DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4147#0035
28
DEIR EL BAHAIU.
lie with a good horizontal bed one over the other.
Some of these facing stones ("stretchers") are not more
than -04 metre thick.
Within, the heart of the wall is made of mere lumps,
with chips between them and plenty of fairly good
mortar. Bond, the tying together of the facing and
the heart of the walls, is the one thing wanting. In
many cases the facing is laid with great regularity, as
can he seen on the drawings, where the joints are not
indicated at random, but are sketched from the walls
themselves. The stones appear to the eye as though they
were carefully laid with " headers" and " stretchers,"
and the bed-joints quite horizontal. Whatever duty
the walls had to perform the method of building is
equally careless. Even the columns are built up of
odds and ends, large stones and small, while the
architraves, and more particularly the roof slabs, rest
in many instances on only -05 or '00 of bearing surface.
The columns have no foundations of their own. They
stand on the pavement-stones which were evidently
laid over the whole area and then cut down—after the
walls and columns had been set up—to the required
level (see fig. 5, pi. CLXXL). After the paving-stones
on which the columns would stand had been cut level
on their upper face, scoring lines were cut parallel
with the walls of the chamber or hall. At the inter-
section of these lines the centre point of a column was
established. The next step was to score on the same
surface a square which defined the bed of the lowest
stone of the column. We must bear in mind that
the masonry was not prepared as we do it in these
days, each stone carefully cut to shape before it is
set in position. The Egyptian method was to set
up in its intended position a roughly-shaped cube of
stone, its smallest dimension being the extreme size
of the column or a little more. When built, the
column appeared as a, rectangular pier with a very
rugged surface. In the present case this rectangular
pier was cut by the masons, as it stood, into an octagon,
and from that figure into a polygon of sixteen sides.
These sides are not hollowed after the manner of the
fluting of a Doric column, but each face is flat. There
is often a very slight projection left, hardly appreciable,
where the faces of the polygon meet. When the
masonry was finished, it was always covered with a
fine plaster or gesso. None of the ragged joints we
now see were visible, but the columns, walls, ceilings,
and floors, external and internal, were completely
covered with this fine plaster or gesso.
It is open to question whether red granite wa3 not
covered with gesso and coloured. In the case of the
temple now under consideration, while the masonry
in most parts was so richly adorned with sculpture,
the blocks forming the two granite doorways are
perfectly plain. A sketch (fig. 4, pi. CLXXL) is given
to show the recesses sunk in the ends of the lintels
of the granite doorway, by means of which, no doubt,
the blocks were raised to their proper positions. The
preparation made to receive a column really consisted
in laying, in the place where it was to stand, thicker
pavement stones than elsewhere, the extra thickness
being cut away down to pavement level as the work
was being finished.
It may bo observed that larger stones were made
use of for the walling of the upper court than else-
where. Very frequently the lowest three or four
courses of the walls are of stones larger than those
above, the upper courses being indeed quite small,
although upon them rested the weight of heavy
ceiling slabs and architraves.
In consequence of the Avay in which the temple is
planned, in terraces, there are many places in which
the walls have had to hold back considerable masses of
filling in. The south side of the middle terrace is the
most prominent example of this. The west walls of
the north and south lower colonnades had a similar
duty to perform.
So far as the ruined wall permits us to see, the
builders have first raised behind the line of the in-
tended facing wall an inner wall of roughly squared
stones, and of considerable thickness. These roughly
constructed walls held back the filling in behind them,
and were probably built up at the same rate as the
filling in was deposited. Afterwards the facing wall
which was to bear the sculptures was built.
The retaining walls of the sloped causeway, which
leads from the lowest to the middle court, are built
without any foundations at all. The very indifferent
masonry is placed on the surface of the court, and is
laid in sloping courses such as are seen over the north
colonnade. The retaining walls of the sloped cause-
way from the middle to the upper court stand on
blocks of stone, which form a sort of bench.
It would weary the reader to go into further detail
with technical descriptions of masonry, methods of
building, &c, which could bo carried on much farther
than I have ventured to do. A rough sketch of its
growth may not, however, be without interest. The
■■■'
v**
DEIR EL BAHAIU.
lie with a good horizontal bed one over the other.
