FHOTQG.

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM

OF ART
THE LIBRARY

MUSEUM ADMINISTRATION.

228331
P U B L I C A T I O N S OF THE M E T R O P O L I T A N MUSEUM OF ART
EGYPTIAN E X P E D I T I O N
Vol. XXI
Sandstone head of King Mcntuhotcp, MMA 26.3.29
 THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART
EGYPTIAN E X P E D I T I O N

'X

THE TEMPLE OF M E N T U H O T E P
AT
DEIR EL-BAHARI

BY
DIETER ARNOLD
from the notes of
HERBERT WINLOCK

Photographs by Harry Burton

Plans by Walter Hauser, Gouvcneur M. Peek
and Dieter Arnold

NEW YORK
1979
 XV, 71 pages of text with 13 figures, 1 frontispiece, 53 plates.

Printed in West Germany 1979 by Philipp von Zabcrn, Mainz am Rhcin.

 PREFACE

The Egyptian Expedition had a remarkable record of excavating and publishing during the
30-odd years of its activity. It did not publish all its excavated material in final form during those
years, however, and this responsibility n o w lies with a Department that did not participate in
those excavations. A study of the material from earlier excavations is in keeping with the times,
and it is with great interest that these publications are n o w undertaken.
During the last six years the Department itself has been effecting the completion of a
reinstallation of its collection, and it is grateful that one of the Expedition volumes will actually
be published during this time. Dieter Arnold's ability and energy have been welcome c o m m o d -
ities; his expertise within the area that the excavations were undertaken would have been
considered great fortune in any time.
Publishing earlier records has limitations, which Dr. Arnold points out in his introduction.
O n e still not resolved with the Metropolitan material is that of organization: should one publish
material from a large concession according to the date of the objects and structures, or according
to the area in which it was found? We have adopted the former scheme for this volume, with only
the drawing of Eleventh Dynasty pottery missing and scheduled for another volume. But the or-
ganization might shift once the Department begins working on the remaining records in detail.
There is determination to complete the Expedition's great work as quickly as possible.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art Christine Lilyquist

September, 1978 Curator of Egyptian Art

228331
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface v

List of Frequently Cited Abbreviations ix

List of Figures in Text x
List of Plates xi

Introduction 1

1. Topographical Description of Buildings and Excavation 5

1.1 The Causeway 5
1.2 The Fill East of the Court 7
1.3 The Rough Fieldstone Wall 8
1.4 T h e Southeast Corner of the C o u r t 9
1.5 The Walls of the Court 10
1.5.1 The Stone Walls of the Court 10
1.5.2 The Postern Gates of the Court 11
1.5.3 The Shield-Shaped Court Wall 14
1.5.4 The Brick Walls of the Court 15
1.6 The South Triangular Court 16
1.6.1 The Priest's House 17
1.7 The N o r t h Triangular Court 17
1.8 The Fill of the Middle Terrace of Hatshepsut 18
1.9 The Gardens of the Temple 21
1.10 TheBabel-Hosan 24
1.11 The Brick Construction N o r t h of the Bab el-Hosan 26
1.12 Varia 27
1.12.1 T h e B e n c h Marks 27
1.12.2 The Brick Piers in the Northern Lower Colonnade 28
1.12.3 The Ramp Beams 28
1.12.4 The " H a t h o r D u m p " 28
1.12.5 The Rubbish Holes in the Court 29
1.12.6 The " P y l o n " of Tuthmosis III 29
1.12.7 The Building Cubit 29
1.12.8 The Sandstone of the Mentuhotep Cemetery 31

2. T h e Reconstruction of the Main Temple 32

2.1 The Lower Colonnades 32
2.2 The Ramp 32
2.3 The Upper Colonnades 33
2.4 The Ambulatory 33
2.5 The Pyramid 34
2.6 The Middle Court 35
2.7 The Partition Wall 35
2.8 The Hypostyle Hall 36
2.9 T h e Sanctuary 36
2.10 The Royal T o m b 37
Vlll

The Building Phases of the Temple 39

3.1 , Phase A 40
3.2 PhaseB 40
3.3 Phase C 41
3.4 Phase D 42

4. T h e Finds 46
4.1 T h e Mentuhotep Statues 46
4.2 T h e Foundation Deposits 49
4.2.1 Northeast Corner 51
4.2.2 Southeast Corner 52
4.2.3 N o r t h w e s t Corner 53
4.2.4 Southwest Corner 54
4.3 The Bread Deposits 57
4.4 The Bread Moulds 59
4.5 T h e Workmen's Equipment 60
4.5.1 TheMallets 60
4.5.2 TheLever 61
4.5.3 T h e Baskets, Pick, and H o e 61
4.5.4 The Buried Baskets 62
4.6 T h e Buried Animals 62
4.6.1 The Sacrificed C o w • 62
4.6.2 TheBulls 62

5. Sequence of Work of the Expedition in the Temple of Mentuhotep 63

6. List of Members of the Expedition 63

7. List of Brick Types 64

8. Table ofContents for Herbert Winlock's N o t e b o o k " X l t h Dynasty T e m p l e s " . . . 65

9. Description of Plates 38-51 67

General Index 70

Plates 1-53
 LIST OF F R E Q U E N T L Y C I T E D A B B R E V I A T I O N S

Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f I D. Arnold, Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, I Die Architektur [1971] (Arch.
Arnold, Mentuhotep I-II
Hayes, Scepter i-ll
Navillel-lII
PM
Thomas, Necropoleis
Winlock, Excavations
Winlock, RiseandFall
Veroff. 4)
D. Arnold, Der Tempel des Konigs Mentuhotep von Deir el-
Bahari, I Architektur und Deutung [1974], n Die Reliefs des
Sanktuares [1974] (Arch. Veroff. 8, 11)
W. C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt I [1953], n [1959]
E. Naville, The Xlth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari I
[1907], II [1910], in [1913] ( = Egypt Exploration Fund
Memoirs 28, 30, 32)
B. Porter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient
Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings
. E. Thomas, The Royal Necropoleis of Thebes [1966]
H. E. Winlock, Excavations at Deir el Bahri 1911-1933 [1942]
H. E. Winlock, The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in
Thebes [1947]

In the description of figures and plates the following abbreviations are used:
Constr constructed by
Surv surveyed, mapped by
Draw drawn in ink for publication by
Ar D. Arnold
Exped Egyptian Expedition of the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
N e w York

H. E. Winlock uses the following Arabic expressions:

dubsh fieldstones roughly cut into brick shape
gebel mountain, bedrock
hib dust, dirt
muna Nile mud, used for mortar and plaster
salat flint and limestone nodules
tafl tough marl, stratified in thin layers

" T e m p l e " is capitalized when it refers to the entire architectural complex.

RL behind numbers means the levels have been reduced according to sea-level. In the plans,
levels taken by the Expedition are underlined. The other levels were taken by Ar. in 1974.
 LIST OF F I G U R E S IN T E X T

1) Brick pavement of causeway east of northern part of "pylon." See pis. 3a and 46. Surv. and draw.
Ar. Scale 1:100
2) Schematic section through the stone wall of the court. See pi. 6b-c. Surv. and draw. Ar. Scale 1:50
3) The main gate of the court. See pi. 7b. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:50
4) The north postern gate of the court with bread deposits A and B. See pi. 33a. Surv. Exped., draw.
Ar. Scale 1:50
5) The southwest postern gate of the court. See pis. 7c and 47. Surv. and draw. Ar. Scale 1:50
6) Pieces of sandstone door jamb seen from the passageway. Surv. H. E. Winlock, draw. Ar. Scale 1:20
7) Sandstone foundation blocks of north shield-shaped court wall. See pi. 11a. Surv. H. E. Winlock,
draw. Ar. Scale 1:33V3
8) Schematic section through brick court wall and parapet wall (R = raking course). Surv. and draw.
Ar. Scale 1:50
9) Construction sketch on sandstone slab MM A 22.3.30 (above) and hypothetical sketch of the
Temple garden (below). See pi. 15b. Draw. Exped. and Ar. Scale 1:5
10) Bench mark found in Naville's rubbish, near temple. Surv. H. E. Winlock, draw. Ar. Scale 1:8
11) The building phases of the Temple. Draw. Ar. Scale 1:800
12) The inscriptions on the tablets of the foundation deposits. Draw. Ar on photo after the originals.
See pi. 31. Scale 1:2
13) Three examples of XI Dynasty bread moulds. Draw. Ar. after sketch of Expedition. See pi. 33d.
Scale 1:5
 LIST OF PLATES

la The Expedition's work at Deir el-Bahari, December 1926. Note freshly filled trench on "original
axis" of Mentuhotep Temple (see p. 58). M8C 15
lb Upper end of the causeway of Mentuhotep (left) and Tuthmosis III (right). See pi. 46. M10C 39
2a Marked bricks of causeway. See p. 7. M8C 418
2b Marked bricks of causeway. See p. 7. M8C 419
2c Marked bricks of causeway. See p. 7. M8C 417
2d Marked bricks. See p. 7. M8C 420
3a Marked bricks in causeway, east of north part of pylon. See p. 7 and fig. 1. Photo Ar
3b Marked bricks. See p. 7 M8C 421
3c Marked bricks. See p. 7 M12C 347
3d Marked bricks. See p. 7 M12C 348
4a North end of rough fieldstone wall. Above the wall are some of "Wilkinson's Much Pottery". See
p. 8 and pi. 38. M8C 38
4b Same as 4a, seen from east. M8C 37
4c South end of north part of rough fieldstone wall. See p. 8 and pi. 46. M8C 216
4d South part of rough fieldstone wall. See p. 9 and pi. 46. M11C 186
5a Boulder revetment under XI Dynasty filling between causeways of Tuthmosis III and Hat-
shepsut, seen from west. See p. 9 M8C 15
5b South part of rough fieldstone wall, looking north. See p. 8 and pi. 46. M11C 187
5c Southeast corner of brick walls, with fieldstones in older foundation trench. See p. 9 and
pi. 46. M8C 214
5d Same as 5c with tafl step in foundation trench, looking northeast. M8C 215
6a North court wall with south retaining wall of Hatshepsut ramp built on top, and palace facade
wall of Hatshepsut lower terrace behind. M5C 177
6b West end of south court wall. See p. 15 and fig. 2. M3C 280
6c Detail of masonry near 6b. Photo Ar
6d Foundation slab of east court wall with chisel marks. See p. 11. Photo Ar
7a South triangular court with priest's house, foundation trench of shield-shaped court wall on right,
and three south court walls in center. See p. 16-17 and pi. 47. M3C 278
7b Remains of main gate of court. See p. 10 and fig. 3. M4C 5
7c Southwest postern gate. See p. 12 and fig. 5. Photo Ar
7d Mentuhotep brick wall under east wall of Hatshepsut court. See p. 21 and pi. 45a. M8C 70
8a South postern gate (front right). See p. 11 and pi. 45b. M3C 65
8b Same as 8a, seen from south. Observe later brick sealing of postern gate. See p. 11. M3C 76
8c Brick sealing of south postern gate, seen from inside. M3C 84
8d Brick parapet wall, foundation trench of shield-shaped court wall with foundation block in it,
and retaining wall, all south of court. See p. 19 and section 9 pi. 51. M3C 139
9a South triangular court. See p. 16-17 and pis. 7a and 47. M3C 123
Xll

9b Priest's house in south triangular court. See p. 17 and pis. 7a and 47. M3C 168
10a Southwest corner of north triangular court with shield-shaped court wall (right), and retaining wall of
terrace (left). See p. 18 and pi. 43. M6C 145
10b Southeast corner of north triangular court, with terrace retaining wall of building phase C (right) and
court wall of phase D (left) built against it. See p. 18 and pi. 22d. M4C 23
lla-b Brick court wall (left, in tajl) and foundation of shield-shaped court wall under the terrace of
Hatshepsut temple. See section 6 pi. 50b. M12C 251-252
lie North brick court wall and foundation trench with block of shield-shaped court wall. See p. 20 and
pi. 50 section 1. M l 2 C 150
lid Same as lie. See pi. 12b. M12C 158
12a Brick court wall, parapet, and retaining wall north of Hatshepsut Temple court. See p. 20 and
pi. 44. M5C 183
12b Brick wall and fieldstone retaining wall under terrace of Hatshepsut temple. See p. 15 and sec-
tion 1, pi. 50. M12C 157
13a Brick court wall and parapet wall east of lower north colonnade of Hatshepsut temple. See p. 20
and pi. 44. M6C 305
13b Brick court wall under Hatshepsut temple terrace. Observe late burials in the fill. See p. 20 and
section 2 pi. 50. M12C 169
14a Brick court wall under south retaining wall of terrace of Hatshepsut temple. Observe Ptolemaic building
left, above, and tomb of "King Intef," right below. See p. 20 and pi. 44. M13C 6
14b Brick court wall (left) and entrance to tomb of Neferu (right) with its brick facade. See p. 19 and
pi. 44. M6C 326
15a Garden of large single tree, east of remaining section of ramp to temple of Tuthmosis III. See
p. 22-23 and pi. 19a. M5C 39
15b Construction sketch on sandstone slab MM A 22.3.30. See p. 23 and fig. 9. M3C 283
15c-d Roots of sycamore fig trees in Temple garden. See p. 21-22 and pi. 17d. M3C 165 and 163
16a Tree hole S III with buried statue and flower beds behind. See p. 22 and pi. 23c. M3C 143
16b Tree hole S VII with spiral steps for workmen. See p. 22. M3C 48
16c Tree hole N IV with mud altar and buried statue. See p. 22 and pi. 16d. M3C 142
16d Tree hole N IV with mud altar. See p. 21-22 and pi. 16c. M3C 146
17a Tree hole S IV with buried statue and tree hole S III behind. See p. 21-22. M3C 145
17b Tree hole S VIII with buried statue and the trench of section 13 (pi. 51) behind. See p. 22. M3C 39
17c Tree hole S V (?). See p. 22. M3C 40
17d Buried sections of sycamore fig with sprouting shoots and roots. See p. 22 and pi. 15c-d. M3C 157
18a Dromos of the Bab el-Hosan. See p. 24-25 and pi. 48. M5C 68
18b Dromos of the Bab el-Hosan with the remains of the brick sealing and a stone offering table (right).
See p. 24-25 and pi. 48. M5C 69
19a Court of Temple with north brick building and garden of the large single tree behind the Bab el-Hosan.
Sec p. 26 and pi. 15a. M5C 232
19b Serpentine brick wall south of the dromos of the Bab el-Hosan. See p. 25 and pi. 48. M5C 175
20a North lower colonnade with the remains of the terrace retaining wall and brick piers. See p. 28 and
pi. 43. M4C 95
20b The same as 20a, seen from the south. M4C 96
 xm

21a Ancient bench mark on west side of the south part of the "pylon" with a loose bench mark to the right.
See p. 27 and pi. 46. M4C 6
21b Ramp beams between stone and brick walls south of the court. See p. 28 and pi. 45b. M3C 86
22a Unbonded joint between the north stone wall (Dl) and the brick wall (D2) at the northwest corner
of the north triangular court. See p. 43 and pi. 43. Photo Dieter Johannes
22b Blocks of the wall of the shield-shaped court (phase C) visible in later brick wall (phase D2). See p. 43
and pi. 43. Photo Dieter Johannes
22c Unbonded joint between the older retaining wall of the terrace's northeast corner (phase C) and the later
east wall of the north triangular court (phase D). See p. 43 and pi. 43. Photo Ar
22d Same as 22c, seen from inside triangular court (west). See p. 43 and pi. 10b. Photo Ar
23a Buried statue behind south part of court "pylon." See p. 47. M4C 3
23b Buried seated statue in trench drawn in section 8 pi. 50a. See p. 47 and pi. 27. M4C 4
23c Buried statue at tree hole S III. See p. 47 and pi. 16a. M5C 16
23d Rubbish hole in north court with buried royal head MMA 26.3.29. See p. 47 and pis. 24, 42.
M5C 55
24a-d Sandstone head of King Mentuhotep, MMA 26.3.29. See p. 47, frontispiece, and pi. 25. 200428-
200431
25a-d Sandstone statue of King Mentuhotep, MMA 26.3.29. See p. 48 and pi. 24. 200424-200427
26a-d Seated sandstone figure of King Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari. See p. 48. Photo Dieter Johannes
27a-d Seated sandstone figure of King Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari. See p. 48 and pi. 23b. Photo
Dieter Johannes
28a Foundation deposit under the northeast corner of the temple terrace. See p. 51 and pi. 52. M3C 119
28b Foundation deposit under the southwest corner of the temple terrace. See p. 54 and pi. 53
M3C 176
28c-d Foundation deposit under the northwest corner of the temple terrace. See p. 53 and pi. 53. M3C 170
and M3C 121
29a Foundation trench of south terrace wall with disturbed southeast foundation deposit. See p. 52
and pi. 52. M3C 90
29b Remains of disturbed foundation deposit under the southeast corner of the temple terrace. See p. 52
and pi. 52. M3C 89
30a Foundation bricks of northeast foundation deposit before opening. See p. 50 and pi. 52. M3C 120
30b The same after opening, showing the three tablets of wood, alabaster, and bronze. See p. 50 and
pi. 31. M3C 121
30c Skulls, leg bones, and ribs of oxen from the four foundation deposits. See p. 50 and pis. 28-29
and 52-53. M3C 255
30d Remains of bread and cake from the northeast foundation deposit. See p. 51 and pis. 28a and 52.
M3C 282
31 The tablets of wood, alabaster, and bronze from the four foundation deposits of the SW, SE, NE and
NW corners. See p. 56, pi. 30b and fig. 12. M3C 270
32a The pottery from the northeast deposit. See p. 51 and pis. 28a and 52. M3C 264
32b The pottery from the southeast deposit. See p. 52 and pis. 29b and 52. M3C 262
32c The pottery from the southwest deposit. See p. 54 and pis. 28b and 53. M3C 263
32d The pottery from the northwest deposit. See p. 53 and pis. 28 and 53. M3C 265
XIV

33a Bread deposit B, southwest of north postern gate. Deposit A perhaps visible in upper right corner.
See p. 58, pi. 33b and fig. 4. M 5 C 62

33b Bread deposit A in position. See p. 58 and fig. 4. M 5 C 60

33c Fireplace with 30 bread moulds at south side of northern brick wall (under terrace of Hatshepsut temple).

See p. 59 and pi. 44. M 1 2 C 196

33d Examples of the bread moulds from the fireplace in 33c. M 1 2 C 277

34a Examples of bread from the bread deposits. T h e left one certainly from deposit A. See p. 58 and

pi. 33b. M 5 C 245

34b Examples of mallets from causeway. See p. 60. M 1 2 C 350

34c Tamarisk lever found in causeway filling. See p. 61 and pi. 34d. M 1 0 C 41

34d T h e same as 34c. M 1 2 C 346

35a G r o u p of XI Dynasty mallets found near rough fieldstone wall. See p. 60 and pi. 35b. M 8 C 23

35b Same group of XI Dynasty mallets as pi. 35a. M 8 C 45

35c Baskets buried behind northwest corner of lower south colonnade. Observe unfinished foun-
dation pit in foreground. See p. 61 and pi. 35d. For foundation pit see Mentuhotep I p. 13 fig. 4.
M 5 C 115
35d T h e t w o baskets from 35c. M 5 C 144
36a Pick and hoe from destruction of T e m p l e found at the north end of the lower south colonnade. See
p. 61 and pi. 36b. M 4 C 1

36b Pick and hoc from 36a ( M M A 23.3.42 and 23.3.43). M 4 C 167

36c G r o u p of 50 XI Dynasty baskets buried outside south parapet wall. See p. 62 and pis. 36d and 38.

M 3 C 108

36d Detail from the same group of baskets as in 36c. M 3 C 111

37a Long horned and hornless bullocks buried in the fill east of the court. See p. 62 and pis. 38 and 42.

