Chapter III: Natural Decoration

Though it might be supposed that the imitation of natural forms would be the earliest form of decoration, yet this is not the case. On the contrary, we find the geometrical forms of wave lines, and chequers copied from weaving, and the varieties of the spiral, were the first ornaments of importance in Egypt; while the natural forms of feathers and flowers were not generally imitated till a later time.

One source of simple pattern that has been little noticed is the feather, and the variety of its forms. Fortunately we have these different forms shown unmistakably as feathers on the coffins of the Antefs in the XIth dynasty, before we find them in common use elsewhere. Hence we can have little doubt as to their real origin. On these coffins the royal mummies are figured as swathed around in protecting wings, representing those of Isis at the sides and of the vulture of Mut on the head. The feathers have different forms according to the part of the wing which they occupy. Thus on one coffin we find all of the following types of feathers:—

Now when we have thus been shown the conventional types which were used to represent feathers, we can identify these again in many other places, where probably the original idea of feather work was entirely lost; and we have a new light on some representations not yet understood.

On the kings of the XVIIIth-XXth dynasty we often see a wide belt covering the whole stomach, which is decorated with what is commonly called scale pattern. But this occurs in scenes which are not at all warlike, and where no defensive scale armour is likely to be shown—Amenhotep I. is seated as a god receiving adoration after his death; Amenhotep II. is represented adoring Ra. And in the second case the pattern is identical with the feathers on the Antef coffin. The only conclusion is that these represent belts of feather work worn around the body to prevent chill, like the voluminous waist shawl of modern Orientals. Such a feather belt would be admirable for lightness and warmth, but that it is not scale armour is seen from the absence of it in fighting scenes. On the contrary, in the royal campaigning dress another form of feather work is seen in the large wings of feathers which encircle the shoulders (Ramessu II., R.S. lxxxi.).

This feather pattern is also very usual on the sides of thrones, from the XVIIIth dynasty down to the latest times. Here again it is evident that it cannot be scale armour; and a feather rug thrown across the seat, in place of the fur rug otherwise used, is a very likely thing to find in such a position.

We may, then, take this pattern, when used on dress or on thrones, to represent feather work. But in later times it is also used on very incongruous objects. As early as the XVIIIth dynasty the feather pattern occurs around columns as an architectural ornament (Tell el Amarna), and with the characteristic marking also about the XIXth dynasty (P. 79); also on metal work (vase, P. 97), where it must be purely an artificial marking.

It became elaborated under Seti I., with markings upon it, both on a dress of a god and on a throne-cover. And it became degraded into an unintelligible pattern under Ramessu II., when it appears as the dress of the god Amen.

In later times the same pattern was used on columns at Philæ, in an inverted and very corrupt form.

The other forms of feather pattern shown on the Antef coffin were also found later. But they merge so readily into mere line patterns that it is not likely that they were regarded as feathers in their later use. The V pattern is found on the columns at Tell el Amarna, on belts of the kings (L.D. III. 1), on painted wooden columns (P. 73), on the harps of Ramessu III. (P. 114), and many other places.

The use of flowers for ornament is so natural that their occurrence in the earliest times is what might be expected. Yet but few flowers were adopted for decoration. The lotus is far the commonest, after that the papyrus, the daisy, and the convolvulus, together with the vine and palm, almost complete the material of vegetable designs. There is also, however, what may be called a generic flower ornament—the rosette—which is treated so conventionally that it can hardly receive any precise name. Sometimes in the XVIIIth dynasty it is clearly a daisy, very seldom has it the pointed petals of the lotus; and it fluctuates between the geometrical and the natural so as to defy details. One cause of this is the evident effect of leather work. The coloured leather funereal tent of Isiemkheb, found at Deir el Bahri, opens our eyes to a great deal. We there see an elaborate design, descending to long inscriptions of small hieroglyphs, all worked by cutting and stitching of leather. After this we can see in many of the Egyptian designs the influence of leather work; and nowhere is this plainer than in the rosettes. The earliest rosettes we know, those on the head-band of Nefert, at the very beginning of monumental history, are plain discs of colour divided into segments by white lines across them. These are discs of leather secured by radiating threads; and the same are seen in the XVIIIth dynasty, more varied by concentric circles of colours, probably successive superposed discs stitched down one over the other.

Another stitch ornament is seen on the stuffs used for covering thrones in the XXth dynasty. There star and cross patterns are used which are evidently stitch work or embroidery; and in the spaces are discs of colour with white spots around, probably pieces sewn on by stitches round the edge. On a dress of Ramessu II. also are little six-pointed stars, which were doubtless stitch work.

