While the Egyptian temple was spread superficially over a large area, the Chalæan temple strove to attain as high an elevation as possible. The “ziggurats,” whose angular profile is a special characteristic of the landscapes of the Euphrates, were composed of several immense cubes, piled up on one another, and diminishing in size up to the small shrine by which they were crowned and wherein the god himself was supposed to dwell. There are two principal types of these ziggurats. In the first, for which the builders of Lower Chaldæa showed a marked preference, the vertical axis, common to all the superimposed stories, did not pass through the centre of the rectangle which served as the base of the whole building; it was carried back and placed near to one of the narrow ends of the base, so that the back elevation of the temple rose abruptly in steep narrow ledges above the plain, while the terraces of the front broadened out into wide platforms. The stories are composed of solid blocks of crude brick; up to the present, at least, no traces of internal chambers have been found.* The chapel on the summit could not contain more than one apartment: an altar stood before the door, and access to it was obtained by a straight external staircase, interrupted at each terrace by a more or less spacious landing.** The second type of temple frequently found in Northern Chaldæa was represented by a building on a square base with seven stories, all of equal height, connected by one or two lateral staircases, having on the summit, the pavilion of the god; this is the “terraced tower” which excited the admiration of the Greeks at Babylon, and of which the temple of Bel was the most remarkable example. The ruins of it still exist, but it has been so frequently and so completely restored in the course of ages, that it is impossible to say how much now remains of the original construction. We know of several examples, however, of the other type of ziggurat—one at Uru, another at Bridu, a third at Uruk, without mentioning those which have not as yet been methodically explored. None of them rises directly from the surface of the ground, but they are all built on a raised platform, which consequently places the foundations of the temple nearly on a level with the roofs of the surrounding houses. The raised platform of the temple of Nannar at Uru still measures 20 feet in height, and its four angles are orientated exactly to the four cardinal points. Its façade was approached by an inclined plane, or by a flight of low steps, and the summit, which was surrounded by a low balustrade, was paved with enormous burnt bricks. On this terrace, processions at solemn festivals would have ample space to perform their evolutions. The lower story of the temple occupies a parallelogram of 198 feet in length by 173 feet in width, and rises about 27 feet in height.
* Perrot-Ohipiez admit that between the first and second
story there was a sort of plinth seven feet in height which
corresponded to the foundation platform below the first
story. It appears to me, as it did to Loftus, that the slope
which now separates the two vertical masses of brickwork “is
accidental, and owes its existence to the destruction of the
upper portion of the second story.” Taylor mentions only two
stories, and evidently considers the slope in question to be
a bank of rubbish.
** Perrot-Chipiez place the staircase leading from the
ground-level to the terrace inside the building—“an
arrangement which would have the advantage of not
interfering with the outline of this immense platform, and
would not detract from the strength and solidity of its
appearance;” Reber proposes a different combination. At Uru,
the whole staircase projects in front of the platform and
“loads up to the edge of the basement of the second story,”
then continues as an inclined plane from the edge of the
first story to the terrace of the second, forming one single
staircase, perhaps of the same width as this second story,
leading from the base to the summit of the building.
Drawn by Faucher-Gudin. The restoration differs from that
proposed by Perrot-Chipiez. I have made it by working out
the description taken down on the spot by Taylor.
The central mass of crude brick has preserved its casing of red tiles, cemented with bitumen, almost intact up to the top; it is strengthened by buttresses—nine on the longer and six on the shorter sides—projecting about a foot, which relieve its rather bare surface. The second story rises to the height of only 20 feet above, the first, and when intact could not have been more than 26 to 30 feet high.* Many bricks bearing the stamp of Dungi are found among the materials used in the latest restoration, which took place about the VIth century before our era; they have a smooth surface, are broken here and there by air-holes, and their very simplicity seems to bear witness to the fact that Nabonidos confined himself to the task of merely restoring things to the state in which the earlier kings of Uru had left them.**
Facsimile, by Faucher-Gudin, of the drawing published by
Taylor.
* At the present time 14 feet high, plus 5 feet of rubbish,
119 feet long, 75 feet wide (Loftus, Travels and Researches
in Olialdsea and Susiana, p. 129).
** The cylinders of Nabonidos describing the restoration of
the temple were found at the four angles of the second story
by Taylor.