M 4 C 62

37b Hornless bull buried in a so-called Hatshepsut hole. See p. 62. M 4 C 105

37c Detail of another hornless bull buried in a so-called Hatshepsut hole. See p. 62. M 4 C 107

37d Sacrificed cow buried east of court. See p. 62 and pis. 38 and 42. M 4 C 71
38 Reconstruction of the Temple and its court in its final state. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. Ar. Scale
1:800
39 Reconstruction of the plan of the main temple. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. G. M. Peek. Scale 1:300
40 Reconstruction of an east-west section of the main temple. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. G. M. Peek.
Scale 1:300

41 Reconstruction of the facade of the Temple. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. G. M. Peek. Scale 1:300

42 Survey of the Expedition's w o r k in Middle K i n g d o m m o n u m e n t s at Deir el-Bahari. Constr. and

draw. Ar. Scale 1:800

43 T h e north triangular court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:250

44 T h e north brick wall of the M e n t u h o t e p court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:250

45a T h e east brick wall under the cast wall of the Hatshepsut T e m p l e court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar.
Scale 1:250

45b T h e south walls of the court with the r a m p beams. See p. 28 and pi. 21b. Surv. Exped. and Ar., draw.
Ar. Scale 1:200
 XV

46 The east wall of the court and the upper end of the causeway. See fig. 1. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar.
Scale 1:250
47 The south triangular court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:200
48 The Bab el-Hosan, section and plan. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:750
49 The central part of the garden of the Temple. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:333V3
50 Section nos. 1-6, and 8. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:150 and 1:333 V3
51 Section nos. 9-14. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:333V3
52 Sections and plans of the southeast and northeast foundation deposits. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale
1:13 V3
53 Sections and plans of the southwest and northwest foundation deposits. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale
1:13 Vs
 INTRODUCTION

In 1910, the Metropolitan Museum of Art received from the Egyptian Department of Antiq-
uities a concession on the west bank at Thebes comprised of 1) the Asasif of Gourna, 2) the nec-
ropolis of Gournet Murai, and 3) the Palace of Amenhotep III with the surrounding region to the
south of Medinet Habu. Herbert Eustis Winlock was to be in charge of the Museum's Theban
excavations, having had one season's work with the Expedition at Lisht and three seasons' w o r k
at the Oasis of Kharga. '
Winlock originally planned to excavate at least the whole of the Asasif and Deir el-Bahari. But
when he concluded his last campaign in 1931, after fifteen seasons of fruitful w o r k , 2 he was still far
from having accomplished his goal. Many important discoveries had been made, quite a number
of areas and monuments had been exhaustively excavated and their study completed, but many
other projects were unfinished or the results of the field w o r k unpublished. The Temple of
Nebhepetra Mentuhotep was just one of these projects.
This Temple, built by King Nebhepetra Mentuhotep in the second half of the XI Dynasty
(about 2045-2015 B.C.), represents the most important architectural achievement of the period
between the VI and XII Dynasty. Today its ruins are well enough preserved to give an impression
of the structure, a unique combination of a royal t o m b and of a temple for the deified king, the
god Montura, and the god A m u n r a . 3
The excavation and the study of the Temple of Mentuhotep has been the w o r k of several ex-
peditions, the first one being that of Frederik Lord Dufferin in 1859. 4 T h e temple proper was ex-
cavated by Edouard Naville on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund between 1903 and 1907 5
and was studied again by the German Archaeological Institute from 1968 onwards. 6 The results
of these expeditions are more or less k n o w n or under publication, and mainly concern the temple
itself with its architecture, inscriptions, wall reliefs, burials, and other finds.
It was the area in front of the temple that was Winlock's focus, however, even during the time
in 1920/1921 when he was working in the temple looking for the missing t o m b shafts of princes-
ses Aashyt and Mayt. 7 During six winters (1920-1925, 1930-1931), the Expedition worked with
exemplary diligence in the forecourt of the Temple complex. Yet when the Mentuhotep enterprise
was suspended in 1925 and the activity altogether shifted to the temple of Queen Hatshepsut, the
Mentuhotep site was neither exhausted nor were the results ready for a final and comprehensive
publication. Only preliminary reports (see the list p. 63) and Winlock's famous study s u m m a -
rizing the historical results of his excavations, The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes
[1947], have been published.
The records of the Expedition (for details see below) have been housed in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art for the last 40 years. In 1970, Nora Scott kindly permitted me to consult the ma-
terial when I was preparing my o w n publication of the temple. 8 In 1972, Christine Lilyquist en-
trusted me with the publication of the whole material, and thanks to a Clawson Mills Fellowship,
I was enabled to carry out the necessary studies in N e w York from June to July 1973.
In spite of the fact that the standard of documentation was kept at a high level, I encountered
several problems during the preparation of the present publication. The excellent field w o r k of
Herbert Winlock could not prevent his achievements from being revised to some extent by

1 6
BMMA, 27, Feb. 1932, p. 31; Winlock, Excavations, pp. Arnold, Mentuhotep Hi; Arnold, MDIK, 26 [1970], pp.
35-46. 7-9; 27 [1971], pp. 126-130.
2 7
Winlock, Excavations, p. 222. BMMA, 16, Nov. 1921, Part II, pp. 36-52; Winlock, Ex-
3
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 72-89. cavations, pp. 35-46.
4 8
Edwards, JEA, 51 [1965], p. 16ff. Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 7-8.
5
Naville, The Xlih Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari I-III.
2

further progress in Egyptian archaeology, and as it would have been senseless to ignore these
changes and to write a study on the scientific level of the Twenties, I thought to serve Egyptology
best by rendering the publication both as a report and as an updated review, including criticism
and even rejection of Winlock's theories and conclusions when necessary.
A second problem was in determining the organization and form the material should take. O f
course one cannot tell exactly h o w Winlock would have preferred to see his w o r k edited. During
my w o r k with his material, however, I gained the conviction that he would have envisaged some-
thing quite different from the form I am presenting here. The viewpoint in his archaeological
w o r k being that of an historian, he would probably have rendered the study into a history of the
Temple complex. Furthermore he would have offered a picture of his discoveries as final and per-
fect as possible, keeping the controversial aspects of his archaeological w o r k to himself. It may
therefore be no coincidence that from among all his drawings only the reconstructions were
finished for publication. O n e is tempted to speculate that he would have published only those re-
constructions and kept the rest in storage.
I believe that there are arguments against the presentation of an archaeological excavation as a
historical study, resulting perhaps in half a dozen reconstructed drawings. First of all, the material
of the Expedition includes many archaeological details and important observations which would
have to be omitted, together with field drawings and sketches. Secondly, archaeology today calls
for a more complete documentation of facts, less reconstruction, and more consideration of prob-
lems. And lastly, such a publication would overlap to a great extent m y o w n publication of the ar-
chitecture of the temple, based on a more intensive and detailed study and survey of the building.
I thought it best therefore not to force the material under one topic or write a second version of
m y o w n study from Winlock's point of view, but to present the present publication in the form of
a report of what was done and thought by Winlock during his excavation, and in the form of a re-
view of that report, together with new information. The resulting form of publication unfortu-
nately forced me to leave out many direct quotations of Winlock. This is a loss of direct contact
with the original author and is especially to be regretted because Winlock was one of the best
stylists in Egyptological literature.
As far as the practical w o r k of the present publication is'concerned, it might be of some interest
to give a short account of the existing material and of the w o r k I myself added.
The easiest task was collecting the photographic documentation. There was a rich choice of
about 310 5 x 7 and 7 x 9 inch photographs taken by Harry Burton, all numbered and labelled
with a description. In only a few cases did I have to take new photos in order to show specific
details of the monument.
The drawings, however, were a different matter. Only the three above-mentioned reconstruc-
tions (pis. 39-41) were finished and ready for publication in 1973. All the others had to be put to-
gether from about t w o dozen pencil field drawings, amplified by already-published plans of the
Expedition or by m y o w n material. And as I had to deal with the records of an enterprise more in-
complete than whole, practically none of these field drawings could be used without additional
drawing at the site itself. Many minor architectural details had to be added, the north direction
and the levels of height had to be measured, and the completed products had to be drawn in ink. In
the end it can be said that all existing drawings and sketches in Winlock's notebook have been
used somewhere in the publication. 9 For the sake of completeness of the documentation I had to
draw a few more plans in the Temple itself: figs. 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11.
In addition to photographs and field drawings, there was a notebook 1 0 consisting of about 160
pages, apparently typed from Winlock's actual field records (no longer extant). This notebook

9
The description on p. 67-69 gives a detailed account of "' Labelled "xith Dynasty Temples."
what was used for each plan.
was probably composed at the end of each season, for it has many repetitions of remarks made
previously. The notebook is completed by several sketches or drawings in Winlock's hand. n At-
tached to it there are furthermore about 50 pages filled with clippings from the published reports
in the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as excerpts from Edouard Naville's The
Xlth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari.
In addition to the main temple records, there was a notebook entitled "Intramural T o m b s "
which I consulted for information about the Bab el-Hosan and the royal tomb (Naville - Winlock
no. 14), the tomb of Queen Tern (no. 15), shaft no. 16, and all the other burial shafts in the area of
the Temple enclosure.
From the main notebook I tried to extract all possible information concerning the Temple
complex during the Xlth Dynasty and in later times, leaving out, however, subjects which have
not primarily to do with the Temple precinct itself. 12 I furthermore excluded a few misleading
ideas of Winlock which he corrected himself in later years. 1 3
T o conclude, it should be mentioned that with this publication the material related to the T e m -
ple of Mentuhotep is still not exhausted. As mentioned above, other expeditions have worked at
the site and accumulated great quantities of material, 1 4 and some of Winlock's finds are connected
with these discoveries. But as the percentage of his contribution to these groups of material is re-
latively small and the study of these subjects would entail a considerable amount of research in
other museums and places, the following groups of monuments were not included in the present
publication: 1 5
The "intramural t o m b s " of the six royal ladies in the western hall of the ambulatory, consisting
of the famous beautifully decorated sarcophagi of limestone and wood, hundreds of relief
fragments of the shrines and more sarcophagi, and the remains of the burials themselves. 1 6 This
material was found by Naville but extended by Winlock's discovery of t w o more burials and
by a complete survey of the burial shafts. 17 In all, it is a huge collection of material which would
fill a volume of its own.
The non-royal "intramural t o m b s " on the northern side of the terrace and in the north triangu-
lar court. All of these had previously been discovered by Grebaut and by Naville, 1 8 and their
contents have been dispersed all over the world. Again the Expedition added an exact architec-
tural survey. Nevertheless, the Expedition's drawings cannot be published without collecting
the earlier material.
A small cemetery of about two dozen poor burials intruding from the hills south of the temple
over the walls of the forecourt. These graves were excavated by the Expedition 1 9 but they are
so closely connected with other burials from the time after the destruction of the temple into
the Coptic era-discovered by Naville and more recently by the Polish-Egyptian Expedition 2 0
working in the Temple of Hatshepsut-that one group cannot be published without the other.
This publication, already envisaged in volume I of my o w n study of the temple, 2 1 is appearing
thanks to the initiative of Christine Lilyquist, w h o put at my disposal all the facilities of the

1
' U n d e r each headline of the following chapters one can Arnold, Mentuhotep I—II, t w o m o r e are in preparation: vol. Ill,
find the page numbers of the notebook where the corres- Die koniglichen Beigaben (Arch. Veroff. 23), and IV, Die Wand-
ponding subject is dealt with. reliefs des Temp els.
12 16
For example, remarks on the T e m p l e of Seankhkara For bibliography see PM II2, pp. 656-657.
17
Mentuhotep, the statues of A m e n h o t c p I, the survey of the See note 7.
18
cemeteries in and around the T e m p l e , etc. For bibliography s e e P M II2, pp. 655-656 "Pits in T e m -
13
Mainly the rather frequent considerations about the ple area."
date of the " n o r t h e r n alley" of the M e n t u h o t e p causeway " T h e r e exist neither notes n o r drawings, but there arc
(which is actually the causeway of T h u t m o s i s III). See also photos of the site and of the finds.
20
BMMA, 27. March 1932, Part II, pp. 30-31. Lipiriska. ASAE, 59 1966, p. 64, pi. x x x i ; ibid. 60
14
See notes 4-6, 16, 18, 21-23. [1968], pp. 142-145, pi. ii-ni.
15 21
It should be mentioned perhaps that besides the t w o Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 8.
volumes published by the G e r m a n Archaeological Institute
Egyptian Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I also have to thank her and her staff,
Thomas Logan, Peter Dorman, and Andrew Clark, for editing my manuscript, as well as James
Romano and Vanessa VonderPorten for facilitating my work in the museum. Melanie Silverman
and Mark Ciccarello were kind enough to correct the English of the text.
Dieter Arnold
June 1974
 1. T O P O G R A P H I C A L D E S C R I P T I O N O F BUILDINGS
AND EXCAVATION

1.1 The Causeway [MS pp. 19-42, 91-94]

T h e causeway, running through the Asasif valley for more than a kilometer, was not studied by
the Metropolitan's Expedition in a detailed manner, though it subsequently became part of the
concessions of Austrian, 2 2 Belgian, 2 3 and German 2 4 missions. In the season 1912-1913 the Met-
ropolitan's Expedition worked near the supposed lower end of the causeway just west of the edge
of the desert, but did not succeed in tracing either the causeway itself or a valley temple because
the whole area had been levelled d o w n and filled up with sand under Ramses IV in order to build a
mortuary temple for that king. 2 5
In the later years of the Expedition Winlock made some calculations about the situation of the
lower end of the causeway and the valley temple which indicated another reason the 1912-1913
Expedition had not been able to reach the end of the causeway: the valley temple is probably
about 100 m. east of the modern desert edge, about 4 m. below the fields at a level of 72 m. 2 6
Winlock was also misled to some extent by the results of his early work, which seemed to
indicate that the causeway of Tuthmosis ill was actually the north alley of a Mentuhotep causeway
with three separate lanes. In later years Winlock corrected this mistake, 2 7 but his notes were so
confused by it that it is not worthwhile printing them in extenso.
As mentioned above, several modern projects to study the Mentuhotep causeway are currently
underway. Until these studies are concluded it is impossible to make a final presentation of the
causeway and its problems. It therefore seems justified to enumerate only the following facts
from Winlock's notes that seem to be of interest for further work in the field.
Traces of the causeway were ascertained in the following areas:
222.0 to 236.0 m. east of court: north stone wall
168.5 to 181.5 m. east of court: south stone wall
183.5 to 188.5 m. east of court, and
388.5 to 395.0 m. east of court: south parapet wall
The south parapet wall of the causeway, near the place where it intersects the rough fieldstone
wall, was not actually a complete wall, but rather merely a structure of six or more bricks 2 8 ar-
ranged like steps against a heap oftafl which must have occupied this area in ancient times. As
usual the bricks were laid in alternative layers of stretchers and headers starting with the latter.
For the western part of the causeway (pis. lb, 46) the slope of the street was calculated, and this
calculation has been confirmed in the German concession where three ancient bench marks of the
street were found and measured. 2 9 Winlock states that the front of the court wall at the junction
with the south causeway wall is at a level of 108.40 m. RL. At the excavation of the south cause-

22
Bietak, Theben-West [1972], pp. 13-14.
23
Unpublished manuscript by E. Graefe.
24
Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f I, pp. 32-35 and Taf. XVIIb, x x x v -
xxxvii.
25
BMMA, 9. Jan. 1914, p. 11; Winlock, Excavations pp.
3-13; Bietak, Theben-West [1972], pp. 17-26.
26
72 m. RL seems to be the normal flood level of the Mid-
die Kingdom of Thebes, sec Holschcr, The Excavation of
Medinet Habu I (OIP XXI), p. 3. Arnold, Craber des Alten uud
Mittleren Reiches in El-Tarif, Arch. Veroff. 17 [1976], p. 28.
27
BMMA, 27, March 1932, Part II, pp. 30-31.
28
Grey material without straw or stones,
6-7 x 15 x 28-31 cm.
2
" Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f I, p. 34, Taf. Vb and XXXVI. It should be
noted however, that M. Bietak thinks he has found evidence
that there could have been a slight change of the slope in the
lower part of the causeway.
6

way wall, 187.50 m. east, the level is 102.25 m. RL, and 204 m. to the east of the east court wall the
level is 95.50 m. RL. The slope according to Winlock is thus calculated:
6.15/187.50 (1 m. in 30.50 m.)
6.75/204 (1 m. in 30.20 m. or 3%)
A considerable amount of information was also recorded by Winlock concerning the bricks of
the causeway area. In the Austrian and German concessions, as in all other parts of the Asasif
where remains of the causeway are visible, traces of the brick pavement of the street are preserved
(pi. 3a, fig. 1), especially at the edge where it was covered by the debris of the broken limestone

10M
H h

Fig. 1 Brick pavement of causeway east of northern part of "pylon." See pis. 3a and 46. Surv. and draw. Ar. Scale 1:100

walls. The largest paved area n o w visible is the western end of the street in front of the " p y l o n "
(fig. 1, pi. 46). According to Winlock's notes, the bricks here were black and sandy 3 0 and laid in
black mud mixed with straw. They were generally placed with their length north-south and
joints of 2-3 cm. between. N o effort was made to keep them in even rows, and patches of different
work could be seen. The bricks were covered with t w o layers of black mud plaster mixed with
straw, making a layer 3-4 cm. thick. Over this was a layer of white tafl plaster with straw.
Winlock also mentions a line of bricks 3.60 m. north of the northern causeway wall which con-
tinued for at least 28.5 m. to the east (pi. 46). This was not a sighting line for the rough laying out
of the avenue as he thought, but rather the last remains of the northern parapet wall which was
torn d o w n when the causeway of Tuthmosis ill was built immediately north of it. 3 1 T h e first nine
bricks near the upper end were of b r o w n tafl and measured 7 X 15 X 30 cm. From the tenth brick
onward they were of white tafl, measuring 8 X 17 X 32 cm. 3 2

30 32
9 x 17 X35 cm. The same change between brown and white tafl bricks
31
Sec the same situation near SAE tomb no. 386 (Arnold, is recorded from the area of SAE no. 386 {Ibid., Taf. XXXVd)
Jnj-jtj.f I, p. 33, Taf. xxxvb-d). in the enclosure walls of which some of the white type were
also used (Ibid., pp. 15-16 and Taf. Va)
 7

Winlock draws our attention to bricks marked by the moulder's fingers while the mud was still
soft (pis. 2-3, fig. 1). In the causeway itself, which apparently means the brick pavement, he col-
lected the marks Q, D, o°o, and a few others which were less clear. In the south brick walls of
the court he saw the following signs: 3 3
0°o, 1] at the west end of the walls
00
less c o m m o n
+ c o m m o n midway between south postern and front of court
U c o m m o n both in wall and parapet wall just east of postern
t c o m m o n both in wall and parapet wall just west of postern
c
c o m m o n both in wall and parapet wall abreast of eastern trees.
In this connection it is worthwhile publishing brick marks Winlock collected from a Late
Period structure in the court of an XI Dynasty t o m b ( M M A no. 820) near the causeway. The
bricks had a little straw, particularly on the surface, and Winlock thought that they originally
came from the pavement of the nearby causeway: 3 4
°o° 14 examples, bricks 8-10 X 17-18 X 36.5-38 cm.
= 46 examples, bricks 8-10 X 17 X 34-35 cm.
00
58 examples, bricks 8-10 X 15-17 X 32-37 cm.
S 17 examples, bricks 8-10 X 17 x 35-36 cm.
f 24 examples, bricks 8-10 X 17-19 X 35-38 cm.
= 15 examples, bricks 8-10 X 16-17 X 34-35 cm.
n 46 examples, bricks 8-10 X 17-18 X 35-37 cm.
A 3 examples, bricks 8-10 X 17-18 X 35 cm.

1.2 The Fill East of the Court [MS pp. 59-63]

In 1922-23 3 5 and 1926-27 36 the Expedition moved a great quantity of debris outside the eastern
walls of the courts of Mentuhotep and Hatshepsut, probably looking for statue fragments of Hat-
shepsut (pis. 38, 42). Unfortunately no sections or plans 3 7 were drawn, and we have only some
photos and Winlock's description of the situation (pis. 4a-b, 5a).
Winlock states that north of the causeway of Mentuhotep the original surface of thegebel was
about 3-4 m. under the level of the causeways of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis ill. In order to level
this area, he suggested that large quantities of taf chip had been dumped northwards until that
point where the Mentuhotep court reached the rock again. This fill, evidently from the XI Dynas-
ty, was everywhere, and it consisted of clean tafl and desert surface gravel in alternating strata.
The face on the west side of the 1926-27 excavation shows level, undisturbed stratification (pi.
4b). The southern face of the excavation shows undisturbed strata also, but it slopes d o w n w a r d at
45° from west to east (pi. 4a). The east margin of this fill had reportedly been degraded to 30° by
wind and water, and a layer of sand about 20-30 cm. thick was deposited during the 500 years
prior to Hatshepsut. Then followed the filling of bricks and pottery for the causeway of Hatshep-
sut, and the angle returned to 45°.

33
For similar marks on MK bricks see Petrie, Kahun,
Gurob and Hawara [1890], pi. V; de Morgan, Fouilles a Dah-
chour, Mars-Juin 1894 [1895], p. 49, fig. 110.
34
One should keep in mind, however, that bricks were
marked also in the Late Period.
35
See BMMA, 18, Dec. 1923, Part. II, p. 24.
36
See BMMA, 22, Feb. 1928, Part. II, pp. 30-32.
37
The excavation area was drawn into the plan pi. 42 only
according to the photographic material available,
8

About 32 m. east of the northeast corner of the Hatshepsut court this fill was overlaid by great
quantities of pots and potsherds. This spot was called "Wilkinson's Much Pottery" by the ex-
cavators (pi. 4a), as it was already marked as such on the map ofl.G. Wilkinson. 3 8 N o reports exist
on the nature of these pots. Obviously they were thrown out of the court of Hatshepsut or the
nearby houses, and accumulated in the depression to the north of the Hatshepsut causeway.
Between this area of pottery and the east edge of the Mentuhotep fill there was another filling of
tafl chip. Winlock wrote that it was definitely not from the XVIII Dynasty, as there was absolutely
no admixture of antiquities in it. Yet it was also not the original grading of the XI Dynasty, as it lay
on a thick layer of wind-blown sand which was formed only with the passage of several years.
Winlock suggested t w o explanations for it. First it could be the chip from the tomb of Queen
Neferu. That is, if Neferu's t o m b antedated the brick walls of the court, this debris could simply
have been carried beyond the court and t h r o w n out. H o w e v e r it would be hard to explain the
long weathering to which the fill was subjected before the tafl from Neferu was t h r o w n over it.
The other possibility, according to Winlock, would be that the origin of the chip was in the Bab
el-Gusus t o m b shaft in the northeast corner of the Mentuhotep court where XXI Dynasty coffins
of priests of Montu were found. Winlock at this time thought the t o m b might originally have
dated to Dynasty XI. In this case the grading of the Mentuhotep fill would have been exposed for a
period long enough to be covered by drift sand. Also, there should have been a postern gate
somewhere near the northeast corner of the Mentuhotep court through which the chip could
have been brought.

