DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3388#0018
THE APPROACH
(3) It was filled up with the refuse from the
digging of the foundations of the inner
parts of the pyramid, probably the fifth
coat of the mastaba next against the outer-
most groove, and with the refuse of the
stonemasons' work in building the outer
coats of the pyramid.
(4) This approach was superseded by another,
leading not to the ka chamber, but to the
temple against the centre of the pyramid.
The only hypothesis which seems to fit these
premisses is that the first approach was made for the
building of the original mastaba, from which the
pyramid grew (Petrie, Medum, pp. 5, 10). When
the king determined to enlarge it into a pyramid,
surrounded by an enclosure, the old approach leading
up to the south part of the face would be unsightly,
and it was necessary to build a new causeway leading
up to a temple against the middle of the face, which
being done the old approach became nothing but an
eyesore, to be done away with as quickly as possible.
Hence they began at once to fill it up with the
material they obtained from the foundations of the
first parts of the new work.
This change of design appears to have taken
place after the building of the fourth of the eight
mastaba faces, that with the outermost groove
{Medum, pi. ii). For such evidence as we have goes
to prove that the idea of an enlarged mastaba, bear-
ing the usual indications of the ka chamber in the
form of a groove on its outside, lasted as late as the
building of this fourth face, during all of which time
the old approach would be suitable. Then we find
the old approach filled up by rubbish which, as far
as our evidence goes, came from the next work
which was undertaken on the structure.
This can only mean that under the new scheme
the old approach had become useless, and was re-
placed by the new causeway, which was part and
parcel of the new arrangement.
Thus we see that the covering over of the whole
cumulative mastaba with one uniform coat at the
pyramid angle of 52° was a later idea, though perhaps
conceived long before the end of the work. For this
reason alone the pyramid coating could not be the
work of Khufu, as has been suggested. As Sneferu
reigned 26 )'ears there would be plenty of time for
him to complete his pyramid ; and the casing being
dated in a seventeenth year shews that it was unlikely
to have been completed in a subsequent reign.
The style of the temple being so solid, small, and
plain is unlike anything of later date. The solidity
and plainness are akin to the granite temple of Gizeh
while the rounded edges of the roof and top of the
walls recall the rounded corners in mastaba No. 17,
which, as we shall shew, is contemporary with the
building of the pyramid. Also the stones at the
corners of the walls generally run a few inches
round the angle, as in the granite temple and in
mastaba No. 17.
Hence from :—
(1) The change of design taking place during the
building, not afterwards ;
(2) The date at which the casing was put on ;
and
(3) The style,
it seems impossible to doubt but that the smooth
coat is contemporary with the rest of the building,
and is also due to Sneferu.
17. The long wall above mentioned, along the
edge of the cultivation (see pi. ii), abutted on to the
south buttress of the later causeway, and runs south
from it. It is built of crude brick and is 65 to 75
inches wide. It was apparently a boundary wall,
perhaps of the cemetery, for we traced it for a long
distance without finding any corner or other wall
branching off from it. Nor were there any relics
of any sort accumulated against it, not even potsherds.
It runs right across the east end of the earlier ap-
proach to the pyramid.
Running east from this south buttress of the later
causeway, and in the same plane as its inner side, was
a small wall of crude brick, which after 33 feet was
broken away and lost. At this point was a cross wall
running north and south, and in this corner was a
foundation deposit of old kingdom pottery. In this
building we also found another foundation deposit of
similar pottery, and a broken quartzite corn-grinder.
All the pottery of both deposits was broken, but
enough remained in each case to give the outlines
(pi. xxv).
Unfortunately this building was all lying at so
low a level, that we had to drain the ground, and
wait for the end of the season, when the water was
low, before we could examine it. It was then too
late to clear away all the great depth of sand which
lay to the south of this. Such work might have re-
vealed more walls, and have given foundation deposits,
by which we could have planned the temple. But at
present it seems as if there had been, on the south
side of the causeway, a small chapel, on a scale similar
to that of the temple within the temenos.
