Introduction
The study of architectural history shows that the significance of architecture and its relations to the experiences of humans were articulated in many ancient buildings and structures. The varied nature of architecture in different eras and civilization reflected the intellectual and artistic developments. Therefore, globally different civilization and cultures contributed a lot to the work of architecture (Lawlor, 1995, p. 12). Each mode of building reflects undoubtedly characteristic principles that correspond to a specific culture and age (Lawlor, 1995, p. 14).
Ancient rulers and builders were considerably involved in planning of their cities and settlements respectively. Yet most literatures in historical urbanism classify them as unplanned. Almost all researchers have adopted a simple scheme in which orthogonal layout are used to classify cities as planned, whereas lack of grid principle qualifies them as unplanned cities. This point of view, which assumes that only western approach to city layout and the use of orderly/orthogonal layouts as the only valid form of planning, is ethnocentric and overlooks numerous urban planning designs that were used by ancient people all over the world (Padovan, 1999, p. 48).
The connection between architecture and beauty has recurrently been emphasized by many researchers (Hale, 1994, p. 24). According to Tzonis and Lefaivre (1986, p. 14) the beauty of any medium ultimately depends on the proportion for its success. The ancient designers succeeded easily where most contemporary designers have failed because they looked at buildings differently. They used light and shade to look at patterns and through these patterns made forms of rich complexity (Hale, 1994, p.25). According to Hale the patterns were greatly influenced by proportion. He argues that beauty in the contemporary architectural designs is fading because the designers are lacking awareness of patterns, openness and dimensionality.
The architectures in ancient Egypt and Islamic kingdoms used composite geometric proportional systems to manage their building designs. Equipped with non other than a rope, architects produced composite proportional structures based on the common geometrical forms (Anold, 1999, p. 5). These skills were later acquired and advanced by western architects, especially in the middle age forward. Nevertheless, there has been a lot of debate on pragmatism of proportional systems as a design tool and their underlying symbolic meaning (Langhein, 2005, p. 30).
Proportion in the ancient architecture
Proportion is strongly associated with geometry even though non-geometric proportions are also achievable. Practical geometry in the ancient buildings was more or less self-guiding technique of customary and statically certified design. Proportion geometry fundamentally regulates the extensional order of building structures (Langhein, 2005, p. 32). Mirror symmetry is the most is fundamentally the most significant symmetric pattern in the field of architecture. Even though proportion and symmetry are absolutely different figurative principles, they complement each other (even in cases where buildings are not symmetrical) (Langhein, 2005, p. 33).
In the vast majority of the ancient structures, the symmetrically multi-determined figure was a circle. 99 percent of the regulating lines in these buildings were derived from simple regular geometric figures (Langhein, 2005, p. 34). Fractal features were used to create ordered diversity in numerous figurative levels in ancient architecture, for instance, texture, colours, and light and shade among others. The fractal features were used to enhance beauty in architecture. Researchers argue that the modern architecture has neglected fractal patterns (Hale, 1994).
Almost as a tradition, the fundamental principle of ancient architecture globally was beauty and human friendliness. Experts argue that beauty in the contemporary architecture is lost because engineers lack awareness of patterns, responsiveness and dimensionality. Forms and fractal language of the modern buildings is exceedingly poor. Ancient architecture was characterized by inconspicuous stylishness, reticence, and graciousness. Therefore, proportion was a characteristic of realism of the ancient architecture and habits (Hale, 1994, p. 26).
Ancient architects knew of the autonomy of the facades as a type of core design of human habits in upholding a universal feeling of life. Even though the buildings were two dimensional as compared to the three dimension of the contemporary buildings, they were optically pre-eminent than the latter. Therefore, the facades in the ancient architecture were designed with a lot of care, especially in the closed settlement. During the Gothic period henceforth, most builders in Europe and America mastered pattered designs of facades which vanished in the later years (Padovan, 1999, p. 50).
Proportion in ancient Egyptian architecture
Ancient Egyptian Architectural work was inspired by their religious and cultural beliefs. The ancient Egyptians believed earthly dwelling was temporary and the tomb as a permanent dwelling. Therefore, houses were built of impermanent materials that could only last for a life time (Clarke & Reginald, 1990, p. 6). Tombs were the most exceptional architectural aspect of the era. In addition, they acted as a place for the worship of the dead. These tombs evolved during the ancient kingdoms through the stepped pyramid to the world famous Pyramids of Egypt (Anold, 2003, p. 9).