1.3 The Rough Fieldstone Wall [MS pp. 56-58]

In front of the eastern enclosure walls of the court, on a level more than 6 m. under that of the
Temple court, Winlock recorded an older wall built of desert boulders and pebbles running in a
line oblique to that of the later facade of the court. Winlock occasionally calls it "dubsh wall." This
wall was laid bare at four different places (pis. 38, 42):
a) north of the causeway of Hatshepsut
b) between the south wall of the causeway of Hatshepsut and the north wall of that of T u t h -
mosis III
c) directly under the northern parapet wall of the causeway of Mentuhotep
d) south of the Mentuhotep causeway.
Winlock gives the following short description of parts a-c:
a) The north end of the wall is clearly cut, either by modern excavations or by w o r k done in the
x v m Dynasty. It is still 1.80 m. high and 2 m. thick, with a batter of 1/7 on the west face. T h e east
face is too low (50-80 cm.) to be measured. 3 9 T h e wall is built entirely with surface pebbles, the
largest of which are not much more than 30 cm. in diameter. East of this wall there are three piles
of similar dubsh gathered up in lines approximately parallel to the wall (pi. 4a-b). Otherwise the
desert appears to have been scraped clean.
b) This section of the wall (found in 1922-23) 40 is built with gebel boulders to a height of
0.75-1.25 m. in the west. The east side was to uphold rubbish [sic].
c) T h e southern end of the northern half of the rough fieldstone wall ends under the northern
parapet wall of the Mentuhotep causeway with a neatly built end, square to its length (pi. 4c). T h e

38 40
Wilkinson, Topographical Survey of Thebes [1830]. BMMA, 18, Dec. 1923, Part II, pp. 29-30 and fig. 21.
3
" Visible in BMMA, 27, March 1932, Part. II, fig. 22.
wall is 2 m. thick on the gebel, and about 1 m. above the surface of the gebel the wall is 1.65 m.
thick. The total height is 1.70 m., of which the top 50 cm. is rounded.
The southern section of the wall d) (pis. 4d, 5a-b, 46) was finished by the Expedition in
1930-31. 4 1 It was measured to be 47.20 m. long and consisted of an outer coat ofsalat boulders
about 30-40 cm. in length, with a few as much as 60 cm. long. The core of the wall was filled with
tafl and flints. 42 In the north the wall ended with a neatly built face; in the south it was more irregular.
Winlock extended the trench southward for about 12 m. more, even beyond the modern street,
and dug somewhat deeper than the foot of the wall looking for the continuation of it. The last
stones of the wall, however, really marked the end of the wall 4 3 except for the above-mentioned
coat of boulders which surrounded and covered this end and gave it a strong inward inclination.
Near the point of the intersection between the rough fieldstone wall and the parapet wall of the la-
ter building phase, but running over it on a higher level, an ancient surveyor's peg was found in
the clean surface of the level from which the wall arose (pi. 46).
It is clear from the above-mentioned information that the fieldstone wall was at least 299 m.
long, and interrupted in its southern part for about 45 m. It is remarkable that the wall seems to
have had no opening in its middle. O n the other hand the notes of the Expedition do not mention
whether the middle part, which is under the causeway of Tuthmosis III, was excavated or not.
There seems to be the slight possibility that a rough fieldstone revetment along the south side
of the court (as well as the north) was built at the same time as the rough fieldstone wall (p. 19).

1.4 The Southeast Corner of the Court

U n d e r the southeast corner of the big brick wall of the court-about 1.30 m. under its foot-Win-
lock reported a step in thegebel (stepping up 65 cm. to the east) in a line running north and about
parallel to the rough fieldstone wall (pis. 5c-d, 46). T o the north it petered out when the gebel
leveled off. T o the south it lined up with the end of the dubsh retaining wall and continued around
on the south side of the wall as a shoulder. Winlock thought that this was the trace of a structure
from the period of the rough fieldstone wall which was 35 m. to the east of the structure and run-
ning on a line parallel to it.
Directly east of the southeast corner of the big brick enclosure wall on pi. 46 is the foundation
trench of the shield-shaped enclosure wall of a later building phase. This trench was reported as
being 3.25 m. wide and 0.40 m. deep, disappearing to the east under Naville's dump. T h e trench
had been roughly filled with odd stones, possibly to serve as a foundation for a stone wall which
Winlock thought was planned for the level of the court. Apparently the excavators did not follow
the foundation trench under Naville's dump, so that the question as to where it ended remains un-
answered. Such an investigation could have provided information about the shape of the court to
the east.
All the above trenches, walls, etc. were eventually covered with rubbish, including limestone
mason's chip, and the brick wall of the Mentuhotep court (main wall and parapet wall) was built
on top.

41
BMMA, 27, March 1932, Part II, p. 28 and fig. 23.
42
This is similar to the construction of the base of the
'pyramid," see Arnold, Mentuhotep I. p. 28, Abb. 19.
43
A ghaffir has informed me, however, that there were
also remains of the walls to be seen beyond the street in an ex-
tant hole, so that one could suggest that the wall even went as
far as the foothills of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna at the south.
10

1.5 The Walls of the Court

1.5.1 The Stone Walls of the Court [MS pp. 71-72, 77-78]

Winlock reported on this subject as follows.

The foundation of the forecourt walls are sandstone slabs about 22 cm. thick, laid directly on
the fill of the court without any sub-foundation (fig. 2, pi. 6b-d). The sandstone is the dark pur-
plish type characteristic of the Mentuhotep Temple. A bed for the limestone blocks of about 1 cm.
deep is cut in the exterior slabs.
T h e wall is built in courses 26.5 to 28 cm. high, the mean being 27 cm. (roughly 1/2 cubit). T h e
wall is 10 courses high, the b o t t o m course being a stretcher and the alternating ones being head-
ers. The majority of the stretchers are about 54 cm. long on the surface (1 cubit) and the majority
of the headers about 25 cm. long. Each course is fitted with careful joints on the exterior only, the
interior of the course being rough stone with a good deal of mortar and filling. After each course
was laid, a bed was cut along the top surface for the succeeding course to a depth of about 10 cm.
from the outside face of the wall. The capstone is a single piece; the mortar seems to be local tafl
slaked with lime. The width of the wall between the bed lines on the foundation stones is 2.15 m.
T h e height of the wall can only be determined in one place, on the north side of the court where
the ramp for the Hathor chapel of Hatshepsut was built (see pi. 6a). Here the Mentuhotep court
wall measures 3.145 m. vertical height, the slope height being 3.24 m. (6 cubits).

Fig. 2 Schematic section through the stone wall of the court. See pi. 6b-c. Surv. and draw. Ar. Scale 1:50

Winlock did not give a description of the main gateway of the court (pi. 7b), but his drawing
(fig. 3) shows very clearly that the front wall of the court was one meter thicker than the court
walls at the point opposite the causeway, and was apparently much higher than the other walls.
Thus it was probably an early form of the pylon. 4 4 There are no traces of a door frame left, so it
was probably just a plain opening in the wall more than 4 m. wide. This width is so great that it
could not have been bridged by a door lintel, and this means that the pylon really had t w o separate
"towers."

44
T h e development of pylons can be traced back to the ing the Farshout-routc and the cemeteries of El-Tarif. For
O K . T h e pylon nearest it in time is that of M e n t u h o t e p Sc- bibliography see Holscher, The Temples of the Eighteenth
ankhkara, on top of the so-called " T h o t - m o u n t a i n " overlook- Dynasty (OIP XLl), p. 5.
 11

5M

Fig. 3 The main gate of the court. See pi. 7b. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:50

In the gateway Winlock saw the fragments of a huge door sill which might have belonged to
this main entrance to the court. It is not clear, however, h o w these fragments were used and h o w
they were connected. O n e of them was of black diorite and had a pivot hole, but it is unlikely that
it was found in position. The function of the square holes (6 cm. in diameter and 10 cm. deep) on
the two extant limestone slabs in the doorway is also unknown.
It should be remarked that Winlock noted that the sandstone foundation slabs were originally
covered with a thick layer of tafl mortar to support the limestone wall. The foundation slabs of the
eastern wall (including the "pylon") today show clear marks incised for those limestone blocks.
T h e bricks of the causeway approaching the pylon from the east were certainly laid after the set-
ting of the foundations of the pylon, and all gaps between the bricks and the sandstone were care-
fully closed with muna (see fig. 1).
At the southern end of the east wall the sandstone slabs in pi. 6d can be seen to have distinctive
chisel marks in the smoothly dressed bed of the wall: a double r o w of rectangularly shaped marks,
18 m m . broad, of u n k n o w n purpose.

1.5.2 The Postern Gates of the Court [MS pp. 74-76]

The stone walls had four postern gates, one each in the north and south walls, and two in the
west wall. Winlock apparently found several fragments of the inscriptions from the door jambs.
Since they were probably not of sufficient value to thieves, and as they are no longer visible in the
Temple area, one must suspect that Winlock had them reburied somewhere in the court in a place
n o w unknown. They cannot be published together with the reliefs and inscriptions 4 5 and we can
only rely, at this time, on the field notes of the excavator:
a) The South Postern (pi. 45b). This gate was the nearest connection between the Temple and
the wadis to the south of it, easily reached through a kind of depression (northeast of M M A tomb
no. 801). There might even have been workshops, houses of priests, etc. in this area, especially in
the area more to the southeast of the court. Fragments of the door j a m b inscriptions were found
scattered in the ruins of the wall around the sill. The fragments are from both the inner and outer
sides of the door, and the hieroglyphs are incised. The jambs were 52 cm. wide with a column of

Arnold, Mentuhotep II. IV being prepared.

12

inscription 22 cm. wide in the middle, the cubit here divided into 2 palms (15 cm.), 3 palms (22
cm.), and 2 palms (15 cm.).

[hand copy of H.E. Winlock, not facsimile]

^''<Th t
r
V Iff/Win
*/\V//1'VNN,(.

b) T h e Southwest Postern (fig. 5 and pi. 7c). Only the end of the inscription 3 is seen on the
stone still in place.
c) The N o r t h Postern (pi. 33a; fig. 4). A few fragments of jambs, identical with those from a)
were found in the hole with the head of the Mentuhotep statue to the east of the door site.
/WWWM Nearby, an ancient wooden peg of u n k n o w n purpose was still in
situ. At the inner (southern) side of the gate t w o bread holes
were discovered in January 1924 (p. 58). In a piece of limestone
r//\K>// < • within the gateway there was a round hole containing plaster
which held a wooden or metal pivot.
1 *V/:
In Winlock's papers there is also a drawing of two pieces of a
sandstone door j a m b "lying in Mentuhotep Court near front
dl Af Wall" [MS p. 214]. These fragments have disappeared and we
depend on the existing drawing which shows the j a m b as seen
from the passageway (fig. 6). The first question is of course the provenance of thejamb. Assum-
ing that it belongs to the Mentuhotep Temple-and there is no reason to doubt that-one may
safely rule out that it was a j a m b of the temple proper, as the front of the j a m b is much more in-
clined than the walls of the Temple complex. T h e slope of t h e j a m b (2 in 10) furthermore corres-
ponds with the slope of the court walls and one may therefore be sure that it must belong to one of
its gates. Here again the main gate may be excluded as it obviously had no actual door jambs, but
was just an opening in the wall (p. 10 and fig. 3). The southwest postern gate still has the lower
part of its north j a m b and is of limestone. Since one may expect that the northwest postern gate
was of limestone as well, there only remain the north and south postern gates as possibilities. As
we have seen above, Winlock noticed several inscribed fragments of the south and north postern
gates (above), but forgot to record their material. I would therefore suggest-until the inscribed
fragments are rediscovered to prove the contrary-that the sandstone j a m b belonged either to the
north or to the south postern gate.
 13

5M
i i i I i i i

Fig. 4 The north postern gate of the court with bread deposits A and B. See pi. 33a.
Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:50

Or

bread hole
B

tliuiiiiijiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiillniiinnmauijiJUJiiijjjIllllininiiliiiiiijiiiiiiUiiiiiii

»pi]iiiiliiinniiiiii!niiiiiiiiiNimiiiiiiiiiiiiiinii|i fflimarrnnmiTmimTilmMmini

3m
J 2m—

Fig. 5 The southwest Fig. 6 Pieces of sand-

postern gate of the court. stone door jamb seen from
See pis. 7c and 47. Surv. the passageway. Surv.
and draw. Ar. Scale 1:50 H. E. Winlock, draw. Ar.
Scale 1:20

3m
^J i I L_| i L_

Fig. 7 Sandstone foundation blocks of north shield-shaped court wall. See

pi. 11a. Surv. H. E. Winlock, draw. Ar. Scale 1:33 Va
14

This suggestion is strengthened by measuring the dimensions of t h e j a m b in the drawing. The

width of its lower end fits very well with the width of the extant remains of the north and south
postern gates (about 70-75 cm.). H o w e v e r it is difficult to determine h o w the facade of the j a m b
looked, as the sandstone fragments show a kind of frame about 15 cm. wide with an outward step
of at least 6 cm., whereas the remains of the foundations of the gates as well as the inscribed frag-
ments Winlock saw do not indicate such a frame on t h e j a m b . In the upper right corner of the
drawing two drill holes are shown (the upper one 13 cm. back from the surface, the lower one 12
cm. back). They seem to be holes for the bolts of the wooden door. But their direction does not fit
the normal system of door sealing, and indicates another very rare form that has been recon-
structed from N e w K i n g d o m and later traces by O. Koenigsberger (Die Konstruktion der dgypti-
schen Tiir, AgFo II [1936], pp. 47-48: "Blattriegel"). It seems strange to me however that the two
holes are so high, at the upper edge of the j a m b .
O n e further note on inscribed jambs of the court wall postern gates (PM II2 p. 383) notes
a Ramesside graffito on the "right outer j a m b " of the north postern mentioning "Espahornufer,
Overseer of recruits of the Place of T r u t h . " Its whereabouts are unknown.

1.5.3 The Shield-Shaped Court Wall [not in MS but see pp. 47-48]

Prior to the above-mentioned stone walls and posterns (here phase D, see p. 42), the whole area
of Deir el-Bahari was surrounded by another stone wall which was called by the Expedition the
shield-shaped court wall, according to the form of the area it enclosed. This structure will here
be assigned to phase C of the building history of the Temple (see p. 41).
Winlock thought that the shield-shaped court wall began at the northwest and southwest cor-
ners of the temple platform and ran eastward. In those sectors where the Expedition could follow
it for long distances, its foundation trench cut into the tafl rock. The trench was 3.6 to 3.9 m. broad
and 0.3 to 0.5 m. deep according to the level of the rock below (pis. 44-47). In these trenches were
placed foundation slabs of sandstone (fig. 7) and-as marks on their upper surface s h o w - t h e walls
were erected on them. Winlock did not mention, however, exactly where the wall would run
along the eastern front of the court, and indeed no traces of it were found there. There is just that
mysterious trench east of the southeast corner of the later court (see p. 9, pi. 46) leading eastward
under the so-called Naville dump. O n e might suggest that that was a continuation of the
shield-shaped court wall and that its southeast corner is still hidden under Naville's dump.
As the foundation trenches indicate, the wall did not follow a straight line with well-marked
corners, but seems to have changed its direction in smooth curves to follow the natural contours
of the landscape. If one tries to reconstruct its course however, especially near the southeast
corner of the south triangular court (see pi. 47), one sees that the wall not only had a steady inward
curve but bent outward again to produce a strange serpentine course (pi. 38).
Winlock thought that all the completed parts of the wall were taken down when the later stone
wall (phase D) was erected. Such a conclusion is incorrect, however, for a closer look at the struc-
tures in the west of the court shows that the wall is still standing in some parts there or was taken
d o w n in other places only much later, that is by the stone robbers of the XXI Dynasty. At the
northwest corner of the north triangular court the shield-shaped court wall (phase C) is still visi-
ble, covered by the brick wall of phase D (pi. 22b), and from there it continues to the southwest
corner of this court and runs east to the northeast corner of the temple terrace. Evidence that the
shield-shaped court wall and the retaining wall of the temple terrace 4 6 belong together is pro-

4(
' Mostly destroyed in the XXI D y n a s t y and rebuilt by
Baraizc in 1924.
 15

vided by the coursing, foundation slabs, and foundation deposits in the Expedition photos of the
southwest corner of the north triangular court (pi. 10a), the drawings of this corner (pi. 43), and
the drawing of the northwest corner of the south triangular court (pi. 47).
During pharaonic times the shield-shaped court wall must also have enclosed the southern side
of the south triangular court. Its foundation trench and its westernmost end-blocks were found
by Winlock. Furthermore, Naville discovered the sloping walls of a priest's house in the southern
part of the court which must have been built up against the battered face of its wall. From the
southeast corner of the triangular court eastward, however, the shield-shaped court wall was re-
placed by the later stone wall (phase D) or, more exactly, by the brick wall accompanying it.
A closer look at the type of sandstone used for the shield-shaped court wall shows that it was
different from the sandstone used for the walls of phase D. The sandstone of the earlier founda-
tion slabs is more reddish and compact than that of the later foundation, and the slabs are thicker,
giving them a squarer shape (cf. figs. 7 and 2) and linking them to the chapels of the queens rather
than to the later sandstone w o r k in the Temple.
Unfortunately the shield-shaped court wall is preserved only in sections where it functions as a
retaining wall with a m a x i m u m thickness of about 1.5 m. (visible in pi. 43 section 7). There is no
indication of the thickness of the wall when it stood free and reached its full size. O n e may con-
clude from its enormous foundation trench however that it was at least as strong as the later wall.
It is strange, though, that in a place where some foundation slabs are preserved (about 20-22 m.
north of the northwest corner of the north triangular court) the foot line of the wall shows that the
wall was not standing exactly in the foundation trench but considerably further north (cf. pis. 44
and 50b section 6).

1.5.4 The Brick Walls of the Court [MS pp. 79-80, 82-84]

As pi. 38 shows, the court of the temple is surrounded by a system of t w o to three walls: a stone
wall, a brick wall, and a smaller brick parapet wall (fig. 8).

5m

Fig. 8 Schematic section through brick court wall and parapet wall (R = raking course). Surv. and draw. Ar. Scale 1:50

The main brick wall had dimensions similar to those of the stone wall (about 2.15 m. thick at its
first course and probably 3.15 m. high). It consisted of 29 courses, 27 of which are still preserved
under the middle terrace of the Hatshepsut temple (pis. 13b, 50), and also near the western end of
16

the Mentuhotep south court wall, standing up to 25 courses (pi. 7a). It is today levelled in the east
(pi. 5c-d), and is completely gone at the northeastern corner and in the court of the Hatshepsut
Temple (pi. 13a). As usual it was built in rows of headers and stretchers, starting with stretchers.
Its bricks are blackish, without straw or small stones, and have an average size of
7.5-10 X 17.5-18.5 X 34-41 cm. T h e mortar consists of grey tafl and the wall was covered with a
coat of muna with much straw and a thin layer of white lime plaster. The bricks are laid regularly
and much care was taken to gain an inward inclination of the sides of the wall by reducing its
thickness. In most courses it was sufficient to arrange the system of headers and stretchers accord-
ingly. In some of these, especially those in the interior further up, raking (diagonal) courses had to
be used to enlarge the joints as far as possible (fig. 8). This arrangement resulted, unfortunately, in
the collapse of the wall upon itself.
T h e foot of the wall protrudes somewhat, almost as if imitating the sandstone base of the stone
wall. This b o t t o m part seems to have been covered, however, in the final grading of the court. As
the foot is not treated in a regular pattern, it is difficult to find the exact distance from the brick
wall to the parapet and to the stone wall. Therefore, only approximate distances can be given: that
to the parapet wall is between 3.55 m. and 3.75 m. while that to the stone wall is between 2.57 m.
and 2.70 m.
The parapet wall extends to the Asasif, accompanying the stone causeway walls at a distance of
3.55 to 3.70 m. Along the eastern, southern and northern walls of the court, it is 2.57 to 2.70 m.
away from the main wall. It is best preserved at the western end of the south side, where it still
reaches its full height of 10 courses and measures exactly 1.05 m. or t w o cubits. It is built again in
courses of headers and stretchers, starting with headers (!) along the south side of the court, but
starting again with stretchers along the causeway. While the south parapet wall of the causeway is
well preserved in some areas, the north parapet wall was almost completely torn down when the
causeway of Tuthmosis III was built. The stretchers of its lowest course are preserved in some
places (pi. 46), and they consist sometimes of peculiar white tafl bricks of 8 X 17 X 32 cm. 4 7 T h e
parapet wall around the court consists of the same type of bricks as those in the main wall. There
seems to be a change of types, however, at the point where the eastern parapet wall meets the
southern parapet wall of the causeway. Near the causeway the bricks seem to be somewhat
smaller.
The parapet wall was plastered inside and out in the same way as the main brick wall (pi. 8b-c).
Along the southern side of the court, it was built against a long dune of tafl chip (pi. 45b) which
covered both the fieldstone retaining wall and the foundation trench of the older stone wall (pi. 51
sections 9-11, 14). The parapet wall therefore only occasionally reached its full thickness of
1.40 m. (section 13).