■
feJUL**^
(3) It was filled up with the refuse from the
digging of the foundations of the inner
parts of the pyramid, probably the fifth
coat of the mastaba next against the outer-
most groove, and with the refuse of the
stonemasons' work in building the outer
coats of the pyramid.
(4) This approach was superseded by another,
leading not to the ka chamber, but to the
temple against the centre of the pyramid.
The only hypothesis which seems to fit these
premisses is that the first approach was made for the
building of the original mastaba, from which the
pyramid grew (Petrie, Medum, pp. 5, 10). When
the king determined to enlarge it into a pyramid,
surrounded by an enclosure, the old approach leading
up to the south part of the face would be unsightly,
and it was necessary to build a new causeway leading
up to a temple against the middle of the face, which
being done the old approach became nothing but an
eyesore, to be done away with as quickly as possible.
Hence they began at once to fill it up with the
material they obtained from the foundations of the
first parts of the new work.
This change of design appears to have taken
place after the building of the fourth of the eight
mastaba faces, that with the outermost groove
{Medum, pi. ii). For such evidence as we have goes
to prove that the idea of an enlarged mastaba, bear-
ing the usual indications of the ka chamber in the
form of a groove on its outside, lasted as late as the
building of this fourth face, during all of which time
the old approach would be suitable. Then we find
the old approach filled up by rubbish which, as far
as our evidence goes, came from the next work
which was undertaken on the structure.
This can only mean that under the new scheme
the old approach had become useless, and was re-
placed by the new causeway, which was part and
parcel of the new arrangement.
Thus we see that the covering over of the whole
cumulative mastaba with one uniform coat at the
pyramid angle of 52° was a later idea, though perhaps
conceived long before the end of the work. For this
reason alone the pyramid coating could not be the
work of Khufu, as has been suggested. As Sneferu
reigned 26 )'ears there would be plenty of time for
him to complete his pyramid ; and the casing being
dated in a seventeenth year shews that it was unlikely
to have been completed in a subsequent reign.
The style of the temple being so solid, small, and
plain is unlike anything of later date. The solidity
and plainness are akin to the granite temple of Gizeh
while the rounded edges of the roof and top of the
walls recall the rounded corners in mastaba No. 17,
which, as we shall shew, is contemporary with the
building of the pyramid. Also the stones at the
corners of the walls generally run a few inches
round the angle, as in the granite temple and in
mastaba No. 17.
Hence from :—
(1) The change of design taking place during the
building, not afterwards ;
(2) The date at which the casing was put on ;
and
(3) The style,
it seems impossible to doubt but that the smooth
coat is contemporary with the rest of the building,
and is also due to Sneferu.
17. The long wall above mentioned, along the
edge of the cultivation (see pi. ii), abutted on to the
south buttress of the later causeway, and runs south
from it. It is built of crude brick and is 65 to 75
inches wide. It was apparently a boundary wall,
perhaps of the cemetery, for we traced it for a long
distance without finding any corner or other wall
branching off from it. Nor were there any relics
of any sort accumulated against it, not even potsherds.
It runs right across the east end of the earlier ap-
proach to the pyramid.
Running east from this south buttress of the later
causeway, and in the same plane as its inner side, was
a small wall of crude brick, which after 33 feet was
broken away and lost. At this point was a cross wall
running north and south, and in this corner was a
foundation deposit of old kingdom pottery. In this
building we also found another foundation deposit of
similar pottery, and a broken quartzite corn-grinder.
All the pottery of both deposits was broken, but
enough remained in each case to give the outlines
(pi. xxv).
Unfortunately this building was all lying at so
low a level, that we had to drain the ground, and
wait for the end of the season, when the water was
low, before we could examine it. It was then too
late to clear away all the great depth of sand which
lay to the south of this. Such work might have re-
vealed more walls, and have given foundation deposits,
by which we could have planned the temple. But at
present it seems as if there had been, on the south
side of the causeway, a small chapel, on a scale similar
to that of the temple within the temenos.
■
feJUL**^