Part 2 (2/2)

+MONUMENTS+: The princ.i.p.al necropolis regions of Egypt are centred about Ghizeh and ancient Memphis for the Old Empire (pyramids and mastabas), Thebes for the Middle Empire (Silsileh, Beni Ha.s.san), and Thebes (Vale of the Kings, Vale of the Queens) and Abydos for the New Empire.

The Old Empire has also left us the Sphinx, Sphinx temple, and the temple at Meidoum.

The most important temples of the New Empire were those of Karnak (the great temple, the southern or temple of Khonsu), of Luxor, Medinet Abou (great temple of Rameses III., lesser temples of Thothmes II. and III. with peripteral sekos; also Pavilion of Rameses III.); of Abydos; of Gournah; of Eilithyia (Amenophis III.); of Soleb and Sesebi in Nubia; of Elephantine (peripteral); the tomb temple of Deir-el-Bahari, the Ramesseum, the Amenopheum; hemispeos at Gherf Hossein; two grotto temples at Ipsamboul.

At Meroe are pyramids of the Ethiopic kings of the Decadence.

Temples of the Ptolemaic period: Philae, Denderah.

Temples of the Roman period: Koum Ombos, Edfou; Kalabshe, Karda.s.sy and Dandour in Nubia; Esneh.

CHAPTER IV.

CHALDaeAN AND a.s.sYRIAN ARCHITECTURE.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Reber. Also, Babelon, _Manual of Oriental Antiquities_. Botta and Flandin, _Monuments de Ninive_.

Layard, _Discoveries in Nineveh_; _Nineveh and its Remains_.

Loftus, _Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana_. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and a.s.syria_. Peters, _Nippur_. Place, _Ninive et l'a.s.syrie_.

+SITUATION; HISTORIC PERIODS.+ The Tigro-Euphrates valley was the seat of a civilization nearly or quite as old as that of the Nile, though inferior in its monumental art. The kingdoms of Chaldaea and a.s.syria which ruled in this valley, sometimes as rivals and sometimes as subjects one of the other, differed considerably in character and culture. But the scarcity of timber and the lack of good building-stone except in the limestone table-lands and more distant mountains of upper Mesopotamia, the abundance of clay, and the flatness of the country, imposed upon the builders of both nations similar restrictions of conception, form, and material. Both peoples, moreover, were probably, in part at least, of Semitic race.[4] The Chaldaeans attained civilization as early as 4000 B.C., and had for centuries maintained fixed inst.i.tutions and practised the arts and sciences when the a.s.syrians began their career as a nation of conquerors by reducing Chaldaea to subjection.

[Footnote 4: This is denied by some recent writers, so far as the Chaldaeans are concerned, and is not intended here to apply to the Accadians and Summerians of primitive Chaldaea.]

The history of Chaldaeo-a.s.syrian art may be divided into three main periods, as follows:

1. The EARLY CHALDaeAN, 4000 to 1250 B.C.

2. The a.s.sYRIAN, 1250 to 606 B.C.

3. The BABYLONIAN, 606 to 538 B.C.

In 538 the empire fell before the Persians.

+GENERAL CHARACTER OF MONUMENTS.+ Recent excavations at Nippur (Niffer), the sacred city of Chaldaea, have uncovered ruins older than the Pyramids. Though of slight importance architecturally, they reveal the early knowledge of the arch and the possession of an advanced culture.

The poverty of the building materials of this region afforded only the most limited resources for architectural effect. Owing to the flatness of the country and the impracticability of building lofty structures with sun-dried bricks, elevation above the plain could be secured only by erecting buildings of moderate height upon enormous mounds or terraces, built of crude brick and faced with hard brick or stone. This led to the development of the stepped pyramid as the typical form of Chaldaeo-a.s.syrian architecture. Thick walls were necessary both for stability and for protection from the burning heat of that climate. The lack of stone for columns and the difficulty of procuring heavy beams for long spans made broad halls and chambers impossible. The plans of a.s.syrian palaces look like a.s.semblages of long corridors and small cells (Fig. 18). Neither the wooden post nor the column played any part in this architecture except for window-mullions and subordinate members.[5]

It is probable that the vault was used for roofing many of the halls; the arch was certainly employed for doors and the barrel-vault for the drainage-tunnels under the terraces, made necessary by the heavy rainfall. What these structures lacked in durability and height was made up in decorative magnificence. The interior walls were wainscoted to a height of eight or nine feet with alabaster slabs covered with those low-relief pictures of hunting scenes, battles, and G.o.ds, which now enrich the museums of London, Paris, and other modern cities. Elsewhere painted plaster or more durable enamelled tile in brilliant colors embellished the walls, and, doubtless, rugs and tapestries added their richness to this architectural splendor.

[Footnote 5: See Fergusson, _Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis_, for an ingenious but unsubstantiated argument for the use of columns in a.s.syrian palaces.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 18.--PALACE OF SARGON AT KHORSABAD.]

<script>