 |
|
|
|
KHUFU
KNEW THE SPHINX A
Reconciliation of the Geological and Archaeological Evidence for the Age
of the Sphinx and a Revised Sequence of Development for the Giza
Necropolis. © Colin D. Reader Oct 97 (Revised Aug 99)*
[This is the text of
an excellent paper written by Colin Reader - unfortunately limited space
means we have been unable to reproduce his figures, although simplified
versions of two key ones are reproduced in our synopsis/response which
follows.]
* I am extremely grateful to Robert B.
Partridge, author of "Faces of Pharaohs" and "Transport in Ancient Egypt",
for encouraging me to write this paper and for developing my initially
sketchy ideas concerning the likely influence of theology on the proposed
development of the Giza necropolis. INTRODUCTION
In 1992, a Boston
University Professor of Geology, Robert M. Schoch, published a paper which
concluded that the Great Sphinx of Giza was carved at a time between 5000
and 7000 BC1. This conclusion was reached following a study of
the degradation of the body of the Sphinx and adjacent exposures. Schoch
stated that the ".....rolling and undulating vertical profile to the
weathered rocks ....." was attributable to
"...precipitation-induced weathering".
The Sphinx is
conventionally attributed to the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh, Khafre (ca. 2520
- 2494 BC2) and, unsurprisingly, Egyptologists rejected
Schoch's early date. Schoch's work has also been criticised, however, by a
number of geologists, notably Dr. J.A. Harrell3 and Dr. K.L.
Gauri4, who have offered alternative interpretations of the
degradation of the Sphinx in support of its generally accepted Fourth
Dynasty construction.
Harrell attributed the
degradation of the Sphinx and the adjacent exposures to the so-called
"wet-sand" hypothesis - in which the exposed limestone, buried in
accumulations of wet sand, has been subject to chemical weathering. The
processes Harrell described to promote the wetting of accumulated sand
within the Sphinx enclosure, however, do not stand up to detailed scrutiny5
and, on this basis, the wet-sand hypothesis is regarded as largely
untenable.
The paper by Gauri et
al4 provides a summary of many of the features of degradation
that are present along the body of the Sphinx and adjacent exposures,
attributing these features to the combined effects of sub-surface
groundwater movement and chemical weathering. I consider, however, that
these processes, although significant, are unable to account for all
the features of degradation that are present within the Sphinx
enclosure.
I have, therefore,
undertaken a review of the geology, geomorphology and surface hydrology of
the Giza necropolis which has led to a revised sequence of development for
the site. In this way, and by considering the development in the use of
stone masonry in Ancient Egypt, it has been possible to reconcile the
geological and archaeological evidence whilst placing the construction of
the Sphinx within the context of Dynastic Egypt.
THE
GEOLOGY OF THE SPHINX
The geology of the
Upper Mokattam Limestones, from which (and on which) the Giza necropolis
was constructed, has been described at length by others6,7,8.
The original ground surface at Giza has been controlled by the
south-easterly dip of the strata (5o to 7o), with
the Sphinx occupying a position at the low lying, eastern edge of the
plateau. Detailed geological mapping of the Sphinx enclosure, undertaken
by Gauri6, has led to the adoption of a system of reference for
the exposed strata, summarised below and on Figure 1.
The strata exposed at
the Sphinx have been divided into three members. The lowest, Member I,
consists of a massive and durable reefal limestone, exposed across much of
the base of the Sphinx enclosure. The lowest lying parts of both the body
of the Sphinx and the western exposures consist of Member I strata, with
the quarried height increasing up-dip, towards the north west. The entire
northern exposure consists of Member I limestones.
The upper body of the
Sphinx and the upper part of the adjacent exposures to the south and west,
consist of the overlying Member II strata, a cyclothemic series of seven
fine grained limestone units which, generally, become more durable towards
the top of the sequence. Of these seven units, units 1 to 6 have been
further divided into two sub-units, the lowest of which consists of a less
durable, marly rock and is identified by the Roman numeral i. The upper
more durable sub-unit is identified by the Roman numeral ii.
The head and neck of
the Sphinx are carved from perhaps the only Member III exposure at Giza6
which, on the basis of durability, has also been divided into two
sub-units. The neck of the Sphinx consists of relatively less durable
rocks, whereas, the head has been carved from one of the most durable
units of the Upper Mokattam formation (the durability of the Member III
strata has been cited by others to explain the remarkable preservation of
the Sphinx's face and Nemes head-dress).
The durability of the
Upper Mokattam Limestones is controlled by two intrinsic properties of the
rock - the pore size distribution and the salt content of the pores4
- with durability influencing the development of sub-vertical
discontinuities within the strata. The exposed rock is cut by two sets of
irregularly spaced, near-vertical, intersecting joints which,
although well-developed in the more durable strata, become less distinct
in the softer units.
THE
LOCATION OF THE SPHINX
A number of
Egyptologists have argued that the Sphinx was carved from a block of
limestone, left-over from quarrying of the site undertaken during the
reign of Khufu. This 'quarry-block' hypothesis assumes that originally,
ground levels at Giza were above the level of the head of the Sphinx and
were reduced by extensive Fourth Dynasty quarrying. However, quarrying on
this scale would represent a gross modification to the Giza landscape and
is not consistent with the extent of quarrying that has been established
by archaeological investigation of the site9.
Other Egyptologists
have argued that, as an integral part of Khafre's mortuary complex, the
site of the Sphinx was dictated by the layout of adjacent features, such
as the Sphinx temple, Khafre's valley temple and Khafre's causeway. Like
the 'quarry-block' hypothesis, however, this proposition also neglects the
influence of natural processes on the development of the Giza plateau.
Natural processes were
considered by El-Baz10, who saw the Sphinx as a
yardang (a knoll of rock sculpted by wind blown sand) that had been
'dressed-up' during the Fourth Dynasty development of the site. Other,
similar propositions suggest that the Sphinx is "...an isolated karst
residual hill..."11. However, as the body of the Sphinx lies
within an excavation - an artificial feature - Egyptologists have
generally regarded the theories of El-Baz et al as untenable1.
There is, however,
evidence to indicate that the general topography of the Giza plateau is
the result of natural processes. As discussed by Thomas Aigner12,
the Giza area was inundated by a landward advance of the Mediterranean sea
during the Pliocene (2 to 7 million years ago). The erosion caused by this
inundation was controlled largely by the south-easterly dip of the Upper
Mokattam Limestones and resulted in the formation of the plateau, much as
we see it today, bounded by a number of north- and eastward facing raised
cliff-lines.
In addition to the
evidence presented by Aigner, I consider there to be a number of other
features which indicate that the location of the Sphinx was determined by
the topography of the site, with the head of the Sphinx excavated
from a locally elevated body of rock:
Collectively, these
geomorphological features indicate that the layout of the eastern end of
Khafre's mortuary complex was determined on the basis of the local
topography. Original ground levels rose from the "Main Wadi" in the south,
to a high point in the vicinity of the Sphinx. The mass of rock from which
the Sphinx was later to be carved, was isolated from the northward
continuation of the plateau (the area of Khufu's pyramid) by erosion along
the "Lesser Wadi". The resulting outlier, capped by durable Member III
strata is likely to have preserved the steepened profile of the Pliocene
cliff line on its eastern flank and, consequently, may have been
particularly prominent when viewed from the Nile valley.
