Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Qsar el-Sagha Temple A Layman’s Guide Keith Hamilton 27th March 2020 The above temple of Qsar el-Sagha has a somewhat austere appearance, indeed, one wonders if the architect took their inspiration from the impressive background of the Gebel Qatrani. The temple itself appears not to have been completed; it is devoid of any inscription, and many blocks have not been dressed. This, along with its architectural style, made early investigators suggest that it may have been from the Old kingdom, though today Egyptology attribute the temple to the Middle Kingdom (Old Kingdom 2686-2160 BC : Middle Kingdom 2055-1650 BC)1 Surviving Middle Kingdom temples are limited, Richard Wilkinson would state; “Although the Middle Kingdom witnessed the widespread building of religious structures – including many more royally commissioned provincial temples than in 1 Ian Shaw chronology, ‘Exploring Ancient Egypt’ 2003 1 early times – a great many of these structures were later demolished or substantially rebuilt when they were incorporated into more elaborate structures erected on the same sites. The extant evidence for Middle Kingdom temples is thus paradoxically scarcer than for some other periods in which fewer temples were constructed.”2 One temple that has been extended over various dynasties is Medinet Madi, here the Middle Kingdom element of the complex, (built by Amenemhet III and Amenemhet IV) has a striking resemblance to the interior shrines that we find inside Qsar el-Sagha. Wilkinson would also note that “there were many archaizing tendencies in the architecture of this period”.3 The above Google Earth image shows the location of Qsar el-Sagha; now isolated in the barren desert, and today more used as a stopover for jeep safaris. Today the temple is some 8km from the shoreline of Lake Qarûn; though at the time of its construction it is thought that the shoreline was only a few hundred metres away. 4 2 The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt, 2000, R.Wilkinson, page 22 Ibid, page 23 4 Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha, Dieter & Dorothea Arnold, page 24 3 2 The temple was first brought to the attention of the modern era by Georg Schweinfurth, a botanist and ethnologist, who came across the site and left his initials on a stone dated 1884. Flinder’s Petrie, during one of his many forays came across the site and gave the following detail; “Before beginning work this season I went over to the other side of the Birket Kurun with Mr. Hewat. We visited Dimay (pronounced D'may), and the building some miles further back in the desert, at the old lake level or Nile level, standing at the foot of the hills. What age this building is I could not determine. It has no trace of inscriptions, nor any ornament beyond a plain torus border to the inner doorways. It contains first a large hall, see PI. VI, from which seven chambers open out, each formerly fitted with double doors. Each end of the hall opens into another room. There is also a strange passage in the wall, opening on the outer face of the front. It has been much dug about and tunnelled, without opening any further chamber or pits below. The front is smooth and flat, of massive blocks with irregular sloping joints; the sides and back are rough, as if intended to receive more building, or as if never dressed down. Along the top of the seven chambers is a roof, with the cornice of the chambers forming a parapet wall. Some more excavation might disclose a clue to its meaning.”5 Sketches by Petrie 5 Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara, 1890, Flinders Petrie, page 21 3 Petrie’s sketches of the temple were published in 18926 and appear to be sketches from photographs he took during his visit. These images are in the archive of the Griffith Institute, and I most grateful for their permission to reproduce them here. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford7 6 7 Ten years digging in Egypt, 1882, Flinders Petrie, page 105 http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/ppoe/Petrie_5_8_030upper.html 4 Petrie‟s plate VI, plan of Qsar el-Sagha 5 Modern excavation of the temple would take place between 5 th March and the 5th of April, 1977; though several days were unfortunately lost due to severe sandstorms. The excavations by the German Archaeological Institute were carried out by Dieter and Dorothea Arnold, and published in 1979, „Der Tempel Qasr elSagha‟. Before looking at the temple in greater detail, it is probably apt to give a brief description of the surrounding area. In the above map8 we can see the locations of two settlements at the foot of the temple; the eastern settlement was oval shaped and badly eroded away, whilst the western settlement was a well planned settlement and better preserved. The Arnold’s had only two days to do a test dig on the western settlement, which enabled them to discover well preserved low layers of brick walls and ceramics which belonged to the 12th dynasty. Subsequent excavations of the settlement sites by the Institute of Archaeology of the Jagellonian University in collaboration with 8 Adapted from fig 1, ‘The Middle Kingdom Settlement at Qasr el-Sagha, 1979 -1988, Joachim Sliwa 6 the German Archaeological Institute, would confirm the initial findings by the Arnold’s.9 On the settlements Joachim Śliwa would say; “They were parted one from another by a deep wadi and each had its own fortification system, the presence of which has not even been earlier suspected. As can be clearly ascertained on the ground of studies done in the precincts of