Some of these facing stones ("stretchers") are not more
than -04 metre thick.
Within, the heart of the wall is made of mere lumps,
with chips between them and plenty of fairly good
mortar. Bond, the tying together of the facing and
the heart of the walls, is the one thing wanting. In
many cases the facing is laid with great regularity, as
can he seen on the drawings, where the joints are not
indicated at random, but are sketched from the walls
themselves. The stones appear to the eye as though they
were carefully laid with " headers" and " stretchers,"
and the bed-joints quite horizontal. Whatever duty
the walls had to perform the method of building is
equally careless. Even the columns are built up of
odds and ends, large stones and small, while the
architraves, and more particularly the roof slabs, rest
in many instances on only -05 or '00 of bearing surface.
The columns have no foundations of their own. They
stand on the pavement-stones which were evidently
laid over the whole area and then cut down—after the
walls and columns had been set up—to the required
level (see fig. 5, pi. CLXXL). After the paving-stones
on which the columns would stand had been cut level
on their upper face, scoring lines were cut parallel
with the walls of the chamber or hall. At the inter-
section of these lines the centre point of a column was
established. The next step was to score on the same
surface a square which defined the bed of the lowest
stone of the column. We must bear in mind that
the masonry was not prepared as we do it in these
days, each stone carefully cut to shape before it is
set in position. The Egyptian method was to set
up in its intended position a roughly-shaped cube of
stone, its smallest dimension being the extreme size
of the column or a little more. When built, the
column appeared as a, rectangular pier with a very
rugged surface. In the present case this rectangular
pier was cut by the masons, as it stood, into an octagon,
and from that figure into a polygon of sixteen sides.
These sides are not hollowed after the manner of the
fluting of a Doric column, but each face is flat. There
is often a very slight projection left, hardly appreciable,
where the faces of the polygon meet. When the
masonry was finished, it was always covered with a
fine plaster or gesso. None of the ragged joints we
now see were visible, but the columns, walls, ceilings,
and floors, external and internal, were completely
covered with this fine plaster or gesso.
It is open to question whether red granite wa3 not
covered with gesso and coloured. In the case of the
temple now under consideration, while the masonry
in most parts was so richly adorned with sculpture,
the blocks forming the two granite doorways are
perfectly plain. A sketch (fig. 4, pi. CLXXL) is given
to show the recesses sunk in the ends of the lintels
of the granite doorway, by means of which, no doubt,
the blocks were raised to their proper positions. The
preparation made to receive a column really consisted
in laying, in the place where it was to stand, thicker
pavement stones than elsewhere, the extra thickness
being cut away down to pavement level as the work
was being finished.
It may bo observed that larger stones were made
use of for the walling of the upper court than else-
where. Very frequently the lowest three or four
courses of the walls are of stones larger than those
above, the upper courses being indeed quite small,
although upon them rested the weight of heavy
ceiling slabs and architraves.
In consequence of the Avay in which the temple is
planned, in terraces, there are many places in which
the walls have had to hold back considerable masses of
filling in. The south side of the middle terrace is the
most prominent example of this. The west walls of
the north and south lower colonnades had a similar
duty to perform.
So far as the ruined wall permits us to see, the
builders have first raised behind the line of the in-
tended facing wall an inner wall of roughly squared
stones, and of considerable thickness. These roughly
constructed walls held back the filling in behind them,
and were probably built up at the same rate as the
filling in was deposited. Afterwards the facing wall
which was to bear the sculptures was built.
The retaining walls of the sloped causeway, which
leads from the lowest to the middle court, are built
without any foundations at all. The very indifferent
masonry is placed on the surface of the court, and is
laid in sloping courses such as are seen over the north
colonnade. The retaining walls of the sloped cause-
way from the middle to the upper court stand on
blocks of stone, which form a sort of bench.
It would weary the reader to go into further detail
with technical descriptions of masonry, methods of
building, &c, which could bo carried on much farther
than I have ventured to do. A rough sketch of its
growth may not, however, be without interest. The
■■■'
v**