finally placed. He cites Herodotus (ii. 125) as conveying in an imperfect
form the tradition that the pyramids were "constructed from above."
The weight of this stopper is about four tons, and it has long been a puzzle
to egyptologists how it, and others like it, could be raised and lowered. M.
Perrot's words must not, therefore, be taken too literally.—Ed.
Arthur Rhoné, L'Égypte à petites Journées, p. 259.
There are other stepped pyramids besides that at Sakkarah. Jomard
describes one of crude and much crumbled brick at Dashour. It is, he says,
about 140 feet high. Its height is divided into five stages, each being set
back about 11 feet behind the one below. These steps are often found, he
adds, among the southern pyramids, and there is one example of such
construction at Gizeh. ( Description de l'Égypte, vol. x., p. 5.) At Matarieh,
between Sakkarah and Meidoum, there is a pyramid with a double slope
like that at Dashour.
Fig. 5 of his paper, Ueber den Bau der Pyramiden.
Fig. 8 of his paper, Ueber den Bau der Pyramiden.
Voyage au Temple de Jupiter Amman et dans la Haute-Égypte. (Berlin,
1824, 4to. and folio; Pl. xxvii. Fig. 3.)
Bædeker, Egypt, part i. 1878. The pages dealing with the monumental
remains were edited in great part by Professor Ebers.
Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 45.
Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 34.
Lepsius, Denkmæler, part i. pl. 94. Rhind, Thebes, its Tombs and their
Tenants, p. 45. Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 80.
Thus the Great Pyramid was 482 feet high, while the length of one side at
the base is 764 feet. On the other hand, the "third pyramid" at Gebel-
Barkal (Napata) is 35 feet square at the base and 60 feet high; the "fifth" is
39 feet square at the base and nearly 50 feet high. Their proportions are
not constant, but the height of the Nubian pyramids is always far greater
than the length of one side at its base.
Herodotus, ii. 124.
Du Barry de Merval, Études sur l'Architecture Égyptienne, pp. 129, 130.
The discovery of these chambers was interesting from another point of
view. The name of Choufou was found continually repeated upon the
blocks of which they are formed. It was written in red ochre, and, in places,
it was upside down, thus proving that it must have been written before the
stones were put in place. It cannot therefore have been traced after the
tradition which assigned the pyramid to Cheops, that is, to Khoufou, arose;
and so it affords conclusive corroboration of the statements of Herodotus.
This is no exaggeration. Jomard expresses himself to the same effect
almost in the same terms. ( Description de l'Égypte, vol. v. p. 628.)
The extremity of this gallery appears on the right of Fig. 152.
The presence of this lining in the "Queen's Chamber" also led to its being
dubbed a funerary chamber, for no trace of a sarcophagus was found in it.
If we had any reason to believe that the pyramid was built in successive
wedges, we should look upon this as a provisional chamber, made before
it was certain that the pyramid would attain its present dimensions. As the
work went on, it would be decided that another, larger, and better defended
chamber should be built. In this case the first may never have been used,
and may always have been as empty as it is now.
These observations are to be found in one of the early works of Letronne.
Their presence is in no way hinted at by the title, which is: Recherches
Géographiques et Critiques sur le Livre 'De mensura orbis terræ' (8vo.
1844). The treatise, Περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ θεαμάτων, may have been written
either by Philo of Heraclea or Philo of Byzantium. They both belonged to
the third century before our era, but the bombastic style and numerous
errors incline us to believe that the little work must have been from the pen
of some unknown rhetorician of a later date.
These are the words of Philo, which we have translated rather freely:—
Ποικίλαι δὲ καὶ πορφυραὶ λίθων φύσεις ἀλλήλαις ἐπιδεδόμεναι, καὶ τὰ μέν
ἐστιν ἡ πέτρα λευκὴ καὶ μαρμαρίτης· τῇ δὲ Αἰθιοπικὴ καὶ μέλαινα καὶ μετὰ
ταύτην ὁ καλούμενος αἱματίτης λιθος· εἶτα ποικίλος καὶ διάχλωρος ἀπὸ τῆς
Ἀραβίας κεκομισμένος, p. 2,259, A.
According to the calculations of Letronne, the Great Pyramid must have
been 482 feet high when it was complete. In the time of Diodorus it was
slightly over 480 feet; in that of Abd-ul-Latif it measured 477 feet 3 inches.
