'General information on Persia for any future edition, 1895' [‎45r] (80/211)

The R.I.B.A. Journal
305
20 April 1893
M. Dietilafoy’s restorations of the Apadana are
shown in two photogravures taken from the model
which he has had prepared, and which is now in
the Louvre. In the photogravure of the south
front he has failed to take cognisance of the deep
trench on the left-hand side, the trench which forms
the inclined ascent for the chariots, and which
at this point is 9 feet deep; some sort of wall
should have been shown there. But in the other
photogravure, taken from the north-west corner,
the discrepancy is worse, for there also the podium
wall is 9 feet high; and if this had been worked
out in the model, I think M. Dieulafoy would
have thought it more reasonable to have placed
some kind of structure in the angle formed by
the two flank walls of the north and east portions.
He may have elected to stand by the example of
the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis, where these
angles are supposed not to have been occupied by
buildings; but Mr. Weld Blundell* discovered
there in 1892 a deep layer of burnt wood similar
to that which was found in the Palace of the
Hundred Columns, and which proved conclu
sively that these spaces were occupied and covered
with a wooden roof.
Now, as regards the antse shown in M. Dieu-
lafoy’s last plan, p. 342, but not shown in any of
his earlier plans, though he does not specifically
draw attention to them, in a valuable plan of the
Hall of Xerxes, Persepolis, given on page 338, he
shows antae round the great hall; this is published
to confute Messrs. Perrot and Chipiez’s imaginary
restoration with three porticoes into a central
hall with no enclosure walls at all, as if such a
* Mr. Weld Blundell went out to Persepolis in the
beginning of 1892 to select examples of the best
sculptures (capitals and bas-reliefs) and superintend
the execution of moulds, in order to reproduce casts
for the British Museum. I prepared for him a plan
of Persepolis and directed his attention to three
points:—1. The exact position of the drain which
was shown in Coste’s plan as running under where
Fergusson^ places the enclosure walls of the Great
Hall of Xerxes. 2. The trace of walls enclosing
the angles of the flank walls of the porticoes already
referred to ; and 3. The truth of the statement by Coste
and Texier that no walls could exist on certain parts
of the site, because they said the natural rock exists
there, and no traces of walls could be found on
them. Mr. Weld Blundell ascertained—I. That the
main drain ran underneath the hall, between the
enclosure walls and the first row of columns, and that
some of the natural rain-water ducts, measuring
15" x 12", and cut in large blocks of stone, actually
existed 15" and 14" above the level of the platform,
showing that, they could not have served only to drain
the latter, as Coste, Texier, and MM. Perrot and Chipiez
imagined. 2. That the angles were occupied, as
evidenced by the layer of charcoal; and 3. That
what Coste thought was the natural rock turned out
to be an artificial crust caused by the continual
passing of rain-water containing lime washed over the
surface, and hardened for centuries by a tropical sun.
VV hen broken with some labour with the pickaxe the
traces of foundations of walls were found beneath the
artificial crust.—R. P. S.
structure could possibly exist; and, if erected,
could ever have served the purposes it was destined
for. In this plan, but in a hesitating manner, as
if not quite sure, M. Dieulafoy indicates the trace
of two ant®. It should be noted that here, as at
oiisa, M. Dieulafoy has not the courage to show
them in the porticoes, where I presume they
would equally be required to carry the beams of
the roof. Is there, however, any precedent for
ant® in Persian work? I am‘aware that in
Greek work the ant® are, like the triglyphs and
other features, due to the traditional use'of a fea
ture, decoratively, which was in early work a con
structive necessity. The drawings published in
Schliernann’s work on Tiryns, and the minute
description given by Dr. Dbrpfeld, clearly show
that the early Greek architects, in the feature
known as “ Portico-in-antis,’’ were unwilling to
trust to the support of a crude brick wall, or one
built with rubble masonry set in clay mortar, to
carry the architrave of the portico, and therefore
they erected against the flanks of the side walls
balks of timber. These no longer exist at Tiryns,
but their stone bases were found, with the sockets
in which the traces of the lower end of the verti
cal beams were fixed, and these features, the
ant®, were copied afterwards in marble as a
decorative finish in the Greek temples. No
example has yet been found in Egypt in wood,
but ant® are found in the “ Portico-in-antis ” and
interiors of the tombs at Beni Bassan, which leave
no doubt as to their origin. But is there any
reason for supposing that the same system was
adopted in Persia ? I think not. I am of opinion
that they provided against this contingency in
the same way which is adopted by us at the pre
sent day—namely, the use of wall-plates. It is
true there is only one example existing which
suggests it. In the stone pier of the portico of
the Palace of Cyrus (published in M. Dieulafoy's
L'Art antique de la Perse) at Pasargad®, in
addition to the sinking in which the architrave of
the portico was fixed—and I will refer to this
feature again—there is a second sinking or mortise
in which the plate was laid to carry the beams
of the porch. I think, therefore, that the pro
babilities are against the employment of ant® in
Persian architecture,* with the sole exception
of the main piers which always flank these porti
coes, but for which there was a special requirement .
To explain this I will point out what seems
to be another mistake in M. Dieulafoy’s restora
tion. It will be observed in the photogravure of
the south front that the piece of timber, placed in
the backs of the bulls which carry the architrave,
is shown flush with the front row of columns.
Now, it is a singular thing that not one of the
restorers of these Persian palaces seems to have
* M. Dieulafoy, however, himself disposes of the
ant® in his own drawing, represented in A, in which
he indicates the exact line of wall, which he traced on
the existing -pavement, shown by hatching a a, which
he contends absolutely decides it; and no ant® are
shown, though the pavement passes by where two
would have existed.—R. P. S.