The most recent metrological study carried out by Brand (2000) tried to establish the proportions used by ancient Egyptian architects and builders. His investigation in a number of large temples established that hypostyle halls of these temples were generally designed using a square or double square plan. However, the proportion of each buildings and constructions exhibited many variations. The giant pylon of Karnak temple were designed with proportions of 1:4,1:5, and 1:6, while those in the sanctuary had proportions of 1:3, 1:5 and other squared or double squared proportions. The proportion of most of these columns were computed by dividing their height by the diameter and appeared in proportions of 1:7, 1:5, 1:4, and 1:3 (Brand, 2000, p. 2).
The other two methods used to calculate proportions also showed more variations. They included dividing the column diameter by distance between central axis and the adjacent column or dividing the distance between the central axis and the height of the column. This shows that ancient Egyptians did not adhere to one proportional system in their design of architectural features of the tombs and temples. These features were varied to fit the adjacent space and create desires visual impression (Brand, 2000, p. 2; Clarke & Reginald, 1990, p. 7).
Little is known on how the ancient tombs and temples were planned and designed. Only a few numbers of buildings in those eras which had plans inscribed on their surfaces are preserved up to now. This proves that architectural aids were not commonly used. However, these structures were designed and constructed using a grid. The measuring system used in ancient Egypt was based on a harmonized measurement, the ‘cubit. One cubit was equivalent to approximately 52.5 centimetre or 20 inches. Architects designed length, height and width of walls and individual features in grid squares and these helped builders to construct consistent structures (Lawlor, 1995, p. 16; Brand, 2000, p. 3).
Traces of architectural gridlines have been discovered in the walls of different ancient structures in Egypt. As a matter of fact, the gridlines for designing painted and relief decoration in the tombs and temples was very prominent in ancient Egypt (Clarke & Reginald, 1990). The advancement in the use of this system implies that Egyptian architects and builders during that period were highly skilled at using a gridline for laying out and controlling proportions. Large spaces such as hypostyle halls, burial chambers/ burial room’s designs were done using surveying cords. Tombs scenes portray the use of the knotted cords for demarcating agricultural lands and fields. These knots marked individual measurements similar to the contemporary measuring tapes. The marked measurement between the knots was in cubits (Brand, 2000, p. 3).
The relief scenes in the temple shows that there was a “ cord stretching ceremony” where the King, aided by god Thoth or Seshat marked areas for building new temple or temple building using cords and stakes. Even though this was a ritual event, experts argue that it was an actual practice of computing a space for the ground plan of new temple or temple building. Once the measurements were complete, the king would then bury foundation deposits at the site of the future building. The deposits were used to determine the corners of the new building (Anold, 2003, p. 48; Brand, 2000, p. 4).
It is also evident that these buildings were harmonized with nature, for instance the followed the direction of wind, sun, humidity and different climatic cycles. Other standard units (modules) used by ancient Egyptians included the proportion of different body parts such as palms and fingers (Vitruvian proportion). These modules were used particularly on interior decorations (Clarke & Reginald, 1990, p. 11). The ancient Egyptian architectures and builders are believed to be the pioneers behind the interface between dimension and proportion. They also depended on nature (sun) and human activities (rise and run) to determine grid coordinates (Tzonis & Lefaivre, 1986, p. 19).
Greek and Roman Architecture
The Greek-Roman period started after the end of last Egyptian dynasty (539-330 BC). The ancient Greeks came up with an expression of architectural detail in stone which is the foundation of European architecture. The Greek architecture reached its pick in the 5th century. The classical Greek architecture comprised of three orders namely Corinthian, Ionic and Doric (Barletta, 2001, p. 4). There orders represented a combination of simple rectangular structures, with a column, column head (capital), entablature and a pediment. Different geometric designs/ proportions and decorative conventions conveyed a discrete characteristic on each order, regardless of the paintings in the original structure and the theme of the decorated sculpture. The proportions of these orders were rigidly fixed and therefore the components of these orders could only be assembled in one way. In summary, Greeks never combined different orders in one structure/building (Chitham, 2005, p. 12)..
