As the result of some recent scientific examinations into the origin of pattern, some investigators have decided that the “knop and flower” patterns of Assyrian ornament (Figs. [167], 195, and 198) are but evolutions of tassels, and knotted fringes of matting and embroideries, just because they bear a not very clear resemblance to such trimmings as we see on the tabernacle on the Balâwât gates (Fig. 197), &c. We admit that there is a fancied resemblance in many ornamental forms to patterns that have been evolved from constructed articles, especially from woven and matted examples, but it is an insult to the intelligence of an artist to ask him to believe that the beautiful and clearly distinctive floral bud and palmate borders in Egyptian, Assyrian, and Greek art have resulted from tyings and knottings of the fringed ends of mats, when one can clearly see the daisy—in some cases turned to a disk—the palm, and, above all, the lotus, almost naturally drawn and modelled; even the connecting lines of flower and buds, where scientific connection with the fringed-end idea seems the strongest in the eyes of the evolutionist, will be found on examination to be always used in the exact reverse way to that which is formed by the constructive joinings of the knotted fringe. (See Figs. 198 and [167].)
Fig. 195.—Rosette of Lotus Flowers and Buds. (P. & C.)
Fig. 196.—Bouquet of Flowers and Buds; from Layard. (P. & C.)
Fig. 197.—Tabernacle from the Balâwât Gates. (B.M.) (P. & C.)
Date, B.C. 859 to 824.]
It will require an amazing quantity of scientific proof to get rid of the lotus in Egyptian ornament, and much also to turn it and the daisy into tassel knots in Assyrian ornament, when we have overwhelming evidence as to the natural representations of such floral forms, as well as the conventional designs derived from them, on the very oldest monuments in both countries.
Fig. 198.—Painted Ornament on Plaster; from Layard. (P. & C.)