THE UPPER QUARRY-FACE.
(16) At the south-west corner of the obelisk there is a kind of
platform, sloping down southwards towards a vertical face of rock.
Plate II, no. 2, shews the obelisk with the platform at the right, and
plate V, nos. 1 and 2 shews the rock face viewed from below the north
side of the obelisk, and from directly opposite it. A detailed drawing
of the markings on the quarry-face is given on plate VI.
The rock face is crossed by three black lines, lettered _a_, _b_, and
_c_, and one red line _d_. It will be seen that the structure of the
face below the line _c_ is similar to that of the side of the obelisk
trench; the intervals, too, between the vertical markings are almost
exactly the same, namely 29.8 cm. on the quarry-face against 29.9 on
the trench.
It appears that, above the line _c_, the vertical markings made by the
pounding have been hammered out to a certain extent, as if to use the
upper half as a kind of blackboard.
There is no doubt that some monument has been removed from before this
quarry-face, and it is rather tempting to see, in the lines _a_ and
_c_, the levels of the top and bottom faces of an obelisk, the line _b_
being a centre line. If this is so, the taper is 1 in 17.5, which is
sharper than the known large obelisks (see section 11). Unfortunately,
the method of detaching the monument, whatever it may have been, is
no longer traceable, as a large stratum of granite has been removed,
almost certainly by burning, perhaps to make a control platform,
destroying all traces of the original bed of the monument.
Line _c_ is very nearly level, and both _b_ and _c_ are divided into
‘feet’ by short vertical black lines each in the _middle_ of the
pounded grooves. The reason for this is not clear to me.
The red line _d_ is separated from the black line _c_ by one double
obelisk-foot; that is the distances between the lines varies between
59.7 and 60 centimetres. The vertical red lines are not very accurately
drawn, but the average distance between successive lines is equal to
the double-foot. The horizontal red lines above line _d_ convey no
meaning to me, neither do the eyes or the _nefer_ on lines _b_ and _c_.
Down the centres of the red squares, above the line _c_, run a series
of curious chains in red—now very faint—all of which cut the line
_d_, and some the line _c_. The horizontal lines on these chains are
nearly the same distance apart. Those above the line _d_ are much more
irregular, and look like two different measures superimposed, the lower
series being similar to the chains between _c_ and _d_; they are,
however, so faint that it is only at _e_ that the beginning of the
joining of the horizontal members can be determined.
I have numbered the spaces between the vertical divisions I–XIII; below
is a table giving the levels in metres of each horizontal line in every
chain, taking the level of line _d_ as unity. {18} I have not taken
any measurement nearer than half a centimetre, as the lines are thicker
in some places than that, and I cannot be sure of a greater accuracy
owing to the faintness of the lines.
(17)
+─────────────+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────+
│ │ SPACE (Plate VI). │
│ │ I. │ II. │III. │ IV. │ V. │ VI. │VII. │VIII.│ IX. │ X. │ XI. │XII. │XIII. │
│─────────────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+──────+
│ │ ″ │ .05 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .02 │ .02 │ .05 │ ″ │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .13 │ .12 │ .12 │ .15 │ ″ │ .12 │
│ │ ″ │ .15 │ ″ │ ″ │ .17 │ .19 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .20 │ .21 │
│ │ ″ │ .27 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .28 │ .27 │ .26 │ .30 │ .31 │ .30 │
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .30 │ .30 │ ″ │ .33 │ .37 │ ″ │ .35 │ .35 │ .36 │
│ │ ″ │ .41 │ .44 │ ″ │ .48 │ .45 │ ″ │ .40 │ .44 │ .40 │ .42 │ .38 │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ .52 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .47 │ .50 │ .48 │ .50 │ .46 │ ″ │