the better preserved Western Settlement, these were the structures erected under the supervision of architects, with their rooms based upon a regular plan and the walls orientated along the N-S and E-W axis. The inhabitants of both these twin urban type structures had undoubtedly been associated with the functioning of the temple and that of the nearby necropolis (surely a classic definition of the “workers village” can be employed here.)”10 The principal defence of the western settlement, were 2.1m thick brick walls, set in a foundation trench some 1.10 – 1.50m deep; it was also noted that important points, such as the corners and gates into the settlement were reinforced with stone.11 The wavy mud brick walls that we see in Middle Kingdom sites, also makes a strange appearance here, in the form of a single course and only one layer, forming a wavy line on the inside of the wall: mostly against the west wall, though some was found by the south gate. Śliwa would suggest that the wall may have been connected with some kind of foundation ritual.12 The impressive defences and the somewhat austere style of the temple might be a product of its somewhat remote location, and protection against possible libyain raids. The excavations would conclude that the oldest stages of the settlement would date to the 12th dynasty; the youngest to the 13th dynasty, and it is thought that the abandonment of the settlements may have been at the close of the Second Intermediate Period.13 Why this location was chosen is not known; though prior to the Middle Kingdom, an ‘L’ shaped quay, dating to the old kingdom, approximately 1km south west of the temple, connected to a road that led to the Widan el-Faras quarry. This was an 9 Qsar el-Sagha, studies on the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period Settlements in 1979-1985. Fontes Archaeological Posnanienses Vol. 36, pages 189 – 216. J.Sliwa 10 Ibid, page 191 11 Ibid, page 192-193 12 Ibid, page 206 13 Ibid, page 192 7 11 km long paved road that would connect with the basalt quarry; this quarry was predominately used by the 4th & 5th dynasties of the old kingdom, who would use significantly large quantities of basalt for some temple pavements, amongst other items. Pottery finds at the quarry date to the 4th & 5th dynasties, also found at the quarry was Early Roman Period pottery.14 Ian Shaw would state; “The site at Qasr el-Sagha appears to be linked by an ancient paved road with the basalt quarries of Gebel Qatrani, about 6 miles (10 kilometers) to the north. The obvious assumption is that the settlements and temple relate directly to the quarries exploitation, but it has been pointed out by a number of scholars that basalt was mainly used in the Old Kingdom and Late Period, and indeed the pottery associated with the quarry road itself is primarily Old Kingdom in date. It is therefore something of a mystery as to why the major features of archaeological remains at Qsar el-Sagha should date to the twelfth dynasty, when very little basalt was being used. Perhaps Qasr el-Sagha originated as a very small quarry-workers settlement. There are as yet no traces of Old Kingdom activity at the site, but by the Middle Kingdom it had evidently developed into a different kind of community with some as yet unknown function, perhaps connected with the empty, unfinished temple.”15 The excavations by the settlements and the temple appear to show no trace of old kingdom presence in these areas at least. Śliwa would suggest that the western settlement performed housing functions, whilst the eastern settlement appears to have been an area of production; here, fragments of unfinished artifacts, such as stone vessels and statuettes were exclusively found, along with some tools.16 Śliwa would also suggest that the rich mineral deposits in the area may have been a factor in site location; items such as Limestone, gypsum, basalt, dolerite and Petrified wood.17 Ultimately the mystery of the site will remain, but whatever the rationale in its location, significant resources were allocated to its construction. Yes, the temple may appear small compared to impressive New Kingdom temples, but craftsmanship is impressive, suggesting an important role in this location. 14 Old Kingdom Basalt Quarrying activities at Widan el-Faras, Northern Fayum Desert. E.Bloxam & P.Storemyr, JEA Volume 88, 2002, page 26 15 Exploring Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw, 2003, page 114 16 Qsar el-Sagha, studies on the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period Settlements in 1979-1985. Fontes Archaeological Posnanienses Vol. 36, page 192 17 The Middle Kingdom Settlement at Qsar el-Sagha, 1979-1988, Prave Archeologiczne Z.54 – 1992, J. Sliwa, page 20 8 The Temple I am most grateful once again to the Isida Project and Olga Kozlova for the use of their excellent images. The front of the temple is largely dressed down, with only a few bosses still evident; the sides and rear of the temple still maintain excesses of stock that had yet to be dressed down: the back wall had its dressing interrupted, with only the upper course and a portion of the middle being dressed, before work ceased.18 The largest blocks are installed in the temple front, whilst the sides and rear largely contain smaller blocks; this provides a mostly unbroken canvas for those tasked with the temple decoration, which was never started. Overleaf, the top image shows the temples west wall, whilst the lower image shows the temples east wall. 18 Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha, 1979, Dieter & Dorothea Arnold, page 17 9 10 The