In 1795 it was only 456 feet and a few inches, so that it lost about 24 feet
in the course of eighteen centuries. This lowering of the summit was mainly
caused by the destruction and removal of the outer casing. Since it
disappeared the Arabs have been in the habit of loosening the stones on
the top and launching them down the sides for the amusement of
travellers; the smooth casing alone could prevent such outrage as this. The
common idea that the Pyramid of Cheops is the highest building in the
world is erroneous. Even if we take its height when complete, it is
surpassed by at least two modern buildings, as may be seen by the
following table of the most lofty buildings now existing:—
Fe
et.
53
Spires of Cologne Cathedral
3
50
Flèche of the Cathedral at Rouen
0
48
Spire of St. Nicholas, Hamburg
0
47
Dome of St. Peter's, Rome
6
47
Spire of Strasbourg Cathedral
3
45
Pyramid of Cheops
6
45
Spire of St. Stephen's, Vienna
0
44
Spire of St. Martin's, Landshut
3
41
Spire of the Cathedral of Freiburg, Breisgau
7
Spire of Antwerp Cathedral, not including the
41
cross
1
40
Spire of Salisbury Cathedral
4
39
Dome of Cathedral at Florence
6
37
Dome of St. Paul's, London
1
36
Flèche of Milan Cathedral
3
34
Tower of Magdeburg Cathedral
4
33
Victoria Tower, Westminster
6
29
Rathhaus Tower, Berlin
3
28
Spire of Trinity Church, New York
7
26
Pantheon, Paris
6
22
Towers of Nôtre Dame, Paris
6
Diodorus, i. 63, 64.
Herodotus, ii. 49.
M. Maspero has given in the Annuaire de l'Association pour
l'Encouragement des Études Grecques and elsewhere, several extracts
from a commentary upon the second book of Herodotus, which we should
like to see published in its entirety. We may point out more particularly his
remarks upon the text of the Greek historian in the matter of the 1,600
talents of silver which, he says, was the value of the onions, radishes, and
garlic consumed by the workmen employed upon the Great Pyramid (ii.
125). He has no difficulty in showing that Herodotus made a mistake, for
which he gives an ingenious and probable explanation. ( Annuaire de 1875,
p. 16.)
Herodotus, ii. 148. Diodorus (l. 89) speaks of the same and Strabo, who
also appears to have seen it, asserts its funerary character (p. 1165, C).
He says it was four plethra (393 feet) both in width and height. This last
dimension is obviously exaggerated, because in all the Egyptian pyramids
that are known to us the shortest diameter of the base is far in excess of
the height.
If the passage in which Herodotus makes the statement here referred to be
taken in connection with the remarks of Diodorus, a probable explanation
of the old historian's assertion may be arrived at. Diodorus says that the
king ὀρύττων τάυτην (λίμνην sub.) κατέλιπεν ἐν μἑσῃ τόπον, ἐν ᾧ τάφον
ᾠκοδόμησε καὶ δύο πυραμίδας, τὴν μὲν ἑαυτοῦ, τὴν δὲ τῆς γυναικός,
σταδιαίας τὸ ὕψος. By this it would appear that, in excavating the bed, or a
part of the bed, of the famous lake, a mass of earth was left in order to
bear future witness to the depth of the excavation and the general
magnitude of the work. This mass would probably be reveted with stone,
and, in order that even when surrounded and almost hidden by water, its
significance should not be lost, the pyramids raised upon it were made
exactly equal to it in height.—Ed.
Notice sommaire des Monuments Égyptiens exposés dans les Galeries du
Louvre (4th edition, 1865, p. 56).
Ἐξεποιήθη δ' ὦν τὰ ἀνώτατα αὐτῆς πρῶτα, μετὰ δὲ τὰ ἑπόμενα τούτων
ἐξεποίευν ... (ii. 125).
Σύναρμον δὲ καὶ κατεξεσμένον τὸ πᾶν ἔργον, ὥστε δοκεῖν ὅλου τοῦ
κατασκευάσματος μίαν εἶναι πέτρας συμφυίαν, p. 2,259, A. So, too, the
elder Pliny, though with rather less precision: "Est autem saxo naturali
elaborata et lubrica" ( Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 12).
According to Jomard, the casing stones of the Great Pyramid were "a
compact grey limestone, harder and more homogeneous than those of the
body of the building" ( Description de l'Égypte, t. v. p. 640); but according to
Philo, this casing was formed, as we have already said, of various
materials, so we need feel no surprise if blocks of granite or other rock are
shown to have formed part of it.
Journal des Savants, August, 1841.
Bædeker, Egypt, part i. p. 338 (ed. of 1878). Herodotus (ii. 127) says that
the first course of the Great Pyramid was built of a parti-coloured Ethiopian
stone (ὑποδείμας τὸν πρῶτον δόμον λίθου Αἰθιοπικοῦ ποικίλου). By
Ethiopian stone we must understand, as several illustrations prove, the
granite of Syene. The Greek historian seems to have thought that the
whole of the first course, throughout the thickness of the pyramid, was of
this stone. His mistake was a natural one. In his time the pyramid was in a
good state of preservation, and he never thought of asking whether or no
the core was of the same material as the outer case.
