'Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society, from September 1850 to June 1852. Edited by the Secretary. Volume X.' [‎69] (202/458)

MEMOIR ON THE “ TIGRIS.”
69
Akbara, tlioiigh but partially noticed in any of the MSS. which
I have been able to see, must have been an important place, if we judge
from the extent of its elevated heaps of ruins alone, and owed its
•i the inspired writers have denounced against fallen Babylon. It requires little foresight,
?! a to depict the destruction of cities situated on the margin of great rivers, such as these,
indeea, ^ vhen the authorities and people are either so absorbed in luxury, or are so
P theticaily indifferent to the destruction annually going on from natural causes alone, as to
&P l ft the necessary precautions for the public safety, which, daily endangered, is unheeded,
^ <di both foreseen and foretold. Universal and sudden ruin must succeed to such neglect,
fifties thus thrown down by the waters are no longer habitable places for man, at least
J na L ’ me t i me to come. While, however, acknowledging the wisdom and inspiration of the
*° r S hets of old, we can hardly help smiling at the zeal of many who have endeavoured to
/Tvelope the accuracy of their predictions, sometimes perhnps at the expense of truth, and
t others regard ess of the ridicule which such morbid narration must excite in persons who
f llow in’the’same path. These thoughts have been suggested by seeing, in a recent excellent
ork (ditto’s Biblical Cyclopaedia, under the head of Babylon), a plate of the “ site of Baby-
lor ’ with a maned lion of the African species proudly occupying the crest of the ruin it pre
tends to represent. Independent of the species being unknown in this country, I am led to
believe that the habits of the animal would not induce him to select so prominent a position
•is the brick summits of these elevated mounds. The learned compiler, however, has been
drawn astray, I consider, by the too forcible description of Sir R. Ker Porter, who distinctly
states to have seen “ two or three majestic lions taking the air upon the heights of the pyramid
of the Birs Nimrud.” Having visited this ruin frequently, at all times of the year, and more
over heard the expressed opinions on this subject from many others who have wandered over
these desolated heaps, I cannot help regtirding t' e excellent and generally accurate traveller’s
« n on s" as nothing more than jackals, or at most hysenas, which certainly are to be found not
only in these ruins, but in abundance in the surrounding country. I do not say the lion doe*
not exist in the vicinity, on the contrary, it is to be found both on the Euphrates and Tigris.
Its habitation,however, is not among the ruins, but in the tamarisk groves that form the strips
of jungle along the margins of these streams ; and perhaps Babylon, from its being occupied
by the modern Hillah —its gardens and cultivated tracts, both above and below the town—is
the least likely place to meet with this animal. I have seen it to the North and to the South
of the historic site, but never in any part usually considered as Babylon Proper. It is a
fallacv, too, to suppose that “ the Arab does not pitch his tent there,” for encampments,
flocks, and cultivation, may be seen in various portions of the open spots of country, parti
cularly during winter, when a shelter is obtained beneath the mounds from the cold NW.
winds. It may be argued that the prophecy alludes to the mounds themselves, if so, as I said
before, inspiration is not needed ; for any one may augur that the Arab will not pitch his tent
upon fractured bricks and broken glass, which, however well adapted as a suitable bed to the
blind zeal of a devotee, but ill accords with Arab notions of ease; for though regardless of
luxury, their camps are not devoid of the comfort a smooth plain will afford, nor indeed d®
these materials of the mounds constitute them the best pastures for cattle, nor—by reason of
the nitre and ammonia in the soils covering old cities—is the earth best suited for vegetation;
yet there is no want of it in the spring and autumn, when the tribes are at peace with the
Government. Sir Ker Porter may have visited these plains when it was not seed-time, and thus
drew his conclusions of the “ ground being naked of vegetation,” too hastily. The description
he gives of the face of the country, “its half clay, half sandy surface being left in ridgy streaks,
like as is often seen on the fiat shores of the sea after the receding of the tide,” being the
actual furrows left by the plough-share of the preceding year, softened down only by the
method of irrigation and the muddy nature of the soil, and not the effect—as he would wish
to convey—of wave-iike rippling caused by a sea of water, though doubtless it is inundated,
and that frequently, but not more so than other lands in both the Euphrates and Tigris—
indeed, less if anything—the sites of old cities being generally, from accumulated debris, on a
higher level than the surrounding country. This aspect of the soil, indeed, is peculiar to the
highly cultivated districts, and in fact, instead of witnessing to their utterly desolate state,
tends to overthrow the conclusions of this observant traveller, and to show that too great a
zeal, although in an excellent cause, may not always carry conviction of ihe truth, while, at
the same time, the spirit of the prophecies may have been sufficiently well carried out, before
our day, to prevent scepticism, or indeed may, for what we know, yet require to be fulfilled.
There are, in sooth, many popular errors abroad relative to the present “ status loei^' of fallen
Babylon, in connexion with some of the solemn denunciations recorded against it in the
pages of Isaiah, (©hap. xiii. v. .20, 21;) and Mr. Rich, in relating the tale of the Chokadar
(page 30,) probably in accordance with the taste of the times, has thrown a degree of credit
upon the existence of satyrs, dragons, and other doleful creatures on the spot, which, with a
bttle inquiry, he would have found—when divested of Oriental exaggeration—applied to the
common hysena of these parts, and to no other beast. The right half of the carcase of this
animal,longitudinally divided, is eaten by the Sunnis, the other portion being considered as
* u clean, in accordance with the law of the Koran, as interpreted by the Sunni sect of Maho-