In the custom, frequently alluded to in the inscriptions, of removing the inhabitants of conquered cities and districts to distant parts of the empire, and of replacing them by colonists from Nineveh or from other subdued countries, we have another interesting ill.u.s.tration of Scripture history. It has generally been inferred that there was but one carrying away, or at the most two, of the people of Samaria, although three, at least, appear to be distinctly alluded to in the Bible; the first, by Pul;[268] the second, by Tiglath-Pileser[269]; the third, by Shalmaneser.[270] It was not until the time of the last king that Samaria was destroyed as an independent kingdom. On former occasions only the inhabitants of the surrounding towns and villages seem to have been taken as captives. Such we find to have been the case with many other nations who were subdued or punished for rebellion by the a.s.syrians. The conquerors, too, as we also learn from the inscriptions, established the worship of their own G.o.ds in the conquered cities, raising altars and temples, and appointing priests for their service. So after the fall of Samaria, the strangers who were placed in its cities, "made G.o.ds of their own and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made."[271]

The vast number of families thus sent to dwell in distant countries, must have wrought great changes in the physical condition, language, and religion of the people with which they were intermixed. When the a.s.syrian records are with more certainty interpreted, we may, perhaps, be able to explain many of the anomalies of ancient Eastern philology and comparative geography.

We further gather from the records of the campaigns of the a.s.syrian kings, that the country, both in Mesopotamia and to the west of the Euphrates, now included in the general term of "the Desert," was at that remote period, teeming with a dense population both sedentary and nomade; that cities, towns, and villages arose on all sides; and that, consequently, the soil brought forth produce for the support of this great congregation of human beings. All those settlements depended almost exclusively upon artificial irrigation. Hence the dry beds of enormous ca.n.a.ls and countless watercourses, which are spread like a network over the face of the country. Even the traveller, accustomed to the triumphs of modern science and civilization, gazes with wonder and awe upon these gigantic works, and reflects with admiration upon the industry, the skill, and the power of those who made them. And may not the waters be again turned into the empty channels, and may not life be again spread over those parched and arid wastes? Upon them no other curse has alighted than that of a false religion and a listless race.

Of the information as to the religious system of the a.s.syrians which may be derived from the inscriptions, I am still unwilling to treat in the present state of our knowledge of their contents. A far more intimate acquaintance with the character than we yet possess is required before the translation of such doc.u.ments can be fully relied on. All we can now venture to infer is, that the a.s.syrians worshipped one supreme G.o.d, as the great national deity under whose immediate and special protection they lived, and their empire existed. The name of this G.o.d appears to have been a.s.shur, as nearly as can be determined, at present, from the inscriptions.

It was identified with that of the empire itself, always called "the country of a.s.shur;" it entered into those of both kings and private persons, and was also applied to particular cities. With a.s.shur, but apparently far inferior to him in the celestial hierarchy, although called the great G.o.ds, were a.s.sociated twelve other deities, whose names I have given in table No. 3. Some of them may possibly be identified with the divinities of the Greek Pantheon, although it is scarcely wise to hazard conjectures which must ere long be again abandoned. These twelve G.o.ds may also have presided over the twelve months of the year, and the vast number of still inferior G.o.ds, in one inscription, I believe, stated to be no less than 4000, over the days of the year, various phenomena and productions of nature, and the celestial bodies. It is difficult to understand such a system of polytheism, unless we suppose that whilst there was but one supreme G.o.d, represented sometimes under a triune form, all the so-called inferior G.o.ds were originally mere names for events and outward things, or symbols and myths. Although at one time generally accepted as such even by the common people, their true meaning was only known in a corrupted age to the priests, by whom they were turned into a mystery and a trade. It may, indeed, be inferred from many pa.s.sages in the Scriptures, that a system of theology not far differing from the a.s.syrian prevailed at times amongst the Jews themselves. a.s.shur is generally, if not always, typified by the winged figure in the circle.[272]

The question as to the s.p.a.ce occupied by the city of Nineveh at the time of its greatest prosperity is still far from being set at rest. Col.

