306 



AN ANALYSIS OF THE 



The Profile Lion Head. In a series of profile heads confined to Western Asia, 

 it is probable that Fig. 37 was derived by abridgment from a model such as Fig. 41, 

 or even 42, permitting Fig. 40, an Etruscan form, to come between. The pertinence of 

 an Etruscan outline in a series of this kind, may be doubted by many. Is the 

 resemblance between these heads any less exact than between many figures of 

 Etruscan and Persian, and even Mesopotamian ai-t, as seen in Micali and Lajard ? 



Fig. 37. (*) Fig. 38. (t) Fig. 39. {\) Fig. 40. (§) Fig. 41. (|1) Fig. 42. (1) 



In a second series of profile heads selected from Persian and Etrurian sources, 

 we hope that the order of the figures, and the references at the bottom of the page 

 Avill serve for sufiScient explanation. It is highly instructive that the ultimate (Fig. 

 49) is the soui'ce of the abridgment (Fig. 43). At fii'st sight, it would appear absurd 

 to associate a Persian outline with anothei' in Etruria. But a comparison between 

 many figures of Inghrami, Micali and Lajard, must convince the observer that more 

 than a superficial resemblance exist between Persian and Etruscan figures, however, 

 the historian may explain it. And we assume from what we have seen in the 

 lion heads (Figs. 28 and 30), as well as from the sej'ies to be presented, that the art- 

 forms of Etrui'ia were moulded upon types which originated in Asia and Egypt. 



* Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Babylonia, kc, Sir R. K. Porter, LonJ., 18)1, opp., p. 424. 



\ Ciilte de Mithraj, F. Lajard, pi 37. 



X Lajard, I. c, pi. 25, fig. (i. 



§ MitMli, I. c, pi. 24. 



II Rawlinson, Anc. Men., I. c, III, 334. 



^[ T/ayard. /. c. 