above view shows the north and east walls of the temple. Unlike the western settlement which appears fairly well aligned to the cardinal points, the temple is more orientated south west to north east: I am not aware of any archaeoastronomy studies being carried out on the temple, but it might be worthwhile to see if the temple had any possible astronomical alignments. As can be seen from the images, only the front façade of the temple contains large orthostats; Dieter Arnold would state; “This large stone façade has given the temple a date in the Old Kingdom. However, this is not a real »megalithic« construction with giant blocks extending through the walls, but the walls were clad with technical sophistication with orthostats, which are only supposed to simulate a »megalithic« character.”19 19 Ibid, page 17 11 As for the oblique joints found in areas of the construction; Arnold would state: “These are found not only in the Old Kingdom but in pharaonic buildings of all times, so they are also no argument for dating the building to the 4 th dynasty.”20 Dorothea Arnold who examined the ceramics found at the temple and in its vicinity could find no fragments from the Old Kingdom. The fragments that were found from the clearing of the temple and nearby came from early Ptolemaic, late Roman and Islamic times: some New Kingdom fragments were found in debris directly above the desert floor.21 Based on the ceramic finds it was suggested that the demolition of the temple began in or after the Ptolemaic period.22 The strongest evidence for the dating of the temple comes from the actual construction rubble of the temple, found in debris heaps south west of the temple; here was found the oldest ceramics in the vicinity of the temple, which corresponded to the reign of Senusret II-III.23 Dieter Arnold would favour Senusret II, whose pyramid lay at the mouth of the Faiyum, as possible builder of the temple.24 The Foundations The base of the temple is cut into the tafl, with the foundations being made of three layers. The lowest layer consists of a very crumbly tafl rock, some 37-41cm thick and barely distinguishable from the natural tafl rock on which it lays. The middle layer is described as an almost white sandstone some 30cm thick, and finally the top layer, the thickest at some 51-57cm thick, made of a very hard limestone. These substantial foundations were enhanced under the rear wall of the temple, by a fourth layer due to the higher terrain level in this location.25 These three foundation layers appear to run throughout the temple, except for the long offering hall in front of the seven shrines; here, the lowest layer is replaced with sand fill. The side rooms accessed at both ends of the long offering hall are thought to have had three layers, but the actions of searchers have badly damaged the foundations in these locations to be sure. Two circular shafts were found under the temples south east and north east corners, cut in the tafl under the broken 20 Ibid, page 20-21 Ibid, page 20 22 Ibid, page 18 23 Ibid, page 20 24 Ibid,,page 21 25 Ibid , page 9 21 12 foundations; though it was not possible to determine if these were foundation pits or activity of searchers. A search was conducted in the south west corner, but no foundation pit was found; a search could not be conducted in the north west corner as a large displaced stone beam prevented access. Another possible foundation pit was found in front of the entrance, which was partially walled with brick. I am grateful to Dieter Arnold for his kind permission to reproduce some of his images. The above image26 shows the possible foundation pit in front of the temple entrance. Searchers have made considerable excavations through the foundation layers in many locations, to such an extent that they have practically undermined the temple; Arnold was concerned that the rear wall may have tipped over in the near future, and so filled many of the voids in the foundation with sand.27 Searcher activities combined with possible seismic events, weather events, along with stone robbers, have left us a structure, badly shaken, with many large joint openings, but still standing. 26 27 Ibid, plate 8a Ibid, page 9 13 14 15 Page 14, top image, taken from the temple entrance, shows significant damage to the central shrine. Page 14, lower image, and page 15, top image, highlight masonry movement. Page 15, lower image, highlights the precarious hold of the temples rear wall. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford28 The above image by Petrie shows the rear of the temple, with stone debris and dislodged blocks. The handling boss, middle right, can also be seen on the lower image, page 15. 28 http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/ppoe/Petrie_5_8_030lower.html 16 The above section of the temple, taken through the entrance axis, gives us a rough idea of the temple foundations The Entrance The entrance to the temple is accurately placed in the middle of the temples south face, judging from Petrie’s measures (see plate VI, page 5); the entrance door frames to their respective corner’s, differ by only 0.3 of an inch (398.1 versus 398.4 inches). Petrie gives the width of the outer doorframe as some 48 inches, giving us a total length of 844.5 inches (21.45m). The entrance door posts have a convex profile, which would further reduce the entrance width; beyond the door posts the entrance widens to 57 inches, for a distance of 49.8 inches. The door 17 posts at 23 deep, suggest a thickness of the front wall of some 72.8 inches, or a possible 3.5 cubits. In this view of the entrance one can just make out the curvature of the door posts. After the door posts, the passage widens to accommodate the temple door; the single door pivoted on the left and would have been secured by a bolt, the hole of which is visible above, immediately behind the right door post. The convex door posts whilst a feature in other Middle Kingdom structures (for example, we have three pairs in the burial chamber of Senwosret III29) is also to be found in Djoser’s step pyramid complex, see image overleaf. 