Produced by MFR, RichardW, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
THE ASWÂN OBELISK
WITH SOME REMARKS ON THE ANCIENT ENGINEERING
SERVICE DES ANTIQUITÉS DE L’ÉGYPTE
THE ASWÂN OBELISK
WITH SOME REMARKS ON THE ANCIENT ENGINEERING
BY
R. ENGELBACH
CHIEF INSPECTOR, ANTIQUITIES DEPARTMENT
[Illustration]
LE CAIRE
IMPRIMERIE DE L’INSTITUT FRANÇAIS
D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE
1922
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.
1. Preliminary remarks • 1
2. Account of the clearance • 1, 2
CHAPTER I.—DESCRIPTION OF THE OBELISK.
3. General description and dimensions • 3
4. Removal of top layers of rock by burning and wedging • 4, 5
5. Rough-dressing of north wall of north trench • 5
6. Test-shafts • 6
7. Cracks and fissures • 6, 7
8. Rendering the face of the obelisk flat • 7
9. Ancient guide-lines • 8
10. Later scheme for a smaller obelisk • 8
11. Comparison of later scheme with some known obelisks • 9
CHAPTER II.—THE TRENCH.
12. Description • 11
13. Dolerite “pounders” and their use • 12, 13
14. Arrangement of workmen • 13, 14
15. Time taken in making trench • 14, 15
CHAPTER III.—THE UPPER QUARRY-FACE.
16. Description • 17
17. Scales drawn on the rock • 18
18. Discussion on their nature • 18, 19
19. Traces of inscriptions • 20
20. Bed from which an obelisk (?) has been removed • 20, 21
CHAPTER IV.—EXTRACTION OF OBELISK FROM QUARRY.
21. Possible detachment by means of wedges • 23
22. More probably completely undermined • 24
23. Reduction of labour by using levers • 24, 25
24. Sizes of ropes • 25
25. Chisels used in cutting wedge-slots • 25, 26
26. Suggestions by various authors on above subject • 26
27. Probability of tempering copper • 27
CHAPTER V.—TRANSPORT OF OBELISKS.
28. Egyptian accounts of expeditions • 29, 30
29. Other accounts in later times • 30
30. Was the obelisk placed on rollers? • 31
31. Practical considerations • 31, 32
32. Possible use of sleds in conjunction with rollers • 32
33. Direction to be taken towards the Nile • 32
34. Notes on transport-boats • 32, 33
CHAPTER VI.—ERECTION OF OBELISKS.
35. Paucity of ancient accounts • 35, 36
36. Theory of direct raising • 36
37. Theory of lowering off an embankment • 37
38. Probable use of rollers and levers • 37, 38
39. Use of capstans, gyns and blocks and tackles unlikely • 38
40. Obelisk probably lowered into funnel above pedestal • 38–41
41. Practical considerations • 41
42. Calculations of weight and centre of gravity • 42
43. Strains set up when obelisk is supported at its C. G. • 42, 43
CHAPTER VII.—MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS.
44. Pot containing ochre • 45
45. Ostrakon from north trench • 45, 46
46. Greek inscriptions from neighbouring rock-face • 46
47. Need of further clearances • 47
CHAPTER VIII.—BIBLIOGRAPHY.
48–56. Works quoted in volume, and those dealing with removals of
obelisks in modern times • 49–54
LIST OF PLATES
WITH REFERENCES TO DESCRIPTIONS.
PLATE I
1–5.—Plan of obelisk with sections • 3, 6–10, 19
6.—Measuring(?)-lines on rock face • 12
PLATE II
1.—View of obelisk from the east • 3
2.—View of obelisk from the west • 3, 5, 7, 16
PLATE III
1.—Bottom and side of trench • 12, 14
2.—Wedge and chisel marks • 4, 12
3.—Guide lines for a smaller obelisk • 4, 10, 12
4.—Rough chisel-dressing on a half-finished sarcophagus.
