DOI Artikel:
Naville, Edouard; Hall, H. R.: Egypt Exploration Fund: excavations at Deir El-Bahari
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12053#0024
s
Egypt Explobation Fund.
were first noted by Mr. Carter in the course of the previous excavations.
The character of the temple is evident. It is the funerary chapel of the
king Mentuhetep Nebkherura, and is of the same general type as the
pyramid-temples excavated by Messrs. Borchardt and Sohafer at Abusir.
This being so, the question of the relation to Nebkherura's temple of the
great royal tomb which lies to the east of it and abutting on the Fund
house, must be considered. This tomb, the " Bab el-Hosan," which was
discovered by Mr. Carter in 1898, is that of a king Mentuhetep. Its
alignment is, as was pointed out to us by its discoverer, very nearly that
of tbe temple; but its central axis is not quite the same. Mr. Carter
was of opinion that it was the tomb of Nebkherura, and that, therefore,
his mortuary chapel was built on the top of his tomb, so to speak. But
on the only inscribed object, a wooden box, found in the tomb, the throne-
name of the king is doubtful. Mr. Newberry, who published the results of the
find in conjunction with Mr. Carter {Annates du Service, ii. pp. 201-205),
reads it as ^ Neb-hetep-Ra, not ^ |Jj Neb-hhertt-rd,
the name of the king who built the temple.* Further, the portraits of
Nebkherura found in the course of these excavations do not agree with
that of the king who made the tomb, judging from the red sandstone
statue of him discovered by Mr. Carter and now in the Cairo Museum. This
portrait, which is a strongly-marked one, is identical with that of a king
Mentuhetep on reliefs at Cairo of quite different style from any found at
Deir el-Bahari. It seems probable that these reliefs and the statue from
the Bab el-Hosan represent Neb-hetep-Ra, and that, therefore, the Bab
el-Hosan is the tomb of Neb-hetep-Ra, not of Neb-kheru-Ra, whose tomb
therefore still remains to be found. This view may eventually prove to be
wrong, but as yet it seems the most probable one.
Perhaps the most generally interesting fact about the new temple is the
evidence that it was the prototype of the great temple of Deir el-Bahari.
Its main arrangement of a platform approached by an inclined ramp flanked
by colonnades of square pillars was evidently copied by Hatshepsu's
architects, who also imitated the " proto-Doric " columns of its pillared
hall, but gave their columns sixteen sides instead of eight. We thus see
that the great queen did not model her temple on the "terraced hills " of
* Cf. Nash, P.S.B.A-, xxii, 292-3. Mr. Newberry informs ns that the signs
d
\_y on the box seemed to him on further inspection last year to be fairly
a, 0
clear, and that he is satisfied in his own mind that the box does not bear the name
Egypt Explobation Fund.
were first noted by Mr. Carter in the course of the previous excavations.
The character of the temple is evident. It is the funerary chapel of the
king Mentuhetep Nebkherura, and is of the same general type as the
pyramid-temples excavated by Messrs. Borchardt and Sohafer at Abusir.
This being so, the question of the relation to Nebkherura's temple of the
great royal tomb which lies to the east of it and abutting on the Fund
house, must be considered. This tomb, the " Bab el-Hosan," which was
discovered by Mr. Carter in 1898, is that of a king Mentuhetep. Its
alignment is, as was pointed out to us by its discoverer, very nearly that
of tbe temple; but its central axis is not quite the same. Mr. Carter
was of opinion that it was the tomb of Nebkherura, and that, therefore,
his mortuary chapel was built on the top of his tomb, so to speak. But
on the only inscribed object, a wooden box, found in the tomb, the throne-
name of the king is doubtful. Mr. Newberry, who published the results of the
find in conjunction with Mr. Carter {Annates du Service, ii. pp. 201-205),
reads it as ^ Neb-hetep-Ra, not ^ |Jj Neb-hhertt-rd,
the name of the king who built the temple.* Further, the portraits of
Nebkherura found in the course of these excavations do not agree with
that of the king who made the tomb, judging from the red sandstone
statue of him discovered by Mr. Carter and now in the Cairo Museum. This
portrait, which is a strongly-marked one, is identical with that of a king
Mentuhetep on reliefs at Cairo of quite different style from any found at
Deir el-Bahari. It seems probable that these reliefs and the statue from
the Bab el-Hosan represent Neb-hetep-Ra, and that, therefore, the Bab
el-Hosan is the tomb of Neb-hetep-Ra, not of Neb-kheru-Ra, whose tomb
therefore still remains to be found. This view may eventually prove to be
wrong, but as yet it seems the most probable one.
Perhaps the most generally interesting fact about the new temple is the
evidence that it was the prototype of the great temple of Deir el-Bahari.
Its main arrangement of a platform approached by an inclined ramp flanked
by colonnades of square pillars was evidently copied by Hatshepsu's
architects, who also imitated the " proto-Doric " columns of its pillared
hall, but gave their columns sixteen sides instead of eight. We thus see
that the great queen did not model her temple on the "terraced hills " of
* Cf. Nash, P.S.B.A-, xxii, 292-3. Mr. Newberry informs ns that the signs
d
\_y on the box seemed to him on further inspection last year to be fairly
a, 0
clear, and that he is satisfied in his own mind that the box does not bear the name