But if the Kasr represents the palace built by Nebuchadnezzar, as is generally allowed by those who have devoted their attention to the subject, it seems to follow almost as a certainty that the Amran mound is the site of that old palatial edifice to which the erection of Nebuchadnezzar was an addition.  Berosus expressly states that Nebuchadnezzar’s building “adjoined upon” the former palace, a description which is fairly applicable to the Amran mound by means of a certain latitude of interpretation, but which is wholly inapplicable to any of the other ruins.  This argument would be conclusive, even if it stood alone.  It has, however, received an important corroboration in the course of recent researches.  From the Amran mound, and from this part of Babylon only, have monuments been recovered of an earlier date than Nebuchadnezzar.  Here and here alone did the early kings leave memorials of their presence in Babylon; and here consequently, we may presume, stood the ancient royal residence.

If, then, all the principal ruins on the east bank of the river, with the exception of the Babil mound and the long lines marking walls or embankments, be accepted as representing the “great palace” or “citadel” of the classical writers we must recognize in the remains west of the ancient course of the river-the oblong square enclosure and the important building at its south-east angle—­the second or “smaller palace” of Ctesias, which was joined to the larger one, according to that writer, by a bridge and a tunnel.  This edifice, built or at any rate repaired by Neriglissar, lay directly opposite the more ancient part of the eastern palace, being separated from it by the river, which anciently flowed along the western face of the Kasr and Amran mounds.  The exact position of the bridge cannot be fixed.  With regard to the tunnel, it is extremely unlikely that any such construction was ever made.  The “Father of History” is wholly silent on the subject, while he carefully describes the bridge, a work far less extraordinary.  The tunnel rests on the authority of two writers only—­Diodorus and Philostratus—­who both wrote after Babylon was completely ruined.  It was probably one of the imaginations of the inventive Ctesias, from whom Diodorus evidently derived all the main points of his description.

Thus far there is no great difficulty in identifying the existing remains with buildings mentioned by ancient authors; but, at the point to which we are now come, the subject grows exceedingly obscure, and it is impossible to offer more than reasonable conjectures upon the true character of the remaining ruins.  The descriptions of ancient writers would lead us to expect that we should find among the ruins unmistakable traces of the great temple of Belus, and at least some indication of the position occupied by the Hanging Gardens.  These two famous constructions can scarcely, one would think, have wholly perished.  More especially, the Belus temple, which was a stade square, and (according to some) a stade in height, must almost of necessity have a representative among the existing remains.  This, indeed, is admitted on all hands; and the controversy is thereby narrowed to the question, which of two great ruins—­the only two entitled by their size and situation to attention—­has the better right to be regarded as the great and celebrated sanctuary of the ancient Babylon.