'Narrative of a journey to the site of Babylon in 1811, now first published: memoir on the ruins; with engravings from the original sketches by the author: remarks on the topography of ancient Babylon, by Major Rennell; in reference to the memoir: second memoir on the ruins; in reference to Major Rennell's remarks: with narrative of a journey to Persepolis: now first printed, with hitherto unpublished cuneiform inscriptions copied at Persepolis: by the late Claudius James Rich, Esq., formerly the Resident of the Hon. East India Company at Bagdad. Edited by his widow.' [‎141] (229/474)

RUINS OF BABYLON.
141
portunity of supplying some of the deficiencies of my
former Memoir, and possibly of throwing some new
light on the subject.
The sum of Major Rennell'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
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 Major
Rennell 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 liver 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 change
in the river as Major Rennell imagines. The sup-