Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

EGYPTIAN
DECORATIVE ART
A COURSE OF LECTURES
DELIVERED AT
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION

BY

W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, D.C.L.

EDWARDS PROFESSOR OF EGYPTOLOGY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON

SECOND EDITION

METHUEN & CO., LTD.

36 ESSEX STREET, W.C.

LONDON

First Published October 1895

Second Edition 1920

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS

C. M. Champollion, Monuments.

Duem. Duemichen Hist. Inschr.

F. P. coll. Flinders Petrie collection.

Goodyear. Grammar of the lotus.

H. S. Historical Scarabs (Petrie).

I. Illahun (Petrie)

K. Kahun (Petrie).

L. D. Lepsius Denkmaler.

P. and C. Perrot and Chipiez, Egypt.

P. and C. Ass. Perrot and Chipiez, Assyria.

P. I. Petrie, Illahun.

P. M. Petrie, Medum.

P. or Prisse. Prisse, Art; numbers refer to numbering in Edwards Library copy, plates being issued unnumbered.

P. Mon. Prisse, Monuments.

R. C. Rosellini, Mon. Civili.

R. S. Rosellini, Mon. Storici.

Schuck. Schuckhardt’s, Schliemann.

T. A. Tell el Amarna (Petrie).

Tanis. Tanis (Petrie)

W. M. C. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs.

The shading of the figures is according to heraldic colours:

red,

blue,

green,

purple,

yellow

CHAPTER I
THE SOURCES OF DECORATION

In dealing with the subject of decorative art in Egypt, it is needful to begin by setting some bounds to a study which might be made to embrace almost every example of ancient work known to us in that land. The Egyptian treatment of everything great and small was so strongly decorative that it is hard to exclude an overwhelming variety of considerations. But here it is proposed to limit our view to the historical development of the various motives or elements of decoration. The larger questions of the æsthetic scheme of design, of the meaning of ornament—symbolic or religious, of the value and effect of colour, of the relations of parts, we can but glance at occasionally in passing; in another branch, the historical connection of Egyptian design with that of other countries, the prospect is so tempting and so valuable, that we may linger a little at each of these bye-ways to note where the turning occurs and to what it leads. As I have said, all Egyptian design was strongly decorative. The love of form and of drawing was perhaps a greater force with the Egyptians than with any other people. The early Babylonians and the Chinese had, like the Egyptians, a pictorial writing; but step by step they soon dropped the picture altogether in favour of the easier abbreviation of it. The Egyptian, on the contrary, never lost sight of his original picture; and however much his current hand altered, yet for four or five thousand years he still maintained his true hieroglyphic pictures. They were modified by taste and fashion, even in some cases their origin was forgotten, yet the artistic form was there to the very end.

But the hieroglyphs were not only a writing, they were a decoration in themselves. Their position was ruled by their effect as a frieze, like the beautiful tile borders of Cufic inscription on Arab architecture; and we never see in Egypt the barbarous cutting of an inscription across figure sculptures as is so common in Assyria. The arrangement of the groups of hieroglyphs was also ruled by their decorative effect. Signs were often transposed in order to group them more harmoniously together in a graceful scheme; and many sounds had two different signs, one tall, another wide, which could be used indifferently (at least in later times) so as to combine better with the forms which adjoined them. In short, the Egyptian with true decorative instinct clung to his pictorial writing, modified it to adapt it to his designs, and was rewarded by having the most beautiful writing that ever existed, and one which excited and gave scope to his artistic tastes on every monument. This is but one illustration of the inherent power for design and decoration which made the Egyptian the father of the world’s ornament.

In other directions we see the same ability. In the adaptation of the scenes of peace or of war to the gigantic wall surfaces of the pylons and temples; in the grand situations chosen for the buildings, from the platform of cliffs for the pyramids at Gizeh, to the graceful island of Philæ; in the profusion of ornament on the small objects of daily life, which yet never appear inappropriate until a debased period;—in all these different manners the Egyptian showed a variety of capacity in design and decoration which has not been exceeded by any other people.