29 The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at dahshur, Architectural Studies. 2002, D.Arnold, plate 15 18 Image courtesy of Greg Slater The above image is from one of the chapels that flank Djoser’s Heb-Sed court, and one of the earliest examples of the convex door post. 19 In the above view, from inside the temple, we can see that the entrance is spanned by three large stones, which have been dressed underneath to provide a horizontal door stop. The pivot hole for the door is visible in the corner. Any door fitted in this location will have to accommodate most of the 57 inch width of the entrance; but as the rebate for the door is only 49.8 deep, this means that any door in the fully open position will intrude into the offering hall. Entry to the temple appears to be a two stage process; in order to open the main door, one must go through another smaller doorway in the front façade; this smaller doorway leads to a long narrow corridor, some 20 inches wide, which terminates near the entrance (see Petrie’s plate VI, page 5). At the end of the corridor, a cutting has been made in the side wall, just below the ceiling; this would provide access to the bolt, which locked the main temple door. 20 Image courtesy of Colin Reader At the end of the narrow corridor a niche has been made in the side wall just below the ceiling. In the image above we can see light coming through the bolt hole (the other side of the hole can be seen on the image on page 18). According to Arnold’s scale drawings30, the round hole is about 19.0cm long, diameter 9.0cm. Immediately behind the round hole we have a neatly cut rectangular portion 43cm long, 23 cm wide and 17 cm high. Arnold suggested that when the temple was locked, a stone would be inserted into the niche to hide the holes location. The floor of the long corridor appears to coincide with the middle foundation layer of white sandstone, this gives a corridor height of about 2.1m31 (4 cubits?); this would make the lower ledge of the niche about 1.72m above the floor, high enough to avert prying eyes, especially in a dark narrow corridor. Maybe those tasked with opening the door brought a stool along with a lamp. This somewhat elaborate security made Arnold suggest; “the temple was not used and guarded all the time, but was left to its own devices at times and exposed to the risk of looting. The 30 31 Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha, 1979, Dieter & Dorothea Arnold, page 13, fig 7. Ibid, page 12, fig 6. 21 nearby settlement was therefore not permanently inhabited.”32 While this may have been the case, it would seem strange to build such an impressive temple for a settlement that may have seen only seasonal use. The impressive defensive walls of the settlement, together with the somewhat austere fortress like appearance of the temple, might be indicative of its remote location. The location may not have been a secure one; as darkness fell, workers and priests alike would retire to the well defended settlement, after securely locking the temple against any possible marauders. Arnold’s reconstruction shows a simple bolt being pushed through the hole and engaging into hoops fastened to the back of the door to secure it shut. However, the neatly made rectangular area behind the hole makes me wonder if something more complex could have been used. It might be possible that this rectangular space held a wooden box, which operated the bolt via a variation of the Egyptian pin lock. Such locks are still a mystery, many sources, including Wikipedia, suggest that such locks date as far back as 2000BC in Egypt; though I have seen articles that question this. Petrie would mention a little about locks in his „Tools and Weapons‟ publication, 1916; and I have shown his plate LXXV on the next page that shows some examples of locks and the keys. These wooden keys would come in all shapes and sizes, often over a foot long; certainly the niche could accommodate such a key. Ultimately we may never know if such a lock fitted into this hole, but I thought it best to alert the reader to the possibility. The doorway to the narrow corridor may have been intended to also have had its own door, as Arnold found a pivot hole in the ceiling, though parts of the wall had not been dressed enough to allow a door leaf. Arnold suggested that the idea of a door may have been abandoned to be replaced with two large stone blocks;33 though it might be that the incomplete nature of this door is just down to the unfinished nature of the temple; work ceased and the temple abandoned during its creation. It cannot be discounted that this smaller door may have had its own lock for security. 