There can be no doubt of the effect that stitching has had on the use of rosettes, but other varieties are probably independent of that. The great series of rosettes is in the moulded glazed ware of Tell el Amarna; there several dozen varieties are found, varying from four petals to thirty-two. The more elaborate of these have an unmistakable daisy centre of yellow in the midst of white petals, and this indicates what was probably the flower in mind for most of them.

The rosette is found in varied use. On metal vases it is very general, and may either be a separate ornament of beaten work riveted on, like the rosettes on the silver ox head at Mykenae, or else embossed _repoussé_ in the metal. Carved in wood or ivory, rosettes decorated the furniture; and they are constantly found as centre ornaments in square patterns, and along borders with the lotus or other subject.

In patterns a frequent form is only four petals, or a cruciform flower, as at Benihasan in the XIIth dynasty; and this is varied by alternations of square and diagonal arrangement.

A graceful, simple form, which again recalls leather _appliquée_, is yellow on a blue ground.

An allied pattern is the disc surrounded by spots. This is very usual on early Greek pottery, and is found on the Aegean pottery also. This is very rarely seen in pure Egyptian design, and only in the XVIIIth dynasty, when Mykenaean influence was strongest. On Neferhotep’s ceiling two forms are found, put between the horns of the bulls’ heads, like the rosette on the Mykenaean ox head. Elsewhere it is usually seen on the scarves of the negroes as a characteristic decoration, and on the dress of the Amu (C.M. cclviii.). Hence it appears to be distinctly a foreign ornament, like the other spot pattern on a zigzag line. Only three examples are published from Egyptian decoration, and those may well be due to foreign influence.

We now reach the largest and most complex growth of Egyptian ornament in the lotus, so widely spread that some have seen in it the source of all ornament. Without going so far, we shall find plenty in it to tax our reasoning and imagination. If I prefer, in dealing with this, to ignore the developments of it seen outside of Egypt as aids to understanding it, this is only because those foreign examples are so much later that they are a reflex of various Egyptian periods, and cannot show anything certainly as to the long anterior course of development in Egypt itself.

The debated question of lotus and papyrus disappears at once when we look at the feathery head of minute flowers which the papyrus bears. That some flower, such as a _nelumbium_, was confused with the lotus seems, however, very likely. There is no doubt that in ornament different flowers were sometimes confused, and their details mixed; hence it is of no use for us to be too particular in trying to separate them. We shall therefore use the name lotus in general without necessarily entering on botanical reasons for and against it on each occasion.

The oldest use of the lotus was in groups of two flowers tied together by the stalks; such are found on the prehistoric pottery at Koptos, and on the earliest tombs. But in later times this became corrupted, and the origin apparently forgotten, by the XVIIIth dynasty.

The plain flower was also used very early, as we see on the head-band of Nefert at the beginning of the IVth dynasty. And as architectural ornament it appears as a capital in wood of the Vth dynasty in the tomb of Imery. At Karnak there is a celebrated pair of granite pillars, one with the papyrus, the other with the lotus; and this form, with the sepals turned over at the end, became the more usual in the Empire and later times.

The variety of lotus capital is very great. The bud capital and the opened flower are both shown in the XVIIIth dynasty (tomb of Khaemhat); and many composite, complicated, and impossible combinations were piled together in the decadent age of the Ramessides.

The lotus was also much used in repetition as a border pattern, but not apparently before the XVIIIth dynasty; and usually it is in alternation with buds, which fit harmoniously into the curves between the flowers. This line of flowers and buds was varied as flowers and grapes, and appears very often in the XVIIIth dynasty.

The flower and bud was further developed in a mechanical fashion, and we can trace a continuous series of forms beginning in a flower and bud pattern and modifying the intermediate member, until on reversing the line we find that something has been evolved which is indistinguishable from the Greek palmetto alternating with the lotus. The isolated anthemion, which is so much like this, has probably a different origin, as we shall soon see.

Beside using the separate flowers, the whole plant was also a favourite subject as a group. In the earliest days we find it entwined around the hieroglyph of union, as we shall notice in considering the hieroglyphs. In the XIIth dynasty the plant appears as a recurrent group in surface decoration; though from the varying form of the flower it might be intended for lotus or papyrus.

In the XVIIIth dynasty it is more free, as might be expected in the time of Akhenaten.

It is also seen as a foreign ornament on the dress of a Syrian slain by Ramessu II. at Abu Simbel, but in this case perhaps the tufted papyrus is intended. And in place of the rounded group which is usual in the XVIIIth-XIXth dynasties we find a different treatment on the throne of Ramessu III., in which it is kept more as a parallel pattern. This parallelism became general in later times, and the Ptolemaic walls are ruled over with stiff friezes of lotus and bud.

