Dariusz Niedziolka

assume that it was Hatshepsut herself who was re-
sponsible for dismantling a building decorated with
names of Thutmose II, Thutmose III and hers as well,
and reused some blocks taken from this building in
foundations of her obelisks. One should not, moreo-
ver, overlook the evidence provided by the scene of
the dedication of obelisks in the temple at Deir el-
Bahari, which seems to exclude the former possibility.
It seems, however, that there are some factors
supporting the former solution.38 The names and rep-
resentations of Hatshepsut were hammered out on
the whole surface of her eastern obelisks, including
their pyramidia, on which Queen's images were sub-
stituted by representations of offering tables.39 One
should concurrently notice that in the case of
Hatshepsut’s obelisks in the hall between the IVth
and the Vth pylons, on the southern obelisk of the
pair the names of the Queen were erased only to the
height of 3.50 m above the roof of the hall. They
were totally intact in the higher portion of its shaft
and the same concerns the Queen’s images on its
pyramidion, despite the fact that the latter was only
10 m above the roof.40 Moreover, on the northern
obelisk of the pair, hammering out of Hatshepsut's
images and names occurred only on the western and
- die altagyptische Technologie zur Beforderung
schwester Steinlasten, SAK27 (1999), pp. 401 -407.
38 This was already suggested by NIEDZIOLKA, Sektor
wschodni Kamaku w czasach Totmesa III (= The Eastern
Sector ofKamak in the Reign of Thutmose III) unpublished
MA thesis, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University,
Warszawa 1989 (hereinafter referred to as: Sektorwschodni),
pp. 85-88; see also Di. ARNOLD, Die Tempel Agyptens.
Gotterwohnungen, Baudehndler, Kultstdtten, Zurich 1992
(hereinafter referred to as: Tempel Agyptens), p. 119.
39 See Ch. KUENTZ, Obelisques, CGC, Le Caire 1932,
pp. 20-24 and pis. W-IX.
40 LD III, 24; L. BORCHARDT. Zur Baugeschichte des
Amonstempels von Kamak, UGAA 5/1, Leipzig 1905
(hereinafter referred to as: Baugeschichte), p. 25; Urk. IV,
pp. 359-360; B ARGUET, Temple d’Amon-Re, p. 100 foot-
note 3; BJORKMAN, Kings at Kamak, pp. 74-75; MAR-
TIN, Garantsymbol, fig. 15; RATIE, Hatchepsout, p. 306;
DORMAN, Monuments of Senenmut, p. 61 footnote 80;
SELIM, Obelisques I, p. 109, II, pp. 41-42; LABOURY,
Statuaire de Thoutmosis III, p. 48.
41LD m, pis. 22-23; Urk. IV, pp. 357-358; HABACHI, Obelisks,
pp. 61 -63; RATIE, Hatchepsout, p. 304; DORMAN, Monu-
ments of Senenmut, p. 61; SELIM, Obelisques I, pp. 93-97, II,
pp. 23-27; LABOURY, Statuaire de Thoutmosis III, p. 48.
42 This was fust suggested by HABACHI ONES 16 (1957),
p. 99). His hypothesis was based, among others, on com-

southem face of the monolith, and this concerns only
her names in side scenes of the shaft in the fifth and
sixth registers. The central column of the text was
not touched at all, even at the height immediately
above the roof.41 Bearing in mind that the eastern
obelisks were most probably higher than those in
wcidjit,42 the hammering out of images and names of
the Queen, and then replacing Hatshepsut's repre-
sentations with the offering tables, was more difficult
to do than in the case of her western monuments.
Moreover, one should also bear in mind that Thut-
mose El frequently contented himself with hammer-
ing out the names of the Queen, without any attempt
to replace them with Thutmose ITs names or his own,
and with effacement of her images without redeco-
rating a wall even in easily accessible places.43 Thus,
one should assume that in this particular case the ef-
facement of his former coregent from memory was
particularly important for Thutmose HI. Even if the
redecorating of the standing high obelisks was pos-
sible, as the post-Amama restorations of Amon’s im-
ages and names on obelisks well attest,44 it was much
easier to do on the lying monuments.
Problems with maintaining the stability of the east-
ern obelisks during the works on the foundations of
parison of measurable elements of Hatshepsut’s eastern and
western obelisks. For example, the width of the northern
obelisk socle in the eastern pair is ca 3.90 m (as results from
the plan published by VARILLE, ASAE 50 (1950), pi. XLI),
and the northern monolith socle in the western pair is 3.77 m
wide (see M. AZIM el al., Kamak et sa topographie I. Les
releves modemes du temple d’Amon-Re 1967-1984, Paris
1998, 3); the original height of the Cairo pyramidion was
3.92 m (KUENTZ, Obelisques, p. 21 fig. 25), and the
pyramidion of the southern monolith in the western pair is
2.96 m high (R. ENGELB ACH, The Aswan Obelisk, Le Caire
1922 (hereinafter referred to as: Aswan Obelisk), p. 9); the
base of tire former pyramidion is 1.805-1.83 m wide (KUENTZ,
Obelisques, p. 21 fig. 25), and the width of the base of the
latter is 1.78 m (ENGELB ACH, Aswd/7 Obelisk, p. 9). Subse-
quently, many scholars, e.g. MARTIN (Garantsymbol,
p. 149),GOLVTN (Les Dossiers d’Archeologie 187 (1993),
p. 40), VANDERSLEYEN (Egypte et la vallee du Nil 2,
pp. 287 and 293 footnote 1), and the present author (Sektor
wschodni, pp. 86 and 101; see also in: Geheimnisvolle
Konigin Hatschepsut, p. 32 and the forthcoming paper in
the Proceedings of the 8'1' ICE), were of the opinion that the
eastern obelisks were higher than the western ones.
43 DORMAN, Monuments of Senenmut, p. 64; see also numer-
ous cases at Deir el-Bahari.
44 See BARGUET, Temple d’Amon-Re, p. 100 footnote 3;
HABACHI, Obelisks, p. 62 pi. 14 - restored figure and

106