Chapter III: 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.

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}