The Greek rules were adapted by the Romans. The Romans created two extra orders. These were Tuscan and Composite and used all the five orders in adorning buildings on rules that were dissimilar from those of the Greeks. The principle building material in classical period was marble which were very strong and could be shaped to provide accurate lines and details (Tzonis & Lefaivre, 1986, p. 38). The basic temples in classical period had a rectangular chamber with garbled shallow-pitched roof and were bound by a row of columns. Given this simplicity, the buildings in this period, the most important achievement of the Greeks was the improvement of the buildings and its features into architectural system of decoration and proportion. Examples of buildings built in the classical period were those found in Athens Acropolis, particularly the Parthenon which became the basis of European architecture for a long time (Barletta, 2001, p. 6).
The most distinctive achievement of the Romans was the use of technology in building. They used a wide range of material including fired bricks, concretes and terra cotta. They improved the arch and vault and the dome which were founded by Etruscans. They adopted the Greek’s model of temple and only added high plinth and frequently omitted side and rear columns (Barletta, 2001, p. 8). The Roma architecture comprised of buildings with extraordinary size and complexity, which could not have been constructed using the Greeks architectural system. The Roman buildings had larger spaces or bridged larger distances that could not be achieved by the use of stone and timber. They adopted the use of mass concrete and this is evident in Pantheon in Rome which was built in 120 AD and subsequently became a place of Christian worship (Church). Later on, these Roman churches took their shape and structure from basilica, whose form (central nave, side aisle, triforium, and ape) became the basis for building Romanesque and Gothic churches (Tzonis & Lefaivre, 1986, p. 70).
The most prominent ancient architecture used in Greece-Roman period is known as classical architecture, Classical order was among the styles of Classical architecture. It had a distinct proportion, profile and details, and was easily identified through their columns. Each and every style in classical architecture had a discrete capital and entablatures. The shafts were joined by hollow perpendicular grooves referred to as fluting. The shafts were generally wider at the bottom and progressively grew thinner as moved upwards. The capital lay on the shaft. Its fundamental function was aesthetic value but it also had a load bearing function. It achieved this function by focusing the load of the entablature on the columns that supported the building and its features (Tzonis & Lefaivre, 1986, p. 5; Barletta, 2001, p. 5).
The shaft was broken up by a number of grooves to split its continuation. At the top of the necking (continuation of the shaft) is a circular block (echinus) that bulges outwards to support to the abacus. Abacus is a cubic-shaped block that supports the entablature. On the other hand, the entablature has three parallel layers which are divided by mouldings or bands. In post Greek-Roman period, entablature were carried by columns in the arch form (Barletta, 2001, p. 5). The column heights were computed the ratio between diameter of the shaft and the column height. Doric, Ionic and Corinthian had columns which were seven diameters high, eight diameters high and nine diameters high respectively. From time to time phrases such as ‘lower diameter high’ were used to depict part of the shaft measured (Chitham, 2005, p. 17).
Greek and Roman Orders
Doric order was characterized by undersized, faceted, heavy columns and round tops with no base. It is regarded as the most basic order. The height of its columns is four times its diameter. The shaft in this order is channelled with twenty flutes. It has a squared echinus and abacus. The squared abacus linked the capital to the entablature. Entablature is normally divided into upper and lower registers. The upper part is unique for this order. The paintings of the entablature are split into metopes and triglyphs. Metopes are carved or plain reliefs, whereas triglyphs are units of upright bands separated by grooves (Barletta, 2001, p. 4). The Doric had no individual base; instead it rested on a stylobate. The advanced form of this order came with Plinth and Torus. The Roman version was smaller and looked lighter than the Greek version. This order owes its origin to mainland or Western Greece (Barletta, 2001, p. 5).
The Ionic order originated from the eastern part of the Greece. Its origin is interlinked with the infamous Aeolic order. This order has distinct columns which are slender and hollow and have hefty bases and parallel scrolls. The echinus of the capital was decorated with a distinct motif. His order had shafts with four more flutes than the previous order. The large base had two bowed mouldings known as Tori which were divided by a scotia. This order was noticeable through its entasis. The entablature of this order comprised of fascia (three stepped band). The paintings in this order came with incessant ornaments, for instance, curved figures (Barletta, 2001, p. 5).