DEGRADATION OF MEMBER II STRATA WITHIN THE SPHINX ENCLOSURE
Of the three members
of the Upper Mokattam Limestone, much of the debate on the age of the
Sphinx has concentrated on the degradation of the Member II strata, which
is best represented and most widely distributed within the Sphinx
enclosure. Examination of this strata has established that the degradation
present is characterised by three principal features:
On the basis of the
distribution of these features, the exposed strata can be divided into
four areas (Figure 3):-
A. The
body of the Sphinx: Much of the Member I and lower Member II strata, from
which the body of the Sphinx has been carved, is obscured by masonry which
has been used to restore the profile of the statue. A number of phases of
restoration are believed to have been carried out, with the earliest
thought to date from the Old Kingdom15 and the latest completed
recently.
B. The
eastern end of the southern exposure:
As remarked by Dr.
Mark Lehner16, the profile of the cut face at this location is
preserved in much its original form. A likely reconstruction of this
original profile is given on the geological section in Figure 4b.
Sub-horizontal degradation of the less durable units (2i, 3i and 4i -
Figure 4b) is evident and these have receded somewhat from the original
cut profile. A small number of sub-vertical discontinuities, of probable
tectonic origin (exposed joints etc.), can be identified cutting the full
height of the face. In addition, a series of poorly defined sub-vertical
degradation features can also be identified, which are largely restricted
to the upper section of unit 3ii. The upper part of unit 3ii, together
with units 4i and 4ii, exhibit a slightly rounded, somewhat receded
vertical profile.
C. The
western end of the southern exposure: The only geological section
published by Gauri for the southern exposure is that referred to above
(Figure 4b). However, inspection of the entire southern exposure has shown
that the sub-vertical degradation features become progressively more
frequent and more extensive towards the west (Figure 4c). At the extreme
western end of the exposure, these sub-vertical features are more deeply
incised than those to the east and extend across the full height of the
exposed face. D. The western exposure: On the geological section on Figure 4d, a conservative reconstruction of the original cut face of the western exposure is proposed, in the manner suggested by Lehner for B above. From this reconstructed profile, it can be seen that, not only is the sub-horizontal degradation of the less durable, marly units (1i, 2i and 3i) more pronounced than elsewhere, the more durable units (1ii, 2ii and 3ii) have also been substantially modified.
There is an increased
frequency of sub-vertical degradation features along the western exposure
and these are, generally, more deeply incised than elsewhere. This deep
degradation has led to the development of the rounded lateral profile, or
'coved' appearance described by Schoch. In places the sub-vertical
features combine in a dendritic pattern, indicating that even minor
discontinuities in the exposed strata have been exploited. When compared
with the reconstruction of the original cut profile, the upper-most units
(3i, 3ii, 4i and 4ii) can be seen to have receded considerably.
It is evident that
much of the body of the Sphinx and the eastern end of the southern
exposure exhibit comparatively moderate degradation - typified by
sub-horizontal degradation and limited erosion of the upper strata of the
enclosure walls. However, by comparison of the same units at different
locations within the Sphinx enclosure (Figures 4b and 4d - with sections
drawn to the same scale), it can be seen that in the west, the degradation
of the enclosure walls becomes more intense, with deeply incised
sub-horizontal and sub-vertical features and substantial modification of
even the most durable units (1ii, 2ii and 3ii - Figure 4d). This
distribution in the intensity of degradation has not been recognised by
Gauri et al17 and I consider that, with respect to the age of
the Sphinx, it is particularly significant.
GAURI'S INTERPRETATION OF THE DEGRADATION OF THE SPHINX
Gauri et al4
attribute the degradation of the Sphinx enclosure primarily to the effects
of chemical weathering and exfoliation - in which dew, forming at night on
the exposed limestone, removes soluble salts from the surface of the rock.
Capillary forces draw this solution into the pores of the limestone
matrix, where further salts are dissolved from the internal pore walls. As
daytime temperatures rise, the solution begins to evaporate -
precipitating salt crystals within the confined neck of the pores. The
pressure that these crystals exert as they grow, leads to stress-induced
exfoliation from the surface of the limestone.
This process can be
assumed to have operated throughout much of the accepted history of the
Sphinx - certainly since the prevailing arid climate became established -
and has led to the development of "the vertical profile of the Sphinx and
the walls of the Sphinx enclosure made of alternating projections and
recessions"4. What is most significant, however, is that with
the limestones exposed to chemical weathering and exfoliation, the
development of this vertical profile will have been controlled by the
bedded nature of the rocks, with the less durable units (those identified
by the Roman numeral 'i') receding further from the cut face than the
interbedded more durable strata.
Although the bedding
of the strata will have influenced the development of the vertical
profile, it will have had no influence on the development of the more
intense degradation in the west of the Sphinx enclosure. As Figures 4b, 4c
and 4d illustrate, this lateral variation is independent of the bedding,
with degradation becoming more intense along, rather than across,
the exposed beds. As it has not been controlled by the bedding, I consider
that the development of the lateral variation can not be interpreted in
terms of the processes of chemical weathering and exfoliation described by
Gauri et al.
I consider that Gauri
et al also fail to account for the distribution of sub-vertical
degradation features within the Sphinx enclosure - features which they
attribute to two quite separate processes:
A number of the most
significant sub-vertical features, exposed along the western enclosure
walls, have been plotted on Figure 3. By measuring the orientation of
these exposed joints and then extrapolating their axes across the Sphinx
enclosure, it can be demonstrated that a number of these joints pass
through the body of the Sphinx18. Given the established joint
distribution and alignment, I consider that any solution-widened joints,
intersected by the excavation of the Sphinx, would be exposed in pairs,
with open joints on both the western enclosure walls and, across the
excavation, on the adjacent body of the Sphinx.
By reference to unit
3ii (exposed on both the western enclosure walls and the rump of the
Sphinx - just above the restorative masonry) it is evident that this
expected distribution is not present. Along the western enclosure walls,
the sub-vertical degradation features are numerous, deeply incised and
persistent (Figure 4c and 4d), however, no significant sub-vertical
degradation features can be identified along unit 3ii on the rump of the
Sphinx (Figure 4a).
Photographs taken of
the rump of the Sphinx in the early 1980s19, when the
restorative masonry was at a lower level, show that units 3i and 2ii are
also, generally, free from sub-vertical degradation features. The only
exception to this, is a single sub-vertical feature which I do
consider to be a solution-widened joint.
On the basis that the
large number of sub-vertical degradation features exposed along the
western enclosure walls, generally, do not have any corresponding
expression on the rump of the Sphinx, I consider that they can not be
interpreted as solution-widened joints. Furthermore, the distribution of
degradation suggests that the other mechanism proposed by Gauri et al -
chemical weathering and exfoliation - also fails to account for the
development of the sub-vertical degradation features within the Sphinx
enclosure:
The intensity of
chemical weathering and exfoliation is influenced by two principal factors
- air temperature and humidity. Given that these factors will exhibit only
slight variation over the 20m or so that separates the body of the Sphinx
from the western enclosure walls, I consider that the weathering of joints
by these processes would not lead to the development of the marked
distribution that is present20.
I do not dispute that
the processes of chemical weathering and exfoliation have been responsible
for weathering of the Member II strata within the Sphinx enclosure. It is
also evident that a small number of sub-vertical degradation features can
be interpreted as solution-widened joints. However, I consider that these
processes can not account for the increased intensity of degradation along
the western enclosure walls, nor the marked distribution of sub-vertical
degradation features that exists between the western exposures and the
body of the Sphinx. It is concluded, therefore, that the features of
degradation within the Sphinx enclosure are the result of a more complex
degradational history than that proposed by Gauri et al and, to
investigate this further, it is necessary to reconsider the climatic and
other conditions that have been experienced at Giza.
