THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE*
BY
MASSIMILIANO NUZZOLO Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University – PRAGUE
AND
PATRIZIA ZANFAGNA Municipality of Venice, Office for Architecture, Territorial Planning and GIS-systems – VENICE
Glossing the past: previous scholarship and Abu Ghurab
In the last twenty-five years remote sensing has become an increasingly important tool for the study of ancient archeological landscape as well as for the understanding of its topographical, geo-morphological and spatial peculiarities.1 In Egyptology, too, remote sensing has been largely used in recent years – also in combination with other technolo- gies (e.g., Lidar) as well as with on-ground tools, such as geophysical surveying and 3D modeling programs – as a means for both the improvement of the cartography of some key areas of Ancient Egypt,2 and the identification of unknown structures (or even entire sites) hidden under the sand and no longer visible to date.3 From a different perspective, and with a more concrete and economic nuance, remote sensing has also proven an
* The two authors have dealt, respectively, with the analysis of the theoretical, historical and archaeological data (Massimiliano Nuzzolo) and the analysis of the remote sensed data (Patrizia Zanfagna). As a whole, the article has been completely written by the first author except for the second paragraph (Satellite imagery: some preliminary remarks). The hypotheses proposed in the paper on the individual monuments (especially the hypotheses deriving from the analysis of SAR images) are however to be considered as the result of the combined work of both authors. 1 See S. Parcak, Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology, 2009, p. 28-39. 2 On this subject see in particular the various activities of the « Theban Mapping Project » led by Kent Weeks (http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/), and the recent publications by P. Piccione, Satellite Survey of Western Thebes. A differential GPS Mapping Project of the Private Tombs of Sheikh Abd el-Qurnah, Geographical Information System for the Theban Necropolis, 2005-2006 (internet publication: http://spinner.cofc.edu/olgis/survey/); A-B. Pimpaud, Archeologia e Calcolatori, Suppl. 3 (2012), p. 175-184, with further bibliography. The latter study has now evolved into a complete archaeological GIS-based map of the Western necropolis which is available online at: https://independent. academia.edu/AlbanBricePimpaud. 3 This is especially the case of Sinai: see G. Mumford – S. Parcak, JEA 89 (2003), p. 83-116; S. Parcak, Archaeologia Polonia 41 (2003), p. 243-245; S. Parcak, in C. Wang (ed.), International Conference on Remote Sensing Archaeology, 2004, p. 136-141; G. Mumford, BASOR 342 (2006), p. 13-67.
Revue d’égyptologie 68, 79-108. doi : 10.2143/RE.68.0.3285268 Tous droits réservés © Revue d’égyptologie, 2017-2018. 80 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA extremely useful instrument for the understanding of the diachronic evolution of the agricultural landscape of Egypt.4 In the framework of the present paper it is worth mentioning the studies carried out in the last three decades on the main sites of the Memphite necropolis, namely Giza,5 Saqqara6 and Abusir,7 which have significantly contributed to further our knowledge of the area in terms of architectural, topographical and environmental development. The area of Abusir, in particular, has a key role in this context since the objective of the pres- ent paper is to contribute to the possible identification of hidden archaeological structures located in the northernmost area of the Abusir plateau, better known as Abu Ghurab. Here, to the north of the pyramid field, the 5th dynasty pharaohs built some of the most intriguing monuments of ancient Egyptian architecture, the so-called sun temples. Their economic and cultic interaction with the contemporary pyramids, as well as their comple- mentary nature from an architectural and decorative standpoint, have already been the object of several studies,8 including those by one of the present writers.9
4 M. el-Desoky Hereher, Monitoring Spatial and Temporal Changes of Agricultural Lands in the Nile Delta and their Implications on Soil Characteristics Using Remote Sensing (UMI Dissertation), 2006. 5 The site of Giza has undergone a long-lasting and still ongoing process of mapping using diversified methods of research. The results of this work, conducted by the AERA, under the direction of Mark Lehner, are available online (http://www.aeraweb.org/projects/gpmp/). 6 The site of Saqqara has certainly been the main focus of scholarly attention due to its central position in the history of the Memphite necropolis. The most comprehensive work on the Saqqara plateau, including all the maps and satellite images hitherto available, is E. Bresciani – A. Giammarusti, The North Saqqara Archaeological Site. Handbook for the Environmental Risk Analysis, 2003. However several studies were produced on limited parts of the necropolis as well as on the use of diver- sified methods of field analysis such as, for example, geophysics. In this context it is worth mentioning at least the most recent, where it is also possible to find further bibliography: M. Nuzzolo, in M. Bárta – F. Coppens – J. Krejči (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2015, 2018, p. 257-292; V. Dobrev, in F. Raffaele – M. Nuzzolo – I. Incordino (eds.), Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008, 2010, p. 51-65; I. Mathieson – J. Dittmer, JEA 93 (2007), p. 79-93; D. Jeffreys – A. Tavares, in M. Bárta – J. Krejčí (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, 2001, p. 27-32. 7 Works at Abusir were mainly conducted by the Czech team from the university of Prague, under the direction of Miroslav Verner, first, and Miroslav Bárta, later. The main results of this survey are available in M. Bárta – V. Bruna, Satellite Atlas of the Pyramids, 2006, p. 10-14. See also M. Bárta – V. Bruna, EA 26 (2005), p. 3-6; M. Bárta et al., Abusir XXIII. The Tomb of the Sun Priest Neferinpu (AS 37), 2014, p. 3-5, pl. 1.1-1.4. 8 W. Kaiser, MDAIK 14 (1956), p. 104-116; E. Winter, WZKM 54 (1957), p. 222-233; P. Posener-Kriéger, Les archives du temple funéraire de Néferirkarê-Kakaï (Les Papyrus d’Abousir): traduction et commentaire (BdE 65), 1976, p. 519-526; M. Rochholz, in R. Gundlach – M. Rochholz (eds.), Ägyptische Tempel – Struktur, Funktion und Programm (HÄB 37), 1994, p. 255-280; S. Voss, Untersuchungen zu den Sonnenheiligtümer der 5. Dynastie. Bedeutung und Funktion eines singulären Tempeltyps im Alten Reich, 2004; H. Vymazalová, in N. & H. Strudwick (eds.), Old Kingdom: New Perspectives. Art and Archaeology 2750-2150 BC, 2011, p. 295-303; J. Janák – F. Coppens – H. Vymazalová, in M. Bárta – F. Coppens – J. Krejčí (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2010, 2011, p. 430-442; M. Verner, Sons of the Sun. Rise and Decline of the 5th dynasty, 2014, p. 199-226. 9 M. Nuzzolo, SAK 36 (2007), p. 217-247; M. Nuzzolo, SAK 39 (2010), p. 289-312; M. Nuzzolo, in I. Hein – N. Billing (eds.), The Pyramids: Between Life and Death (BOREAS 36), 2015, p. 163-186.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 81
However, out of the six sun temples known from epigraphic and historical sources, the location of four of them is still completely unknown and has not received particular atten- tion so far.10 The search for the lost temples is, instead, not only of relevant scientific interest but also extremely promising when we consider the chance, not very common for the Ancient Egyptian sites, to base our search on the cross-examination of the historical cartography available on the area with both the Photogrammetrical Map scaled 1:5000 – which was realized in 1978 by the Egyptian Government and the French Aviation (IGMF) – and the remote sensing imagery produced by both optical and radar sensors. Moreover, the most recently developed satellite imagery, namely the SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) images produced by the generation of the COSMO Sky-Med satellites – compared and combined with the traditional panchromatic images, such as, e.g., the ones available through the Google Earth system, allow us to investigate the above area with a increasing degree of detail and accuracy. In this context we will not discuss either the importance of the new radar technology and imagery for the exploration of the archaeological landscape, or the differences among the existing types of radar images, given that several studies have dealt with these issues.11 Rather, what we would like to emphasize here, especially in the perspective of possible future investigations in the field, is the importance of applying this technology to the case study of the sun temples in Abu Ghurab. This approach can offer not only a better vision and understanding of the sun temples area, but also complement our knowledge of the overall topography of the 5th dynasty royal necropolis of Abusir, of which Abu Ghurab, in the antiquity, was considered as an integral part.12 Before summarizing the historical investigation of the site in the last centuries and pre- senting the results of the combined analysis of archaeological, topographical and remote sensed sources, some preliminary remarks are necessary on the different features of the panchromatic and radar images we use for this investigation, as well as on their combined integration.
