DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14391#0037
STORE-CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS. 23
the ninth mile from Ero towards Clusma, and
was originally erected at that distance from
the city, to which it was brought afterwards,
nobody knows when and why. I am not
prepared to adopt this off-hand and radical
way of getting rid of a difficulty. Why should
the slab be brought to Ero? Either for building
purposes or for lime-burning. But limestone
was not wanting in Ero; it was found there in
abundance, as the temple was originally built
with this material, like nearly all the temples of
the Delta since the Xllth dynasty. The abun-
dance of limestone-gravel which has been used
for filling up the store-chambers bears witness
to the quantity of this stone which existed on the
spot. This circumstance has been the cause of
the wholesale destruction of the temples of Lower
Egypt. From the rule of the Romans, and
especially in places where they had garrisons,
the temples have been used as quarries for lime-
stone burning, and getting building material.
Take such places as Khataaneh, Tukh el
Karmus, with beautifully preserved enclosures ;
on one of the sides of the enclosed area the
nature of the soil is quite different, instead of
being decayed bricks, it consists of heaps of
limestone-gravel, where fragments with a few
hieroglyhs show that it comes from inscribed
walls, but where one hardly ever meets with an
intact monument unless it be of granite. The
quarrying in the temples not only for public
buildings, but for common houses, for making
thresholds, stairs, millstones, mortars, oil-
presses, has been very active since the Eomans,
and is still going on. It has taken place at
Heroopolis ; the Eomans had plenty of stone
for building their camp walls ; it was not
necessary to bring any from a distance; they
did not even use all they had at hand; they
sometimes merely broke the monuments, like
the pillar of TSTekhthorheb. Certainly, if the
slab was brought it was not for building, and
if it had been for lime-burning it would very
likely not have been preserved. The instances
are innumerable of stones taken out of temples
and removed sometimes to a long distance for
building or for agricultural purposes, but the
contrary does not occur in later time. In fact
the supposition of the two illustrious German
scholars is just the reverse of what is seen
all over Egypt in Roman time. It would be
very like bringing a stone to a quarry.
The inscription of Ero Castra I took out of
a wall at the entrance immediately behind the
monoliths, and which was the side of a door-
way. Judging from the place where the
milestone was dug out it must have been
inserted in a side wall which ran at right
angles to the other one, at a distance of
a few yards. Professor Mommsen observes1
that the inscription differs from the ordinary
milestones by the fact that it indicates not
only the starting point but also the terminus
of the journey. This is a very important
circumstance, which, added to the fact that the
stone was found at the starting point Ero,
shows that it is not an ordinary milestone
marking the length of the road covered by the
traveller, but an indication for the soldier <
occupying the camp of Ero of the distance to
the neighbouring shore orbeach,with the watch-
ing of which they very likely were entrusted.
There was a road going north from Heroopolis
towards Syria; there was also another going
South towards the sea ; the stone was at the
entrance of the southern road, and may best be
compared in our countries not to the stones
which indicate every mile or kilometre on the
way, but to the signposts which are erected
at cross-roads or at the entrance of a road, and
which mention not only the name of the next
locality but also the distance at which it is
situate. I cannot pass lightly over the fact
that the stone was found at Ero, or explain it
away by an hypothesis which is not in accord-
ance with the local circumstances; therefore
I believe that the most obvious, and the most
correct interpretation of the inscription is that
which I gave above, and which Professor
1 Mommsen, 1.1. p. 8, note.
the ninth mile from Ero towards Clusma, and
was originally erected at that distance from
the city, to which it was brought afterwards,
nobody knows when and why. I am not
prepared to adopt this off-hand and radical
way of getting rid of a difficulty. Why should
the slab be brought to Ero? Either for building
purposes or for lime-burning. But limestone
was not wanting in Ero; it was found there in
abundance, as the temple was originally built
with this material, like nearly all the temples of
the Delta since the Xllth dynasty. The abun-
dance of limestone-gravel which has been used
for filling up the store-chambers bears witness
to the quantity of this stone which existed on the
spot. This circumstance has been the cause of
the wholesale destruction of the temples of Lower
Egypt. From the rule of the Romans, and
especially in places where they had garrisons,
the temples have been used as quarries for lime-
stone burning, and getting building material.
Take such places as Khataaneh, Tukh el
Karmus, with beautifully preserved enclosures ;
on one of the sides of the enclosed area the
nature of the soil is quite different, instead of
being decayed bricks, it consists of heaps of
limestone-gravel, where fragments with a few
hieroglyhs show that it comes from inscribed
walls, but where one hardly ever meets with an
intact monument unless it be of granite. The
quarrying in the temples not only for public
buildings, but for common houses, for making
thresholds, stairs, millstones, mortars, oil-
presses, has been very active since the Eomans,
and is still going on. It has taken place at
Heroopolis ; the Eomans had plenty of stone
for building their camp walls ; it was not
necessary to bring any from a distance; they
did not even use all they had at hand; they
sometimes merely broke the monuments, like
the pillar of TSTekhthorheb. Certainly, if the
slab was brought it was not for building, and
if it had been for lime-burning it would very
likely not have been preserved. The instances
are innumerable of stones taken out of temples
and removed sometimes to a long distance for
building or for agricultural purposes, but the
contrary does not occur in later time. In fact
the supposition of the two illustrious German
scholars is just the reverse of what is seen
all over Egypt in Roman time. It would be
very like bringing a stone to a quarry.
The inscription of Ero Castra I took out of
a wall at the entrance immediately behind the
monoliths, and which was the side of a door-
way. Judging from the place where the
milestone was dug out it must have been
inserted in a side wall which ran at right
angles to the other one, at a distance of
a few yards. Professor Mommsen observes1
that the inscription differs from the ordinary
milestones by the fact that it indicates not
only the starting point but also the terminus
of the journey. This is a very important
circumstance, which, added to the fact that the
stone was found at the starting point Ero,
shows that it is not an ordinary milestone
marking the length of the road covered by the
traveller, but an indication for the soldier <
occupying the camp of Ero of the distance to
the neighbouring shore orbeach,with the watch-
ing of which they very likely were entrusted.
There was a road going north from Heroopolis
towards Syria; there was also another going
South towards the sea ; the stone was at the
entrance of the southern road, and may best be
compared in our countries not to the stones
which indicate every mile or kilometre on the
way, but to the signposts which are erected
at cross-roads or at the entrance of a road, and
which mention not only the name of the next
locality but also the distance at which it is
situate. I cannot pass lightly over the fact
that the stone was found at Ero, or explain it
away by an hypothesis which is not in accord-
ance with the local circumstances; therefore
I believe that the most obvious, and the most
correct interpretation of the inscription is that
which I gave above, and which Professor
1 Mommsen, 1.1. p. 8, note.