Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/405

Rh PREHISTORIC.] AEGHITECTUEE 383 contend that only local colouring, i.e., the colour of the materials, should be admitted ; but there seems no reason why any colour should not be used, provided it be employed with discretion and kept subordinate to the form or out line. This subject is of too much importance to be dis missed summarily here, and will be treated in a supple mentary notice at the end of this article. As has been already pointed out, the origin of the art is to be found in the endeavours of man to provide for his physical want s. A picturesque account of the early stages in its progress is given by Yitruvius. According to him, man in his primitive savage state began to imitate the nests of birds and the lairs of beasts, and constructed arbours with twigs of trees. To these arbours succeeded huts with walls composed of dried turf, strengthened with reeds and branches. From huts to houses the progress is gradual and easy. Other writers have endeavoured to trace three orders of primitive dwellings the cave, the hut, and the tent constructed severally by the tribes who devoted themselves to hunting and fishing, to agriculture, and to a pastoral and nomadic life. There can be no doubt that climate and surrounding circumstances affected not only the form of the primitive, buildings but also the materials employed. Thus, where trees abounded, stone was probably a material seldom used, as it entailed a much greater amount of labour than timber ; but as stone would neither burn nor rot, it was preferred for all durable pur poses. Where wood was plentiful, as in Greece and in Lycia, stone architecture exhibits traces of an original timber construction. The columns were originally posts, and the architraves and triglyphs beams resting on each other. The Lycian tomb in the British Museum furnishes a strong proof that there the art of the carpenter preceded that of the mason, and suggested forms, which became con ventional, and from which the latter could not venture to depart. On the other hand, in the plains of Egypt, where building timber is scarce, and where there is abundance of large stone in the mountains, the mason element seems to have prevailed. In such plains as those of Nineveh and Babylon artificial stone was made from lumps of dried or burnt clay. Finally, in vast sandy deserts, where there are neither trees nor stones, the skins of beasts, sewed together and supported by sticks, formed the earliest shelter. This soon grew into the tent, and its form still influences the architecture of the Chinese and the Tartars. Much in genuity has been expended in the inquiry whether it was timber or stone that first gave birth to the art of architec ture; the probability is, that the hut, the cairn, and the tent, all contributed their share in different countries. No traces remain of the steps by which the beautiful temples of Egypt or the magnificent halls of Persia and Assyria were developed from these rude beginnings. The earliest known structures of those countries belong to an age already considerably advanced in civilisation and in the art of construction. And the history of architecture from its earliest specimens in Egypt is not one continuous line of progress. We can indeed show how from these early structures sprang the art of Greece ; how that was modi fied by the Romans ; and finally, how the Pointed archi tecture of the 13th century arose. But the development is not gradual; it proceeds by a series of steps, and one style does not shade imperceptibly into another. No doubt the architects of each country borrowed somewhat (in detail more especially) from the designs of the adjacent countries; but, nevertheless, each country originated forms peculiar to itself, and in all its artistic efforts continued to repeat and elaborate them. So definite are the charac teristics of the styles of different nations, that from the mere form, carving, or decoration of any structure, its age and its architects can, usually, be fairly determined. PREHISTORIC STRUCTURES. The numerous relics of structures left by primeval man have generally little or ho architectural value. The only interesting problem regarding them, the determination of their date and purpose, and of the degree of civilisation which they manifest, falls within the province of archeology. The principal specimens of such prehistoric erections may be classified thus (1.) Monoliths (Haenhir, from Alaen, a stone, hit; high), or single upright stones (fig. 1). The best example is at Carnac, in Brittany. This huge stone, when perfect, was 63 feet high, and 14 feet in diameter at its widest part. It is rudely shaped to a circular form, and weighs about 260 tons. (2.) Cromlechs, table-stones, generally consisting of ono large flat stone supported by others which are upright (fig. 2). The cromlech is also named Dolmen, from Taal, or Daul, a table, and Maen, a stone. A good example of the cromlech is the structure known Kit s Coity FIG. 1. Maenhir and Trilithon. as House,&quot; near Maid- stone. Other ex amples occur in different parts of . T&amp;gt; ! Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous specimens are found in Algeria, in India, in the country east of the Jordan, in Guernsej r , and near Saumur, on the Loire. (3.) Circles of Stone. The most important specimen of 2. Dolmen. FIG. 3. Stonehenge (restored, after Inigo Jones). Fid. 4. Circles of Avebury (restored). Monuments. From Waring s Stone these in Britain is Stonehenge (fig. 3). Others are found at Avebury, in Wiltshire (fig. 4) ; at Stanton Drew, in Somersetshire; at Stennis, in Orkney; and at Callernish, in Lewis ; and several have been discovered in the districts around Mount Sinai and Aden. In some circles, as at