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