These peculiarities confirm so completely the Greek descriptions of the temple of Belus, and of the seven coloured walls of Ecbatana, that we may feel confident of having a nearly perfect restoration of at least one of the principal forms of Babylonian temples.

The inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar mention, besides this temple at Borsippa, several others, which he considered as more important. As all traces of these, however, are lost, it is probable that they were of a different form, perhaps more like the temples of Egypt or Greece, but constructed of more perishable materials. If of the same pyramidal form as this, such great masses could hardly have disappeared.

Another small temple of the same form, but only three stories in height, has been discovered at Mugheyr, in Southern Babylonia. It is principally interesting as confirming in every respect what has been said of the form and plan of that of Borsippa, which, though explored to a considerable extent by Colonel Rawlinson, has not been so completely excavated as to render all the details absolutely certain without confirmation from other quarters.

Contemporaneous with these discoveries is that of a bas-relief woodcut No. 127) of a temple rising in diminishing stages, which,

though the upper story is destroyed, curiously illustrates this subject. The temple itself seems to stand on an artificial mound. The base is panelled; a niche is shown on the upper platform; and it has all the peculiarities which have been alluded to in those temples we have just been describing.

These details enable us to realise to some extent what we learn from the Greeks of the great city of Babylon. It is certainly to be regretted that they are not more complete, for, though it is scarcely probable that the edifices of Babylon, as rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar, were either more extensive or more beautiful than those of Nineveh, still it is the city best known from the descriptions of the Greeks and of the sacred writings, so that we could more easily test the knowledge acquired from the excavations. Babylon was also the capital of the empire contemporary with Persepolis and Passargadæ, and thus her palaces formed the link that would enable us to connect, in a satisfactory manner, the edifices and architecture of Assyria with those of Persia.

20

English Feet.

G

回

0000

DDDDD

14.10

PLAN

128.

Elevation of Wall at Wurka.

From the Report of the Assyrian Excavation Fund.

Knowing as we now do, from the inscriptions on the bricks, that none of the buildings now existing in or about Babylon are older than the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, it is evident that they never could have possessed either the historical or æsthetic value of the long series of bas-reliefs which adorned the palaces of the upper valley of the Tigris; and although we may regret having recovered so little of the famous city of Babylon, we may rest assured that by far the most valuable portion of the antiquities of Assyria is that which has already been exhumed in the Northern province.

The only other city of Babylonia which has yielded any important architectural results is Wurka, situated in the marshes to the south of Babylon. The mounds here are of immense extent, but composed principally of coffins and tombs, supposed to be of the Sassanian age, the place having for centuries been used as a burial-place for the surrounding nations, as Kerbela and Mesjid Ali are at the present day, from some supposed sanctity attached to the spot.

The principal building hitherto explored is a palace called by the natives Wuswus: it is a rectangle 246 ft. by 173, with one entrance, but no other opening in its external wall. Internally it seems to have consisted of one large oblong court, at the upper end of which were the state apartments, and on the left-hand side a series of small chambers, forming the private apartments of the palace.

Externally the whole of the walls were ornamented by reedings and panels, like those of the newly discovered building at Khorsabad, or the base of the Birs Nimroud.

Another building, called Bonarieh, was ornamented in a similar manner, but with this additional peculiarity, that the walls were covered with a mosaic formed of small cones, the bases of which were dipped in colours, and arranged in various patterns, as shown in the woodcut (No. 128). The style of ornament is elegant, and was probably the same as that painted on the plaster of the walls of the other buildings, and which has consequently perished from the lapse of time.

CHAPTER II.

PERSIA.

Buildings at Passargada

CONTENTS.

General appearance of Ruins at Persepolis - Propylæa→ Palace and Tomb of Darius - Halls of Xerxes - Susa - Fire Temples - Tomb of Cyrus.

FROM the time of Nebuchadnezzar the history of this style of architecture is continued in a direct line for about two centuries and a half by the Persians, who succeeded to the arts, as well as to the empire, of the Babylonians. Their monarchs frequently resided at Babylon, and no doubt added to its buildings; but their own first capital was Passargada, where Cyrus and Cambyses resided from 560 B.c. to 522. This was succeeded by Istakr, or Persepolis, which was the principal capital of Darius Hystaspes, of Xerxes, and of all the kings of the Achæmenian dynasty, though they all certainly resided occasionally at Susa, and erected edifices there equal to those of their native metropolis, if not surpassing them in splendour.

Besides these, remains of the architecture of the Achæmenidæ are found at Hamadan, and even as far north as Teheran; but the principal buildings are at Persepolis and its neighbourhood, which was the favourite residence of these monarchs during the most brilliant period of the dynasty.

The woodcuts in this chapter, except the restorations, are taken from Flandin and Coste's Perse Ancienne, except where the contrary is mentioned.

In their present state the remains at Passargada are, perhaps, more interesting to the antiquary than to the architect, the palaces on the plain being so ruined that their architectural arrangements cannot be understood or restored.

On the side of a hill overlooking the plain is a platform of masonry (woodcut 129) which originally supported either a temple or fire-altar, but this has now entirely disappeared, and the structure is only remarkable for the beauty of its masonry and the largeness of the stones with which it is built. These are bevilled (woodcut 130) not only at their joints but often on their faces with the same flat sinking as is found in all the Jewish works at Jerusalem, and sometimes in Greek buildings of the best age. Thus an ornament of great beauty and elegance is formed out of what would otherwise be merely a plain mass of masonry.

On the plain are the foundations of several large buildings, probably palaces, temples, or basilicas, but all so completely destroyed that it is now impossible to say what their original form or destination may have been. One pillar only is now standing, a plain shaft, without capital or base, and more like an Indian lât than a column destined to support a roof.

PERSEPOLIS.

Turning from these scattered remains, we find on the great terraced platform at Persepolis by far the most remarkable group of ancient buildings now existing in this part of Asia. It so happens that the ruins at Persepolis are an exact complement to the style described in the last chapter, supplying what was there wanting, and enabling us to understand much that would probably for ever have remained a mystery without it.

At Nineveh, as we have seen, all the pillars, the roofs, and the constructive parts of the building, which were of wood, have disappeared, and left nothing but the massive walls, which, falling, and being heaped the one on the other, have buried themselves and their ornaments till the present day. At Persepolis, on the contrary, the brick walls, being thinner and exposed on the bare surface of the naked rock, have been washed away by the storms and rains of 2000 years, leaving only the skeletons of the buildings, but which fortunately in the rocky country of Persia the architect constructed of stone. We have thus at Persepolis, if I may use the expression, all the bones of the building, but without the flesh; at Nineveh, the flesh, but without the bones that gave it form and substance. At the same time there are still so many points common to both styles as to leave no doubt of their identity, and to enable us to complete the whole by putting together the two sets of materials. The principal discrepancy appears to have been in the purposes to which the buildings were appropriated; those at Nineveh being residences, though it may be sacred residences, of the kings; while those at Persepolis partook certainly more of the temple character. The latter were all separate halls of state, appropriated to the great ceremonial pageants of royalty,