32 33 Ibid, page 13 Ibid, page 13 22 23 The above section gives us a rough idea of the corridor inside the front façade. Petrie gives the narrow corridor’s entrance as 74 inches from the south east corner; a possible 3.5 cubits, to match the thickness of the front wall. If we take the entrance and corridor to be an intended 1 cubit wide, then entrance axis would be 4 cubits from the corner. The small entrance axis appears to align with the axis of the eastern room; this room Petrie gives as 213.6 long by 83.6 inches wide; if we take the architects intention that the room is 4 cubits wide, with the temples exterior east wall as 2 cubits thick, then the axis of the room and entrance will align. Images overleaf; top - view of corridor entrance. Bottom left (Arnold’s plate 12a) view along narrow corridor. Bottom right (Arnold’s plate 12c) - view along corridor towards entrance: here we have cuttings into the east wall; it’s hard to say if these are searcher activities, or purposely cut to provide storage spaces. The floor at the end of the corridor near the main entrance had been excavated into by searchers and reaching into the long offering hall. 24 25 The Eastern Room Above we have the entrance into the eastern room; the block that I have highlighted, supporting the door lintel, is one piece that would continue into the south façade and roof the narrow corridor. Just visible on the lintel is a slight projection that would frame the doorway; such projections can also be seen on the interior side of the main entrance, and the doorway that leads to the western rooms. 26 In this view of the eastern doorway taken further back along the offering hall, I have highlighted the blocks that would roof the narrow corridor; this narrow band is also visible along the front façade. It is interesting to note that the large orthostats that we see on the front façade are also replicated on the interior side. By scale rule from Arnolds’s plate 25 & 23, the height of the doorway is about 2.63m (5 cubits?), and the width 1.05m (2 cubits?). The span of the large door lintel also appears to match the height of the door at 5 cubits; so the width of the long offering hall is 5 cubits. Left door jamb 2 cubits wide, doorway 2 cubits wide and right door jamb 1 cubit wide (Petrie appears to have made an error on his plate VI as he has the doorway at 31 wide, with the left jamb as 42 inches wide; but the images rather suggest that they are the same width). The top of the lintel is about 3.85m above the floor. 27 This view from inside the eastern room looking towards its entrance; the red highlighted area is the approximate position of the narrow corridor entrance, behind the orthostat. Petrie would give the length of this room as some 213.6 inches, though it is not known if he took into account the significant opening of the wall joints, present in the room: it is possible that the room was to be an intended 10 cubits long. The pivot hole for the door is on the south end of the lintel, so when fully open, it would not obstruct access to the room, but stored close to the south wall. The doorway from the offering hall side is 5 cubits high by 2 cubits wide, though the actual door will be slightly larger to accommodate the door stops, visible from inside the room. In the images I have, I see no evidence of holes in the opposing door jambs that could accommodate a bolt to secure the door. 28 This view looking at the rear wall of the eastern room, we see what appears to be another doorway, the threshold for this opening is about 1m above the floor. Compare this image with the image on page 11, and one will see that this stone is part of the upper foundation layer for the rear of the temple wall. To the right of the opening on the inside a rough cutting of some 1.2m wide has been made, as if to accommodate a door. Arnold was not convinced that such a door was planned from the beginning, but rather a later breakthrough; as it would seem inconsistent with the elaborate security provided for the main temple entrance.34 34 Ibid, page 12 29 The Western Rooms At the other end of the offering hall, we have the doorway into the western rooms; both the western and eastern doorways are accurately placed from the main temple entrance (Petrie gives 237.5 from main entrance to west doorway, and 238.0 inches to east doorway). Like the eastern doorway, we can see a flat projection framing the doorway. The western doorway has a much larger lintel spanning the door, on the reverse near the top a shelf had been cut to accommodate ceiling beams, which gave the western rooms a similar height to the eastern room. Interestingly the western doorway is smaller than the eastern; its height from Arnolds plate 23, is only 2.1m (4 cubits, compared to the eastern 5 cubits). Petrie, gives the doorway as 35.2 wide, the left jamb as 21, and the right jamb as 50.4, for a total of 106.6 inches. Arnold would develop a cubit grid plan for the temple35 that shows the width of the western door to match the eastern at 2 cubits (41.3 inches), however, whereas Petrie’s measure appears wrong for the eastern door, the images 35 Ibid, plate 27 30 suggest that he is correct for the western door, and that therefore this smaller doorway does not fit Arnold’s cubit plan. This view from inside the first western room shows the neatly made doorway; here the pivot hole for the single leaf door is opposite to that of the eastern doorway, in being to the north side of the lintel. The rebate for the door Petrie gives as 13.4 inches long; the door stops combined add another 8 inches to the width of the door, so we have a possible door of about 43 inches wide (35.2 + 8); so an open door would protrude into the room by 29.6 inches (0.75m). If one looks at Petrie’s plate VI (page 5) it will be seen that the thickness of the front façade has been reduced to provide more space for this room. Petrie gives 116.3 by 85 inches for the room (5.5 by 4 cubits?). The wall with the strange shelf cutout he gives as 38.4 wide, with the wall the other side of the entrance slightly less at 