As I am wont to do, I have proposed a restructuring of the ancestral orders of Bronze Age, Classical, and Roman column capitals, as a derivative work arising from my recent trip to Turkey.

My contention is that Ionic capitals are derivative rather than ancestral - hence much of the difficulty in academic literature attempting to resolve the Ionic motif into a single coherent category (what a mess!). It is, in effect, trying to shoehorn three feet into a single boot.

The resulting complexity may arise because “Ionic” combines architectural expressions descended from an older geometric tradition rather than representing a single ancestral order in its own right.

Proposed: The classical capital tradition is better understood as descending principally from three ancestral orders:

- Aeolic (geometric/instrumental),
- Doric (pedestal/cultic), and
- Corinthian (acanthus/cultic).

...with Ionic representing a derivative planar (2D) simplistic derivative of the Aeolic tradition, and the Roman Ephesian capital representing a later synthesis of Aeolic geometry with Corinthian acanthus.

Astute folleagues will know why this is important - forthcoming... 😎

@EthicalSkeptic