ARCHITECTURE AND OTHER ARTS.
“Architecti multarum artium solertes.”--Mos. CHOR. (De Assyriis) i. 15.
The luxury and magnificence of the Assyrians, and the advanced condition
of the arts among them which such words imply, were matters familiar to
the Greeks and Romans, who, however, had little ocular evidence of the
fact, but accepted it upon the strength of a very clear and uniform
tradition. More fortunate than the nations of classical antiquity, whose
comparative proximity to the time proved no advantage to them, we
possess in the exhumed remains of this interesting people a mass of
evidence upon the point, which, although in many respects sadly
incomplete, still enables us to form a judgment for ourselves upon the
subject, and to believe--on better grounds than they possessed--the
artistic genius and multiform ingenuity of the Assyrians. As architects,
as designers, as sculptors, as metallurgists, as engravers, as
upholsterers, as workers in ivory, as glass-blowers, as embroiderers of
dresses, it is evident that they equalled, if they did not exceed, all
other Oriental nations. It is the object of the present chapter to give
some account of their skill in these various respects. Something is now
known of them all; and though in every case there are points still
involved in obscurity, and recourse must therefore be had upon occasion
to conjecture, enough appears certainly made out to justify such an
attempt as the present, and to supply a solid groundwork of fact
valuable in itself, even if it be insufficient to sustain in addition
any large amount of hypothetical superstructure.
The architecture of the Assyrians will naturally engage our attention at
the outset. It is from an examination of their edifices that we have
derived almost all the knowledge which we possess of their progress in
every art; and it is further as architects that they always enjoyed a
special repute among their neighbors. Hebrew and Armenian united with
Greek tradition in representing the Assyrians as notable builders at a
very early time. When Asshur “went forth out of the land of Shinar,” it
was to build cities, one of which is expressly called “a great city.”
When the Armenians had to give an account of the palaces and other vast
structures in their country, they ascribed their erection to the
Assyrians. Similarly. when the Greeks sought to trace the civilization
of Asia to its source, they carried it back to Ninus and Semiramis, whom
they made the founders, respectively, of Nineveh and Babylon, the two
chief cities of the early world.
Among the architectural works of the Assyrians, the first place is
challenged by their palaces. Less religious, or more servile, than the
Egyptians and the Greeks, they make their temples insignificant in
comparison with the dwellings of their kings, to which indeed the temple
is most commonly a sort of appendage. In the palace their art
culminates--there every effort is made, every ornament lavished. If the
architecture of the Assyrian palaces be fully considered, very little
need be said on the subject of their other buildings.
The Assyrian palace stood uniformly on an artificial platform. Commonly
this platform was composed of sun-dried-bricks in regular layers; but
occasionally the material used was merely earth or rubbish, excepting
towards the exposed parts--the sides and the surface which were always
either of brick or of stone. In most cases the sides were protected by
massive stone masonry, carried perpendicularly from the natural ground
to a height somewhat exceeding that of the plat-form, and either made
plain at the top or else crowned with stone battlements cut into
gradines. The pavement consisted in part of stone slabs, part of
kiln-dried bricks of a large size, often as much as two feet square. The
stone slabs were sometimes inscribed, sometimes ornamented with an
elegant pattern. (See [PLATE XLI., Fig. 2.]) Occasionally the terrace
was divided into portions at different elevations, which were connected
by staircases or inclined planes. The terrace communicated in the same
way with the level ground at its base, being (as is probable) sometimes
ascended in a single place, sometimes in several. These ascents were
always on the side where the palace adjoined upon the neighboring town,
and were thus protected from hostile attack by the town walls. [PLATE
XLI., Fig. 1] Where the palace abutted upon the walls or projected
beyond them--and the palace was always placed at the edge of a town, for
the double advantage, probably, of a clear view and of fresh air--the
platform rose perpendicularly or nearly so; and generally a water
protection, a river, a moat, or a broad lake, lay at its base, thus
rendering attack, except on the city side, almost impossible.
[Illustration: PLATE 41]
The platform appears to have been, in general shape, a rectangle, or
where it had different elevations, to have been composed of a
rectangles. The mound of Khorsabad, which is of this latter character,
resembles a gigantic T. [PLATE XLII., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE 42]
It must not be supposed, however, that the rectangle was always exact.
Sometimes its outline was broken by angular projections and
indentations, as in the plan [PLATE XLII., Fig. 21.] where the shaded
parts represent actual discoveries. Sometimes it grew to be irregular,
by the addition of fresh portions, as new kings arose who determined on
fresh erections. This is the ease at Nimrud, where the platform broadens
towards its lower or southern end, and still more at Koyunjik and Nebbi
Yunus, where the rectangular idea has been so overlaid as to have almost
wholly disappeared. Palaces were commonly placed near one edge of the
mound--more especially near the river edge probably for the better
enjoyment of the prospect, and of the cool air over the water.
The palace itself was composed of three main elements, courts, grand
halls, and small private apartments. A palace has usually from two to
four courts, which are either square or oblong, and vary in size
according to the general scale of the building. In the north-west palace
at Nimrud, the most ancient of the edifices yet explored, one court only
has been found, the dimensions of which are 120 feet by 90. At
Khorsabad, the palace of Sargon has four courts. [PLATE XLII., Fig. 2.]
Three of them are nearly square, the largest of these measuring 180 feet
each Way, and the smallest about 120 feet; the fourth is oblong, and
must have been at least 250 feet long and 150 feet wide. The palace of
Sennacherib at Koyunjik, a much larger edifice than the palace of
Sargon, has also three courts, which are respectively 93 feet by 84, 124
feet by 90, and 154 feet by 125. Esarhaddon’s palace at Nimrud has a
court 220 feet long and 100 wide. These courts were all paved either
with baked bricks of large size, or with stone slabs, which were
frequently patterned. Sometimes the courts were surrounded with
buildings; sometimes they abutted upon the edge of the platform: in this
latter case they were protected by a stone parapet, which (at least in
places) was six feet high.
The grand halls of the Assyrian palaces constitute their most remarkable
feature. Each palace has commonly several. They are apartments narrow
for their length, measuring from three to five times their own width,
and thus having always somewhat the appearance of galleries. The scale
upon which they are built is, commonly, magnificent. In the palace of
Asshur-izir-pal at Nimrud, the earliest of the discovered edifices, the
great hall was 160 feet long by nearly 40 broad. In Sargon’s palace at
Khorsabad the size of no single room was so great; but the number of
halls was remarkable, there being no fewer than five of nearly equal
dimensions. The largest was 116 feet long, and 33 wide; the smallest 87
feet long, and 25 wide. The palace of Sennacherib at Koyuhjik contained
the most spacious apartment yet exhumed. It was immediately inside the
great portal, and extended in length 180 feet, with a uniform width of
forty feet. In one instance only, so far as appears, was an attempt made
to exceed this width. In the palace of Esarhaddon, the son of
Sennacherib, a hall was designed intended to surpass all former ones.
[PLATE XLIII., Fig. 2.] Its length was to be 165 feet, and its width 62;
consequently it would have been nearly one-third larger than the great
hall of Sennacherib, its area exceeding 10,000 square feet. But the
builder who had designed this grand structure appears to have been
unable to overcome the difficulty of carrying a roof over so vast an
expanse. He was therefore obliged to divide his hall by a wall down the
middle; which, though he broke it in an unusual way into portions, and
kept it at some distance from both ends of the apartment, still had the
actual effect of subdividing his grand room into four apartments of only
moderate size. The halls were paved with sun-burnt brick. They were
ornamented throughout by the elaborate sculptures, now so familiar to
us, carried generally in a single, but sometimes in a double line, round
the four walls of the apartment. The sculptured slabs rested on the
ground, and clothed the walls to the height of 10 or 12 feet. Above, for
a space which we cannot positively fix, but which was certainly not less
than four or five feet, the crude brick wall was continued, faced here
with burnt brick enamelled on the side towards the apartment, pleasingly
and sometimes even brilliantly colored. 10 The whole height of the walls
was probably from 15 to 20 feet.
[Illustration: PLATE 43]
By the side of the halls, or at their ends, and opening into them, or
sometimes collected together into groups, with no hall near, are the
smaller chambers of which mention has been already made. These chambers
are in every case rectangular: in their proportions they vary from
squares to narrow oblongs. 90 feet by 17, 85 by 16, 80 by 15, and the
like. When they are square, the side is never more than about 25 feet.