The question of the origination of patterns at one or more centres has been as disputed as the origination of man himself from one or more stocks. Probably some patterns may have been re-invented in different ages and countries; but, as yet, we have far less evidence of re-invention than we have of copying. It is easy to pre-suppose a repeated invention of designs, but we are concerned with what has been, and not with what might have been. Practically it is very difficult, or almost impossible, to point out decoration which is proved to have originated independently, and not to have been copied from the Egyptian stock. The influences of the modes of work in weaving and basket-work have had much to do with the uniformity of patterns in different countries; apparently starting from different motives, the patterns when subject to the same structural influences have resulted in very similar ornaments. This complicates the question undoubtedly; and until we have much more research on the history of design, and an abundance of dated examples, it will be unsafe to dogmatise one way or the other. So far, however, as evidence at present goes, it may be said that—in the Old World at least—there is a presumption that all the ornament of the types of Egyptian designs is lineally descended from those designs. Mr. Goodyear has brought so much evidence for this, that—whether we agree with all his views or not—his facts are reasonably convincing on the general descent of classic ornament from Egyptian, and of Indian and Mohammedan from the classical, and even of Eastern Asian design from the Mohammedan sources. A good illustration of the penetrating effect of design is seen in a most interesting work on the prehistoric bronzes of Minusinsk in Central Asia, near the sources of the Yenesei river, and equidistant from Russia and from China, from the Arctic Ocean and from the Bay of Bengal. Here in the very heart of Asia we might look for some original design. But yet it is easy to see the mingled influences of the surrounding lands, and to lay one’s finger on one thing that might be Norse, on another that might be Chinese, or another Persian. If, then, the tastes of countries distant one or two thousand miles in different directions can be seen moulding an art across half a continent, how much more readily can we credit the descent of design along the well-known historical lines of intercourse. The same thing on a lesser scale is seen in the recent publication of the prehistoric bronzes of Upper Bavaria; in these the designs are partly Italic, partly Mykenaean. If forms were readily re-invented again and again independently, why should we not find in Bavaria some of the Persian or Chinese types? Nothing of the kind is seen, but the forms and decoration are distinctly those of the two countries from which the ancient makers presumably obtained their arts and civilisation. Yet again, to come to historical times, the elegant use of the angle of a third of a right angle so generally in Arab art, is very distinct and characteristic. Yet if patterns were continually re-invented, how is it that no one else hit on this simple element for thousands of years? The very fact that the locality and date of an object of unknown origin can be so closely predicted by its style and feeling in design, is the best proof how continuous is the history and evolution of ornament, and how little new invention has to do with it—in short, how difficult it is to man to be really original.

Now we can see a source for most of our familiar elements of design in the decoration which was used in Egypt long before any example that is known to us outside of that land. And it is to Egypt then that we are logically bound to look as the origin of these motives. If, then, we seek the source of most of the various elements of the decoration which covers our walls, our floors, our dishes, our book-covers, and even our railway stations, we must begin by studying Egypt.

As our object is the history and evolution of the various elements of decoration, we may classify these elements under four divisions. There is the simplest geometrical ornament of lines and spirals and curves, and of surfaces divided by these into squares and circles. There is the natural ornament of copying feathers, flowers, plants, and animals. There is structural ornament which results from the structural necessities of building and of manufacture: these often result in the perpetuation of defects or copies of defects, like the circle stamped in the plain end of meat tins which is made to imitate the circular patch soldered on to the other end, so trying to establish a balance of appearance. Many architectural devices and difficulties are perpetuated for us in this way long after the original purpose has passed away; such as the cylindrical bosses projecting from the walls in Moslem architecture, which imitate the projecting ends of pillars torn from ruins and built into the wall, though rather too long for the position. The origin and the imitation can be seen side by side at Jerusalem. Structural ornament is therefore often of the greatest historical value as pointing to a condition of things that has since vanished.

Lastly, there is symbolic ornament. Some now claim most decoration as having some symbolic or religious meaning; of that I shall say nothing, as it is but an hypothesis. But there is no question of the symbolical intention of many constantly repeated ornaments in Egyptian work, as the globe and wings, the scarab, or the various hieroglyphs with well-known meanings which are interwoven into many designs.

CHAPTER II
GEOMETRICAL DECORATION

The Line.

One of the simplest and the earliest kinds of ornament that we find is the zigzag line, which occurs on the oldest tombs, 4000 B.C. So simple is this, that it might be supposed that every possible variety of it would be soon played out. Yet, strange to say, two of the simplest modifications are not found till a couple of thousand years after the plain zigzag had been used. The wavy line in curves instead of angular waves is not found till the XVIIIth dynasty, or about 1500 B.C.; while the zigzag with spots in the spaces is equally late, and is generally foreign to Egypt.

