[Illustration]
EGYPTIAN
DECORATIVE ART
_A COURSE OF LECTURES_
DELIVERED AT
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION
BY
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, D.C.L.
EDWARDS PROFESSOR OF EGYPTOLOGY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
SECOND EDITION
METHUEN & CO., LTD.
36 ESSEX STREET, W.C.
LONDON
_First Published October 1895_
_Second Edition 1920_
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
_SOURCES OF DECORATION_
PAGE
EGYPTIAN TASTE FOR DECORATION 1
DECORATIVE WRITING OF HIEROGLYPHS 3
ORIGIN OF PATTERNS 5
PROBABILITY OF COPYING 6
GEOMETRICAL ORNAMENT 9
NATURAL ORNAMENT 10
STRUCTURAL ORNAMENT 10
SYMBOLIC ORNAMENT 11
CHAPTER II
_GEOMETRICAL DECORATION_
THE LINE AND ZIGZAG 12
THE SPOT 15
THE WAVE 16
THE SPIRAL 17
THE CONTINUOUS SPIRAL 21
SPIRAL SURFACE PATTERNS 28
QUADRUPLE SPIRALS 31
FRETS 35
GREEK SPIRALS 38
SPIRAL BORDERS 40
CHEQUERS 44
STITCH PATTERNS 46
CIRCLES 47
CHAPTER III
_NATURAL DECORATION_
FEATHERS 50
ROSETTES 56
DISC AND SPOT PATTERNS 60
LOTUS FLOWER 62
LOTUS BORDERS 64
LOTUS PLANT 66
LOTUS DEVELOPMENT 68
LOTUS, ASSYRIAN AND GREEK 72
LOTUS WITH PENDANT 73
PAPYRUS 75
LOTUS AND PAPYRUS COLUMNS 76
THE PALM 78
THE VINE 79
THE CONVOLVULUS 81
THE THISTLE 82
GARLANDS 82
CAPTIVES 85
THE IBEX 87
BIRDS 87
STARS 88
GRAINING AND MARBLING 89
CHAPTER IV
_STRUCTURAL DECORATION_
STRUCTURAL FORMS SURVIVING 91
ROPE PATTERN 92
BASKET-WORK 93
WOODEN FRAMING 94
PANELLING 95
SLOPING WALLS 96
TORUS ROLL 97
PALM CORNICE 98
PAPYRUS CORNICE 101
BINDING PATTERNS 103
CHAPTER V
_SYMBOLIC DECORATION_
THE URAEUS 107
THE DISC AND WINGS 108
THE HORNS 110
THE VULTURE 111
THE SCARAB 111
THE LION 112
THE GODDESS MAAT 114
THE GODDESS HATHOR 114
THE GOD BES 115
HIEROGLYPH SYMBOLS 116
CAPTIVES 122
INDEX 123
ABBREVIATIONS
C. M. Champollion, Monuments.
Duem. Duemichen Hist. Inschr.
F. P. coll. Flinders Petrie collection.
Goodyear. Grammar of the lotus.
H. S. Historical Scarabs (Petrie).
I. Illahun (Petrie)
K. Kahun (Petrie).
L. D. Lepsius Denkmaler.
P. and C. Perrot and Chipiez, Egypt.
P. and C. Ass. Perrot and Chipiez, Assyria.
P. I. Petrie, Illahun.
P. M. Petrie, Medum.
P. or Prisse. Prisse, Art; numbers refer to numbering in Edwards Library
copy, plates being issued unnumbered.
P. Mon. Prisse, Monuments.
R. C. Rosellini, Mon. Civili.
R. S. Rosellini, Mon. Storici.
Schuck. Schuckhardt’s, Schliemann.
T. A. Tell el Amarna (Petrie).
Tanis. Tanis (Petrie)
W. M. C. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs.
The shading of the figures is according to heraldic colours: || red, ═
blue, \\ green, // purple, ⁐ yellow
CHAPTER I
_THE SOURCES OF DECORATION_
In dealing with the subject of decorative art in Egypt, it is needful to
begin by setting some bounds to a study which might be made to embrace
almost every example of ancient work known to us in that land. The
Egyptian treatment of everything great and small was so strongly
decorative that it is hard to exclude an overwhelming variety of
considerations. But here it is proposed to limit our view to the
historical development of the various motives or elements of decoration.
The larger questions of the æsthetic scheme of design, of the meaning of
ornament—symbolic or religious, of the value and effect of colour, of
the relations of parts, we can but glance at occasionally in passing; in
another branch, the historical connection of Egyptian design with that
of other countries, the prospect is so tempting and so valuable, that we
may linger a little at each of these bye-ways to note where the turning
occurs and to what it leads. As I have said, all Egyptian design was
strongly decorative. The love of form and of drawing was perhaps a
greater force with the Egyptians than with any other people. The early
Babylonians and the Chinese had, like the Egyptians, a pictorial
writing; but step by step they soon dropped the picture altogether in
favour of the easier abbreviation of it. The Egyptian, on the contrary,
never lost sight of his original picture; and however much his current
hand altered, yet for four or five thousand years he still maintained
his true hieroglyphic pictures. They were modified by taste and fashion,
even in some cases their origin was forgotten, yet the artistic form was
there to the very end.
