The interesting fact escapes our view that letters could be placed standing freely in real landscapes, particularly during the periods mentioned above, as does the strange characteristic of the architectonic in books of transforming letters into buildings. All this is simply attributed to the historical domains of the phonetic alphabet. In this context, Oechslin's idealistic citation of geometry cannot be enough to raise his results beyond a very limited episode in the history of ideas. Since this usually implies a great affinity to some natural or artificial object that often has nothing to do with geometry, Oechslin reduces the Egyptian hieroglyphs to mere prototypes of a geometrically rationalizing worldview. In many places where Oechslin tries to indicate universal validity beyond his narrow focus, his arguments begin to crumble.
Architectural theory based on the history of art remains fixed on Eurocentrisms.
We gain intellectually stimulating indicators of a rather grotesque architecturo-historical episode that remains rather insignificant because its perception does not reach the basic substance of architecture. If, however, the topic architecture and script, on which Oechslin's study rests, is approached from the standpoint of cultural anthropology, very important insights come to light, contributing many new explanations to Oechslin's topic. Most of what he describes historically is, in fact, a late collision or meeting of two different lines of development. An originally factual unity of architecture and script had developed two independent lines that never forgot their common origins. In the following, we have to deepen this idea of the original unity of things using the example of architecture and script.