The façades of these porticoes are very elegant. In their forms we can clearly trace the origin of the Egyptian propylons. That of No. 3. [Plate VII.] consists of a doorway 3 feet wide, and the doorposts 6 inches wide. Above the door is an architrave, over which is a square beading, and over it, as in Egyptian edifices, rises a cornice ornamented with the globe and wings. The door is 11 feet 6 inches high, and, including the architrave and cornice, 14 feet. The buttresses, on each side of the door, have a slight inclination inwards, but not so much as the Egyptian propylons. They measure at their base 7 feet 6 inches, at their summit 7 feet; others, 5 feet by 4 feet 8 inches and 5 feet by 4 feet 10 inches. These measurements include the square beading at the angles. In Egyptian architecture this beading would be round. The square form here adopted, being more simple, affords another reason for supposing that the first idea of this great ornament to the Egyptian temples originated in Ethiopia. The height of this portico is 11 feet 4 inches: that of the pylons of all the porticoes nearly the same, whatever may be the height of the pyramids; but the length and width of the porticoes seem to vary in proportion to the size of the pyramids. At the extremity of most of these porticoes, opposite the entrance, is the representation of a monolithic temple, ornamented with sculpture, all very much defaced.
Pl. 8.
| On stone by C. Hullmandel from a Drawing by G. A. Hoskins Esqr. | Printed by C. Hullmandel. |
PYRAMIDS OF MEROE.
Published by Longman, Rees & Co. April 6th. 1835.
It is evident that, from motives of curiosity, or perhaps avarice, attempts have been made to open many of the pyramids, but without success. From the appearance of those which have been partially broken into, I do not perceive the slightest probability that any of them contain galleries. Probably they are constructed over wells in which the bodies are deposited. That they are places of sepulture cannot be doubted, from their position, number, and, most particularly, from the subjects of the sculpture on the walls, which I will presently describe. One of the porches or porticoes is most interestingly curious, the roof being arched, in a regular masonic style, with what may be called a keystone. (See [Plate VII.]) This arch consists of four and five stones alternately; but, notwithstanding this irregularity, the principle is the same, the stones being held together only by lateral pressure. I trust to be able to establish, beyond dispute, that the arch has its origin in Ethiopia. The style of the sculpture in this portico, and the hieroglyphic names of kings on porticoes ornamented in a similar style, being, as I hope to prove, much more ancient than any in Egypt, where there is no specimen of a stone arch constructed in so regular a manner, we may consider such proficiency in architectural knowledge as a decided proof of the advanced state of the arts, at a very remote period, in this country.[15]
A question which has long engaged the attention of literary men is, whether the Ethiopians derived their knowledge of the arts from the Egyptians, or the latter from the former. One of these hypotheses must be admitted, as the similarity of the style evidently denotes a common origin. These pyramids belong, without doubt, to the remotest age. No edifice, perhaps, is better calculated to resist the ravages of time, or the destructive efforts of man, than the pyramid; particularly when constructed, as these are, without any chambers in the interior. In a country where earthquakes are unknown, little rain falls, and the wind is seldom violent, ages must elapse before these vast masses of stone could be much dilapidated, unless buried by the desert, or carried away by man as materials for other buildings. The porticoes even of the pyramids that are standing, although adapted to their proportions, are almost all injured, and most of them destroyed. There are no symptoms of fanatical violence having been exercised on what remains. Their ruined and defaced condition must be entirely attributed to their great antiquity.[16]
The sculpture is in a very peculiar style, which can scarcely be called good: the large figures, in particular, display a certain rotundity of form which I never observed in any Egyptian sculpture. The smaller figures have also this peculiarity; but, from their dimensions, it is not quite so perceptible, at least not so striking. The hieroglyphics are very much defaced; indeed, those I have copied are almost all that remain. The Ethiopians did not group their hieroglyphics so well as the Egyptians: their striking deficiency, in this respect, proves either a great corruption from the Egyptian style, or, most probably, a great improvement made by the latter on the Ethiopian invention. This is the more extraordinary, as Diodorus informs us that the knowledge of hieroglyphics was, in Egypt, confined to the priests: but that, in Ethiopia, they were understood by all.
To any one who, like me, has made a long study of Egyptian monuments, the style of the sculpture, even in the absence of any known name, is generally sufficient to determine its epoch. This fact, of which those travellers who have spent any length of time in Egypt will be fully aware, may give additional weight to my opinion of this sculpture. It is all executed in basso relievo, with the exception of the hieroglyphics, which are in intaglio. The style is certainly by no means equal to the best at Thebes. It is unlike the style of the age of Osirtesen, the Thothmes, Rameses II. (Augustan age), Rameses III. (first decline), the florid style during the reign of Psammitichus, or the clumsy inelegant productions of the Persian (I refer to the sculpture in the temple of Darius in the Oasis Magna), Ptolemaic, or Roman dynasties. There is no resemblance to any of these styles, or appearance of its being a corruption from them. The ornaments, on the fragments which still exist, are all evidently peculiar to the country. Of the few that still remain, many are not found in Egypt, and appear to represent the rites of a religion much more simple and pure than the corrupted Egyptian mythology. They bear the stamp of originality, and I should say, therefore, that the Ethiopian style is antecedent to the others; that it is the earliest, though not the best.