DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4376#0194
176 RESTORATION OF THE MAUSOLEUM.
ciple i£ th'at of .'the Egyptian6 arch, the pressure
being downwards throughout. The corners would
.be bonded by angle-stones returning each way.
In a construction of this kind, the utility of the
system of ridges and grooves in the pyramid stones
would be very great, as it would prevent any dislo-
cation of the masonry, except by a force such as an
earthquake acting from below.
I have shown pilasters at the angles of the cella
as they most probably existed, though no traces of
them were found.
[e By the term Egyptian arch is here meant the arch designated
by Mr. Fergusspn (Hist, of Architecture, i. p. 72) as the Hori-
zontal arch, and which may be described, in technical language, as
an arch formed by approaching stones, such as was used in some
of the earliest Greek and Etruscan buildings. It is to be re-
gretted that writers on. architecture have not agreed on some one
name by which to designate this primitive mode of construction.
The phrase " arch formed by approaching stones," is rather a defi-
nition than a designation,- on the other hand, the term Horizontal
arch, introduced by Mr. Fergusson, though -more concise, labours
under the objection that it involves a verbal contradiction; for
though the structure in question is certainly built in horizontal
courses, it can hardly, without violence to language, be described
as a Horizontal arch.
In the absence of a more appropriate and generally received
term, I have thought that this arch might fairly be distinguished
.by the name of the people who, so far as we know, were the first
to make use of this primitive mode of structure. The great
antiquity of this kind of arch in Egypt may be seen by .referring
to the work of Lepsius, Denkinaeler aus Aegypten, Bd. ii.
Abtheil. i. Bl. 87, where two varieties of it are given from a
temple dedicated by Thothmes III.—Cf. ibid. Bl. 94 and Bl. 134.
The term Pelasgic has ■ also been applied to this kind of arch, but
appears to me less appropriate, because it cannot be shown that
the Pelasgi invented this structure, though they may, possibly,
have been the first to introduce it in Greece.— 0. T. N.]
ciple i£ th'at of .'the Egyptian6 arch, the pressure
being downwards throughout. The corners would
.be bonded by angle-stones returning each way.
In a construction of this kind, the utility of the
system of ridges and grooves in the pyramid stones
would be very great, as it would prevent any dislo-
cation of the masonry, except by a force such as an
earthquake acting from below.
I have shown pilasters at the angles of the cella
as they most probably existed, though no traces of
them were found.
[e By the term Egyptian arch is here meant the arch designated
by Mr. Fergusspn (Hist, of Architecture, i. p. 72) as the Hori-
zontal arch, and which may be described, in technical language, as
an arch formed by approaching stones, such as was used in some
of the earliest Greek and Etruscan buildings. It is to be re-
gretted that writers on. architecture have not agreed on some one
name by which to designate this primitive mode of construction.
The phrase " arch formed by approaching stones," is rather a defi-
nition than a designation,- on the other hand, the term Horizontal
arch, introduced by Mr. Fergusson, though -more concise, labours
under the objection that it involves a verbal contradiction; for
though the structure in question is certainly built in horizontal
courses, it can hardly, without violence to language, be described
as a Horizontal arch.
In the absence of a more appropriate and generally received
term, I have thought that this arch might fairly be distinguished
.by the name of the people who, so far as we know, were the first
to make use of this primitive mode of structure. The great
antiquity of this kind of arch in Egypt may be seen by .referring
to the work of Lepsius, Denkinaeler aus Aegypten, Bd. ii.
Abtheil. i. Bl. 87, where two varieties of it are given from a
temple dedicated by Thothmes III.—Cf. ibid. Bl. 94 and Bl. 134.
The term Pelasgic has ■ also been applied to this kind of arch, but
appears to me less appropriate, because it cannot be shown that
the Pelasgi invented this structure, though they may, possibly,
have been the first to introduce it in Greece.— 0. T. N.]