1.—VI. dyn., L.D., II. 98.

2.—IV. dyn., Mery, Louvre.

3.—V. dyn., Ptah-hotep, Perrot XIII.

The plain repeated zigzag line is used down to late times, but generally with variety in colour to give it interest. From the earliest times this was symmetrically doubled, so as to give a row of squares with parallel borders; or with repeated zigzag borders in alternate light and dark colours. This same type lasted onward to the XIXth dynasty (belt Ramessu II. C.M.X.), and is found, with the addition of spots in the outer angles, in the foreign dress of Shekh Absha, at Benihasan, in the XIIth dynasty.

4.—Prisse, Art. 84.

5.—L.D., II. 130.

A later stage was to repeat the squares with varieties of colour; and also to introduce details into the squares, and so make them compound patterns, as in the XVIIth dynasty at El Kab, where the sequence of the blue, green, and red lines makes a brilliant effect from these simple elements. Not only a square, but also a hexagon, was worked into the same design. This, from the nature of it, suggests a rush-work screen, and probably it was plaited with rushes in three directions, and hence the production of this particular angle. The previous zigzag patterns all suggest weaving; and in some in Ptah-hotep’s tomb (Vth dyn.) closely woven and complex zigzag patterns are shown which are evidently copied from textiles, as we shall see further on in the chequer patterns.

6.—XII. dyn. Amu dress.

7.—XVIII., Keft dress. C.M. cxcl.

8.—XX. Vase, C.M. cclix.

The use of spots for filling in corners was foreign to the Egyptian. We first find it in the garments of the Amu, or people of northern Arabia, in the XIIth dynasty. Till then a spot is never seen, except for the centre of a square; but the Amu dresses are covered with spots in every space, and even along the bars and stripes of colour. The same is seen on the later dresses of the Amu in the XIXth dynasty, and also in the dress of the Phœnicians, or Keft people. It recurs on the foreign vases probably brought in from the Aegean; and it is only found in Egyptian products during the XVIIIth dynasty, when foreign fashions prevailed, though it is but rare then. Hence we may fairly set aside this use of spots as a foreign or Asiatic element, akin to the filling in of spaces on early Greek vases with rosettes and other small ornaments.

9.—XVIII., P. I. xvii. 7.

10.—XVIII. Vase, R.C. lvii.

The zigzag line only became changed into a rounded wavy line in the later time of the XVIIIth dynasty. This probably results from the earlier patterns being all direct copies of textiles which maintained rectilinear patterns; but when the same came to be used on pottery (as above), or on metal work (shield border, L.D. iii. 64), then curves were readily introduced. On a golden bowl repeated waves are shown, deepened so as to receive further figures.

The Spiral.

The spiral, or scroll, is one of the greatest elements of Egyptian decoration; it is only second to the lotus in importance, and shares with that the origination of a great part of the ornament of the world. The source of the spiral and its meaning are alike uncertain. It has been attributed to a development of the lotus pattern; but it is known in every variety of treatment without any trace of connection with the lotus. It has been said to represent the wanderings of the soul; why, or how, is not specified; nor why some souls should wander in circular spirals, others in oval spirals, some in spirals with ends, others in spirals that are endless. And what a soul was supposed to do when on the track of a triple diverging spiral, how it could go two ways at once, or which line it was to take—all these difficulties suggest that the theorist’s soul was on a remarkable spiral.

11.—F.P. coll.

12.—F.P.

13.—F.P.

The subject of spirals fall into two groups. The older group by far are the scarabs, which contain spirals on a limited and small field; the other group are those continuous patterns on ceilings, furniture, &c., which are capable of indefinite extension by repetition. As the scarabs are far the older examples, there is a presumption that spirals may have even originated on scarab designs; and the hesitating and simple manner of the oldest instances on scarabs indeed seems as if the engravers were merely filling a space, and not copying any well-known pattern. The earliest that can be certainly dated is one of Assa, of the Vth dynasty, on which a bordering line is interrupted at the ends and turned in to fill the space on either side of the name. From the cramped way in which this is done, and the want of uniformity in the spirals, it seems as if no regular pattern were in view, but only the need of avoiding an unsightly gap in the design. We next see spirals used in the same way to fill up at the sides of the inscription on the scarabs of Pepy, without any attempt to connect them into a continuous pattern; and on the scarabs of Ma·abra, probably soon after, the same loose spirals are seen thrown in to fill up. In none of these cases is the ornament anything but the means of supplementing the required inscription; nothing is arranged for the sake of it, and it is treated as a mere afterthought. Nor is it until the XIIth dynasty that any continuous spiral design can be dated. For over a thousand years, then, the spiral is only to be found as an accessory on scarabs, a fact which strongly suggests that it originated in this manner.

