DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.33567#0166
74
of the Book of Marvels states that they were cut in the mountain of Tarim, or Iarim, at the west
of Egypt. You read on one of them as follows : ' I, Ia'mor ben-Cheddad, I have built this city,
at a period of life still remote from old age,—my death not appearing to be near at hand, nor my
hair blanched with years. At an epoch when stones were as clay, when men knew no other master
than Ia'mor, I have built the colonnades of the city, I have brought in its water, I have planted its
trees ; I have desired to surpass the ancient kings who governed it in my construction of admirable
monuments. I (therefore) sent Thabout ben-Mara, of the tribe of A'd, and Makdam ben-el-O'mar
ben-Abi Reghal, the Thamoudite, to the red-colored mountain of Tarim. They took thence two blocks
of stone, which they brought here on their backs ; and since Thabout's side was broken, I gave up
to his service the people of my kingdom. Fedan ben-Djaroud el-Montefeki; erected for me these
shafts in a time of prosperity.' "
The Arabian physician Abd-el-Lateef, writing in 1201 (De Sacy), merely mentions that he saw the
two obelisks near the sea. From this time a long period elapses without any especial record of these
shalts, until the visit of Petrus Bellonius to Alexandria in the middle of the sixteenth century A. D/
The plate of Kircher, published in i652, shows our obelisk as square and unbroken to the
base. Paul Lucas, visiting Alexandria in 1/14, found the lower portion of the shaft buried to the
depth, as he estimates, of twelve feet. In 1718, the French Consul Le Maire is reported to have
excavated the obelisk to its pedestal. Sicard, in his Nouveaux Memoires (vol. vii, published in 1729)
found the base concealed from view, but notes that the shaft rests upon a granite pedestal, according
to the account given by Le Maire. Thomas Shaw, who visited Alexandria about 1730, found the
base hidden from sight, but repeats the account of Le Maire's excavation : According to Le Maire,
he says, " the bottom of the shaft was not square, but was hemispherical in shape, and was exactly
fitted into a socket of corresponding form cut in the upper surface of the pedestal."
Norden, travelling in Egypt in 1737-38, found that the base of the shaft was buried in the earth.
Pococke, in Egypt, 1737-39, repeats the account of Le Maire: "It has been found," he says, "by
digging under ground that the bottoms of the obelisks were rounded and let into a plinth, as the
Egyptians used to place their pillars." Dominique Jauna, in his history published in 1747, reports
that the pedestal cannot be seen, since it is covered with sand. Van Egmont and Heyman^ state
that the pedestal of the standing (New York) obelisk is "a Hat, square plinth, eight feet on each
side and six feet in depth, formed out of a single block of greyish marble or granite, which projects
fourteen inches on every side beyond the base of the obelisk." The visit of Niebuhr, in 1761, adds
nothing to our information. Baron de Tott (Memoires sur les Turcs, 1785) found that the base of
the standing (New York) obelisk was buried out of sight, but judged from his examination of the
base of the fallen (London) obelisk that each shaft originally stood upon four bronze cubes or dies.3
Zoega, in his "De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum," published in 1797, has in mind the accounts of
Le Maire and of Baron de Tott, when he says that it is probable that the foot of the shaft is
inserted into the upper surface of the pedestal, and is perhaps made Hrm by means of bronze bars.
The authors of the Description de 1' Egypte report that the shaft had been excavated to its
pedestal by M. Conte/* * but at the time of their own examination it was again buried from sight. Their
plate shows the shaft, with its pedestal, resting upon three steps ; no bronze crabs are to be seen,
but the obelisk is represented as supported or propped upon its pedestal by fragments of stone.
*See description of London obelisk. ^ Travels translated from the Dutch and published at London in 175$.
^ Mr. Feuardent's comment on this is that the Baron saw the remnants of the metal supports attached to the (London)
obelisk, and that they were probably already broken, since he calls them "cubes" or "dies."