“El-Hammâmât”; Shellâl • 12
PLATE IV
1.—Hammer-dressing on the pyramidion • 14
2.—Stone hammer from Saqqârah • 4
3.—Construction of a sarcophagus lid by pounding • 13
4.—Embankment to the east of the obelisk • 33
PLATE V
1.—Obelisk from the north, shewing platform and upper
quarry-face • 4, 16
2.—Upper quarry-face and bed of a small obelisk • 16, 20
3.—Bed of small obelisk from above • 20
4.—Inscription on bed of small obelisk • 20
PLATE VI
1.—Markings on upper quarry-face • 16, 19
2.—Section of above • 16, 19
PLATE VII
Sketch-plan of environs of obelisk • 31, 33
PLATE VIII
Suggested platform for the erection of an obelisk • 40, 41
[Illustration: _PLATE I_
ASWÂN OBELISK
SCALE 1 : 100]
{1}
THE ASWÂN OBELISK
WITH SOME REMARKS ON THE ANCIENT ENGINEERING.
INTRODUCTION.
(1) The unfinished obelisk of Aswân lies in a quarry on the south-east
side of the mediæval Arab cemetery, being about twenty minutes walk
from the Cataract Hotel. It is approached by a small valley leading up
south-eastwards from the track of the old Barrage railway.
Up to the time of the visit of King Fuad—then Sultan—in the winter of
1920–21, only about 22 metres of the obelisk were exposed to view,
the remainder running down into a vast heap of blocks and chips. The
curious trench, made round the obelisk for the purpose of detaching it
from the rock, has long interested visitors, and His Majesty expressed
a desire that the whole obelisk be cleared in order to obtain, if
possible, new data as to ancient methods of quarrying, and to expose a
unique monument.
I wish to tender my thanks to Mr. Somers Clarke for his kindness
in putting his notes on the quarrying of granite at my disposal,
and for reading and criticising my MS. before sending it to press;
to Prof. Flinders Petrie for reading the proofs and giving many
valuable suggestions; to Mr. W. Golénischeff for the references on
the Anastasi papyrus and the Hammâmât inscriptions; to Mr. D. Watt,
Resident Engineer of the Aswân Barrage, for the loan of books on the
properties and working of granite and of surveying instruments from the
Barrage works; to the Geological and Chemical Departments (sections 13
and 44) for their report on specimens submitted to them, and to the
Survey Department for taking much trouble in preparing my plans for
publication.
Mr. A. M. MacGillivray, of Aswân, took the photographs shewn on plate
II and plate V, nos. 1 and 2, and has kindly permitted them to appear
here.
(2) I began the work shortly after the departure of King Fuad, and
soon found that the excavation would be more extensive than I had at
first supposed; the length of the obelisk had reached 36 metres by
April 1921, and the chip-heap, covering the butt end of the obelisk,
began to shew signs of giving way. I had made arrangements, as regards
the angle of the chip-heap, supposing that the obelisk was not larger
than any of the known obelisks. Thirty-six metres was a surprise, so,
as Ramadan was approaching, I abandoned the work for the season and
applied for a further credit to make a complete clearance. This was
done in the winter of 1921–22 by Mahmûd Eff. Mohammad, Inspector of
Edfù, assisted by Mustafa Eff. Hasan, ‘chef de fouilles’ of the same
district. I visited the site from time to time whenever my {2} other
work permitted, but it was not till the end of the tourist season that
I had sufficient time to study the obelisk.
During the removal of the chip-heap, we found some hundreds of large
granite blocks thrown from a quarry above on to the obelisk; these had
to be cut into two, and sometimes into four, before our workmen could
handle them. At first we borrowed men from the Selugia quarries, but
afterwards we employed local stonemasons, who proved more satisfactory,
as they did not all want to be _raises_.
The total cost of the clearance was L. E. 75.
A word of explanation is, perhaps, needed on the system of weights and
measures used in this volume. It has been the custom of my Department
to insist on metric scales in all plans. In the text, however, I enter
somewhat deeply into the stresses and strains set up in the granite,
and since nearly all the English engineering text-books and tables use
the ton-inch units, I have adhered to the English system, reducing
the metric linear measures to inches in my calculations. The _tonne_
and the _kilogramme-per-square-centimetre_ still convey little to the
average English-speaking engineer, who has to have recourse to his
slide-rule before being able to realise the strains set up when they
are given in metric units.
{3}
CHAPTER I.
DESCRIPTION OF THE OBELISK.