They are often as richly decorated as the halls, but sometimes are
merely faced with plain slabs or plastered; while occasionally they have
no facing at all, but exhibit throughout the crude brick. This, however,
is unusual.
The number of chambers in a palace is very large. In Sennacherib’s
palace at Koyunjik, where great part of the building remains still
unexplored, the excavated chambers amount to sixty-eight--all, be it
remembered, upon the ground floor. The space covered by them and by
their walls exceeds 40,000 square yards. As Mr. Fergusson observes, “the
imperial palace of Sennacherib is, of all the buildings of antiquity,
surpassed in magnitude only by the great palace-temple of Karnak; and
when we consider the vastness of the mound on which it was raised, and
the richness of the ornaments with which it was adorned, it is by no
means clear that it was not as great, or at least as expensive, a work
as the great palace-temple at Thebes.” Elsewhere the excavated
apartments are less numerous; but in no case is it probable that a
palace contained on its ground floor fewer than forty or fifty chambers.
The most striking peculiarity which the ground-plans of the palaces
disclose is the uniform adoption throughout of straight and parallel
lines. No plan exhibits a curve of any kind, or any angle but a right
angle. Courts, chambers, and halls are, in most cases, exact rectangles;
and even where any variety occurs, it is only by the introduction of
squared recesses or projections, which are moreover shallow and
infrequent. When a palace has its own special platform, the lines of the
building are further exactly parallel with those of the mound on which
it is placed; and the parallelism extends to any other detached
buildings that there may be anywhere upon the platform. When a mound is
occupied by more palaces than one, sometimes this law still obtains, as
at Nimrud, where it seems to embrace at any rate the greater number of
the palaces; sometimes, as at Koyunjik, the rule ceases to be observed,
and the ground-plan of each palace seems formed separately and
independently, with no reference to any neighboring edifice.
Apart from this feature, the buildings do not affect much regularity. In
courts and facades, to a certain extent, there is correspondence; but in
the internal arrangements, regularity is decidedly the exception. The
two sides of an edifice never correspond; room never answers to room;
doorways are rarely in the middle of walls; where a rooms has several
doorways, they are seldom opposite to one another, or in situations at
all corresponding.
There is a great awkwardness in the communications. Very few corridors
or passages exist in any of the buildings. Groups of rooms, often
amounting to ten or twelve, open into one another; and we find
comparatively few rooms to which there is any access except through some
other room. Again, whole sets of apartments are sometimes found, between
which and the rest of the palace all communication is cut off by thick
walls. Another peculiarity in the internal arrangements is the number of
doorways in the larger apartments, and their apparently needless
multiplication. We constantly find two or even three doorways leading
from a court into a hall, or from one hall into a second. It is
difficult to see what could be gained by such an arrangement.
The disposition of the various parts of a palace will probably be better
apprehended from an exact account of a single building than from any
further general statements. For this purpose it is necessary to select a
specimen from among the various edifices that have been disentombed by
the labors of recent excavators. The specimen should be, if possible,
complete; it should have been accurately surveyed, and the survey should
have been scientifically recorded; it should further stand single and
separate, that there may be no danger of confusion between its remains
and those of adjacent edifices. These requirements, though nowhere
exactly met, are very nearly met by the building at Khorsabad, which
stands on a mound of its own, unmixed with other edifices, has been most
carefully examined, and most excellently represented and described, and
which, though not completely excavated, has been excavated with a nearer
approach to completeness than any other edifice in Assyria. The
Khorsabad building--which is believed to be a palace built by Sargon,
the son of Sennacherib--will therefore be selected for minute
description in this place, as the palace most favorably circumstanced,
and the one of which we have, on the whole, the most complete and exact
knowledge. [PLATE XLIV.]
[Illustration: PLATE 44]
The situation of the town, whereof the palace of Sargon formed a part,
has been already described in a former part of this volume. The shape,
it has been noted, was square, the angles facing the four cardinal
points. Almost exactly in the centre of the north-west wall occurs the
palace platform, a huge mass of crude brick, from 20 to 30 feet high,
shaped like a T, the upper limb lying within the city walls, and the
lower limb (which is at a higher elevation) projecting beyond the line
of the walls to a distance of at least 500 feet. At present there is a
considerable space between the ends of the wall and the palace mound;
but anciently it is provable that they either abutted on the mound, or
were separated from it merely by gateways. The mound, or at any rate the
part of it which projected beyond the walls, was faced with hewn stone,
carried perpendicularly from the plain to the top of the platform, and
even beyond, so as to form a parapet protecting the edge of the
platform. On the more elevated portion of the mound--that which
projected beyond the walls stood the palace, consisting of three groups
of buildings, the principal group lying towards the mound’s northern
angle. On the lower portion of the platform were several detached
buildings, the most remarkable being a huge gateway or propylaeum,
through which the entrance lay to the palace from the city. Beyond and
below this, on the level of the city, the first or outer portals were
placed, giving entrance to a court in front of the lower terrace.
A visitor approaching the palace had in the first place to pass through
these portals. They were ornamented with colossal human-headed bulls on
either side, and probably spanned by an arch above, the archivolte being
covered with enamelled bricks disposed in a pattern. Received within the
portals, the visitor found himself in front of a long wall of solid
stone masonry, the revetement of the lower terrace, which rose from the
outer court to a height of at least twenty feet. Either an inclined-way
or a flight of steps--probably the latter--must have led up from the
outer court to this terrace. Here the visitor found another portal or
propylaeum of a magnificent character. [PLATE XLIII., Fig. 1.] Midway in
the south-east side of the lower terrace, and about fifty feet from its
edge, stood this grand structure, gateway ninety-feet in width, and at
least twenty-five in depth, having on each side three winged bulls of
gigantic size, two of them fifteen feet high, and the third nineteen
feet. Between the two small bulls, which styled back to back, presenting
their sides to the spectator, was a colossal figure, strangling a
lion--the Assyria Hercules, according to most writers. The larger bulls
stood at right angles to these figures, withdrawn within the portal, and
facing the spectator. The space between the bulls, which is nearly
twenty feet, was (it is probable) arched over. Perhaps the archway led
into a chamber beyond which was a second archway and an inner portal, as
marked in Mr. Fergusson’s plan: but this is at present uncertain.
Besides the great portal, the only buildings as yet discovered on this
lower platform, are a suite of not very extensive apartments. They are
remarkable for their ornamentation. The walls are neither lined with
slabs, nor yet (as is sometimes the case) painted, but the plaster of
which they are composed is formed into sets of half pillars or reeding,
separated from one another by pilasters with square sunk panels. The
former kind of ornamentation is found also in Lower Chaldaea, and has
been already represented; the latter is peculiar to this building. It is
suggested that these apartments formed the quarters of the soldiers who
kept watch over the royal residence.
About 300 feet from the outer edge of the lower terrace, the upper
terrace seems to have commenced. It was raised probably about ten feet
above the lower one. The mode of access has not been discovered, but is
presumed to have been by a flight of steps, not directly opposite the
propylaeum, but somewhat to the right, whereby entrance was given to the
great court, into which opened the main gateways of the palace itself.
The court was probably 250 feet long by 160 or 170 feet wide. The
visitor, on mounting the steps, perhaps passed through another
propylaeum (_b_ in the plan); after which, if his business was with the
monarch, he crossed the full length of the court, leaving a magnificent
triple entrance, which is thought to have led to the king’s _hareem_, on
his left and making his way to the public gate of the palace, which
fronted him when he mounted the steps. The _hareem_ portal, which he
passed, resembled in the main the great propylaeum of the lower
platform; but, being triple, it was still more magnificent exhibiting
two other entrances on either side of the main one, guarded each by a
single pair of winged bulls of the smaller size. Along the _hareem_
wall, from the gateway to the angle of the court, was a row of
sculptured bas-reliefs, ten feet in height, representing the monarch
with his attendant guards and officers. [PLATE XLIII., Fig. 3.] The
facade occupying the end of the court was of inferior grandeur. [PLATE
XLV., Fig.1. ] Sculptures similar to those along the _hareem_ wall
adorned it; but its centre showed only a single gateway, guarded by one
pair of the larger bulls, fronting the spectator, and standing each in a
sort of recess, the character of which will be best understood by the
ground-plan in the illustration. Just inside the bulls was the great
door of the palace, a single door made of wood-apparently of
mulberry,--opening inwards, and fastened on the inside by a bolt at
bottom, and also by an enormous lock. This door gave entrance into a
passage, 70 feet long and about 10 feet wide, paved with large slabs of
stone, and adorned on either side with inscriptions, and with a double
row of sculptures, representing the arrival of tribute and gifts for the
monarch. All the figures here faced one way, towards the inner palace
court into which the passage led. M. Botta believes that the passage was
uncovered; while Mx. Fergusson imagines that it was vaulted throughout.