These wall basements are preceded by groups of flower and bud in scenes, which are of the same style, as early as the IVth dynasty, on the tomb of Debuhen. Here it may be the papyrus; but in the Vth dynasty, on a basket-work screen, the lotus and bud is clearly shown. This pattern, however, is very seldom found as a general architectural ornament until we come down to the dull sterility of the Ptolemaic and Roman age. Then the lower part of each wall is uniformly ruled with an endless series of flowers and buds on long stems in monotonous order.

We now come to the ornamental development of the flower into a monstrosity, which is only decorative and not natural, and which requires some thought and comparison to understand its origin.

First there is the _fleur-de-lys_ type, with curled-over sides and a middle projection. This has not been yet explained satisfactorily; but a principle which was first clearly formulated by Borchardt (A.Z. xxxi. 1) will show the origin of this as well as of the succeeding forms. The Egyptian, it seems, consistently drew the interior or top view of an object above the side view. In short, they suppose things to be seen in a bird’s-eye view, and expressed that by drawing—for instance, a cup—in side view and partly in top view above that. A dish would be drawn in side view, and a top view of its compartments and contents placed over it, and the bunch of flowers that lay on it is again placed over the top view. Now on this principle we can see that the projection in the midst of the lotus flower is the third sepal at the back of the flower, the fourth, in front, being so foreshortened as to disappear altogether.

This view is further complicated by showing not only some of the four outer sepals, but also some of the petals, usually three. Here the near sepal is shown rising in front, and then above these everted sepals are three of the inner petals of the flower. These might be increased to five or seven, but were generally an odd number; and they were at last evolved to a fan of petals, in which the treatment of the dish of fruit just shown is exactly reproduced, a side view of the flower being crowned by a top view of it showing the radiating petals in the interior.

So far we are on clear ground. Now we come to a more complex form, which has also not yet been explained. In the XVIIIth dynasty (from which we must mainly draw, as we have the long series of varieties in the glazed ornaments of Tell el Amarna) a strange form appears, with reversed curling arms above the calyx. Now we have seen that a third sepal is shown from the back of the flower, and the fourth is omitted which lay in front. But this was an imperfect flower, and so a diagonal point of view was taken, in which two sepals lay nearest and were seen in side view, and the two behind them were seen over them. Sometimes they are curled alike, but more generally they are curled different ways, the nearer ones downwards, the further ones upwards. Hence we get this very mechanical form, which was greatly developed in Assyrian and Greek types of the pattern. If it can be proved that the Assyrian tree pattern is earlier than this development, we could then grant what seems a likely influence on the development of this pattern. It was so far removed from a natural view that it soon became greatly varied and amplified, as on a bracelet in the Louvre.

In Assyria this became a staple design, in which the top was greatly increased at the expense of the lotus sepals below; but still the four sepals, two front and two back, are shown. In the Greek designs, however barbarous they may seem in comparison, owing to their hopeless divergence from any rational type, yet the same elements remain, and the four sepals can be traced below the view of the petals in the flower. Thus the anthemion with its double curves is fully accounted for, the lower and upper sepals being still distinguishable in the two spirals on each side at the base of it. The later changes of this necessarily belong to Greek art, and we cannot here follow them out.

A late development of the lotus in Ptolemaic Egypt was with a central spike through the face of petals. As this spike rises from the base, it appears to be the front sepal rising before the petals.

Another variety in this pattern remains to be noticed. On very many compound lotus patterns there is a pendant from each end of the side sepals. This does not appear until the XVIIIth dynasty on the monuments: it is then sometimes single and sometimes double. But here, as in the spirals, the scarab type is an earlier stage than the architectural. On the architecture it is quite unintelligible, and a mere conventional monstrosity; while on a scarab of green jasper—which from the style and material seems certainly to be before the XVIIIth dynasty, and probably of the XIIth—there is an already conventionalised lotus group, with the four sepals and inner petals already developed into a sort of “tree pattern,” and the lower two sepals have a pendant, partly worn away, but clearly showing a triply-branching line like a small lotus flower. This is the earlier stage of this conventional pendant; but even here, although the pendant itself is rational, the position of it is hard to explain. Probably we must wait for some early scarab to clear up the real origin of this curious and puzzling form.

We have now traced the evolution of the various forms of the lotus pattern in Egypt, and seen how the main Assyrian and Greek types of the palmetto and the anthemion arose, which were confounded together owing to their similarity.

