Page:History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 1.djvu/178

146 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA. Part I. They were struck down in tlieir turn by the kings of Babylonia, who established the second Chaldean 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 Valley of the Nile, the first kingdom was established near the mouths of the Euphrates, and flourished there for centuries before it was superseded by tlie kingdom of Nineveh, in the same manner as Thebes had succeeded to the earlier seat of power in the neighborhood of Memphis.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 i)erfect 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 buildings, and restore the form of many parts wliich, being origmally of wood, have perished. 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 difficidt to follow, and in no instance has any edifice been discovered so complete that we can feel quite sure we really know all about it. Fortunately, however, the temples at Wurka and Mugheyr become intelligible l)y comparison with the Birs Nimroud and the so failed tomb of Cyrus, and the pulaces of Nineveh and Khorsabad from the corres])onding ones at Swsa and Persejwlis. Consequently, if we attempt to study the architecture of Clialdea, of Assyria, or of Persia, as separate styles, we find them so fragmentary, owing to the imjjerfection of the materials in Avhich they were carried out, that it is difficult to understand their forms. But taken as the successive developments of one great style, the whole becomes easily intelligible ; and had the southern excavations been conducted with a little more care, there is perhaps no feature that would not have been capable of satisfactory explanation. Even as it is, however, the ex])lorations of the last fifteen years have i'nal)led us to take a A'ery comprehensive view of what the archi- tecture of the valley af the Eu]>hrates 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 imjiortant results in clearing our ideas as to the origin of styles. Unfortunately, it is only in a scit?ntific sense that this is true. Except the buildings at Persepolis, everything is buried or heaped together in such confusion that the passing traveller sees