Rawlinson, founding his opinion upon the names on bricks from the several sites, believes the inclosures of Nimroud, Kouyunjik, and Khorsabad, and the small mounds of Shereef-Khan, scarcely three miles from Kouyunjik, as well as others in the immediate neighbourhood, to be the remains of distinct cities. He would even separate the mound of Nebbi Yunus from Kouyunjik, identifying the former with Nineveh, and making the latter a mere suburb. A glance at the plan of the ruins will show this conjecture to be quite untenable. Discoveries in both mounds prove that they belong to nearly the same period, and that Nebbi Yunus is the more recent of the two. The supposition that any of these groups of mounds represent alone the city of Nineveh can in no way be reconciled with the accounts in Scripture and in the Greek authors, which so remarkably coincide as to its extent; a difficulty which leads Col. Rawlinson to say, that all these ruins "formed one of that group of cities which, in the time of the prophet Jonah, were known by the common name of Nineveh." It is indeed true, that, on bricks from different mounds, distinct names appear to be given to each locality, and that those from Kouyunjik are inscribed with the name of Nineveh, whilst those from Nimroud and Khorsabad bear others which have not yet been satisfactorily deciphered. These names are preceded by a determinative monogram a.s.sumed to signify a city, but which undoubtedly also applies to a fort or fortified palace. Nahum describes Nineveh as a city of many strongholds and gates,[273] and such I believe it to have been, each fort or stronghold having a different name. The most important, as it was the best defended, may at one time have been the palace at Kouyunjik, which being especially called Nineveh, gave its name to the whole city. By no other supposition can we reconcile the united testimony of ancient writers as to the great size of Nineveh with the present remains.

It is very doubtful whether these fortified inclosures contained many buildings beside the royal palaces, and such temples and public edifices as were attached to them. At Nimroud, excavations were made in various parts of the inclosed s.p.a.ce, and it was carefully examined with a view to ascertain whether any foundations or remains of houses still existed. None were discovered except at the south-eastern corner, where the height of the earth above the usual level at once showed the existence of ruins. In most parts of the inclosure, the natural soil seems never to have been disturbed, and in some places the conglomerate rock is almost denuded of earth.

Such is also the case opposite Mosul. The remains of one or two buildings appear to exist within the inclosure; but in the greater part there are no indications whatever of ancient edifices, and the conglomerate rock is, as at Nimroud, on a level with the surrounding soil.

At Khorsabad, the greater part of the inclosed s.p.a.ce is so much _below_ the surrounding country, that it is covered with a marsh formed by the small river Khauser, which flows near the ruins. Within the walls, which are scarcely more than a mile square, can only be traced the remains of one or two buildings, and of a propylaeum, standing below the platform, and above two hundred yards from the ascent to the palace[274], but they are at once perceived by well-defined inequalities in the soil.

If the walls forming the inclosures of Khorsabad and other a.s.syrian ruins were the outer defences of a city, abruptly facing the open country, it is difficult to account for the fact of the palace having been built in the same line, and actually forming part of them. All access to it must have been strongly fortified, and even the view over the surrounding country, the chief object of such a position, must have been shut out.

After several careful excavations of the ruins and of the s.p.a.ces inclosed by the ramparts of earth, I am still inclined to the opinion that they were royal dwellings with their dependent buildings, and parks or paradises, fortified like the palace-temples of Egypt, capable of standing a prolonged siege, and a place of refuge for the inhabitants in case of invasion. They may have been called by different names, but they were all included within the area of that great city known to the Jews and to the Greeks as Nineveh. I will not pretend to say that the whole of this vast s.p.a.ce was thickly inhabited or built upon. As I have elsewhere observed, we must not judge of Eastern cities by those of Europe.[275] In Asia, gardens and orchards, containing suburbs and even distinct villages, collected round a walled city are all included by the natives under one general name. Such is the case with Isfahan and Damascus, and such I believe it to have been with ancient Nineveh.

