Human history / by G. Elliot Smith.

  • Grafton Elliot Smith
Date:
1934
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Human history / by G. Elliot Smith. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    457/520 (page 451)
    ‘flaps’ hanging down on either side of the pillar, probably derived from a conventional leaf decoration. The convex moulding is clearly an imitation in stone of a bundle of reeds or of a coat of reeds tied to a pillar. It has been suggested that the concave fluting is derived from reeds split down the middle with their hollow interior facing outwards. This may be so, or it may be merely the result of a reversal of the convex type. It is certainly an improvement, giving sharper and clearer lines. The fluted column is not a natural form, like the smooth round column, or the simple square pillar which, given the idea of a pillar, might arise independently in any country and any number of times. It is a highly special form, and all later fluted columns must be derived ultimately from these Third Dynasty types. The examples at Sakkara are the earliest but not the only fluted columns known in Egypt. Others, generally called ‘Proto¬ doric,’ are known among the cliff tombs at Beni-Hasanand Thebes, and were in use until the XIXth Dynasty (circa 1300 B.c.). In these the proportion of height to diameter varies from 5^ to 1 to 6 to 1. There was sometimes a base, there was no ‘echinus,’ and the ‘abacus’ was the same breadth as the top of the column. There were sixteen grooves or flutes. Messrs. Anderson and Spiers deny that the Doric column could have been derived from the ‘Protodoric.’ They claim that if the Greeks had copied the Protodoric columns, they would also have adopted other forms from Egypt. This argument is not of much consequence. In the transmission of art-forms the selection and special development of particular features, to the neglect of others, is a common phenomenon. The Greeks, above other nations, avoided the indiscriminate adoption of foreign forms, and were quite capable of choosing from the great variety of Egyptian columns the one which best suited their taste and purpose. As regards the differences between the Greek and Egyptian forms, they are mostly unimportant. There was a difference of proportions, the Doric columns having in early examples the proportion of height to diameter of 4 to 1. This ratio is already fixed in an early temple at Corinth, which, save