10 Some scholars have even doubted the existence of other sun temples by arguing that some of the 5th dynasty kings (i.e., Sahura and Neferirkara) were in fact reusing the temple of a previous king (i.e., Userkaf): see R. Stadelmann, in M. Bárta – J. Krejčí (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, 2001, p. 529-542; G. Magli, Architecture, Astronomy and Landscape in ancient Egypt, 2013, p. 139-140. 11 In this regard see the wide résumé in S. Parcak, Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology, 2009, p. 41-111. In con- cern with the Cosmo Sky-Med radar imagery and its value for archaeological investigation, see R. Lasaponara – N. Masini, Archaeological Prospection 20 (2013), p. 71-78, with further bibliography and case studies. 12 See M. Nuzzolo, « Royal Authority, Divine Legitimization. Topography as an element of acquisition, confirmation and renewal of power in the 5th dynasty », in F. Coppens – J. Janak – H. Vymazalová (eds.), Royal versus Divine Authority Acquisition, Legitimization and Renewal of Power (KSG 7), 2015, p. 289-304.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 82 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
Satellite imagery: some preliminary remarks
In this paper, we have used two different kinds of sources:13 1) satellite panchromatic images from Google Earth, freely available online; 2) new generation SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) images from the constellation of the Cosmo Sky-Med satellites (acronym of Constellation of Small Satellites for Mediterranean Basin Observation), elaborated in the last years by the Italian Space Agency (ASI).14
Google Earth images provide us with a rather accurate view of the earth and have been extensively used for the investigation of several sites worldwide with important results. However, being panchromatic images of the Earth, their quality highly depends on the general weather conditions, especially the amount of sunlight and elements that can decrease visibility, such as clouds, fog, humidity, etc. Moreover, they are taken in specific moments of the year depending on the movement and parameters of the satellites sensors. The SAR images, instead, operating in the radiometric X band, are not influenced by the weather and therefore offer the chance to generate very high resolution images of specific sites observed several times a day. Moreover, the radar sensors generate highly reflective images which can penetrate much more into the ground (whether sand or vegetation) com- pared to panchromatic images, giving us a chance to detect structures hidden under the top layers of the surface. The integration of these two types of satellite imagery is thus fruitful, particularly as concerns the areas on the border between the cropland and the desert. While this area consists mostly of desert sand, the moisture of the soil can still surface in the case of archaeological structures hidden under the sand, which absorb the underground water, favoring the growth of vegetation above them. When investigated by means of the radar sensors, the underneath structures/artifacts do have a specific reflectance, which varies significantly depending on the material, for example, limestone, mud-brick or sand.
13 By the time of revision of the drafts of the article the present authors also purchased some new satellite images (both multi-spectral and SAR) produced by the Japanese ALOS Satellite. The preliminary analysis of these images seems to further confirm the data provided by the SAR Cosmo Sky-Med images analyzed here (see below) and will be the object of a future article. 14 In the present paper we have employed two SAR images, both recorded in high-resolution quality in the Spotlight Enhanced Mode Acquisition. The images cover an area of 10 sq. km in size, with a spatial resolution of 1 sq. m. Their polarization is HH. The first image (Catalogue ID SAR2 100594323) was acquired on October 1, 2009; start time: 3.41.48 pm; stop time: 3.41.56 pm. The technical parameters are: near range incidence angle 58924; far range incidence angle 59298; center scene off-nadir angle 51490; look side: right; orbit number 9814. The second image (Catalogue ID SAR3 100939057) was acquired on May 22, 2013; start time: 3.28.47 pm; stop time: 3.28.55 pm. The technical para- meters are: near range incidence angle 58937; far range incidence angle 59311; center scene off-nadir angle 51490; look side: right; orbit number 24745. COSMO-Sky-Med Product – © ASI. Processed under license from ASI – Agenzia Spaziale Italiana. All rights reserved. Courtesy by e-GEOS.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 83
Based on this assumption, the images have thus been processed through “context opera- tors,” such as filters and detectors emphasizing contours, in order to improve the images features and to extract surface and sub-surface discontinuities. This has allowed us to detect structures covered by sand and to obtain a detailed picture of the geometric and material characteristics of the landscape. These geo-referenced images have then been overlaid with the panchromatic images, the topographical data, and the abovementioned historical maps. As a result, it has thus been possible either to re-locate already known structures, nowadays covered by sand or vegetation, or to search for new structures. An important aspect of the study was also the analysis of the archaeological structures which had already been excavated and published in the past, in order to have some precise parameters of reference for our search for new evidences. In particular, we have analyzed the plans of the valley temples of the sun temples of Niuserra and Userkaf by overlaying them with the available satellite imagery (especially the SAR images) in order to evidence some features of the overlying vegetation which could be useful for further research in the area. This procedure was particularly useful in the case of Userkaf’s sun temple, whose valley temple plan is partially still recognizable from the satellite under the vegetation. The analysis of the features of these temples and the comparison with the satellite imagery concerning the already known valley temples of the Abusir pyramids, i.e. Sahura’s and Niuserra’s, allow us to proceed by analogy in the search for missing or new archaeological evidences, especially if we consider that these structures should have very similar positions in the overall topography of the area as well as common architectural and planimetric characteristics, such as, e.g., the shape and the orientation.
Abu Ghurab: Exploration and Mapping
The modern exploration of the area of Abu Ghurab can be dated back to Napoleon’s expedition. In the famous Description de l’Égypte the French savants recorded the pres- ence of « pyramides en ruines » – certainly corresponding to the actual pyramids of Abusir – and of a very small structure which is called « éminence que l’on croit avoir été une Pyramide », most likely Niuserra’s sun temple (fig. 1).15 However, the French cartogra- phers obviously focused on the most impressive pyramids of Giza and Saqqara as well as the ruins of the old city of Memphis / Mit Rahina which are both very well drawn and documented in their map. The second brief description of the site was carried out by the British explorers Howard Vyse and John Shae Perring in the years 1837-38. During their survey and exploration of the Memphite pyramid field, the two scholars also recorded on their map, with the
15 Description de l’Égypte. Publiée par les ordres de Napoléon Bonaparte, V, 1809, pl. 1.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 84 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
number 12 (fig. 2), the presence of a small building – supposed to be a pyramid – located in the northernmost foothills of the village of Abusir,16 at that time known as the « Reeghah village ».17 The explorers also drew the remains, simply called « ruins », of a structure supposed to be the valley temple, which was connected by a causeway to the upper temple. The position of these « ruins » on the plan drawn by Vyse and Perring is, however, very strange since they lay on the same east-west axis of the upper temple, a feature which does not correspond to what we know nowadays about the valley temple of Niuserra’s sun temple.18 We cannot but wonder whether they simply made a mistake in the drawing or, rather, they saw and recorded other structures (no longer visible nowadays) laying on the same axis of the temple, in the valley area. Whatever the case, the fact that they carried out only a quick and superficial exploration of Abusir is clearly demonstrated by absence, in their map, of the sun temple of Userkaf which was situated at only 500 m to the south of the sun temple of Niuserra and which was, in fact, recorded by all later explorers. A few years after the exploration by Vyse and Perring the famous expedition led by Carl Richard Lepsius took place. This exploration, which represents a milestone in Egyptological studies, did not have Abusir as one of the main targets, for Lepsius’ attention was evidently more focused on the area of Giza and Saqqara. Nevertheless, the German scholar’s team was extremely accurate in carrying out the first complete topographical map of all the monuments of the area.19 In fact, in the map by Lepsius (fig. 3) we can clearly see, besides the royal pyramids of Abusir, the remains of Niuserra’s sun temple in Abu Ghurab (the temple is named Pyramid XV), as well as, for the first time, what will later on reveal to be the sun temple of Userkaf (recorded in his map as Pyramid XVII). Lepsius drawing of Niuserra’s temple is particularly remarkable when we consider that it is not limited to the overall plan of the monument but also includes several architectural details, such as the obelisk, described as a pyramid resting on a sort of square pedestal, an inner, open-air courtyard surrounded by an enclosure wall, and two rounded artifacts (whose nature is not very clear) in the south-eastern and north-eastern corners of the central courtyard.20 It is also noteworthy that Lepsius carefully recorded not only the causeway
16 The two scholars also introduced for the first time in Egyptology the toponym « Abusir » to indicate the royal necrop- olis of the 5th dynasty. In fact, the previous explorers included this area within the larger pyramid field of Saqqara, using the name Abusir for the sole area of the lake and the village around it, as it is the case, for example, with the Napoleonic map. 17 H. Vyse, Appendix to Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 containing a survey by J. S. Perring, III, 1842, p. 10-12, and fig. 2. 18 See L. Borchardt, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-Woser-Re, I, Der Bau, 1905, pl. 2. 19 C. R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, I, 1849, p. 129-131, and pl. 32. The maps of Lepsius expedi- tion were actually drawn by the architect Georg Gustam Erbkam: see E. Freier – S. Grunnert, Eine Reise durch Ägypten. Nach den Zeichnungen der Lepsius-Expedition in den Jahren 1842-1845, 1984, p. 45. 20 It is interesting to note that Borchardt was not able to find any significant artifact or structure in the south-eastern corner of the central courtyard, while he found the impressive alabaster basins of the so-called « slaughterhouse » at the opposite corner. See L. Borchardt, op. cit., pl. 2 and 6.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 85
Fig. 1. Detail of Napoleon’s map of the Memphite necropolis (after Description 1809: vol. V, pl. 1) compared with a modern satellite image of the area of Abusir (Google Earth - June 2012).
