Menkaure’s Valley Temple
A Layman‟s guide
Keith Hamilton
6th January 2024
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A234_NS
This guide will concentrate on Menkaure’s Valley Temple; though it would be
beneficial to read my Pyramid Temple guide first, to enable a better comparison
between the two temples. The above archive image1 was taken on 30 May 1908, here
we are looking northeast across what appears to be a desert plain; Khentkawe’s tomb
is visible in centre of image, whilst Khufu’s pyramid towers in the background. Under
this sea of sand laid the remains of Menkaure’s valley temple. Finding the pyramid
temple was easy, as its huge core stones stood proud of the sand and debris; however,
the location of the valley temple was at a lower part of the plateau and placed on the
northern side of the main wadi, and as a consequence was easily buried under sand.
1
All archive images from giza.fas.harvard.edu
1
Image Courtesy of Isida Project
In the above image we are looking east through the long hall of the pyramid temple.
The causeway would connect to the end of this hall, and in the middle of the image
you can just make out the large foundation blocks which would have supported the
causeway. In the background a large grouping of trees can be seen and next to it a
modern cemetery, which is surrounded by a wall: this wall was erected in 2004 to
prevent further expansion into the Giza necropolis.2 The valley temple is located next
to the cemetery, and is once again covered by sand. Our primary resource is to be
found in Reisner’s publication3. Later work by the Italian scholars Maragioglio and
Rinaldi (M&R), who published their views in 1967, are largely based on Reisner’s
publication, as even by 1967 the temple had been reclaimed by the desert sand. More
modern excavations in connection with the temple have also been undertaken by the
Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA).
2
3
Giza and the Pyramids, M.Lehner & Z. Hawass, 2017, page 272
Mycerinus, The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, 1931
2
According to Reisner; “The search for the Mycerinus valley temple began on June 1,
1908. Mr. Oric Bates was in immediate charge of the work. The causeway,
constructed of huge limestone blocks, was similar in appearance to the foundation
platform of the pyramid temple, and in fact was structurally a continuation of that
platform. At the western end, adjacent to the entrance of the upper temple, remains of
a mud-brick corridor had been found on the causeway. The causeway itself could be
followed for about half the distance down (circa 250 meters) to the Arab cemetery in
the valley. Here it had been cut across by the course of a water channel, which still
carries off the rain water from the plateau behind the Second Pyramid; and the water
had washed out all further traces of the causeway down to rock. Just beyond this
washout, the edge of a low rock cliff was visible, and beyond that all the valley was
filled with sand (Pl. 2a). The surface of the sand appeared flat, but it really sloped
gently toward the cultivation.”4
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A11_NS
The above archive image is Reisner’s plate 2a, it was taken in November 2006, before
the excavation of the pyramid temple. The landscape has chamged a lot when we
compare the above image to the previous image.
4
Ibid, page 34
3
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A10_NS
In the above archive image we can better see the surviving end of the upper causeway
and the water channel mentioned by Reisner. Reisner would go on to state; “In order
to determine the probable course of the causeway, a rod was set up in the middle of
the entrance of the pyramid temple, and another in the axis of the causeway near
where it had been washed away; sighting along these rods, others were planted in a
line with them in the sand further east, and at a point nearly 100 meters from the
washout, a trench about one meter wide, lettered A, was laid out across the apparent
axis of the causeway, and three other parallel trenches (B to D) at intervals of 20
meters.”5 Reisner would continue; “On June 2, the men began work on these trenches,
and very soon reached hard debris in A, B, and C, in which the depth of sand varied
from 10 to 50 cm. On the next day, it appeared that this hard debris was the floorpacking which lay on the causeway under the mud-brick corridor which had now
disappeared. Traces of mud-brick walls were also found, which seemed to be remains
of the corridor. In C, we came on a hole dug by Arab treasure-hunters. It was lined on
one side with rubble to keep back the sand and descended along the southern edge of
the causeway. This hole, on being cleared, showed the massive blocks of the
causeway, and it was obvious that the causeway followed the line presupposed for it.”
5
Ibid, page 34
4
From the above account, the hole dig by searchers in trench C is some 390m from the
pyramid temple; it was courtesy of this hole that the massive foundation blocks of the
causeway were found: there appears to be no further digging in trenches A & B to
ascertain the limit of the foundation blocks up to the breach which Reisner believed
was caused by a water washout.
Trench D would be some 410m from the pyramid temple and here some 2m
below the sand they came across the tops of two parallel mud-brick walls, which were
the remains of the causeway corridor. A further trench E was cut 40m beyond D and
here around 3.5m below the sand they came across a weathered surface resulting from
the decay of a mud-brick building. The next step for Reisner was to remove the sand
and debris between trenches D & E. He states; “As the work proceeded, the causeway
corridor of mud-brick was followed eastward until it was interrupted by a north-tosouth wall of rubble with a heavy batter on the west face, which was 608 m. from the
entrance to the pyramid temple.”6
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A269_NS
In the above image we can see the mud-brick causeway walls approach the valley
temples west wall as described by Reisner above. It’s difficult to reconcile Reisner’s
6
Ibid, page 35
5
account of his trenches with the distance he gives of the causeway of 608m from the
pyramid temple. In trench E he states; “It was clear that we were either in the temple,
or beyond it.”7 However, we recall he states; “The causeway itself could be followed
for about half the distance down (circa 250 meters) to the Arab cemetery in the
valley.” This takes us to the washout caused by the water channel, where 100m from
the washout, trench A was cut, then trenches B to D at 20m intervals, followed By E,
which was cut 40m from D. A total distance therefore to trench E of 450m; this is
some 158m short of Reisner’s 608m.
Reisner at first expected an entrance in the west wall at the end of the causeway
corridor, but after digging under the rubble wall they only came across a blank mudbrick wall; instead the corridor turned to the right (south).