│Upper series │ ″ │ .58 │ .55 │ ″ │ ″ │ .59 │ ″ │ .55 │ .56 │ .55 │ .58 │ .53 │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .62 │ ″ │ ″ │ .62 │ ″ │ .63 │ ″ │ .60 │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ .67 │ .655│ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .68 │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .70 │ .72 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ .74 │ ″ │ ″ │ .73 │ ″ │ ″ │ .77 │ .74 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ .82 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .84 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│ │ ″ │ .89 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .92 │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│─────────────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+──────+
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .71 │ (?) │ (?) │ (?) │
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .78 │ (?) │ ″ │ ″ │ (?) │ .78 │ (?) │ (?) │ (?) │
│ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ .83 │ .84 │ .82 │ ″ │ (?) │ (?) │ .85 │ (?) │ (?) │ .81 │
│ │ .88 │ .895│ .83 │ .89 │ .91 │ .89 │ ″ │ .91 │ .86 │ .92 │ .87 │ .89 │ .88 │
│ │ .95 │ (?) │ .94 │ .95 │ .97 │ .95 │ (?) │ .97 │ (?) │ .99 │ .94 │ .96 │ .98 │
│ │1.03 │1.045│1.02 │1.01 │1.03 │1.00 │1.03 │1.03 │1.02 │1.04 │1.00 │1.03 │1.03 │
│ │1.09 │1.10 │1.09 │1.07 │1.10 │1.07 │1.11 │1.08 │1.08 │1.11 │1.07 │1.11 │1.10 │
│Lower series │1.15 │1.16 │1.13 │1.15 │1.17 │1.14 │1.18 │1.15 │1.15 │1.17 │1.14 │1.17 │1.17 │
│ │1.22 │1.22 │1.215│1.21 │1.24 │1.21 │1.25 │1.23 │1.22 │1.24 │1.21 │1.24 │1.24 │
│ │1.275│1.29 │1.28 │1.28 │1.30 │1.28 │1.32 │1.30 │1.29 │1.31 │1.28 │1.32 │1.31 │
│ │1.35 │1.37 │1.35 │1.35 │1.375│1.35 │1.39 │1.36 │1.36 │1.38 │1.35 │1.39 │1.38 │
│ │1.42 │1.425│1.42 │1.42 │1.45 │1.42 │1.47 │1.44 │1.43 │1.45 │ (?) │1.46 │1.47 │
│ │1.49 │1.50 │1.495│1.49 │1.52 │1.50 │ (?) │──── │──── │──── │ │──── │──── │
│ │1.57 │1.57 │1.565│1.56 │──── │──── │ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│ │1.64 │1.645│1.64 │──── │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│ │──── │ ────│──── │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │
│─────────────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+──────+
│Sure │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ intervals │ 11 │ 11 │ 11 │ 11 │ 11 │ 10 │ 6 │ 8 │ 8 │ 11 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │
│Total length │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ of intervals│ .76 │ .75 │ .76 │ .73 │ .74 │ .68 │ .44 │ .53 │ .57 │ .74 │ .48 │ .57 │ .66 │
│Unit │.069 │ .068│ .069│ .066│ .067│ .068│ .073│ .066│ .071│ .067│ .069│ .071│ .073 │
│ │
│ Average unit for lower series .0690 m. │
+────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────+
(18) It is noteworthy, in the lower series, that the horizontal lines
on the chains are stepped-up as we proceed towards the right; the upper
series do not shew this peculiarity. Another point is that in only one
case does one of the marks coincide with the red line _c_, and never
at all with the black line _b_; had this not been so one would imagine
that two sets of measures were being compared. {19}
If we multiply up the unit of .069 metre we get:
.069 × .25 = .01725
.069 × .5 = .0345
.069 × 1 = .069
.069 × 2 = .138
.069 × 3 = .207
.069 × 4 = .276
.069 × 5 = .345
.069 × 6 = .414
.069 × 7 = .483
.069 × 8 = .552
.069 × 9 = .621
.069 × 10 = .690
.069 × 11 = .759
.069 × 12 = .828
It will be seen from this that the unit, if it is a unit, is not a
factor of the royal Egyptian cubit of .525 m., nor of the small cubit
of .45 m., neither is it connected with the Egyptian finger of .0187 m.
Further, it bears no relation to the obelisk single- or double-foot.
Since we have no information as to whether this unit of .069 metre is a
sixth, eighth, tenth or twelfth of a foot or cubit, it is rather unwise
to try to reconcile it with the known Egyptian units, as, even during
the same reign, the influx of foreign measures and the variations of
the native measures would enable us to find an equivalent to almost any
unit that could be imagined.