34.5 inches; subtracting these from 116.3, suggests a rebated door width of 43.4 inches. From the images I hold, there appears to be no hole in the door jambs to secure any door. 31 The western rooms consist of two compartments; to access the rear room, one has to crawl through an opening in the dividing wall, some 75 cm high by 53 cm (1 cubit) wide. The rear compartment above, with the figure inside, according to Petrie is 111.0 inches E-W, and 90 inches N-S. Its east wall is shared with the western most shrine, and a bench runs along the base of the wall, this bench matches the entrance height, and appears to be a continuation of the platform on which the shrines sit, as this is also 75cm: the bench may have been used for storage. Arnold would suggest that the temples more valuable items would be stored in this compartment. How the small entrance was concealed and the role of the strange shelf cut in the wall will remain unknown; but it is interesting how they hung the door on this side, for in the open position the door would obscure the small opening: possibly behind the open door, a wooden chest could act as a continuation of the door stop and cover the opening, with the shelf containing a few items. 32 The entrance to the rear compartment, the highlighted block forms part of the bench in the rear compartment 33 The Offering Hall The long offering hall contains the seven shrines; the above image shows six of them. The shrines sit on a raised platform some 75cm high; a small projection runs along the length of the platform some 14cm high and deep. This creates a shelf in front of the shrine walls 1 cubit deep, therefore the distance between the shelf and the rear of the façade is 4 cubits, whilst the walls of the shrine to the rear of the façade is 5 cubits. The middle shrine opposite the main entrance is wider than the other six, Petrie gives 67.8 inches (1.72m); the remaining shrines appear to be 2 cubits wide, with the mean of Petrie’s measures being 41.7 inches. However, when one looks at Petrie’s measures (see plate VI, page 5) a strange pattern emerges, in that the shrines ascend in width towards the central shrine, which may be just a coincidence. Arnold would state; “What is striking in the area of the chapels is both the accuracy of the dimensions, the care taken with the stone processing and the selection of particularly hard and regular stones.”36 36 Ibid, page 11-12 34 The above image of Medinet Madi, shows the similarity of design that we see at Qsar el-Sagha. Here, the larger central shrine contained a stone altar that may have contained three statues; note the surviving texts that decorate the walls. We may never know if a similar setup was envisioned at Qsar; the central shrine there, being especially damaged by searchers. Madi held only three shrines whilst Qsar had seven. Due to the greater width of the central shrine, it was necessary to place the double leaf doors, which opened outwards, further back into the shrine; so that in the open position the widened rebates in front of the shrine accommodated the doors, without them encroaching into the shelf area. 35 The above view is looking into the westernmost shrine; the pivot holes for the doors are clearly visible. The finish of the walls appears quite fine, awaiting their decoration, which never started. 36 Above, we see the architect’s solution to the decorative features that frame the shrines. Below, all temple doors have a cutting in the floor, to allow door fitment. 37 Arnold would give the height of the shrine doors as 5 cubits; the tallest door is the main temple entrance, which by scale rule appears to be 6 cubits high. On Arnold’s plate 27c, he created a design scheme for the shrines which I have replicated above; the above being a grouping of three of the smaller shrines. 38 The above plan scheme is reproduced from Arnold’s scheme on plate 27b Arnold would develop the above scheme for the length of the offering hall; red numbers = cubits, white numbers = palms; total length being 25 cubits 5 palms. 39 The central shrine at 3 cubits wide requires that its doors are set back, in relation to the others, by a further half cubit. Arnold’s scheme of 25 cubits 5 palms would seem strange, given the care that the architect has given to whole cubit distances elsewhere in the offering hall. For example, rear wall of shrines to rear wall of front façade, 10 cubits: rear wall of shrines to front wall of shrines, 5 cubits, and to projection of platform 6 cubits, From the front wall of the shrines to the rear of the front façade 5 cubits; so we might logically ask why the E-W length of the offering hall is not a round 25 cubits. Arnold provides no detailed dimensions in his work, so we have to rely on his scale drawings and cubit reconstructions. The only dimensions we have are from Petrie’s plate VI; here the tolerances appear large, with the 2 cubit wide shrines, ranging from a low of 39.8 inches to a high of 43.3. Likewise the central shrine he gives as 67.8 wide, which seems in excess of 3 cubits; while across the offering hall the entrance at 57 wide appears too low for 3 cubits. Clearly the structure has been badly shaken and can have an effect on measures. I experimented with many of the images I have to see if there could be a solution: in the image above, we can see that the decorative bar, which Arnold gives as 1 palm wide, appears to fill the space either side when replicated three times. I tried this on several images and obtained the same result, so it may be possible that this width was intended to be 1 cubit wide instead of Arnold’s 1 cubit, 2 digits. By adjusting this one dimension onto Arnold’s scheme, we obtain a possible new scheme overleaf, which provides us with 25 cubits. Of course such a scheme can only be tentative, as detailed measures allowing for masonry movement would be needed to clarify what the architect intended. 