DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0189
Bk. II. Cu. I.
INTEODU CTORY.
153
They were struck down in their turn by the kings of Babylonia,
who established the second Ohaldean kingdom about the year 625, but
only to give place to the Persians under Cyrus in the year 538, after
little more than a century of duration.
As in the Yalley of the Nile, the first kingdom was established
near the mouths of the Euphrates, and flourished there for centuries
before it was superseded by- the kingdom of Mneveh, in the same
manner as Thebes had succeeded to the earlier seat of power in the
neighbourhood of Memphis.
Owing to the fortunate employment of sculptured alabaster slabs
to line the walls of the palaces during the great period of Assyrian
prosperity, we are enabled to restore the plan of the royal palaces of
that period with perfect certainty, and in consequence of the still more
fortunate introduction of stone masonry during the Persian period—
after they had come into contact with the Greeks—we can understand
the construction of these builclings, and restore the form of many parts
which, being originally of wood, have perishecl. The Plains of Shinar
possessed no natural building material of a durable nature, and even
wood or fuel of any kind seems to have been so scarce that the
architects were content too frequently to resort to the use of bricks
only dried in the sun. The consequence is that the buildings of the
early Chaldeans are now generally shapeless masses, the plans of
which it is often extremely clifficult to follow, and in no instance
has any edifice been cliscovered so complete that we can feel quite
sure we really know all about it. Portunately, however, the temples
at Wurka and Mugheyr become intelligible by comparison with the
Birs Nimroud and the so-callecl tomb of Cyrus, ancl the palaces of
Nineveh and Khorsabad from the corresponding ones at Susa and
Persepolis. Consequently, if we attempt to stucly the architecture of
Chaldea, of Assyria, or of Persia, as separate styles, we find them so
fragmentary, owing to the imperfection of the materials in which
they were carried out, that it is difficult to understancl their forms.
But taken as the successive developments of one great style, the
whole becomes easily intelligible ; and had the southern excavations
been conclucted with a little more care, there is perhaps no feature
that would have been capable of satisfactory explanation. Even
as it is, however, the explorations of the last fifteen years have
enabled us to take a very comprehensive view of what the archi-
tecture of the valley of the Euphrates was during the 2000 years it
remained a great independent monarchy. It is a chapter in the
history of the art which is entirely new to us, and which may lead
to the most important results in clearing our ideas as to the origin
of styles. Unfortunately, it is only in a scientific sense that this is
true. Except the buildings at Persepolis, everything is buried or
heapecl together in such confusion that the passing traveller sees
INTEODU CTORY.
153
They were struck down in their turn by the kings of Babylonia,
who established the second Ohaldean kingdom about the year 625, but
only to give place to the Persians under Cyrus in the year 538, after
little more than a century of duration.
As in the Yalley of the Nile, the first kingdom was established
near the mouths of the Euphrates, and flourished there for centuries
before it was superseded by- the kingdom of Mneveh, in the same
manner as Thebes had succeeded to the earlier seat of power in the
neighbourhood of Memphis.
Owing to the fortunate employment of sculptured alabaster slabs
to line the walls of the palaces during the great period of Assyrian
prosperity, we are enabled to restore the plan of the royal palaces of
that period with perfect certainty, and in consequence of the still more
fortunate introduction of stone masonry during the Persian period—
after they had come into contact with the Greeks—we can understand
the construction of these builclings, and restore the form of many parts
which, being originally of wood, have perishecl. The Plains of Shinar
possessed no natural building material of a durable nature, and even
wood or fuel of any kind seems to have been so scarce that the
architects were content too frequently to resort to the use of bricks
only dried in the sun. The consequence is that the buildings of the
early Chaldeans are now generally shapeless masses, the plans of
which it is often extremely clifficult to follow, and in no instance
has any edifice been cliscovered so complete that we can feel quite
sure we really know all about it. Portunately, however, the temples
at Wurka and Mugheyr become intelligible by comparison with the
Birs Nimroud and the so-callecl tomb of Cyrus, ancl the palaces of
Nineveh and Khorsabad from the corresponding ones at Susa and
Persepolis. Consequently, if we attempt to stucly the architecture of
Chaldea, of Assyria, or of Persia, as separate styles, we find them so
fragmentary, owing to the imperfection of the materials in which
they were carried out, that it is difficult to understancl their forms.
But taken as the successive developments of one great style, the
whole becomes easily intelligible ; and had the southern excavations
been conclucted with a little more care, there is perhaps no feature
that would have been capable of satisfactory explanation. Even
as it is, however, the explorations of the last fifteen years have
enabled us to take a very comprehensive view of what the archi-
tecture of the valley of the Euphrates was during the 2000 years it
remained a great independent monarchy. It is a chapter in the
history of the art which is entirely new to us, and which may lead
to the most important results in clearing our ideas as to the origin
of styles. Unfortunately, it is only in a scientific sense that this is
true. Except the buildings at Persepolis, everything is buried or
heapecl together in such confusion that the passing traveller sees