AN
ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE DEGRADATION OF THE SPHINX
Although arid
conditions have dominated the dynastic period of Egyptian history, wetter
periods are known to have been experienced, with the current arid
conditions not becoming fully established until as late as ca. 2350 BC21
(i.e. until the late Fifth Dynasty). The rainy conditions of ca. 5000 to
7000 BC, to which Schoch attributed the degradation of the Sphinx, will
have been separated from these later arid conditions by a transitional
phase, during which increasingly arid conditions will have been
interrupted by occasional, probably seasonal rains.
With limited
vegetation or sub-soil cover at Giza, sporadic heavy rainfall would have
quickly saturated the upper strata, leading to run-off over the plateau
towards the Nile valley. Although these rain storms would have been of
short duration, the momentum gained by run-off across extensive areas can
produce surface flows capable of significant erosion. Flood damage to
Menkaure's valley temple22 attests to the fact that, during the
Old Kingdom, rainfall run-off was a significant agent of erosion at Giza.
Given the topography
of the site, rainfall run-off from the Giza plateau will have discharged
towards the lower lying areas in the east, with the erosive potential of
this discharge depending, amongst other things, on the size of the
available catchment. Given the orientation of the Sphinx enclosure, much
of the local run-off will have discharged over the western exposures,
eroding the exposed limestone and selectively exploiting any joints
exposed along the cut face.
Comparatively little
run-off will have discharged over the exposed faces in the east and,
consequently, the erosion of the eastern exposures will have been less
intense. The series of short, ill-defined sub-vertical degradation
features, identified along the upper part of unit 3ii (Figure 4b),
illustrates the influence that the position and orientation of an exposure
can have on the resulting erosion. Although both the eastern and western
exposures are of the same age, the degradation that has developed is
significantly more intense in the west - the exposures over which most
rainfall run-off will have discharged.
The body of the Sphinx
will have generated little run-off itself and will have been isolated from
run-off from the plateau, by the surrounding excavation. The general
absence of sub-vertical degradation features along the body of the Sphinx
is, therefore, consistent with the action of rainfall run-off that I
propose.
It is evident that,
when the erosive potential of rainfall run-off is considered (in addition
to the effects of groundwater movement, chemical weathering and
exfoliation) a comprehensive interpretation of the degradation within the
Sphinx enclosure can be made, which is consistent with the observable
features and can account for both the more intense degradation in the west
of the Sphinx enclosure and the marked distribution of sub-vertical
degradation features.
As both the
reconstructed climate of the period and the archaeological record
indicate, however, Giza was subject to rainfall and rainfall
run-off during the Fourth Dynasty. It is, therefore, evident that the
erosion of the western Sphinx exposures by run-off does not, in itself,
require a revision to the Fourth Dynasty origin of the Sphinx.
LEHNER'S MODEL FOR EARLY FOURTH DYNASTY DEVELOPMENT AT GIZA
In his paper "The
Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project", Lehner modelled
the development of Khufu's mortuary complex, paying particular attention
to the temporary works (quarries, ramps, accommodation etc.) which were a
vital element of the construction programme.
Significant to the
current discussion, is a quarry23, located to the west of the
Sphinx and to the north of Khafre's causeway (Figure 2). The position of
this quarry can be identified today by a low depression in the surface of
the plateau, filled with accumulations of wind blown sand.
Archaeological
excavation in the eastern end of this quarry has identified a pair of
closely spaced, parallel walls, built along the floor of the quarry from
rough masonry faced with clay24. These walls have a general
north-south alignment and show a slight slope up towards the cemetery to
the east of Khufu's pyramid. Given their location and orientation, these
features have been interpreted by Lehner as part of a
construction ramp used during the development of Khufu's mortuary complex.
This date has been confirmed by mud seal impressions, bearing the name of
Khufu, which were found in debris excavated from between the walls. This
evidence securely dates the working of this quarry to the reign of Khufu.
From the earliest
phase of Khufu's development, this quarrying will have disrupted the
surface hydrology of the site, with the open excavation intercepting any
run-off from the higher plateau in the west and preventing its discharge
towards the area of the Sphinx.
Although worked during
the reign of Khufu, Lehner has argued that the quarry was extended to the
west during the reign of Khafre. As these additional areas of quarrying
were opened up across the plateau, mud brick from construction ramps and
large volumes of chippings from the working of masonry may have been
deposited in the earliest, worked-out areas. It is not clear how quickly
wind-blown sand then accumulated over this construction debris, however,
the surface hydrology of the backfilled quarry will have been very
different from that of the intact limestone plateau that preceded it.
Rainfall run-off will
only be generated when the surface and immediate sub-surface becomes
saturated. This occurs when the rate of rainfall exceeds the rate at which
water can drain through the sub-surface soils or rocks (the permeability).
Given the fine-grained nature of the limestones and the presence of
relatively impermeable marly horizons within the Member II strata that
form the surface of the plateau, saturation is likely to have been
achieved under comparatively moderate rainfall conditions. By contrast,
the higher permeabilities of the unconsolidated windblown sand, within the
abandoned quarries, will have required significantly more extreme rainfall
conditions before the sub-surface reached saturation.
I consider it unlikely
that rainfall experienced at Giza will have been of sufficient intensity
to generate run-off from the backfilled quarry. Even if such extreme
conditions were encountered, however, the discharge of rainfall run-off
from the quarried areas, would depend on a number of additional factors.
Unless the backfill and accumulated sand reached the level of the unworked
limestone that surrounds the quarry, any run-off that was generated will
have been prevented from discharging towards the Sphinx by the eastern
quarry face. For any post-Khufu erosion to have taken place, therefore, it
would be necessary for the quarried areas to have been backfilled to the
original level of the plateau before the end of the Fifth Dynasty (i.e.
before the onset of the present arid conditions). Even then, however,
discharge towards the Sphinx would depend on a suitable pattern of surface
drainage across the quarry backfill.
In accordance with the
conventional sequence of development, the excavation of the Sphinx
post-dates the construction of Khufu's pyramid and the working of the
associated quarries. Given the effect of Khufu's quarries on the surface
hydrology of the site, this sequence of development largely precludes the
erosion of the Sphinx enclosure by rainfall run-off25 - yet I
consider that without the action of this agent of erosion, it is not
possible to fully account for all the features of degradation that are
present within the Sphinx enclosure. On this basis, therefore, I conclude
that the excavation of the Sphinx was undertaken some time before Khufu's
quarrying began, when rainfall over the more elevated areas of the Giza
plateau was able to run-off a substantial catchment, gathering momentum
before finally discharging into the Sphinx enclosure.
THE
SPHINX TEMPLE
A study of the
distribution of fossils within the Upper Mokattam Limestones at Giza, has
established that the masonry used to construct the Sphinx temple was
quarried from within the Sphinx enclosure26. This indicates
that the Sphinx and Sphinx temple were probably built at the same time
which, given the geological evidence discussed above, suggests that both
features pre-date Khufu's development of the site. There are, however, two
principle sources of evidence which would appear to confirm the
conventional Fourth Dynasty construction of the Sphinx and Sphinx temple:
Although this would
appear to undermine my argument for earlier activity at Giza, there is
evidence to suggest that this Fourth Dynasty activity represents only a
limited phase of construction within the Sphinx enclosure and can not be
used to date the original construction of either the Sphinx or Sphinx
temple.
According to the
Egyptologist H. Ricke, a 'seam' can be identified which runs through the
masonry of all four corners of the Sphinx temple. This feature can be
readily identified on the south east face of the structure, adjacent to
Khafre's valley temple (Plate 3ii). According to Ricke, "this [seam]
marked the outside of the walls of the temple in its first building
phase. The north and south colonnades of the temple...were added after the
interior of the temple had been largely finished with granite sheathing.