It must in any case have been lighted from above; for it would have been
impossible to read the inscriptions, or even to see the sculptures,
merely by the light admitted at the two ends.
[Illustration: PLATE 45]
From the passage in question--one of the few in the edifice--no doorway
opened out either on the right hand or on the left. The visitor
necessarily proceeded along its whole extent, as he saw the figures
proceeding in sculptures, and, passing through a second portal, found
himself in the great inner court of the palace, a square of about 100 or
160 feet, enclosed on two sides--the south-east and the south-west-by
buildings, on the other two sides reaching to the edge of the terrace,
which here gave upon, the open country. The buildings on the
south-eastside, looking towards the north-west, and and joining the
gateway by which the had entered, were of comparatively minor
importance. They consisted of a few chambers suitable for officers of
the court, and were approached from the court by two doorways, one on
either side of the passage through which he had come. To his left,
looking towards the north-east, were the great state apartments, the
principal part of the palace, forming a facade, of which some idea may
perhaps be formed from the representation. [PLATE XLVI.] The upper part
of this representation is indeed purely conjectural; and when we come to
consider the mode in which the Assyrian palaces were roofed and lighted,
we shall perhaps find reason to regard it as not very near the truth;
but the lower part, up to the top of the sculptures, the court itself,
and the various accessories, are correctly given, and furnish the only
_perspective_ view of this part of the palace which has been as yet
published.
[Illustration: PLATE 46]
The great state apartments consisted of a suite of ten rooms. Five of
these were halls of large dimensions; one was a long and somewhat narrow
chamber, and the remaining four were square or slightly oblong
apartments of minor consequence. All of them were lined throughout with
sculpture. The most important seem to have been three halls _en-suite_
(VIII., V., and II. in the plan), which are, both in their external and
internal decorations, by far the most splendid of the whole palace. The
first lay just within the north-east facade, and ran parallel to it. It
was entered by three doorways, the central one ornamented externally.
with two colossal bulls of the largest size, one on either side within
the entrance, and with two pairs of smaller bulls, back to back, on the
projecting pylons; the side ones guarded by winged genii, human or
hawk-headed. The length of the chamber was 116 feet 6 inches, and its
breadth 33 feet. Its sculptures represented the monarch receiving
prisoners, and either personally or by deputy punishing them: [PLATE
XLV., Fig. 3.] We may call it, for distinction’s sake, “the Hall of
Punishment.”
The second hall (V. in the plan) ran parallel with the first, but did
not extend along its whole length. It measured from end to end about 86
feet, and from side to side 21 feet 6 inches. Two doorways led into it
from the first chamber, and two others led from it into two large
apartments. One communicated with a lateral hall (marked VI. in the
plan), the other with the third hall of the suite which is here the
special object of our attention. This third hall (II. in the plan) was
of the same length as the first, but was less wide by about three feet.
It opened by three doorways upon a square, court, which has been called
“the Temple Court,” from a building on one side of it which will be
described presently.
The sculptures of the second and third halls represented in a double
row, separated by an inscribed space about two feet in width, chiefly
the wars of the monarch, his battles, sieges, reception of captives and
of spoil, etc. The monarch himself appeared at least four times standing
in his chariot, thrice in calm procession, and once shooting his arrows
against his enemies. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 2.] Besides these, the upper
sculptures on one side exhibited sacred ceremonies.
Placed at right angles to this primary suite of three halls were two
others, one (IV. in the plan) of dimensions little, if at all, inferior
to those of the largest (No. VIII), the other (VI. in the plan) nearly
of the same length, but as narrow as the narrowest of the three (No.
V.). Of these two lateral halls the former communicated directly with
No. VIII., and also by a narrow passage room (III. in the plan with No.
II.) The other had direct communication both with No. II and No. V., but
none with No. VIII. With this hall (No. VI. ) three smaller chambers
were connected (Nos. IX., XI., and XI.); with the other lateral hall,
two only (Nos. III. and VII. ). One chamber attached to this block of
buildings (I. in the plan) opened only on the Temple Court. It has been
suggested that it contained a staircase; but of this there is no
evidence.
The Temple Court--a square of 150 feet--was occupied by buildings on
three sides, and open on one only--that to the north-west. The state
apartments closed it in on the north-east, the temple on the south-west:
on the south-east it was bounded by the range of buildings called
“Priests’ Rooms” in the plan, chambers of less pretension than almost
any that have been excavated. The principal facade here was that of the
state apartments, on the north-east. On this, as on the opposite side of
the palace, were three portals; but the two fronts were not of equal
magnificence. On the side of the Temple Court a single pair of bulls,
facing the spectator, guarded the middle portals; the side portals
exhibited only figures of genii, while the spaces between the portals
were occupied, not with bulls, but merely with a series of human
figures, resembling those in the first or outer court, of which a
representation has been already given. Two peculiarities marked the
south-east facade. In the first place, it lay in a perfectly straight
line, unbroken by any projection, which is very unusual in Assyrian
architecture. In the second place, as if to compensate for this monotony
in its facial line, it was pierced by no fewer than five doorways, all
of considerable width, and two of them garnished with bulls, of namely,
the second and the fourth. The bulls of the second gateway were of the
larger, those of the fourth were of the smaller size; they stood in the
usual manner, a little withdrawn within the gateways and looking towards
the spectator.
Of the curious building which closed in the court on the third or
south-west side, which is believed to have been a temple, the remains
are unfortunately very slight. It stood so near the edge of the terrace
that the greater part of it has fallen into the plain. Less than half of
the ground-plan is left, and only a few feet of the elevation. The
building may originally have been a square, or it may have been an
oblong, as represented in the plan. It was approached from the court by
a a flight of stone stops, probably six in number, of which four remain
in place. This flight of steps was placed directly opposite to the
central door of the south-west palace facade. From the level of the
court, to that of the top of the steps, a height of about six feet, a
solid platform of crude brick was raised as a basis for the temple; and
this was faced, probably throughout its whole extent, with a solid wall
of hard black basalt, ornamented with a cornice in gray limestone, of
which the accompanying figures are representations. [PLATE. XLV., Fig.
4.] above this the external work has disappeared. Internally, two
chambers may be traced, floored with a mixture of stones and chalk; and
round one of these are some fragments of bas-reliefs, representing
sacred subjects, cut on the same black basalt as that by which the
platform is cased, and sufficient to show that the same style of
ornamentation prevailed here as in the palace.
The principal doorway on the north-west side of the Temple Court
communicated by a passage, with another and similar doorway (_d_ on the
plan), which opened into a fourth court, the smallest and least
ornamented of those on the upper platform.
The mass of building whereof this court occupied the centre, is believed
to have constituted the _hareem_ or private apartments of the monarch.
It adjoined the state apartments at its northern angle, but had no
direct communication with them. To enter it from them the visitor had
either to cross the Temple Court and proceed by the passage above
indicated, or else to go round by the great entrance (X in the plan )
and obtain admission by the grand portals on the south-west side of the
outer court. These latter portals, it is to be observed, are so placed
as to command no view into the _Hareem_ Court, though it is opposite to
them. The passages by which they gave entrance into that court must have
formed some such angles as those marked by the dotted lines in the plan,
the result being that visitors, while passing through the outer court,
would be unable to catch any sight of what was going on in the _Hareem_
Court. even if the great doors happened to be open. Those admitted so
far into the palace as the Temple Court were more favored or less
feared. The doorway (_d_) on the south-east side of the _Hareem_ Court
is exactly opposite the chief doorway on the north-west side of the
Temple Court, and there can be no reasonable doubt that a straight
passage connected the two.
