelphia," April zi, 1900, from which I quote: " The building described
by Peters and Haynes as the temple of Bel is only a huge Parthian
fortress lying on the top of the ancient temple ruin, and so constructed that
the upper stages of the ziggurrat served as a kind of citadel."
2
Found under the alabaster threshold in the inner gate of the southwest
side of the palace, where, in accordance with a custom frequently observed in
Assyrian buildings, thev evidently had been placed as talismans. The fine
Sommerville collection of talismans in the Archaeological Museum of the University
of Pennsylvania contains a large number of similar Parthian stone
seals.
3 Likewise serving as talismans against demons and their obnoxious influences.
This interesting use of ancient Babylonian seal-cylinders, cuneiform
tablets, and other inscribed objects by the later inhabitants of the country explains
why they occur so frequently in Parthian tombs (comp. my remarks on
pp. 154, seq., 168, above, and De Sarzec and Heuzey, D'ecouvertes, p. 73,
note 1). But it also illustrates how impossible it is to use such finds without
criticism as material for determining the age of tombs in Babylonian ruins, as
unfortunately was done by Peters in his '« Nippur," vol. ii, p. 219. Peters'
classification of Babylonian coffins and pottery cannot be taken seriously,