Fig. 2. Sketch plan, section and elevation of the sun temple of Niuserra with added background (after Vyse 1842: fig. 2).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 86 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA and the valley temple, with its two large columns in the façade, but also a large rectangu- lar-like structure enclosing the valley temple itself, which was later identified as the enclo- sure wall of the pyramid town.21 After Lepsius, a few others scholars significantly contributed to extend our knowledge of the site although they did not focus on topographical issues: among them, special mention is due to Eduard Meyer and Kurt Sethe, whose scholarship was decisive for the identifica- tion of Lepsius Pyramid XV as the sun temple of Niuserra.22 The times were now mature for a thorough exploration of the area and, in fact, at end of the nineteenth century, Abusir and Abu Ghurab were extensively explored first by Jacques de Morgan and soon after by Ludwig Borchardt. In 1897 de Morgan carried out the most accurate and comprehensive mapping of the Memphite necropolis hitherto achieved (fig. 4). The map, which can still be considered one of the best cartographical achievements in Egyptology, included, from north to south, Abu Ghurab, Abusir, Saqqara and Dahshur.23 It must be noted, however, as we will see more in detail below, that in the case of Abu Ghurab and Abusir de Morgan’s map is less accurate than the one made by Lepsius fifth years before. In fact, the layout of the sun temple of Niuserra is drawn more like a sketch than a real plan, although we have here, for the first time, the outline of the alabaster altar of the central courtyard.24 The sun temple of Userkaf is also poorly recorded in de Morgan’s map for it appears only as a red, rectangular-like sign without any architectural or cartographical details. The lack of accuracy in the drawing of this portion of the Memphite necropolis is even more evident when we compare it against Lepsius map. This comparison clearly shows that many pyramids and subsidiary structures which had been drawn by Lepsius are not anymore recorded in de Morgan’s plan.25 For the sake of completeness, however, we also have to say that de Morgan recorded some structures (i.e., mastaba tombs approximately dated to the Old Kingdom) in the area immediately to the north-east of Sahura’s pyramid. These structures, on which we will be back later in this article, are not recorded at all in the map by Lepsius.
21 L. Borchardt, op. cit., p. 7-8, and pl. 2. 22 See M. Nuzzolo, « From Lepsius to Borchardt. Archaeological investigations at the 5th dynasty Sun Temples in Abu Ghurab », in M. Betrò – G. Miniaci (eds.), Talking along the Nile. Ippolito Rosellini, travellers and scholars of the 19th century in Egypt, 2013, p. 163-164. 23 J. de Morgan, Carte de la nécropole Memphite. Dahchour, Sakkarah, Abou-Sir, 1897, pl. 11. 24 This altar, which was not present in Lepsius drawing of the sun temple, was actually discovered during the winter of 1882/83 by Henry Windsor Villiers Stuart, a British parliamentary and special envoy to Egypt. See M. Nuzzolo, in M. Betrò – G. Miniaci (eds.), op. cit., p. 171, n. 29. 25 On the contrary, the map of Saqqara drawn by de Morgan was definitely much more precise and accurate of the one achieved by Lepsius, also because of the contribution to the topography of the area given by Mariette, with his famous map of central and north Saqqara which was published only after he passed away: see A. Mariette, Les mastabas de l’Ancien Empire, 1889, str. 2, pl. 2.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 87
Fig. 3. Lepsius’s map of the Abusir plateau (after Lepsius 1849: pl. 32).
Fig. 4. De Morgan’s map of the Abusir plateau (after de Morgan 1897: pl. 11).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 88 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
Finally, in 1898, Ludwig Borchardt reached the Abu Ghurab hillock and started working in the sun temple of Niuserra. This can be considered the beginning of the systematic archaeological exploration of the Abusir plateau. Between 1898 and 1908 the German Egyptologist investigated the main part of the 5th dynasty royal necropolis, unearthing, besides Niuserra’s sun temple,26 four royal pyramids and several subsidiary pyramids and private tombs,27 thereby establishing a lasting association between the necropolis and his name in the history of Egyptology. However, despite the accurate and masterful work conducted in the sun temple of Abu Ghurab, Borchardt did not elaborate a new topographical map of the entire site. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, also for Herbert Ricke’s excavation of the sun temple of Userkaf in the years 1952-55. The Swiss scholar carried out a detailed fieldwork resulting in a com- prehensive two-volume publication of the sun temple,28 in which, however, there is no updated topographical map of the area of Abu Ghurab. Only in 1978 the French Aviation and the Egyptian Ministry of Housing and Reconstruction elaborated the first extensive and updated cartography of the entire area of the Memphite necropolis (including Abusir and Abu Ghurab), with the basic contour plans of sites and monuments therein. This photogrammetric map, scaled 1:5000, still remains the basic car- tographical instrument for any investigation on the site (fig. 5).29 In the last three decades many efforts have been made to improve the topography of the Memphite necropolis, including the site of Abusir.30 However, nothing has been done for Abu Ghurab, which only recently has become again the center of scientific attention and investigation.31 The analysis of the satellite imagery of Abu Ghurab (and also of Abusir as we will see), and the comparison with the above-mentioned historical cartography is therefore particu- larly important for a general reassessment of the topographical and archaeological features
26 In fact, the sun temple of Userkaf was also identified and briefly explored by Borchardt, although not systematically excavated, during the fieldworks in the Sahura’s pyramid. See L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re’, I, Der Bau (ADOG VI), 1910, p. 149-150. The reading of the name of the temple was however wrong, since Borchardt followed the first reading provided by Sethe (K. Sethe, ZÄS 27 [1889], p. 111-117) who was amended by the latter only after the discovery of a vase in the Greek island of Kythera (see K. Sethe, ZÄS 53 [1917], p. 55-58). 27 In addition to the already mentioned volume on the pyramid of Sahura, see also L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Ne-user-Re’ (ADOG I), 1907; L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-ir-ka-Re’ (ADOG V), 1909. 28 H. Ricke (ed.), Das Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Userkaf, I, Der Bau; II, Die Funde (BÄBA 7-8), 1965-69. 29 Egyptian Ministry of Housing and Reconstruction, Cairo 1978 (1:5000), sheet 3: from now on EMHR. 30 See note 7 above. 31 Since January 2010 an Italian archaeological mission (co-directed by M. Nuzzolo and R. Pirelli) from L’Orientale University of Naples has been working in the sun temple of Niuserra with the aim to reassess the available archaeological and topographical evidences as well as to accomplish a 3D virtual reconstruction of the sanctuary. The latter phase of the project is under the direction of A. D’Andrea and is funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: see M. Nuzzolo – R. Pirelli, in M. Bárta – F. Coppens – J. Krejčí (ed.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2010, 2011, p. 664-679; A. D’Andrea – G. Iannone – M. Nuzzolo – R. Pirelli – P. Zanfagna, Newsletter Archeologia CISA 5 (2014), p. 48-98; M. Nuzzolo – R. Pirelli – P. Zanfagna et al., PES 21 (2018), forthcoming.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 89
