DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.410#0020
10
TANIS.
these are all small obelisks, under twenty feet,
while there are many other obelisks here all in
one piece of forty to fifty feet in length. The
explanation seems to be that these are old
obelisks, like that of Prince Nehesi, and with
designs like the old obelisk (inscrip. 13); and
that these, having been damaged, and the points
broken, were re-cut by Eamessu II.; adding a
new point dovetailed on, rather than cut the
whole end down ; and curving the pyramidal face
in order to swallow some of the side, and so
make a triangle large enough for the Ramesside
scenes of offerings, which took up more room
than the older designs.
Amongst the chaos of blocks in the sanctuary
are two very remarkable pieces, apparently parts
of two false doors of red granite. The larger
door (Plan, 180; inscr. 22) has just a fragment
of the edge of the inscription on its centre panel
remaining, and from the style of the work and
the separation of the pet and tam, it would seem
more likely to belong to the twelfth than to any
later dynasty. But the other fragment (Plan, 183;
inscr. 23) is more important. It is part of a
regular sepulchral false door, and therefore sug-
gests that it belonged to a royal tomb at San ;
if so, some early kings buried at San have been
disinterred, and their sepulchres destroyed. On
the defaced drum can be seen traces of the upper
and under lines of a cartouche, and two t's, which
probably belonged to the regular royal title.
Another fragment (Plan, 152; inscr. 24) of the
end of an early inscription (the block of which
was reversed and used by Ramessu II.) seems as
if it had belonged to a very large scene enclosed
in the pet and tam.
15. A pair of sphinxes may be here described,
the original age of which is somewhat uncertain.
One is now in the Louvre, the central object in
the gallery, at the end next to the staircase; and
the other is in the garden of the Bulak Museum,
with a plaster imitation facing it. These sphinxes
have the hair dressed in quite a different way to
that on the great pair of sphinxes of the twelfth,
or the smaller sphinxes of the Hyksos dynasty.
Instead of a close mass of short locks, it is repre-
sented by parallel lines, running in curves, like
the sea-shading round the coast in maps; and
there is a long pointed and curved lap of hair
on the shoulders. These are certainly older than
Ramessu II., since his name is over an erasure;
and De Rouge compares the style of that in the
Louvre to the statue-of Sebakhotep III. , They
are very different from the larger sphinxes, both
originally, and in their later history; and the
pointed lock of hair is like that on a sphinx
which I discovered last year at Tell Khatanah.
It is, however, remarkable that there is no Hyksos
inscription erased from the shoulder, no Hyksos
inscription on the base, and the chest inscription
(which is erased) has not had a large hawk over it,
as on the great sphinx. Ramessu II. appropriated
these sphinxes by cutting his names over the erasure
on the chest (25 c), but the erasure is not deep, and
hence the original inscription must have been but
lightly cut. He also put his names and a long
inscription around the base (25 a, 25 b), in which
he is said to be " like his father Ptah," and
" beloved of Set." Afterwards Merenptah placed
his names on the right shoulder (25 d). These
inscriptions are from the Louvre sphinx. This
closes the pre-Hyksos monuments known to belong
to San.
16. The monuments of the Hyksos are among
the most curious in Egypt ; and it is to San
that we owe the greater number of those brought
to light. They are all distinguished by an entirely
different type of face to any that can be found on
other Egyptian monuments, a type which cannot
be attributed to any other known period; and it
is therefore all the more certain that they belong
to the foreign race whose names they bear.
Another peculiarity is that they are without ex-
ception executed in black or dark grey granite;
no monument of this type is known in other
material. Such cannot be said of any other
epoch, and this alone may serve as a useful test
of the originality of any supposed Hyksos monu-
TANIS.
these are all small obelisks, under twenty feet,
while there are many other obelisks here all in
one piece of forty to fifty feet in length. The
explanation seems to be that these are old
obelisks, like that of Prince Nehesi, and with
designs like the old obelisk (inscrip. 13); and
that these, having been damaged, and the points
broken, were re-cut by Eamessu II.; adding a
new point dovetailed on, rather than cut the
whole end down ; and curving the pyramidal face
in order to swallow some of the side, and so
make a triangle large enough for the Ramesside
scenes of offerings, which took up more room
than the older designs.
Amongst the chaos of blocks in the sanctuary
are two very remarkable pieces, apparently parts
of two false doors of red granite. The larger
door (Plan, 180; inscr. 22) has just a fragment
of the edge of the inscription on its centre panel
remaining, and from the style of the work and
the separation of the pet and tam, it would seem
more likely to belong to the twelfth than to any
later dynasty. But the other fragment (Plan, 183;
inscr. 23) is more important. It is part of a
regular sepulchral false door, and therefore sug-
gests that it belonged to a royal tomb at San ;
if so, some early kings buried at San have been
disinterred, and their sepulchres destroyed. On
the defaced drum can be seen traces of the upper
and under lines of a cartouche, and two t's, which
probably belonged to the regular royal title.
Another fragment (Plan, 152; inscr. 24) of the
end of an early inscription (the block of which
was reversed and used by Ramessu II.) seems as
if it had belonged to a very large scene enclosed
in the pet and tam.
15. A pair of sphinxes may be here described,
the original age of which is somewhat uncertain.
One is now in the Louvre, the central object in
the gallery, at the end next to the staircase; and
the other is in the garden of the Bulak Museum,
with a plaster imitation facing it. These sphinxes
have the hair dressed in quite a different way to
that on the great pair of sphinxes of the twelfth,
or the smaller sphinxes of the Hyksos dynasty.
Instead of a close mass of short locks, it is repre-
sented by parallel lines, running in curves, like
the sea-shading round the coast in maps; and
there is a long pointed and curved lap of hair
on the shoulders. These are certainly older than
Ramessu II., since his name is over an erasure;
and De Rouge compares the style of that in the
Louvre to the statue-of Sebakhotep III. , They
are very different from the larger sphinxes, both
originally, and in their later history; and the
pointed lock of hair is like that on a sphinx
which I discovered last year at Tell Khatanah.
It is, however, remarkable that there is no Hyksos
inscription erased from the shoulder, no Hyksos
inscription on the base, and the chest inscription
(which is erased) has not had a large hawk over it,
as on the great sphinx. Ramessu II. appropriated
these sphinxes by cutting his names over the erasure
on the chest (25 c), but the erasure is not deep, and
hence the original inscription must have been but
lightly cut. He also put his names and a long
inscription around the base (25 a, 25 b), in which
he is said to be " like his father Ptah," and
" beloved of Set." Afterwards Merenptah placed
his names on the right shoulder (25 d). These
inscriptions are from the Louvre sphinx. This
closes the pre-Hyksos monuments known to belong
to San.
16. The monuments of the Hyksos are among
the most curious in Egypt ; and it is to San
that we owe the greater number of those brought
to light. They are all distinguished by an entirely
different type of face to any that can be found on
other Egyptian monuments, a type which cannot
be attributed to any other known period; and it
is therefore all the more certain that they belong
to the foreign race whose names they bear.
Another peculiarity is that they are without ex-
ception executed in black or dark grey granite;
no monument of this type is known in other
material. Such cannot be said of any other
epoch, and this alone may serve as a useful test
of the originality of any supposed Hyksos monu-