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_C2025_NS
In the above image we can see the workers clearing the corridor which turned south
along the temples west wall. Reisner can be seen standing on the temples southwest
corner, at this point the corridor would turn east and run along the temples south wall.
In the background we can see a gap in the rubble wall; this faces the main causeway
corridor, and is part of the wall Resiner removed in order to find the temple entrance.
7
Ibid, page 34
6
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_C2013_NS
In the above view we are looking east along the main causeway corridor; here we can
see the mud-brick of the temples west wall, which Reisner gives as 3.00 t0 3.35m
thick; we can also see the corridor turn to the south. The thickness of the mud-brick
corridor walls was around 1.65m, with the corridor being some 1.55-1.60m wide. In
the above image we can also see a stone drainage channel, on which Reisner states;
“At a point 540 cm. west of the western face of the valley temple, a stone drain
crossed the causeway corridor at a slight slant, draining from north to south. This was
a stone slab about 35 x 35 cm. in section, with a channel, 15 cm. wide and 20 cm.
deep, sunk in the mud floor of the corridor. At each end a hole led through the bottom
of the side wall of the corridor to the outside. The drain had probably been covered
with a stone slab. Its purpose was undoubtedly to take water collected in the angle
between the corridor and the temple on the north and discharge it out to the sloping
ground on the south. It will be remembered that the causeway crossed a waterchannel
higher up, and has now been completely washed away by the rain-water which came
down the channel from the plateau west of the Second Pyramid. While the causeway
and the corridor still stood, this water must have passed down the northern side of the
corridor and the temple to the cultivated land in the valley. Any obstruction north of
the temple would dam the water up in this angle between the temple and the causeway
7
corridor.”8 I would question if such a small drain was sufficient to discharge the
amount of water that might be gathered on the northern side of the causeway;
moreover, it may have been easily clogged up with debris, negating its function. I
could find no detailed data on the base of the exterior walls; for example, was the floor
of the corridor raised above the exterior level; for example was a ditch created along
the exterior walls to create a soak away for any rain water? Reisner would suggest that
the causeway corridor may have been covered with logs, mats and brick, though no
evidence was found to suggest such a covering. The causeway corridor may have been
uncovered or even partially covered in order to illuminate the corridor. Given the fact
that the corridor is a mud-brick construction, likely created by Menkaure’s successor,
with no evidence of decoration, would any successor expend further resources on
covering the corridor, especially if there was no decoration to protect? The stone
drains function may simply have been to drain any rain water which fell within the
corridors wall and discharge it through both north and south corridor walls: In
Khafre’s causeway, water would flow out of a drain some 7m from its valley temple,
through the corridors south wall. Of course it cannot be discounted that any water that
may have been damned up on the north side of the wall, could have sought relief
through this drain.
The above drawing is an east-west section of the temple from Reisner’s plate X; on the
right of the image we can see the causeway descend towards the valley temple. The
previously mentioned drain can be made out and underneath this, some of the huge
causeway foundation blocks. It is also to be noticed that areas have been demarcated
as Dynasty IV and Dynasty VI; indeed, we can see two annotations for first temple
and second temple as displayed by the differing floor levels in middle of image. This
second temple appears to have been built after a major rain event punched through the
west wall of the temple and largely destroying the main offering hall. When the
exterior walls of the second temple were built on top of the old walls the builders took
care to protect the mud-brick walls with a rubble embankment, which can be seen in
the images on pages 5 & 6. This added protection was only given to the temples west
and north walls, as the natural slope of the Giza plateau would direct any runoff to
these locations.
Overleaf we have Reisner’s plate VIII which shows the various phases of the
temple, which made for a complex site to excavate.
8
Ibid, page 43-44
8
The site is a complex picture, with numerous buildings and granaries built
predominantly on what was originally the temple court.
9
Reisner’s plate IX above helps to simplify the complex plate VIII. The above plan is
of the first temple phase (the orange walls on plate VIII highlight the second temple
phase and it is against the west and north walls of this phase that we see added
protection with the rubble embankments). In the first phase above, we can see the
causeway corridor at top of image along with drainage channel; the corridor does not
arrive on the temples east-west axis, but south of it: it follows along the temples west
wall and then turns east along the temples south wall. This long east-west corridor has
two entrances into the temple, either side of the large court; the corridor would
10
continue east, but Reisner could not trace its end as it went under the modern
cemetery, though it is thought that it may have led to a harbour basin.
Several factors led to the flood damage which would breach into the first temple
phase; Resiner would state; “The Mycerinus valley temple was in a fatal situation,
standing free on a low gravel bank on the edge of the desert, at the northern side of
the mouth of a wide wady and deflecting with its causeway the branch channel which
drains the limestone plateau west of the Second Pyramid. As long as the causeway and
its corridor stood, all the rain water discharged by the branch channel flowed down
the northern side of the causeway to the back of the valley temple. There its only
outlet, aside from an inadequate drain under the causeway corridor, was around the
northern face of the temple. Any deposit of sand or debris north of the temple was
bound to increase the accumulation of water in the angle between the causeway and
the temple, while the flow of water around the temple hastened the decay of the
exterior wall and the deposit of mud debris.”9
The next weak link was in the strength of the exterior temple walls; in the
pyramid temple the majority of the large limestone core stones had been laid (see
image on page 3); however, in the case of the valley temple, construction lagged well
behind the pyramid temple, where we even find evidence that fine masonry was being
laid against these limestone cores. In contrast, the valley temple is largely a mud-brick
affair; of the original stone valley temple, Reisner would state; “The plan of the
massive stone temple cannot be determined because of the incomplete state of the
building. Probably the plan was approximately that of the first crude-brick temple (Pl.