For the addition, the middle part of the north and south walls were pushed
back, and great limestone core blocks were added to the outside corners
of the temple, which were never finished off"26.
Given that the
abandoned core blocks, discovered under the Amenhotep II temple, were
destined for the "...corner of the Sphinx temple" they are evidently part
of Ricke's second building phase. On the evidence of the pottery found
beneath the masonry, this second phase of construction, together with the
limited quarrying to the north of the Sphinx temple, can be dated to the
Fourth Dynasty.
Ricke does not
speculate on the period of time that separated this Fourth Dynasty
activity from the proceeding phase of Sphinx temple construction. However,
on the basis of degradation of the limestones exposed within the Sphinx
enclosure, it is evident that the two operations were undertaken under
different conditions of weathering and erosion and were probably,
therefore, separated by a significant period of time.
The limited Fourth
Dynasty quarry face, identified by Lehner (Figure 3 and Plate 3i), was
excavated from relatively durable Member I rocks. Since being quarried in
the Fourth Dynasty, this quarry face has been subject to weathering and
erosion (including the processes of chemical weathering and exfoliation)
and yet exhibits only slight degradation (see Plate 3i). By contrast, the
same Member I beds, exposed elsewhere within the Sphinx enclosure, are
more intensely degraded. The contrast in the intensity of degradation at
the western limit of the Fourth Dynasty quarrying is striking (Plate 4i)29,
with the exposures beyond the limit of quarrying being heavily degraded.
I consider that the
generally more intense degradation of the Member I rocks exposed within
the Sphinx enclosure, can only be explained by attributing the
construction of the Sphinx and the first phase of the Sphinx temple to a
period before Khufu quarried the site, when the exposed limestone was
subject to erosion by surface run-off.
During incorporation
into Khafre's Fourth Dynasty mortuary complex, the Sphinx temple underwent
a second phase of construction, during which modifications were made to
the northern and southern walls of the temple, together with limited
quarrying of the Member I limestones to the immediate north. As these
modifications to the Sphinx temple took place after Khufu's quarrying of
the plateau, the newly exposed Member I limestones were not subject to
erosion by rainfall run-off and, therefore, do not show the same pattern
of intense degradation that is apparent elsewhere within the Sphinx
enclosure.
KHAFRE'S CAUSEWAY
Site inspection has
shown that for most of its length, Khafre's causeway runs along a ridge of
exposed bedrock, with a masonry pavement present only towards the east.
Bedrock exposed beneath this pavement, on the northern shoulder of the
causeway, indicates that this masonry is only a single course thick and
has been used simply to provide a constant gradient both along and
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the causeway30.
The eastern end of the
causeway runs along the top of the southern Sphinx exposure and, when
viewed in plan, it can be seen that these two features share a common
alignment (Figure 3). Experience suggests that such common alignments
rarely develop by chance and this raises the possibility that the two
features were constructed at the same time. It follows, therefore, that if
the Sphinx pre-dates Khufu, the causeway must also have been constructed
some time before Khufu's development of the site31.
Further support for
this hypothesis is available from analysis of the spatial relationship
between the causeway and the two quarries that were worked during Khufu's
reign (Figure 2 - the northern quarry has been referred to earlier in this
paper). With respect to the southern most of these quarries, Lehner states
that "At the N, the floor of the quarry appears to slope up to the Khafre
causeway..."32. Later, when discussing the northern quarry,
"[the area] contained dumped debris which apparently fills an extensive
quarry limited on the S by the Khafre causeway and on the east by the
Sphinx depression."33
Under the conventional
sequence of development, "Khafre's" causeway (and the Sphinx), were
undeveloped at the time of Khufu's quarrying. If this sequence is correct,
why should the extent of the quarrying have been limited by a feature (the
causeway) that was not developed until sometime after Khufu's reign? The
conventional sequence of development requires us to accept that Khufu's
workmen went to the trouble of opening up a second quarry to the south of
the causeway, rather than remove a linear body of rock which, at the time,
served no apparent purpose.
The common alignment
of the causeway and the southern Sphinx exposure indicates that, like the
excavation of the Sphinx and the construction of the Sphinx temple, the
alignment of "Khafre's" causeway was established some time before the
construction of Khufu's mortuary complex. Under this revised sequence of
development, interpretation of the spatial relationship between the
causeway and Khufu's quarries becomes quite straightforward - with the
causeway limiting the extent of the later quarrying works.
KHAFRE'S MORTUARY TEMPLE
"Khafre's" causeway
links the Sphinx and adjacent temples in the east, to Khafre's mortuary
temple and pyramid in the west. During inspection of the site undertaken
for this paper, a number of significant features of Khafre's mortuary
temple were noted.
Firstly, this temple
can be seen to consist of two distinct elements, characterised by
different architectural styles (Figure 5). Aerial photographs34
show a clear dislocation between these two elements.
The remains of the
western temple, closest to Khafre's pyramid, consist of low lying
(typically one or two courses), moderately sized, well squared masonry
and, when viewed in plan, a large proportion of the temple consists of
open space. By contrast, the eastern end of the temple (approximately 40%
of the total plan area), consists of large (cyclopean) masonry, each block
being the equivalent of several courses high. When viewed in plan, a large
proportion of this section of the temple consists of masonry, with
relatively little open space. In many areas the masonry is severely
degraded, with much of this degradation continuing across the exposed
faces of adjoining blocks, suggesting that this degradation has developed
with the masonry in-situ.
In addition to the
distinct architectural styles of the temple, I have noted that the
cyclopean portion of the mortuary temple appears to be constructed on an
elevated site, with ground levels falling away sharply to the east and
less steeply to the west, towards the foot of Khafre's pyramid
(Plate 4ii). These observations have been confirmed by reference to survey
drawings35 which show that ground levels in the vicinity of the
mortuary temple (defined by spot heights taken outside the temple, close
to the northern and southern walls) reach the most elevated point at the
western limit of the cyclopean portion of the temple (see Figure 5)36.
On Figure 6, Khafre's
mortuary complex is shown in plan37, together with a section,
drawn to show both the existing and the original ground profiles. It can
be seen from the section that, for an observer in the vicinity of the
Sphinx, the western 'horizon' is formed by a break in slope at the eastern
end of the cyclopean portion of the mortuary temple. This prominent
location is also readily apparent on site - when viewed from the east, the
elevated site of the cyclopean masonry obscures the base of Khafre's
pyramid.
On the basis of the
topography, the eastern portion of "Khafre's" mortuary temple (the
Proto-mortuary temple) can be seen to enjoy a more prominent position than
even Khafre's pyramid. This dominant position on the western 'horizon',
the distinct, and ostensibly more primitive architectural style of the
Proto-mortuary temple and its clear association with the causeway and
consequently the Sphinx, suggests that the Proto-mortuary temple may also
pre-date Khufu's development of the site.
This suggests that, as
was the case at Saqqara where the earliest part of the necropolis was
built on the edge of the escarpment overlooking the Nile valley,
topography was one of the primary influences on the layout of the
pre-Khufu structures at Giza. It follows, therefore, that the alignment of
"Khafre's" causeway may have been established simply by directly
connecting the prominent sites of the Sphinx and the Proto-mortuary
temple.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLAR CULT COMPLEX AT GIZA
The case presented
above indicates that a number of structures within the Giza necropolis,
including the Proto-mortuary temple, "Khafre's" causeway, the Sphinx and
the Sphinx temple, pre-date Khufu's development of the site. Given the
intensity of the degradation of the western Sphinx exposures, and the rate
at which geological processes such as erosion operate, I consider that
this construction took place not only before the reign of Khufu, but that
it probably pre-dates the Fourth Dynasty.