(3) The obelisk is 41.75 metres long, lying with its point 18.5 degrees
north of east, and sloping down towards the butt at an angle of 11
degrees, making the base of the pyramidion 7.05 metres above the level
of the butt. When complete, the obelisk would have weighed 1168 tons
English.
It is curious that, during all the years that this obelisk has been
known, those who were interested in the ancient methods of quarrying
have not taken the trouble to clear it. Nearly every work in which it
is mentioned dismisses it in a few sentences. Both Gorringe in his
_Egyptian Obelisks_ and Bædeker give its length as 95 feet and the
width at the butt as 11 feet 1.5 inches. How they arrived at the latter
figure passes my understanding, as it was buried under a chip-heap to a
depth of 7 metres. Perhaps the measurements were given by the original
writer, whoever he may have been, not as a fact, but as a prophecy.
The measurements of the obelisk are:
Total length 41.75 metres.
Base 4.20 metres.
Base of pyramidion 2.50 metres.
Height of pyramidion 4.50 metres.
Weight when finished 1168 English tons.
Round the obelisk, partly separating it from the surrounding rock,
is a narrow trench, whose depth averages about 2/3 that required to
disengage it to a square section.
Plate I is a plan, with sections, of the obelisk to a scale of 1/100,
and plate II, nos. 1 and 2, shews the obelisk viewed from the tip and
butt respectively; the trench around the obelisk can be seen in plate
II and in plate III, no. 1, and is discussed in chapter ii.
As to the date of this obelisk, I have found nothing which gives any
real clue to it. One Ṭḥutiy, in the reign of Ḥatshepsôwet, mentions an
obelisk of 108 cubits (56.7 metres) long, which is longer than that
of Aswân, even if we allow for the pedestal as having been included
in the measurement (see BREASTED, _Ancient Records_, II, p. 156,
and section 43 of this volume). Neither can the Aswân obelisk be an
abortive attempt to extract the obelisk, a part of which is now at
Constantinople, as the thickness of what is now the base is only 2.37
metres, whereas the Aswân obelisk measures 2.50 metres at the base of
the pyramidion. Unfortunately we are compelled to leave the question
of the date open, until we get some definite evidence, which may well
appear when the whole quarry is completely cleared. {4}
(4) There are abundant traces that the rock, from which the obelisk
was to be extracted, was reduced to an approximately correct level by
burning and wedging, the former being used wherever possible. In the
excavations, a large quantity of burnt and semi-burnt mud bricks were
noticed, while a considerable percentage of the chips round the obelisk
and other quarries had the pinkish-brown colour and crumbling texture
peculiar to burnt granite. Some large pieces of rock shew quite clearly
how the burning was done; it appears that a stack of dried reeds was
banked with brick, near a fissure if possible, and after firing, the
rock was easily hammered away. It is very likely that water was poured
on the hot stone to make it break up. This method of heating and
chilling is used on the granite in India at the present day. Traces
of burning are seen in the obelisk area at A and B on plate V, no. 1.
Such a vast amount of stone has been removed in the neighbourhood which
shews neither wedge nor chisel marks that, without the proof of the
burnt brick and stone, we should have been driven to the conclusion
that burning was the method employed[1].
Wedge-marks may be seen on plate III, no. 3, on the left of the
picture[2]. Typical examples are shewn on plate III, no. 2, and in
figure 1. In nearly every case I observed, a small trench had been cut
out by chisels along the proposed line of fracture, presumably to get
below the surface, which is often decomposed by exposure, and which
would crumble instead of tearing the stone apart. As to whether these
wedges were of wood, and made to expand by wetting, I am not certain,
but I believe that they were not, the reason being that the slots
always taper inwards, and it appears to me that a wetted wedge would
tend to spring out rather than exert a lateral force on the stone. In
the only case where I have seen wetted wedges used (experimentally on
limestone), the wedge-slots were cut with parallel walls.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.—Typical wedge-slots.]
[1] In some cases a ferruginous (?) stratum in the granite has
decomposed the rock with an appearance of its having been burnt. Long
exposure of the rock also rots it to a considerable depth, but in the
majority of cases where the rock has been removed without wedges or
chisels, neither of the above causes can have anything to do with it.