1.6 The South Triangular Court (pi. 9a-b, 47) [MS pp. 133-135]

In this part of the court it is uncertain h o w the enclosure was constructed. At the steep western
end of the court there still exist the sandstone foundations for the limestone wall of the shield-
shaped court. T h e foundations were built contemporary with the retaining wall of the platform,
as the foundation deposit of the platform lay directly under these foundations. The foundation
trench was preserved further to the east on the south side of the south triangular court, and a short
distance farther east another sandstone foundation stone lay in the trench. Apparently this section

47
This was noticed in the German concession (Arnold, cast wall of the Temple court.
Jnj-jtj.f l, p. 33, Taf. Vb and XXXVd) and alsojust in front of the
 17

of the southern enclosure wall-i.e. from the southwest foundation deposit of the platform to the
elbow-was one of the few parts contemporary with the shield-shaped court which was not dis-
mantled later when the brick walls of the court were built. T h e batter of the priest's house proves
that the wall really did exist, since the brick walls of the house must have been built against such a
wall. Yet the problem of h o w the three walls-the southern and eastern wall of the south triangular
court and the big brick wall coming from the east—met in the corner where the priest's house
stands remains unsolved, and Winlock hesitated to offer a solution.
A bed cut into the sandstone foundation slabs for the stone walls shows that the bed for the east
wall of the south triangular court was cut before that of the large stone court wall coming from
the east; thus the walls were probably separated by an unbonded joint. In the southeast corner of
the south triangular court a sandstone foundation slab of the older shield-shaped court wall is still
preserved. But unfortunately it does not show h o w the various walls were joined. In the south of
the court Edouard Naville 4 8 found a t o m b shaft (no. 13) which he considered older than the T e m -
ple complex because the foundation trench of the shield-shaped court wall ran into its shaft. This
can be interpreted differently, however; it is possible that the shaft may have been dug into the
foundation trench after the destruction of the court wall. It may, therefore, be contemporary with
the group of shafts in the northern court (p. 18). It is remarkable however that there are so many
shafts in the northern court but only one in the southern court. O n e should remember here that
Winlock does not mention the brick partition wall near the west end of the south triangular court,
which seems to be related to a similar brick wall on the southwest side of the terrace, 4 9 and like
that wall, considerably later than the temple.

1.6.1 The Priest's House (pi. 9, 47) 5 0 [MS 135]

The house was built on rubbish about 15 cm. above the footing of the stone wall and about 30
cm. above thegebel. 5 1 The bricks, which are made of straw and measure about 12 X 16 X 34 cm.,
are completely different from those of the XI Dynasty. The walls are preserved (1974) about 21-23
courses high (about 2.2 m. from the base) and are unnecessarily thick. 5 2 They are plastered and
whitewashed both inside and outside. Fires were burnt inside and outside, and the house was o b -
viously used as a dwelling. The existing building occupies the site of an older building, probably
of the xi Dynasty, as one or t w o bricks of the older structure are still in place, having been built on
thegebel at right angles, and being of the same kind as those used in the brick construction west of
the northern half of the eastern wall of the south triangular court.

1.7 The N o r t h Triangular Court (pis. 10, 43) [not in MS]

This area had been thoroughly cleared previously by the Egypt Exploration Fund. 5 3 When
Emil Baraize began the restoration of the retaining walls of the Mentuhotep temple terrace h o w -
ever, the Metropolitan's Expedition cleared the court again in order to collect the stones for the
necessary grading and to complete its survey. 5 4 The court contains 12 tomb shafts, two of which

48 51
Naville I, p. 51 and pi. XI. As shown in Archaeological Report 1905-1906, pi. I, 5
49
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 18, Abb. 8 and Taf. 14a-c. where it is dated to the "xvillth (?) Dynasty."
50 52
In our plan, parts of the house had to be restored from The main wall is 95 cm. thick.
53
EEF photos. See Naville, I, pi. VIII. Today, even more is dc- Naville, I, p. 19 and pi. VII.
54
stroyed. BMMA, 18, Dec. 1923, Part II, pp. 23-25 and fig. 18.
18

(nos. 1 and 2) were previously excavated and ten of which were discovered by the Expedition
(nos. 19-27, 29). T h o u g h they were plundered long before, they still contained interesting finds,
including the m u m m y of a tattooed girl. 5 5 T h e arrangement of these tombs in the court shows
that they are later than the court walls but that most of them still belong to the XI Dynasty. 5 6
As in the south triangular court, the limestone walls 5 7 delimiting the north triangular court in
the northwest were built at the same time as the temple terrace. This fact is clearly shown by
the construction of the southwest corner walls and by the position of the foundation deposits
which were under the retaining wall and the shield-shaped court wall. The east wall of the north
triangular court, however, was evidently built when the terrace retaining wall was already stand-
ing on its o w n foundation slabs (pi. 22c-d). The northern face of this retaining wall (C) had not yet
been smoothed, so that the roughness is still preserved and projects slightly where it is covered by
the eastern wall of the triangular court (D).
The north triangular court is the only place where the height of the court walls is completely
preserved to this day (pi. 6a). Its west wall must have been protected by the ramp leading up to the
temple of Tuthmosis III.58 T h e masonry of the XI Dynasty is still clearly visible under the larger
blocks of the x v m Dynasty, but there are no traces left of the eastern entrance to the court and it is
not k n o w n whether the gate was in the center of the wall. The gap between shafts 25 and 26 seems
to indicate that the entrance was more to the north. Edouard Naville had found in the middle of
the court the remains of what he thought to be the hut of a watchman, 5 9 built on the rock surface
and having a plaster flooring. T h e flooring was broken, and over it and partly beneath it were
found fragments of wooden statuettes of servants carrying baskets.

1.8 The Fill of the Middle Terrace of Hatshepsut (pis. 12b, 13-14, 44, 50) [MS pp. 79-85]

Late in the winter of 1930-31 Emil Baraize decided to rebuild the northern and southern lower
colonnades of the Hatshepsut temple and to expose their back walls down to the bedrock. Win-
lock used this occasion to dig through the filling of the Hatshepsut middle terrace in order to fol-
low the northern court walls of the Mentuhotep Temple westward and to find out if there were
more tombs like that of Queen Neferu cut into the tafl further west. 6 0 N o such tombs were found,
but the removal of the 8 m. high fill on Hatshepsut's middle terrace to the level of the xi Dynasty
court enabled the Expedition to follow the Mentuhotep walls for such a long distance that proba-
bly only the area directly under the Hatshepsut Hathor chapel remained unexamined (see pi.
43). 6 1
Directly behind the north section of the lower colonnade of Hatshepsut is the t o m b of Queen
Neferu (pi. 14b). Its facade obviously used the cutgebel surface of the Temple court, but it seems
that the dubsh retaining wall for the shield-shaped court wall ended 12 meters west of the tomb.

55
Ibid., fig. 20. The objects from these burials will have to
be published in some later publication together with Win-
lock's drawings of the tombs and with the other "Intramural
Tombs".
56
They should be considered with the Navillc-Winlock
tomb shafts no. 3-6 on the platform of the temple, the tomb
of "King Intef' (Naville-Winlock no. 28), the Bab el-Gusus,
a cemetery near the south wall of the court, a shaft (Naville-
Winlock no. 13), and some burials in the south triangular
court.
57
For details sec also Naville I, pi. VII.
58
During the reign of Hatshepsut, the southern wall of the
ramp which led to the chapel of Hathor was built on the north
wall of the court.
59
Naville, I, p. 20.
60
BMMA, 27, March 1932, Part II, pp. 23-24 and fig.
16-19.
61
These 20 m., however, might contain traces of a Hathor
sanctuary of the XI Dynasty which should have existed
somewhere in the area (Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 83-84). The
gap between shafts 25 and 26 in the north triangular court
also seems to indicate that the entrance into the court lay not
in the center of the court but in front of the (later) Hathor
Chapel perhaps to allow direct access to some other monu-
ment of importance located in that area.
 19

This fact indicates that the t w o structures may have been built at the same time. It is clear, on the
other hand, that the brick walls of the t o m b facade stand over the empty foundation trench and
must therefore be later than the building of the shield-shaped court. According to Winlock, the
brick walls of the Mentuhotep court were built after Neferu's tomb. N o t only do they block the
tomb facade and its entrance, 6 2 but they also pass the Neferu facade with so little space between
them that one would probably have bricked up the gap if the t o m b had been built later. The
Neferu south pillar, however, ends neatly a few inches north of the wall. The tomb was,
therefore, considered by Winlock to have been built after the dismantling of the shield-shaped
court wall and before the construction of the brick walls. 6 3
The date of Neferu's t o m b does not appear to me to be so certain. When one carefully considers
pi. 14b, it seems that the Neferu brick wall stands on huge boulders and debris thrown against the
Mentuhotep court wall from the north. This situation should mean that the latter structure was
built first, the debris then filled in, and the Neferu facade finally erected. As no drawing of this
place exists, however, and we can onlyjudge by the photo (pi. 14b), I would hesitate to contradict
Winlock's conclusion.
From the elbow of the court wall westward, the Expedition of 1931 followed the brick wall for
nearly 75 m. N o w h e r e was this wall found directly on thegebel, but rather always on a layer of tafl
with which the foundation of the shield-shaped court had been completely filled in (pi. 50 sections
4-6). The brick wall was about 2.20 m. thick and preserved nearly to its original height of about
3 m. It stood over only half of the above-mentioned foundation trench, which was about 3.60-3.90
m. broad and 45-55 cm. deep. In t w o places, sandstone blocks of the foundation itself were pre-
served: one about 18 m., and the other about 71 m. west of the elbow. The saw marks on the latter
blocks (fig. 7) indicate the bed for the first course of the limestone wall. Winlock thought,
therefore, that the construction of the limestone wall itself had actually been begun here. All of
the limestone blocks except those in the west (p. 43), and nearly all of the sandstone foundation
blocks, however, had been removed before the final brick wall was built.
Directly north of the limestone wall, thegebel was cut northward to a distance of 2.20-3.00 m.
from the wall in order to bed a rough fieldstone revetment (pis. 12b, 13b, 50b) 6 4 piled there
against thegebel. The fieldstone revetment was covered by the same tafl filling (pi. 50) that cov-
ered the old foundation trench. The brick wall was built on top of this filling, clearly showing that
the revetment belonged to the shield-shaped court wall and was later given up. Section 9 (pi. 51)
and pi. 8d give the impression, however, that at least in one particular part of the court the shield-
shaped court, wall stood on a filling which covered the revetment, and was thus later than the
revetment. O n e may therefore propose a chronological connection between the rough fieldstone
wall and this revetment (see p. 9). In some places there were three layers of revetment, while a
second step was cut into the rock some meters higher for another smaller revetment. It is remark-
able that the rock-cut bench for the revetment started only 16 m. west of the entrance to the t o m b
of Neferu. This evidence could mean that the t o m b facade is older than, or at least contemporary
with, the revetment.
The layers which cover the Mentuhotep walls today can easily be explained. The brick wall
was built over a chip accumulation 1.5-2.00 m. high thrown over the old foundation trench (pi.
50d). The brick wall, therefore, reaches the court level only at the court side, its outside being built

62
Possibly the parapet wall matched the eastern project-
ing brick pillar of the tomb facade, so that the corridor be-
tween the parapet and the brick wall could have been used as
an entrance to the tomb. The parapet wall, therefore, had a
door somewhere; otherwise one would have to enter it very
far to the east, perhaps in front of the tomb of lntc{ (SAE no.
386) where there was an entrance into that corridor (Arnold,
Jnj-jtj.f I, p. 16, Taf. Va and XXXVc).
63
There is an unpublished relief fragment from the tomb
with the hieroglyphs sm3-t3(wy?) and this inscription seems
to indicate that the decoration, at least, was done in that
period when the king had changed his Horus name from
ntry-hdt to sm3-t3wy.
64
The revetment was built of limestone chips and desert
20

against the chip filling. Drift sand (pi. 50f) was blown behind the brick wall during the period fol-
lowing the construction while the court side remained clear. When the Hatshepsut terrace was
constructed, 8 m. of fill (higher than the court level of the XI Dynasty) was dumped over the wall
into the Mentuhotep court. For some u n k n o w n reason this filling was dug into from the north at
the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, beginning in the southern half of the middle colonnade
and moving westward. As some parts of the Hatshepsut Temple were being dismantled at that
time, great quantities of building material from the Hatshepsut temple (parts of balustrades, cap-
stones, drums of columns—most of which were from the ramp leading to the upper terrace and
from the Punt colonnade) were rolled into this trench and buried there (pi. 50h).
Near the western end of the excavation and nearly in front of the Hathor chapel, only four me-'
ters over the XI Dynasty court level, there are today the remains of a Ptolemaic structure (pis. 1 lb,
14a, 50 section 6) consisting of reused stones from the Hatshepsut temple. 6 5 This evidence proves
that, in the period when the upper terrace was still functioning, the middle part of the temple must
already have been quite disturbed. It is clear, as shown by the coffins in pi. 13b, that this part had
also been used as a burial ground. This last fact, however, has already been attested elsewhere. 6 6
The Expedition cleared the Mentuhotep brick wall completely to its western end, leaving only
the short distance under the southern wall of the Hatshepsut lower terrace unexamined (pi. 14a).
Westward from the southern wall of the Hatshepsut terrace, however, the brick wall reappears
under the later ramp leading up to the Hathor chapel of Hatsheput. Here the wall is still 21-23
layers high and shows a neat change between layers of headers and stretchers, starting with the
latter. The bricks are no longer visible under the terrace of Hatshepsut, but we may assume that
they are-as everywhere in the north-blackish, without straw or stones, and measure about
9 . 5 - 1 0 X 1 7 . 5 X 3 4 - 3 6 cm.
N o other finds were mentioned by Winlock except the fireplace 37.5 m. west of the elbow
where bread had been baked soon after the construction of the Mentuhotep brick walls (pi. 33c).
T h e lower northern colonnade of the temple of Hatshepsut was built directly in front of the
facade of the t o m b of Neferu, over the Middle Kingdom constructions, thus interrupting both
the Neferu and Mentuhotep remains. A sondage made by the Expedition under the pavement of
this colonnade showed, however, that the top layers of the Mentuhotep brick wall were still in
place directly under the pavement slabs.
East of this colonnade only the foundation trench of the shield-shaped court wall and the low-
est layers of the brick wall and its parapet walls were left undisturbed when the XVIII Dynasty
temple was built (pi. 13a). This trench was, of course, filled in, and disappeared under the surface
of the court.
N o r t h of the Hatshepsut court, 6 7 in the triangle around the mouth of the Bab el-Gusus (pi. 44;
cf. pi. 42), the traces of the XI Dynasty structures were better preserved (pi. 12a). Again, there is a
small tafl bench still under the layers of the dubsh retaining wall. 6 8 T h e brick wall and the parapet
wall also have several layers which are still preserved. This area was disturbed to a great extent,
however, by later tombs. N o t only was the Bab el-Gusus erected here, 6 9 but also three other
shafts and two rock tombs were built in the area. These tombs provided interesting material,
especially M M A no. 59 of Minmosi which contained the burial of Henttawy and the t o m b of
three princesses o f t h e x x i Dynasty. 7 0 T h e east end of the brick walls and the foundation trench at

67
boulders laid without mortar. Mentioned BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 10 and
65
As far as I can distinguish, this structure has only been fig. 7.
mentioned in PM II2, p. 343 as a brick shrine (sic) of Asclepius 68
Most of it had come down, however, and had to be re-
built by Ptolemy III. constructed by the Expedition.
66 6,)
The cachette of the Montu priests must have been near- Winlock thought this had probably already been done
by. See Vasalli, / Monument! istorici egizi [1867], pp. 142-145; in the XI Dynasty.
Thomas, Necropoleis p. 176, notes 54-59. ™ BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, pp. 22ff.
 21

the northeast corner of the Mentuhotep court had disappeared and therefore could not be
ascertained by the Expedition.
Underneath the southern half of the stone wall of Hatshepsut's court, the Mentuhotep brick
wall still stood from one to five courses high (pis. 7d, 45a). The bottom course was built as fol-
lows: two rows of stretchers were laid on either edge with a gap of 70 cm. in the middle to be filled
with chip. The bricks are typical of those used in the time of Mentuhotep, i.e. they contain no
sand, and they measure 9 X 18 X 36 cm. The width of the brick wall was 2.18 m., measured a
course or t w o below ground level. When the Hatshepsut wall was built, the Mentuhotep wall was
almost completely torn down, and the Hatshepsut wall constructed very accurately on its line.
About 3.55 m. to the east of the brick wall, the traces of the parapet wall could be found under the
southern wall of the causeway of Hatshepsut (pi. 45a).

1.9 The Gardens of the Temple (pis. 15-17, 49) [MS pp. 101-112]

T h e Mentuhotep Temple is one of the few Egyptian sanctuaries whose Temple garden was
completely preserved but it is likely that such a structure existed in many other temples. 7 1 The
garden may easily be reconstructed because of the remains of holes for the trees dug into the tafl
rock. In many cases these holes are filled with Nile mud and in some there still can be seen the
roots of the plants which grew there. By the size and shape of the groves one can conclude that the
garden must have consisted of: a) a double r o w of large trees flanking the axis and processional
way through the court, b) a group of smaller trees on both sides behind the large trees, c) t w o beds
for flowers or other plants between three large tree holes in the southern row, and d) an especially
large tree in the northern half of the court, west of the Bab el-Hosan (pi. 38). T h e reports Winlock
published about this discovery 7 2 and his notes allow us to give the following description of the
garden.
a) The Large Tree Holes. Without doubt the builders originally planned t w o rows of 14 large
trees in the middle of the court, starting about twelve meters west of the " p y l o n " (pis. 38, 42). The
work was started from the west end of the tree-lined avenue in front of the temple, but was stop-
ped when it had reached the excavation of tree hole XII in the N o r t h (N XII) and XIII in the south (S
XIIl). Thus N xill-XIV and S XIV were never begun, and only the first four trees in front of the tem-
ple were even planted; the other tree holes (N V-XII, S v-xm) were filled in again with tafl. The
holes to be used were dug into the rock, d o w n to the unnecessary depth of 9-10 m., and were then
filled with black soil mixed sufficiently with river sand. The diameter of the holes is between 5-6
m. on the surface, narrowing considerably with the depth. This depth was reached by cutting
spiral steps around the shaft, as clearly shown by example S VII (pi. 16b). According to the rem-
nants of wood, bark root and leaves found, Thomas W. Brown, Chief of the Horticultural Sec-
tion, Ministry of Agriculture, Giza was able to identify the trees in N I—III and S I—III as Ficus
sycamorus and those in N IV and S IV as Tamarix articulata (arabic 'atl). The study of these tree holes
revealed an interesting detail of an ancient Egyptian gardener's work. There were found in the
earth of the holes several round poles of sycamore fig branches, each about six feet in length and

71
Robichon-Varillc, Description sommaire du Temple
primitif de Medamoud, (Rccherches d'Archcologie, de
Philologicct d'Histoire, XI [1940], pp. 16-18; Idem, Le Temple
du Scribe Royal Amenhotep Fils de Hapou (FIFAO XI [1936]),
pp. 28, 35 and pi. xxvm; BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 18
and figs. 16-17. At processional streets: Winlock, Excavations,
p. 6 and pi. 68; Abdul-Qader Muhammed, ASAE, 60 [1968],
p. 235 and pi. CVI; Lauffray, Kemi XXI [1971] figs. 2-3 bis. In
front of barque stations: Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III
causeways in the Asasif, both unpublished. Much material in
Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Agypten (MAS 1 [1962]), pp.
93-128.
72
BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922, Part II, pp. 24-26; Ibid., 19, Dec.
1924, Part [I, p. 5.
22

about five or six inches in diameter. They were laid horizontally, placed quite close to each other,
and were buried about five or six inches below the surface (pi. 17d). O u t of the knots of their
branches, shoots and roots were sprouting everywhere so that the gardeners had quick results and
a thick clump of green. After only a short time, 7 3 however, the caretakers of the Temple complex
neglected to water the plants, so that the young trees died from lack of moisture and were cut
down: the axe marks of the w o o d choppers still showed traces of this clearing.
A few additional notes about the tree holes were found in Winlock's papers:
"S ill Alongside of this is a small misplaced hole (see pi. 49) filled entirely with tafl.
S v Mouth opened d o w n to gebel. Had been opened in modern times and levelled
over by EEF (pi. 17c).
S VI Mouth opened to gebel.
S vil Cleared to b o t t o m - d e p t h same as S VIII. Statue headless and broken at ankles
just under the surface of court. Spiral stairs to bottom. XI Dyn. bricks around
mouth. Coping had never been built, but these had been used at time of cutting
(pi. 16b).
S Vlll Cleared to b o t t o m - d e p t h see section 13 (pi. 51). Statue headless just under
surface (lower side 75 cm. below surface steps). Upper side exposed by EEF
(pi. 17b).
S IX Same as above. Funnel of the mouth identified in court filling.
S X Same.
S XI Funnel of mouth pretty well dug out. Headless statue just under the surface-
lying on level 75 cm. below court. In the funnel of the mouth baskets similar to
those behind the parapet wall.
S xii Missed.
S xni Funnel of mouth noticed in first trench. Jan. 3, 1922.
[N iv] Only the top 70 cm. is mud. Below that there is fine tafl. (pis. 16c-d)."
b) T h e Small Holes. All the smaller holes behind the first four big ones were planted with
Tamarix articulata. In the north, where the temple front is broader, there were four rows of eight
trees (plus one west of N i). In the southern half there were three rows of seven trees (plus one
west of S i). The holes have a diameter of 1.2-2.4 m., the average size being about 1.6 m. All of
them showed well-rooted trees and those against the colonnade had spread even into thegebel. It
is possible that the ground was shaded there and that it stayed moist. The stumps were nearly 10
cm. in diameter, but many of them had been removed and used for wood. O n e of the holes was
emptied by the Expedition (north r o w no. 5 from west). It is funnel-shaped and more than 1.30
m. deep. The top 50 cm. consisted of broken brick of river sand type and below it was tafl. Fila-
ment roots had descended 70 cm. from the surface; dampness never reached as deep as 1.0 m. to
judge from the condition of the tafl.
c) T w o Flower Beds (pi. 16a). Between S i-ll and S il-in there were two rectangular gardens
measuring 1.75-1.85 X 6.80 m. and filled with mud. These beds contained flower stalks and roots.
Winlock did not give further details.
d) Circular Garden West of Bab el-Hosan (pis. 15a, 19a). This garden was outlined by t w o con-
centric circles of brick measuring 1.28-1.30 m. from the outer face of the outer circle to the inner
face of the inner circle. T h e whole garden had a diameter of about 13.50 m. The bricks of the outer
circle were laid end to end and their outside was plastered. 7 4 T h e interior of the circle consists of a