I am aware that DECOURDEMANCHE, in the _Annales du Service_, volume
XII, page 215, gives the measure .06925 as a palm of the “lapidary”
cubit of .4155 m., but I place very little reliance on this cubit, as
it only explains the dimensions of one tomb measured by Amélineau at
Abydos, and this tomb can be equally well rendered in the royal cubit
system.
The relation of the obelisk foot to the royal Egyptian cubit is seen in
the following table:
metres.
Finger (1) .0187
Palm (also = 3 inches) (4) .075
_Common foot_ (16) .300
Common cubit (24) .450
Royal cubit (28) .525
It will be noticed that the actual measurements of the obelisks, both
the original and the later project, very largely depend on the royal
Egyptian cubit of .525 metre. The height of the large obelisk does
not. Probably the order was for as large an obelisk as possible. The
dimensions of even royal cubits are:
cubits.
Base of large obelisk 8
Base to black line π 4
Base of later project 6
Height of pyramidion of later project 10
Most of the remaining measurements, except the base of the pyramidion
of the later project, depend on the rock rather than on the wish of the
designers. Since the obelisk is still in a rough state I cannot give
many accurate measurements from which the cubit can be found precisely.
The two most accurate measurements are the base of the original obelisk
and the base {20} of the later project. The former measures 4.20 or 8
cubits of .525 m., and the latter measures 3.15 or 6 cubits of .525 m.
As to the explanation of the scales on the quarry-face, though much is
still obscure to me, I believe the lower series of vertical scales are
the records of the work of the last shift employed in cutting out the
trench by which the monument was removed, and the semi-effaced series
on a higher level the records of preceding shifts. It seems likely that
the red chains are fortuitous, and do not represent any particular
unit, but marked the position of the tip of a 3‐cubit rod, when
standing on the bottom of the trench, thus recording the depth reached
by each party of workmen at definite intervals of time, possibly after
every two days’ pounding.
(19) At the top, and to the right of the upper series of scales, are
very faint traces of script. They seem to have been placed against each
scale, but very few can now be seen. I have tried to photograph them
with special panchromatic plates, but without success; the most I have
been able to do is to examine them in various lights, when dry and when
wetted, and to make hand copies. These are shewn in figures 2 to 4,
and are from divisions VIII, IX and XII respectively. Figure 5 is an
extra group of signs to the _left_ of the scale in division VIII. The
inscriptions are all in red paint and are too fragmentary to translate.
[Illustration: Fig. 2.]
[Illustration: Fig. 3.]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.]
[Illustration: Fig. 5.]
It is within the bounds of possibility that the inscriptions originally
gave some information as to the party who were working that particular
double-foot division of the trench.
At the extreme left of the quarry-face, in the position indicated
on plate VI, there is an inscription of two lines in the hieratic
character. It is very faint indeed and I have not succeeded in
deciphering it. The fact that it is in black paint on very dark red
weathered granite has made it very difficult to photograph. It appears
to begin with a date, and to have a number in the middle, but there is
no name of a king.
(20) At the top of the upper quarry-face there is what seems to be the
bed from which a monument, very probably a small obelisk, of 7 metres
long has been extracted. The bottom of the trench can still be traced
where the work has been divided up into grooves of similar width to
those in the obelisk trench. Here the feet have become irregular, but
the double-foot is of great regularity and measures 59.8 centimetres.
Plate V, no. 2, shews the bed at the top of the rock face and no.
3 the same seen from above. It will be noticed that, in this case,
the undercutting has been done by pounding, but with less regularity
than in the obelisk trench, shewing that it was done by hand. The
obelisk seems to have been snapped off, or more likely it broke off of
itself. It is hardly justifiable to deduce how the large obelisks were
extracted from such a small example. In all probability the principle
was the same, but the details very different. This is discussed in
sections 21–23. {21}
At the west end of the ridge from which the monument has been removed,
there is a short inscription in red paint. A photograph of this is
given in plate V, no. 4. It seems to begin with the words [glyphs]
. . . . . “the work (of) . . . . . ”. The remainder is illegible
to me, though the signs are quite clear. They resemble some of the
quarry-signs I have seen at Maʿallah and elsewhere.
{23}