The Historians' History of the World 01

Here again, as in the language, religion, and in the whole civilisation of this people the unity of the Babylonian-Assyrian race comes clearly to light. Whatever differences may exist between Babylonian and Assyrian art in the conception of detail, in certain peculiarities of technique, in the choice of subjects, at bottom they are one. It has ever been characterised as a national school in which one and the same character prevails, so that a work of art, be it from Telloh, Babylon, Nineveh, or Kalah, at once shows its connection with it. All the differences are merely shades, changes caused by time. This is especially noticeable when one considers what material for example was used for building. In Babylonia it is difficult to obtain stone; there are no rocks there. Consequently this material, which had to be brought from a distance, and was therefore expensive, was kept like precious and other metals for the decoration of the whole, for pillars, bas-reliefs, dedicatory inscriptions, etc., or for making a firm foundation, while dried and burnt bricks were used for the buildings themselves. Among the Assyrians this difficulty did not exist. Excellent stone, which was easily worked, was found in close proximity, and the Assyrians understood how to hew and shape it. In spite of this, they imitated the Babylonian custom and used mainly bricks for their buildings. They preferred continually to repair these temples and palaces, which soon fell into ruin, or else to replace them by others, rather than to depart from the traditional mode of building of their ancestors.

The question has been raised as to whether Babylonian-Assyrian art may not perhaps have been a daughter of the Egyptian. Without doubt Assyrian art was at least influenced by it. All the ivory objects which have yet been found are plainly imitations of Egyptian motives, although they were certainly not made by Egyptians, and some of them date from the time of Asshurnazirpal. The lotus ornament also, which is so often used as a temple decoration, points to an Egyptian origin. Perhaps, however, the models were not borrowed directly from the Egyptians. Certain dishes and cups for drink-offering, which occur in Mesopotamia, as well as in western Asia and southern Europe, are plainly ornamented with Egyptian cartouches, hieroglyphics, and symbols, but in such a divergent form that no Egyptian could have made them; and these objects have the name of the artificer in Aramaic characters on the border or back. It is thus plainly to be seen that this Egyptian fashion wandered into Assyria through the influence of Aramäen artists.

When it is acknowledged, however, that Egyptian patterns were imitated by the Assyrians at a comparatively late date, and that Egyptian motives were borrowed from her artists, it does not by any means follow that Babylonian-Assyrian art as a whole was of Egyptian origin. This could be proved only from the oldest monuments to be found in Babylonia. It was in fact believed, when the art works of Telloh first became known, that they showed a great similarity to the products of Egyptian art. They displayed the same simplicity and naïveness, the same clean-shorn heads and faces, and many other coincidences. The connoisseurs of art, however, believe differently. The similarity is great; nevertheless a careful examination shows the independence of Babylonian art in respect to Egyptian. Thus in the oldest monuments the same peculiarities, truth and strength, appear, which in the later development of art among the Assyrians were so greatly exaggerated, whereas they are wholly lacking in Egyptian figures.

A further similarity is found between the oldest pyramids in the Nile valley and the Babylonian-Assyrian Ziggurat. In the first place, however, the pyramids had a wholly different object from the Ziggurat, and, in the second place, it must not be forgotten that the Babylonian temple architecture varies greatly from the Egyptian. If there is any dependence it is not on the side of the Chaldeans; they did not borrow their art from the Egyptians. At the same time the similarities are so remarkable, especially between the old Chaldaic statues and the oldest productions of Egyptian sculpture, such as the statues of Shafra, Chufu, and Ra-em-ke, that we are compelled here, as in the case of the writing, to suppose a common stock out of which both branches grew independently and in a way peculiar to each.