But the hieroglyphs were not only a writing, they were a decoration in
themselves. Their position was ruled by their effect as a frieze, like
the beautiful tile borders of Cufic inscription on Arab architecture;
and we never see in Egypt the barbarous cutting of an inscription across
figure sculptures as is so common in Assyria. The arrangement of the
groups of hieroglyphs was also ruled by their decorative effect. Signs
were often transposed in order to group them more harmoniously together
in a graceful scheme; and many sounds had two different signs, one tall,
another wide, which could be used indifferently (at least in later
times) so as to combine better with the forms which adjoined them. In
short, the Egyptian with true decorative instinct clung to his pictorial
writing, modified it to adapt it to his designs, and was rewarded by
having the most beautiful writing that ever existed, and one which
excited and gave scope to his artistic tastes on every monument. This is
but one illustration of the inherent power for design and decoration
which made the Egyptian the father of the world’s ornament.
In other directions we see the same ability. In the adaptation of the
scenes of peace or of war to the gigantic wall surfaces of the pylons
and temples; in the grand situations chosen for the buildings, from the
platform of cliffs for the pyramids at Gizeh, to the graceful island of
Philæ; in the profusion of ornament on the small objects of daily life,
which yet never appear inappropriate until a debased period;—in all
these different manners the Egyptian showed a variety of capacity in
design and decoration which has not been exceeded by any other people.
The question of the origination of patterns at one or more centres has
been as disputed as the origination of man himself from one or more
stocks. Probably some patterns may have been re-invented in different
ages and countries; but, as yet, we have far less evidence of
re-invention than we have of copying. It is easy to pre-suppose a
repeated invention of designs, but we are concerned with what has been,
and not with what might have been. Practically it is very difficult, or
almost impossible, to point out decoration which is proved to have
originated independently, and not to have been copied from the Egyptian
stock. The influences of the modes of work in weaving and basket-work
have had much to do with the uniformity of patterns in different
countries; apparently starting from different motives, the patterns when
subject to the same structural influences have resulted in very similar
ornaments. This complicates the question undoubtedly; and until we have
much more research on the history of design, and an abundance of dated
examples, it will be unsafe to dogmatise one way or the other. So far,
however, as evidence at present goes, it may be said that—in the Old
World at least—there is a presumption that all the ornament of the types
of Egyptian designs is lineally descended from those designs. Mr.
Goodyear has brought so much evidence for this, that—whether we agree
with all his views or not—his facts are reasonably convincing on the
general descent of classic ornament from Egyptian, and of Indian and
Mohammedan from the classical, and even of Eastern Asian design from the
Mohammedan sources. A good illustration of the penetrating effect of
design is seen in a most interesting work on the prehistoric bronzes of
Minusinsk in Central Asia, near the sources of the Yenesei river, and
equidistant from Russia and from China, from the Arctic Ocean and from
the Bay of Bengal. Here in the very heart of Asia we might look for some
original design. But yet it is easy to see the mingled influences of the
surrounding lands, and to lay one’s finger on one thing that might be
Norse, on another that might be Chinese, or another Persian. If, then,
the tastes of countries distant one or two thousand miles in different
directions can be seen moulding an art across half a continent, how much
more readily can we credit the descent of design along the well-known
historical lines of intercourse. The same thing on a lesser scale is
seen in the recent publication of the prehistoric bronzes of Upper
Bavaria; in these the designs are partly Italic, partly Mykenaean. If
forms were readily re-invented again and again independently, why should
we not find in Bavaria some of the Persian or Chinese types? Nothing of
the kind is seen, but the forms and decoration are distinctly those of
the two countries from which the ancient makers presumably obtained
their arts and civilisation. Yet again, to come to historical times, the
elegant use of the angle of a third of a right angle so generally in
Arab art, is very distinct and characteristic. Yet if patterns were
continually re-invented, how is it that no one else hit on this simple
element for thousands of years? The very fact that the locality and date
of an object of unknown origin can be so closely predicted by its style
and feeling in design, is the best proof how continuous is the history
and evolution of ornament, and how little new invention has to do with
it—in short, how difficult it is to man to be really original.
Now we can see a source for most of our familiar elements of design in
the decoration which was used in Egypt long before any example that is
known to us outside of that land. And it is to Egypt then that we are
logically bound to look as the origin of these motives. If, then, we
seek the source of most of the various elements of the decoration which
covers our walls, our floors, our dishes, our book-covers, and even our
railway stations, we must begin by studying Egypt.
As our object is the history and evolution of the various elements of
decoration, we may classify these elements under four divisions. There
is the simplest geometrical ornament of lines and spirals and curves,
and of surfaces divided by these into squares and circles. There is the
natural ornament of copying feathers, flowers, plants, and animals.
There is structural ornament which results from the structural
necessities of building and of manufacture: these often result in the
perpetuation of defects or copies of defects, like the circle stamped in
the plain end of meat tins which is made to imitate the circular patch
soldered on to the other end, so trying to establish a balance of
appearance. Many architectural devices and difficulties are perpetuated
for us in this way long after the original purpose has passed away; such
as the cylindrical bosses projecting from the walls in Moslem
architecture, which imitate the projecting ends of pillars torn from
ruins and built into the wall, though rather too long for the position.
The origin and the imitation can be seen side by side at Jerusalem.
Structural ornament is therefore often of the greatest historical value
as pointing to a condition of things that has since vanished.
Lastly, there is symbolic ornament. Some now claim most decoration as
having some symbolic or religious meaning; of that I shall say nothing,
as it is but an hypothesis. But there is no question of the symbolical
intention of many constantly repeated ornaments in Egyptian work, as the
globe and wings, the scarab, or the various hieroglyphs with well-known
meanings which are interwoven into many designs.