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.

That the mound of Babil is the _ziggurat_ or tower of a Babylonian
temple scarcely admits of a doubt. Its square shape, its solid
construction, its isolated grandeur, its careful emplacement with the
sides facing the cardinal points, and its close resemblance to other
known Babylonian temple-towers, sufficiently mark it for a building
of this character, or at any rate raise a presumption which it would
require very strong reasons indeed to overcome. Its size moreover
corresponds well with the accounts which have come down to us of the
dimensions of the Belus temple, and its name and proximity to the other
main ruins show that it belonged certainly to the ancient capital.
Against its claim to be regarded as the remains of the temple of