73 74
No one seems to have tried to count the tree rings which The bricks measure 7 X 16 X 32-33.5 cm. and consist of
may have existed. mud containing gravel and sand, but not straw; they arc simi-
lar to those in N IV.
 23

coherent mass of mud much cracked from watering. It is likely that a tree, larger than any other,
stood in the center. Although its stump no longer remains, deep and very large roots are still pre-
served. Leaves found here seem to prove that it also was a sycamore fig.
The south side of the circle is broken by a roughly rectangular patch of brickwork measuring
1.65 m. from north to south and 5.20 m. from east to west. This may have been a large mud altar.
Evidently it was divided into t w o compartments.
Perhaps it should be mentioned here that Winlock's explanation for the change in the plan of
the Temple garden, published in BMMA, Dec. 1922, p. 24, was incorrect because he considered
the main entrance into the Temple court to have been in the exact center of the east wall, between
the causeways of Mentuhotep and Tuthmosis ill. As mentioned before, Winlock corrected this in-
terpretation later, so that his original hypothesis concerning the Temple garden may n o w be ig-
nored.

v~'—" <> •>

' v " "

' -) w 1' J/

Fig. 9 Construction sketch on sandstone slab MMA 22.3.30 (above)

and hypothetical sketch of the Temple garden (below). See pi. 15b.
Draw. Exped. and Ar. Scale 1:5

It is important at this time to examine another of Winlock's theories. In the same BMMA issue
(pp. 26-27), he pointed out that a sketch on a sandstone slab in the M M A (22.3.30) represented the
architect's original plan of the Temple garden (pi. 15b, fig. 9, top). 7 5 T h e piece was discovered in
Naville's d u m p southeast of the temple, but it certainly comes from a pavement slab of the tem-
ple. The fragment is about 42 X 30.5 cm. and 3-4 cm. thick, broken into two parts. An architect's
sketch of some building project is painted on its face in red ink. If one makes the assumption that
the drawing does indeed represent a part of the Mentuhotep complex rnther than concluding that

75
BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922, Part II, pp. 26-27 and figs. 12-14; 57ff. and fig. 59; Engelbach, ASAE, 27 1927], p. 73; M M A
Clarke and Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry [1930], pp. negative 54795.
24

it refers to some other construction, one sees that the sketch depicted does not correspond exactly
to the plan of the Temple garden nor to any other k n o w n part of the Temple. Winlock felt that the
dark formation in the upper right represented the temple platform with its ramp, and that the
corner points of the squares surrounding the ramp stood for the trees of the garden. T o the left
side of the sketch, one can easily see that the draftsman had erased one row of the squares. Since
the Temple garden has, on its left (southern) side, one less r o w of trees than on its right (northern)
side, Winlock believed that the sketch represented the garden. It is possible, however, that the
draftsman could have made a mistake, first by drawing both sides with five rows and then by re-
moving the r o w on the left; but this explanation does not seem likely. The large tree holes are
all missing, and nearby a large round object is to be seen exactly on the axis.
It seems to me that the only part of the Temple complex which would be in any way similar to
the architect's sketch is the hypostyle hall surrounding the sanctuary. If this supposition is correct
we would expect to find the speos at the upper end of the drawing and, east of the wall, the lime-
stone altar with its steps. 7 6 In the left part of the hypostyle hall we should see the four rows of pil-
lars, and these do exist in reality. There is, in addition, another inconsistency in the sketch, that is,
in the area in front of the altar. Here there seems to be an empty space similar to a court. Inside and
probably in the middle of this court there is a round object on the axis of the building. Such a court
does not exist in reality and one can only suggest that the sketch represents an earlier phase of con-
struction when an open space in front of the altar was under discussion. This space was filled later
with columns, thus forming the final hypostyle hall. The idea that it represents an earlier phase of
construction is strengthened by the fact that the walls of the sanctuary, which were added at a later
date, are still missing. O n e must always keep in mind, however, the possibility that the sketch
does not show a structure as it was finally built, but rather represents a trial drawing of an ar-
chitect w h o was studying several ideas. The erased part to the left would support this explanation.
Fig. 9 shows not only the sketch as it appears on the slab, but my sketch of the temple garden as
I believe it would have been drawn in the Egyptian manner.

1.10 T h e Bab el-Hosan (pis. 18-19, 48) [MS "Intramural T o m b s " no. 191]

The gigantic tomb structure in the forecourt of the Temple complex, called "Gate of the Horse"
after the horse of H o w a r d Carter, was discovered in 1899 by Carter and excavated by him from
January 20, 1900 to January 1, 1901. 7 7 In 1923-24 the Metropolitan's Expedition reopened this
t o m b in order to measure its exact position in relation to the newly-discovered buildings of the
Temple complex. 7 8 Unfortunately this occasion was used only to draw a map in the scale
1 : 400. 7 9 Such a scale is not sufficient for details and does not in essence give more information
than the plan of Carter. 8 0 N o w a d a y s the entrance dromos is blocked up again, and it would not be
worthwhile to remove the 10 to 12 meters of debris over the door for a third time.
East of the dromos the remains of a serpentine or undulating wall are still preserved (pi. 19b). O n
the south are the remains of four "waves," and there are traces of other " w a v e s " on the north. The
thickness of this wall was only one half brick. The bricks-light grey in color, measuring about
6-7 X 16—16.5 X 33-34 cm., and mixed with small stones-differed somewhat from those used

76
If this is correct, my reconstruction of the altar in Men-
tuhotep I, p. 42 and Taf. 33; II, Abb. 6 is too long, as the ancient
drawing would show that it ended in the second inter-
columniation.
77
Carter, ASAE, 2 [1901], pp. 201-205; Archaeological Re-
port 1903-1904, p. 8; Nash, PSBA, 23 [1901], pp. 291-293;
Maspcro, Le Musee Egyptien, II [1907], pp. 25-26.
78
BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, pp. 6-8 and figs. 4-5.
79
Published by Thomas, Necropoleis, p. 14 and fig. 4.
80
The original drawings by Baraize arc in the Griffith In-
statute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
 25

in the court walls. T h e bricks here were laid in white tafl mortar mixed with a little straw, and
were plastered inside and outside with the same material. The foot of the wall followed the grade
of the entrance to the tomb. N o w h e r e was the wall found to be more than four or five courses
high.
Against a general belief that the undulating walls were erected only as temporary retaining
walls for protection against the sand 8 1 is the fact that these walls are found frequently near royal
tombs, especially during the Middle K i n g d o m . 8 2 There is also perhaps an indication that these
walls may have had some as yet u n k n o w n religious purpose. 8 3
The entrance dromos was cut through the tafl rock and the two layers above it (pi. 18a). The
lower of these (a) consisted of about 3 m. of desert gravel bedded horizontally and containing
some flints. In the upper layer (b) were rough fieldstone walls retaining 3 meters of grey tafl fil-
ling. The photos of the Expedition, as well as the drawings of H o w a r d Carter and Herbert Win-
lock, show that the entrance corridor was not cut through the topmost layer (c), which consisted
of tafl with limestone and sandstone chip, but rather belonged to the level of the serpentine wall.
The Bab el-Hosan must therefore be earlier than c (the filling of the court) but later than b. The
consequences of this dating have already been discussed elsewhere, 8 4 and the M M A material does
not give n e w data for another discussion of the problem.
O n an Expedition photo of the entrance corridor, a stone offering table of XI Dynasty type,
which must have been put aside by the excavators (pi. 18b), is visible. It was probably discovered
by H o w a r d Carter but is mentioned neither by him nor by Winlock. 8 5 It would have been in-
teresting to k n o w whether it was found here or within the serpentine walls, where one might
have expected an offering place. O n e would also like to k n o w the present whereabouts of the
table, as it is a specimen which can be dated precisely to the reign of King Nebhepetra Men-
tuhotep.
At the end of the 2.7 m. broad dromos, a 2.1 m. wide door was cut into thegebel. When H o w a r d
Carter found it, it was blocked by a wall of bricks 3.75 m. thick. If one compares his p h o t o 8 6 with
that of the Expedition (pi. 18b) one can recognize that the wall consisted of two "coats." T h e in-
ner one was an ordinary wall just filling the door frame and was covered on the outer surface with
mud plaster; the outer one was a 3 m. thick construction erected on debris, beginning as usual
with a r o w of stretchers. The bricks were made without straw and measured 12 X 17 X 37 cm.
West of the entire brick structure was a head and parts of the leg of a calf, lying on the floor. 87
Thereafter followed an arched passage sloping d o w n w a r d at a grade of about 2 0 % , which was
quite free of debris. After a distance of 106 m. a small shaft was found, only t w o meters deep. In it
was a small sycamore box with the name s3-R' Mntw-htp. From here the corridor made a bend
towards the north and reached, after 34 more meters with a slight widening of the corridor, a
large lofty chamber with an arched roof. Here Carter found the famous sandstone figure of the
seated king 8 8 lying on its side and wrapped in linen. He also discovered a wooden coffin whose in-
scriptions did not include the owner's name. Some of the other finds included pots with mud seal-

81
For example see Clarke and Engelbach, Ancient Egyp-
tian Masonry, p. 213 and the detailed study by A. Hesse, "Es-
sai d'interp relation du role des murs ondules en briqucs crues
dans 1'architecture egyptienne au Moyen Empire," in: Jean
Vcrcoutter, Mirgissa I [1970] 97-101.
82
Thomas, Necropoleis, p. 20 and fig. 6 (Seankhkara Men-
tuhotep); Ayrton, Currelly and Wcigall, Abydos III [1904], p.
12 and pi. XXXVI (Cenotaph of Sesostris III); Petrie, The
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh [1912], p. 47 and pis. XXXIX
and XLIV (Amcncmhct IV or Sebcknofrura); Jcquicr, Deux
Pyramides du Moyen Empire [1933], pis. II. IX, XIII and XV
(Khcndjer and an unknown king).
83
These walls arc plastered and unnecessarily artificially
formed in the corners (see Jcquicr, Ibid., pi. XV) and were in-
tended to be seen.
84
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 51-52 and 65.
85
It is not identical to the tabic standing in the middle
court of the temple, published in Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp.
33-34 and Taf. 25d.
86
ASAE, 2 [1901], pi. i.
87
These finds are similar to the heads and front legs found
above the entrance to the tomb of Seankhkara Mentuhotep
(BMMA, 16, Nov.'1921, Part II, p. 34).
88
For bibliography seePM II2, pp. 382-383; for the mean-
ing sec Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 52 and 82.
26

ings, a dish and many small saucers made of rough red pottery, the skeletons of t w o ducks, t w o
forelegs of a calf, two wooden rollers, a mason's mallet, pieces of cord, 8 9 and ropes. From the
center of the statue chamber a 31 m. deep shaft led d o w n w a r d with a small, cave-like chamber at
its end opening to the north. The chamber was sealed with a wall of limestone slabs and was full of
rubbish. The only objects found in it were three rough wooden boats and pots like those in the
upper chamber. There are neither drawings nor other documents for these finds.
As the meaning and purpose of the Bab el-Hosan has often been discussed, and since Winlock's
material does not add new aspects, it is not necessary to enter into this question again, and is suffi-
cient to mention the following measurements found in the field notes and not included in the
drawings (pi. 48):
Width of passage at the elbow (with the pit) 2.30 m.
Width of this pit (no length) 1.15 m.
N o r t h wall from recess to chamber 9.85 m.
Recess 0.35 m.
Height of chamber 4.43(?) m.

1.11 T h e Brick Construction N o r t h of the Bab el-Hosan (pi. 19a, 38) [MS "Intramural T o m b s " ]

T o the northwest of the Bab el-Hosan traces of a huge construction of m u d brick were discov-
ered in 1923-1924, lying directly under the surface of the court. The bricks were of XI Dynasty
texture, 9 0 arranged in t w o rows 1.60-1.65 m. from each other (outer edge to inner edge), and with
rubbish between them. 9 1 Winlock was apparently right in supposing that these t w o rows of
bricks were the last remains of a wall, similar in size and construction to the parapet walls of the
court (it was filled inside with a core of debris in the lower parts). But he was incorrect in his dat-
ing of the construction. It must be contemporary with or later than the final grading of the court,
since it stands above the level of the court today. T h e building cannot thus have been the prepara-
tion for a predecessor of the Bab el-Hosan. 9 2 His main arguments for connecting both structures
were the facts that the m o u t h of the Bab el-Hosan would fit exactly into the interior of the brick
enclosure, and that the "original axis" of the court, according to his reconstruction (p. 58) would
cut exactly over the diagonal of it (northeast to southwest).
However, if one assumes that the double row of bricks really is the trace of a wall 1.6 m. thick, it
would be preferable to reconstruct a building somewhat similar to a mastaba. In this case one
would suggest that it might have been another kind of cenotaph similar in function to the Bab
el-Hosan, but without an actual t o m b below. 9 3
Today the bricks have nearly completely disappeared, but the few examples remaining indicate
that they were not of the type used for the serpentine walls at the mouth of the Bab el-Hosan, but
rather of the type used for the court walls, being about 18-19.5 cm. broad and set into tafl mortar.
This fact, therefore, also implies that the structure is distinct from the Bab el-Hosan.

8
'' The provenance of the latter is not quite sure however.
They were probably used for the lowering of the statue.
"o 8-9 X 17-18 X X 36-37 cm.
'" Winlock gave the overall length from cast to west as
55.45 m., from which he deducted 2 X 1.6 m. for the enclo-
sure wall, so that the interior would be about 52.25 m. or 100
cubits. The width would be 13 m. outside and 10.95 m. or 21
cubits inside. Unfortunately no other drawing exists than
that used for pi. 38 (1 : 400).
" 2 The date of this structure has already been discussed in
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 51 and 65 and need not be repeated
here.
''3 The photos of the Expedition do not, however, show
that the interior of the structure was really cleared to the bed-
rock.
 27

1.12 Varia

1.12.1 The Bench Marks (pi. 21a, fig. 10) [MS pp. 67-70]

Five bench marks were found by the Expedition; three were still in position and t w o others
were in the rubbish. 9 4
a) O f three found in place, one was located in the south colonnade in front of the second pillar
from the north, set flush with the ground level of the court, beside the colonnade curbstone
(pi. 49). 9 5
b) Another was found against the inner curb of the southern half of the " p y l o n " of the eastern
court wall. 9 6 This one is no longer in existence (pi. 21a).
c) T h e last one found in position was discovered in the north garden, near the second r o w of
tamarisk trees from the south and near the fifth example from the west. 9 7 It was a limestone block
measuring 32 cm. from east to west and 19 cm. from north to south. The block was 14 cm. thick
and in the center on the top was a cross mark. According to Winlock this bench mark was used for
leveling the cut of the gebel. It was set in thegebel with its top about level with the surface, i.e.
about 15 cm. below the level of the garden and perhaps 20 cm. below the grade of the court
surface. It was surveyed at 112.47 m. RL. The limestone was badly salted from the watering of
the trees (pi. 43, 49).
d) O n e of two bench marks found in the rubbish was located in Naville's d u m p near the tem-
ple. It was a limestone block 21.5 cm. square and roughly 10 cm. thick. The top surface was
smoothed off, and a sign was first marked in black ink and then incised (fig. 10).

Fig. 10 Bench mark found in Naville's rubbish,

near temple. Surv. H. E. Winlock, draw. Ar. Scale
1:8

e) About 100 m. d o w n the passage to the royal t o m b in Naville's debris, W. Hauser found
another bench mark. According to Winlock, it had been found by XXI Dynasty thieves still
further d o w n the passage, and had presumably been used in laying out the slope of the passage. 9 8
As mentioned above by Winlock and suggested by m y s e l f " we may be sure n o w that these
stones were not used as measuring points for distances (as the incised cross might indicate) but
rather for leveling heights. This fact explains w h y the marks are not set in one line and do not fol-
low a certain system. They are always near structures whose heights had to be laid down, such as
the surface of the causeway, or placed at the base of walls, etc. H o w they were laid out and used is
still open to speculation.

1)4
In BMMA, 18, Dec. 1923, Part II, p. 24, Winlock re- " 7 Mentioned BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 6.
l
marked "last year the men had turned up casually one or t w o >8 p c r h a p s this bench mark is identical with one found by
other little flat stones marked with a cross, m o r e or less mid- the G e r m a n expedition in the debris of the middle court
way in the court, but no longer lying in position." (above the entrance of the t o m b ) . Itis 15cm. square, 7 . 8 - 9 . 3
1.5
Ibid., p. 24 and fig. 19 (upper one). cm. thick and marked in the middle of the top with a cross.
1.6 99
Ibid., fig. 19 (lower one). Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f I, p. 34.
28

f) Aside from the five bench marks found by the Expedition, I believe I found the remains of a
bench mark of a different type. O n the eastern side of the foundation of the north " p y l o n " of the
court, there is a cut in one of the blocks that either protruded or held a block that protruded into
the area of the bricks of the causeway. It is the only example of this kind in the Temple complex
area (fig. 1, BM).

1.12.2 T h e Brick Piers in the Northern Lower Colonnade (pis. 20a-b, 43) [MS p. 175]

At an u n k n o w n time, but certainly after Dynasty XI, five brick piers were built in the northern
lower colonnade, probably to support cracked architraves. 10 ° According to the Expedition, four
piers were built of bricks measuring 11 X 15 X31.5 cm. T h e second pier from the north was built
of bricks measuring 8 X 13-14 X 28 cm. T h e latter pier probably does not date to the same time as
the other four piers. All of them were removed when Emil Baraize built the retaining wall in Feb-
ruary 1924.

1.12.3 Ramp Beams (pis. 21b, 45b) [Not in MS]

Between the southern stone wall and the brick wall of the court near the south postern gate,
traces of a ramp were found. This ramp was apparently used to transport the stone material from
the stone wall eastward to the causeway when the temple was dismantled in Dynasty xxi (see also
pi. 51 section 13). It consisted of a much interrupted sequence of about 18 acacia beams about
12 cm. thick and 1.70-2.30 m. long. 1 0 1 All were mortised and cut as if for a wooden object which
was later broken up. The eastern ones show what appears to be sledge scratchings, while the
western ones do not appear to have been used much. Their width and position suggest a ramp of
about two meters wide and a sledge trail in the middle of it about one meter wide. As the corridor
in its complete state probably would have ended in a cul de sac, one has to assume that the eastern
parts of the stone wall had already been removed, and that the dismantling of the stone wall p r o -
ceeded from east to west. This is only natural considering the distance over which the material
from the temple had to be moved. 1 0 2
We also have beams left from a similar dismantling, found by Naville in the temple r a m p . 1 0 3
Still other beams were discovered at the lower end of the corridor to the royal t o m b where they
were used to support the ceiling (p. 38).

1.12.4 The " H a t h o r D u m p " 1 0 4 (pis. 38, 42, 45b, 51 Section 12,3-7) [Not in MS]

There are t w o huge areas between the southern walls of the court called " H a t h o r D u m p " on
the field map 1 : 400. O n e of these is drawn in section 11 as a low layer of rubbish directly on the

100
Naville, who also mentions these piers, thought they
belonged to the restoration work done by Siptah and his vi-
zier Bai. (Naville I, p. 24). One is visible in Archaeological Re-
port 1903-1904, pi. II, (1).
101
Similar slideways are also known from other places,
see Petrie, Lahun II [1923], p. 12 and pis. XIII, XV; BMMA, 19,
Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 39 and fig. 8 (Scsostris I at Lisht).
102
There is no trace anywhere in Thebes of the huge
amount of Mentuhotep material having been reused. Nor
were there any large building projects carried out in the later
XX or XXI Dynasties in the foundations of which the material
could have disappeared.
103
Naville, I, p. 26 where he incorrectly assumes that the
surface of the ramp was orginally covered with wooden
planks, see Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 16.
,04
This dump was mentioned in BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922,
Part II, pp. 32.
 29

desert gravel surface of Dynasty xi. This debris contained objects 105 which possibly came from
the Hathor sanctuary of Tuthmosis in and had been dumped south of the Mentuhotep
Temple walls when the rubbish in front of the sanctuary became too high. Naville had found
huge amounts of debris, apparently from the N e w Kingdom and later, in front of the sanctuary 1 0 6
and this debris was probably never removed from the front of the sanctuary, remaining there
even until the destruction of the Mentuhotep Temple. This discovery should remind us that
Egyptian temples did, perhaps, not always look as clean as we are sometimes inclined to assume.
Plate 8a shows a series of about 37 jars found near the brick wall, immediately southeast of the
south brick postern. They are mentioned nowhere in Winlock's notes and must belong to the so-
called " H a t h o r D u m p . "

1.12.5 T h e Rubbish Holes in the Court (see pis. 23d, 42) [Not in MS]

Within the northeast corner of the stone wall of the court (phase D), the Expedition's map
1 : 400 shows a hole with the remark "Hatshepsut Statue Heads." N o t h i n g more is k n o w n about
this hole. Another one is just north of the first hole and north of the Mentuhotep stone wall (pis.
23d, 42). It is marked by a cross where the Mentuhotep statue head was found. Probably the
height of 106.50 m. RL refers to the head. 1 0 7 T o the northwest of this dumping hole there is
another hole labeled "Hatshepsut Ostraca" and 108.40 m. RL. Nothing is k n o w n about this hole.

