DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18130#0027
THE LATER TEMPLES.
13
original form of a building, and the position of
its inscriptions. I therefore planned the posi-
tion of all of the pieces of architraves, and
noted how their inscriptions would fit together.
But unhappily there was no record of the
positions of the most important pieces, the
great columns of granite, which had been all
removed by Dr. Naville, excepting one capital.
He recorded no plans or measurements, except-
ing that the length of the portico was "more
than sixty feet" (actually 60 ft., and 3 to 5
inches), the depth of the portico " twenty-five
feet" (actually 20 ft. and 8 to 10 inches), the
height of the columns " more than seventeen
feet," and the bases in the hall " over four
feet" in diameter. Fortunately the Rev. W.
MacGregor had taken three large photographs,
published in Almas; and on making a detailed
geometrical study of these upon the plan of
existing stones, it was possible to fix to within
two or three inches the positions and sizes of
all the blocks which had been removed (see
pi. viii). Unexpected difficulties appeared in
doing this. The lens which had been used had
a very distorted field, of the kind so familiar
in country photographs, where the side columns
of a church appear bowing outwards in the
middle ; and instead of the surface of equal
projection being a plane, it was a parabolic
curve distant about 10 inches from the centre of
sight at the edges and 11 inches in the middle.
Moreover, the focus had been changed between
the views. The results, therefore, were some-
what complicated in their reduction, and not as
accurate as a plan directly made from the ruins
as discovered ; but this plan is the best that
can now be done for the subject.
As we have noticed in the last chapter, the
requirements of the inscription on the archi-
trave compel us to suppose other columns to
have existed in this gap. And when those
columns are inserted, the required architrave
would be the same as the great architrave of
the Xllth Dynasty ; this, again, seems to be
probably identical Avith the architrave left in
the Coptic church, which has been split from
end to end, and the inscription removed.
The positions of the columns were estimated
from the flat surface dressed for them on the
bases. But as the granite had been weathered
out somewhat under the columns the flat area
was diminished ; and therefore something must
be added to each area to bring it up to the
known size of the columns, 29 inches diameter,
this weathering being credited to either side,
whichever is the more erratic in position.
Axis. Column. Column. Column. Column. Wall.
East . 0 Lost 142-171 218-247 294-323 3G3
West . 0 Lost 142-171 218-247 295-324 363
Thus there is no certain error larger than
1 inch.
The distance of the columns from the facade
was similarly treated, and the column sides are
191 and 220 at the two outermost on each side,
190 and 219 at the two nearest the middle. So
the average distance of the centres from the
facade was 205 inches, or 10 cubits.
In view of the varying levels of the bases it
is desirable to see if they were so arranged to
suit different lengths of columns. Here the
difficulty arose that the columns had been
distributed over the world without any
measurements having been taken. But, by the
courtesy of the curators now in charge of each,
I have recovered the dimensions; and I can
identify the columns by comparing the photo-
I graphs in Alums with various statements.
23. On tabulating all the dimensions we
have the following list, including the similar
but larger column from Bubastis in the British
Museum, and the same reduced in proportion
of 5*6 to agree to the scale of the Eleracleopolis
columns.
13
original form of a building, and the position of
its inscriptions. I therefore planned the posi-
tion of all of the pieces of architraves, and
noted how their inscriptions would fit together.
But unhappily there was no record of the
positions of the most important pieces, the
great columns of granite, which had been all
removed by Dr. Naville, excepting one capital.
He recorded no plans or measurements, except-
ing that the length of the portico was "more
than sixty feet" (actually 60 ft., and 3 to 5
inches), the depth of the portico " twenty-five
feet" (actually 20 ft. and 8 to 10 inches), the
height of the columns " more than seventeen
feet," and the bases in the hall " over four
feet" in diameter. Fortunately the Rev. W.
MacGregor had taken three large photographs,
published in Almas; and on making a detailed
geometrical study of these upon the plan of
existing stones, it was possible to fix to within
two or three inches the positions and sizes of
all the blocks which had been removed (see
pi. viii). Unexpected difficulties appeared in
doing this. The lens which had been used had
a very distorted field, of the kind so familiar
in country photographs, where the side columns
of a church appear bowing outwards in the
middle ; and instead of the surface of equal
projection being a plane, it was a parabolic
curve distant about 10 inches from the centre of
sight at the edges and 11 inches in the middle.
Moreover, the focus had been changed between
the views. The results, therefore, were some-
what complicated in their reduction, and not as
accurate as a plan directly made from the ruins
as discovered ; but this plan is the best that
can now be done for the subject.
As we have noticed in the last chapter, the
requirements of the inscription on the archi-
trave compel us to suppose other columns to
have existed in this gap. And when those
columns are inserted, the required architrave
would be the same as the great architrave of
the Xllth Dynasty ; this, again, seems to be
probably identical Avith the architrave left in
the Coptic church, which has been split from
end to end, and the inscription removed.
The positions of the columns were estimated
from the flat surface dressed for them on the
bases. But as the granite had been weathered
out somewhat under the columns the flat area
was diminished ; and therefore something must
be added to each area to bring it up to the
known size of the columns, 29 inches diameter,
this weathering being credited to either side,
whichever is the more erratic in position.
Axis. Column. Column. Column. Column. Wall.
East . 0 Lost 142-171 218-247 294-323 3G3
West . 0 Lost 142-171 218-247 295-324 363
Thus there is no certain error larger than
1 inch.
The distance of the columns from the facade
was similarly treated, and the column sides are
191 and 220 at the two outermost on each side,
190 and 219 at the two nearest the middle. So
the average distance of the centres from the
facade was 205 inches, or 10 cubits.
In view of the varying levels of the bases it
is desirable to see if they were so arranged to
suit different lengths of columns. Here the
difficulty arose that the columns had been
distributed over the world without any
measurements having been taken. But, by the
courtesy of the curators now in charge of each,
I have recovered the dimensions; and I can
identify the columns by comparing the photo-
I graphs in Alums with various statements.
23. On tabulating all the dimensions we
have the following list, including the similar
but larger column from Bubastis in the British
Museum, and the same reduced in proportion
of 5*6 to agree to the scale of the Eleracleopolis
columns.