It is uncertain whether the _Hareem_ Court was surrounded by buildings
on every side, or open towards the south-west. M. Botta believed that it
was open; and the analogy of the other courts would seem to make this
probable. It is to be regretted, however, that this portion of the great
Khorsabad ruin still remains so incompletely examined. Consisting of the
private apartments, it is naturally less rich in sculptures than other
parts; and hence it has been comparatively neglected. The labor would,
nevertheless, be well employed which should be devoted to this part of
the ruin, as it would give us (what we do not now possess) the complete
ground-plan of an Assyrian palace. It is earnestly to be hoped that
future excavators will direct their efforts to this easily attainable
and interesting object.
The ground-pins of the palaces, and some sixteen feet of their
elevations, are all that fire and time have left us of these remarkable
monuments. The total destruction of the upper portion of every palatial
building in Assyria, combined with the want of any representation of the
royal residences upon the bas-reliefs, reduces us to mere conjecture
with respect to their height, to the mode in which they were roofed and
lighted, and even to the question whether they had or had not an upper
story. On these subjects various views have been put forward by persons
entitled to consideration; and to these it is proposed now to direct the
reader’s attention.
In the first place, then, had they an upper story? Mr. Layard and Mr.
Fergusson decide this question in the affirmative. Mr. Layard even goes
so far as to say that the fact is one which “can no longer be doubted.”
He rests this conclusion on two grounds first, on a belief that “upper
chambers” are mentioned in the Inscriptions, and, secondly, on the
discovery by himself, in Sennacherib’s palace at Koyunjik, of what
seemed to be an inclined way, by which he supposes that the ascent was
made to an upper story. The former of these two arguments must be set
aside as wholly uncertain. The interpretation of the architectural
inscriptions of the Assyrians is a matter of far too much doubt at
present to serve as a groundwork upon which theories can properly be
raised as to the plan of their buildings. With regard to the inclined
passage, it is to be observed that it did not appear to what it led. It
may have conducted to a gallery looking into one of the great halls, or
to an external balcony overhanging an outer court; or it may have been
the ascent to the top of a tower, whence a look-out was kept up and down
the river. Is it not more likely that this ascent should have been made
for some exceptional purpose, than that it should be the only specimen
left of the ordinary mode by which one half of a palace was rendered
accessible? It is to be remembered that no remains of a staircase,
whether of stone or of wood have been found in any of the palaces, and
that there is no other instance in any of them even of an inclined
passage. Those who think the palaces had second stories, believe these
stories to have been reached by staircases of wood, placed in various
parts of the buildings, which were totally destroyed by the
conflagrations in which the palaces perished. But it is at least
remarkable that no signs have been found in any existing walls of rests
for the ends of beams, or of anything implying staircases. Hence M.
Botta, the most careful and the most scientific of recent excavators,
came to a very positive conclusion that the Khorsabad buildings had had
no second story, a conclusion which it would not, perhaps, be very bold
to extend to Assyrian edifices generally.
It has been urged by Mr. Fergusson that there must have been an upper
story, because otherwise all the advantage of the commanding position of
the palaces, perched on their lofty platforms, would have been lost. The
platform at Khorsabad was protected, in the only places where its edge
has been laid bare, by a stone wall or parapet _six feet in height_.
Such a parapet continued along the whole of the platform would
effectually have shut out all prospect of the open country, both from
the platform itself and also from the gateways of the palace, which are
on the same level. Nor could there well be any view at all from the
ground chambers, which had no windows, at any rate within fifteen feet
of the floor. To enjoy a view of anything but the dead wall skirting the
mound, it was necessary (Mr. Fergusson thinks) to mount to a second
story, which he ingeniously places, not over the ground rooms, but on
the top of the outer and party walls, whose structure is so massive that
their area falls (he observes) but little short of the area of the
ground-rooms themselves.
This reasoning is sufficiently answered, in the first place, by
observing that we know not whether the Assyrians appreciated the
advantage of a view, or raised their palace platforms for any such
object. They may have constructed them for security only, or for greater
dignity and greater seclusion. They may have looked chiefly for comfort
and have reared them in order to receive the benefit of every breeze,
and at the same time to be above the elevation to which gnats and
mosquitoes commonly rise. Or there may be a fallacy in concluding, from
the very slight data furnished by the excavations of M. Botta, that a
palace platform was, in any case, skirted along its whole length, by a
six-foot parapet. Nothing is more probable than that in places the
Khorsabad parapet may have been very much lower than this; and elsewhere
it is not even ascertained that any parapet at all edged the platform.
On the whole we seem to have no right to conclude, merely on account of
the small portions of parapet wall uncovered by M. Botta, that an upper
story was a necessity to the palaces. If the Assyrians valued a view,
they may easily have made their parapets low in places: if they cared so
little for it as to shut it out from all their halls and terraces, they
may not improbably have dispensed with the advantage altogether.
The two questions of the roofing and lighting of the Assyrian palaces
are so closely connected together that they will most conveniently be
treated in combination. The first conjecture published on the subject of
roofing was that of M. Flandin. who suggested that the chambers
generally--the great halls at any rate--had been ceiled with a brick
vault. He thought that the complete filling up of the apartments to the
height of fifteen or twenty feet was thus best explained; and he
believed that there were traces of the fallen vaulting in the _debris_
with which the apartments were filled. His conjecture was combated, soon
after he put it forth, by M. Botta, who gave it as his opinion--first,
that the walls of the chambers, notwithstanding their great thickness,
would have been unable, considering their material, to sustain the
weight, and (still more to bear) the lateral thrust, of a vaulted roof;
and, secondly, that such a roof, if it had existed at all, must have
been made of baked brick or stone-crude brick being too weak for the
purpose--and when it fell must have left ample traces of itself within
the apartments, whereas, in none of them, though he searched, could he
find any such traces. On this latter point M. Botta and M. Flandin--both
eye witnesses--were at variance. M. Flandin believed that he had seen
such traces, not only in numerous broken fragments of burnt brick strewn
through all the chambers, but in occasional masses of brick-work
contained in some of them actual portions, as he thought, of the
original vaulting. M. Botta, however, observed--first, that the quantity
of baked brick within the chambers was quite insufficient for a vaulted
roof; and, secondly, that the position of the masses of brickwork
noticed by M. Flandin was always towards the sides, never towards the
centres of the apartments; a clear proof that they had fallen from the
upper part of the walls above the sculptures, and not from a ceiling
covering the whole room. He further observed that the quantity of
charred wood and charcoal within the chambers, and the calcined
appearance of all the slabs, were phenomena incompatible with any other
theory than that of the destruction of the palace by the conflagration
of a roof mainly of wood.
To these arguments of M. Botta may be added another from the
improbability of the Assyrians being sufficiently advanced in
architectural science to be able to construct an arch of the width
necessary to cover some of the chambers. The principle of the arch was,
indeed, as will be hereafter shown, well known to the Assyrians, but
hitherto we possess no proof that they were capable of applying it on a
large scale. The widest arch which has been found in any of the
buildings is that of the Khorsabad town-gate uncovered by M. Place,
which spans a space of (at most) fourteen or fifteen feet. But the great
halls of the Assyrian palaces have a width of twenty-five, thirty, and
even forty feet. It is at any rate uncertain whether the constructive
skill of their architects could have grappled successfully with the
difficulty of throwing a vault over so wide an interval as even the
least of these.
M. Botta, after objecting, certainly with great force, to the theory of
M. Flandin, proceeded to suggest a theory of his own. After carefully
reviewing all the circumstances, he gave it as his opinion that the
Khorsabad building had been roofed throughout with a flat, earth-covered
roofing of wood. He observed that some of the buildings on the
bas-reliefs had flat roofs, that flat roofs are still the fashion of the
country, and that the debris within the chambers were exactly such as a
roof of that kind would be likely, if destroyed by fire, to have
produced. He further noticed that on the floors of the chambers, in
various parts of the palace, there had been discovered stone rollers
closely resembling those still in use at Mosul and Baghdad, for keeping
close-pressed and hard the earthen surface of such roofs; which rollers
had, in all probability, been applied to the same use by the Assyrians,
and, being kept on the roofs, had fallen through during the
conflagration.
The first difficulty which presented itself here was one of those
regarded as most fatal to the vaulting theory, namely, the width of the
chambers. Where flat timber roofs prevail in the East, their span seems
never to exceed twenty-five feet. The ordinary chambers in the Assyrian
palaces might, undoubtedly, therefore, have been roofed in this way, by
a series of horizontal beans laid across them from side to side, with
the ends resting upon the tops of the side walls. But the great halls
seemed too wide to have borne such a roofing without supports.