IX). The massive foundation platform and the walls as far as laid were exactly like
those of the pyramid temple built of enormous blocks of local limestone and from the
same quarry (Pl. X). Indeed, the masonry, as far as carried out, was in direct or
indirect contact with the end of the causeway, as if the stones had been brought down
the causeway from the quarry above.”10
The core limestone walls appear limited to parts of the west and north walls; for
example, on the west wall north of the causeway two courses of core limestone were
laid, whilst only one course was found south of the causeway. Clearly the temple was
very far behind in construction compared to the pyramid temple; this might be because
the causeway was used as a haulage route for transporting masonry etc for the pyramid
and temples. A harbour in front of the valley temple location could have been used to
off load the thousands of tons of fine limestone and granite required for the pyramid.
If the causeway with its strong foundations was utilised for the haulage of all this
material, it would make sense that the valley temple would be the last part of the
pyramid complex to be built.
The few core stones in the temple were built over with mud-brick, and the core
stones would offer strong support to those parts of the mud-brick walls; however,
there was a gap in the west wall devoid of core stones, which Reisner thought was
made in order that core stones could be brought down to the temple from the quarry.
9
Ibid, page 44
Ibid, page 39
10
11
This gap Resiner would give as extending from a point south of the causeway to the
south wall of magazine 6; here the gap was filled with unsupported crude brick. 11 It
was at this point that the torrent of water found its weak spot and burst into the temple.
The causeway being south of the temples east-west axis, effectively collected and
directed the water to the rear wall of the main offering chamber (2) and broke through
the gap. Reisner reports that the west wall of (2) had been washed away, along with
the inside faces of that chamber; the damage did not stop there, the water continued
and washed out the doorway into the portico and onwards to remove the doorway in
the screen wall (1).12 The force of the deluge seems to have dissipated as it arrived at
the court, which was unpaved; though likely it caused some damage to any mud-brick
structures erected on the court at that time.
When this destruction happened, and how long the temple was in this state is
uncertain, though Reisner would suggest that Pepi II may have constructed the second
temple. However, according to Lehner and Hawass (L&H), they state; “Our work of
the last few years reveals evidence of another phase of building activity; an extension
with stone additions in the middle of the 5th dynasty, possibly in the reign of
Niuserre.”13
An uncertain feature exists in respect of the causeway, we recall that Reisner was of
the opinion that the causeway was cut by a water channel and mentions a low rock
cliff in the area (see page 3). According to L&H this cliff is the western edge of the
large Central Field quarry; unfortunately the excavation data in this area appears
confusing and incomplete. L&H would state; “In fact, it is possible Menkaure‟s
builders never linked up the sections of the causeway that stretched towards each
other between the upper and valley temples.”14 How Menkaure proposed to cross this
quarry and if he did is unclear and would require extensive excavation of the area; but
given the remnants of the causeway visible at both ends, I would be inclined to believe
that the quarry had been crossed, as its hard to believe that they would erect causeway
walls from each end whilst the quarry area had yet to be crossed. Moreover, for those
who support the idea that causeway foundations could be used to transport material up
to the pyramid from the harbour, would have to re-evaluate this idea if it is found that
the quarry was not crossed and the causeways did not connect. L&H’s description is
not detailed, and the quarry depth is not known; they do mention quarry debris and
brick pillars in the area.15
Given the unknown depth of the quarry to be crossed and its span, what options
do Menkaure’s builders have? The area may have been too big to be filled with local
limestone blocks and instead they could have constructed brick walls and packed it
with quarry debris to bridge the gap to connect both ends of the causeways. The
11
Ibid, page 44
Ibid, page 44-45
13
Giza and the Pyramids, M.Lehner & Z. Hawass, 2017, page 272
14
Ibid, page 270
15
Ibid, page 270-271
12
12
surviving ramps at the pyramid temple are largely debris filled constructs, which could
take the weight of the large limestone blocks dragged over them, which made up the
core walls; so a similar construction to span the quarry could be sufficient for haulage
and support of a causeway. Such a construction would not be as strong as large
foundation blocks laid directly on the bedrock, and like the gap in the west wall of the
valley temple, it would be a weak link, and more prone to the impact of severe flash
floods.
If the quarry had not been crossed, the question arises, would the valley temple
be subjected to such a forceful flood had the quarry not be crossed by the causeway?
Given the topography of the Giza landscape and Reisner’s belief „As long as the
causeway and its corridor stood, all the rain water discharged by the branch channel
flowed down the northern side of the causeway to the back of the valley temple.‟ I am
minded to believe that the causeway had been completed; though major excavation
would be required along the causeways route to clarify matters.
Regardless of whether the causeway was completed or not, at some stage it was
not possible to use the exterior corridor of the valley temple to access the causeway
corridor; Reisner would state; “It is further to be noted that the exterior corridor had
been closed by a thin wall of crude brick, one brick thick, where it entered the
causeway corridor. The purpose of this wall is difficult to perceive. The corridor on
one side of the block must have been abandoned, while on the other, it was still in use.
The block belongs therefore to a time when the complete decay of the valley temple
was approaching.”16 Such a blockage might be a result of an incomplete causeway,
there would be little point in directing people up the lower causeway to a quarry that
could not be crossed, or alternatively, a rain event significantly damaged the causeway
and its foundations over the quarry area, and that the ruler at that time was not inclined
to expend resources to repair it, and instead decided to block the corridor. Whatever
the scenario the two temples became isolated islands.
The exterior corridor appears to have no use for the new temple built upon the
remains of the old temple; Reisner would report that the roof of the exterior corridor
had collapsed and the corridor had become filled with drift sand before the second
temple was built.17 The southern wall of the new temple was built on top of the old
southern wall of the exterior corridor, this wall would join the rubble protected west
wall of the new temple at the southwest corner (see orange walls on plan, page 9: the
plan also shows later rooms built on top of the now defunct corridor). From the design
of the second temple, there appears to no role for any causeway to connect to the
pyramid temple. The new exterior walls were not as thick as the old temple being only
2.20m thick, and it was only the new west and north walls which were protected by
the rubble embankment.