[2] An examination of the wedging-off of blocks in the
quarries about Aswân shews that often the wedges have acted perfectly,
but the block has not been removed. A crowbar acting in each slot would
be ample to remove most of these. Can it be that the crowbar or jemmy
of metal was not known?
Assuming, then, that hammered metal wedges were used and not wooden
wedges made to expand by the action of water, it remains to be seen
whether the plug-and-feather method, such as is used to-day, was
employed, or whether the metal wedges engaged with the stone without
the thin sheets of metal on either side which we now call ‘feathers’.
The advantages of the plug-and-feather method are that it reduces the
width of the slot at the top, leaving it wider below and hence to a
large extent preventing the sharp edge of the wedge from touching the
bottom of the wedge-slot, and that, since the faces of the feathers are
smooth, it tends to {5} obtain the maximum advantage of the lateral
force exerted by the wedge in the most evenly distributed way and with
a minimum of friction. Now nearly all the ancient wedge-slots appear
perfectly smooth inside—just as if they had been polished. This would
be a disadvantage in using feathers, as there would be a greater
tendency for them to jump out at the first blow. Nothing seems to
be gained by polishing. Personally I favour the assumption that the
Egyptians used the plug-and-feather, but the question is best left
open for the present for lack of conclusive evidence. Photographs of
two iron wedges from the Ramesseum are given in PETRIE, _Tools and
Weapons_, plate XIII, B 16, 17. They appear to date to about 800 B. C.
Feathers, of unknown date, but probably late, are given in the same
volume on plate XIII, B 22, 23. It is a bare possibility that the
smoothness of the sides of the wedge-slots is due to the fact that the
slots were made without chisels, such as by scraping the granite with
emery-stone, or that after they had been roughed-out by chisels they
were finished by this means.
Sometimes, along a crack, enormous wedges were used, the largest I
noticed being 0 m. 25 cent. long, spaced one metre apart. In any case
the largeness of the wedges leads us to suppose that the Egyptians must
have had large hammers. I do not think that the sledge-hammer, such as
we use to-day, was known to the Egyptians, though mallets were common.
I believe it likely that heavy rammers, used vertically by more than
one man, must have been used to make these wedges act. Mr. C. Firth
has pointed out to me a black granite hammer found at Saqqârah, now
in the Cairo Museum. Though this example is of the Old Kingdom, it
seems quite likely that a similar hammer was used for driving in the
wedges. A photograph of the hammer is shewn in plate IV, no. 2. To-day
the quarrymen use very small fat steel punches in conjunction with a
sledge-hammer. Some large wedge-marks are seen in plate III, no. 2, at
the top of the picture.
(5) It seems that the intention of the Egyptians was to leave the north
wall of the north trench at a level slightly above that of the obelisk.
The exceptions to this are the wedged-out block seen on plates I and
II, no. 2 at A, and the (now) entrance to the bottom of the north
trench at B. I believe these blocks to have been removed at a date
later than that of the obelisk; the block A has been wedged out by a
long channel instead of separate slots, while at B it is obvious that
stone has been removed for building, since the inner face has been
chisel-dressed. Near here, too, I found a block containing a ‘jumped’
hole blackened by gunpowder. Had the ancients wished to remove the
trench wall at B, there is a crack running along it parallel to the
ground, which would make its removal an easy matter by burning from
the outside[3]. It seems, therefore, that the north wall of the north
trench was intentionally left; the probable reasons are discussed in
section 23. It will be noticed, in plate II, that the top of this wall
has been roughly hammer-dressed near the butt, and to a certain extent
near the pyramidion. How far it was intended to reduce the south wall
of the south trench is not certain; it depends on the method to be
used in getting the obelisk out of the quarry, and is dealt with in
sections 21–23. There are indications that it was to be reduced to a
considerable extent. {6}
[3] There is not a trace of burning within 6 feet of the
obelisk.
(6) At intervals in the trench around the obelisk there are traces of
squarish holes, generally going down to about the level at which the
bottom of the obelisk was to be. These are seen more clearly in the
south trench than in the north, and can in some cases be traced up the
side of the obelisk itself. Besides these there are the deep holes seen
at C and D on plate I. I believe that the holes C and D were made at
the very commencement of the work to study the quality of the granite.
The holes along the trench seem to have been made with the same
purpose, and as a means of setting out the perimeter of the obelisk.