Before describing spirals further, it is needful to settle some definite names for their varieties. Where the lines are coiled closely in a circular curve, as in Assa’s scarab, they may be termed coils; where lengthened out, as in Pepy’s, we may term them hooks; where lengthy in the body between the turns, as in Ma·abra’s, they are rather links. Where the line is broken at each spiral, as in all the above, it is a chain of spirals; but where the same line is maintained unbroken throughout it is a continuous spiral, and these are found in all varieties of coils, hooks, or links. Sometimes the continuous line has separate ends, but more usually it is endless, returning into itself. These terms will suffice to distinguish the varieties, and enable us to speak of a spiral with definiteness.

14.—Louvre.

15.—Ghizeh.

These detached spirals continued in use in the XIIth dynasty, generally as loose links, often not hooking together, as in this of Usertesen II. In the XVIIIth dynasty this is still found as a general surface ornament on the boat covers of Hatshepsut at Deir al Bahri and on the base of a Kohl vase in the Ghizeh Museum.

Fig. 16. F.P. coll. Fig. 17.

But the spiral was developed, apparently under Usertesen I., into a chain of coils, which are drawn with great beauty and regularity. Such care indicates that the design was a novelty, which was not yet stereotyped and reproduced as a matter of course. In no later reign were spirals ever so beautifully and perfectly executed. This type was revived under Amenhotep II. (H. S. 1097). In about the XIIth dynasty it was combined with the lotus in perhaps the most perfect design that remains on any scarab—a continuous coil with flowers and buds in the spaces.

18.—Turin.

19.—F.P.

But it was felt that the spirals all round occupied too much of the field, so the top and bottom were left free for inscribing, and the ornament was limited to the sides, as in this chain of hook pattern of Usertesen I. This design, with the line continued around the top as well as the base, was the staple decoration of the private scarabs of the XIIth-XIIIth dynasties, many of which are of great beauty. Both types are found, but the hook pattern is more usual than the coils.

Fig. 20. F.P. coll. Fig. 21.

Fig. 22. F.P. coll. Fig. 23.

In the finest work, however, the line is made endless, a single continuous line forming the whole pattern, as in the endless hook pattern of Setmes, and the endless coil pattern of Ptaherduen.

24.—Paris.

25.—F.P.

In the few spiral scarabs of later times the pattern is not only placed at the sides, but is carried all round, as we see in that of Amenhotep I. and one of Ramessu II., which latter is the latest spiral pattern known on scarabs.

26.—F.P. coll.

The long links were seldom used in continuous patterns around scarabs, as in this, but were more usually employed for independent spiral patterns without any inscriptions.

27.—F.P. coll.

28.—K. x. 50.

29.—I. viii. 69.

30.—K. x. 28.

31.—K. x. 40.

After serving as adjuncts to inscriptions, the spirals became elaborated as sole patterns. These are at first a few simple coils, as on one which, from the side pattern, can be dated to about the VIIIth dynasty. These, when elaborated with more coils or links, sometimes developed to great length.

32.—K. x. 17.

33.—F.P.

34.—I. x. 176.

Such patterns required but little ingenuity, and it is rather in the design of continuous spirals that the Egyptian showed his skill. The problem was how to arrange a number of coils in a symmetrical system uniformly covering the surface of the scarab, and yet to connect them in a true series. This was done in various ways, usually by introducing long loop lines around the edge. One of the simplest type is— In another a cross pattern is formed which is entirely of C coils, like frequent patterns at Mykenae.

35.—F.P.

36.—F.P.

37.—F.P.

Others fill up by establishing a repeating pattern, which might be indefinitely multiplied, as — and the difficulty is avoided on a large silver scarab of early date by shortening the links to allow of the connecting line passing the ends.

This difficulty of designing good covering patterns out of true continuous lines probably led to the evasion of introducing false links. Thus what would otherwise have been an opening in the middle was barred across.