Fig. 5. The Franco-Egyptian map: detail of the area of Abusir/Abu Ghurab (EMHR 1978, sheet 21).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 90 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA of the area. At the same time, it can give us precious information on the possible presence of undiscovered monuments, notably the missing sun temples. The identification of the latter monuments, as well as an extensive survey and investigation of the entire area of Abu Ghurab, is in fact one of the main objectives of a three-years based research project which has just been launched (January 2017) at the Czech Institute of Egyptology – Charles University, Prague, under the direction of one of the present authors (M. Nuzzolo).32
Crossing the evidences: satellite imagery, historical cartography and archaeological data in Abu Ghurab
The site of Abu Ghurab nowadays appears as a quite empty zone, the sun temple of Niuserra being the only notably visible archaeological structure. This perception of empti- ness appears more striking when confronted with the contiguous site of Abusir where three pyramids (four in the past if we consider Neferefra’s funerary monument) act as well per- ceivable visual landmarks. However, the ancient sacred landscape of this area was probably much different. In fact, when one confronts the historical cartography diachronically one thing stood out instantly, namely the presence of a significant structure in between the sun temples of Niuserra and Userkaf. This is the so-called Lepsius Pyramid XVI (see fig. 3).33 Lepsius describes the building as a « Ziegelpyramide » (i.e., a brick pyramid) with a base of around 75 m. We have no data on the height of this alleged pyramid but the term used by Lepsius to define the building, i.e. « Berge » (i.e., mount/hill), suggests a rather sizable structure.34 Lepsius concludes his description by saying that the extant sides of the struc- ture were oriented towards the cardinal points. In 1897, de Morgan’s mapped the building as a small, insignificant dot, without any description (see fig. 4),35 while in 1898, namely only one year later, Borchardt did not mention the building at all in his publication of the archaeological excavation of Niuserra’s sun temple.36 Sethe, who was the editor in chief of Lepsius’ work in the 1890s, noted that the descrip- tion of this pyramid was very similar to that provided by Lepsius for another pyramid, located in the central part of Abusir, namely Pyramid XXVIII (see further below for this
32 Project title “Rise and Development of the Solar Cult and Architecture in Third Millennium BC Egypt” (https://cegu. ff.cuni.cz/en/research/grants/the-rise-of-solar-cult) supported and funded by the Czech Science Foundation, GAČR, grant no. 17-10799S. 33 C. R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, I, 1849, p. 130-131, and pl. 32. 34 C. R. Lepsius, ibid., p. 130-131, pl. 32. 35 J. de Morgan, Carte de la nécropole Memphite, 1897, pl. 11. 36 L. Borchardt, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-Woser-Re, 1905, p. 1-6. He did not record this structure even in his brief description of Userkaf’s sun temple which was quickly investigated during the excavation of Sahura’s pyramid (see L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re’, 1910, p. 149-150).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 91 pyramid).37 He thus concluded that Lepsius might have gotten confused and mapped a single pyramid twice.38 In 1987, comparing the map by Lepsius and the aerial view of the Abu Ghurab site,39 Aidan Dodson revived Lepsius idea that the Pyramid XVI might have really been a pyramid, notably a 13th dynasty pyramid.40 However, this interpretation was not based on archaeo- logical elements but rather on the position of the pyramid close to the cultivated area, as it is the case with the other 13th dynasty pyramids of the Memphite necropolis analyzed by the same scholar in another paper.41 Ladislav Bareš replied to Dodson’s theory by suggesting that Lepsius Pyramid XVI might have been more probably a Middle Kingdom pyramid, although he emphasized that the presence of Middle Kingdom royal monuments in Abusir is not supported by any archaeological or historical elements.42 Recently, Christoffer Theis has resumed Dodson’s identification of Lepsius Pyramid XVI as a 13th dynasty pyramid. Once again, however, the basic assumption to support this theory is the position of the pyramid at the edge of the cultivation, as well as the material used for its construction, namely mud bricks, instead of the more typically Old Kingdom limestone.43 Nowadays, the combined analysis of the topographical map made in 1978,44 the satellite imagery of the area and the evidence still visible on the ground, can give us some new information on the area. First of all, the analysis of the isohypses of the 1978 map (fig. 5) confirms the existence of a tell – situated very close to the valley temple of the sun temple of Userkaf – which is higher (28.6 m) than the surrounding area, whose isohypses are around 20 m.45 This aspect cannot be underrated when we consider that the structure into account is situated on the border between the cropland and the desert, which is usually a rather flat area, as demonstrated by the isohypses of all the other valley temples of both pyramids and sun temples. The abovementioned tell seems to match Lepsius Pyramid XVI when the two cartographical maps are compared and overlapped. The match is even more evident when we compare these maps with the satellite images from both Google Earth (fig. 6) and the Cosmo Sky-Med (fig. 7-8).
37 C. R. Lepsius, op. cit., p. 137-138, and pl. 32. 38 C. R. Lepsius, op. cit., p. 138. Sethe himself, however, adds a brief note recorded by Lepsius in his notebook about Pyramid XVI. In this note Lepsius seems to confirm his previous description of the structure, by adding that it was a mix of mud bricks and small stone artefacts, something which is, instead, not recorded for Pyramid XXVIII. 39 H. Ricke, Das Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Userkaf, 1965, frontespiece. 40 A. Dodson, VA 3 (1987), p. 231. 41 A. Dodson, ZÄS 114 (1987), p. 36-45. 42 L. Bareš, VA 4 (1988), p. 118-119. 43 C. Theis, SAK 38 (2009), p. 335-336. Theis also says that, according to Lepsius’ account, Pyramid XVI was charac- terized by an outer mantle made of limestone blocks, but actually there is no mention of these limestone blocks in the Lepsius’ publication. 44 EMHR 1978: sheet 21. 45 See also M. Nuzzolo, in M. Betrò – G. Miniaci (eds.), op. cit., p. 166-168.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 92 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
Fig. 6. Satellite Google Earth image of the area of Abusir/Abu Ghurab (Digital Globe 2015).