16
17
Mycerinus, The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, 1931. Page 44
Ibid ,page 45
13
The first temple had similar
design features to the pyramid
temple; the court had niche
decoration, a stone pathway
across the court, though the court
here was not paved, but just a
gravel filling. Into this gravel
filling was sunk a limestone
basin, which was connected to a
drain. The stone pathway
approached a wider ramp which
sloped up to the portico, which
was placed at a higher level. A
doorway in the west wall of the
portico opened onto the offering
hall; two further doorways at the
east end of the offering hall gave
access to corridors 4 & 20.
Corridor 20 serviced a series of
magazines 6-16, situated in the
temples northwest corner; whilst
corridor 4 serviced a smaller
number of rooms in the
southwest corner.
The
exterior
corridor
provided access to the temple via corridor 4 & 354. Corridor 354 allowed access to the
vestibule and magazines on the east side of the court. The main entrance into the
temple was through a doorway in the temples east facade, which led to the vestibule
with four columns. Like in the pyramid temple, the screen wall may have been a later
addition to the temple to provide more privacy to the portico and the offering chamber
beyond.
The roof of the vestibule is believed to have been supported by four wooden
columns placed on alabaster bases, sunk into a mud floor; the walls had been plastered
with mud and whitened. At some time in its history the main entrance into the temple
had been blocked up with brick. Corridor 380 which led north from the vestibule also
suffered the same fate, with its doorway also being bricked up; the southern corridor
354 was not blocked up (remains of stairs were found in corridor 380 and it’s been
suggested that these would give access to the temple roof: see plan VIII on page 9).
All the rooms and corridors in this area were roofed with wooden beams, as fragments
of the beams were found on top of the walls.18 Rooms on the western side of the court
would be roofed likewise.
18
Ibid, page 40
14
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A371_NS
The above image is looking southwest across the remains of the vestibule; Menkaure’s
pyramid can be seen in top right corner. It is difficult to correlate the walls in this
image with the plan on the previous page, as some of these constructs are from the
second temple; for example, the east west wall immediately south of the alabaster
bases appears to be the later orange wall from plan VIII on page 9. The pile of debris
in the background is covering the court.
15
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A358_NS
In this view we are looking across the southern half of the court towards the courts
southwest corner; in the bottom right hand corner you can just make out the stone
pathway which crosses the court. We can also see the limestone basin sunk into the
gravel fill of the court and the drain which leads to it, which still retains some of its
cover stones. The niched decoration of the courts walls can been seen on the west
south and east walls. Reisner would give the court as 19.40m E-W and 41m N-S, the
pathway is 1.10m wide.19
As can be seen, the court has been densely built on, with some of these
structures being built over the walls of the first temple (see plan VIII on page 9). It is a
complicated picture sorting what belonged to the first temple and the second temple.
On the second temple Riesner would state; “On the surface of decay of the first crudebrick temple, before it became covered with sand, a second temple of crude brick was
built, the parts of which coincided approximately with corresponding parts of the
older temple. A new portal or vestibule was built over the middle part of the old; a
new sanctuary, including closed portico and offering room, was built over the old
sanctuary; at least two rooms were added, one on each side of the offering room; and,
finally, an outer wall was built enclosing the whole. The older open court continued to
19
Ibid, page 40
16
serve the same purpose in the new temple, but the floor was now nearly a meter higher
and was merely the surface of decay produced by the inrush of water through room
(2).”20
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_B480_NS
In the above image we are looking west with Menkaure’s pyramid in the background
(Khafre’s pyramid is top right corner). Here we can see the pathway cross the court
and connect to the ramp which leads to the portico, and beyond we can see into the
offering hall. When this picture was taken the southern half of the court had yet to be
excavated, hence the debris to the south of pathway. Extensive building is also to be
found on the northern half of the court.
20
Ibid, page 46
17
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_B495_NS
The above image is similar to the
previous but with the camera
panned around towards the courts
northwest corner. For comparison,
the image left, part of Reisner’s
plate VIII, highlights the same
area covered by the image above.
18
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_B528_NS
In the above image we can see the courts west wall niche decoration and the northwest
corner of the court. This image was taken a month later than the previous image, and
here we can see that further excavation has revealed the niche decoration, with the
remains of walls built over it. The round hole in the wall by the offering hall, middle
left, can just be made out on the image on page 17, where the top of the hole is just
visible.
19
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_C2445_NS
In this view we are looking north across the court; Khufu’s pyramid and G1-c can be
seen in the background. The removed walls above the niche decoration can be seen at
the northwest corner. The huge amount of sand to be removed can be judged by
observing the surface level, top of image. This huge amount of excavation was
undertaken over two periods; the first being in June-July 1908, which concentrated on
the rooms west of the court. This initial excavation was cut short as Reisner had other
engagements in Nubia and Palestine, and this meant that the second and longest period
of excavation was resumed on December 3, 1909 and finished on April 12th 1910.
The court was largely packed with dwellings and storage facilities, though the
pavement was spared from being built upon. It is hard to imagine that when the temple
was originally built that such a scene as we see above was intended to be built upon it,
but rather circumstances changed that necessitated the above scene. But even with this
densely packed building scene, services for the king appear to have continued as
evidenced by the offering hall being rebuilt along with the pavement being
unobstructed to give access.
20
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A252_NS
In this view we are looking west into the portico, which held four alabaster statues
against its west wall. Reisner would state; “In Dynasty VI this portico had been
entirely rebuilt on a different plan, but the late walls had been founded on the earlier,
or on debris. It was thus easy to follow the lines of the old walls under the later ones,
although it was necessary in places to cut away the later wall to make sure of the
details. It is certain that the four alabaster statues of Mycerinus found in the later
room, resting on the later floor a few centimeters above the old floor, had been
originally in the old portico.”21 The outline of the doorway into the offering hall is
visible between the statues.