A few remarks are necessary on the additional information afforded by recent discoveries as to the architecture and architectural decorations, external and internal, of the a.s.syrian palaces. The inscriptions on their walls, especially on those of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad, appear to contain important and even minute details, not only as to their general plan and mode of construction, but even as to the materials employed for their different parts, and for the objects of sculpture and ornaments placed in them. This fact furnishes another remarkable a.n.a.logy between the records of the Jewish and the a.s.syrian kings. To the history of their monarchs and of their nation, the Hebrew chroniclers have added a full account of the building and adornments of the temple and palaces of Solomon. In both cases, from the use of technical words, we can scarcely hope to understand, with any degree of certainty, all the details. It is impossible to comprehend, by the help of the descriptions alone, the plan or appearance of the temple of Solomon. This arises not only from our being unacquainted with the exact meaning of various Hebrew architectural terms, but also from the difficulty experienced even in ordinary cases, of restoring from mere description an edifice of any kind. In the a.s.syrian inscriptions we labor, of course, under still greater disadvantages. The language in which they are written is as yet but very imperfectly known, and although we may be able to explain with some confidence the general meaning of the historical paragraphs, yet when we come to technical words relating to architecture, even with a very intimate acquaintance with the a.s.syrian tongue, we could scarcely hope to ascertain their precise signification. On the other hand, the materials, and the general plan of the a.s.syrian palaces are still preserved, whilst of the great edifices of the Jews, not a fragment of masonry, nor the smallest remains are left to guide us. The architecture of the one people, however, may be ill.u.s.trated by that of the other. With the help of the sacred books, and of the ruins of the palaces of Nineveh, together with that of cotemporary and later remains, as well as from customs still existing in the East, we may, to a certain extent, restore the princ.i.p.al buildings of both nations.

Before suggesting a general restoration of the royal edifices of Nineveh, I shall endeavor to point out the a.n.a.logies which appear to exist between their actual remains and what is recorded of the temple and palaces of Solomon. In the first place, as Sennacherib in his inscriptions declares himself to have done, the Jewish king sent the bearers of burdens and the hewers into the mountains to bring great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones[276], to lay the foundations, which were probably artificial platforms, resembling the a.s.syrian mounds, though constructed of more solid materials. We have the remains of such a terrace or stage of stone masonry, perhaps built by king Solomon himself, at Baalbec. The enormous size of some of the hewn stones existing in that structure, and of those still seen in the quarries, some being more than sixty feet long, has excited the wonder of modern travellers. The dimensions of the temple of Jerusalem, threescore cubits long[277], twenty broad, and thirty high, were much smaller than those of the great edifices explored in a.s.syria.

Solomon's own palace, however, appears to have been considerably larger, and to have more nearly approached in its proportions those of the kings of Nineveh, for it was one hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high. "The porch before the temple," twenty cubits by ten,[278] may have been a propylaeum, such as was discovered at Khorsabad in front of the palace. The chambers, with the exception of the oracle, were exceedingly small, the largest being only seven cubits broad, "for without, _in the wall_ of the house, he made numerous rests round about, that _the beams_ should not be fastened in the walls of the house." The words in italics are inserted in our version to make good the sense, and may consequently not convey the exact meaning, which may be, that these chambers were thus narrow that the beams might be supported without the use of pillars, a reason already suggested for the narrowness of the greater number of chambers in the a.s.syrian palaces. These smaller rooms appear to have been built round a large central chamber, called the oracle, the whole arrangement thus corresponding with the halls and surrounding rooms at Nimroud, Khorsabad, and Kouyunjik. The oracle itself was twenty cubits square, smaller far in dimensions than the Nineveh halls; but it was twenty cubits _high_--an important fact, ill.u.s.trative of a.s.syrian architecture, for as the building was thirty cubits in height, the oracle must not only have been much loftier than the adjoining chambers, but must have had an upper structure of ten cubits.[279] Within it were the two cherubim of olive wood ten cubits high, with wings each five cubits long, "and he carved all the house around with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, within and without." The cherubim have been described by Biblical commentators as mythic figures, uniting the human head with the body of a lion, or an ox, and the wings of an eagle.[280]

If for the palm trees we subst.i.tute the sacred tree of the Nineveh sculptures, and for the open flowers the a.s.syrian tulip-shaped ornament--objects most probably very nearly resembling each other--we find that the oracle of the temple was almost identical, in general form and in its ornaments, with some of the chambers of Nimroud and Khorsabad. In the a.s.syrian halls, too, the winged human-headed bulls were on the side of the wall, and their wings, like those of the cherubim, "touched one another in the midst of the house."[281] The dimensions of these figures were in some cases nearly the same, namely, fifteen feet square. The doors were also carved with cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, and thus, with the other parts of the building, corresponded with those of the a.s.syrian palaces. On the walls at Nineveh the only addition appears to have been the introduction of the human form and the image of the king, which were an abomination to the Jews. The pomegranates and lilies of Solomon's temple must have been nearly identical with the usual a.s.syrian ornament, in which, and particularly at Khorsabad, the pomegranate frequently takes the place of the tulip and the cone.