There are indications that they were made when the removal of the top
layers of rock were still in progress.
(7) From the beginning of the work on this obelisk, cracks and fissures
seem to have given a great deal of trouble and anxiety. Though parting
fairly evenly under the action of wedges, the natural fissures of
granite are most erratic; a small crack at one level or position may,
in a couple of metres, become a fissure into which one can insert the
blade of a knife, and conversely, a fissure traceable for 5 metres will
suddenly disappear. Hence every fissure or crack, as it appeared, had
to be rigorously examined, to see its probable effect on the obelisk
when completed. The examination seems to have been made in three
ways, which I believe to have been of two dates. The original workers
method was to hammer out a depression by means of a spherical ball of
about 12 lbs. weight, of a very tough greenish-black stone (section
13), until the fissure either disappeared or became larger. These
examination hammerings can be seen in plate I at _j_, _k_, _n_, and
_p_, _n_ being also seen in the photos on plate II no. 2 and plate III
no. 1. In the depression, sometimes at one place and sometimes at two,
a small fillet was left at the level of the face of the obelisk, and
apparently polished; the object seems to have been to compare the state
at the surface with that at the bottom of the depression. The second
method was to chisel out a narrow channel right along the crack and
to polish it. In some cases, as at the end of fissure _i_ on plate I,
the three red lines, drawn to guide the stone-cutter, can be clearly
seen at the end of the channel. It seems likely that the channel method
was that used by the later workers who examined the obelisk as to
the possibility of extracting a smaller one from it, as the channels
are only found in the parts within the area of the smaller obelisk
(section 10). I think that the channels were cut over discolourations
and superficial flaws, recognised as such and left by the original
workmen. The statement made by Barber, in his _The Mechanical Triumphs
of the Ancient Egyptians_, that the grooves are made at some later
date with the intention of cutting up the obelisk, is impossible, as
two (_h_ and _i_, plate I) run transversely across the obelisk, where
all the wedging and cutting in the world would not part the stone. The
line of small punch-holes at H, however, was undoubtedly made in modern
or mediæval times to extract a block from the side of the obelisk,
and it is a marvel that the obelisk has not been used as a quarry
throughout the ages. The third method was to cut with a chisel oblong
holes, tapering sharply inwards, on the crack to be examined. It is
possible that this was the work of the original party, done in haste on
the occasion of an inspection. This method is seen at the base of the
pyramidion on plate I.
The most serious flaws in the obelisk are those lettered _a_, _b_,
_c_, _d_, _k_, _m_, _o_ and _p_; any one of these would give one
seriously to think as to the advisability of abandoning the work
forthwith. {7} Fissure _a_ meets fissure _b_ and settles, once and
for all, that the pyramidion must be set back at least half a metre.
Fissure _c_ is even more radical. Fissures _d_, _e_ and _f_ all seem to
have connection with one another and make a considerable reduction in
width necessary; those between _k_ and _m_ carry a similar warning on
the south side, while _m_ and _o_ necessitate shortening the obelisk
from the butt end. The last fissure completely separates the corner of
the obelisk from the rest.
It might well be asked: Why was the work continued so long after such
bad fissures had been discovered? The answer may be that none of these
fissures appeared to be serious, even a short distance above the
present level of the face of the obelisk. The north and south trenches
do not give evidence that the granite was in a bad state, except at
_ab_, _l_, _o_ and _p_.
It is likely that the black line π, drawn across the base of the
obelisk to shorten it by over 2 metres, was made by the original
workers; this is indicated by the fact that, below this line, the
hammer-dressing has been left in a rougher state than that on the
remainder of the face of the obelisk; further, the trench, which was
intended to separate the base of the obelisk, was abandoned earlier
than those on the north and south sides, probably as soon as the
fissures shewed themselves to be deep.
There is a curious fissure in the hole F on plate I which runs
downwards and slightly inwards to the obelisk. Like fissures _k_ to
_m_, it would of itself necessitate a reduction in the original width.
It appears, at first sight, that this is the beginning of undercutting
the obelisk, but it is not at the level at which this would be
commenced.