Accordingly, M. Botts suggested that in the greater apartments a single
or a double row of pillars ran down the middle, reaching to the roof and
sustaining it. His theory was afterwards warmly embraced by Mr.
Fergusson, who endeavored to point out the exact position of the pillars
in the three great halls of Sargon at Khorsabad. It seems, however, a
strong and almost a fatal objection to this theory, that no bases of
pillars have been found within the apartments, nor any marks on the
brick floors of such bases or of the pressure of the pillars. M. Botta
states that he made a careful search for bases, or for marks of pillars,
on the pavement of the north-east hall (No. VIII.) at Khorsabad, but
that he _entirely failed to discover any_. This negative evidence is the
more noticeable as stone pillar-bases have been found in wide doorways,
where they would have been less necessary than in the chambers, as
pillars in doorways could have had but little weight to sustain.
M. Botta and Mr. Fergusson, who both suppose that in an Assyrian palace
the entire edifice was roofed in, and only the courts left open to the
sky, suggest two very different modes by which the buildings may have
been lighted. M. Botta brings light in from the roof by means of wooden
_louvres_, such as are still employed for the purpose in Armenia and
parts of India, whereof he gives the representation which is reproduced.
[PLATE XLVII., Fig. 7.] Mr. Fergusson introduces light from the sides,
by supposing that the roof did not rest directly on the walls, but on
rows of wooden pillars placed along the edge of the walls both
internally towards the apartments and externally towards the outer air.
The only ground for this supposition, which is of a very startling
character, seems to be the occurrence in a single bas-relief,
representing a city in Armenia, of what is regarded as a similar
arrangement. But it must be noted that the lower portion of the
building, represented opposite, bears no resemblance at all to the same
part of an Assyrian palace, since in it perpendicular lines prevail,
whereas, in the Assyrian palaces, the lower hues were almost wholly
horizontal; and that it is not even Certain that the upper portion,
where the pillars occur, is an arrangement for admitting light, since it
may be merely an ornamentation.
The difficulties attaching to every theory of roofing and lighting which
places the whole of an Assyrian palace under covert, has led some to
suggest that the system actually adopted in the larger apartments was
that _hypoethral_ one which is generally believed to have prevailed in
the Greek temples, and which was undoubtedly followed in the ordinary
Roman house. Mr. Layard was the first to post forward the view that the
larger halls, at any rate, were uncovered, a projecting ledge,
sufficiently wide to afford shelter and shade, being carried round the
four sides of the apartment while the centre remained open to the sky.
The objections taken to this view are--first, that far too much heat and
light would thereby have been admitted into the palace; secondly, that
in the rainy season far too much rain would have come in for comfort;
and, thirdly, that the pavement of the halls, being mere sun-dried
brick, would, under such circumstances, have been turned into mud. If
these objections are not removed, they would be, at any rate, greatly
lessened by supposing the roofing to have extended to two-thirds or
three-fourths of the apartment, and the opening to have been
comparatively narrow. We may also suppose that on very bright and on
very rainy days carpets or other awnings were stretched across the
opening, which furnished a tolerable defence against the weather.
On the whole, our choice seems to lie--so far as the great halls are
concerned--between this theory of the mode in which they were roofed and
lighted, and a supposition from which archaeologists have hitherto
shrunk, namely, that they were actually spanned from side to side by
beams. If we remember that the Assyrians did not content themselves with
the woods produced in their own country, but habitually cut timber in
the forests of distant regions, as, for instance, of Amanus, Hermon, and
Lebanon, which they conveyed to Nineveh, we shall perhaps not think it
impassible that they may have been able to accomplish the feat of
roofing in this simple fashion even chambers of thirteen or fourteen
yards in width. Mr. Layard observes that rooms of almost equal width
with the Assyrian halls are to this day covered in with beams laid
horizontally from side to side in many parts of Mesopotamia, although
the only timber used is that furnished by the indigenous palms and
poplars. May not more have been accomplished in this way by the Assyrain
architects, who had at their disposal the lofty firs and cedars of the
above mentioned regions?
If the halls were roofed in this way, they may have been lighted by
_louvres_; or the upper portion of the walls, which is now destroyed,
may have been pierced by windows, which are of frequent occurrence, and
seem generally to be some-what high placed, in the representations of
buildings upon the sculptures. [PLATE XLVII Fig. 3.]
[Illustration: PLATE 47]
It might have been expected that the difficulties with respect to
Assyrian roofing and lighting which have necessitated this long
discussion, would have received illustration, or even solution, from the
forms of buildings which occur so frequently on the bas-reliefs. But
this is not found to be the actual result. The forms are rarely
Assyrian, since they occur commonly in the sculptures which represent
the foreign campaigns of the kings; and they have the appearance of
being to a great extent conventional, being nearly the same, whatever
country is the object of attack. In the few cases where there is ground
for regarding the building as native and not foreign, it is never
palatial, but belongs either to sacred or to domestic architecture. Thus
the monumental representations of Assyrian buildings which have come
down to us, throw little or no light on the construction of their
palaces. As, however, they have an interest of their own, and will serve
to illustrate in some degree the domestic and sacred architecture of the
people, some of the most remarkable of them will be here introduced.
[Illustration: PLATE 48]
The representation No. I. is from a slab at Khorsabad. [PLATE XLVII.,
Fig. 4.] It is placed on the summit of a hill, and is regarded by M.
Botta as an altar. No. II. is from the same slab. [PLATE XLIX., Fig. 1.]
It stands at the foot of the hill crowned by No. I. It has been called a
“fishing pavilion;” but it is most probably a small temple, since it
bears a good deal of resemblance to other representations which are
undoubted temples, as (particularly) to No. V. No. III., which is from
Lord Aberdeen’s black stone, is certainly a temple, since it is
accompanied by a priest, a sacred tree, and an ox for sacrifice. [PLATE
XLIX., Fig. 2.] The representation No. IV. is also thought to be a
temple. [PLATE XLIX., Fig. 3.] It is of earlier date than any of the
others, being taken from a slab belonging to the North-west Palace at
Nimrud, and is remarkable in many ways. First, the want of symmetry is
curious, and unusual. Irregular as are the palaces of the Assyrian
kings, there is for the most part no want of regularity in their sacred
buildings. The two specimens here adduced (No. II. and No. III.) are
proof of this; and such remains of actual temples as exist are in
accordance with the sculptures in this particular. The right-hand aisle
in No. IV., having nothing correspondent to it on the other side, is
thus an anomaly in Assyrian architecture. The patterning of the pillars
with chevrons is also remarkable; and their capitals are altogether
unique. No. V. is a temple of a more elaborate character. [PLATE XLIX.,
Fig. 4.] It is from the sculptures of Asshur-banipal, the son of
Esar-haddon, and possesses several features of great interest. The body
of the temple is a columnar structure, exhibiting at either corner a
broad pilaster surmounted by a capital composed of two sets of volutes
placed one over the other. Between the two pilasters are two pillars
resting upon very extraordinary rounded bases, and crowned by capitals
not unlike the Corinthian. We might have supposed the bases mere
figments of the sculptor, but for an independent evidence of the actual
employment by the Assyrians of rounded pillar-bases. Mr. Layard
discovered at Koyunjik a set of “circular pedestals,” whereof he gives
the representation which is figured. [PLATE LI., Fig. 1.] They appeared
to form part of a double line of similar objects, extending from the
edge of the platform to an entrance of the palace, and probably (as Mr.
