CHAP. II.—TEMPLES.
15
was inscribed or not. The types of the pottery
vessels plainly show them to be ceremonial
imitations of various vessels of larger size and
sometimes of different material. They may,
therefore, be the cheap substitutes for more
valuable vessels which were deposited in earlier
times under temples, either as the vessels
consecrated by having been used in the ceremony
of the foundation, and therefore not to be used
again for other purposes, or else as models of
what were to be used in the temple. The view
of consecrated articles buried to prevent their
re-use seems the more likely; and it would
explain the models of tools found at Naukratis
and Gemeyemi as not the models of what would be
used in the building, but as representing the tools
which would otherwise have been forfeit to the
gods as having been already used in the foundation
ceremony ;—much as if the silver trowel used at
a modern masonic ceremony should be left in the
mortar beneath the stone, or a cheaper substitute
for it. The vessels Nos. 12 and 13 are evidently
copied from the bronze situla with a swinging
handle; Nos. 18 and 19, again, look as if modelled
from metal prototypes; Nos. 24, 25, and 33 may
well be imitations of stone vessels; and Nos. 11,
15, 29 and 35 are clear copies of the larger
pottery vessels of the twenty-sixth dynasty, such
as I found at Defenneh (see pi. xxxiii. 4, xxxiv.
19, 21).
The full catalogue of all that was found in
these deposits is as follows, referring to the
numbers on pi. v. :__
Potteey.
S.B.
S.w.
N.W.
,10
Green glaze
1
5
1
5
Gold ....
1
2
1
6
2
2
7
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
Lapis lazuli
1
1
1
3
Cornelian . .
4
4
3
8
Limestone, brown
1
1
8a '
,, mottle
1 . 1 '
1
1
9
„ ? green
3
4
2
9a
Felspar, green. .
Bitumen . . .
•
2
1
12 variei
ies 15
21
17
16}
32;
11
12
13
14
15
16
32
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28'
29
30 ■)
81 J
32 (see
33
34
35
S.B.
3
2
1
2
s.w.
2
1
1
1
6
16)
N.W. W. Central.
1 15
1
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
6
Total.
+ (1) 22
5
1
4
1
19
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
5
1
1
2
(1) 19
4
2
3
Totals 23 24 25 31 (2) 95
The two numbers in parentheses had lost their
marks when I catalogued them in London; 16
and 32 are the extremes of a very common, but
variable family of saucers; 30 and 31 are two
forms of one other type; the numbers in each
deposit seem to have been intended to be roughly
equal. Very probably there may be another
deposit, on the east side, matching that found on
the west of the middle; but as the west central
had no plaques, and a sufficient amount of pottery
had been secured, I thought better to leave that
alone for antiquaries of future ages.
15. The one other monument in the temenos
which now remains to be noticed is the altar
found outside the small temple, behind the shrine.
This altar may have been originally in the
temple, and have been rolled out; but as it was
found outside, and lying just behind the shrine,
and yet duly oriented, it seems more likely to
have been placed by Aahmes at the back of the
small temple. It was originally a work of
Amenemhat II., carved with the usual low relief,
15
was inscribed or not. The types of the pottery
vessels plainly show them to be ceremonial
imitations of various vessels of larger size and
sometimes of different material. They may,
therefore, be the cheap substitutes for more
valuable vessels which were deposited in earlier
times under temples, either as the vessels
consecrated by having been used in the ceremony
of the foundation, and therefore not to be used
again for other purposes, or else as models of
what were to be used in the temple. The view
of consecrated articles buried to prevent their
re-use seems the more likely; and it would
explain the models of tools found at Naukratis
and Gemeyemi as not the models of what would be
used in the building, but as representing the tools
which would otherwise have been forfeit to the
gods as having been already used in the foundation
ceremony ;—much as if the silver trowel used at
a modern masonic ceremony should be left in the
mortar beneath the stone, or a cheaper substitute
for it. The vessels Nos. 12 and 13 are evidently
copied from the bronze situla with a swinging
handle; Nos. 18 and 19, again, look as if modelled
from metal prototypes; Nos. 24, 25, and 33 may
well be imitations of stone vessels; and Nos. 11,
15, 29 and 35 are clear copies of the larger
pottery vessels of the twenty-sixth dynasty, such
as I found at Defenneh (see pi. xxxiii. 4, xxxiv.
19, 21).
The full catalogue of all that was found in
these deposits is as follows, referring to the
numbers on pi. v. :__
Potteey.
S.B.
S.w.
N.W.
,10
Green glaze
1
5
1
5
Gold ....
1
2
1
6
2
2
7
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
Lapis lazuli
1
1
1
3
Cornelian . .
4
4
3
8
Limestone, brown
1
1
8a '
,, mottle
1 . 1 '
1
1
9
„ ? green
3
4
2
9a
Felspar, green. .
Bitumen . . .
•
2
1
12 variei
ies 15
21
17
16}
32;
11
12
13
14
15
16
32
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28'
29
30 ■)
81 J
32 (see
33
34
35
S.B.
3
2
1
2
s.w.
2
1
1
1
6
16)
N.W. W. Central.
1 15
1
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
6
Total.
+ (1) 22
5
1
4
1
19
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
5
1
1
2
(1) 19
4
2
3
Totals 23 24 25 31 (2) 95
The two numbers in parentheses had lost their
marks when I catalogued them in London; 16
and 32 are the extremes of a very common, but
variable family of saucers; 30 and 31 are two
forms of one other type; the numbers in each
deposit seem to have been intended to be roughly
equal. Very probably there may be another
deposit, on the east side, matching that found on
the west of the middle; but as the west central
had no plaques, and a sufficient amount of pottery
had been secured, I thought better to leave that
alone for antiquaries of future ages.
15. The one other monument in the temenos
which now remains to be noticed is the altar
found outside the small temple, behind the shrine.
This altar may have been originally in the
temple, and have been rolled out; but as it was
found outside, and lying just behind the shrine,
and yet duly oriented, it seems more likely to
have been placed by Aahmes at the back of the
small temple. It was originally a work of
Amenemhat II., carved with the usual low relief,