1.12.6 The " P y l o n " of Tuthmosis ill (pi. 46) [Not in MS]

The pencil drawing made by the Expedition, part of which is included here as pi. 46, showed
the causeway of Tuthmosis ill considered to be part of the Mentuhotep causeway. N o t all of the
later causeway was included on the plan here; however, the following remarks about it should be
made. The sandstone foundation slabs of a kind of " p y l o n " of Tuthmosis ill are preserved (about
2.90 m. thick), clearly showing its western facade protruding from the line of its court wall. These
few stones differ in material from the sandstone of Dynasty XI, and have no bed for a limestone
wall; rather they have a very flat step 1 0 8 or a line of small dots. This " p y l o n " probably replaced
the Mentuhotep court wall along the east. The point where the east face of the Tuthmoside
" p y l o n " intersects the northern face of the south wall of the Tuthmoside causeway was marked
by a line incised on the foundation slab.

1.12.7 The Building Cubit [MS p. 73]

Since the exact length of the Egyptian cubit was recently discussed, only a short note on the
building cubit of the Temple of Mentuhotep seems to be justified here. 1 0 9 The width of the stone
walls of the court between the bed lines on the basement stone is accurately measured as 2.15 m.
This figure was, according to Winlock, 4 cubits; the cubit here then is equal to 53.75 cm 1 1 0 . He

105
It included the faience platter Ibid., fig. 25 (MMA
22.3.73) and the fish net Ibid., fig. 26 (MMA 22.3.74).
106
Naville in, pp. 13-19.
107
The situation will be described below, p. 47-48.
108
This seems to be the method of the XVIII Dynasty, sec
Naville. The Templeof Deir el BahariVl\\9()8], pi CLXXl(l-2).
'° 9 Schwab-Schlott. Die Ausmasse Agyptens nach altagyp-
tischen Texten [1969]; Idem MDIK, 28 [1972]. pp. 109-113;
GraefeJEA, 59 [1973], pp. 72-76.
no
It is more than the usually accepted 52.31 to 52.5 cm.
See Carter and Gardiner, JEA, 4 [1917], p. 136.
30

noted that this width is found in a number of places, and as this dimension was not subject to
change by dressing d o w n the stones, this value of the cubit seemed to him to be very accurate.
In m y o w n publication of the Mentuhotep temple I found it satisfactory to use 52.5 cm. as a
value for the cubit 1 1 1 . I could have used the same wall as Winlock did to prove this, as the wall is
315 cm. high, and would have equalled 6 cubits of 52.5 cm. each. Unfortunately, one cannot rely
on a measurement of one particular part of the building to find the value of the cubit for the
whole, as each different part can produce a different result. This problem is apparent in the fol-
lowing list of supposedly even cubit measurements (nearly all of which are according to m y o w n
measurements):

Court between stone walls (N-S) = 105.8 m. = 200 cubits 1 cubit = 52.9 cm.
N o r t h wall of court, inside (E-W) = 194.2 m. = 370 cubits 1 cubit = 52.48 cm,
South wall of court, inside (E-W) = 206.5 m. = 390 cubits 1 cubit = 52.94 cm.
Lower north colonnade (N-S) = 25.58 m. = 48 cubits 1 cubit = 53.29 cm
Lower south colonnade (N-S) = 24.20 m. = 46 cubits 1 cubit = 52.61 cm.
Ambulatory wall thickness = 2.63 m. = 5 cubits 1 cubit = 52.60 cm
Ambulatory, inside (E-W) = 35.68 m. = 68 cubits 1 cubit = 52.47 cm.
Ambulatory, inside (N-S) = 37.65 m. = 70 cubits 1 cubit = 53.78 cm
Length of central core = 22.20 m. = 42 cubits 1 cubit = 52.85 cm
Middle court, inside (N-S) = 20.21 m. = 38 cubits 1 cubit = 52.65 cm
Hypostyle hall, inside (E-W) = 24.15 m. = 46 cubits 1 cubit = 52.50 cm

Measurements of the royal burial chamber:

Length of north wall (E-W) = 3.355 m. = 6.5 cubits 1 cubit = 51.62 cm.
Length of west wall (N-S) = 5.470 m. = 10.5 cubits 1 cubit = 52.10 cm.
Width of chamber (E-W) = 2.580 m. = 5.0 cubits 1 cubit = 51.60 cm,
Height of chamber = 4.250 m. = 8.0 cubits 1 cubit = 53.13 cm.
Length of east wall (N-S) = 4.210 m. = 8.0 cubits 1 cubit = 52.63 cm.
Width of entrance door (N-S) = 1.265 m. = 2.5 cubits 1 cubit = 50.60 cm.
Depth of entrance door (E-W) = 0.775 m. = 1.5 cubits 1 cubit = 51.67 cm,
Width of shrine outside (E-W) = 2.325 m. = 4.5 cubits 1 cubit = 51.67 cm,
(without torus)
Length of shrine outside (N-S) = 3.575 m. = 7.0 cubits 1 cubit = 51.07 cm,
(without torus)
Height of shrine outside = 2.440 m. = 4.5 cubits 1 cubit = 54.22 cm.
(including cornice)
Length of shrine inside (N-S) = 2.800 m. = 5.5 cubits 1 cubit = 50.09 cm
Width of shrine inside (E-W) = 1.210 m. = 2.5 cubits 1 cubit = 53.05 cm
+2 palms
Height of shrine inside = 2.140 m. = 4.0 cubits 1 cubit = 53.50 cm

This arbitrary selection shows that the average cubit is less than 53.0 cm.-about 52.42 cm.-and
that a cubit of 53.75 cm. as Winlock suggested must be an exception for an inexplicable reason.
O n e should keep in mind, however, that a difference of 1-2 cm. or less is very near to the possible

111
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 13, n. 17. Also, work in the was used as the building cubit. Ivcrscn. Canon and Proportion
temple of Qasr el-Sagha during 1977 showed that 52.5 cm in Egyptian Art2 [1975] p. 17 n. 2 accepts the same measure.
 31

accuracy of the methods used by the ancient Egyptians when they were constructing their build-
1 19
ings. 1,~

1.12.8 T h e Sandstone of the Mentuhotep Cemetery [MS pp. 43-45]

The provenance of the plum-colored sandstone used during Dynasty xi has been discussed
frequently but not yet resolved. ' 1 3 It might therefore be of some interest to quote in extenso Win-
lock's considerations of the question:
"Practically all of the sandstone used in the temple, the courtyard walls (earlier and later) and
for the courtyard statues, is of a dark plum color. The same is true of practically all of the sand-
stone used in the contemporary tombs of the cemetery. For the plum-colored stone Assuan is the
most likely place. In the Hill of T o m b s of Dynasties VI-Xir(Gubbet el-Hawa) the surface outcrop
is the right color - purplish. It has bands of soft shale or marl intercalated, which weather out
or can be cut out easily. The stone would thus give paving slabs very easily, and in fact every
characteristic color and texture seen in the Temple complex can be found here. Inside the Sircnput
T o m b the stone is the right color but banded more than we see in the structural stones of the Men-
tuhotep Temple. The whole southern extent of the hill is shrouded in sand. The location is likely
for quarries - close to the river.
" T o the south the ancient quarries under St. Simeon show a lighter colored stone. Next south,
the Hill of Sheikh O s m a n (De Morgan, Cat. I, p. 126, "Rocher de Tingar") the sandstone is al-
tered to quarzite. South of this there are some Greek quarries (Ibid., p. 125) apparently of yellow
stone. South of the Cataract is manifestly improbable.
" T o the north N e w b e r r y and I rode 4-5 miles. There there are a few quarries but at this distance
the sandstone is almost yellow. Back into the desert from this point we rode 2 miles and thus
d o w n to Simeon. N o workings are visible although Baedeker mentions a quarry of the time of
Seti I.
" A n explanation for the color of the stone at Assuan may well lie in the nearness of the granite
outcrop and in the iron content of the stone. N o t e that in De Morgan iron mines are mentioned at
St. Simeon.
" T h e Gubbet el-Hawa Hill may thus be taken provisionally as Mentuhotep's earlier 114 quar-
ry-the workings being low d o w n near the waterside and perhaps south of the opened tombs.
"This quarry was still employed in the time of Mehenkwetre [Meketra] to judge from stone in
his t o m b . "

112
An error of 1-2 cm. was corrected, however, when the
hypostyle hall was measured and the column bases were
marked. Sec Arnold, Mentuhotep I. p. 35.
113
Naville, ll, p. 14; Lucas and Harris, Ancient Egyptian
Materials and Industries4'[1962], p. 55; Hayes, The Middle King-
dom in Egypt, ( 0 4 H 3 1 , 2), p. 484, n. 3; Arnold, Jnj-jtj.f I, p. 32,
n. 104.
" 4 Winlock wrongly thought (mislead by his dating the
Tuthmosis III causeway into the time of Mentuhotep) that
yellow sandstone (which actually is from the XVIII Dynasty)
was used in the later years of Mentuhotep.
 2. T H E R E C O N S T R U C T I O N O F T H E M A I N TEMPLE
[MS pp. 158-175]

As part of the results of the Expedition's work at Deir el-Bahari, Winlock had a reconstructed
plan (pi. 39), longitudinal section (pi. 40), and a front view (pi. 41) of the temple drawn in 1925.
All were beautifully rendered by Gouverneur Peek from pencil drawings of Walter Hauser. As
they deviate in some essential details from the reconstruction I have published in Mentuhotep I, and
since Winlock, an experienced archaeologist, based his conclusions on serious considerations of
the problems involved, these differences of opinion will be presented here and discussed once
more. I will omit, however, Winlock's remarks on items where both he and I came to the same
conclusions.

2.1 The Lower Colonnades (pis. 40, 41) [MS pp. 158-159]

T h e main problem concerning the reconstruction of the lower colonnades is a gap of 1.77 m.
between the pillars (one of them still measures 3.30 m. in height) and the level of the upper hall,
which is k n o w n to have been 5.07 m. The architrave and cornice, however, cannot make up for
the entire difference. I have proposed lowering the roof of the lower hall so that there would be a
step between this roof and the floor of the upper hall. 1 1 5 Winlock on the other hand dealt with the
problem by:
1) putting a higher architrave, of 48 cm., on the pillars
2) putting a higher cornice, of 70 cm., on the architrave
3) making the floor of the upper hall slope 25 cm. eastward from the foot of the front pillar to
the upper edge of the cornice for the colonnade below
4) disregarding the missing 34 cm. in the drawing.
In addition to no. 4, I have strong objections to no. 2, since a reconstruction of a cornice 70 cm.
high seems disproportionate. An architrave of 48 cm.-point no. 1-also seems to be out of propor-
tion. Furthermore, parts of lower architraves 1 1 6 and cornices 1 1 7 still exist.
As for point no. 3, even if the cornices and architraves would be reduced, the slope of the pave-
ment, including the missing 34 cm., would be too great.
For these reasons I am not convinced of Winlock's reconstruction.

2.2 The Ramp [MS pp. 157-158]

As the original length of the ramp could not be determined Winlock approximated, as I did, the
slope according to a ratio of about 1 to 5 based on the slope of the temple ramp of Hatshepsut,
thereby estimating a total length of about 29 m. 1 1 8

115 117
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 14, Abb. 5, solution C, Ibid. I, pp. 55ff.
whereas Winlock's proposal would correspond to my solu- " 8 I calculated 28.13 m. and suggested a length of 50
tion A. cubits (26.25 m.) or 2-3 m. less than Winlock (Ibid. I, p. 17).
116
Ibid. I, pp. 55.
 33

2.3 The Upper Colonnades [MS p. 159]

Both Winlock and I 1 1 9 reconstructed the upper halls to the same height as the lower ones. His
calculation for the height of the hall was 4.65 m. (including the roof), 1 2 0 thus causing the upper
hall to conceal completely the ambulatory behind it. Since he also suggests putting a balustrade of
about 48 cm. on all the cornices in the temple, the effect of concealing the ambulatory is even
more pronounced. Although these balustrades may originally have been there, there is no longer
any trace of them.

2.4 The Ambulatory [MS pp. 159-161]

As no columns in the ambulatory are completely preserved, Winlock used the proportions of
those in the court behind the ambulatory for his reconstruction and reached nearly the same
numbers as I did: 1 2 1

Heights of H. E. Winlock D. Arnold

Column base 7 cm. 15.0 cm.
C o l u m n shaft 3.83 m. 3.825 m.
Abacus 22 cm. 18.8 cm.
Architrave 58 cm. 56.3 cm.
4.70 m. ' 4.726 m.
Roofing slab 40 cm.
5.10 m.

From the fragments of the windows he also deduced 1 2 2 that the roof of the ambulatory must
have been closed, and that there could not have been an open space between the columns and the
center core. Since his ambulatory is only slightly higher than the roof of the upper colonnade,
however, his windows in the outer wall of the ambulatory had to be arranged differently than in
my reconstruction. 1 2 3 In order to insure that the channels were not too long, he moved the top
section of the ambulatory wall back 1.05 m. and did not give the windows a covering cornice. In
other words, he made the upper colonnades and ambulatory seem to belong more or less to the
same complex of structures and to appear from the outside as one block. M y reconstruction,
however, reinforces the theory that the upper colonnades were a separate structure added later to
the fortress-like ambulatory 1 2 4 and that there was a clear distinction between these t w o elements.
I am convinced that Winlock's reconstruction of the lower colonnades is too high and that this
"mistake" was also made in the reconstruction of the upper colonnades. I cannot therefore agree
with his suggestion to raise the roofs of the upper colonnades and ambulatory to the same level,
and to have the resulting consequences for the windows. Furthermore I do not agree with his
conclusion to have no cornice or to move the top of the ambulatory wall back.
There is another small detail which I question. Winlock suggested that the torus at the four cor-
ners of the center core ran through the ceiling of the ambulatory to the cornice at the top of the
pyramid base. This problem has already been discussed in Mentuhotep I pp. 31 and 56 and I am not

119 I23
Ibid. I, pp. 20 and 61. The construction of the windows will be studied in
120
Whereas I estimated the height to be 3.675-3.75 m. connection with the publication of the wall reliefs of the
12 I
Ibid. I, pp. 26 and 61. Temple in Mentuhotep in (in preparation)
122 I24
Ibid. I, p. 26 and Taf. 28, 30. Ibid. I, pp. 66ff. Taf. 28.
34

convinced by Winlock's drawing, nor do I feel that such a solution represents the ideas of the an-
cient Egyptians. I prefer to suggest that there was a second cornice under the roof of the ambula-
tory. Furthermore, I have shown that the diameter of the corner torus is not as large as the torus
above the ambulatory, 1 2 5 and consequently, the ambulatory must have had a cornice of its own.
It should be remembered that Winlock found the diorite pivot-block of the western gate of the
ambulatory still in position. 1 2 6 It has disappeared since that time.

2.5 The Pyramid [MS p. 165]

T h e question of whether or not to reconstruct a pyramid was not actually raised by Winlock.
H e simply stated " W e have followed Naville's idea that there was a pyramid, accepting his argu-
ments based on the Abbot Papyrus and the writing of the name of the temple." Winlock did,
however, move the foot of the pyramid to the inner edge of the center core's cornice block be-
cause this cornice did not show traces of construction on top. H e refused to consider the alabaster
slabs 1 2 7 as pyramid casing because the shape of their corner joints seemed to prove that they came
from the lining of a chamber.
As the publication here of reconstruction drawings showing a pyramid on top of the center
core may p r o m p t new discussions about the existence of a pyramid, it seems advisable to repeat
once again in an abbreviated form the main obstacles against such a reconstruction. ' 2 8
Although there certainly is a tradition of royal mortuary precincts centering in pyramids,
which flourished in the memphite royal cemeteries of Dynasties ill to VI and XII to xm, the
Mentuhotep Temple does not belong to this category of building. Rather, it originates from quite
a different family of mortuary constructions: the U p p e r Egyptian, provincial rock tombs of the
First Intermediate Period. Its closest antecedents, the saff-tombs of the predecessors of Mentu-
hotep at El-Tarif, have been thoroughly studied recently, with the conclusion that no pyramids
ever existed there. 1 2 9
The next point is the interpretation of the expression p3 mr "the pyramid," attributed in the
Abbot Papyrus to the t o m b of Mentuhotep as well as to the chapel of King Intef II at El-Tarif
T h e above-mentioned excavations at El-Tarif clearly demonstrated that the p3 mr of Intef II was
not a pyramid but a brick offering chapel. Consequently, the e x p r e s s i o n ^ mr seems to have been
used for all kinds of royal funerary constructions and can no longer help in the reconstruction
of the Mentuhotep Temple.
A third point concerns the stability of a pyramid standing on a base 8-11 m. high. It has been
argued that the pyramid may not have been solid, but rather filled only with boulders and tafl in
order to reduce its weight. This suggestion underestimates, however, the forces of an unevenly
balanced mass of about 2000 cubic meters of boulders and tafl pressing d o w n and outwards. The
equally "insolid" center core had no interior strengthening devices (as they are k n o w n from other

125
Ibid, i, pp. 55ff. Taf. 31.
126
I have noted that fact on my drawing in Ibid. I, p. 23,
Abb. 15.
127
I would suggest now that these slabs might have come
from cither the speos of the sanctuary of the temple, from
which no fragments of limestone relief seem to have come,
or, as a second possibility, the tomb chamber of Queen Tern,
whose sarcophagus is alabaster. No lid was found, thus the
sarcophagus might even have been covered by an alabaster
pavement (Mentuhotep I Taf. 41).
128
Ibid. I, pp. 28-31. The idea of reconstructing a pyramid
was already rejected by Six ("The Reconstruction of the
Temple of Mentuhotep II," in Mededeelingen der Koninklijke
Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde deel 54,
scrie B, No. 6, Amsterdam [1922], pp. 99-112). His recon-
struction of a tree garden on top of the central core forming a
tomb of Osiris is, however, too fantastic to be taken
seriously. A pyramid was recently defended again by
I. Gamer-Wallcrt, Die Welt des Orients vm [1975-76]. p. 321.
129
Arnold, Gra'ber des Alten und Mittleren Reichcs in El-
Tarif, Arch. Veroff. 17 [1976], p. 25, 33, Abb. 16.
 35

pyramids), but consisted of a filling tied together by a nearly vertical limestone wall of only
1.20 m. thick, which would certainly have burst under such pressure.
The last argument, the existence of a Dynasty XVII pyramidion at Dra Abu Naga, does not
contribute much to the reconstruction of the Mentuhotep Temple, built 500 years earlier. Little
is k n o w n about the building from which that pyramidion came, and several pyramidia of
Dynasties XII and XIII have been found which never adorned a pyramid. 1 3 0
There is at least one more question, however, which Winlock answered differently than I. In
regard to the height of the center core, both of us placed the 80 cm.-thick cornice at that point on
the outer wall of the core where this wall is 80 cm. thick. According to his calculations, however,
the height to the top of the cornice is 8 m., while I calculated 1 1 m . Apparently the t w o figures
do not agree because each of us measured the slope of a different wall. Winlock perhaps used the
few extant parts of the outer walls of the ambulatory to measure the slope, since he found a ratio
of 6 to 100 cm.; I have confirmed such a measurement there. I used the pyramid base itself for m y
calculation; this is much steeper and only has a ratio of slope 2-3 to 100 cm. O f course the pyramid
base would give the more important measurements if only more were preserved than the t w o
courses. 1 3 1 The ambulatory wall, however, is no better preserved. 1 3 2 Therefore, this disagree-
ment between Winlock and myself cannot be resolved with the existing material.

2.6 The Middle Court [MS pp. 161-162]

As there are still sufficient parts of the middle court preserved, the reconstructions of Winlock
and myself for this part of the Temple complex are nearly the same. He put a higher architrave (50
cm.) on the columns than I, thereby producing a difference of 10 cm. between the t w o reconstruc-
tions. H e also put a cornice with a balustrade above it on top of the architrave surrounding the
opening of the court, while I have suggested a protruding horizontal moulding. 1 3 3 There is no
proof for either restoration.

2.7 The Partition Wall [MS p. 162]

I have discussed at length the problem of whether or not the middle court was separated from
the hypostyle hall by a balustrade or by a partition wall of full height. Winlock did not consider
the second possibility but used the sandstone blocks with the curved tops 1 3 4 as a balustrade
separating both parts. I must confess that his drawing of this critical part of the reconstruction
looks quite good and might be the better solution, though there is no proof for either one. It is
more a question of whether the hypostyle hall was, from the point of view of the cult, considered
to be an architectural unit which had to be closed and concealed from the front rooms, or whether
it was regarded as a unit with the middle court. Unfortunately, we cannot answer this question
at the present time; however, the technical problems of a balustrade which I have discussed in
my publication remain unsolved by Winlock's reconstruction.

130
Jcquicr, Deux pyramides du Moyen Empire (Fouillcs a '•" Mentuhotep I, Abb. 18 and 19.
,32
Saqqarah II [1933]. pp. 59. The famous pyramidion of Ibid. I, Abb. 13 and 14.
l33
Amenemhat III from Dahshur shows an inclination which is Ibid. I, p. 33, n. 61.
134
different from that of the pyramid and may therefore belong Ibid. I, Abb. 24 and Taf. 25a.
to some other construction (Maspcro, ASAE 3 [1902], pp.
206-208).
36

2.8 The Hypostyle Hall [MS p. 163]

In the reconstruction of the height of the hall both of us agree on the main points. Winlock,
however, again put a higher architrave on top of the columns (here 48 cm.), a practice which he
consistently followed in his reconstruction of the whole temple. He did not consider an architrave
of 37 cm. high, fragments 1 3 5 of which actually exist. This increase in architrave height is one of
the main reasons our restorations differ in several essential points.
Winlock pointed out a foundation stone in the south wall of the hypostyle hall opposite the
easternmost intercolumnar space which showed markings for a recess 7 cm. wide. He therefore
reconstructed a recess here, and also in the corresponding place on the north side, with stelae,
fragments of which are still preserved. 1 3 6 I looked repeatedly for this recess but could find only
the normal markings for the limestone walls on the foundation (pavement) slab. 1 3 7 1 therefore did
not follow Winlock's suggestion concerning the stelae and would prefer to reconstruct them
against the west wall of the hall. Neither of our suggestions can be proved, though Winlock could
have mentioned that in the tombs of the N e w Kingdom the stelae are mostly at the end wall of the
transverse axis, 1 3 8 an arrangement which is not usual, however, in Dynasty XI.