Support for this
conjecture may be provided by Lehner, who has undertaken a study of the
masonry used to restore the Sphinx. Two types of restorative masonry have
been identified, the oldest of which consists of large limestone blocks,
up to 1m in length, which have been placed directly against the in-situ
strata from which the Sphinx was carved. These larger blocks are overlain
by a second layer of later, brick-sized limestone masonry.
Lehner initially
considered that the earliest masonry was placed as part of the original
(Fourth Dynasty) construction and was intended to make good any natural
discontinuities in the limestone. To demonstrate this, the 1979/80 ARCE
Sphinx Project, for which Lehner was Field Director, sought evidence for
tool marks on the in-situ limestone underlying the large masonry. However,
as Lehner states "...the profile of the core seems in all cases to be one
of severe erosion, leaving the softer yellowish bands and harder
intermediate strata showing a profile of successive rolls and undulations.
These considerations would seem to indicate that the core-body of the
Sphinx was already severely eroded when the earliest level of large-block
masonry was added to it"28.
To reconcile these
findings with the established Fourth Dynasty date of the Sphinx, Lehner
has since attributed the earliest masonry to the Eighteenth Dynasty
restoration undertaken by Thutmose IV38. The revised sequence
of development proposed in this paper, however, makes it possible to
reconcile the "severe erosion", identified by Lehner, with restoration
which Hawass has more recently confirmed to be of Old Kingdom date15.
It is argued that for
any pre-Fourth Dynasty structures to have been preserved from Khufu's
extensive development, they must have had some religious or other
significance - possibly forming part of a temple or cult complex. The
evidence presented so far, however, can only provide the most general
relative dating for the construction of this complex and, in order to
provide a better resolution for these dates, reference has been made to
the known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture.
The basis for this
line of reasoning is that the culture that undertook the construction of
the cult-complex at Giza, must have had the experience and have developed
the ability to work stone masonry. The earliest known use of stone in
ancient Egypt is from pre-Dynastic times (e.g. the Coptos statues39).
Somewhat later, use of blocks of stone as architectural elements in tombs,
is known from the First and Second Dynasty at Helwan40. It is
understood that the Palermo Stone attributes construction in stone to the
last pharaoh of the Second Dynasty, Khasekhemwy41, and this
date is generally consistent with the earliest known stone masonry in
Egypt - from the Gisr el-Mudir at Saqqara (provisionally dated to the mid-
to late Second Dynasty42). This development in the use of stone
in Ancient Egypt has, therefore, been used as a framework to establish the
following sequence of development for the Giza necropolis:
1) The
Pre-Dynastic Period - the site may have achieved some local significance,
with the principal focus of veneration being the prominent outlier from
which the Sphinx was later to be carved. Perhaps resembling the head of a
lion, this outlier faced east towards the rising sun and as such, may have
been linked to sun-worship, justifying its own cult temple. This temple,
either constructed from mudbrick or reeds, would have been erected in
front of the outlier. A second temple, dedicated to the setting sun would
have been constructed such that, when viewed from the Nile valley, it
occupied a prominent position on a low knoll on the western horizon.
As Edwards states43,
"In Egyptian mythology the lion often figures as the guardian of sacred
places. How or when this conception first arose is not known but it
probably dates back to remote antiquity. Like so many other primitive
beliefs it was incorporated by the Priests of Heliopolis into their
solar creed, the lion being considered the guardian of the gates of the
underworld on the eastern and western horizons" (my italics).
2)
Early Dynastic Period (Dynasties 1 to 3) - evidence of Giza's
importance before the Fourth Dynasty is provided by a number of
artefacts that have been recovered from areas to the south of the site.
Emery44, makes reference to the discovery of a large but much
destroyed royal monument, believed to be the tomb of the consort of Uadji,
a First Dynasty king. Further evidence of Early Dynastic associations with
Giza includes inscriptions on a flint bowl bearing the name of the first
king of the Second Dynasty, Hotepsekhemui, and jar-sealings bearing the
name of a later Second Dynasty king, Neteren. "Covington's Tomb" provides
evidence of Giza's continued use into the Third Dynasty45.
The principle of a
'disconnected' head does not feature in Egyptian iconography, therefore,
as the techniques of stone masonry and the theology of the solar cult
developed, sometime in the later part of the Early Dynastic Period, the
idea was established to liberate the body of the lion from the rock,
leading to the carving of the Sphinx, possibly with the head of a lion46
and the construction in stone of temples to the rising sun (the Sphinx
temple) and the setting sun (the Proto-mortuary temple).
The presence of the
two temples can be seen to reflect one of the main tenets of ancient
Egyptian theology - the principal of duality - which, with respect to the
sun-god, manifested itself in the complimentary nature of the rising and
the setting sun. It appears that the principal of duality was incorporated
into the very architecture of the solar-cult complex (all italics are
mine):
"In front of the Great
Sphinx at Giza stands a temple of unique design [the Sphinx
temple]....two German scholars [Ricke and Schott] have interpreted it
thus: two cult niches on the east and west were for rituals dedicated
to the rising and setting sun......."47
"At each end of the
transverse section of the entrance hall [to Khafre's mortuary temple] a
long and narrow chamber penetrated deeply into the masonry core of the
building......Ricke, however, is inclined to regard these as having been
built for models of the two solar barques of the sun god, the southern
for the day barque and the northern for the night barque...."48.
The alignment between
the Sphinx and the Proto-mortuary temple was established, perhaps as a
processional or ceremonial route, connecting the elevated sites of the
Sphinx and Proto-mortuary temple and running along the southern limit of
the Sphinx enclosure.
3)
Fourth Dynasty - when selecting the site for his mortuary complex,
Khufu chose the site of the established solar-cult at Giza. This choice of
location may well explain the name given to Khufu's pyramid by the ancient
Egyptians, which has been translated as "The Pyramid which is the Place of
Sunrise and Sunset"49, a name which accords with the
significance of Giza suggested by my revised sequence of development.
By the reign of
Khufu's successor, Djedfre, the name 'Re' had been incorporated into the
royal cartouche. Certainly by the reign of Khafre, the principle of the
Pharaoh as the earthly manifestation of the sun god had developed further.
It was possibly in order to strengthen this association, that Khafre
incorporated the existing solar-cult complex into his own mortuary complex50.
In so doing, he built his own valley temple, modified the Sphinx temple,
constructed a covered processional way along the existing causeway and
incorporated the Proto-mortuary temple into his mortuary temple. He may
also have been responsible for the Old Kingdom masonry placed on the body
of the Sphinx and for re-carving the Sphinx's head into that of a human
form (although work by police forensic artists has shown that
this was not undertaken to produce a likeness of Khafre51).
The few hundred years
available under my revised sequence of development is considerably less
than the thousands of years allowed by Schoch for the development of the
more intense degradation in the west of the Sphinx enclosure. I consider,
however, that given the relatively weak nature of the Upper Mokattam
Limestones and the particular conditions of weathering and erosion that
prevailed during this time, it is entirely conceivable that this more
intense degradation could have developed within such reduced timescales.
Although predominantly
arid conditions were experienced throughout the Early Dynastic Period and
Old Kingdom, conditions were generally not as arid as those that exist at
present. Under these less arid conditions, unlike the weathering processes
described by Gauri et al, chemical weathering is likely to have resulted
in the leaching of soluble salts from the exposed limestones. As this
soluble component was removed from the rocks, the potential for further
chemical weathering is likely to have been reduced.
