cond article, which
should have contained the explanation of this little monument, has never
appeared, to the great regret of all who appreciate the knowledge and
penetration of that learned writer at their proper value. The first article
is nothing but a detailed description, which we abridge. Certain doubts
were expressed at the time of its publication as to the authenticity of
this object; nothing, however, has happened to confirm them. Both in
composition and execution it is excellent. M. Peretie, moreover, was not
one to be easily deceived. M. Clermont-Ganneau described and illustrated
this bronze plate from photographs, but since his paper appeared he has
again visited the East and seen and handled the original.

[440] M. CLERMONT-GANNEAU reminds us that this peculiarity is repeated in a
monster on one of the Nimroud reliefs (see LAYARD, _Monuments_, series ii.
plate 3).

[441] See above, p. 72, and Figs. 3, 10, 11, 12. See also the notes to M.
Clermont-Ganneau's article. He has no difficulty in showing how general was
the use of these emblems.

[442] See page 65.

[443] Compare Figs. 23, 31, and especially 159 and 209 of _Art in Ancient
Egypt_, vol. i.

Sec. 2.--_The Chaldaean Tomb._

The principle of the Chaldaean sepulchre was similar to that of the Egyptian
mastaba or hypogeum; it had to supply the same wants and to render the same
services; the task imposed upon the architect was in each case governed by
the same general idea. Why then have we found nothing in Mesopotamia that
may be compared, even at the most respectful distance, with the splendid
tomb-houses of the Theban necropolis, nor even with those of Phoenicia,
Asia Minor, or Etruria? The reason for the difference is easily told; it is
to be found in the nature and configuration of the country itself. There
were no mountains in whose sides tomb-chambers could be cut, and in the
loose permeable soil of the plain it would have been practically impossible
to establish pits that should be at once spacious and durable.

We shall find, no doubt, in almost every country, sepulchres constructed
above the soil like palaces and temples. In Egypt we have already
encountered the pyramid, but even there the tomb-chamber is in most cases
cut in the rock itself, and the huge mass of stone above it is nothing more
than a sort of colossal lid. Funerary architecture is not content, like
that of civil or religious buildings, to borrow its materials from the
ro