parallel of Babylon, according to the description given by Herodotus,
might fairly have been cited as a further argument; since it might have
seemed reasonable to suppose that there was no great difference of size
between the chief cities of the two kindred empires.

Attractive, however, as this theory is from its grandeur, and harmonious
as it must be allowed to be with the reports of the Greeks, we have
nevertheless to reject it on two grounds, the one historical and the
other topographical. The ruins of Khorsabad, Keremles, Nimrud, and
Koyunjik bear on their bricks distinct local titles; and these titles
are found attaching to distinct cities in the historical inscriptions.
Nimrud, as already observed, is Calah; and Khorsabad is Dur-Sargina, or
"the city of Sargon." Keremles has also its own appellation Dur-* * *,
"the city of the God [--]." Now the Assyrian writers do not consider
these places to be parts of Nineveh, but speak of them as distinct and
separate cities. Calah for a long time is the capital, while Nineveh is
mentioned as a provincial town. Dur-Sargina is built by Sargon, not at
Nineveh, but "near to Nineveh." Scripture, it must be remembered,
similarly distinguishes Calah as a place separate from Nineveh, and so
far from it that there was room for "a great city" between them. And the
geographers, while they give the name of Aturia or Assyria Proper to the
country about the one town, call the region which surrounds the other by
a distinct name, Calachene. Again, when the country is closely examined,
it is found, not only that there are no signs of any continuous town
over the space included within the four sites of Nimrud, Keremles.
Khorsabad, and Koyunjik, nor any remains of walls or ditches connecting
them, but that the four sites themselves are as carefully fortified on
what, by the theory we are examining, would be the inside of the city as
in other directions. It perhaps need scarcely be added, unless to meet
the argument drawn from Diodorus, that the four sites in question are