38.—I. x. 158.

39.—K. x. 27.

40.—K. x. 48.

41.—F.P.

42.—F.P.

Some beautiful effects were obtained by this false barring, which does not, at first sight, catch the eye, as in these two examples.

43.—F.P.

In the latter, two complete lop-sided spiral groups are joined by long false links around the outside. Another favourite device which often occurs is also compounded of lop-sided groups, or rather of a cross group, like Fig. [43], with four false links joining in the middle.

44.—I. x. 144.

45.—I. x. 155.

46.—F.P.

47.—Turin.

Some other devices did not profess to cover the whole field, as in Figs. 44 and 45; and sometimes two separate lines of design were superposed, a single element of the same design being found as late as Tahutmes III.

The spiral had thus been greatly developed as a detached ornament for a small surface; but in architecture and furniture it was required as a continuous decoration on borders and on large surfaces. Hence its development was in many ways different, and—so far as we know—later by a whole cycle of history than the development on the scarabs. On those small objects it started in the Vth dynasty, became fully elaborated in the XIIth, is common in the XIIIth, and only very occasionally found in the XVIIIth, disappearing altogether in the XIXth. On walls and furniture it is rare in the XIIth dynasty, becomes usual in the XVIIIth, flourishes in the XIXth and XXth, and is decadent in the XXVIth.

Fig. 48.

The simplest form in which it is found is as a chequered pattern series of S spirals, apparently on cloths thrown over boat cabins. On Hatshepsut’s boat the spirals are close together (Duem. XXI.); but rather later, on the boat of Neferhotep, they are spread with chequers of red and blue between them (W.M.C. lxvii.).

Fig. 49.

About the same period they appear as a continuous coil pattern in relief on the columns of the harim well at Tell el Amarna. The spiral in relief being in yellow, it probably was copied from a jewellery pattern in which a strip of gold was twisted into spirals, and the spaces filled with squares of coloured stones or pastes, judging from the analogy of the inlaid capitals. This example being earlier than most of the spiral decorations of surfaces may thus open our eyes to the meaning of some such designs; and, in general, a close continuous coil returning on itself may well be a copy of a strip of sheet metal, doubled, and rolled up.

50.—P. [85]. I.

The next stage is where continuous lines of spiral patterns are placed side by side, and other patterns developed in the spaces between them. Sometimes the intervening patterns become so complex as to overshadow the mere spirals, as in the splendid ceiling of Neferhotep, in the XVIIIth dynasty. And in this the far more complex quadruple spiral begins to appear, as we shall see presently.

51.—P. [85].

52.—C.M. cclv.

The lines of spirals were not only placed parallel, but were also crossed. For some reason this type was never well developed, but remained one of the coldest and most mechanical of all, looking in the later stage of the XXVIth dynasty like a most debased wall paper.

But the glory of Egyptian line decoration was in the quadruple spiral, of which the most elementary example is on a boat cover as late as the XXth dynasty (Ramessu IV.); though it has passed through this stage long before that time—if indeed this may not be regarded as a degraded simplification of it. It is also sometimes rhombic in plan.

53.—P. [86].

54.—XIIth dyn. R.C. lxxii.

From this was developed a peculiar pattern by the omission of the lines which define the spirals, thus reducing it to a system of rows of hollow-sided quadrangles without any apparent connection.

The main development of the quadruple spiral was with rosettes or lotus filling the hollow squares.

This became a stock subject with the Egyptian, and from thence a main pattern in other lands. The filling in was either a flower pattern or a rosette, which might be either a flower or a leather pattern, as we shall notice further on.

Fig. 55.

56.—P. [86].

The insertion also became more complex, four lotus flowers being placed in each angle of the hollow square; and the spirals being more heavily developed, in order to gain enough space for complexity in the squares between them. Such a system could hardly be carried further, but reached its limits; like the limit of size in the Great Hall of Karnak, where the columns occupy too large an area in proportion to the clear space.

57.—P. [83].

In another direction, however, the spiral blossomed further, in the parallel lines of spiral pattern. These became developed by introducing link lines so as to form a quintuple spiral, which was further complicated by lotus flowers and buds in the hollows and recesses.

In this direction, again, the Egyptians had reached the limit beyond which more detail would be merely confusing. By careful use of colour to separate the various parts, these complex patterns remain clear and pleasing in spite of their richness of detail.