2.9 The Sanctuary [MS p. 163; speos in MS p. 164]

Winlock's reconstruction of the entrance to the sanctuary, with the front part protruding be-
tween t w o columns (pi. 39) is evidently wrong. The restoration of the inscription on the frieze 139
of the cornice proves that the cornice extended in a straight line and was not interrupted in the
middle. Thus the reconstruction around the pillars must be incorrect, and the cuts on the column
bases which Winlock used for evidence must have some other explanation. Perhaps they were to
be dressed for statues, stelae, or other votives which were to be erected here at the front of the
sanctuary. The height of the walls of the sanctuary was estimated correctly at about 3.05 m. M y
o w n reconstruction, which was made after studying the wall reliefs, results in a height of 3.00 m.
Winlock also suggested that the west wall of thespeos had a false door of which he thought frag-
ments were preserved. 1 4 0 I think, however, that this false door was at least 3.675 m. high and
would scarcely have fit under the vault of the speos.
A comparative list of reconstructed heights by H. E. Winlock and D. Arnold follows:

H. E. Winlock D. Arnold
Upper and Eower Hall
Pillar 3.300 m. 3.300 m.
Architrave .485 .375
Ceiling height 3.785 3.675-3.750
Cornice .800 .375
Total 4.60-4.80 4.20
Ambulatory
Base .07 .15
Column 3.83 3.825

135 138
Ibid, i, p. 55. Hermann, Die Stelen der thebanischen Felsgriiber der 18.
136
Ibid. I. pp. 59ff, Abb. 37 and 38. Dynastie [1940], p. 26.
137 139
Ibid. I, p. 60, n. 161. Arnold, Mentuhotep II pp. 20-21, Taf. 1, Abb. 6.
140
Ibid. I, p. 59, Abb. 38.
 37

Abacus .22 .188

Architrave .58- .59 .563
Ceiling height 4.70 4.725
Roof Slab .40- .45 .375
Total 5.15 5.10

Pyramid base 8.00 11.025

Middle Court
Base .07 .075
Column 3.55 3.563
Abacus .18 .15
Architrave .50 .413
Ceiling height 4.30 4.20
Cornice .50- .60 .375
Total 4.80- 4.90 4.575

Hypostyle Hall
Base .07 .075
Column 3.10 3.075
Abacus .18 .15
Architrave .50 .375
Ceiling height 3.85 3.675
Roof Slab .60 .225
Total 4.85 3.90

It should be remembered that Winlock wished to raise the roofs of nearly all the structures on
the temple platform to the same height, or at least the top line of the balustrade which he recon-
structed on all these buildings. His drawing therefore shows one continuous roof terrace. In order
to produce such a reconstruction (as the heights of the columns are more or less well known), he
had to vary the heights of the architraves, cornices and roof slabs. I feel that in most cases he was
forced to heighten these structures too much. Cornices of 80 cm. (upper hall), or roofing slabs of
50 cm. are really too heavy for the slender columns of the hypostyle hall, and for this reason and
the reasons mentioned above, I cannot accept his system of keeping an equal roof level.

2.10 T h e Royal T o m b (no. 14) [MS "Intramural T o m b s " ]

Most of the facts which Winlock reported concerning the royal t o m b have already been p u b -
lished, 1 4 1 but some of them need to be mentioned or discussed here.
In the drawing of the tomb (1 : 100) 1 4 2 the space in which the granite chamber was built is
drawn as if it were still visible at that time. T h e description, however, says that " O w i n g to a set-
tlement of the entiregebel above the chamber, all trace of the actual excavation is practically oblit-
erated, and the bricks crushed." We must therefore consider Hauser's drawing largely as
reconstruction. 1 4 3

141
Thomas, Necropoleis, pp. 18-19; Arnold, Mentuhotep I,
pp. 44-49 and Taf. 20-22, 34-40.
142
As it gives much less detailed information than our
own survey (Ibid.) I deemed it unnecessary to publish it.
143
The measurements of the bricks in the vault over the
chamber are 8 X 19 X 40 cm.
38

Above the facade of the alabaster chapel, within the granite chamber, still lies a huge alabaster
beam which gives the chapel, when viewed from the front, the appearance of having a rounded
sloping roof. In Hauser's drawing there are three more alabaster slabs behind the beam which,
built up on some brick layers, complete this sloping roof. Naville's publication 1 4 4 shows the first
beam only, proving that Hauser too saw only the first beam; one must therefore see Hauser's
proposal here as a reconstruction. 1 4 5
In his discussion of the destruction of the tomb, Winlock mentioned that the beams found by
Naville, 1 4 6 which were shored up with three logs to support the ceiling in front of the chamber,
are identical with the beams set in the temple ramp and near the southern walls of the court. T h e
beams in front of the chamber are unquestionably of the same date postulated for the destruction
of the temple, in Dynasty XXI. His remark that they could only have been set there by people w h o
robbed the t o m b and not by quarrymen (because no granite, diorite, or alabaster was missing
from the chamber), is incorrect, however, for large parts of the alabaster cornice and nearly half of
the diorite slabs from the wall casing are missing. He is right, however, in dating this action to
Dynasty XXI, the robbing of the stone being a part of the destruction of the temple itself The re-
moving of the diorite slabs alone was a j o b which required some organization and cooperation,
and an occasional thief or stone robber could not have brought a stone weighing probably 40 kg.
through a tunnel 150 m. long and 70 m. deep. Such an organized action could only have taken
place in a time when the temple was officially abandoned and destroyed.
The so-called antechamber-which actually is not a chamber but the last section of the corridor
in front of the chamber-also could not have been cleared by Winlock. It would have been too
dangerous a project even in his time. He therefore could not have investigated the system of the
blocking of the chamber door. His drawing suggests a sequence of three limestone slabs. I found,
however, that there are at least four, the inner one being of granite. It is not clear yet whether they
were standing vertically or were inclined (as my drawing Ibid. pi. 41a proposes), following the
angle of the corridor slope. Winlock succeeded in removing the upper half of the innermost
(fourth) granite slab. It was originally a gigantic door sill with a conical pivot hole in one corner,
and was intended for a doorway at least 1.75 m. wide. 1 4 7 T h e stone n o w stands against the north
side of the corridor in front of the chamber, its face against the wall. Without being able to turn it
around-a maneuver which would have been too dangerous-I was not able to draw it.

144
Naville, II, pi. XXII.
145
One furthermore has to assume that these additional
three beams had been planned but never built in because they
arc missing today, while the first one, which would have pre-
vented their removal, is still in position. fit
146
Archaeological Report 1906-1907, p. 3 and pi. Ill (8).
I47
Such a door would actually be much larger than all the
existing doors of the temple. It might have been prepared for
the entrance to the court of an earlier project (B?) and later
given up cither because it was damaged or because it did not
into the new building plans. Sec Mentuhotep l48n. I l l and
Taf. 22c (visible bottom right).
 3. T H E B U I L D I N G P H A S E S O F T H E TEMPLE
(fig. 11, pi. 38)

Fig. 11 The building phases of the Temple. Draw. Ar. Scale 1:800

Winlock certainly might have been expected to have written a chapter on the building history
of the Temple of Mentuhotep, but no such essay appears in his manuscript. Further, his published
observations on this subject contradict themselves from place to place. Some were written at an
early stage of the excavation and were based on premature and unfounded hypotheses, such as
that of the three causeways. 1 4 8 Others were produced long after the end of the field work, with-
out rechecking the material. 1 4 9 Therefore we have to rely completely on the documentation of
the Expedition, m y o w n material, and on the evidence still available from the Temple complex. A
careful reconsideration of all these sources leads to a history of the building phases of the Temple

148
BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922, Part II, p. 22; Ibid., 18, Dec. S o m e w h a t corrected Ibid., 27, March 1932, Part II, pp. 30-31.
149
1923, Part II, pp. 28-29; Ibid. 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 10. Winlock, Rise and Fall, pp. 25, 33 and 39.
40

complex which deviates considerably from Winlock's theories, and also forces me to correct
some of m y o w n former views (see list p. 45), based on those of Winlock. 1 5 0 As it n o w appears,
Winlock did not use t w o very important archaeological tools which could have settled all prob-
lems: stratification and construction joints. He had actually opened a great number of trenches
(pi. 42), but the few profiles drawn from them (pis. 50-51) are not as informative as they could
have been. Since it was beyond my resources to reopen the trenches, the Expedition's documents
here became almost useless, and some questions had to remain unanswered. There were enough
places which could be checked without re-excavation, however, to say that the main problems
can be considered solved. The following reconstruction of four building phases is offered accord-
ingly.

3.1 Phase A

T h e only trace of the original structure is the so-called rough fieldstone wall cutting diagonally
across the valley. It stands on a much deeper level than the later surface. The level on which the
fieldstone wall was built is somewhat uneven in height, varying between 102.2 and 105.8 m. RL
(pis. 4-5). Winlock supposed that a step 65 cm. high under the later southeast corner of the court
and running north nearly parallel to the rough fieldstone wall, as well as a step about 38 m. west of
the rough fieldstone wall, marked the limits of an u n k n o w n structure connected with this wall
(pi. 46).
The irregular surface level, the rough building method of the wall, and the broad gap in the wall
seem to belong to a preliminary stage of construction work. Perhaps the wall was a kind offence
cutting off the intended building area from the rest of the valley, rather than cutting off a part of an
older temple building. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that Winlock could not find any
other trace of such a building in spite of the many trenches he cut through the court (pi. 42).

3.2 Phase B

The next step of building activity in the Temple area is still very problematic, since there are
two m o n u m e n t s whose chronological position in the history of the Temple complex is still
somewhat uncertain. The first one is the Bab el-Hosan. As shown elsewhere 1 5 1 we have to con-
sider it a predecessor of the later Royal T o m b , left unfinished and closed afterwards. As for its
date, there are some hints but none of them lead to a final conclusion. Unfortunately the only ar-
chaeological evidence that would have enabled one to determine the relation between the Bab and
its surrounding structures was overlooked, i.e., the observation of the layers of debris above and
below the Bab. O n e conceivably could try to guess which layer of the section through the Bab on
pi. 48 corresponds to a particular layer in sections 8 on pi. 50a and 9-13 on pi. 51. However, none
of these sections approaches the Bab close enough, and at the same time section 8 shows an
interruption of layers in the area between the Bab and the southern walls. Therefore we may
extract only the following dating criteria:
a) The Bab was dug through a 2-3 m. high fill of tafl which was spread over the court area by
some earlier building activity. This earlier activity must have included the removal of great quan-
tities of tafl. This court level must have been around 108.0 m. RL.

150 1M
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 62-67. Ibid. I, p. 81.
 41

b) After its sealing, the Bab was covered by a one meter thick layer of different material which
again came from another building activity. The new court surface thus formed was identical with
that on which the shield-shaped court wall, the final stone wall, and the brick walls were erected.
Therefore its sealing date must be earlier than those structures.
O n e other hint could be the type of bricks used for the serpentine walls. They differ from those
of the court walls, the causeway, etc. (see p. 64). But until n o w this type has not been found in any
other datable structures in the Mentuhotep Precinct. The bricks used for the sealing of the cor-
ridor entrance are the usual ones employed in the above-mentioned later structures. T h e only in-
scriptions found in the t o m b mention as3-Rc Mntw-htp 152 which does not help. They should date
from the time when the t o m b was sealed.
T h e second group of monuments to be included in building phase B are the tombs and funerary
chapels of the queens on the terrace of the Temple complex. We k n o w by the style of their reliefs
and by the fact that the main temple (phase C/D) was built over these structures that they belong
to a building phase earlier than that of the temple. 1 5 3 Furthermore, in the royal titulary, the Horus
name of ntry-hdt is used, indicating that the structures were decorated in an earlier part of the
king's reign. 1 5 4
We can be certain, then, that these queens' tombs are earlier than phases C and D; however,
there is no indication that they belong to the same period as the Bab el-Hosan. Furthermore, since
we do not k n o w to what kind of structure they belonged 1 5 5 or whether this structure had anything
to do with the Bab el-Hosan, we group them together with the Bab in phase B only as a working
hypothesis. The material of the Expedition did not yield any new information concerning the ar-
chitectural setting of the queens' t o m b s 1 5 6 nor the date of the Bab.

3.3 Phase C

With phase C the structures of the older phases A and B, i.e. the rough fieldstone wall, the
queens' chapels, and the Bab el-Hosan were abandoned. They were filled in or built over and a
new building program was begun.
T h e most important event of phase C was the construction of a new royal tomb. The old one,
the unfinished Bab el-Hosan, was consecrated by the ceremonial burial of a seated figure of the
king 1 5 7 and an empty coffin. It was sealed off and covered with the building debris that probably
came from the temple terrace and the new royal tomb. The fill raised the surface level of the entire
bay of Deir el-Bahari 2 m. 1 5 8 A result of this was that the rough fieldstone walls of phase A disap-
peared under the debris. O n this higher level a beautiful limestone wall was erected, viz., the
shield-shaped court wall, following the shape of the bay of Deir el-Bahari on all sides. In the apex
of the new precinct stood the temple terrace on which the main temple was built. The eastern-
most part of the temple had an ambulatory around the central core. T o the west was the middle
court, built around the entrance to the royal tomb, and the hypostyle hall was further west. P r o b -

152
Ibid. I, p. 53. served fragments. These were reconstructed in a superficial
153
Ibid. I, p. 64. way only in Naville II, pi. xi-XX.
154 157
See Arnold, MDIK, 24 [1969], p. 41. Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 82. The statue probably had
155
In Mentuhotep I, pp. 64-65 I had suggested a rock tomb been used in another building before, Ibid., p. 52. H. Alten-
with a pillared facade, the corridor of which included the mullcr thinks, however, that the statue replaces an older ka-
queen's chapels. statuette probably of gold (MDIK, 28 [1972], p. 5, n. 30).
,58
156 -[-| lc o n ]y hope—if any-is pinned on the reconstruction It was raised 5.6 m. at the south end of the north half of
of the tomb chapels of the queens from several hundred pre- the rough fieldstone wall which was standing in a natural de-
pression. The fill is layer 3 in sections 9 and 10 (pi. 51).
42

ably only the upper and lower colonnades and the sanctuary were missing from the temple at the
end of phase C. That the lower colonnades were added later has been shown elsewhere 1 5 9 and was
already a suggestion of Winlock (in his papers). For the later addition of the upper colonnades the
arguments are less decisive.
There may also be the possibility that in phase C only the platform wall was built, but not the
now-existing temple. The chapels of the queens would have been there already with an u n k n o w n
structure surrounding them. There would thus have been t w o more building phases after C
rather than the one we are proposing. In that case the temple would have been built in the next to
last phase (D).
This possibility seems to be ruled out, however, by the following consideration: the chapels of
the queens are inscribed with the Horus name ntry-hdt in the royal titulary, certainly used during
the earlier part of the reign of the king. 1 6 0 Yet the platform walls of phase C extend over the foun-
dation deposits in the platform bearing the Horus name sm3-t3wy. These monuments, the chapels
of the queens and the platform walls, cannot therefore belong to the same period. The chapels
must be earlier than the platform walls and the latter must, for that reason, be contemporary with
the temple itself.
There is also some evidence that the foundation deposits were laid at a time not long after the
king had changed his titulary from the Horus ntry-hdt to Horus sm3-t3wy (p. 56). We can infer that
the project of phase C was conceived soon after, or perhaps even at the same time as, the introduc-
tion of the king's new name. Perhaps both procedures were the result of the same event.
It is to be remembered here that older building material could be observed in the sandstone
foundations of the court walls and the retaining walls of the platform. 1 6 1 I have mentioned al-
ready a granite door sill reused for the blockage of the royal t o m b . 1 6 2

3.4 Phase D

For some u n k n o w n reason neither this temple was considered to be elaborate enough nor the
court to be suitable. Thus the temple was enlarged by the addition of the lower and probably also
the upper colonnades, giving the structure quite a different appearance. 1 6 3 T o that end new sand-
stone paving had to be laid out in front of the temple platform on which the pillars were erected,
and which covered the foundation stones of the old platform walls. 1 6 4 Probably at the same time a
sanctuary for a joint cult of Amunra and King Mentuhotep was built at the western end of the
hypostyle hall, and the decoration of the main temple completed.
Also the forecourt of the Temple complex underwent a great transformation. Instead of the
huge court area of the previous period with walls following the natural shield-shape of the bay, a
smaller, nearly rectangular section was walled off in its southern half. The side walls of this new
court were parallel to the temple axis, and the west wall ran north-south from the front of the
temple terrace. In the east, the facade of the court was apparently moved back for some u n k n o w n
reason; it was not exactly perpendicular to the side walls.
It is not k n o w n w h y the new court was not symmetrical, but about 24 m. wider to the north;
the temple platform has a corresponding asymmetry. It probably has to do with some structures
to the north which w e cannot locate anymore, such as the "north brick building" and the neigh-

159 I62
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, pp. 66-67. Sec p. 38 note 147.
16n 163
See note 154. C o m p a r e the reconstruction Ibid. I, frontispiece.
161 164
Sandstone blocks visible between the limestone on pi. Ibid. I, pi. 6c-d.
10, and on pi. 43 section 7 left.
 43

bouring tree with altar (see p. 23). Also there may have been a sanctuary of Hathor somewhere to
the north of the temple. 1 6 5 Finally there was the group of smaller tombs which were included in
the new north triangular court. 1 6 6
T h e already-existing stone walls of the shield-shaped court were taken down, eastwards from
the northwest corner of the northern and southeast corner of the southern triangular courts, and
only a very few blocks of their sandstone foundation left in the trenches. These trenches were fill-
ed in with tafl and the new walls erected on a level probably no higher than that of phase C. Like
their predecessors, they were of limestone built on sandstone foundation slabs, laid directly on the
tafl fill of the court. That these walls were really erected after phase C can be clearly seen at the
northeast corner of the temple terrace, where the foundation slabs (D) of the east wall of the north
triangular court (C) were set against the foundation slabs of the north retaining wall of the terrace
(C), and the stones of the new wall carved to fit in exactly (pi. 22c-d). In the same place one also
clearly sees that the terrace wall was finally dressed after the court wall (coming from the north)
had already been built against it. This is an indication that the change from building phase C to D
occurred before the w o r k envisaged for phase C was finished, but probably near its completion.
In the northwest corner of the northern triangular court the joining of the three walls is another
example of h o w the new wall coming from the east leaned against the shield-shaped court wall
(pi. 22a-b).
After the erection of the new stone walls (D), but probably in conjunction with the same build-
ing program, the stone walls were surrounded by a system of brick walls. The northern half of
the old court of phase C, which had been cut off by the new stone wall D, was enclosed on the
north and east by a large brick wall (being of the same dimensions as the stone walls), and by a
much smaller parapet wall outside of it. This produced a strange triangular court to the north
with an entrance only from the main court and without any k n o w n structure inside. Along the
southern court wall another brick wall with a parapet wall was built directly outside the stone
wall. That the brick walls were built later than the new stone walls is evident from the above-
mentioned northwest corner of the northern triangular court (pi. 22a-b), where the brick wall is
built over the stone wall; its white lime mortar continues from the bricks right over the stones.
During the same building phase another large construction project was finished, that of the
causeway. As we have seen before, the causeway also underwent at least one and probably t w o
changes. Both of them involved a rise in the surface level. The first one probably included walls
for a street that was somewhat broader than the one that was eventually completed. Unfortunate-
ly, at the junction of the causeway and the court of the temple no excavation was undertaken or
recorded which might have shown if the same change of levels could be observed there also. What
can be seen in this area today is the final stage of the construction. Here the fill of the embankment
was graded and covered with a double layer of bricks, and the t w o walls on both sides of the
causeway were constructed: a limestone wall corresponding to the new wall of the court, and the
brick parapet wall outside of it. The latter is the same wall as the parapet wall surrounding the
court, while the limestone walls are not directly connected with the court wall itself, but with
a pylon-like enlargement of this wall on the east side of the court. This structure had t w o tower-
like sections separated by the entrance to the court. It is actually not preserved, but the above-
mentioned brick paving of the street was obviously laid after the building of the pylons, since its
bricks are carefully set against the pylon's sandstone foundation. O n e may conclude that the
completion of phase D included the construction of the pylons, the brick and stone walls, and fi-
nally the laying of the brick pavement.