For those exposures
which were not subject to erosion by rainfall run-off, the mantle of
weathered rock that developed as a result of this leaching process will
have remained in-situ. In the west of the Sphinx enclosure, however,
erosion from run-off during heavy seasonal rainfall, will have removed
much of the weathered limestone, exposing the comparatively unweathered
strata from beneath. Given the significant soluble component of these
newly exposed rocks, it follows that the effect of this seasonal erosion
will have been to promote renewed phases of chemical weathering and
leaching, thereby accelerating the degradation process.
I consider that under
these particularly aggressive conditions of weathering and repeated
erosion, degradation of the western Sphinx exposures could have developed
over a period of time which, in geological terms, was relatively short.
THE
DITCH THAT ENTERS THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE SPHINX ENCLOSURE
A number of authors
have made reference to a ditch which reportedly runs parallel to
"Khafre's" causeway and enters the Sphinx enclosure in the south west
corner. Currently, only a short stretch of the eastern end of this ditch
is exposed and the only evidence for the continuation of the ditch beyond
this point, is a slight depression in the accumulated sand. Although this
depression can possibly be identified on the 1:5000 scale topographic maps
of the site37, running parallel with the causeway, it appears
to extend no more than 35m from the Sphinx enclosure.
There is no consensus
on the function of the ditch, it being variously described as a drainage
ditch27 and a boundary marker49. To support the
established sequence of development for the site, a number of
Egyptologists refer to this ditch as a drainage feature and argue that it
indicates that the Sphinx was excavated after the ditch was cut, as the
ancient Egyptians would not deliberately have discharged run-off into the
Sphinx enclosure.
However, when the
surface hydrology of the area is considered (under the conventional
sequence of development) the drainage function of the ditch has to be
questioned. The quarrying undertaken by Khufu and Khafre (Figure 2) would
limit the available catchment to the north of the ditch. To the south, the
only area from which rainwater could be shed is from the roof of the
causeway structure. If we assume that Khafre's causeway resembled that of
Unas, a central light-slot would have resulted in the need for a second
drainage ditch on the southern side of the causeway. The published
literature makes no reference to such a second ditch and none is apparent
from site inspection.
The only other obvious
catchment for the drainage ditch is the area within Khafre's pyramid court
and around the mortuary temple. However, any run-off from these areas
could have been discharged into the western end of the nearby quarries,
rather than carried all the way to the Sphinx enclosure.
Given these
reservations regarding the drainage function of any ditch at this
location, I have investigated its other proposed function - that of a
boundary marker. As stated above, available published information has been
unable to confirm that the ditch runs the full length of Khafre's
causeway. The only location at which inspection of the flank of the
causeway is currently possible is at a point, approximately halfway along,
where an underpass has been cut through the limestone. Although the
accumulated sand has been removed from this location, inspection
undertaken in May 1998 and July 1999 failed to establish any evidence for
the continuation of the ditch up to or beyond this point.
Given the
uncertainties surrounding the purpose and the true extent of this ditch, I
consider that without further investigation, it has limited value in
support of any argument for the sequence of development of Khafre's
mortuary complex.
EVIDENCE FOR PRE-FOURTH DYNASTY ACTIVITY AT GIZA
It is generally
considered that extensive development at Giza was limited to the Fourth
Dynasty and what little activity there was before this, was restricted to
areas to the south of the necropolis (see item 2, page 10). Although my
argument for an Early Dynastic solar-cult complex, with the Sphinx at its
focus, clearly runs contrary to this general opinion, there is
published archaeological evidence to indicate activity within the Giza
necropolis from as early as the late Predynastic period.
Mortensen52
discusses four ceramic jars, reportedly found in the late 1800's "at the
foot of the Great Pyramid" (the exact location has not been recorded).
When these jars were first found, the Predynastic period of Ancient
Egyptian history was little understood and, given the accepted Fourth
Dynasty context of the Giza site, the jars were assumed to be of the
Fourth Dynasty. Mortensen, however, has re-assessed these jars and
considers them to be typical of the late Predynastic Maadi period. Given
that the jars were found intact, Mortensen has also argued that they were
from a burial rather than a settlement site.
The survival of
pre-Fourth Dynasty artefacts within the Giza necropolis has to be
considered in the context of the Fourth Dynasty development. Figure 7
shows, in general terms, the Fourth Dynasty land-use of the site,
illustrating that most of the available area within the necropolis was
either quarried or built upon. These are both rather destructive
activities which may have necessitated the removal of earlier structures
and the disposal of the resulting 'site clearance' debris. This debris may
have been deposited in the base of worked-out quarries or in other known
areas of dumping, outside the area of construction.
In the mid 1970's an
Austrian Egyptologist, Karl Kromer, investigated one such area of debris,
some 1km south of the Great Pyramid (Figure 7). Within the fill, Kromer
reported finds from the Late Predynastic, the First, Second and Fourth
Dynasties53.
Kromer's work has been
criticised by Butzer54, however, analysis of this critique
shows that Butzer did not question the age of the finds but concentrated
on Kromer's interpretation, suggesting that the stratigraphy of the
excavation site was more complex than Kromer had reported. Whereas Kromer
identified the deposition of only a single 'settlement', Butzer suggested
that a number of such episodes were represented, the remains of which were
separated by layers of wind-blown sand and possible debris slides. Butzer
did accept, however, that the deposits excavated by Kromer
consisted of accumulations of drift-sand together with the remains of
development which had been removed from the area of the pyramids and
dumped at the excavation site during the Old Kingdom.
Although Butzer did
not criticise the age attributed to the finds, Kromer's interpretation
has been criticised by others. Whilst the age of ceramics, stone tools
etc. may remain contentious, most people do accept the jar sealings that
were excavated as being Early Dynastic55.
When faced with claims
that the Sphinx is older than is generally accepted, Egyptologists
frequently cite the "Fourth Dynasty context" of Giza, claiming that there
is little, if any evidence for activity at the site before this time.
Although most of the pre-Fourth Dynasty artefacts found at Giza have been
recovered from outside the Fourth Dynasty necropolis, it can be argued
that the mechanism by which this earlier material was removed from its
original position and deposited elsewhere, is widely understood and
generally accepted.
The work of both
Mortensen and Kromer has demonstrated, therefore, that there is
evidence for pre-Fourth Dynasty activity at Giza. What is noteworthy is
that the period of time indicated by this evidence is consistent with the
timescales that I have established on the basis of other quite independent
considerations (such as the use of stone masonry in Ancient Egypt).
CONCLUSIONS
When considered in
terms of the hydrology of the site, the distribution of degradation within
the Sphinx enclosure indicates that the excavation of the Sphinx and the
original construction of the Sphinx temple, pre-date Khufu's early Fourth
Dynasty development at Giza. The spatial relationships between "Khafre's"
causeway, the Sphinx and Khufu's quarries provides additional evidence
that the causeway and the Sphinx were constructed some time before Khufu's
quarrying began. The prominent location and close association of the
Proto-mortuary temple with the causeway indicates that this structure may
have also formed part of the early development of the site.
On the basis of the
intensity of erosion present along the western Sphinx exposures and the
known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture, a case can be made
for the development of the site which parallels the development of sun
worship in ancient Egypt. The excavation of the Sphinx and the
construction in stone of the other elements of this solar-cult complex
are, therefore, tentatively placed sometime in the latter half of the
Early Dynastic Period.