The quadruple spiral had, however, another development, of C links, which is rather too formal to be beautiful, and lacks the flamboyant grace of the chains of spirals. Still it has a simple dignity, related to the scarab spirals rather than the flowing surface patterns. This became formalised into a torturing kind of design, which can only be described as “cursedly ingenious.” By simplifying the previous pattern, a wave was invented which was equal in each direction, and four of these were crossed in a manner which nothing but bold colouring could make intelligible.

58.—P. [85].

59.—P. [83].

60.—L.D. II. 57.

The fret patterns are all modifications of corresponding spirals. The cause of such change is obviously the influence of weaving. As early as the Vth dynasty we find a fret of rhombic form in basket-work in the screen behind the figure of Ptah·bau·nefer, at Gizeh. The angles show that the plaiting was in three directions, as we saw in the basket-work pattern at Benihasan (Fig. [3]). But frets in general are very rare until a late period, and they doubtless depend on the adaptation of spirals to textiles. We see no trace of the fret in the Mykenaean art, the spiral there being figured on stone or metal, while the women wore flounced dresses with scale pattern. But in the pre-Persian age fret pattern weaving in borders was the standard design, as we see on the coloured robes of the Parthenon statues; and immediately after that the stiffest of square frets swarms over Greek art, to the exclusion of the graceful spirals and scroll borders.

61.—P. [82].

62.—P. [83].

63.—P. [83].

The chains of links were copied in the fret pattern with no difference except in squaring up the curves. The same is true of the quadruple spirals, which appear likewise modified; and this change seems to have led to another simplified form, which is on the same idea as the torturing design (Fig. [59]), but which is less ingenious, and is still possible as an ornament.

64.—Schuck. 256.

So far we have viewed only the course of Egyptian design, nor can we travel far outside of it within these pages. Moreover, as it is dated before any other such decoration in other countries, it is well to view its course as a whole without confusing it with the various fragments borrowed from it by other lands. Yet we may well turn now to see the beginning of the course of European decoration at Mykenae, and observe its close contact with that of Egypt. The spiral is the main element of prehistoric decoration in Greece; the parallel chains of links occur almost exactly as we have already seen them in the pattern of Neferhotep, but omitting the inner details added in the spaces.

65.—Schuck. 290.

The quadruple spiral is splendidly shown in the ceiling of Orchomenos, with a lotus flower in each space; also as a simpler form without any filling in of the squares on the grave stele (Schuck. 146). While even the ox head with a rosette between the horns, in the grand quintuple spiral pattern (Fig. [57]), is strangely paralleled by an ox head of silver with a large rosette on the forehead found at Mykenae (Schuck. 248).

In observing these equivalents it must be noted that whole patterns with their detail are taken over complete from Egypt. There are none of the series of intermediate steps which we have traced in the mother country; and where a simpler form occurs it is known to be later, the grave steles being after the age of the great ceiling. Thus there is the surest sign of a borrowed art, apart from the facts of the exact resemblances we have noted. Of course the Mykenaean designs are mostly influenced by the taste of the race. Many of them are strongly European, and might be of Celtic or Norse work, as has been shown by Mr. Arthur Evans; but the source of the designs lies in the two thousand years’ start which Egypt had before Europe awoke.

Fig. 66.

67.—R.C. lvii.

68.—P. [97]. 105.

69.—R.C. lxii.

A separate form of the spiral pattern is that used for borders, otherwise called the wave or maeander, which merged into the guilloche. Although the chain of coils on the scarab borders in the XIIth dynasty may be regarded as a wave border, yet no example is known of this border on other objects until the XVIIIth dynasty. At that time it appears as often on foreign objects as on Egyptian, and the only instance of the guilloche is on foreign dress. Hence this development of the spiral idea may well be due more to the Aegean civilisation than to that of Egypt. This will agree with the occurrence of the guilloche on black pottery from Kahun, which class, wherever it can be dated, is found to belong to the XIIth-XIIIth dynasty. The metal vases shown on the monuments of the XVIIIth-XXth dynasties are mostly foreign tributes, and on them the wave border is common, merging into a twisted rope border which is also found—though rarely—on scarabs of the Middle Kingdom.

70.—R.C. lvii.

Fig. 71.

Fig. 72.

