Bk. II. Ch. in. ASSYRIAN PALACES. 1(31 actual works of these very kings, and to analyze their feelings and aspirations from the i)ietures of their actions and i^ursuits which they have left on the Avails of their palaces. From the accounts left us by the Greeks we are led to suppose that the palaces of Babylon were superior in beauty and magnificence to those of Nineveh ; and, judging from the extent and size of the mounds still remaining there, it is quite possible that such may have been the case ; but they are so completely ruined, and have been so long used as quarries, that it is impossible to restore, even in imagina- tion, these now formless masses. One thing seems nearly certain, which is, that no stone was used in their construction. If, consequently, their portals were adorned with winged bulls or lions, they must have been in stucco. If their walls were covered with scenes of war or the chase, as those of Nineveh, they must have been })ainted on plaster; so that, though their dimen- sions may have been most imposing and their splendor dazzling, they must have wanted the solidity and permanent character so essential to true architectural effect. It is the employment of stone M'hidi alone has enabled us to un- derstand the arrangements of the Assyrian palaces. Had not their portals been marked by their colossal genii, we should hardly liave known where to look for them ; and if the walls of their apartments had not been wainscoted with alabaster slabs, we never should have been able to trace their form with anything like certainty. Practi- cally, all we know of Assyrian art is due to the fact of their having so suitable a material as alabaster close at hand, and to the skill with which they knew how to employ it. Had their walls only been plas- tered, the mounds of Khorsabad and Nimroud would have remained as mysterious now as they were before Layard and Botta revealed to us their splendors. The only exception to these remarks, which has yet come to light, is the so-called Wuswus ruin at Wurka.i Whether it is a palace or not is l)y no means clear, as the interior is too much ruined for its plan to be traced with certainty ; and its date cannot l)e fixed from any internal evidence. Some of the bricks used in its construction bear the name of Sin Shada, 1700 b. c. But it is suspected they may have been brought from an older edifice. Nor does the style of its architecture help us at present. The same sort of panelling was used by Sargon at Khorsabad 1000 years after the assumed date; and panelling very like it is used even -in the age of the Pyramids (Wood- cuts Nos. 9 and 10) 1000 years at least before that time. With more knowledge, we may recognize minor featui-es which may enable us to discriminate more exactly, but at present we only know that this class 1 Loftus, "Chaldeaand Babylonia," p. 188. VOL. 1. — 11