But the description given by Josephus of the interior of one of Solomon's houses, already quoted by Mr. Fergusson in support of his ingenious arguments, even more completely corresponds with, and ill.u.s.trates the chambers in the palaces of Nineveh. "Solomon built some of these (houses) with stones of ten cubits, and _wainscoted the walls with other stones that were sawed_, and were of great value, such as were dug out of the bowels of the earth, for ornaments of temples, &c. The arrangement of the curious workmanship of these stones was in three rows; but the fourth was pre-eminent for the beauty of its sculpture, for on it were represented trees, and all sorts of plants, with the shadows caused by their branches and the leaves that hung down from them. These trees and plants covered the stone that was beneath them, and their leaves were wrought so wonderfully thin and subtile, that they appeared almost in motion; but the rest of the wall, up to the roof, was plastered over, and, as it were, wrought over with various colors and pictures."[282]

To complete the a.n.a.logy between the two edifices, it would appear that Solomon was seven years building the temple, and Sennacherib about the same time building his great palace at Kouyunjik.[283]

The ceiling, roof, and beams of the temple were of cedar wood. The discoveries in the ruins at Nimroud show that the same precious wood was used in the a.s.syrian edifices; and the king of Nineveh, as we learn from the inscriptions, employed men, precisely as Solomon had done, to cut it in Mount Lebanon. Fir was also employed in the Jewish buildings, and probably in those of a.s.syria.[284]

In the proposed restoration of the palace at Kouyunjik from the existing remains, the building does not face the cardinal points of the compa.s.s. I will, however, a.s.sume, for convenience sake, that it stands due north and south. To the west, therefore, it immediately overlooked the Tigris; and on that side was one of its princ.i.p.al facades. The edifice must have risen on the very edge of the platform, the foot of which was at that time washed by the river. If, therefore, there were any access to the palace on the river front, it must necessarily have been by a flight of steps, or an inclined way leading down to the water's edge, and there might have been great stairs parallel to the bas.e.m.e.nt wall as at Persepolis. Although from the fact of there having been a grand entrance to the palace on this side, it is highly probable that some such approach once existed, no remains whatever of it have been discovered. The western facade, like the eastern, was formed by five pairs of human-headed bulls, and numerous colossal figures[285], forming three distinct gateways.

The princ.i.p.al approach to the palace appears, however, to have been on the eastern side, where the great bulls bearing the annals of Sennacherib still stand. In the frontispiece I have been able, by the a.s.sistance of Mr. Fergusson, to give a restoration of this magnificent facade and entrance. Inclined ways, or broad flights of steps, appear to have led up to it from the foot of the platform, and the remains of them, consisting of huge squared stones, are still seen in the ravines, which are but the ancient ascents, deepened by the winter rains of centuries. From this grand entrance direct access could be had to all the princ.i.p.al halls and chambers in the palace; that on the western face, as appears from the ruins, only opened into a set of eight rooms.

The chambers. .h.i.therto explored appear to have been grouped round three great halls. It must be borne in mind, however, that the palace extended considerably to the north-east of the grand entrance, and that there may have been another hall, and similar dependent chambers in that part of the edifice. Only a part of the palace has been hitherto excavated, and we are not in possession of a perfect ground-plan of it.

The general arrangement of the chambers at Kouyunjik is similar to that of Khorsabad, though the extent of the building is very much greater. It is also to be remarked that the Khorsabad mound falls gradually to the level of the plain, apparently showing the remains of a succession of broad terraces, and that parts of the palace, such as the propylaea, were actually beneath the platform, and removed some distance from it in the midst of the walled inclosure. At Kouyunjik, however, the whole of the royal edifice, with its dependent buildings, appears to have stood on the summit of the artificial bas.e.m.e.nt[286], whose lofty perpendicular sides could only have been accessible by steps, or inclined ways. No propylaea, or other edifices connected with the palace, have as yet been discovered below the platform.

The inscriptions appear to refer to four distinct parts of the palace, three of which, inhabited by the women, seem subsequently to have been reduced to one. It is not clear whether they were all on the ground-floor, or whether they formed different stories. Mr. Fergusson, in his ingenious work on the restoration of the palaces of Nineveh, in which he has, with great learning and research, fully examined the subject of the architecture of the a.s.syrians and ancient Persians, availing himself of the facts then furnished by the discoveries, endeavors to divide the Khorsabad palace, after the manner of modern Mussulman houses, into the Salamlik or apartments of the men, and the Harem or those of the women.

