DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6640#0048
34
BUB AST J S.
of destruction in which they have been found
shows that the temple may have contained more
of them, which have disappeared. Bubastis
was a good starting point for a sovereign like
Amenophis III., who made both military and
hunting expeditions into Mesopotamia, and who
had contracted family ties with the kings of
Naharain, as we learn from the tablets of Tell
el Amarna. The same documents show that
under Amenophis IV. the kings of Mesopotamia
who had been tributary to the father were also
vassals to the son. He must therefore have
been attracted to Bubastis for the same purposes
as Amenophis III. In fact, his presence there
has also been recognized. A thick slab of red
granite, which probably was the base of a
statue or of an altar, bears on its edge the
name of the particular god worshipped by
Amenophis IV. (pi. xxxv. i) after he had
made his religious reform, and adopted himself
the name of Khuenaten. The name of the god
has been preserved, as in many other instances,
because the stone was inserted in a Avail; for,
the other side, where stood the cartouche of
the king, has been hammered out. The surface
on which lay the statue or the altar dedicated
by Amenophis IV. bears two large cartouches
of Barneses II. The stone is now in the
museum of G-hizeh.
The historical result derived from the inscrip-
tions of Bubastis, has been to show that the
eighteenth dynasty had left important traces in
the Delta; and this result has been confirmed
by the discovery made at Samanood of a great
tablet with the cartouches of Amenophis IV-
and Horemheb. The eighteenth dynasty has
reigned over the Delta; but at present we do
not find it earlier than Thothmes III., the great
conqueror who subdued Syria, Balestine, and
part of Mesopotamia. The conclusion which we
are to-day compelled to draw, but which may
be upset to-morrow by further explorations, is
that the dominion of the Pharaohs over the
Delta was re-established only after Thothmes
III., and after he had by his successful wars
struck down and subjugated his Asiatic neigh-
bours. Before his reign, the consequences of
the struggle against the Hyksos were still felt.
Perhaps the foreigners had not yet been com-
pletely driven out, in spite of the victories of
Ahmes and the capture of Avaris ; perhaps, also,
the Pharaohs did not feel sufficiently strong to
occupy the whole land, and to restore over its
whole area the administration and the worship
which would have entailed upon them the re-
construction of considerable edifices. Taking
Hashepsu's word, it was she who began this
difficult task.
Concerning the temple itself, I must recall
here what I said before as to the date of the
hypostyle hall, consisting of two sorts of columns
and two sorts of Hathor-capitals. I believe it
must be attributed to the twelfth dynasty, and
not to the eighteenth. It is difficult to under-
stand how no traces of the eighteenth should
have remained on the architraves where we dis-
covered traces of the twelfth. Surely the columns
must be of the same age as the architraves they
had to support. Future excavations alone will
solve the question of the origin of this style of
architecture. It is much to be regretted that
two of the most important temples bearing the
names of Amenophis III., Soleb and Sedeinga in
Nubia, are now inaccessible, owing to the dis-
turbed state of the country. Researches in
those localities would show whether it was really
Amenophis III. who raised those important
buildings, whether it was he who introduced in
Egyptian architecture the palm-leaf column and
the Hathor-capital, or whether, as I am inclined
to believe, he gave Rameses II. the example of
attributing to himself the work of the Amenem-
has, the Usertesens, and the Sebekhoteps.
I also attribute to the eighteenth dynasty a
stranere monument of which I know no other
specimen, and which is now in the museum of
Ghizeh (pi. xxi. is and c). It consists of a large
disk against which two figures are leaning.
BUB AST J S.
of destruction in which they have been found
shows that the temple may have contained more
of them, which have disappeared. Bubastis
was a good starting point for a sovereign like
Amenophis III., who made both military and
hunting expeditions into Mesopotamia, and who
had contracted family ties with the kings of
Naharain, as we learn from the tablets of Tell
el Amarna. The same documents show that
under Amenophis IV. the kings of Mesopotamia
who had been tributary to the father were also
vassals to the son. He must therefore have
been attracted to Bubastis for the same purposes
as Amenophis III. In fact, his presence there
has also been recognized. A thick slab of red
granite, which probably was the base of a
statue or of an altar, bears on its edge the
name of the particular god worshipped by
Amenophis IV. (pi. xxxv. i) after he had
made his religious reform, and adopted himself
the name of Khuenaten. The name of the god
has been preserved, as in many other instances,
because the stone was inserted in a Avail; for,
the other side, where stood the cartouche of
the king, has been hammered out. The surface
on which lay the statue or the altar dedicated
by Amenophis IV. bears two large cartouches
of Barneses II. The stone is now in the
museum of G-hizeh.
The historical result derived from the inscrip-
tions of Bubastis, has been to show that the
eighteenth dynasty had left important traces in
the Delta; and this result has been confirmed
by the discovery made at Samanood of a great
tablet with the cartouches of Amenophis IV-
and Horemheb. The eighteenth dynasty has
reigned over the Delta; but at present we do
not find it earlier than Thothmes III., the great
conqueror who subdued Syria, Balestine, and
part of Mesopotamia. The conclusion which we
are to-day compelled to draw, but which may
be upset to-morrow by further explorations, is
that the dominion of the Pharaohs over the
Delta was re-established only after Thothmes
III., and after he had by his successful wars
struck down and subjugated his Asiatic neigh-
bours. Before his reign, the consequences of
the struggle against the Hyksos were still felt.
Perhaps the foreigners had not yet been com-
pletely driven out, in spite of the victories of
Ahmes and the capture of Avaris ; perhaps, also,
the Pharaohs did not feel sufficiently strong to
occupy the whole land, and to restore over its
whole area the administration and the worship
which would have entailed upon them the re-
construction of considerable edifices. Taking
Hashepsu's word, it was she who began this
difficult task.
Concerning the temple itself, I must recall
here what I said before as to the date of the
hypostyle hall, consisting of two sorts of columns
and two sorts of Hathor-capitals. I believe it
must be attributed to the twelfth dynasty, and
not to the eighteenth. It is difficult to under-
stand how no traces of the eighteenth should
have remained on the architraves where we dis-
covered traces of the twelfth. Surely the columns
must be of the same age as the architraves they
had to support. Future excavations alone will
solve the question of the origin of this style of
architecture. It is much to be regretted that
two of the most important temples bearing the
names of Amenophis III., Soleb and Sedeinga in
Nubia, are now inaccessible, owing to the dis-
turbed state of the country. Researches in
those localities would show whether it was really
Amenophis III. who raised those important
buildings, whether it was he who introduced in
Egyptian architecture the palm-leaf column and
the Hathor-capital, or whether, as I am inclined
to believe, he gave Rameses II. the example of
attributing to himself the work of the Amenem-
has, the Usertesens, and the Sebekhoteps.
I also attribute to the eighteenth dynasty a
stranere monument of which I know no other
specimen, and which is now in the museum of
Ghizeh (pi. xxi. is and c). It consists of a large
disk against which two figures are leaning.