Layard suggests) supported the wooden pillars of a covered way by which
the palace was approached on this side. Above the pillars the temple
(No. V.) exhibits a heavy cornice or entablature projecting
considerably, and finished at the top with a row of gradines. (Compare
No. II.) At one side of this main building is a small chapel or oratory,
also finished with gradines, against the wall of which is a
representation of a king, standing in a species of frame arched at the
top. A road leads straight up to this royal tablet, and in this road
within a little distance of the king stands an altar. The temple
occupies the top of a mound, which is covered with trees of two
different kinds, and watered by rivulets. On the right is a “hanging
garden,” artificially elevated to the level of the temple by means of
masonry supported on an arcade, the arch here used being not the round
arch but a pointed one. No. VI. [PLATE L.] is unfortunately very
imperfect, the entire upper portion having been lost. Even, however, in
its present mutilated state it represents by far the most magnificent
building that has yet been found upon the bas-reliefs. The facade, as it
now stands, exhibits four broad pilasters and four pillars, alternating
in pairs, excepting that, as in the smaller temples, pilasters occupy
both corners. In two cases, the base of the pilaster is carved into the
figure of a winged bull, closely resembling the bulls which commonly
guarded the outer gates of palaces. In the other two the base is
plain--a piece of negligence, probably, on the part of the artist. The
four pillars all exhibit a rounded base, nearly though not quite similar
to that of the pillars in No. V.; and this rounded base in every case
rests upon the back of a walking lion. We might perhaps have imagined
that this was a mere fanciful or mythological device of the artist’s, on
a par with the representations at Bavian, where figures, supposed to be
Assyrian deities, stand upon the backs of animals resembling dogs. But
one of M. Place’s architectural discoveries seems to make it possible,
or even probable, that a real feature in Assyrian building is here
represented M. Place found the arch of the town gateway which he exhumed
at Khorsabad to spring from the backs of the two bulls which guarded it
on either side. Thus the lions at the base of the pillars may be real
architectural forms, as well as the winged bulls which support the
pilasters. The lion was undoubtedly a sacred animal, emblematic of
divine power, and especially assigned to Nergal, the Assyrian Mars, the
god at once of war and of hunting. His introduction on the exteriors of
buildings was common in Asia Minor but no other example occurs of his
being made to support a pillar, excepting in the so-called Byzantine
architecture of Northern Italy.
[Illustration: PLATE 49]
[Illustration: PLATE 50]
[Illustration: PLATE 51]
[Illustration: PLATE 52]
No. VII. _a_ [PLATE LII., Fig. 1] introduces us to another kind of
Assyrian temple, or perhaps it should rather be said to another feature
of Assyrian temples--common to them with Babylonian--the tower or
ziggurat. This appears to have been always built in stages, which
probably varied in number--never, how-ever, so far as appears, exceeding
seven. The sculptured example before us, which is from a bas-relief
found at Koyunjik, distinctly exhibits four stages, of which the
topmost, owing to the destruction of the upper portion of the tablet, is
imperfect. It is not unlikely that in this instance there was above the
fourth a fifth stage, consisting of a shrine like that which at Babylon
crowned the great temple of Belus. The complete elevation would then
have been nearly as in No. VII. _b_. [PLATE XLI., Fig. 3.]
The following features are worth of remark in this temple. The basement
story is panelled with indented rectangular recesses, as was the ease at
Nimrud [PLATE LIII.] and at the Birs the remainder are plain, as are
most of the stages in the Birs temple. Up to the second of these squared
recesses on either side there runs what seems to be a road or path,
which sweeps away down the hill whereon the temple stands in a bold
curve, each path closely matching the other. The whole building is
perfectly symmetrical, except that the panelling is not quite uniform in
width nor arranged quite regularly. On the second stage, exactly in the
middle, there is evidently a doorway, and on either side of it a shallow
buttress or pilaster. In the centre of the third story, exactly over the
doorway of the second, is a squared niche. In front of the temple, but
not exactly opposite its centre, may be seen the _prophylaea,_
consisting of a squared doorway placed under a battlemented wall,
between two towers also battlemented. It is curious that the paths do
not lead to the propylaea, but seen to curve round the hill.
[Illustration: PLATE 53]
Remains of _ziggurats_ similar to this have been discovered at
Khorsabad, at Nimrud, and at Kileh-Sherghat. The conical mound at
Khorsabad explored by M. Place was found to contain a tower in seven
stages; that of Nimrud, which is so striking an object from the plain,
and which was carefully examined by Mr. Layard, presented no positive
proof of more than a single stage; but from its conical shape, and from
the general analogy of such towers, it is believed to have had several
stages. [PLATE LII., Fig. 2.] Mr. Layard makes their number five, and
crowns the fifth with a circular tower terminating in a heavy cornice;
but for this last there is no authority at all, and the actual number of
the stages is wholly uncertain. The base of this ziggurat was a square,
167 feet 6 inches each way, composed of a solid mass of sun-dried brick,
faced at bottom to the height of twenty feet with a wall of hewn stones,
more than eight feet and a half in thickness. The outer stones were
bevelled at the edges, and on the two most conspicuous sides the wall
was ornamented with a series of shallow recesses arranged without very
much attention to regularity. The other two sides, one of which abutted
on and was concealed by the palace mound, while the other faced towards
the city, were perfectly plain. At the top of the stone masonry was a
row of gradines, such as are often represented in the sculptures as
crowning an edifice. Above the stone masonry the tower was continued at
nearly the same width, the casing of stone being simply replaced by one
of burnt brick of inferior thickness. It is supposed that the upper
stages were constructed in the same way. As the actual present height of
the ruin is 140 feet, and the upper stages have so entirely crumbled
away, it can scarcely be supposed that the original height fell much
short of 200 feet.
The most curious of the discoveries made during the examination of this
building, was the existence in its interior of a species of chamber or
gallery, the true object of which still re-mains wholly unexplained.
This gallery was 100 feet long, 12 feet high, and no more than 6 feet
broad. It was arched or vaulted at top, both the side walls and the
vaulting being of sun-dried brick. [PLATE LIV., Fig. 2.] Its position
was exactly half-way between the tower’s northern and southern faces,
and with these it ran parallel, its height in the tower being such that
its floor was exactly on a level with the top of the stone masonry,
which again was level with the terrace or platform whereupon the Nimrud
palaces stood. There was no trace of any way by which the gallery was
intended to be entered; its walls showed no signs of inscription,
sculpture, or other ornament; and absolutely nothing was found in it.
Mr. Layard, prepossessed with an opinion derived from several confused
notices in the classical writers, believed the tower to be a sepulchral
monument, and the gallery to be the tomb in which was originally
deposited “the embalmed body of the king.” To account for the complete
disappearance, not only of the body, but of all the ornaments and
vessels found commonly in the Mesopotamian tombs, he suggested that the
gallery had been rifled in times long anterior to his visit; and he
thought that he found traces, both internally and externally, of the
tunnel by which it had been entered. But certainly, if this long and
narrow vault was intended to receive a body, it is most extraordinarily
shaped for the purpose. What other sepulchral chamber is there anywhere
of so enormous a, length? Without pretending to say what the real object
of the gallery was, we may feel tolerably sure that it was not a tomb.
The building which contained it was a temple tower, and it is not likely
that the religious feelings of the Assyrians would have allowed the
application of a religious edifice to so utilitarian a purpose.
[Illustration: PLATE 54]
Besides the ziggerat or tower, which may commonly have been surmounted
by a chapel or shrine, an Assyrian temple had always a number of
basement chambers, in one of which was the principal shrine of the god.
[PLATE LIV.,Fig. 1.] This was a square or slightly oblong recess at the
end of an oblong apartment, raised somewhat above its level; it was
paved (sometimes, if not always) with a single slab, the weight of which
must occasionally have been as much as thirty tons. One or two small
closets opened out from the shrine, in which it is likely that the
priests kept the sacerdotal garments and the sacrificial utensils.
Sometimes the cell of the temple or chamber into which the shrine opened
was reached through another apartment, corresponding to the Greek
_pronaos_. In such a case, care seems to have been taken so to arrange
the outer and inner doorways of the vestibule that persons passing by
the outer doorway should not be able to catch a sight of the shrine.
Where there was no vestibule, the entrance into the cell or body of the
temple seems to have been placed at the side, instead of at the end,
probably with the same object. Besides these main parts of a temple, a
certain number of chambers are always found, which appear to have been
priests’ apartments.
The ornamentation of temples, to judge by the few specimens which
remain, was very similar to that of palaces. The great gateways were
guarded by colossal bulls or lions see [PLATE LV.], accompanied by the
usual sacred figures, and sometimes covered with inscriptions. The
entrances and some portions of the chambers were ornamented with the
customary sculptured slabs, representing here none but religious
subjects. No great proportion of the interior, however, was covered in
this way, the walls being in general only plastered and then painted
with figures or patterns. Externally, enamelled bricks were used as a
decoration wherever sculptured slabs did not hide the crude brick.