The division he suggests, must, of course, depend upon conjecture; but it may, I think, be considered as highly probable, until fuller and more accurate translations of the inscriptions than can yet be made may furnish us with some positive data on the subject. In the ruins of Kouyunjik there is nothing, as far as I am aware, to mark the distinction between the male and female apartments. Of a temple no remains have as yet been found at Kouyunjik, nor is there any high conical mound as at Nimroud and Khorsabad.

In all the a.s.syrian edifices. .h.i.therto explored, we have the same general interior plan. On the four sides of the great halls are two or three narrow parallel chambers opening one into the other. Most of them have doorways at each and leading into smaller rooms, which have no other outlet. It seems highly probable that this uniform plan was adopted with reference to the peculiar architectural arrangements required by the building, and I agree with Mr. Fergusson in attributing it to the mode resorted to for lighting the apartments.

In my former work I expressed a belief that the chambers received light through an opening in the roof. Although this may have been the case in some instances, yet recent discoveries now prove that the a.s.syrian palaces had more than one story. Such being the fact, it is evident that other means must have been adopted to admit daylight to the inner rooms on the ground-floor. Mr. Fergusson's suggestion, that the upper part of the halls and princ.i.p.al chambers was formed by a row of pillars supporting the ceiling and admitting a free circulation of light and air, appears to me to meet, to a certain extent, the difficulty. It has, moreover, been borne out by subsequent discoveries, and by the representation of a large building, apparently a palace, on one of the bas-reliefs discovered at Kouyunjik. In the restoration of the exterior of the Kouyunjik palace forming the frontispiece to this volume, a somewhat similar capital has been adopted in preference to that taken by Mr. Fergusson from Persepolis, which, although undoubtedly like the other architectural details of those celebrated ruins, a.s.syrian in character, are not authorised by any known a.s.syrian remains.

A row of pillars, or of alternate pillars and masonry, would answer the purpose intended, if they opened into a well-lighted hall. Yet inner chambers, such as are found in the ruins of Kouyunjik, must have remained in almost entire darkness. And it is not improbable that such was the case, to judge from modern Eastern houses, in which the absence of light is considered essential to secure a cool temperature. The sculptures and decorations in them could then only be seen by torchlight. The great halls were probably in some cases entirely open to the air, like the court-yards of the modern houses of Mosul, whose walls are still adorned with sculptured alabaster. When they were covered in the roof was borne by enormous pillars of wood or brickwork, and rose so far above the surrounding part of the building, that light was admitted by columns and b.u.t.tresses immediately beneath the ceiling. It is most probable that there were two or three stories of chambers opening into them, either by columns or by windows. Such appears to have been the case in Solomon's temple; for Josephus tells us that the great inner sanctuary was surrounded by small rooms, "over these rooms were other rooms, and others above them, equal both in their measure and numbers, and that these reached to a height equal to the _lower part_ of the house, for the upper had no buildings about it." We have also an ill.u.s.tration of this arrangement of chambers in the modern houses of some parts of Persia, in which a great central hall, called an Iwan, rises to the top of the building, and has small rooms in two or three separate stories, opening by windows into it, whilst the inner chambers, having no windows at all, have no more light than that which reaches them through the door. Sometimes these side chambers open into a centre court, as I have suggested may have been the case in the Nineveh palaces, then a projecting roof of woodwork protects the carved and painted walls from injury by the weather. Curtains and awnings were also suspended above the windows and entrances, to ward off the rays of the sun.

Although no remains or even traces of pillars have hitherto been discovered in the a.s.syrian ruins, I now think it highly probable, as suggested by Mr. Fergusson, that they were used to support the roof. It is curious, however, that no stone pedestals, upon which wooden columns may have rested, have been found in the ruins, nor are there marks of them on the pavement. I can scarcely account for the entire absence of all such traces. However, unless some support of this kind were resorted to, it is impossible that even the large chambers at Kouyunjik, without including the central halls, could have been covered in. The great hall, or house as it is rendered in the Bible,[287] of the forest of Lebanon was thirty cubits high, upon four rows of cedar pillars with cedar beams upon the pillars. The a.s.syrian kings, we have seen, cut wood in the same forests as King Solomon; and probably used it for the same purposes, namely, for pillars, beams, and ceilings. The dimensions of this hall, 100 cubits (about 150 feet) by 50 cubits (75 feet), very much resemble those of the centre halls of the palaces of Nineveh. "The porch of pillars" was fifty cubits in length; equal, therefore, to the breadth of the hall, of which I presume it to have been an inclosed s.p.a.ce at the upper end, whilst "the porch for the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment ...

covered with cedar wood from one side of the floor to the other," was probably a raised place beneath it, corresponding with a similar platform where the host and guests of honor are seated in a modern Eastern house.