On the other hand, these awkwardly shaped prisms offered less
inducement to those who looked upon the pyramids as open quarries than
the easily squared blocks of Cheops, while their position in the angles of
the internal masonry enabled them to keep their places independently of
the lower courses of the casing.—Ed.
The determination to use a concrete such as that described affords a good
reason for the prismatic shape of the granite blocks used in the lower
courses. It would evidently be easy enough to cover the pyramid with a
coat of cement—working downwards—if its surface did not greatly
overpass the salient angles of the steps, while the difficulty would be
enormously increased if the coat were to have a considerable thickness of
its own independently of the pyramid, like the casing shown in Fig. 155. —
Ed.
Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. v. p. 7.
G. Charmes, in the Journal des Débats, February 8, 1881.
Moniteur Égyptien, March 15, 1881.
The causeway which led to the Pyramid of Cheops still exists for some 400
yards of its length; here and there it rises as much as eighty-six feet above
the surface of the plateau. A similar causeway is to be distinguished on the
eastern side of the Third Pyramid. At Abou-Roash, at Abousir, and
elsewhere, similar remains are to be found.
Description de l'Égypte, vol. v. p. 643. See also in the plates, Antiquités,
vol. v. Pl. xvi. Fig. 2. According to Jomard, the surbase of the second
pyramid was in two parts—a stylobate, 10 feet high and 5 feet thick, and a
plinth about 3 feet high.
Herodotus, ii. 126.
Jomard remarks that the upper part of the second pyramid still reflects the
rays of the sun. "It still possesses," he says, "a portion of its polished
casing, which reflects the rays of the sun and declares its identity to people
at a vast distance."
Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. v. p. 597.
Pseudo-Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, c. xx. M. Maspero finds, however, no
confirmation of this statement in the monuments themselves. "All the
tombs which have yet been discovered at Abydos," he says ( Revue
Critique, January 31, 1881), "are those of Egyptians domiciled at Abydos.
But the author from whom this Plutarch derived his inspiration must have
known the ancient fiction according to which the soul could only pass into
the next world by betaking itself to Abydos, and thence through the
opening to the west of that town which gave access to the regions of
Ament. Hence the voyage of the dead to Abydos which we find so often
represented on tombs; an imaginary voyage, as the mummy would be
reposing safely at Thebes or Memphis (Fig. 159). At all events, the family, after the death of its head, or any Egyptian during his own life, could
deposit upon the ladder of Osiris a stele, upon which the tomb actually
containing his body could be represented and unmistakably identified with
its original by the formula inscribed upon it."
Mariette, Abydos, Description des Fouilles exécutées sur l'Emplacement
de cette Ville, folio, vol. i. 1869; vol. ii. 1880. Mariette thought that the
sacred tomb was probably in the immediate neighbourhood of the artificial
mound called Koum-es-Soultan, which may cover its very site. In the article
which we quote above, M. Maspero has set forth the considerations which
lead him to think that the staircase of Osiris, upon which the consecrated
steles were placed, was the flight of steps which led up to the temple of
that god. Consequently the tomb of Osiris, at Abydos as at Denderah,
would be upon the roof of his temple.
Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. 1879.
Ibidem.
All these steles are figured in the last work published by Mariette, the
Catalogue général des Monuments d'Abydos, découverts pendant les
Fouilles de cette Ville, 1 vol. 4to. Paris, 1880.
Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 51.
Maspero, Rapport sur une Mission en Italie (in the Recueil de Travaux, vol.
ii. p. 166). The Abbott Papyrus gives a list of these little pyramids.
Fig. 172 reproduces only a part of the long plate given in Wilkinson. In order to bring the more important groups within the scope of one page, we
have been compelled to omit the central portion, which consists principally
of columns of hieroglyphs.
See the description of the Valley of the Kings in the Lettres d'Égypte et de
Nubie of Champollion (p. 183 of the second edition).
Ebers, indeed, found something of the same kind in the temple of Abydos.
He found there a cenotaph consecrated to his own memory by Seti I. This
cenotaph was near the tomb of Osiris, while the king himself was buried in
the Theban necropolis. ( Ægypten, pp. 234, 235.)
The beautiful little temple of Dayr-el-Medinet, begun by Ptolemy Philopator
and finished by his successors, especially by Physco, has often been
considered a funerary monument. It is alleged that the situation of the
temple in the necropolis, and the nature of