21
Ibid, page 41
21
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_C2072_NS
In this view we are looking through the portico and beyond into the offering hall (note
hole in wall, north of doorway into offering hall; seen also on images on pages 17 &
19). In the foreground next to the alabaster bases, we can make out a limestone
threshold. On the Offering Hall Reisner would state; “The offering room was of the
long east-to-west form usual in these rooms and already seen in the outer offering
room at the pyramid temple. The western end of the room had been washed out
previous to the building of the second crude-brick temple, and overbuilt by the later
wall. Its examination was, therefore, a matter of considerable difficulty, but we
managed to expose the greater part of the foundation wall, which crossed the end of
the room in a straight line with no indication of niche or stela. It is to be noted that we
found in the later offering room, which nearly coincided with the earlier, parts of an
offering bench consisting of water-worn alabaster slabs, and beside this, four small
unfinished statuettes. The offering bench, at any rate, was probably in a similar place
in the old offering room. On the floor of the old room, under the later floor, there were
two offering pots of coarse red pottery, potsherds, a few fragments of statuettes and
stone vessels, some flint flakes, and fragments of faience vessels.”22
22
Ibid, page 41
22
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_C553_NS
Parts of offering bench and unfinished statuettes found inside offering hall. Below we
have the limestone threshold for the offering hall, also visible on previous image.
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_C2281_NS
23
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_B502_NS
In the above image we are looking north along the wide corridor 4 (see plan on page
10 or 14) this is the wide corridor which connects to the east end of the offering hall;
this corridor is noticeably wider that corridor 20, which services the northern
magazines. South of the offering hall, corridor 4 services fewer rooms, it would also
connect to the exterior corridor, though some time in its history this doorway into the
exterior corridor was also bricked up.23 According to Reisner there was originally only
three rooms served by corridor 4, two rooms to the east 3 & 19 and one long room to
the west 18, whose doorway was at the south end of the corridor. At some time,
another doorway was made in the corridors west wall at its north end to create room
15; another room 17 was also created; this had a doorway in its wall to allow access
from 18. In this image we get a rare glimpse of the large limestone core masonry of
the temples west wall (bottom left corner).
In was in this corridor 4 that Reisner discovered the exceptional triad statues of
Menkaure; he was of the view that the southern rooms were dedicated to statuary. In
room 3 he found rectangular depressions on the floor along with further unfinished
statuettes, though these did not fit the depressions.
23
Ibid, page42- 43. In his text Reisner refers to room 5, which I assume is room 15 in his plan next to 17. This is likely an
error in his plan IX as he also has a room 15 in the northern magazines.
24
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_B275S_N
In the above image we can see the triad statues inside the corridor during excavation.
25
In September this year I was lucky to get a close look at some of these triads, whose
quality of workmanship can only be described as exceptional. Overleaf we have a
close up of one of the triads; the hand in the image gives an indication of size
(according to Reisner, traces of paint were found, suggesting that the triads were
originally painted).
As previously mentioned, the south doorway of 4 which gave access to the
exterior corridor was at one time bricked up, this bricking up also occurred to the
doorway which gave access to the offering hall. Reisner thought that this occurred
during the second temple phase. The north doorway from the offering hall to the
northern galleries was also bricked up; this bricking up effectively sealed off these two
areas, along with anything still inside them. It would seem strange to abandon such
fine statues inside the corridor; even their positioning in the corridor seems strange,
for example, why not place their backs against the corridor wall? Instead we have two
triad’s facing south and two facing north; indeed why not store them in the rooms of
corridor 4? (The location of the four triads in corridor 4 is shown on plate VIII on page
9)
26
27
Though four intact triads were found, and finely sculpted out of greywacke, only three
are on display in the Cairo museum; the fourth is at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston,
which holds two further large fragments of broken triad’s, showing that at least six
triads existed, though there was possibly more, as 35 smaller fragments of greywacke
were also recovered from the temple.
The triads in the Cairo museum all have the goddess Hathor standing to the
right of the king, whilst on his left we have a personification of an Upper Egyptian
nome, with the nome standard behind the figure (the triad in the MFA differs in that
Hathor is the middle figure shown seated, with king on left and nome on right). The
surviving triads only display Upper Egyptian nomes, though it cannot be discounted
that other triads with Lower Egyptian nomes existed, which were destroyed or stolen.
The prevalence of the goddess Hathor is interesting, Florence Dunn Friedman would
state;
“Menkaure, through the use of the triads, amplifies his relationship with Hathor
in a way not seen (or at least that has not survived) until now. For the Hwt-estates
named on the triads do not name agricultural estates established for Menkaure‟s cult;
they name, I believe, estates from Hathor cult temples endowed by Menkaure or his
forebears. Such estates in the Fourth Dynasty (like Tehne) were small, with too little
land (e.g., just 2 auroras at Tehne) to support anyone outside the temple itself. What
Menkaure seems to be doing is assembling in his valley temple the geographically
dispersed Hathor cults in the form of the triads with the result that Hathor‟s cult is
visibly brought into his own. The triads are thus used to present a combination of
reality and fiction. The reality is that Menkaure, and his forebears, endowed estates
with real plots of land for temple cults for Hathor; the fiction is that such early temple
estates would have been capable of provisioning the king‟s cult other than
symbolically.”24
Given the large number of nomes, we could have quite a collection of triads,
though it’s possible that not every nome had a Hathor temple. The placement of the
triads may have been against the niche walls of the court, and given their relatively
small size, one might expect that they were placed upon a plinth. However, the court
at some time in its history had become a jumbled maze of production and storage
facilities; the original vision of the court with its niche walls, possibly adorned with
triads and other statues was subservient to the new reality and role placed upon the
court. Possibly at this time, the triads were removed and stored in corridor 4 for safe
keeping: the temple had a revised role, though services for the king continued, but in a
reduced setting; the second temple phase was much reduced, with the offering hall
only have a room north and south of it which freed up more space for dwellings to be
built on top of the northern galleries and the rooms once serviced by corridor 4.