In Egyptian use this border is seldom found. A box in the Louvre had a line of long links; and a scroll edge appears to the standard of Ramessu II. But more usually the scroll is associated with the lotus, as in these—

73.—P. [89].

74.—P. [89].

The innumerable adaptations of this in Greek and later designs are familiar enough to us.

The influence of weaving has been very great upon these wave borders. As I have before noticed, the woven borders, reducing the pattern to a fret, are shown on the pre-Persian statuary at Athens, and precede the most common and oft-repeated use of the fret or key pattern borders in Greece, and thence in all classical, mediæval, and modern times.

75.—R.C. cxxi.

76.—R.C. lxi.

77.—P. [103].

Another type of border, which may be connected with this, is found in the Ramesside age. As it occurs as stitching on leather, and is well adapted to quilting or sewing bands together, it may well have been derived from that; but it is also found on metal work, with which it does not seem to be connected by origin.

78.—P. and C. xiii.

The source of chequer patterns is unmistakably in plaiting and weaving. On the oldest monuments the basket sign, neb, is chequered in different colours; so are also the baskets of farm produce carried by the servants, as shown in the tombs. The modern Nubian basket-work is well known for the many patterns which it bears like the ancient Egyptian. The chequer pattern is found in every period in Egypt, and is perhaps most common in the latest forms on the sides of thrones in the Ptolemaic age. In the Old Kingdom many varieties were in use. The plain chequers of red or black with white, the squares filled with black and red crosses on a green and yellow chequer; or diagonal square patterns developed by lines of chequers, which are often not square but elongated, thus forming general and wide-spread patterns which attract the eye on large surfaces. These are best seen in the tomb of Ptah-hotep (P. and C. xiii.) and in that of Peheniuka (L.D. I. 41), both of the Vth dynasty, Sakkara.

79.—P. and C. xiii.

80.—L.D. I. 41.

81.—L.D. II. 130.

In the Middle Kingdom we find chequers covered with bars of colour, red and green, at Benihasan.

82.—P. [81].

Under the empire chequers are less common owing to the greater development of more elaborate decoration. A pleasing variety was formed by lengthening the squares, a change doubtless copied from weaving, where oblong squares serve to break the monotony of the pattern.

83.—L.D. iv. 77.

In later ages of the Saitic and Greek times the chequer is a common resource, but is seldom treated with originality or grace, and we do not find any new departure or advance in the mechanical execution of the later examples. One slight novelty was the alternation of whole and divided squares of colour, under Claudius.

Somewhat analogous are the net-work patterns. They seem to be probably derived from stitch-pattern over dresses. Though found in the XIIth dynasty they are not usual until the XVIIIth dynasty, and they are generally on the dresses of goddesses. A simple example is on a horse-cloth of Ramesside age, which shows that these can hardly represent long beads, but rather stitching or quilting. A more elaborate form is on the dress of Bast in the tomb of Seti I., in hexagons.

84.—R.S. lxxxii.

85.—C.M. ccxlii. cccx.

But this design rose to importance when it was introduced as an architectural element in the decoration of columns at Tell el Amarna. There it is coloured yellow, and the spaces are alternate red and blue.

Fig. 86.

The Egyptians never used circles freely in decoration; no examples are known before the XVIIIth dynasty, and but few then.

87.—P. [79].

88.—P. [84].

89.—P. [86].

The intersecting circles, forming a kind of net-work, are found in the XVIIIth dynasty in blue on a yellow ground; and the same occurs in black on blue and red ground, in later times (L.D. I. 41). Besides the rosettes other patterns were introduced into the spaces, which were coloured red and green alternately. But the most beautiful type was with contiguous circles not intersecting, and each containing four lotus flowers.

The circle, however, never became of importance, probably because it was too stiff and mechanical for the Egyptian, who delighted in the waving spiral patterns and the unlimited variety of lotus developments. It is remarkable that there is not a single example of the circle divided into six, or with six segmental arms, which is so common a motive in Assyria and Syria, and which results so readily from stepping the radius around the circle. This seems to show that the Egyptian did not use compasses at any time, but always worked with a string and points. The absence of a simple and self-evident motive like the sixth of the circle is almost more striking than a peculiar motive being present.

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:—

Fig. 90.

Fig. 91.

Fig. 92.

Fig. 93.

Fig. 94.

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.

95.—Amenhotep I. R.S. xxix.