The Corinthian order is the most sophisticated and complex of the Greek orders. This order is characterized slim columns having complex decorated rows of acanthus leaves and four scrolls. One of the Roman scholars by the name Vitruvius linked the invention of this order to ancient Egyptian sculptor. Examples of buildings built under this order include Athens Choragic Monument (Tzonis & Lefaivre, 1986, p. 44).
The Tuscan order was extraordinarily plain in design. It had a basic shaft, plain capital, base and decorations. This order acted as the Roman version of the Doric order but it is relatively plain. Its column is seven diameters in height. Tuscan order is more solid than the rest of the orders. Lastly, Composite order is a blend of orders. It merges volutes or scrolls of the Ionic order with the foliage of Corinthian orders. Before the Renaissance period, many ranked this order separately and regarded it as the late form of Corinthian order. The height of the column of this order is 10 times its diameter (Barletta, 2001, p. 5).
Conclusion
In architecture the entirety of a building or a structure is not just the building itself but the layout and the location of the site. The shape or appearance of the building and its site depend on the orientation and features of the site and features of the building itself. All these depict the use of proportion in architecture. Different civilization and cultures contributed a lot to the architectural works and have been revealed in considerable form. Proportion is strongly associated with geometry even though non-geometric proportions are also achievable. Practical geometry in the ancient buildings was more or less self-guiding technique of customary and statically certified design. Proportion geometry fundamentally regulates the extensional order of a building structure. Little is known on how the ancient buildings and structures in Egypt were planned and designed. Few numbers of buildings in those eras which had plans inscribed on their surfaces are preserved up to now. This proves that architectural aids were not commonly used. However, these structures were designed and constructed using a grid. The grids were used in creating different proportional systems for building tombs, temples and their features.
The Greek-Roman period started after the end of last Egyptian dynasty (539-330 BC). The ancient Greeks came up with an expression of architectural detail in stone which is the foundation of European architecture. The most prominent ancient architecture used in Greece-Roman period is known as classical architecture, Classical order was among the styles of Classical architecture. It had a distinct proportion, profile and details, and was easily identified through their columns. The classical Greek architecture comprised of three orders namely Corinthian, Ionic and Doric. The Romans created two extra orders. These were Tuscan and Composite and used all the five orders in adorning buildings on rules that were dissimilar from those of the Greeks. The Greeks enhanced the ancient Egyptian architecture by improving the buildings and its features using architectural system of decoration and proportion. On the other hand, the most distinctive achievement of the Romans was the use of technology in building. They used a wide range of material including fired bricks, concretes and terra cotta. The Roma architecture comprised of buildings with extraordinary size and complexity, which could not have been constructed using the Greeks architectural system. The Roman buildings had larger spaces or bridged larger distances that could not be achieved by the use of stone and timber.
References
Arnold, D 1999, Temples of the last Pharaohs, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Anold, D 2003, The encyclopaedia of ancient Egyptian architecture, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Barletta, B 2001, The Origins of the Greek Architectural Orders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brand, P 2000, ‘Repairs ancient and modern in the great hypostyle hall at Karnak’, Bulletin of the American Research Centre in Egypt, vol.180, pp.1-6.
Chitham, R 2005, The classical orders of architecture (2nd ed), Oxford: Architectural Press, Oxford.
Clarke, S & Reginald, E 1990, Ancient Egyptian construction and architecture, Dover Publications, New York.
Hale, J 1994, The old way of seeing. How architecture lost its magic and how to get it back, Houghton Mifflin Comp, Boston.
Langhein, J 2005, Proportion and Traditional Architecture, The Prince’s Foundation, London.
Lawlor, R 1995, Sacred Geometry: Philosophy and Practice, Thames & Hudson, New York.
Padovan, R 1999, Proportion: Science, Philosophy, Architecture, Routledge, New York/London.
Tzonis, A & Lefaivre, L 1986, Classical Architecture: The Poetics of Order, MIT Press, Massachusetts.