Fig. 7. COSMO Sky-Med Image of the area of Abu Ghurab and Abusir (© ASI. Processed under license from ASI – Agenzia Spaziale Italiana. All rights reserved. Courtesy by e-GEOS).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 93
Fig. 8. Detail of the COSMO Sky-Med Image of the area of Abu Ghurab with the basic contour plans of the sun temples of Userkaf and Niuserra, as well as sketch plans of the hypothetical missing sun temples.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 94 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
In the Google Earth image (fig. 6), a few dozens meters to the north of the valley temple of Userkaf’s sun temple we can clearly distinguish the presence of a sandy hill whose contours are quite precisely evidenced on three sides by sparse vegetation as to form a sort of rectangular-like structure oriented from north-east to south-west. The analysis of the SAR images of the area (fig. 7-8) also confirms the existence of archaeological evidence in the same topographical position. The spectrometric characteris- tics of the area show rather evident traces of a rectangular-like structure whose north- eastern and north-western sides are particularly evident on account of the high reflectance of this area compared to the surroundings (see fig. 8[F]). However, the central part of this structure, corresponding to the highest part of the hill on the Google Earth image and the 1978 map, is not particularly reflective. This may signify that this was the core of the hidden building, which is nowadays buried under a deeper layer of sand which hampers the SAR penetration into the terrain. However, it is equally possible that the core structure was made of mud bricks, which are not as reflective as limestone (or other kind of stones, e.g., granite or quartzite). Most importantly, the SAR images confirm that the building was not oriented along the cardinal points, an element which, although in this preliminary stage of analysis, would lead us to conclude that Lepsius Pyramid XVI could not be a pyramid. Last but not least, the tell into account is also clearly recognizable by means of direct observation on the ground. It is characterized by the presence, on the surface, of a large amount of mud bricks and several limestone fragments, as well as of a number of chips of granite and quartzite, although they are quite haphazardly scattered on the spot and do not demonstrate, per se, the presence of archaeological evidence underneath. The first logical conclusion that thus comes to mind is that this structure might be a sun temple or the valley temple of a sun temple. As already said the structure is located in between two solar sanctuaries, and according to the Abusir Papyri all sun temples should be located quite close to the respective pyramids,46 so as to be reached twice a day by boat to perform religious and administrative duties.47 By reading the Abusir Papyri, it is also very clear that there existed a precise path that the daily offerings consecrated to the royal cult had to follow: moving from the royal residence (and partially also from the RꜢ-š KꜢkꜢỉ), these offerings were delivered first to the sun temples – where they were consecrated to the sun god – before eventually reaching the pyramid complex of the kings in Abusir, which represented the last stage of this offering path.48 Several religious festivals mentioned in
46 M. Nuzzolo, “The sun temples of the Vth Dynasty: a reassessment”, SAK 36 (2007), p. 233. 47 P. Posener-Kriéger, Les archives du temple funéraire de Néferirkarê-Kakaï (Les Papyrus d’Abousir): traduction et commentaire (BdE 65), 1976, p. 519-520. 48 P. Posener-Kriéger, in E. Lipinski (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East (OLA 5), 1979, p. 141- 144; P. Posener-Kriéger – V. Verner – H. Vymazalová, The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef. The Papyrus Archive (Abusir X), 2006, p. 383-384.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 95 the Abusir Papyri, such as the Sokar festival (ḥb Skr) or the so-called « Night of Ra » (grḥ n R῾), also seem to confirm that the solar complexes had to be located nearby the pyramid complexes in order to be easily reached during the above ceremonial celebrations which very likely involved both royal monuments.49 Contrary to the above suggestion, one could argue that the area might have been used as a funerary field for early dynastic mastabas, which were indeed found at the edge of the cultivation on the north-western side of Niuserra’s sun temple.50 However, these mastabas usually do not present a significant elevation aboveground either before or after the exca- vation.51 This seems confirmed by the fact that even the large early dynastic mastaba tombs at Saqqara do not appear as impressive as Pyramid XVI in any nineteenth – or twentieth – century maps, including the above ones by Lepsius, Mariette and de Morgan. Be it as it may, the significant size of the mound – still visible today on the ground and on the Google Earth image – the presence of stone artefacts together with mud-brick elements in both Lepsius’ account and the field survey, as well as the features of the build- ing evidenced by remote sensing seem to confirm that the structure has to be identified as a significant architectural building. Taking into account the consolidating construction activities carried out by 5th dynasty pharaohs up to the reign of Niuserra, and the location of the latter temple, which suggests a symbolic and architectural continuity with the monuments of his royal predecessors, it is possible that Lepsius Pyramid XVI was indeed a sun temple, or more likely the valley temple of a sun temple.52 If the core of this hypothesis is correct, this would confirm the fact that the sun temples area was quite restricted and uniform in terms of topographical features, forming a sort of consecrated field for the solar cult of the king adjacent the royal necropolis for his funerary cult.53 In the current state of our knowledge, however, and even if we admit the correctness of the hypothesis advanced in this paper, it is impossible to establish which sun temple may potentially be hidden under the sands. On the one hand, Neferirkara’s sun temple – which
49 P. Posener-Kriéger, Les archives du temple funéraire de Néferirkarê-Kakaï, 1976, p. 550-553; M. Nuzzolo, SAK 36 (2007), p. 222. For a general picture of the festivals celebrated in the Abusir necropolis see also H. Vymazalová, in R. Landgráfová – J. Mynářová (eds.), Rich and Great. Studies in honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the occasion of his 70th feast of Thoth, 2016, p. 331-340. 50 A. Radwan, MDAIK 47 (1991), p. 305-308; A. Radwan, in M. Bárta – J. Krejčí (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, 2001, p. 509-514. 51 In this sense we also have to bear in mind that the area of the early dynastic tombs excavated by Ali Radwan close to the sun temple of Niuserra was not particularly notable before the diggings and did not present an anomalous height, as instead “Pyramid XVI” does. The area was not recorded as particularly significant even in the old maps of the Nineteenth or Twentieth century. It would be quite strange, thus, that similar mastabas might have left such different traces on the ground. 52 See also M. Nuzzolo, in M. Betrò – G. Miniaci (eds.), op. cit., p. 166-169. 53 See M. Nuzzolo, in F. Coppens – J. Janak – H. Vymazalová (eds.), Royal versus Divine Authority Acquisition, Legitimization and Renewal of Power (KSG 7), 2015, p. 303-304.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 96 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA is by far the most cited one in the epigraphic sources of the time54 and should thus have a significant architectural framework – would appear the most obvious candidate. On the other hand, Sahura’s sanctuary may equally be a suitable candidate. In fact it was the sec- ond temple to be built and, theoretically, it should be the closest to the sun temple of Userkaf. We cannot forget, however, that Sahura’s temple is mentioned in the contempo- rary textual sources only a few times,55 and was probably never completed.56 This would contrast with the size and dimensions of the structures evidenced by the remote sensing. Besides the question of the identification of the structure, what is even more interesting is that the SAR images testifies of the presence of another structure in the area into account. This structure is located in between the mound corresponding to Lepsius Pyramid XVI and the valley temple of Userkaf’s sun temple. Here the SAR images show the presence of an intense (and highly reflective) concentration of artefacts under the vegetation, which may actually feature the corners of another rectangular structure (fig. 8[G]) with the same orientation as the previously described one. We do not have enough data at the moment to maintain with certainty that this is a separate structure and not a part of the previously discussed one. As in the case of the pre- viously discussed structure, this area is fully suitable for the presence of the valley temples of sun temples although we have to bear in mind that, if this was the case, the two struc- tures (fig. 8[F-G]) would have been located really next to each other, in a quite uncomfort- able position from the architectural standpoint. Whatever the case, it is worth noting that upstream from the area we are dealing with, in the area between the two unearthed sun temples of Userkaf and Niuserra, we have at least two wide hills which could serve as a suitable location for the upper temple of a solar com- plex. These tells appear particularly impressive when observed in the field (fig. 9) and are clearly distinguishable in both the Google Earth imagery and the 1978 photogrammetric map. In the latter map they are marked with a isohypse of 44.1 m and 50.9 m respectively (see fig. 5), namely much higher than the hill where the sun temple of Niuserra is located, at the height of 34.6 m. The latter mound was so inconvenient, from the architectural stand- point, as to force the architects of Niuserra to build a huge artificial platform to support the temple on the northern side.57 Therefore, if the two abovementioned tells in between Userkaf’s and Niuserra’s sun temples were natural in origin, the choice for the location of the sun temple of Niuserra would appear rather unsuitable and inconvenient from both a topographical and architectural standpoints, for Niuserra had the entire plateau of Abu
54 See M. Nuzzolo, SAK 36 (2007), p. 241-247; M. Nuzzolo, “The Vth Dynasty Sun Temples Personnel. An overview of titles and cult practice through the epigraphic evidence”, SAK 39 (2010), p. 309-312. 55 See M. Nuzzolo, SAK 36 (2007), pl. 1; M. Nuzzolo, SAK 39 (2010), tab. 1. 56 M. Nuzzolo, SAK 36 (2007), p. 230-231. 57 L. Borchardt, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-Woser-Re, 1905, p. 26-27.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 97
Fig. 9. Overview of the area of Abu Ghurab and Abusir with the indication of the main monuments: (top) digital model of the area based on Google Earth and the topographic data; (middle) two pictures of the area from the ground; (down) satellite Google Earth image. P1: Sahura’s pyramid; P2: Niuserra’s pyramid; P3: Neferirkara’s pyramid; A,H: Userkaf’s sun temple and valley temple; B-C: the two hills in between Userkaf’s and Niuserra’s sun temples; D-E: Niuserra’s sun temple and valley temple; F: the hill correspond- ing to Lepsius Pyramid XVI; G: the area of the archaeological remains evidenced by the SAR image.
