232 A History of Art in Sardinia and Jud.^a. travellers In quest of the monument actually skirted it without sus- pecting its presence. The figure, which is somewhat smaller than the first/ was doubtless in the deplorable state in which it was discovered. The whole of the upper part seems to have been struck with a hammer, or some such implement, with the intention of destroying it.^ The features are wholly obliterated ; a bit of the cap however remains ; the legs are intact, and the feet en- cased in tip-tilted boots much more accentuated than in Texier's figure. Part of the bow, spear, and one inscribed symbol, as well as the rude frame by which it is surrounded, attest that they were identical, and the bow in precisely the same position as in cognate sculptures already described. The loss to archaeology implied by the wanton mutilation of this figure, w^hich, to judge from the legs, was finely modelled, cannot well be overestimated ; for we may reasonably suppose that the care which had been lavished on the lower limbs was applied to the features and details about the dress. This figure, although 20d or 250 m. nearer the head of the pass, has no better claim than Texier's to be considered as that which was seen in ancient times on the Smyrna road, and which, if not destroyed, may yet be discovered, buried as the former amidst bushes. There is nothing surprising in the fact that a work that was destined to commemorate the victories of these tribes, along with the name of the captain who had led them through the pass, should have been twice repeated. As stated, the first bas-relief is high up above the road, and the second 12 or 15 m. below the old path, traces of which have been found ; the former is on the ^ The following are the principal dimensions of the second bas-relief: Height of monolith 3 m., breadth of sculptured face 4 m. 70 c, thickness 3 to 4 m. ; height of niche 2 m. 30 c. ; width towards the apex i m. 40 c. to i m. 20 c. ; depth of niche at the base 90 c. As may be observed, it is not pyramidal in shape, being slightly broader at the top than at the base. ^ The information contained in this and preceding pages in regard to this monu- ment is taken from a report dated March 29, 1876, kindly forwarded me by M. A. Martin, then a lieutenant in the French navy. At my request, he carefully examined the twin pseudo-Sesostris, in order to test Humann's account. He believes that the mutilation of the second bas-relief was due to the well-known aversion of Mahom- medans against images. On the other hand, Humann was told by a native that the sculpture was injured and reduced to its present state by a Kurdish shepherd, who used to pitch his tent against the monolith, and turned the niche into a convenient fireplace. Were this the case, however, we should find the legs most defaced, whereas they are the best preserved and almost intact.