40 A possible scheme for the offering hall, which provides a 25 cubit solution Arnold suggested that the temple’s foot print was an intended 15.5 by 40 cubits 37. I have done a tentative reconstruction above, based on the undressed exterior walls being an intended 2 cubits thick. Architects plans are always subject to the intentions and quality of the masons tasked with the job in hand; they have to work with the stone supplied and any possible limitations incurred with the material at hand, necessitating slight amendments to the architects plans: in the case of the badly damaged and unfinished temple, one can only offer a best guess on the architects intentions. 37 Ibid, page 17 41 The Doors As one can well imagine, doors are a rare commodity from ancient Egypt; destined to be repurposed for other uses. The door left is a rare survivor from the Old Kingdom38. All shrine doors were double leaf, with the remaining doors being single leaf; how these doors may have been decorated is unknown. Petrie in his Egyptian Architecture publication would state; “The method of pivoting was by the post projecting into a cup-shaped pivot-hole below, and through a cylindrical hole in the lintel. The bearing on the cup was usually too shallow for the thrust of the door weight, and made the pivot beam kick out against the jamb. Doors that could be handled were usually set up by skewing, so that the top of the post could go up into the lintel, and. then by dropping the door pivot into the cup below: this is well seen in the threshold of Pepy (Abydos II, liii). In the granite temple of Khafra, the pivot block is flat polished black basalt; how the thrust of the door was maintained is not visible. Conical pivot holes were used from the iind dynasty or earlier (Hierakon. iii,36).39 Image Courtesy of Greg Slater 38 39 th JE 47749, Cairo museum, 6 dynasty, Saqqara Egyptian Architecture, Petrie, 1938, pages 74-75 42 To assist in fitting the doors, a channel was cut in the floor (see bottom image on page 37); this channel allows the door to be introduced, then raised so that the upper door pivot engages into the lintel hole; the bottom pan would be introduced and the door lowered slightly onto the pan: the remaining channel would then be filled, with masonry. Amongst all the temple doors it appears no pans were found, and all the channels appear empty; it might be the case that the builders never got to the stage of fitting the doors, as the temple decoration had yet to commence, and doors at this stage may have been a hindrance. For the main temple entrance, Arnold would give the lintel pivot hole as 12cm deep and 10 cm in diameter; its accompanying floor channel is given as 10cm deep and 14cm wide. Arnold would state that the channels ran perpendicular to the direction of the passage; a common feature in the 12 th dynasty, and he was not aware of any older examples.40 In other dynasties we sometimes see this channel run parallel to the passage walls, sometimes sloped, to assist door fitment. The Roof The only surviving part of the roof covers the seven shrines; these roofing stones being still protected by a row of masonry, laid on top of their ends. The stone robbers have successfully removed the remainder of the roof, along with upper wall courses on the temples narrow ends. Architectural traces found by Arnold on the upper stones, indicated that the roof beams had been fitted. Arnold would also add; “However, the fact that the ceiling already existed must be concluded from the fact that the interior of the temple and the façade were already completely smooth and prepared to receive the decoration, i.e. that a construction phase had been reached during which the temple roof had already been laid on.”41 Arnold would suggest that these roofing beams would be brought up via ramps, placed at the narrow ends of the temple. Some of the upper stones showed channels for the insertion of a wooden runner to assist in moving the stones. There is nothing in the report to indicate the remains of any ramps, which might be seen as further evidence that the roof had been completed and the ramps removed; for if the temple roof was halted halfway through construction we might expect to see 40 Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha, 1979, Dieter & Dorothea Arnold, page 11. Ibid, page 14 41 43 evidence of these ramps still in situ, as it’s hard to believe that people took care to dismantle the ramps after the decision was made to abandon the site. Image Courtesy of Francois Oliver, www.meretsegerbooks.com 44 The image on the previous page shows the surviving roof, which covers the seven shrines, looking west. Though this corridor like space would not be seen from the ground, the builders still took care to dress the faces: Arnold found it striking that no drainage channel was provided, the layout of the roofs suggesting that one should have been in the middle of the rear wall.42 Found amongst the dislodged masonry that surrounds the temple site, were coping stones, which are thought to have run around the perimeter of the temple roof. Based on Arnold’s reconstruction, the yellow elements of the roof have been removed by the stone robbers. Temple illumination is not known; Arnold suggested a possible light slit on the end wall: the ceiling for the east and west rooms was at a lower level, below the light slit, but higher than the shrine ceiling. 