DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18130#0026
12
EHNASYA.
CHAPTER V.
THE LATER TEMPLES. Pl. VII.
20. That there were two periods of rebuilding
after Ramesside times is proved by the condition
of the colonnade before the facade. To the first
rebuilding belong the granite bases of the
columns Avith levels varying on the tops from
214 to 220 inches ; and as these bases were
shapeless below the top level, it is clear that
they were not visible to any prominent amount
above the pavement. This level corresponds
with the pavement in the hypostyle hall at
215 level, and the tops of the column base-
ments there at 213 to 217 level.
The last period of reconstruction is shown by
the addition of white quartzite drums beneath
the red granite columns, thus raising the
column foot to 236 or 237 inches. And that a
pavement was inserted at this level is shown by
portions of mortar still in the Ramesside hiero-
glyphs of the facade, on the west side, and
on the front, reaching up to 237 level; these
traces prove that masonry was built against it,
hiding the hieroglyphs up to that level. This
agrees to the eastern temenos wall being cut
down to 231 level; and a new line of wall,
running skew, being founded at 234 level.
It is not, however, possible to distinguish
any difference of plan between these two re-
buildings, as all the walls of the last rebuilding
have been removed, except some of the back
wall and facade which it had in common with
the earlier buildings. We cannot even say
that the first post-Ramesside temple was ruined;
it may have lasted on in great part, and the
only change may have been the raising of the
pavement. But as the 215 pavement was then
high above water level, it is not probable that
the paving would have been raised, and the
granite columns lifted on to fresh drums, unless
there had been need of large reconstructions.
21. Of the dates of these two later building
levels there is no direct evidence. That they
were post-Ramesside is certain, as the sculp-
tures of Ramessu II were used up in re-
building the back wall, and in laying the
eastern pavement outside of the temple. The
only later kings whom we find named here are
Pef-dudu-bast, of the XXIIIrd Dynasty, and
Xekht-hor-heb of the XXXth Dynasty. There
is also a probability, from a loose fragment
found in the town, that the decoration of the
temple Avent on as late as Antoninus, see
pl. xxviii.
As Ave cannot separate the plans of the post-
Ramesside buildings, and it seems A^ery likely
that they Avere on the same lines, Ave here give
only one plan (pl. vii), and the folloAving
account of it, for these later temples.
The peristyle court and bases of colossi are
not included in this plan, as they Avere pro-
bably ruined, and there is no evidence that they
Avere rebuilt.
22. The Portico at the back of the court is
an interesting study. The positions of the fallen
blocks are always of importance in settling the
EHNASYA.
CHAPTER V.
THE LATER TEMPLES. Pl. VII.
20. That there were two periods of rebuilding
after Ramesside times is proved by the condition
of the colonnade before the facade. To the first
rebuilding belong the granite bases of the
columns Avith levels varying on the tops from
214 to 220 inches ; and as these bases were
shapeless below the top level, it is clear that
they were not visible to any prominent amount
above the pavement. This level corresponds
with the pavement in the hypostyle hall at
215 level, and the tops of the column base-
ments there at 213 to 217 level.
The last period of reconstruction is shown by
the addition of white quartzite drums beneath
the red granite columns, thus raising the
column foot to 236 or 237 inches. And that a
pavement was inserted at this level is shown by
portions of mortar still in the Ramesside hiero-
glyphs of the facade, on the west side, and
on the front, reaching up to 237 level; these
traces prove that masonry was built against it,
hiding the hieroglyphs up to that level. This
agrees to the eastern temenos wall being cut
down to 231 level; and a new line of wall,
running skew, being founded at 234 level.
It is not, however, possible to distinguish
any difference of plan between these two re-
buildings, as all the walls of the last rebuilding
have been removed, except some of the back
wall and facade which it had in common with
the earlier buildings. We cannot even say
that the first post-Ramesside temple was ruined;
it may have lasted on in great part, and the
only change may have been the raising of the
pavement. But as the 215 pavement was then
high above water level, it is not probable that
the paving would have been raised, and the
granite columns lifted on to fresh drums, unless
there had been need of large reconstructions.
21. Of the dates of these two later building
levels there is no direct evidence. That they
were post-Ramesside is certain, as the sculp-
tures of Ramessu II were used up in re-
building the back wall, and in laying the
eastern pavement outside of the temple. The
only later kings whom we find named here are
Pef-dudu-bast, of the XXIIIrd Dynasty, and
Xekht-hor-heb of the XXXth Dynasty. There
is also a probability, from a loose fragment
found in the town, that the decoration of the
temple Avent on as late as Antoninus, see
pl. xxviii.
As Ave cannot separate the plans of the post-
Ramesside buildings, and it seems A^ery likely
that they Avere on the same lines, Ave here give
only one plan (pl. vii), and the folloAving
account of it, for these later temples.
The peristyle court and bases of colossi are
not included in this plan, as they Avere pro-
bably ruined, and there is no evidence that they
Avere rebuilt.
22. The Portico at the back of the court is
an interesting study. The positions of the fallen
blocks are always of importance in settling the