[Illustration: PLATE 55]
Much the sane doubts and difficulties beset the subjects of the roofing
and lighting of the temples as those which have been discussed already
in connection with the palaces. Though the span of the temple-chambers
is less than that of the great palace halls, still it is considerable,
sometimes exceeding thirty feet. No effort seems made to keep the
temple-chambers narrow, for their width is sometimes as much as
two-thirds of their length. Perhaps, therefore, they were hypaethral,
like the temples of the Greeks. All that seems to be certain is that
what roofing they had was of wood, which at Nimrud was cedar, brought
probably from the mountains of Syria.
Of the domestic architecture of the Assyrians we possess absolutely no
specimen. Excavation has been hitherto confined to the most elevated
portions of the mounds which mark the sites of cities, where it was
likely that remains of the greatest interest would be found. Palaces,
temples, and the great gates which gave entrance to towns, have in this
way seen the light; but the humbler buildings, the ordinary dwellings of
the people, remain buried beneath the soil, unexplored and even unsought
for. In this entire default of any actual specimen of an ordinary
Assyrian house, we naturally turn to the sculptured representations
which are so abundant and represent so many different sorts of scenes.
Even here, however, we obtain but little light. The bulk of the slabs
exhibit the wars of the kings in foreign countries, and thus place
before us foreign rather than Assyrian architecture. The processional
slabs, which are another large class, contain rarely any building at
all, and, where they furnish one, exhibit to us a temple rather than a
house. The hunting scenes, representing wilds far from the dwellings of
man, afford us, as might be expected, no help. Assyrian buildings, other
than temples, are thus most rarely placed before us. In one case,
indeed, we have an Assyrian city, which a foreign enemy is passing; but
the only edifices represented are the walls and towers of the exterior,
and the temple [No. VI., PLATE L.] whose columns rest upon lions. In one
other we seem to have an unfortified Assyrian village; and from this
single specimen we are forced to form our ideas of the ordinary
character of Assyrian houses.
It is observable here, its the first place, that the houses have no
windows, and are, therefore, probably lighted from the roof; next, that
the roofs are very curious, since, although flat in some instances, they
consist more often either of hemispherical domes, such as are still so
common in the East, or of steep and high cones, such as are but seldom
seen anywhere. Mr. Layard finds a parallel for these last in certain
villages of Northern Syria, where all the houses have conical roofs,
built of mud, which present a very singular appearance. [PLATE LVI.,
Fig. 2.] Both the domes and the cones of the Assyrian example have
evidently an opening at the top, which may have admitted as much light
into the houses as was thought necessary. The doors are of two kinds,
square at the top, and arched; they are placed commonly towards the
sides of the houses. The houses themselves seem to stand separate,
though in close juxtaposition.
[Illustration: PLATE 56]
The only other buildings of the Assyrians which appear to require some
notice are the fortified enceintes of their towns. The simplest of these
consisted of a single battlemented wall, carried in lines nearly or
quite straight along the four sides of the place, pierced with gates,
and guarded at the angles, at the gates, and at intervals along the
curtain with projecting towers, raised not very much higher than the
walls, and (apparently) square in shape. [PLATE LVII., Fig 1.] In the
sculptures we sometimes find the battlemented wall repeated twice or
thrice in lines placed one above the other, the intention being to
represent the defence of a city by two or three walls, such as we have
seen existed on one side of Nineveh.
[Illustration: PLATE 57]
The walls were often, if not always, guarded by moats. Internally they
were, in every case, constructed of crude brick; while externally it was
common to face them with hewn stone, either from top to bottom, or at
any rate to a certain height. At Khorsabad the stone revetement of one
portion at least of the wall was complete; at Nimrud (Calah) and at
Nineveh itself, it was partial, being carried at the former of those
places only to the height of twenty feet. The masonry at Khorsabad was
of three kinds. That of the palace mound, which formed a portion of the
outer defence, was composed entirely of blocks of stone, square-hewn and
of great size, the length of the blocks varying from two to three yards,
while the width was one yard, and the height from five to six feet.
[PLATE LVII., Fig.2.] The masonry was laid somewhat curiously. The
blocks (A A) were placed alternately long-wise and end-wise against the
crude brick (B), so as not merely to lie against it, but to penetrate it
with their ends in many places. [PLATE LVII, Fig. 2.] Care was also
taken to make the angles especially strong, as will be seen by the
accompanying section.
The rest of the defences at Khorsabad were of an inferior character. The
wall of the town had a width of about forty-five feet, and its basement,
to the height of three feet, was constructed of stone; but the blocks
were neither so large, nor were they hewn with the same care, as those
of the palace platform. [PLATE LVII., Fig. 3.] The angles, indeed, were
of squared stone; but even there the blocks measured no more than three
feet in length and a foot in height: the rest of the masonry consisted
of small polygonal stones, merely smoothed on their outer face, and
roughly fitting together in a manner recalling the Cyclopian walls of
Greece and Italy. They were not united by any cement. Above the stone
basement was a massive structure of crude brick, without any facing
either of burnt brick or of stone.
The third kind of masonry at Khorsabad was found outside the main wall,
and may have formed either part of the lining of the moat or a portion
of a tower, which may have projected in advance of the wall at this
point. [PLATE LVIII., Fig. 1.] It was entirely of stone. The lowest
course was formed of small and very irregular polygonal blocks roughly
fitted together; above this came two courses of carefully squared stones
more than a foot long, but less than six inches in width, which were
placed end-wise, one over the other, care being taken that the joints of
the upper tier should never coincide exactly with those of the lower.
Above these was a third course of hewn stones, somewhat smaller than the
others, which were laid in the ordinary manner. Here the construction,
as discovered, terminated; but it was evident, from the _debris_ of hewn
stones at the foot of the wall, that originally the courses had been
continued to a much greater height.
[Illustration: PLATE 58]
In this description of the buildings raised by the Assyrians it has been
noticed more than once that they were not ignorant of the use of the
arch. The old notion that the round arch was a discovery of the Roman,
and the pointed of the Gothic architecture, has gradually faded away
with our ever-increasing knowledge of the actual state of the ancient
world; and antiquarians were not, perhaps, very much surprised to learn,
by the discoveries of Mr. Layard, that the Assyrians knew and used both
kinds of arch in their constructions. Some interest, however, will
probably be felt to attach to the two questions, how they formed their
arches, and to what uses they applied them.
All the Assyrian arches hitherto discovered are of brick. The round
arches are both of the crude and of the kiln-dried material, and are
formed, in each case, of brick made expressly for vaulting, slightly
convex at top and slightly concave at bottom, with one broader and one
narrower end. The arches are of the simplest kind, being exactly
semicircular, and rising from plain perpendicular jambs. The greatest
width which any such arch has been hitherto found to span is about
fifteen feet.
The only pointed arch actually discovered is of burnt brick. The bricks
are of the ordinary shape, and not intended for vaulting. They are laid
side by side up to a certain point, being bent into a slight arch by the
interposition between them of thin wedges of mortar. The two sides of
the arch having been in this way carried up to a point where the lower
extremities of the two innermost bricks nearly touched, while a
considerable space remained between their upper extremities instead of a
key-stone, or a key-brick fitting the aperture, ordinary bricks were
placed in it longitudinally, and so the space was filled in.
[Illustration: PLATE 59]
Another mode of constructing a pointed arch seems to be intended in a
bas-relief, whereof a representation has been already given. The masonry
of the arcade in No. V. [PLATE XLIX., Fig. 4] runs (it will be seen) in
horizontal lines up to the very edge of the arch, thus suggesting a
construction common in many of the early Greek arches, where the stones
are so cut away that an arched opening is formed, though the real
constructive principle of the arch has no place in such specimens.
With regard to the uses whereto the Assyrians applied the arch, it would
certainly seem, from the evidence which we possess, that they neither
employed it as a great decorative feature, nor yet as a main principle
of construction. So far as appears, their chief use of it was for
doorways and gateways. Not only are the town gates of Khorsabad found to
have been arched over, but in the representations of edifices, whether
native or foreign, upon the bas-reliefs, the arch for doors is commoner
than the square top. It is most probable that the great palace gateways
were thus covered in, while it is certain that some of the interior
doorways in palaces had rounded tops. Besides this use of the arch for
doors and gates, the Assyrians are known to have employed it for drains,
aqueducts, and narrow chambers or galleries. [PLATE LVIII. Fig. 2.];
[PLATE LIX., Fig. 1.]