(8) It would not be out of place, perhaps, to speculate for a moment
on the method of obtaining a flat surface along the upper face of the
obelisk. I think the method used was by means of boning rods—the method
used to-day. For the benefit of those not acquainted with their use, a
brief description will suffice. Boning rods are a set of equal, usually
T-shaped pieces of wood. One is held upright at each end of the surface
which it required to straighten. A man standing at either end, if he
sight along the top of these boning rods, can see if a third boning
rod, placed anywhere between them, is above or below the line joining
them. Thus the surface can be tested anywhere along the obelisk until
it is made to slope evenly down along its whole length.
Boning rods for dressing moderately large blocks of stone are shewn in
PETRIE, _Tools and Weapons_, plate XLIX, B 44–46. These measure only
about 3 inches high and their tops were connected by a cord. In the
case of an obelisk, the cord would be useless owing to the sag, so
it seems probable that the sighting method described above was that
employed by the ancient Egyptians.
In the setting out of the obelisk, no allowance is made for the slight
convexity or entasis, in a longitudinal and transverse sense, which
is to be observed in most of the known obelisks. If there was to be a
convexity, it was made at a later stage[4]. {8}
[4] It will be noticed in plate I, nos. 2 and 3, that the slight
convexity across the obelisk seen in some places, does not extend the
whole length, neither is it even as regards either edge.
(9) When the face of the obelisk had been made fairly flat by
hammer-dressing, lines were scratched on it with a chisel, and filled
in with black paint. The remains of the lines for the original
scheme are clearly traceable. These are shewn on plate I, α and β.
How much reduction was allowed for as regards the final dressing and
polishing, we do not know; it was probably only the matter of a couple
of centimetres. At the west end of the south trench the reduction of
the side of the obelisk to the guide line has been begun. This can be
seen at J to K on plate I. It now forms a kind of bevel and, as far
as it extends, obliterates the vertical markings on the wall of the
trench. On the east end of the north trench the trench itself has been
moved inwards, from G to H, to be nearer the guide-line. The reason
may either be that the workers found themselves too far from the
guide-line, or that the guide-line was changed during the progress of
the work, perhaps through fear of a fissure.
Before the original workers abandoned their work they seem to have made
several attempts to set out a slightly reduced obelisk, which would
avoid all serious cracks by reducing the length and thickness of the
original design. This is seen in the lines γ δ ε ζ and the transverse
lines ι κ λ μ. The last four lines are so faint that they can only be
seen just after sunrise or before sunset, and it is not clear with
which of the longitudinal lines they connect. On the south side the
lines are quite clear, but on the north side there seem to have been
more lines even than those shewn on plate I. These lines γ δ ε ζ, do
not lie at equal distances from either of the two centre lines η and θ.
There is no doubt in my mind that the original obelisk was to have had
a straight-edged pyramidion, as the rough edge of the boundary trench
lies evenly on either side of the centre line η.
(10) The outline for another, and most probably later, obelisk is set
out on a new centre line θ, and keeps closely to the north edge of the
original design, avoiding the series of fissures on the south. Just
before sunset, the tentative outlines for the curved pyramidion can be
traced; plate III, no. 3, taken at that time, shews these lines. In
this, the right-hand curve appears to engage with a line to the north
of that engaged by the curve next to it; this is only an effect of
light and they really engage as shewn on plate I.
I have outlined the original design and the later scheme, in red.
Though the lines setting out these obelisks are easily traceable, the
colouring is mine, and is only intended to shew up the lines more
clearly. Since there are some actual red lines on the obelisk, another
colour would have been preferable; considerations of cost in printing
have limited the plate to two colours. In outlining the later design
in red, I have chosen the larger pyramidion, as the shape decided
on. There is no proof of this, but the proportions are, to me, more
effective, and there is no reason for abandoning the odd metre of
difference, as the stone here is perfectly sound.
Taking the longer pyramidion, we have the following dimensions for the
obelisk:
metres.
Total length 32.10
Pyramidion height 5.31
Pyramidion base 2.02
Obelisk base 3.15 {9}
(11) I had intended to give a diagram of the better-known obelisks
superimposed. I found it, however, almost impossible to get the sides
of the obelisks distinct one from another without making the scale
inconveniently large. I give, therefore, a table shewing the principal
dimensions of ten examples. Those marked with an asterisk are scaled
off photographs, making slight allowances for foreshortening.