Ghurab at his disposal when he assumed the throne, and the area to the south of his sun temple was definitely more suitable for the scope. Unfortunately, these two still unexplored tells, when investigated by means of the SAR technology (fig. 8[B-C]), do not present spectrometric features comparable with the valley area and do not show any archaeological evidence hidden below ground. Additionally, no trace of archaeological material is visible today on their surfaces, nor was it in the recent past.58 We have to bear in mind, however, that, if a sun temple was actually located here, it may lay under several meters of sand and this would hinder its identification by means of the sole SAR images, which using the X band, cannot penetrate so deeply into the terrain (see above concerning the depth of penetration of the SAR images). We should also not
58 L. Bareš, VA 4 (1988), p. 119.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 98 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA forget that the missing sun temples might have been done mostly of mud bricks — mud bricks are indeed abundant in Userkaf’s building and an earlier phase of the sun temple of Niuserra59 was also made of mud bricks. This may have facilitated the dismantling and the loss of the structure(s) which, in any case, being made in the above material, would not be very visible (and reflective) when investigated through the SAR technology. In conclusion, in the valley area between Userkaf’s and Niuserra’s sun temples we have two structures whose presence is evidenced by the combined analysis of the historical cartography and the remote sensing: one seems to match Lepsius Pyramid XVI, and might have been the valley temple of a sun temple; another one is not present in any old maps of the area and its identification is still very uncertain. The entire area has never been archaeologically explored so far and is therefore very promising in terms of future field- investigation.
Old maps, archaeological data and remote sensing in central Abusir: some remarks
Moving further to the south, and notably in the pyramid field of Abusir, the combined analysis of old maps, topographical data and remote sensing provides us with other inter- esting and new data. Specifically it is in the area to the south of the valley temple of Niuserra that we note the presence of another archaeological structure which was recorded by Lepisus but then disappeared from all later maps: Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII (see fig. 3). Lepsius describes the pyramid as a remarkable building, composed of mud bricks and several small limestone blocks, and oriented towards the cardinal points.60 The size of this building, in particular, is very interesting when we consider that, based on account by Lepsius, the pyramid had a square basis of about 95 m and a considerable height which is, however, not specified by Lepsius.61 If Lepsius’ account is right, this pyramid would be the largest of all of the Abusir pyramids except Neferirkara’s. In de Morgan’s map, this pyramid is completely missing, although the presence of an anomalous hill in the same topographical position is recorded (fig. 4). During the excava- tions of the pyramid complex of Sahura in 1908, the site was briefly investigated by Borchardt who concluded that it was probably a Middle Kingdom pyramid.62 However, his interpretation is not entirely supported by the archaeological evidence. First of all, Borchardt did not actually dig the structure because of the high groundwater level: as a consequence, he could only investigate the top layer of the site and he was not
59 The identification of this mud bricks building as an earlier phase of the sun temple of Niuserra or, alternatively, a previous sun temple is very much debated: see M. Nuzzolo, SAK 36 (2007), p. 232-233. 60 C. R. Lepsius, op. cit., p. 137-138, pl. 32. 61 Ibid., p. 137: « Die Höhe ist ganz beträchtlich ». 62 L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re’, 1910, p. 147.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 99 able to reach neither the oldest levels of the building nor its foundation, a crucial step to determine the date of a structure due to the great difference between Old and Middle Kingdom architecture in the lower levels. He also could not find any evidence of the casing stones of this building which would also have helped him establish the date as well as the shape and slope of the pyramid.63 Secondly, besides some small, intrusive decorated objects of the Late Period, Borchardt mainly found a few fragmentary blocks of limestone, quartzite,64 basalt and granite, as well as some small pottery sherds datable from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom. In the only trench he was able to dig for a certain depth, only a few mud brick structures were found, together with a large concentration of tafla clay. These archaeologi- cal findings would agree more with a pyramid temple rather than an actual pyramid, and do not demonstrate, per se, a Middle Kingdom date (an Old Kingdom date based on these find- ings is in fact equally plausible). Moreover, Middle Kingdom pyramids are mostly com- posed of mud bricks – especially in their core masonry – and only scanty remains of mud bricks, as we have seen, were found in the area. Thirdly, according to Borchardt’s account, Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII seems to have been somehow connected to other mastaba tombs situated further to the south-east of the pyra- mid itself and dated to the late Old Kingdom, or the beginning of the First Intermediate Period at the latest.65 Last but not least, it is also worth noting that no royal pyramid of the Middle Kingdom is actually missing and, as far as we know, the site of Abusir does not seem to have been used during the Middle Kingdom pyramid revival by the members of the royal family, whose tombs are located elsewhere. The area, instead, was the centre of popular cults devoted to local rulers (especially Niuserra) who were divinized during the First Intermediate Period.66 In this period, too, however, at least in the current state of our knowledge, the site does not seem to have been chosen as the seat of royal monuments.67 After Borchardt’s work, Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII has been the object only of brief con- siderations. In the already mentioned 1987 article, Dodson proposed that also this pyramid
63 L. Borchardt, ibid., p. 147: « Ein Versuch, am Fuße des Hügels in unserem Graben tiefer zu gehen und etwa Reste der Bekleidung dieser Pyramide zu finden, wurde durch das bald hervorsickernde Grundwasser verhindert ». 64 The word used by the German scholar is actually « rot und braun Sandstein » but we know, from the sun temple description, that in both cases we are dealing with quartzite. See L. Borchardt, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-Woser-Re, 1905, p. 41; L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re’, 1910, p. 147. 65 L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re’, 1910, p. 147-149, and pl. 2 and 15. This date has been partially amended by Verner, who suggested that Borchardt was in fact digging subsidiary burials of the late Old Kingdom which were clustered around early Old Kingdom mastabas of which Verner had found the remains further to the south of the area excavated by Borchardt. See M. Verner, ZÄS 122 (1995), p. 78-84. 66 See A. J. Morales, in M. Bárta – F. Coppens – J. Krejči (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005, 2006, p. 311-341. 67 K. A. Daoud, in M. Bárta – J. Krejči (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, 2001, p. 193-206; J. Malek, in M. Bárta – J. Krejči (eds.), ibid., p. 241-258.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 100 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
– like Pyramid XVI – might have been a 13th dynasty pyramid,68 an hypothesis also re-proposed by Theis.69 Once again, however, the elements in support of this interpretation are only indi- rect arguments, i.e., the location of the pyramid close to the cultivated area (a feature unusual for the Old Kingdom pyramids) and the material used for its construction (mud bricks instead of limestone).70 Bareš, on the contrary, proposed that this area might have been only a natural hill mostly made of tafla.71 This assumption was mostly based on a geomagnetic survey car- ried out in the site in the years 1978-79 by the Czechoslovak team headed by Miroslav Verner.72 We have to note, however, that the anomalies measured by the above survey con- cerning the elevation and conformation of the terrain were actually limited to a small part of the hill. Moreover, the survey confirmed the presence of « small mud bricks structures (tombs?) scattered on its surface »,73 something which would seem to confirm the archaeo- logical findings made by Borchardt without really clarifying the matter of their nature and date. Criticism to the interpretation provided by Borchardt was also expressed by Bárta, espe- cially as regards the subsidiary buildings connected to the alleged pyramid, which appear to be more similar to mastaba tombs, in his opinion, than to structures connected to a pyramid.74 The satellite imagery of the area and the analysis of the abovementioned 1978 photo- grammetric map can now give us some new information. First of all, the isohypses of the area into account in the 1978 map (fig. 5) show the presence of a rather sizable 33.3 m tell, compared to the 20 m of the surrounding area. Comparison of the necropolis map and the satellite image from Google Earth (fig. 6), also shows that the mound occupies a large portion of the valley area, suggesting the importance of the structure underneath. In the SAR image (fig. 7) the tell shows the presence of a square-like structure, whose contours are much more clearly recognizable when we apply to satellite images various filters contours (fig. 10). This evidences the overall outline of the building which seems to match the size proposed by Lepsius for his Pyramid XXVIII (about 95 m). The eastern and southern sides of this structure are very clearly visible in the SAR image, whereas the western side is completely missing. The northern side is also recognisable though not entirely preserved. An important aspect of this structure is that its central part is less reflective than the enclo- sure walls, suggesting a square-like empty structure which seems to match the architectural typology of other 5th dynasty pyramids of the necropolis, namely a massive enclosure wall