42 Ibid, page 15 45 Roof reconstruction The east and west rooms may also have some variant of light slit to illuminate these spaces. 46 If ramps were used at either narrow end of the temple to bring up the roof blocks for the offering hall, then it’s possible that the exterior walls at the ends were constructed last, and this may explain why we still see traces of handling bosses in these locations. Those tasked with robbing the stone roof would probably dismantle the end walls first, to give access to the roofing beams; again there is no evidence of any demolition ramps to undertake the job. Arnold would note that there was little stone debris in the offering hall, and that the roofing beams must have been removed carefully;43 Arnold would suggest that such stone may have been robbed to help construct the Ptolemaic temple at Dimai.44 To remove these roofing stones the robbers may have used large wooden baulks, as a makeshift ramp to lower them. Fortunately the robbing operation appears to be short lived, as the vast bulk of the temple still remains. Also in the image above, we can see that the upper foundation layer that supports the wall stones of the long corridor, are noticeably thicker; the masons have dressed down this excess, such that an upper portion of the foundation stone is incorporated into the façade wall. 43 44 Ibid, page 14 Ibid, page 19 47 The Stones The stones that make up the vast bulk of the temple are described as Upper Eocene limestone, which contain a lot of fossils and sand, whose hardness is about 4.5 on the Mohs scale.45 An onsite inspection by two geologists could not determine the origin of this limestone; though it is thought that the sandstone and tafl foundation layers could be from the local area. It would be most interesting to trace the origin of the temples fine limestone. This view looking into the north west corner of the offering hall; we can see a part of the flat door projection, which frames the western rooms doorway: the sand filled door channel for the shrine doors is also visible. 45 Ibid, page 16 48 This view is of the first western room, doorway on left; one can see how some blocks appear to turn a corner, as the masons removed excess stock; this is quite prevalent throughout the temple, and typical Egyptian masonry technique. The joints, where not disrupted by temple movement, are very fine and highlight the fine quality of the temple. 49 This view from inside the eastern room highlights some of the masonry movement; here we can see through to the offering hall and the decorative feature that frames the shrine on the other side of the wall. 50 Arranged around the temple we have groupings of masonry from the site. In front of the temple we have one of the larger groupings, forming a sort of crescent shape; here large amounts of stone slabs appear to be stacked together. Some of this masonry was found stored on top of debris, which had to have been present before the storing of the slabs, and ceramics found amongst this debris were dated to the Ptolemaic period. Arnold would state; “It must therefore be concluded with certainty that the demolition of the temple began in or after the Ptolemaic period – some isolated blocks lie about 120m down the valley below where they were left during transport. For unknown reasons, this work was stopped in time before the temple was really destroyed.”46 It is thought that a lot of these slabs are the remains of a pavement that surrounded the temple, which were subsequently uprooted and awaiting transport to possibly Dimai. Arnold also found similar coping stones to those found on the temple, but these displayed an inclination on one side, and vertical on the other, whereas the temple walls are vertical: it is thought therefore that they may have formed part of a wall, though no foundation trenches were found for any wall. 46 Ibid, page 18 51 View of stacked slabs, and in the back ground coping stones. Below, dovetail in one of the dislodged blocks; such blocks are found on the temple corners. 52 Concluding Remarks Without doubt the temple has taken a bit of a battering, a mixture of natural events and human destruction; but enough remains to show that a lot of care and resources were allocated to its construction in this remote location. The reason for its construction and the role of the nearby settlements may always largely remain a mystery; but the unfinished nature of the temple might suggest a change of ruler, who no longer cared for this project, and quite happy to abandon the site. What was proposed to be placed inside the shrines will also be a mystery, though Sobek is one of the likely candidates. Can we be even sure that the temple was in use? It’s possible that it was always just a building site, the shrines empty, left open with no doors. Would they place their important gods inside these shrines, while so much work remained to be done? One can’t help but think that yet more is to be discovered from this temple; Arnold had only a month and some of this disrupted by serious storms, but the good work that the Arnold’s have done, should leave no one in any doubt that this is a fine Middle Kingdom temple, and maybe one that should be better preserved and protected: granted its remote location is difficult to police. Its remote location has largely saved it from the worst of human depredation; but at the same time, out of sight, out of mind, means that it can be too easy to forget its existence and hamper further research. Let’s hope it receives more attention in the not too distant future. 53