+══════════════════════+══════════+═══════════+═══════════+════════+══════+═══════════+
║ │ BASE │PYRAMIDION │PYRAMIDION │ TOTAL │TAPER │ WEIGHT ║
║ OBELISK. │(METRES). │ BASE. │ HEIGHT. │HEIGHT. │ 1 IN │ (IN TONS ║
║ │ │ │ │ │ │ ENGLISH) ║
║──────────────────────+──────────+───────────+───────────+────────+──────+───────────+
║Aswân │ 4.20 │ 2.50 │ 4.50 │ 41.75 │ 24.3 │ 1168 ║
║Aswân (later project) │ 3.15 │ 2.02 │ 5.31 │ 32.10 │ 23.7 │ 507 ║
║Lateran │ 2.87 │ 1.90* │ 4.50* │ 32.15 │ 30.7 │ 455[5] ║
║Ḥatshepsôwet │ 2.40 │ 1.78 │ 2.96 │ 29.50 │ 42.8 │ 323 ║
║Vatican │ 2.69 │ 1.80 │ 1.34 │ 25.31 │ 26.9 │ 331 ║
║Paris │ 2.42 │ 1.54 │ 1.94 │ 22.84 │ 23.7 │ 227 ║
║London and New York │ 2.37 │ 1.63* │ 1.65* │ 21.18 │ 30.5 │ 193[6] ║
║Maṭarieh │ 1.90 │ 1.23* │ 2.00* │ 20.42 │ 27.5 │ 121[5] ║
║Tuthmôsis I^{st} │ 2.15 │ 1.40* │ 2.39* │ 19.60 │ 24.2 │ 143 ║
║──────────────────────+──────────+───────────+───────────+────────+──────+───────────+
║[5] After Gorringe.] ║
║ ║
║[6] Average, after Gorringe.] ║
+═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════+
It will be seen how close the measurements of the Aswân modified scheme
are to those of the Lateran obelisk. Except for the height and base, I
have had to scale the latter off a photograph, so the resemblance may
be even closer.
It is also perhaps more than a coincidence that the base of the later
project is the same as that of the obelisk fragment before Pylon VII
at Karnak, namely 3.15 metres. Legrain, writing in the _Annales du
Service_, vol. V, pp. 11 and 12, remarks, about this Pylon VII obelisk:
“L’obélisque d’Hatshopsitou mesure 29 m. 50 cent. de hauteur et 2 m.
40 cent. à la base. Si nous admettons des proportions semblables pour
deux monuments contemporains, la base de l’obélisque de Thoutmôsis III
au VII^e pylône étant 3 m. 15 cent.–3 m. 10 cent., nous arrivons au
chiffre approximatif de 37 m. 77 cent. comme hauteur de l’obélisque
de Thoutmôsis III dont nous avons retrouvé les fragments cette année
devant la face sud du VII^e pylône. (Footnote): J’ai pris comme base
de ce calcul hypothétique (29.50 × 3.15)/2.46 en comptant sur la plus
grande largeur de la base, qui, dans l’antiquité, se voyait le mieux.”
This year, a fragment of the companion (or perhaps the same) obelisk
has been found, which just reaches up to the wording of the Horus name
of the king—that is to within a couple of metres of the base of the
pyramidion. Although only one edge remains, I found that, by measuring
from the centre of the vertical lines flanking the inscription, that
the distance to the edge was 1.04 metre, making the width here 2.08
metres, which is almost exactly that of the outline on the Aswân
obelisk. Legrain, in estimating the height of the obelisk before Pylon
VII, assumes that the taper was the same as that of the obelisks of
Ḥatshepsôwet, but, from the table above, it will be seen that the taper
of her obelisks is exceptionally small, so his estimate is likely to
err on the large side. The outline on the Aswân {10} obelisk may
therefore be either for what is now the Lateran obelisk, or those of
Pylon VII; there is no evidence to shew for which it was intended.
It is likely that the later scheme was, in its turn, abandoned from
fear that the granite was not sound, especially near fissure _p_. In
any case, the reduction of the large obelisk to obtain a smaller one
would be a piece of work almost comparable to starting the work over
again on a new site, where the rock was likely to be of better quality.
{11}