Supposing the three parts of the building to have been arranged as I have suggested, we should have an exact counterpart of them in the hall of audience of the Persian palaces. The upper part of the room in which I have frequently seen the governor of Isfahan, was divided from the rest of a magnificent hall by columns, and his throne was a raised place of carved woodwork adorned with rich stuffs, ivory, and other precious materials.

Suppliants and attendants stood outside the line of pillars, and the officers of the court within. Such also may have been the interior arrangement of the great halls in the a.s.syrian edifices.

That the Ninevite palaces had more than one story, at least in some parts if not in all, can now no longer be doubted. The inscriptions appear to describe distinctly the upper rooms, and at Kouyunjik, as it has been seen, an inclined way was discovered leading to them. Without there had been an upper structure, it would be impossible to account for the enormous acc.u.mulation of rubbish, consisting chiefly of remains of buildings, over the ruins of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad. These upper rooms were probably built of sundried bricks and wood, but princ.i.p.ally of the latter material, and may have been connected with the lower by winding staircases, as in the temple of Solomon, as well as by inclined ways. The roofs were flat, as those of all Eastern houses are to this day; and, as suggested by Mr. Fergusson,[288] they may have been crowned by a wooden talar, or platform, and altars upon which sacrifices were offered,--"The houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink-offerings to other G.o.ds."[289]

I have already described the internal decorations of the a.s.syrian palaces,[290] and have little more to add upon the subject. The walls of Kouyunjik were more elaborately decorated than those of Nimroud and Khorsabad. Almost every chamber explored, and they amount to above seventy, was panelled with alabaster slabs carved with numerous figures and with the minutest details. Each room appears to have been dedicated to some particular event, and in each, apparently, was the image of the king himself. In fact, the walls recorded in sculpture what the inscriptions did in writing,--the whole history of Sennacherib's reign, his great deeds in peace as well as in war. It will be remarked that whilst in other a.s.syrian edifices the king is frequently represented taking an active part in war, slaying his enemies, and fighting beneath a besieged city, he is never represented at Kouyunjik otherwise than in an att.i.tude of triumph, in his chariot or on his throne, receiving the captives and the spoil. Nor is he ever seen torturing his prisoners, or putting them to death with his own hand.

There were chambers, however, in the palace of Sennacherib, as well as in those of Nimroud and Khorsabad, whose walls were simply coated with plaster, like the walls of Belshazzar's palace at Babylon.[291] They may have been richly ornamented in color with figures of men and animals, as well as with elegant designs; or they may have been panelled with cedar wainscoting, as the chambers in the temple and palaces of Solomon, and in the great edifices of Babylon. Gilding, too, appears to have been extensively used in decoration, and some of the great sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like the cherubim in Solomon's temple.[292]

At Kouyunjik, the pavement slabs were not inscribed as at Nimroud; but those between the winged bulls at some of the entrances, were carved with an elaborate and very elegant pattern. The doors were probably of wood, gilt and adorned with precious materials, like the gates of the temple of Jerusalem, and they appear to have turned in stone sockets, for amongst the ruins were found many black stones hollowed in the centre, and bearing an inscription in these words: "Sennacherib, the great king, king of a.s.syria, brought this stone from the distant mountains, and used it for the sockets of the pillars of the doors of his palace."

To ward off the glare of an Eastern sun hangings or curtains of gay colors and of rich materials were probably suspended to the pillars supporting the ceiling, or to wooden poles raised for the purpose, as in the palaces of Babylon and Shushan. Such hangings, as we have seen, appear to be described in the tablets of king Nebuchadnezzar. The frontispiece to this volume will enable the reader to understand how they were used. This engraving from a beautiful water-color drawing, made by Mr. Baynes under the superintendence of Mr. Fergusson, represents the Eastern facade and the great entrance to the palace of Sennacherib, as they are supposed originally to have been. The lower part of the building actually exists, and is drawn to scale; the upper part of course is mainly founded upon conjecture; but the preceding remarks may show that we are not altogether without materials to authorise some such restoration. The edifice represented in the bas-relief discovered at Kouyunjik has furnished some of the architectural details, the battlemented finish to the walls is still seen at Kouyunjik and Nimroud, and the various decorations introduced in other places are all taken from a.s.syrian monuments. The two poles with streamers in the foreground, are from a bas-relief at Khorsabad. The sculptures at the sides of the steps are those from the descending pa.s.sage at Kouyunjik. The stone facing of the platform is that of the bas.e.m.e.nt of the tower at Nimroud. The lions, a.s.syrian in character, are placed on the steps conjecturally, and the steps themselves are restored. The design upon the pavement is found on slabs at the entrances at Kouyunjik.