As an established cult
centre, the site was selected by Khufu in the early Fourth Dynasty, for
the construction of his pyramid complex. Later in the Fourth Dynasty, the
Solar-Cult complex itself was adopted by Khafre as he developed, not only
his mortuary complex, but also the association of the king with the sun
god, Re - the principal state god of the time. During the continued Fourth
Dynasty development, which lasted until after the reign of Menkaure,
cultural material associated with earlier activity, was removed from the
areas of construction and deposited in areas such as that investigated by
Kromer, to the south of the site.
The origins of the
Sphinx as an icon are unclear. On the basis of the sequence of development
that I propose, I consider that the concept of the man-headed lion was an
evolutionary one, originating in the Early Dynastic association of the
lion with solar worship43 and culminating in the Fourth Dynasty
association of the Pharaoh with the sun-god - an association made manifest
by re-carving the head of the Great Sphinx in the form of the divine king,
perhaps during the reign of Khafre.
It is interesting to
speculate whether, given the monumental proportions of the Great Sphinx
and its undoubted influence on contemporary culture, the Giza Sphinx may
have been the inspiration for all later Sphinxes. Such a hypothesis would
certainly explain the lack of such votive objects that are known from the
period before Khafre.
In his work, "In the
Shadow of the Pyramids", Malek offers a degree of confirmation of my
revised sequence of development: "It seems that the official dogma
concerning the king's relationship with the gods was re-defined and
systematized during the Fourth Dynasty in order to make him part of
a system with the creator sun-god Re.... The rise in importance of the
sun-god lead to his recognition as the main state-god of the Old Kingdom,
and the appearance of the name of the god in royal names and titles
reflected it."
The unprecedented and
unrepeated inclusion of additional elements (the Sphinx and Sphinx temple)
in the mortuary complex of Khafre and the use of the hieroglyphic symbols
for "to rise" and "Re" (the rise of Re?) in the royal name, supports the
assertion that it was Khafre who achieved this "re-definition" of the
king's relationship with the gods. How better could the association of the
king with the sun-god have been symbolised, than by linking Khafre's
"mansion of eternity" with a long established site of solar worship and
the everlasting circle of birth, death and re-birth manifested by the
daily rising and setting of the sun?
About the Author
Colin Reader has an honours degree in
Geological Engineering from London University. Within this discipline,
which links civil engineering with geology, he has considerable
professional experience in the study of the historic development of sites
- work undertaken from both field and desk-based research. He has a long
standing interest in ancient Egypt, but a specific interest in the Giza
plateau, which he has visited on a number of occasions and researched at
length. Recently, Colin travelled to Cairo with the BBC to take part in
the filming of the ideas set out in this paper. Contributions to the
documentary, which is to be shown on the 'Discovery Channel' sometime in
the year 2000, were made by Dr Zahi Hawass and Dr Robert Schoch.
Notes
1.
R.M. Schoch,
"Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza", KMT Vol 3 No. 2, (1992) p53-59 &
p66-70.
2.
J.
Baines and J. Malek, "Atlas of Ancient Egypt", p36. For consistency all
dates used in this paper have been taken from this reference.
3.
J.A.
Harrell, "The Sphinx Controversy - Another Look at the Geological
Evidence", KMT Vol 5 No. 2 (1994), p70-74.
4.
K.L. Gauri, J.J. Sinai & J.K. Bandyopadhyay, "Geologic Weathering and its
Implications on the Age of the Sphinx", Geoarchaeology Vol 10, No 2
(1995), p 119-133.
5.
In his paper (note 3),
Harrell describes two processes to explain the wetting of sand
accumulations within the Sphinx enclosure. Firstly, Harrell describes
storm water run-off discharging across the plateau and into the
accumulated sand. As discussed in more detail later in the text, the
existence of large quarries upslope from the Sphinx would prevent such
discharges. Secondly, Harrell considers that extreme Nile inundation was
capable of introducing water into the lower lying sand within the Sphinx
enclosure. He then relies on capillary action to carry this water up to 2m
into the overlying sand. Although in hot, arid areas capillary fringes are
present above groundwater in bedrock, I have to question whether
any significant capillary fringe would develop in a loose, coarse grained
soil, such as accumulated sand. In soil mechanics, capillarity is modelled
using the concept of soil suction and is governed by particle size and the
size and content of any interparticle voids. G.N. Smith states "For sands
and gravels above ground water level suction effects are fairly
negligible" (from "Elements of Soil Mechanics", 5th Ed.1982, p434).
6.
K.L. Gauri -
"Geologic Study of the Sphinx", Newsletter of the American Research Centre
In Egypt, 127 (1984), p24-43.
7.
K.L. Gauri -
"Deterioration of the Stone of the Great Sphinx", Newsletter of the
American Research Centre In Egypt, 114 (1981), p35-47.
8.
A.N.
Choudhory et al, "Weathering of Limestone Beds at the Great Sphinx",
Environmental Geology and Water Science, 15, (1990), p217-223.
9.
For a discussion of the disposition of quarries within and adjacent to the
Giza necropolis see M. Lehner, "The Development of the Giza Necropolis -
The Khufu Project", Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts
Abteilung Kairo, 41, (1985)
10.
F.
El-Baz, "Desert builders knew a good thing when they saw it.",
Smithsonian, April 1981, p 16-121.
11.
M.M. el-Aref
and E. Refai, "Paleokarst processes in the Eocene limestones of the
Pyramids Plateau, Egypt", Journal of African Earth Sciences, Vol 6 No. 3,
p367-377.
12.
T. Aigner, "A Pliocene
Cliff Line Around the Giza Pyramids Plateau, Egypt.", Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 42 (1983) p313-322.
13. M. Lehner, "The
development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project", Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 41, (1985), Figure
3A, item 14.
14.
The tomb of
Kausert, for example (Porter and Moss, Volume III, Memphis, 2nd Edition
1994, p286 and plan XXIII, grid D-10), is partly rock cut (much of the
original masonry superstructure is now missing), however, the upper rock
surface of this tomb preserves the original slope of the ground. That the
original ground levels in this part of the site rise towards the north is
confirmed by Lehner in his paper "Notes and photographs on the West-Schoch
Sphinx Hypothesis" (KMT, Vol 5 No. 3 (1994), p40-48.) "....from the south
wall of the Sphinx ditch and down the slope away from the ditch to the
south behind the Valley Temple [of Khafre] ....". Here Lehner is referring
to the topography to the south of the Sphinx, describing how the ground at
this location falls away towards the Main Wadi in the south.
15.
Z.
Hawass, "Abstract for the First International Symposium on the Great
Sphinx", Egyptian Antiquities Organisation, Cairo, 1992. "It seems that
the Sphinx underwent restoration during the Old Kingdom because the
analysis of samples found on the right rear leg proved to be of Old
Kingdom date."
16.
M.
Lehner, "Notes and photographs on the West-Schoch Sphinx Hypothesis", KMT,
Vol 5 No. 3 (1994), p40-48.
17.
In their
paper "Geologic Weathering and its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx"
(see note 4), Gauri et al state "the vertical profiles of the strata of
the Sphinx on all four sides as well as those on the south and west walls
of the enclosure are rounded and exactly similar."
18.
The
alignments shown on Figure 3 represent only a selection of the most
significant sub-vertical degradation features. There are a large number of
additional exposed joints which, for clarity, are not shown - see Figures.
4c and 4d.
19.
Courtesy
of Robert Partridge and The Ancient Egypt Picture Library.
20.