Numerous triads and other statues superfluous to the needs of the reduced new temple
may have been placed inside corridor 4 and its connecting rooms, only to be looted at
a later date; thankfully some have survived.
24
Reading the Menkaure Triads, part 1, pages 15-16. See also Reading the Menkaure Triads, part 2. Also, Economic
Implicatios of the Menkaure Triads; all available on Academia.edu
28
We are quite fortunate in
finding so many statues
in Menkaure’s valley
temple. The fine and
more life sized statue
left, was found in a pit
inside Khafre’s valley
temple; this temple had
some 23 statue
emplacements, and other
than some statue
fragments, this statue is
the sole survivor. The
positioning of
Menkaure’s temple and
its construction, mostly
in more perishable
materials, likely
protected the statues,
some of which were
likely buried under
decayed mud-brick or
sand. Reisner would
report many robber holes
sunk into the site, some
reinforced with stone
rubble to hold back the
debris.
29
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_A316_NS
In the above view we are looking south along corridor (20) which serviced the
northern magazines. At some time in its history the doorway by the offering hall was
also bricked up closing off access to the northern magazines, and during the temples
second phase, dwellings would be built on top of this area (see image on page 19 and
plan on page 9). On the northern magazines Reisner would state;
“In these magazines we found pottery, stone vessels, flint implements, sets of
model vessels of stone and copper, flint wands, and other objects. But all these objects
had been disturbed, most of them broken, and many others were undoubtedly missing.
These northern magazines had been grievously plundered and were probably in a
state of decay when the second crude-brick temple was built; for the lines of the
doorway of the later temple, leading from room (2) to the northern magazine corridor
(20), do not coincide with the lines of the first doorway, and its floor is about 50 cm.
higher up.”25
25
Mycerinus, The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, 1931. Page 42.
30
Image courtesy of Digital Giza Project, Harvard University. HUMFA_B450_NS
The above alabaster statues came from the portico and sufficient fragments allowed
one of the statues to be fairly well reconstructed.26
26
The more complete statue is JE40703, this statue is the northernmost statue on page 21. The nicely decorated base in
the foreground originally sat next to the previous statue, and is now in the MFA Boston (MFA 09.202)
31
A similar decorative motif is also to be found on Khafre’s statue; this motif often
referred to as the Sama Tawy, is often described as a windpipe entwined with plants
which represent Upper and Lower Egypt: papyrus represents Lower Egypt, whilst the
Lily represents Upper Egypt, with the King uniting the two lands.
32
Deciphering the various buildings which covered the court was a difficult task,
Reisner would state; “The complete reconstruction of any one period was simply
unattainable”.27 Some clues helped, he adds;
“The floor of the court was covered with a layer of debris of decay, mostly mud,
with some sand and other material, which varied in depth from about 20 cm. over the
stone pavement to about 40 to 70 cm. along the northern and southern sides. In this
floor debris, especially in the upper part, a considerable number of fragments of stone
vessels and of shattered statues were found, some of which fitted on fragments of stone
vessels found in the magazines of the first temple, and had clearly been scattered by
the plunderers of the magazines. Thus all walls founded on this debris had been built
after the very serious first plundering of the older temple; but the walls in the debris
belong to the time when the funerary service was maintained in the first temple.
The walls embedded in the floor debris of the court were badly preserved,
owing probably to the dampness and to the pressure of the superimposed debris. The
bricks were crushed and the walls difficult to follow.”28
Reisner reports that some 537 stone vessels were recovered from the valley temple,
the greater proportion of which conform to the IV dynasty; though 10 vessels could be
said to be older artifacts, 5 of which were inscribed with the name of earlier kings such
as Sneferu and Hotepsekhemy. A flint wand was also found bearing the name of
Khufu. Menkaure’s name is largely absent, Reisner would state;
“Now of all the objects found in the Mycerinus temples, only the statues and
one painted pottery jar bore the name of the king, while two flint wands were found,
one inscribed with the name of Cheops and the other with the name of Khamerernebty,
probably the mother of Mycerinus. Not a single one of the hundreds of stone vessels
bore the name of Mycerinus, but five vessels bore older names:”29
The stone vessels varied in material, from softer alabaster, limestone to hard
Diorite. In the dwellings built on the court which were connected to the temples
second phase, some appear to have been production facilities, where statues of
Menkaure and Khafre were broken up to create small model vessels of the type found
in later V and VI dynasty tombs.30
27
Ibid, page 50
Ibid, page 51
29
Ibid, pages 102-104
30
Ibid, page 104
28
33
In the arrowed area we can see a further
grouping of dwellings built up against the
temples east wall; Reisner could only partially
excavate this area, which he termed the city
enclosure in front of the temple. He states; “It
was unfortunately not possible to follow the
city enclosure over any great area, owing to
the presence of the modern Moslem cemetery.
The village people became very nervous and
begged us to desist.”31
A doorway from the exterior corridor
once gave access to this area, though this to at
some time was brick up; Reisner thought that
this blocking may have been at the same time
that the vestibule doorway was bricked up.
Like the dwellings inside the temples walls,
Reisner found evidence of two different phases
in this area. Reisner also found a clear seam in
the exterior corridor mud-bricks walls at the temples southeast corner, which suggests
that the city enclosure created an extension to the exterior corridor towards the east.
Reisner’s city enclosure would not be excavated until 1932-33 by Selim Hassan.