The excavations carried on at Nimroud during the last expedition have enabled me to restore, to a certain extent, the several buildings on the platform, and to obtain some idea of their original appearance. On the artificial platform, built of regular layers of sundried bricks in some parts, and entirely of rubbish in others, but cased on all sides with solid stone masonry, stood at one time at least nine distinct buildings.

Between each was a terrace, paved with stone, or with large kiln-burnt bricks, from one and a half to two feet square. At the north-western corner rose the great tower, the tomb of the founder of the princ.i.p.al palace. Its bas.e.m.e.nt was encased with ma.s.sive masonry of stone, relieved by recesses and other architectural ornaments. The upper part built of brick, was most probably painted, like the palaces of Babylon, with figures and mythic emblems. Its summit, I conjecture, to have consisted of several receding gradines like the top of the black obelisk, and I would venture to crown it with an altar on which may have burnt the eternal fire. Adjoining this tower were, two small temples, dedicated to a.s.syrian G.o.ds. One actually ab.u.t.ted on it, although there was no communication whatever, as far as I could discover, between the interior of the two buildings; the other was about 100 feet to the east. They were both adorned with sculptures, and had evidently been more than one story high, and their beams and ceilings were of cedar wood. They contained statues of the G.o.ds, and the fullest records of the reign of the king their founder, engraved on immense monoliths. Between them was a way up to the platform from the north.

Between the small temples and the north-west palace were two great flights of steps, or inclined ways, leading up from the margin of the river. Their sites are still marked by deep ravines. They opened upon a broad paved terrace. The north-west palace having been so fully described in my former work, I need only add that I have now been able to ascertain the position of its princ.i.p.al facade and entrance. It was to the north, facing the tower, and nearly resembled the grand approaches to Kouyunjik and Khorsabad. The two gateways formed by the sphinxes with the human form to the waist, appear to have flanked a grand centre portal to which they were united on both sides, as in Sennacherib's palace, by colossal figures of human-headed bulls and lions and winged priests. The remains of no other great entrance to the palace have yet been discovered, but I have little doubt from several indications in the ruins, that there was a similar facade on the river side, and that a terrace, ascended by broad flights of steps, overlooked the Tigris.

To the south of the north-west palace was a third ascent to the summit of the platform, also marked by a ravine in the side of the mound. Beyond it were the upper chambers, built by the fourth king in succession from Sardanapalus, probably over the remains of an earlier edifice. Excavations made in different parts of the small mound covering their ruins, show that they consisted of three distinct groups, built round a solid central ma.s.s of sundried bricks. The great acc.u.mulation of earth above them, proves that this building must have had more than one story.

The upper chambers were separated from the palace of Essarhaddon, the most southern on this side of the platform, by a fourth grand approach to the terraces. Remains of great blocks of stone, of winged bulls, and of colossal figures in yellow limestone, were found in the ravine.

Essarhaddon's palace was raised some feet above the north-west and centre edifices. It has been so entirely destroyed by fire, and by the removal of the slabs from its walls, that a complete ground-plan of it cannot be restored. In the arrangement of its chambers, as far as we are able to judge from the ruins, it differed from other a.s.syrian buildings with which we are acquainted. The hall, above 220 feet long, and 100 broad, opening at the northern end by a gateway of winged bulls on a terrace, which overlooked the grand approach and the princ.i.p.al palaces, and at the opposite end having a triple portal guarded by three pairs of colossal sphinxes, which commanded the open country and the Tigris winding through the plain, must have been a truly magnificent feature in this palace. It occupied the corner of the platform, and an approach of which considerable remains still exist led up from the plain to its southern face. Around the grand hall appear to have been built a number of small chambers; and this a.s.syrian building probably answers in its general plan, more than any other yet discovered, to the descriptions in the Bible of the palace of Solomon, especially if we a.s.sume that the antechamber, divided into two parts, corresponds with the portico of the Jewish structures.