The
aspect of a particular exposure (whether it faces north, south etc.) may
result in a variation in the intensity of chemical weathering from
one adjacent face to another. Aspect, however, does not appear to be a
factor responsible for the distribution of degradation across the strata
exposed at the Sphinx. For example, although of the same aspect, the
western enclosure wall and the chest of the Sphinx show significant
variations in both the nature and the intensity of the degradation
present. Likewise, the north facing rump of the Sphinx is generally free
from sub-vertical degradation features, unlike the similarly oriented
western end of the southern exposure.
21.
K. W. Butzer,
"Environment and Archaeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory",
Chicago, 1971. "....extensive sheet washing - in the wake of sporadic but
heavy and protracted rains - are indicated ca. 4000 - 3000BC. Historical
and archaeological documents suggest that the desert wadi vegetation of
northern and eastern Egypt was more abundant as late as 2350 BC, when the
prevailing aridity was established."
22.
G.A.
Reisner, "Mycerinus, the temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza", Chicago,
(1931). The evidence for flood damage to the Valley Temple is described.
In reconstructing the conditions that contributed to this damage, Reisner
suggests that the natural hydrology of the site was interrupted by
Menkaure's causeway. Run-off from the plateau in the north west, flowed
along the northern edge of the causeway and was directed at the western
walls of the Valley Temple.
23.
M.
Lehner, "The development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project",
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 41,
(1985), Figure 3B, item 24.
24.
A.A.
Saleh, "Excavations around Mycerinus Pyramid Complex", Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 30, (1974), p137
25.
The limited
area between the eastern limit of quarrying and the Sphinx enclosure may
have generated a small volume of run-off during wetter periods. However,
the erosive potential of this run-off is likely to have been minimal. For
the more intense erosion of the western Sphinx exposures to be
attributable to run-off from such a limited catchment, repeated storm
events over a considerable period of time would be required. It is
considered that such conditions are not available under the conventional
chronology.
26. M. Lehner, "A Contextual
Approach to the Giza Pyramids", Archiv fur Orientforschung, 32 (1985),
p136-158.
27.
M. Lehner
and Z. Hawass, "Archaeology ", September/October 1994, p32-47.
28.
Lehner,
Allen and Gauri, "The ARCE Sphinx Project - A Preliminary Report",
Newsletter of the American Research Center In Egypt, 112 (1980) , p3-33.
29.
The western
limit of the Fourth Dynasty quarrying can be seen in the middle foreground
of Plate 4i, just beyond the reconstructed Amenhotep temple (see also
Figure 3 and compare with Plate 3i).
30.
V.
Maragioglio and C. Rinaldi (1965), L'Architettura delle piramidi Menfite,
part V. Survey drawings of the causeway support the observations made on
site, that the masonry along the eastern end of the causeway is only a
single course thick. Further, an underpass has been cut through Khafre's
causeway. As these survey drawings and site inspection show, this
underpass is cut through in-situ rock.
31.
An alternative
explanation for this common alignment is that it may have been achieved by
'trimming back' the southern exposure during a second phase of excavation
within the Sphinx enclosure. Such a subsequent phase of excavation,
however, is likely to be readily identifiable by the presence of
comparatively 'fresh' cut faces along and adjacent to the southern
exposure. Examination has established that no such 'fresh' exposures are
present and it has, therefore, been concluded that the common alignment
results from the Sphinx and causeway being constructed at approximately
the same time.
32.
M.
Lehner, "The development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project",
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 41,
(1985), p110-143.
33.
Ibid.
Although Lehner considers the western portion of this northern quarry to
have been worked during the reign of Khafre, he acknowledges that the
quarry was worked, in the east, under Khufu. It is the presence of this
quarry that is considered to have brought an effective end to the erosion
of the Sphinx enclosure by rainfall run-off.
34.
M.
Bridges, "Egypt: Antiquities from Above", p19 and 23.
35.
V. Maragioglio
and C. Rinaldi (1965), L'Architettura delle piramidi Menfite, part V.
36.
Evidence that
the ground profile at the site of the western portion of the Mortuary
temple represents the natural topography of the site has been provided, by
Lehner. In "The development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project",
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 41,
(1985), Figure 3A, Lehner has reconstructed the topography of the plateau
prior to any Fourth Dynasty development. On this reconstruction, the
elevated site of the cyclopean portion of the mortuary temple is shown as
a naturally occurring low knoll (between points 2 and 5 on the Figure). On
subsequent drawings the edge of this knoll is shown as the western limit
of quarrying (to the immediate left of item 11 - Figure 3B). In a separate
paper "Some observations on the Layout of the Khufu and Khafre Pyramids",
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt , 20 (1983), p7-25,
Lehner discusses the likely means by which the Khufu and Khafre pyramids
were set out and levelled. Slightly different methods were used for each
pyramid, however, in the case of Khafre's pyramid, the levelled area
extended only some 16m from the foot of the pyramid casing. It can be
determined from this that the levelling of the pyramid would not influence
the topography at the eastern end of the mortuary temple.
37.
Arab
Republic of Egypt, Ministry of Housing and Reconstruction, Topographic
sheets, F17 and F18, 1:5000.
38.
M. Lehner,
"The Complete Pyramids", 1997, p128-129 provides a profile of the Sphinx
showing a distribution of the various phases of masonry.
39.
Personal
correspondence between the author and B.J. Kemp, 24 June 1997.
40.
W. Wood, "The Archaic
Stone Temples at Helwan", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 73, p59-70.
41.
Mathieson et
al, "The NMS Saqqara Survey Project 1993-1995", Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology, 83, 1997, p17-54.
42.
Personal
correspondence between the author and Mr. I. Mathieson, Director of the
National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Project, 15 July 1997.
43.
I.E.S.
Edwards, "The Pyramids of Egypt", p122.
44.
W. B.
Emery, "Archaic Egypt", p73, 92 and 94.
45.
W.M.F.
Petrie, "Gizeh and Rifeh", London (1907).
46.
The
iconography of the recumbent lion is attested, for this period, by
sculpture recovered from the First and Second Dynasty necropolis at Helwan
- see "The Excavations at Helwan", Z.Y. Saad, Plate 49.
47.
B.J.
Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation, p4.
48.
I.E.S.
Edwards, "The Pyramids of Egypt", p130.
49.
P.
Jordan, "Riddles of the Sphinx", 1998, p1.
50.
It is the
departure from construction at Giza, during the reign of Djedfre and
during the reign of Khafre's little known successor, Baufre, that I
consider severely undermines any proposition that the layout of Giza was
established as a 'masterplan' at the time of Khufu.
51.
J.A. West, "Serpent in
the Sky", Revised edition, p230-232. Stadelmann has recently attributed
the excavation of the Sphinx to the reign of Khufu, principally on the
basis of facial features and the iconography of the nemes head-dress (see
'Royal Tombs from the Age of the Pyramids', R. Stadelmann in "Egypt - the
World of the Pharaohs", R. Schulz and M. Seidel - Eds). Although this is
not consistent with the geological evidence for the age of the Sphinx, it
is interesting, that Stadelmann presents a challenge to the established
association of the Sphinx with Khafre.
52.
B.
Mortensen, "Four Jars From the Maadi Culture found at Giza", Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 41, (1985), p 145
to 147.
53.
K. Kromer,
"Siedlungsfunde Aus Dem Fruhen Alten Reich in Giseh". Osterreichische
Ausgrabungen 1971 -75, Osterreichische Akademie Der Wissenschaften
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften, 136
54.
K.W. Butzer,
Review of "Siedlungsfunde Aus Dem Fruhen Alten Reich in Giseh", Journal of
Near Eastern Studies, Vol 41, no 2, April 1982, p 93-95.
55. Personal correspondence between the author and Dr. R. Friedman, 26 June 1999. |