It has been suggested that the Assyrians applied the two kinds of arches
to different purposes, “thereby showing more science and discrimination
than we do in our architectural works;” that “they used the pointed arch
for underground work, where they feared great superincumbent pressure
on the apex, and the round arch above ground, where that was not to be
dreaded.” [PLATE LIX., Fig. 2.] But this ingenious theory is scarcely
borne out by the facts. The round arch is employed underground in two
instances at Nimrud, besides occurring in the basement story of the
great tower, where the superincumbent weight must have been enormous.
And the pointed arch is used above ground for the aqueduct and hanging
garden in the bas-relief (see [PLATE XLIX., Fig. 4]), where the
pressure, though considerable, would not have been very extraordinary.
It would seem, therefore, to be doubtful whether the Assyrians were
really guided by any constructive principle in their preference of one
form of the arch over the other.
In describing generally the construction of the palaces and other chief
buildings of the Assyrians, it has been necessary occasionally to refer
to their ornamentation; but the subject is far from exhausted, and will
now claim, for a short space, our special attention. Beyond a doubt the
chief adornment, both of palaces and temples, consisted of the colossal
bulls and lions guarding the great gateways, together with the
sculptured slabs wherewith the walls, both internal and external, were
ordinarily covered to the height of twelve or sometimes even of fifteen
feet. These slabs and carved figures will necessarily be considered in
connection with Assyrian sculpture, of which they form the most
important part. It will, therefore, only be noted at present that the
extent of wall covered with the slabs was, in the Khorsabad palace, at
least 4000 feet, or nearly four-fifths of a mile, while in each of the
Koyunjik palaces the sculptures extended to considerably more than that
distance.
[Illustration: PLATE 60]
The ornamentation of the walls above the slabs, both internally and
externally, was by means of bricks painted on the exposed side and
covered with an enamel. The colors are for the most part somewhat pale,
but occasionally they possess some brilliancy. [PLATE LX., Fig 1.]
Predominant among the tints are a pale blue, an olive green, and a dull
yellow. White is also largely used; brown and black are not infrequent;
red is comparatively rare. The subjects represented are either such
scenes as occur upon the sculptured slabs, or else mere
patterns--scrolls, honeysuckles, chevrons, gradines, guilloches, etc. In
the scenes some attempt seems to be made at representing objects in
their natural colors. The size of the figures is small; and it is
difficult to imagine that any great effect could have been produced on
the beholder by such minute drawings placed at such a height from the
ground. Probably the most effective ornamentation of this kind was by
means of patterns, which are often graceful and striking. [PLATE LX.,
2.]
It has been observed that, so far as the evidence at present goes, the
use of the column in Assyrian architecture would seem to have been very
rare indeed. In palaces we have no grounds for thinking that they were
employed at all excepting in certain of the interior doorways, which,
being of unusual breadth, seem to have been divided into three distinct
portals by means of two pillars placed towards the sides of the opening.
The bases of these pillars were of stone, and have been found _in situ_;
their shafts and capitals had disappeared, and can only be supplied by
conjecture. In the temples, as we have seen, the use of the column was
more frequent. Its dimensions greatly varied. Ordinarily it was too
short and thick for beauty, while occasionally it had the opposite
defect, being too tall and slender. Its base was sometimes quite plain,
sometimes diversified by a few mouldings, sometimes curiously and rather
clumsily rounded (as in No. II., [PLATE LXI., Fig. 1]). The shaft was
occasionally patterned. The capital, in one instance (No. I., [PLATE
LXI., Fig. 3]), approaches to the Corinthian; in another (No. II.) it
reminds us of the Ionic; but the volutes are double, and the upper ones
are surmounted by an awkward-looking abacus. A third (No. III., [PLATE.
LXI., Fig. 2]) is very peculiar, and to some extent explains the origin
of the second. It consists of two pairs of ibex horns, placed one over
the other. With this maybe compared another (No. IV.). the most
remarkable of all, where we have first a single pair of ibex horns, and
then, at the summit, a complete figure of an ibex very graphically
portrayed.
[Illustration: PLATE 61]
The beauty of Assyrian patterning has been already noticed. Patterned
work is found not only on the enamelled bricks, but on stone pavement
slabs, and around arched doorways leading from one chamber to another,
where the patterns are carved with great care and delicacy upon the
alabaster. The accompanying specimen of a doorway, which is taken from
an unpublished drawing by Mr. Boutcher, is very rich and elegant, though
it exhibits none but the very commonest of the Assyrian patterns. [PLATE
LXII., Fig. 1.] A carving of a more elaborate type, and one presenting
even greater delicacy of workmanship, has been given in an earlier
portion of this chapter as an example of a patterned pavement slab.
Slabs of this kind have been found in many of the palaces, and well
deserve the attention of modern designers.
[Illustration: PLATE 62]
When the architecture of the Assyrians is compared with that of other
nations possessing about the same degree of civilization, the impression
that it leaves is perhaps somewhat disappointing. Vast labor and skill,
exquisite finish, the most extraordinary elaboration, were bestowed on
edifices so essentially fragile and perishable that no care could have
preserved them for manly centuries. Sun-dried brick, a material but
little superior to the natural clay of which it was composed,
constituted everywhere the actual fabric, which was then covered thinly
and just screened from view by a facing, seldom more than a few inches
in depth, of a more enduring and handsomer substance. The tendency of
the platform mounds, as soon as formed, must have been to settle down,
to bulge at the sides and become uneven at the top, to burst their stone
or brick facings and precipitated them into the ditch below, at the same
time disarranging and breaking up the brick pavements which covered
their surface. The weight of the buildings raised upon the monads must
have tended to hasten these catastrophes, while the unsteadiness of
their foundations and the character of their composition must have soon
had the effect of throwing the buildings themselves into disorder, of
loosening the slabs from the walls, causing the enamelled bricks to
start from their places, the colossal bulls and lions to lean over, and
the roofs to become shattered and fall in. The fact that the earlier
palaces were to a great extent dismantled by the later kings is perhaps
to be attributed, not so much to a barbarous resolve that they would
destroy the memorials of a former and a hostile dynasty, as to the
circumstance that the more ancient buildings had fallen into decay and
ceased to be habitable. The rapid succession of palaces, the fact that,
at any rate from Sargon downwards, each monarch raises a residence, or
residences, for himself, is yet more indicative of the rapid
deterioration and dilapidation (so to speak) of the great edifices.
Probably a palace began to show unmistakable symptoms of decay and to
become an unpleasant residence at the end of some twenty-five or thirty
years from the date of its completion; effective repairs were, by the
very nature of the case, almost impossible; and it was at once easier
and more to the credit of the monarch that he should raise a fresh
platform and build himself a fresh dwelling than that he should devote
his efforts to keeping in a comfortable condition the crumbling
habitation of his predecessor.
It is surprising that, under these circumstances, a new style of
architecture did not arise. The Assyrians were not, like the
Babylonians, compelled by the nature of the country in which they lived
to use brick as their chief building material. M. Botta expresses his
astonishment at the preference of brick to stone exhibited by the
builders of Khorsabad, when the neighborhood abounds in rocky hills
capable of furnishing an inexhaustible supply of the better material.
The limestone range of the Jebel Maklub is but a few miles distant, and
many out-lying rocky elevations might have been worked with still
greater facility. Even at Nineveh itself, and at Calah or Nimrud, though
the hills were further removed, stone was, in reality, plentiful. The
cliffs a little above Koyunjik are composed of a “hard sandstone,” and a
part of the moat of the town is carried through “compact silicious
conglomerate.” The town is, in fact, situated on “a spur of rock” thrown
off from the Jebel Dlakiub, which, terminates at the edge of the ravine
whereby Nineveh was protected on the south. Calah, too, was built on a
number of “rocky undulations,” and its western wall skirts the edge of
“conglomerate” cliffs, which have been scarped by the hand of man. A
very tolerable stone was thus procurable on the actual sites of these
ancient cities; and if a better material had been wanted, it might have
been obtained in any quantity, and of whatever quality was desired, from
the Zagros range and its outlying rocky barriers. Transport could
scarcely have caused much difficulty, as the blocks might have been
brought from the quarries where they were hewn to the sites selected for
the cities by water-carriage--a mode of transport well known to the
Assyrians, as is made evident to us by the bas-reliefs. (See [PLATE
LXII. Fig. 2.])