The palace of Essarhaddon was considerably below the level of that of his grandson, and was separated from it by what appears, from a very deep and wide ravine, to have been the princ.i.p.al approach to the platform. The south-east edifice was very inferior, both in the size of its apartments and in the materials employed in its construction, to the other royal buildings. It was probably built when the empire was fast falling to decay, and, as is usual in such cases, the arts seem to have declined with the power of the people.

Returning northwards, we come to the only traces of an approach on the eastern side of the platform, and consequently from the interior of the walled inclosure. It is remarkable that there should have been but one on this face; and it is even more curious, that the only sides of the mound on which there are any remains of walls or fortifications, are the eastern and northern, where the royal residences would have overlooked the city, supposing it to have been contained within the existing ramparts of earth.

The edifices facing what would, in that case, have been the open country, were left apparently defenceless.

On the west side of the platform no actual ruins have been discovered, although there are undoubtedly traces of building in several places, and I think it not improbable that a temple, or some similar edifice, stood there.

It only remains for me to mention the palace in the centre of the platform, founded by the king whose name is believed to read Divanubar or Divanubra, but rebuilt almost entirely by Pul or Tiglath-Pileser.

Excavations carried on during the second expedition, brought to light the walls of a few additional chambers and numerous fragments of interesting sculptures. But the edifice was so utterly destroyed by Essarhaddon, who used the materials in the construction of his own dwelling-place, that it is impossible to ascertain its general plan, or even the arrangement of any of its rooms. The great inscribed bulls and the obelisk, we know to have been of the time of the older king; and the bas-reliefs of battles and sieges, heaped up together as if ready for removal, to have belonged to the later.

In the ramparts of earth, marking the inclosure wall of Nimroud to the north, fifty-eight towers can still be distinctly traced. To the east there were about fifty, but all traces of some of them are entirely gone.

To the south the wall has almost disappeared, so that it could not have been of great size or thickness on that side. The level of the inclosure is here, however, considerably above the plain, and it is not improbable that the Tigris actually flowed beneath part of it, and that the remainder was defended by a wide and deep ditch, either supplied by the small stream still running near the ruins, or by the river.

At the south-eastern corner of the inclosure, is a mound of considerable height, and the remains of a square edifice; they may have been a fort or castle. I searched in vain for traces of gates in the walls on the northern side. A high double mound, which probably marks the ruins of an entrance, was excavated; but no stone masonry or sculptured figures were discovered, as in a similar mound in the inclosure of Kouyunjik. I conclude, therefore, that the gateways of the quarter of Nineveh represented by Nimroud were not, like those of the more northern divisions of the city, adorned with sculptures, but were built of the same materials as the walls, and were either arched or square, being formed, like the gates of modern Arab cities, by simple beams of wood.

It is evident that the inclosure of Nimroud was regularly fortified, and defended by walls built for the purpose of resisting an enemy, and sustaining a prolonged siege. That of Khorsabad was precisely similar.

There also the platform, on which the great palace stood, formed part of the walls,--a fact for which I can scarcely offer any satisfactory explanation. It would seem more consistent with security that the dwelling of the king, the temples of the G.o.ds, and the edifices containing the archives and treasures of the kingdom, should have been in the centre of the fortifications, equally protected on all sides. The palaces of Nimroud and Kouyunjik, built on a platform, washed by a deep and broad river, were, to a certain extent, guarded from the approach of an enemy. But at Khorsabad such was not the case. The royal residence overlooked the plain country, and was accessible from it, unless the summit of the platform were strongly fortified on the western side, of which there is no trace.

Of the fortified inclosures still existing, that surrounding Kouyunjik is the most remarkable, and was best calculated to withstand the attack of a powerful and numerous army. I give a plan of the ruins from Mr. Rich's survey, which will enable the reader to understand the following description.[293]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Plan of the Inclosure Walls and Ditches at Kouyunjik.]

Its form, it will be perceived, was irregular. The side facing the river, including the mounds of Kouyunjik and Nebbi-Yunus (_a_), and the northern (or north-western) (_b_), are at right angles to each other, and in nearly a straight line. From the eastern corner of the northern face, the inner wall (_c_) forms the segment of a circle towards the southern end of the western, the two being only 873 yards apart at their extremities (_d_).[294] On the four sides are the remains of towers and curtains, and the walls appear to have consisted of a bas.e.m.e.nt of stone and an upper structure of sundried bricks. The top of the stone masonry was ornamented with gradines, as at Nimroud.