Other plants were often confounded with the lotus in decoration, by the ancients as well as by moderns. We have noticed some examples of this; and it is well shown in the group of boat-builders, to whom, apparently, bundles of papyrus with lotus flowers are being brought, in the IVth dynasty tomb of Shepseskau (L.D. II. 12).

Much use was made of papyrus in the floral work of Tell el Amarna. On the painted pavement groups of papyrus with large red fluffy heads of seed vessels are figured; and on the coloured tiles the landscape view of the papyrus plant in strictly natural treatment is a frequent subject. But these belong rather to artistic than to ornamental work.

In architecture the lotus and papyrus were largely used, in fact they form the basis of columnar decoration as distinct from that of pillars. The earliest figure of a column that is known is as far back as any dated monument we possess at the beginning of the IVth dynasty; and there it is fashioned as a stem and flower, probably carved in wood. The contracting connection with the tenon above, in a bell form, on the top of the flower, is the same as columns of the VIth dynasty (L.D. II. 111); and is the source of the much later columns of Tahutmes III. at Karnak, which otherwise seems to be an unaccountable “sport.”

In the figures of wooden columns in the Vth and VIth dynasties, the lotus form prevails, as we have already noticed, and here repeat.

In the Vth dynasty, in the tomb of Ptahshepses at Abusir the clustered papyrus stems are a new feature; at Benihasan they are well developed; and they continued in use to the XVIIIth dynasty. But a different type then arose into predominance in the wide bell-topped lotus capitals, and with long sheath-leaves around the root; and this continued for several dynasties. But this was displaced by the elaborate composite capitals of Ptolemaic and Roman age, which were made up of varied elements of incongruity.

The palm, though the most important tree of the country, has had but little effect on the architecture. There is not a single example of columns copied from a palm stem; and the only instances of the imitation of the stem are in two or three instances of copies of roofing beams. The branches are not copied on columns until other subjects were well used. In the XIIth dynasty the imitation of a bundle of palm branches was made in the capitals, and it became common in the XVIIIth. Perhaps, however, as we shall see in considering the hieroglyphs, the palm column originates with a bundle of palm-sticks bound together. It is strange that the simple element of grouping branches round a post should not have been a very usual early motive. Was the palm really common in early Egypt? It does not enter into the hieroglyphs, and it is seldom shown on monuments till the XVIIIth dynasty; while grapes, figs, and pomegranates all seem to have been commoner than dates.

In late times not only the branches but the fruit was sculptured; and at Esneh and other Roman temples the bunches of dates are carefully rendered.

The vine is one of the oldest cultivated plants in Egypt, and all the designs copied from it are based on the idea of its climbing and trailing over the houses. It appears mainly in the florid work of the XVIIIth dynasty. The ceiling was often painted of a golden yellow, with vine leaves and bunches of grapes hanging from a trellis pattern which covers it. At Tell el Amarna some fragments found were very free and natural, but in the XXth dynasty it became a stiff and formal affair. (Tomb of Aimadua, Ramessu X.).

Bunches of grapes also formed favourite pendants; as such they are painted in rows hanging from architraves of wooden buildings (tomb of Ra, Amenhotep II.); and frequently in blue glazed ware bunches of grapes are found of varying sizes, with half of the upper part cut away so as to affix them by a peg-hole to a square wooden beam of the ceiling.

In the Greco-Roman decoration of capitals the vine and grapes also appears, and is often very beautifully treated, as at Esneh, though essentially as a mere surface decoration, and not as an organic element.

The convolvulus has scarcely, if at all, been acknowledged as an Egyptian ornament. Yet it often occurs during the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. On a coffin in the Ghizeh Museum a long trail of convolvulus is beautifully modelled and painted; and during the tide of naturalism under Akhenaten the wild flowing stems were a favourite element of decoration.

Subsequently the convolvulus is often shown as a climber on the lotus or papyrus stems in bouquets; and though its leaves then have been miscalled lotus buds, or “tabs,” yet they are clearly intended for a natural leaf of this climber, which is so common in the Egyptian fields.

Another field plant which played a great part in the glazed decorations was the thistle. This is naturally painted on the glazed tiles; and the glazed pendants of necklaces and wall decoration showed an abundance of thistles with green calices and purple petals. But this, like the convolvulus, was rarely used except during the beautiful period of naturalism which was most developed by Akhenaten.

Artificial combinations of flowers also became used decoratively. We have just instanced two examples from the great bouquets or staves of flowers which the Egyptians used in ceremonies.