68 A. Dodson, VA 3 (1987), p. 232. 69 C. Theis, SAK 38 (2009), p. 336. 70 Borchardt, however, maintains that the buildings were a mix of mud bricks and limestone and not only mud bricks as in Theis account: see L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re’, 1910, p. 147. 71 L. Bareš, VA 4 (1988), p. 117-118. 72 M. Verner – V. Hašek, ZÄS 108 (1981), p. 75-76. 73 Quotation from M. Verner, ZÄS 119 (1992), p. 121. 74 M. Bárta, The Cemeteries at Abusir South, I (Abusir V), 2001, p. 17-19.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 101
Fig. 10. Detail of the COSMO Sky-Med Image of the area of Abusir (above), and overlaying with Lepsius’s map (below).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 102 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA with a central large pit left open for the construction of the pyramid’s substructure, to be filled later on during the construction work. This is the same technique which is still clearly visible – both on the ground and in satellite imagery – in the case of Neferefra’s pyramid,75 as well as in other « minor » pyramids of the necropolis, such as, for example, Lepsius Pyramids XXIV and XXV.76 For the sake of completeness, however, we have to bear in mind that the high reflectivity of this structure in the SAR image might be partially due to the steep gradient of the tell. In fact, the reflectivity of the radiometric X band varies significantly according to the gradients of monuments/natural hills into account and the tell corresponding to Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII has indeed a significant slope, particularly on the eastern side. Moreover, the high reflectivity of the eastern side may have been further increased by the fact that the satellite has a look side rightwards (see footnote 13 for the characteristics of the SAR image). These elements could partially mislead our analysis and interpretation of the structure, at least for the eastern side, giving us the impression that on this side the structures hidden below sand could be more abundant than what they really are. These reservations, however, cannot be applied to the southern and northern sides of the structure into account, which are also highly reflective, and this demonstrates, beyond doubts, that something is really hidden underneath this tell. Finally, it is interesting, but also puzzling, that, as far as we can see from the satellite images, the building corresponding to Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII is not perfectly oriented on the cardinal points, being slightly shifted towards the north-west. The elements we have hitherto examined raise a number of questions concerning the iden- tity of Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII which are not easily solvable. On the one hand, they would indicate that Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII was neither a Middle Kingdom pyramid (as sug- gested by Borchardt) nor a 13th dynasty pyramid (as in Dodson’s and Theis’s hypotheses), given its not very precise orientation. On the other hand, however, when we consider the history of the 5th dynasty and the overall topography of the area of Abusir and Abu Ghurab, we note that no royal pyramid of this period is missing,77 while the sun temples are.
75 M. Verner, The Pyramids. The Mystery, Culture and Science of Egypt’s great Monuments, 2001, p. 304-306. 76 M. Verner, in C. Berger – G. Clerc – N. Grimal (eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant (BdE 106/1-2), 1994, p. 372-374 and fig. 2. 77 Besides the known pyramids of the 5th dynasty in Abusir (Sahura, Neferirkara, Neferefra and Niuserra) and Saqqara (Djedkara and Unis), only two pyramids are still object of discussion. However, none of them can fit Lepsius’s Pyramid XXVIII. In fact, the pyramid of Menkauhor has probably to be identified as the so-called “Headless Pyramid”, i.e., Lepsius XXIX at Saqqara (see Z. Hawass, in Z. Hawass – P. Der Manuelian – R. B. Hussein [eds.], Perspectives on Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honor of Edward Brovarski, 2010, p. 153-170), although many scholars disagree with this theory (see J. Málek, in C. Berger – G. Clerc – N. Grimal [eds.], Hommages à Jean Leclant, 1994, p. 203-214, who maintains that the pyramid belonged to the First Intermediate Period king Merikara; see also D. Silverman, in D. Silverman – W. K. Simpson – J. Wegner [eds.], Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture and Society of Middle Kingdom Egypt, 2009, p. 47-101, who suggests that, whoever its original owner, the pyramid may have been usurped by Amenemhat I). The pyramid of the ephemeral ruler Shepseskara has otherwise to be placed very likely in between Sahura’s pyramid and Userkaf’s sun temple (M. Verner, in M. Bárta – J. Krejči [eds.], Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, 2001, p. 581-602).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 103
Dušan Magdolen has thus suggested that Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII might have been a sun temple, notably Menkauhor’s one.78 In my view, however, the area is not suitable for the location of a sun temple for at least two reasons. The first one is the proximity to the edge of the cultivation zone, which would not have allowed the temple to have a proper valley temple. The second, and most important, reason is that the other sun temples known so far (two, if not three) are located in a specific area (i.e., Abu Ghurab) located to the north-west of the Abusir royal pyramids in order to be contiguous to, but clearly separated from, the pyramid field. This would suggest that also the missing temples should be located here and, at any case, not directly adjoining the pyramids. Considering the topographical position of Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII, the most likely hypoth- esis would thus be that the structure was the valley temple of Neferefra’s pyramid, which is almost exactly on the same east-west axis of Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII. We might add that Maragioglio and Rinaldi, during their survey of the area, recorded the existence of a narrow causeway, partially visible in their time, running south-east of the pyramid for a few dozen meters.79 However, this identification of Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII as a valley temple of Neferefra’s pyramid complex seems in contrast with the small size of the king’s pyramid – which was not completed due to the premature death of the king – and with the fact that there seems to be no mention of the valley temple in the papyrus archive of Neferefra’s pyramid.80 Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the structure was not connected at all with the 5th dynasty. In this regard, either previous or later dates are theoretically feasible. In fact, in the area of south Abusir, which is only a few hundred meters from Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII, several large 3rd dynasty mastabas have been identified by the Czech mission in the early 1990s81 as well as, in more recent years, a huge mastaba (AS 54) dated to the reign of Huni.82 In 2015, an impressive boat, also dated to the 3rd dynasty, was found adjoining the above AS 54 mastaba.83 These findings seem to testify to the presence of an elite cemetery in the area, possibly even members of the royal family. This is very interesting when we
78 D. Magdolen « Einige Bemerkungen zur Suche nach den verschollenen altägyptischen Sonnenheiligtümern der 5. Dynastie », AAS 21/1 (2012), p. 27. 79 V. Maragioglio – C. A. Rinaldi, L’architettura delle piramidi menfite, VII, Le Piramidi di Userkaf, Sahurâ, Neferirkarâ. La Piramide Incompiuta, le Piramidi minori di Abu Sir, 1970, p. 180; V. Maragioglio – C. A. Rinaldi, op. cit.,VIII, La Piramide di Niuserrâ, la « Small Pyramid » di Abu Sir, la Piramide « Distrutta » di Saqqara, ed il Complesso di Zedkarâ Isesi e della sua Regina, 1975, pl. 5. 80 It is not entirely clear whether the mention of the ḥwt-nṯr in the archive may refer to the valley temple or to the entire complex: see also P. Posener-Kriéger – V. Verner – H. Vymazalová, The Pyramid Complex of Raneferef. The Papyrus Archive (Abusir X), 2006, p. 349. 81 See M. Verner, ZÄS 122 (1995), p. 78-84. 82 M. Bárta in: V. G. Callender – M. Bárta – F. Coppens – J. Janak – J. Krejčí (eds.), Times, Signs, and Pyramids. Studies in Honour of Miroslav Verner on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 2011, p. 41-50. 83 http://cegu.ff.cuni.cz/en/2016/02/01/a-unique-boat-from-the-pyramid-age-discovered-at-abusir-by-the-expedition- of-the-czech-institute-of-egyptology/.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 104 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA consider that we still do not know the precise location of the pyramids of at least three kings of the 3rd dynasty, including Huni, to whose reign the AS 54 mastaba is datable. As for a later date, we have already said that the site was intensively frequented during the First Intermediate Period, when it became the centre of popular cults devoted to local rulers who were divinized, as it is especially the case with Niuserra. The area around his funerary temple and the causeway was largely occupied by tombs dating back to the First Intermediate and the Middle Kingdom,84 and many of these tombs can be dated with a certain precision to the reign of king Merikara.85 When we consider that there is no certainty on the location of Merikara’s pyramid,86 it seems at least reasonable to take into account also the possibility that Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII might be the tomb of this king. In both the above cases, however, we have to explain why the structure, when observed through the lens of the satellite images, especially the SAR ones, does not appear to be oriented on the cardinal points, something which may be hardly due to the sole poor state of preservation of the archaeological ruins. The latter hypotheses may appear somehow speculative, lacking any new archaeological investigation or excavation in the ground. However, we should not forget that the pyramid of Menkauhor was also supposed to be in Saqqara exclusively on the basis of indirect elements, before the excavations carried out by the Supreme Council of Antiquities in the late 2000s eventually confirmed its identity as Lepsius Pyramid XXIX, in the area to the north-east of Teti’s pyramid in Saqqara (see above). In conclusion, it is thus clear that without new archaeological evidences from the field the identity of Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII has to remain uncertain. Whatever its nature, how- ever, one thing clearly surfaces from the above analysis, namely that the building must have been an important structure, with a significant visual impact, especially in comparison with the other structures of the valley area.
