Page:History of Art in Persia.djvu/380

 358 History of Art in Antiquity. pletely destroyed, but which once stood both on the esplanade of the Takht-i-Jamshid and the plain of Istakhr, might have furnished the fragments in dispute. We are not beset by the same doubts in connection with the remains of another monument situated at Hamadan (Ecbatana).' The name of Artaxerxes II. appears on the torus of bases, which reproduce one of the types exhibited in the Persepolitan palaces ; hence the inducrion that we are faced here by a replica of the Fi(i. I7J.— Hatnadan. View of remains of ancient building. Flandin and CosTI, /'rm ann'tHHf, Plate XV. latter. Unfortunately, no plan has been made of these ruins, which neither T^xier nor Coste visited. The only ancient build- ing examined by Coste at Hamadan is not easily dated, for it bears no inscriptions, and its shapes are of a most peculiar character. Its remains, represented by several huge blocks, and the frag- ments of two columns, or foundation stones still m si'/u, lie two kilometres south-east of Hamadan, and mark the site of an important edifice (Fig. 173). One of the stones is almost entirely buried ; but the other, seemingly corresponding with a shaft of greater calibre, is wholly disengaged. It is a monolith ; ' His/, of Arty torn. v. p. 501, n. 2. We found the base-fragment bearing the in- scription referred to above in the Persian section of the Exposition Universelle of 1889. It formed part of the collection of M. Richard, professor at the military school at Teheran. It never was, as believed, in the Tiflis Museum. The miscon- ception arose in this wise : M. Ermakov, a photographer established at Tiflis, finding himself at Teheran, took a cliche, from which proofs were sown all over Europe.