The garlands of flower petals which are seen on the heads of women, or as collars, in the XVIIIth-XXth dynasties were also placed around the water-jars; and hence a painted pattern of garlands came to be used on those jars.

In architecture also the garland came into use, sometimes carved on the stone around the columns, sometimes made in coloured glaze and inlaid in the surface.

Wreaths of lotus flowers and buds were also represented around the columns at Tell el Amarna.

The great pectorals, or breast-plates, of successive strings of flowers and leaves were prominent in the personal and religious decoration. The sacred barks of the gods were adorned with large and complex breast-plates, probably made of bronze, gilded and inlaid (L.D. III. 235).

A small example of such we have in London, with the details all inlaid in gold. These pectorals were also represented on the later vases as a complete whole.

Turning now to the men and animals shown in decoration, in the period of the Empire we constantly see figures of captives introduced to emphasise the power of the king. These first appear in the great change which overcame Egyptian art consequent upon the Asiatic conquests. Before Tahutmes III. the character and style of work continually recalls that of the XIIth dynasty; but within one or two generations a profound difference changed for ever the nature of the art, and this is reflected in the national handwriting, which shows a similar break. Amenhotep II. appears on his nurse’s knee with an emblematic group of foreigners under his feet, while he grasps cords tied to their necks; and in the same spirit he is shown, when grown up, as smiting at one blow a whole bunch of captives whom he holds in his left hand (L.D. III. 62; L.D. III. 61). Tahutmes IV. similarly is seen seated on his tutor’s knee, with his feet on a footstool ornamented with prostrate captives (L.D. III. 69). Amenhotep III. appears with figures of a negro and a Syrian bound to the _sam_ sign on the sides of his throne, and henceforward the abasement of captives was an essential idea to Egyptians. But it should be remembered that common as the notion was in late times, it is originally Asiatic and not Egyptian; the king trampling on the nations and making foes a footstool are ideas not found in Egypt until the Semitic conquests of Tahutmes III., though the earliest figure of a sphinx trampling on a captive is under the XIIth dynasty.

Under Akhenaten six various races are represented on the sides of his great balcony (L.D. III. 109), and the alternate negroes and Syrians are painted on the passage floors of his palace, or carved in blocks of alabaster to be trodden under foot. Down the various ages this symbolism recurs in decoration until in Ptolemaic and Roman times every decent Egyptian had captives painted on the soles of his sandals in which he was buried, so that for all eternity he might tread down the Gentiles.

Among animals a favourite in decoration was the ibex, but it was not introduced till the XVIIIth dynasty. It often appears on the finger-rings of Akhenaten’s time, and later upon the funeral tent of Isiemkheb, ingeniously adapted to fill a square space.

The bull or young calf was more frequently introduced; on the wooden boxes and trays it is shown as bounding in the meadows, and it is continually used in the groups of the painted pavement at Tell el Amarna.

Birds are also a common subject for decoration, though only dating from the same period as the other animals. Besides the symbolic or sacred use of the hawk and vulture, the very secular duck was a favourite bird. On the great pavements of Akhenaten it appears above every group of plants.

On rings it is often engraved fluttering above its nest; and in the decadence of Egyptian art in the XXth dynasty the incongruous idea was adopted of birds, eggs, and nests all upon a ceiling.

The natural ceiling pattern adopted from the early days of Egyptian art was of golden stars on a deep blue ground; not a dark daylight blue, as in modern imitations, but a black night blue. These are always five-pointed stars, with a circular spot, usually of red, in the centre.

It is noticeable that the Egyptian views a star as surrounded by long streamers of light; because to a long-sighted person, or any one with proper spectacles, the stars appear as points of light without radiations. Hence it seems as if the Egyptians were short-sighted people from the early ages.

Lastly we may notice the base imitation of nature in copying the grain of wood, which we find done in the earliest times of the IVth dynasty, and continued down to the period of the Empire. Stones were also imitated by painting, and red granite is frequently copied in the earlier days, on the recessed doorways of tombs. In later times vases of valuable stone were imitated by painting over a pottery vase, and such cheap substitutes were commonly placed in the tombs.

These base imitations are of æsthetic interest as showing in what a different manner the Egyptian viewed his materials from that of our standpoint. He stuccoed and painted over his hard stone statues; it was enough for him to know that the stone was hard and imperishable—he did not need to see it always exposed. The imitation of nature was the standpoint from which he started, and he had no objection to carry out that imitation with paint or otherwise; our abstract standpoint of an artistic effect which must never involve falsity, but which may have little or nothing to do with nature, was altogether outside of his æsthetic.