Hassan had been excavating Khentkawes causeway and the numerous buildings which
flanked its route, which is often referred to as Khentkawes town; this led him to a
vestibule with four alabaster bases, which was located outside the valley temples east
wall, but nearer the temples northeast corner. This construction which incorporated the
earlier elements unearthed by Reisner, Hassan believed to be the Valley Temple of
Khentkawes.32
The view that this construction against the eastern facade of the valley temple
was Khentkawes valley temple was not shared by Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R)
who would term the construction ante-temple.33
Today this extension to the east is now referred to as the annex. The annex
clearly came sometime after the main temple as the walls of the annex are not bonded
to the main temples east wall, but show clear joints between the two constructions. 34
31
Ibid, page 53
Excavations at Giza Vol IV, 1932-1933, Selim Hassan, 1943, pages 53 to 62
33
L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, parte VI, page 72 and page 124, observation 34
34
Ibid, page 72
32
34
The above images, plate IIB and Fig 1 are from Hassan’s publication; I have
highlighted the annex in fig 1. The modern cemetery encroaches on the site and
curtails further excavation. It can be seen that Khentkawe’s town turns to the south
and it has been suggested that a harbour may have serviced Menkaures valley temple
as well as Khentkawes town.35
35
Giza and the Pyramids. M.Lehner and Z.Hawass 2017, pages 308 -311
35
The image left is part of Hassan’s central
field plan; I have cropped and rotated the
temple so as to match the other plans in
this guide, I have also highlighted the
annex (compare to plan on page 34).
There were several ways of accessing the
annex; one could gain entry via the
exterior corridor extension on the south or
through a portico in the north which had
two limestone bases.
A doorway in the south wall of the
portico gave access to the vestibule,
which like the vestibule inside the main
temple, had four alabaster bases to
support wooden columns. It was in this
doorway that Hassan discovered the foot
and pedestal of a fine diorite statue. This
fragment of a statue had been reused to
form a lower door socket. Hassan thought
this vandalism was done after the 6th
dynasty, after the collapse of the Old
Kingdom.36 A view not shared by M&R
who would suggest that the fragment may
have been part of a sculptor’s rough draft which was abandoned.37
The image left from Hassan’s plate XXV,
shows the pivot point in Khafre’s foot.
Hawass and Lehner would state; “We have
ample evidence from the valley temple that
the towns inhabitants were breaking up
Menkaure‟s statues as early as the 5th
dynasty, and this utilitarian use of Khafre‟s
royal foot certainly reflects ambivalence, if
not some cynicism, towards the deceased godking.”38
Some effort was expended in creating a fine
entrance to the annex; the walls of the portico
were whitewashed, as well as being paved
with white limestone.
36
Excavations at Giza Vol IV, 1932-1933, Selim Hassan, 1943, page 55
L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, parte VI, page 124-126, observation 36
38
Giza and the Pyramids. M.Lehner and Z.Hawass 2017, page 275
37
36
The vestibule with the four alabaster bases was similar in design to that of the
adjoining main temple, and according to Hassan; “The walls were coated with yellow
plaster, upon which was laid a pleasing decoration of simple colour-washes, the upper
parts being whitewashed, while the lower parts were adorned by a black dado relieved
by a red border at the top. These colours were well-preserved upon the western wall,
and some rather faint traces of them remained upon the eastern one.”39
Leaving the southern doorway of the vestibule we enter into a court paved in
mud-brick, and laid diagonally across this court was a pathway of limestone slabs,
similar to what we see in the main temple.
In The above image I have highlighted the limestone pathways in both the annex and
the main temple; the route of the diagonal pathway is directed to the location of the
main temple vestibule, suggesting that the two were at one time connected; however,
on excavation Hassan found the connection closed, he states;
“This pathway commences at the triangular threshold of the doorway and
crosses the court diagonally to the south-west corner of the wall. At this point it
disappears under the wall and terminates on the other side in the vestibule of the
Valley-Temple of King Men-kaw-Ra'. This would suggest a communicating doorway
between the two temples, though at the time of excavation an examination of the wall
in this part failed to reveal any trace of such an opening. Recently, however, heavy
rains have caused part of the wall to collapse at this place, and the damage has
revealed the fact that an entrance did actually exist here, and has also explained why
39
Excavations at Giza Vol IV, 1932-1933, Selim Hassan, 1943, page 55
37
we were unable to trace it. It seems that the Queen's architect first bricked up the
doorway in a normal manner. After completing this, he next thickened the wall by
building against it another wall, two bricks thick, which entirely hid the first
alteration. The rain-water having percolated down between the original wall and its
thinner facing, caused the latter to collapse into the court, and thus revealed the
vertical joint between the original door-jambs and the brick-work with which the
entrance was blocked. It may be that the site now occupied by the temple of KhentKawes was at one time belonging to that of Men-kaw-Ra', and this limestone pathway
led to its entrance. The Queen wishing to build her temple as close as possible to.that
of her father, occupied this space for her own use, and in so doing, closed the eastern
entrance of the existing building. Of course, this is mere hypothesis, but it seems to be
the only satisfactory explanation of the limestone pathway, which is otherwise
meaningless. Dr. Reisner was also of the opinion that there was once a doorway at the
spot where the pathway passes under the wall.”40
When this annex was built is difficult to determine, though the impression is
that it is a later extension tacked on to the original first phase of the main temple. The
quality of construction of the annex seems to match best with the main temples first
phase, with the limestone pathway connecting the two vestibules. In contrast, the
reconstruction of the main temples offering hall after the deluge which destroyed the
old one, appears to be more of a lip service to the cult of the king, which appears to be
a secondary function of the temple, with its main function increasingly being devoted
to storage and production. Decrees such as that given by Pepi II, bestowing privileges
upon the priests of the temple, likely became a catalyst for the extensive building on
the main temples court and the need for a further extension in the form of the annex.
In effect the valley temple would become what in the modern world we would term as
a free port.
The connection between the two vestibules probably came to an end after the
destruction of the main temples first phase. The smaller reconstruction of the second
phase would further release valuable building space to expand storage and production
facilities; it was probably at this time that the doorway between the two vestibules was
sealed with mud-brick. This would mean that the only connection between the annex
and the main temple was via the exterior corridor, with the only route into the main
temple being along corridor 354, as the doorway to corridor 4 had also been sealed
with mud-brick.
