Page:A History of Art in Chaldæa & Assyria Vol 1.djvu/418

 390 A HISTORY OF ART IN CHALD^A AND ASSYRIA. Thomas. They are inclined to believe that it was an observatory rather than a temple, and tinder that title they have described it. Although we have made use of the name thus given we do not think it has been justified. There is nothing, says M. Place, among the ruins at Khorsabad to show that the tower ever bore any chapel or tabernacle upon its apex. But according to their own hypothesis it has lost its three highest stories, so why should they expect to find any vestige of such a chapel, seeing that it must have been the first thing to disappear ? There is absolutely nothing to negative the idea that it may have been of wood, in which case its total disappearance would not be surprising, even after the platform had been thoroughly explored ; and that is far 3tt * FIG. 187. The Observatory. Transverse section through A B. from being the case at present. Moreover there is some little evidence that the purpose of the pyramid was religious. Two stone altars were found in its neighbourhood. Whether they came from its summit or from the esplanade, they justify us in believing the Observatory to have been a temple. We are con- firmed in this belief by the similarity which M. Place himself points out between it and the chief monuments of Babylon, as described by Herodotus. It seems to be incontestable that Chaldaea adopted this form for the largest and most sumptuous of. her temples, and why should we suppose the Assyrians to have broken with that tradition and to have devoted to a different use buildings planned and constructed on the same principle ?