* I cannot learn at what date M. Conte excavated the pedestal. I have gone through the 5 vols. (9 vols. in 5) of the
text of the Description, etc., without finding a word on Alexandria. The above statements are taken from the brief
explanation of the plates. " When the French army was at Cairo, the base was laid bare to its lowest foundation."—Long,
Egyptian Antiquities, vol. i, 300.
of the Book of Marvels states that they were cut in the mountain of Tarim, or Iarim, at the west
of Egypt. You read on one of them as follows : ' I, Ia'mor ben-Cheddad, I have built this city,
at a period of life still remote from old age,—my death not appearing to be near at hand, nor my
hair blanched with years. At an epoch when stones were as clay, when men knew no other master
than Ia'mor, I have built the colonnades of the city, I have brought in its water, I have planted its
trees ; I have desired to surpass the ancient kings who governed it in my construction of admirable
monuments. I (therefore) sent Thabout ben-Mara, of the tribe of A'd, and Makdam ben-el-O'mar
ben-Abi Reghal, the Thamoudite, to the red-colored mountain of Tarim. They took thence two blocks
of stone, which they brought here on their backs ; and since Thabout's side was broken, I gave up
to his service the people of my kingdom. Fedan ben-Djaroud el-Montefeki; erected for me these
shafts in a time of prosperity.' "
The Arabian physician Abd-el-Lateef, writing in 1201 (De Sacy), merely mentions that he saw the
two obelisks near the sea. From this time a long period elapses without any especial record of these
shalts, until the visit of Petrus Bellonius to Alexandria in the middle of the sixteenth century A. D/
The plate of Kircher, published in i652, shows our obelisk as square and unbroken to the
base. Paul Lucas, visiting Alexandria in 1/14, found the lower portion of the shaft buried to the
depth, as he estimates, of twelve feet. In 1718, the French Consul Le Maire is reported to have
excavated the obelisk to its pedestal. Sicard, in his Nouveaux Memoires (vol. vii, published in 1729)
found the base concealed from view, but notes that the shaft rests upon a granite pedestal, according
to the account given by Le Maire. Thomas Shaw, who visited Alexandria about 1730, found the
base hidden from sight, but repeats the account of Le Maire's excavation : According to Le Maire,
he says, " the bottom of the shaft was not square, but was hemispherical in shape, and was exactly
fitted into a socket of corresponding form cut in the upper surface of the pedestal."
Norden, travelling in Egypt in 1737-38, found that the base of the shaft was buried in the earth.
Pococke, in Egypt, 1737-39, repeats the account of Le Maire: "It has been found," he says, "by
digging under ground that the bottoms of the obelisks were rounded and let into a plinth, as the
Egyptians used to place their pillars." Dominique Jauna, in his history published in 1747, reports
that the pedestal cannot be seen, since it is covered with sand. Van Egmont and Heyman^ state
that the pedestal of the standing (New York) obelisk is "a Hat, square plinth, eight feet on each
side and six feet in depth, formed out of a single block of greyish marble or granite, which projects
fourteen inches on every side beyond the base of the obelisk." The visit of Niebuhr, in 1761, adds
nothing to our information. Baron de Tott (Memoires sur les Turcs, 1785) found that the base of
the standing (New York) obelisk was buried out of sight, but judged from his examination of the
base of the fallen (London) obelisk that each shaft originally stood upon four bronze cubes or dies.3
Zoega, in his "De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum," published in 1797, has in mind the accounts of
Le Maire and of Baron de Tott, when he says that it is probable that the foot of the shaft is
inserted into the upper surface of the pedestal, and is perhaps made Hrm by means of bronze bars.
The authors of the Description de 1' Egypte report that the shaft had been excavated to its
pedestal by M. Conte/* * but at the time of their own examination it was again buried from sight. Their
plate shows the shaft, with its pedestal, resting upon three steps ; no bronze crabs are to be seen,
but the obelisk is represented as supported or propped upon its pedestal by fragments of stone.
*See description of London obelisk. ^ Travels translated from the Dutch and published at London in 175$.
^ Mr. Feuardent's comment on this is that the Baron saw the remnants of the metal supports attached to the (London)
obelisk, and that they were probably already broken, since he calls them "cubes" or "dies."
* I cannot learn at what date M. Conte excavated the pedestal. I have gone through the 5 vols. (9 vols. in 5) of the
text of the Description, etc., without finding a word on Alexandria. The above statements are taken from the brief
explanation of the plates. " When the French army was at Cairo, the base was laid bare to its lowest foundation."—Long,
Egyptian Antiquities, vol. i, 300.