It has been noted that the main entrance to the annex is strange in that it faces
north when we might expect it to fast east; this might be down to space limitations for
the annex, as its thought that a harbour which could have served both Menkaure’s and
Khentkawes complex may have fronted the temple.
40
Ibid, page 57
38
The above image is plate XXXI from Hassan’s publication; here we are looking west,
and in the foreground we can see the south east corner of the annex: (compare to the
plan on page 37). The exterior corridor can be seen on left of image. This collection of
rooms and storage above begins south of a thin wall which crossed the court (see plan
on page 37) Hassan would state;
“The existing southern wall of the court is certainly not the original one, but is
a later, flimsy construction; and behind it, that is to say, to the south, lies a maze of
later walls forming a conglomeration of mean hovels which probably served as
habitations for the very poor people, or the low-class workers in the necropoli (PL
XXVIII, A, and XXXI). Moreover, this human " warren " must have been inhabited for
a very considerable period, as at least two distinct layers of dwellings were found
there, some of the walls being built upon the original pavement of the Temple, while
others are laid upon thick beds of rubbish and debris, so that in some cases the floors
of the rooms were as much as 60.0 cm. higher than the original pavement. Strangely
enough, with the exception of the magazine and corridor referred to above, the
northern part of the Temple, that is to say, the vestibule and the court, does not seem
to have been lived in. Therefore, it may be that the mortuary services of the Queen
were carried on here after the remainder of the Temple had been occupied. Support is
39
lent to this theory by the presence of the incense-burner described on p. 56 and more
especially by the pellets of incense, neither of which is likely to have remained in situ
had the spot in which they were found, been inhabited. Neither does it seem possible
that the dwellers in the crowded " warren " at the southern part of the Temple would
have refrained from encroaching on to the northern part had they been allowed to do
so. Furthermore, the dividing wall between these two parts is unbroken by a doorway,
and even the northern end of the eastern corridor is barricaded off by an unpierced
wall at the same level as that which crosses the court. Regarding the rooms
constructed in this northern part of the corridor, as well as those made in the
magazine, we may perhaps consider them as the dwelling-places of the priests who
ministered in the Temple.”41
In the above plan we see part of M&R’s TAV10 and how they saw the original design
of the annex which they called the ante-temple. They would see the court originally
extending all the way to the exterior corridor. They would also comment on how they
thought that Hassan’s plates and plan drawings appeared not to agree with each
other.42
The data on the annex given by Hassan is quite sparse, and even the data by
Reisner on the main temple is somewhat limited, so it’s very difficult to obtain a clear
picture of the constructions; but it does indeed seem clear as Hassan noted, that the
northern part of annex appears to have been spared the development seen in the
southern half. As well as the presence of incense pellets and burner, which were found
in the vestibule, other items included part of schist statuette; the body of a schist
statuette of a sphinx, in a standing posture; some fragments of diorite, one of which
held Khafre’s cartouche; part of a limestone painted statuette; part of an alabaster
statue; flint knives, potsherds and fragments of stone vessels: all of the above are listed
41
42
Ibid, page 59
L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, parte VI, pages 74-76
40
as being discovered in the vestibule.43 Whilst Hassan would describe finds found in
the magazines to the west of the vestibule and in other parts of the annex such as the
hovel, I could find nothing in his report listing finds found in the court, which seems
strange given its size and the amount he lists just for the small vestibule.
At whatever time the entrance into the main temple vestibule was bricked up,
the only access to the main temple would be via the exterior corridor, and if we
assume that corridor 4 had likewise been bricked up at this time, the only route into
the main temple would be via corridor 354 which connected to the main temple
vestibule, and from here access was given to the main court, which was extensively
built upon. One can imagine that this was not exactly an ideal route for a priestly
procession; especially crossing the congested built upon court, which certainly lacked
what we might call kerb appeal.
One wonders if sometime during the annex’s history it was decided upon to
move the main functions of the original offering hall into the annex; the doorway to
the main temple was bricked up and the northern half of the annex was put aside
solely for offerings to the king; here at least, the sacred offerings could be performed
in an area free from the competition of storage and production facilities. This small
area of the annex could be kept sacred from the more profane activities that had
largely overtaken the temple complex. The original offering hall may have been
mothballed at this time, its role diminished; possibly more so, if part of the causeway
had been washed away, severing for good the connection to the pyramid temple.
Concluding Remarks
The valley temple without doubt is a complex puzzle and extremely difficult to
interpret, especially given the limited amount of data available in the old publications.
Many questions remain outstanding; for example, was the causeway completed? The
surviving elements of the causeway show evidence of causeway walls being built, and
so it would seem strange to undertake all this work, knowing that the quarry gap had
not been crossed. Would it not be beneficial to use the strong foundations of the built
causeway to transport material to the quarry gap? Once the gap had been bridged they
could then construct the walls. Reisner was of the impression that the core limestone
masonry of the valley temple was transported down the causeway from the upper
quarry; if said blocks did originate from this quarry how did they transport them to the
valley temple if the causeway was not complete: likewise, how was the vast amount of
casing required for the pyramid brought in, if the causeway was not available.
The obstruction of the central field quarry has implications for some theories;
for example, it has been suggested that the three pyramids of Giza conform to some
master plan, but if such was the case, would they not take care to ensure that the
central field quarry did not extend into an area planned for Menkaure’s causeway?
43
Excavations at Giza Vol IV, 1932-1933, Selim Hassan, 1943, page 56-57
41
One could write pages of questions on the valley temple, and realistically most
cannot be answered. Today the remains of Reisner’s excavations are safely protected
under a sea of sand, with faint memories of its existence being represented by the
fantastic triads in the Cairo museum.
42
Keith Hamilton