Other data coming from the remote sensing of the area
The combination of old maps, topographical data and remote sensed data can also pro- vide other interesting information on the area of Abu Ghurab and Abusir. Moving from north to south, two more areas seem particularly promising for future research: 1) the area in between the sun temple of Userkaf and the pyramid of Sahura; 2) the area in between the causeways of Sahura’s and Niuserra’s pyramid complexes.
84 H. Schäfer, Priestergräber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zum Griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Neuserrê (ADOG II), 1908, p. 15-109. 85 K. A. Daoud, in M. Bárta – J. Krejči (ed.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000, 2001, p. 205-206. 86 J. Málek, in C. Berger – G. Clerc – N. Grimal (eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant, 1994, p. 203-214, maintains that the pyramid of Merikara was to be identified as the Lepsius Pyramid XXIX at Saqqara but we have seen before that this pyramid is very likely to be attributed to king Menkauhor.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 105
Fig. 11. Detail of the COSMO Sky-Med Image of the area in between the pyramid of Sahura and the sun temple of Userkaf (above), and overlaying with de Morgan’s map (below). In the latter, several small Old Kingdom (?) tombs (in red) are also visible.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 106 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
As regards the first area (fig. 11), de Morgan’s map records the presence of two clusters of mastaba tombs marked in red, which are located at the foot of the desert hills (8 tombs) as well as at the outskirts of the cultivation (4 tombs). Unfortunately the French scholar did not provide any description of these mastabas, although he dated them to the Old Kingdom. The remote sensing of the area once again provides us with some useful indications. At the edge of the cultivation, we can see several small oblong structures, oriented along the north-south axis and more or less parallel to one another, which seem to follow the line of the cultivation until the valley temple of Sahura. Four of these structures seem to match rather well those drawn by de Morgan, when we overlay the satellite images with his map. It is however difficult to establish, from the images, whether they are Old Kingdom tombs, as suggested by de Morgan, or something else, for example early dynas- tic tombs which seem to be present in various parts of the site, especially close to the vegetation (see above in concerns with the early dynastic tombs to the north of the valley temple of Niuserra’s sun temple). The high reflectance of these structures in the SAR imagery would lead us to think that we are dealing with limestone artifacts, but we cannot provide more precise data, also considering the very small size of these monuments in the satellite imagery. As regards the area in between the causeways of Sahura’s and Niuserra’s pyramid com- plexes (fig. 12), we should note the presence of highly reflective artifacts, with at least two curved structures running from the valley temple of Sahura to the one of Niuserra. The identification of these structures is very difficult lacking any new archaeological data, also because the area is nowadays almost completely covered by crops. A recent paper by Verner might, however, help identify these structures. In this paper Verner notes the presence – in some photographs taken by Borchardt during the excavation of Sahura’s pyramid – of a curved structure, made of mud bricks, which is visible between the valley temples of Sahura and Niuserra. Verner thus argues that it could have been the mud brick enclosure wall separating the necropolis from the pyramid town of Niuserra, which is known from the epigraphic sources but has not been located yet.87 Verner’s hypothesis seems reasonable when we compare the pictures mentioned by him with the SAR imagery here presented, although we should not forget, as already mentioned, that the structures we are dealing with are very reflective and therefore are probably made of limestone rather than mud bricks.
87 M. Verner, SAK 41 (2012), p. 407-410.
RdE 68 (2017-2018) THE SEARCH FOR THE LOST SUN TEMPLES: A GLIMPSE FROM THE SATELLITE 107
Fig. 12. Detail of the COSMO Sky-Med Image of the area of Abusir (above), and overlaying (below) with the Czech’s mission map of the site (after Verner, SAK 41, 2012).
RdE 68 (2017-2018) 108 M. NUZZOLO – P. ZANFAGNA
Conclusion. Future Perspectives
The combined analysis of modern remote sensing technology with available historical car- tography of the area of Abu Ghurab and Abusir clearly demonstrates that several important elements of the sacred landscape of this area must still be clarified or even discovered. Particularly in the area of Abu Ghurab, in between the two so far unearthed sun temples of Userkaf and Niuserra, the presence of ancient structures (Lepsius Pyramid XVI) hidden under the sand appears both historically and archaeologically plausible, and thus deserves a further and in-depth field investigation which could ground-truth the hypotheses advanced so far. This is, among the others, one of the main objectives of the aforementioned research project recently launched at Charles University in Prague, which aims to contribute to the identification of the missing sun temples and to further our historical knowledge of the area of Abu Ghurab.
Résumé / Abstract
Les sites d’Abousir et d’Abou Gourab, avec leur mélange unique d’architecture funéraire et religieuse, et l’incroyable patrimoine des papyrus, représentent un domaine crucial pour la compré- hension de l’évolution historique, architecturale et religieuse de l’Égypte à l’Ancien Empire. Cependant, beaucoup de leurs caractéristiques topographiques et archéologiques demeurent obscures, en particulier en ce qui concerne l’identification des quatre temples solaires manquants, documentés dans les sources textuelles de l’époque mais jamais localisés. Le présent article vise à approfondir notre connaissance du paysage sacré de la région pendant la Ve dynastie, grâce à l’ana- lyse combinée de la technologie moderne de télédétection, de la cartographie historique disponible de la région et des données archéologiques traditionnelles.
The sites of Abusir and Abu Ghurab, with their unique mingling of funerary and religious archi- tecture, and the incredible heritage of written papyrus documents, represent a crucial area for the understanding of the historical, architectural and religious evolution of Old Kingdom Egypt. However, many of their topographical and archaeological features remain unclear, especially as regards the identification of the four missing sun temples, which are documented in textual sources of the time but have been never located. The present article wishes to further our knowledge of the sacred landscape of the area during the 5th dynasty thanks to the combined analysis of the modern technology of remote sensing with both the available historical cartography of the area and the data coming from the traditional archaeological investigation.
Acknowledgement
The present study has been done within the framework of the research project entitled “Rise and Development of the Solar Cult and Architecture in Third Millennium BC Egypt” (https://cegu.ff. cuni.cz/en/research/grants/the-rise-of-solar-cult), supported and funded by the Czech Science Foundation, GAČR, grant no. 17-10799S.
RdE 68 (2017-2018)