DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26747#0228
1G4
rVSSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE.
Book IY.
At Snsa, Artaxerxes Mnemon erectecl or restored a great liall, very
similar to tlrat at Persepolis ; and, as far as Ecbatana and Teiieran,
remains are fonnd of tliis great Tersian style, wh.icli closes tlie first
series of the architectnral monuments of Assyria.
Contemporary with the Assyrian period are the buildings of
Solomon at Jerusalem, and contemporary with the Persian arose that
peculiar style of imitating wooden erections in stone which prevailed
all over Lycia and the southern provinces of Asia Minor. To the
same age also belong the rock-cut sculptures of Doganlu, and those of
Pterium : and no doubt many curious fragments of architectural anti-
quity still remain to be examined in the recesses of the almost
unexplored countries of Asia Minor. These, however, are the prin-
cipal of those which are found during the ten centuries that elapsed
between Ninus and Alexander the Great.
With the Macedonian conquest, all originality in art ceased for
nearly five centuries in tlie valley of the Euplirates. The Greeks, it
is true, built nobly in their own Ionian provinces, but it was in their
own style. Syria was adorned with the still extant ruins of Baalbec
and Palmyra, and almost every city of Asia Minor bears traces of
Roman magnificence, but all in the Roman style. Indeed, with the
one exception of the ruins of AI Pladhr, not one single edifice is known
which was erected between the time of Alexander (b.c. 323) and that
of the first Sassanian Axdeshir (a.d. 223), wliich has any claim to be
called native, either in style or arrangement, and even this can hardly
claim to rank higher than bastard Roman. At Diarbekir, it is said,
there are some other remaius of the same age, but they have not yet
been delineated.
During the Sassanian period (a.d. 223 to 632) a slight revival took
place in the native style of architecture. It was neither, it must be
confessed, very original nor very beautiful, but still it is int.eresting as
a transitional style, contributing many features found in the Saracenic,
and still more in the Christian styles of Armenia and the neighbouring
countries. So that, although it may not itself be worthy of much
attention, still, as the last of the native styles of the great architectural
province, and as the first of the modem styles that took shape and
consistency in these Eastern provinces in the middle ages, it should
not be passed over without much more attention than has hitherto been
bestowed upou it. It, liowever, belongs more properlv to a subsequent
chapter, and will be more appropriately treated, as well as more easily
understood, after reviewing the architecture of the Romans, many
feafures of which are found in this Eastern style.
The remarkable absence of sacred or monumental buildings at
Nineveh, or in t.he other Assyrian palaces, has already been alluded to.
The pyramid at Nimroud, at one time supposed to be atornb, resembles
so closely the description by Greek writers of the temple of Belus at
Babylon, and is so like what we now know of Babylonian temples, tliat
it may almost certainly be classed among them. Setting, therefore,
this structure aside, there are no sepulchres, no representation of
funeral rites, nothing to show that the Assyrians cared for their dead,
rVSSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE.
Book IY.
At Snsa, Artaxerxes Mnemon erectecl or restored a great liall, very
similar to tlrat at Persepolis ; and, as far as Ecbatana and Teiieran,
remains are fonnd of tliis great Tersian style, wh.icli closes tlie first
series of the architectnral monuments of Assyria.
Contemporary with the Assyrian period are the buildings of
Solomon at Jerusalem, and contemporary with the Persian arose that
peculiar style of imitating wooden erections in stone which prevailed
all over Lycia and the southern provinces of Asia Minor. To the
same age also belong the rock-cut sculptures of Doganlu, and those of
Pterium : and no doubt many curious fragments of architectural anti-
quity still remain to be examined in the recesses of the almost
unexplored countries of Asia Minor. These, however, are the prin-
cipal of those which are found during the ten centuries that elapsed
between Ninus and Alexander the Great.
With the Macedonian conquest, all originality in art ceased for
nearly five centuries in tlie valley of the Euplirates. The Greeks, it
is true, built nobly in their own Ionian provinces, but it was in their
own style. Syria was adorned with the still extant ruins of Baalbec
and Palmyra, and almost every city of Asia Minor bears traces of
Roman magnificence, but all in the Roman style. Indeed, with the
one exception of the ruins of AI Pladhr, not one single edifice is known
which was erected between the time of Alexander (b.c. 323) and that
of the first Sassanian Axdeshir (a.d. 223), wliich has any claim to be
called native, either in style or arrangement, and even this can hardly
claim to rank higher than bastard Roman. At Diarbekir, it is said,
there are some other remaius of the same age, but they have not yet
been delineated.
During the Sassanian period (a.d. 223 to 632) a slight revival took
place in the native style of architecture. It was neither, it must be
confessed, very original nor very beautiful, but still it is int.eresting as
a transitional style, contributing many features found in the Saracenic,
and still more in the Christian styles of Armenia and the neighbouring
countries. So that, although it may not itself be worthy of much
attention, still, as the last of the native styles of the great architectural
province, and as the first of the modem styles that took shape and
consistency in these Eastern provinces in the middle ages, it should
not be passed over without much more attention than has hitherto been
bestowed upou it. It, liowever, belongs more properlv to a subsequent
chapter, and will be more appropriately treated, as well as more easily
understood, after reviewing the architecture of the Romans, many
feafures of which are found in this Eastern style.
The remarkable absence of sacred or monumental buildings at
Nineveh, or in t.he other Assyrian palaces, has already been alluded to.
The pyramid at Nimroud, at one time supposed to be atornb, resembles
so closely the description by Greek writers of the temple of Belus at
Babylon, and is so like what we now know of Babylonian temples, tliat
it may almost certainly be classed among them. Setting, therefore,
this structure aside, there are no sepulchres, no representation of
funeral rites, nothing to show that the Assyrians cared for their dead,