London. Published by Longman, Rees & Co. April 6th. 1835.
The reader will observe, also, in the section, a specimen of a semicircular arch. They are drawn very small, as belonging to the pyramids, but they are not, on that account, less accurate; and, therefore, almost equally useful as if they had been made separate plates. The stone forming the keystone of this semicircular arch is 1 foot 9 inches in length; the stones supporting it, corresponding precisely, 2 feet 1 inch, and the one on each side following these, to the spring of the arch, 2 feet 4 inches. The arch, then, not only the circular, but the pointed, had its origin in Ethiopia. The oldest known in Europe is, I believe, that in the Cloacum Maximum, supposed to have been built in the time of the Commonwealth. The great antiquity, of the one on the Tiber is proved by its singular construction, forming almost, as it were, three arches beneath each other.
I am aware that the learned will be sceptical concerning the antiquity of these. There are no remains in stone to prove that the Egyptians were so far advanced in the construction of the arch as these specimens show that the Ethiopians were. The only stone arch that exists in Egypt is the one at North Der, at Thebes; and that one proves that the Egyptians were acquainted with its beauty, but not its utility and the correct mode of constructing it. The vaulted tomb of stones at Memphis is of the time of Psammitichus, who reigned immediately after the Ethiopian dynasty. The brick arches in the tombs at Thebes, covered with cement, on which are the royal name of Thothmes and Amenoph, prove that the Egyptians were, at that period, acquainted with the arch; but it is rather singular that there is no earlier specimen: whence, I think, we may infer, as those were built soon after the terrible wars commenced, which are represented on the walls at Thebes, that the Egyptians then, for the first time, invaded Ethiopia, and there saw and became acquainted with that useful construction. There seems to me no reason to suppose that the knowledge of the utility and construction of the arch passed from Egypt into Ethiopia: the contrary is much more probable, as we have here far more perfect specimens than are found in Egypt; and as there is no doubt of the very great antiquity of these ruins, can there be any, that the invention of the arch had its origin in Ethiopia?[31]
The sandstone of which the pyramids are built is of a much harder quality than that of the temples, being either from a vein in the mountain which is now exhausted, or, as I conceive is most probable, brought from distant quarries. This is an extraordinary proof that the greatest pains were taken in the construction of these edifices, to enable them to resist the ravages of time.
As to the antiquity of these structures, I conceive it to be very great. Some of them appear more ancient than any that exist in the valley of the Nile, with the exception, perhaps, of the pyramids of Meroe and Nouri. They are the tombs of a dynasty of kings whose names are now unknown. That they were royal sepulchres, and not those of private individuals, is, I think, evident from their being as magnificent as the pyramids at Meroe, which we know to belong to kings from the ovals which they contain; and many of the individuals in these tombs have the serpent, the emblem of royalty, above their foreheads. If this had been the site of Napata, I should conceive that the dilapidated state of the ruins might have been caused by Petronius, who led there the Roman arms; but in the [Historical Appendix] I will give the reader a further account of that celebrated expedition. I trust that the hieroglyphic inscriptions which I have copied will contain much valuable information; and that, at all events, the name of a place, evidently once so considerable, may again, with certainty, be enrolled in the list of cities. Her habitations and her palaces are utterly destroyed: the desert is swallowing up the remains of her temples; and the sepulchres of her kings are fast decaying. A city where the arts evidently were once so zealously cultivated,—where science and learning appear to have reigned,—is now possessed by ignorant barbarian tribes. Where are the descendants of that people who erected these splendid monuments to their gods? Were they exterminated by the warlike tribe who now occupy this territory, driven into other regions, or blended with the race of their conquerors? These are questions of great importance, which I may endeavour to illustrate in my historical chapter, but which I pass by at present, as scarcely belonging to a topographical description.
Pl. 29.
| From a Drawing by G. A. Hoskins Esqr. | Printed by C. Hullmandel. |
SCULPTURE IN A PYRAMID AT GIBEL EL BIRKEL.
Published by Longman, Rees & Co. April 6th. 1835.