DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3721#0021
[14]
which precedes the one, also precedes the other. We know
that all (I may say all) the Egyptian monuments were
sculptured, and finished after their erection; (1) this is not
confined to the walls, or the propyla of the temples, but
extends to the columns, and also to the obelisks. The
hieroglyphics in the lateral lines of some of these last, were
added long after those of the centre; yet it does not ap-
pear to have been the case, in those I now refer to; nor
are there any grounds for supposing, that the sculptures of
the centre lines were left uncompleted, and being found in
that state by a later king, were finished by him, at the time
he added those of the sides. I shall, for the present, me-
rely refer the reader to the tablets of Abydus, and Thebes,
and to those before mentioned, in which the prenomen i
No. 2 (2) (and not No. 1) is given as the son of g, who is
(1) This will also apply to the pyramids, which, according to Herodo-
tus, were finished from the top to the bottom ; that is, beginning with the
upper part. The meaning of the word <»rr.'H.v , though so very simple,
never struck me till I saw the false pyramid; here some of the stones of the
centre tier (for the construction is different from that of the pyramids of
Geezeh) are left with their original rough projecting form, while others are
smoothed off; by which means the shape, and face of the pyramid becomes
made out. Having built the pyramids in form of steps, they cut away the
projecting angles, and smoothed the face of them to a flat inclined surface, as
they descended; the step immediately below serving as a resting place, or
scaffolding, on which the men worked; so that, in fact, the pyramids have no
casing, any more than the pyramidal towers of the propyla, or the walls of the
temples, which were finished, or " made out" in the same manner.
(2) Monsr Cbampollion, perhaps for some reason, makes of these, two
kings, the one a predecessor, the other a successor of Remeses III. There is one
mode, and one only, of reconciling this point, they may have been brothers
yet this is very improbable. But what grounds there can be for placing 6c-
iwetn these two names, that of another monarch, I cannot imagine.
which precedes the one, also precedes the other. We know
that all (I may say all) the Egyptian monuments were
sculptured, and finished after their erection; (1) this is not
confined to the walls, or the propyla of the temples, but
extends to the columns, and also to the obelisks. The
hieroglyphics in the lateral lines of some of these last, were
added long after those of the centre; yet it does not ap-
pear to have been the case, in those I now refer to; nor
are there any grounds for supposing, that the sculptures of
the centre lines were left uncompleted, and being found in
that state by a later king, were finished by him, at the time
he added those of the sides. I shall, for the present, me-
rely refer the reader to the tablets of Abydus, and Thebes,
and to those before mentioned, in which the prenomen i
No. 2 (2) (and not No. 1) is given as the son of g, who is
(1) This will also apply to the pyramids, which, according to Herodo-
tus, were finished from the top to the bottom ; that is, beginning with the
upper part. The meaning of the word <»rr.'H.v , though so very simple,
never struck me till I saw the false pyramid; here some of the stones of the
centre tier (for the construction is different from that of the pyramids of
Geezeh) are left with their original rough projecting form, while others are
smoothed off; by which means the shape, and face of the pyramid becomes
made out. Having built the pyramids in form of steps, they cut away the
projecting angles, and smoothed the face of them to a flat inclined surface, as
they descended; the step immediately below serving as a resting place, or
scaffolding, on which the men worked; so that, in fact, the pyramids have no
casing, any more than the pyramidal towers of the propyla, or the walls of the
temples, which were finished, or " made out" in the same manner.
(2) Monsr Cbampollion, perhaps for some reason, makes of these, two
kings, the one a predecessor, the other a successor of Remeses III. There is one
mode, and one only, of reconciling this point, they may have been brothers
yet this is very improbable. But what grounds there can be for placing 6c-
iwetn these two names, that of another monarch, I cannot imagine.