Primitive Type of Asiatic remarkable people also undertook the erection of immense buildings. The traditions of these are more explicit than those we have concerning the buildings of the ancient days of Nineveh and Babylon. Though in some respects they probably deviated from their type, these structures clearly belong to a culture identical with that in which the Assyrians were dominant. Which ever of these races was the first to become settled, whichever earliest turned toward the arts and industries or longest sought for profit in the increase of its flocks and herds, the tent of the nomad furnished to all these wan dering peoples the primitive type, as well for buildings devoted to ordi nary uses as for fortifications and other classes of structures, even though for the lower portions of their temples and palaces the mightiest piles of squared stones were put together.
Technical the Phoenicians were versed in weaving, in colors, in glass-making, and, above all, in wood-cutting, bronze-working, and the goldsmith's craft, their constructive talent displayed itself chiefly in mag nificent ornament and did not seek expression in that vast monmnentalism for which the Egyptians were distinguished. Cedar lavishly employed, inlaid work of cypress, bronze pillars, gold-plating upon walls, ivory seats, and tapestry are what we find in Plicenician temples, as also in the sanctuary which the friendly Phoenicians erected for the Israelites when at last the latter resolved to replace their wandering tabernacle by a perma nent structure.
Monumental that is left to us of Phoenician magnif icence, as well as of Jewish structures, is the remains of substructures, dams, and embankments, the huge square-hewn blocks of which seem to express even greater energy, and by their exactly smooth-hewn edges and often rough surfaces give still more the impression of power, than do the incised, polished, and sculpture-adorned walls of the Egyptians; but at the same time they yield nothing that can furnish a key to the artistic taste of their builders or to the cycle of forms used by them. What we glean from the biblical description suggests a lack of fixed principles rather than a prevalence of pure artistic genius. This is particularly apparent in Solomon's Temple, begun in 1015 B. c., as well as in his splendid palace, built in the Phoenician manner. The Bible tells us of the intimate con nection between Jerusalem and the dominant Assyrians, and relates how the Israelites were carried captive to Nineveh and how their land was peopled by colonists of Assyrian stock.
Assyrian Architecture: prophet Jonah and Greek authorities both state that the circuit of Nineveh was three days' journey. The Greeks speak also of fifteen hundred towers built upon the city wall, which latter was so broad that on its summit three chariots could drive abreast. In recent times the immense mounds of debris that have been
excavated reveal the entire arrangement of many palaces. Inscrip tions which tell us of the builder and the date of the building, and numerous fragments which enable us to form a reproduction of at least some portions of the structure, have also been discovered. Whether those restorations, which have been attempted upon the basis of the exhumed fragments, are correct must ever remain somewhat doubtful, and even the guidance of the probably related palace of Solomon cannot prove to the practical artist with such clearness as to amount to certainty that we do not view a phantasm when we see the Jewish and Assyrian palaces in all their pristine magnificence displayed upon paper. The ground-plans are indicated with sufficient clearness: around several courts were grouped halls and smaller chambers, the living-rooms of the royal family, and the whole was surrounded by terraces.
Assyrian Royal most remarkable of these palaces is that of Sargon, excavated near the village of Khorsabad. This palace pos sessed a grand terrace which was constructed of dried brick, and which was 14 metres (46 feet) high, 314 metres (1030 feet) broad, and 344 metres (r128 feet) long. It was bounded posteriorly by a wall 3 metres (nearly io feet) thick, lined with great limestone blocks, and provided with towers of defence, the whole appearing to be a continuation of the city wall. The building constructed on this platform comprises two hundred and ten halls, rooms, and chambers grouped around thirty-two courts. A great open staircase on one side and an inclined plane on the other lead imp to the terrace. Twenty-six pairs of colossal human-headed winged bulls wearing a priestly head-Covering form portals through which access is gained.to the courts and halls (15/. 3, fig. 8).
Many of the rooms were lined below with bas-reliefs and higher up with plaster. Recent investigators believe that the rooms were ceiled by tunnel-vaults, which, as well as the walls, were built of sun-dried bricks. Arches were sprung over the doors. The comparatively small rooms obtained light partly through the doors and partly through openings in the vaulting; the higher rooms, through a clere-storey immediately below the ceiling. Vet these clere-storeys, as we see them in relief among the representations upon the walls, give us an intimation that the larger halls had a wooden roof-covering. The climate permitted this roof to be used as a terrace, and it was surrounded by a parapet. Single rooms were occasionally roofed with a dome.