165 l66
Ibid. I, pp. 83-84 and here n. 61. Which left out, however, the so-called tomb of "King
Intef."
44

Some other monuments may be attributed to this last building stage. O n e is the garden with
the royal statues. These were set up on the final level of the court, certainly only when the other
construction activities were over and no further disturbance or damage was to be expected.
O n e further minor change in plan has to be mentioned. Originally 13 or 14 pairs of large tree
holes were contemplated, but this number was reduced to four pairs during the course of excava-
tion. The holes that were not to be used were filled in again.
Finally there is that mysterious "northern brick building." Winlock thought that it had been
constructed during an earlier building phase and was taken d o w n before the last grading of the
court. N o drawings exist, however, to prove this hypothesis. The photos of the Expedition and
the appearance of the remains today seem to show that the building was not covered by the final
grading, but stood upon it as did the neighboring court wall (pi. 19a).
When we compare the results obtained n o w with the chronological sequence of building
phases which I suggested in Mentuhotep I, pp. 62-66, one will notice a considerable change. This
change is explained by the fact that I relied on Winlock's theories-published in short reports-
trusting that the evidence for them might be found in his unpublished material. The study of this
material unfortunately did not fulfill this hope and forced me to correct my o w n views according-
ly. We therefore have to replace the above-mentioned chronological plan by the following list:
 45

Building phases after H. E. Winlock, Building phases after D. Arnold, Building phases after D. Arnold,
Rise and Fall Mentuhotep I p. 62 present publication

Court Temple Court Temple Court Temple

PHASE A PHASE A
Fieldstone wall Fieldstone wall

Old axis Old axis

1ST PLAN PHASE B PHASE B

Fieldstone Chapels of New Orientation Chapels of queens New Orientation Chapels of queens
queens Shield-shaped in unknown in unknown
court wall on tomb structure tomb structure
raised level

Bab el-Hosan Bab el-Hosan

built " built

2ND PLAN PHASE C Platform retain-

PHASE C Platform retain-
ing wall and ing wall and
central part of central part of
temple temple
Fieldstone wall Platform retain- Shield-shaped Shield-shaped
replaced by ing wall and court wall replaced court wall built
shield-shaped central part of by brick walls
Court wall temple with (around north
royal tomb part of court)
Causeway with without stone
walls and pavement walls

North brick Bab el-Hosan • Replaced by new Bab el-Hosan Replaced by new
building given up royal ton lb given up royal tomb
Addition of lower
colonnade
1

3RD PLAN PHASE D PHASE Dl

Shield-shaped Area of court re- Temple enlarged Shield-shaped Temple enlarged
court wall duced by straight by upper and court wall by upper and
replaced by brick stone walls lower colonnades replaced by lower colonnades
court walls and sanctuary straight stone and sanctuary
Bab el-Hosan walls, exclud-
Straight stone closed ing north
walls added part of court
North brick
Bab el-Hosan building

Garden, statues Causeway walls Causeway walls

and pavement and pavement

Garden, statues

PHASE D2
Addition of brick
walls, especially
around north part
of court

North brick
building

Garden, statues ''

 4. T H E FINDS

4.1 The Mentuhotep Statues (Frontispiece, pis. 23-27, 42, 49) [MS pp. 113-125]

In the course of the excavations, the Expedition uncovered the remains of several seated or
standing sandstone statues of King Mentuhotep, all of them incomplete. O n e head was found,
but it does not seem to match any of the excavated bodies. 1 6 7

a) Standing statues.
According to Winlock the statues wore either the red or the white crown. Those with the red
crown should have been located north of the axis of the court, those with the white crown to the
south. As far as I can see, however, only one head (with a red crown) was found which definitely
belonged to Mentuhotep (see below), the others being parts of statues of Amenhotep I. Neverthe-
less, since there is a stela representing both the statues of Mentuhotep and Amenhotep I on which
the left statue of Mentuhotep wears a white crown and the right one a red crown, 1 6 8 Winlock's
theory might be considered correct even without the evidence of the statues themselves. The
statues show the king in Osiride form with legs together and hands crossed; in all but one instance
the hands are pierced so that they could have held the symbols of Osiris. 1 6 9 T h e king wears a cloak
extending to his knees, probably painted white with an opening for the neck. It does not have the
pointed collar typical of thehb-sd g o w n of a ruler. O n each statue the flesh is red. By joining sev-
eral fragments one can estimate the original height of the statues from the feet to the top of the
crowns at about 2.25 m. They all have a pedestal or base which is so roughly dressed that it must
have been entirely below the ground, the figure itself appearing right on the ground surface.
O n e of the headless statues is n o w in the Metropolitan M u s e u m 1 7 0 (pi. 25). Since Winlock n o -
where mentions the provenience of this statue, and since there are not enough photos showing the
statues still in situ, it is very difficult n o w to determine the place from which the M M A body actu-
ally came. T h e existing photos seem to rule out the possibility of tree holes N IV, S IV, VII, VIII, and
XI. Therefore it could either be the body found in tree hole S III (pi. 23c) or the one found behind
the pylon (pi. 23a). Still these t w o bodies do not appear to be identical with the M M A one, so I
would suggest that the N e w York body was the one that stood by the side of the Hatshepsut ramp
when the Expedition worked at Thebes.
A connection was once suggested between this statue body and a head also found in the court of
the Hatshepsut Temple (although 84 m. southeast). Both the head and the body were taken to
N e w York, but it is by no means certain that the head really fits the body. T h e break of both is
very similar, and they join nicely. Yet the head seems a little too big for the body, and on the right
side of the head the neck line protrudes too much over the neck line of the body to continue
smoothly from one to the other. But since the difference is small, the head was mounted on the
body for photography and for display in the museum.
O n e group of these standing statues certainly was arranged in the court of the Temple complex
(see below). A much greater number probably lined the causeway. T w o torsos were found by

167
At least two of them were already known before. One,
probably that of South in, was excavated by Naville, and a
second one was "not far o f f (Naville, I, pp. 26 and 60).
168
Naville, I, p. 60 and pi. XXV B. I cannot agree, however,
with Naville in identifying the structure on the stela which he
calls "Garden in which arc planted four trees" with the
garden of Mentuhotep.
,69
The above mentioned stela shows the Mentuhotep
statues without such equipment.
I70
No. 26. 3. 29. It is 2.115 m. high. Sec BMMA, 23, Feb.
1928, Part II, p. 24, fig. 25; Hayes, Scepter I, p. 156, fig. 93;
Vandicr, Manuel d'Archeologie Egyptienne in, pp. 164-165 and
pi. LVI; Aldrcd, Middle Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt [1956], p.
36 and fig. 11; Idem, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 3 [1970], p.
31, fig. 3-4.
 47

Lansing near the t o m b of Pabasa. m A piece of a torso was seen near the t o m b of Puyemra on the
surface, and another torso at the t o m b of Sheshonk. Furthermore, fragments from these statues
have been noticed in the ruins of the causeway between the court of the Temple and the t o m b of
Mentuemhat, and in the area of the Austrian and German concession in the lower part of the
Asasif. O f course one has to wonder if this relatively small number of torsos or fragments can be
considered as evidence that statues were distributed at regular intervals from the courtyard d o w n
to the Valley Temple, 1 7 2 or if they are just remains from the destruction of the Temple. When the
stones were transported d o w n to the river, some material probably would have been left along
the way. As long as no holes for the posts of these statues can be detected somewhere on the
causeway—and until n o w no holes have been discovered—the question cannot be answered with
certainty.
More is k n o w n about the original position of the standing statues n o w in the forecourt. Ac-
cording to the following list, torsos and fragments of statues were found in or near the sycamore
tree holes 1 7 3 N iv-vm in the northern and S III-IX in the southern rows (pis. 23a-c, 16a and c, 17a-c).
O n e statue stood by the Hatshepsut ramp when the Expedition worked at Thebes, and there were
four in and around the Egypt Exploration Fund's house. 1 7 4
Winlock does not give any details about the disposition of the statues, nor offer any explanation
as to h o w they came into their position or might have been buried. But his photos and sections
point to the following sequence of events.
All of them were decapitated before they were buried. All the heads were missing except for
one found far away. All the bodies but t w o were broken into pieces, most of them at the ankles
(this would be the weakest point and most probably the place where a statue would have broken
when thrown over). Only in N IV (pi. 16c), S ill (PI. 16a), S VII and S Vlll (pi. 17b) were the statues
uncovered in the original position in which they had fallen, while fragments of the statues in the
other holes had obviously been moved and turned about before they were covered over. Accord-
ing to some of the field notes, the statue in S Vlll was found 75 cm. under the surface, and as photos
of S ill, 175 N IV, S VII, and S VIII seem to show, this was the ancient surface, not the modern debris.
This indicates that the statues were thrown into holes prepared for them in antiquity, and is well
demonstrated by the photo of the statue lying behind the southern half of the " p y l o n " under the
ancient surface of the court (pi. 23a). It also seems to be clear that the statues were buried as near as
possible to the place where they had stood previously. With the exception of the one found be-
hind the " p y l o n , " all those excavated by Naville and the Expedition were found in a tree hole or at
the edge of one. The photos of N IV, VII, S III and IV indicate that the statues stood originally at the
inner edge of the tree holes facing the processional way, and thus well outside the shadow of the
trees.
In only one case do we have a description and photographs showing h o w the head of one of the
above-mentioned standing statues 1 7 6 was found (pis. 23d, 42 hole 2). It was lying in a hole in the
southeastern corner of the Hatshepsut court which contained the following layers (from top to
bottom):
a) dirt mixed with Dynasty x v m pottery but very little blue Hathor material
b) straw

171
They arc still there (1973). MIFAO VI [1902], pp. 38-39).
172 173
Over a length of the causeway of about 1500 m. one BMMA, 17, Dec.1922, Part II, p. 25, fig. 10.
174
would have to reckon with 2 X 29 statues if one had been Probably from the EEF excavation near the ramp of
placed every 50 m. (100 cubits). One may assume that such an the Mentuhotep temple (Naville, I, pp. 26, 60).
175
arrangement was copied by Scsotris I for the causeway of his That is probably the one found already by Naville (op.
pyramid at Lisht where Osiride statues of the king were cit. I, p. 26).
l76
placed in niches along the inner faces of the walls of the MMA 26.3.29.
causeway at intervals of 10 m. (Gauticr, Fouilles de Licht,
48

c) pile of Dynasty XI bricks ( 7 X 1 5 X 3 2 cm.) and bricks which seemed to be of Dynasty XVIII
d) Mentuhotep head
e) odd stones, fragments of the Dynasty XI north postern gate
f) desert plants, pulled up by the roots
g) mud layer, hard and smooth like a floor.
T h e questions when, and for what reason, the Mentuhotep statues were decapitated, and what
was done with the heads, must remain unanswered since there is no evidence at all that the m e m -
ory of this much-venerated king was ever persecuted or his monuments destroyed.
As to the question of when the remaining bodies were buried, one could perhaps accept Win-
lock's arguments that it must have happened in the course of some building project of Dynasty
XVIII when the statues, weathered and with their heads missing, had become unsightly. That
could have been in the time of Amenhotep I, when a temple with his o w n statues was built nearby.
O r it could have been under Tuthmosis ill, when the causeway and ramp of his temple was built
near the statues. It even might have occurred in the post-Amarna Period when the destructions of
Akhenaten were repaired. Apparently the first explanation is contradicted by fragments of the
above-mentioned N e w Kingdom stela, which clearly represents these statues standing together
with those of Amenhotep 1.177 This indicates that at least one of the statues was still unburied
when the stela was cut.
Winlock's list of statues shows that they were not only found in the tree holes which actually
contained trees (that is N and S i-iv), but also in holes which had been filled in again before they
had been planted (N and S V-X). This seems to indicate that the statues were not originally planned
to stand under a tree but rather to line the processional way through the court, starting with two
seated figures (see below) a little east of N and S XIII. N o statues were found of course in the holes
N and S I-II because they would have been out of view behind the walls of the ramp.
N o w if we accept this scheme and Winlock's idea that the statues were buried during some
building activity at Deir el-Bahari in pharaonic times, and that nobody excavated the court again,
one has to wonder where all the statues have gone, because only the following holes contained
statues or fragments of them:

N ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII

- X X X X X - - -
S ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
X X X X X X X — X

That means that out of 22 original statues nine must have disappeared in ancient times.
When the Expedition had finished its work in the court, all but one of the statues were arranged
near the holes where they had been found, according to the following system:

N I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII

— — — X X X X X _ _ _ _ -
S I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII

This shows that six pairs, or 12 more or less complete statues, existed when the Expedition left the
Temple complex area. T h e same number can be found even today, but they have apparently been
moved about.

Naville, I, p. 60 and pi. XXV B.

 49

b) Seated statues.
T w e n t y - t w o meters west of the " p y l o n , " directly on the east-west axes of the t w o rows of
large tree holes, the Expedition found two seated statues of the king (pi. 23 b) showing him in the
costume represented on the standing statues. The hands of the statues were in the same position as
on the standing ones, and again the hands were pierced to hold objects (pi. 26-27). 1 7 8 Both of the
seated statues were headless. Winlock remarked that their heads must have been knocked off
while they were still standing, since the break at the neck had become smooth and frequently been
used as a roosting-place by kites in ancient times. The bases and the thrones still show traces of
whitewash, as do the cloaks. The flesh is red. Like the standing statues, these t w o had been
t h r o w n on their backs and buried in a 75 cm. deep hole dug behind them. They might have been
facing each other as the standing statues were, or both might have been looking to the east like the
colossi in front of later temples.
Similar in size and form to these is the well-known seated statue of King Mentuhotep found by
H o w a r d Carter in the chamber of the Bab el-Hosan where it had received a ritual burial. 1 7 9 Win-
lock called attention to the line of grayish white hib all around the base, and suggested that the
statue might have been standing in the causeway with the base sunk into the brick pavement to
the surface of the hib. He further pointed out that the statue cannot have been exposed to the sun
for a long time since it was perfectly preserved when it was buried in the Bab el-Hosan. That the
statue stood in this position does not seem to me to be at all convincing. Only the front part of the
throne had been painted, as if the artist had not been able to reach the other sides. Perhaps these
had been rendered inaccessible by nearby walls or the like. 18 ° If it had been on the causeway there
is no reason w h y the front of the throne only would have been painted.
The measurements of the seated statues of Mentuhotep arc:

Bab el-Hosan North court South court

Length of base 1.003 m. 1.02 m. 1.03 m.
Width of base .473 .49 .495-.50
Height of base .215-.220 .23 .27
Height of throne .47 .49 .45
Height of neck .65 .64- .65 .68
Total height 2.04

4.2 The Foundation Deposits (pis. 28-32, 52-53, fig. 12) [MS pp. 136-156]

U n d e r the four corners of the platform of the temple the Expedition discovered in 1921/22 four
virtually undisturbed 1 8 1 foundation deposits. 1 8 2 They consisted of square pits, about 2 cubits in

178
T h e drilling had been d o n e b o t h from above and be-
low, so the holes do not always meet evenly in the middle of
the hands.
179
For bibliography sec PM II2, pp. 382-383. T h e famous
figure is dealt with in nearly all studies of Egyptian art. It
should be mentioned here that the statue might be roughly
dated by the fact that the Bab was sealed up during building
phase C, and one may assume that the statue was buried at the
same time. T h e statue m i g h t already have been standing for
s o m e time at another place (Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 52). It is
unreasonable, however, to date the Bab cl-Hosan statue back
to Phase A of the T e m p l e , i.e. to the early years of the reign
of M e n t u h o t e p (Aldred, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 3
[1970], p. 30). For w e k n o w n o w that the statues from the
court belong to the latest building activities in the T e m p l e
(D2), and that this must date to near the end of the reign of
M e n t u h o t e p . T h e Bab cl-Hosan statue and the seated statues
from the court have exactly the same measurements, and a
comparison between the Bab cl-Hosan statue and the N e w
York head M M A 26.3.29 s h o w that they cannot be separated
b y m o r e than ten to t w e n t y years. B o t h m u s t be products o f
the same g r o u p of sandstone sculptors w o r k i n g in the later
half of the king's reign. This school must also have created
General Intefs sandstone statues, which s h o w a striking
resemblance to the statues of the king (Arnold-Settgast,
MDIK 20 [1965], 60; C. Vandcrslcycn, Das Alte Agypten
[1975], pi. 150).
180
Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 52, n. 135.
18
' For the slight disruption of the one in the SE corner sec
below.
182
BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922, Part II, pp. 28-29 and figs.
16-19.
50

width and one cubit in depth, and were cut into the tafl rock within the foundation trench of the
platform (pi. 29a). 1 8 3 The offerings were laid directly on the tafl, then packed and surrounded by
sand. They were arranged in the following way. First the biggest object-a bull's head with the leg,
rib, and neck bones-was laid down, filling about one half of the space. The other half had bread in
one corner and jars in the other; the bread had probably been put down first. O n top of the jars
was set a large dish with most of the smaller ones inside it. Since it was unevenly balanced on the
jars, the pressure from above caused the dish to break. Behind the dish, smaller dishes with bread
were put d o w n near conical loaves of bread in the corner. These dishes were turned over to cover
the bread under them. T h e small dishes with fruit and barley were obviously intended to lie inside
the larger dish, but some of these fell out when the dish under them broke into pieces. All of the
above objects were neatly separated from the bricks on top of the pit by a layer of up to 30 cm. of
tafl chip, showing that the ceremony of laying d o w n the bricks was later than the offering of food.
In all, four bricks were found lying on t o p . 1 8 4 O n e had nothing inside it, while the other three had
tablets bearing foundation inscriptions inside of them (see p. 56). O n e of the tablets was made of
wood, one of alabaster, and one of bronze. 1 8 5 Winlock pointed out that they were not like bricks
used for building in this period, 1 8 6 but were made of black mud with quantities of straw and peb-
bles mixed in. They were moulded in brick moulds on the spot and laid d o w n right there, as one
can see by the footprints left on them by people working in the foundation pit.
The bricks were arranged in a r o w of headers in the three undisturbed pits, always in the same
sequence: bronze, alabaster, wood, and empty brick. T h e alignment of the bricks appears not to
have had any connection with any feature of the Temple complex or with anything else. Winlock
suggested that the man putting them d o w n apparently squatted in the corner of the pit most con-
venient for him and laid d o w n the empty brick to his right. He then continued with the ones con-
taining wood, alabaster and bronze. Since no confusion occurred, one has to assume that the dif-
ferent kinds of bricks were kept in different, marked baskets and that the man in the pit received
them always in the proper order, according to the ritual being performed. That he started with the
empty bricks was clearly shown by their positions: in the pit of the N W corner the man had to
stand in the south of the pit and had to put the empty brick in first as deeply as possible. In the SW
corner he was standing to the south, probably outside the pit, and worked from left to right. In the
N E corner, however, he was in the east and worked from right to left. In order to build the foun-
dation slabs of the walls over the pits, another fill of tafl was necessary. This fill ranged from 10 to
45 cm. thick (in the N E corner) (pi. 52). The slabs, furthermore, were embedded in the surround-
ing rock so that their weight did not press directly onto the deposits.
In the following description of the objects, the numbers 22.3.77-.239 are accession numbers in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the material from the N E , SE and N W corners was sent.
The numbers in brackets [ ] refer to objects that have been de-accessioned. The numbers in
parentheses ( ) are the numbers of the Expedition (also used in their plans, pis. 52-53).

183 184
Another similar hole was found-empty and perhaps Size 7-8 X 15-18 X 30-38 cm.
185
unfinished-south of the ramp, under the retaining wall of the The top (beginning) of the inscriptions was always
terrace. See Arnold, Mentuhotep I, p. 13, fig. 4, here pi. 35c. It towards the east. One of the metal tablets was analyzed and
should be mentioned that in 1970 the German Archaeological was found to be bronze, for which see p. 52 below.
I86
Institute found four undisturbed deposits under the corners Very smoothly grained, sandy and strawlcss, cf. the list
of the central core. They will be published in Mentuhotep IV. p. 64.
See Arnold, MDIK, 27 [1971], pp. 126-129 and pi. XVII-XXii.
 51

4.2.1 Northeast Corner (pis. 28a,52) [MS pp. 141-146]

(Not in M M A ) (1) E m p t y brick

22.3.127 (2) Tablet, acacia wood, 1.8 x 5.8 x 14 cm. 1 8 7
22.3.128 (3) Tablet, alabaster 188 1.2 X 3.9 X 6.9 cm.
22.3.129 (4) Tablet, bronze, 0.15 X 7.25 X 14.6 cm.
Meat offering of a young ox, with skin still on the head
[22.3.130] (13) Head, Length of face without horns, 34.5 cm.
[22.3.131] (13) Leg, L. 30 cm.
[22.3.132] (13) Rib, L. 26 cm.
[22.3.133-. 134] (13) Bones from back of neck, L. 11 and 10.8 cm.
[22.3.135-. 136] (13) Bones from the beginning of backbone, L. 7.8 and 7.6 cm.
[22.3.137] (13) Bones from skull, L. 4.8 cm.
Winlock lists 8-10 conical loaves of bread (5) scattered around in the hole and obviously not in
plates. Their tips were burnt and they measured in their dried state L. 17 and Diameter 3 cm. T w o
small saucers contained two cakes each of bran, D. 4 cm., and Thickness 1 cm. The saucers were
thought to have been purposely laid upside down, possibly to protect the cakes. Four other small
saucers contained one cake each of 6-7 cm. D., also upside down.
The M M A lists 11 loaves of bread and cake:
[22.3.138-. 140] Fragments of conical loaves of bread, L. 11.5, 13.8, and 10.5 cm.
189
[22.3.141-. 148] Fragments of circular loaves of bread, D. 7.1, 6.85, 6.8, 6.8, 3.7,
3.7, 3.75, 3.95 cm.
There were altogether five small saucers, one with three figs, one with jujubes, one with barley,
and one with grapes.
The fruits are listed in the M M A as follows:
[22.3.149-. 151] (19) 3 figs, D. 2.2, 2.6, and 2.2 cm.
[22.3.152] (12) Jujubes, 1 9 0 D. 0.6-1.4 cm.
[22.3.153-.155] (9) Barley and grapes
This kind of double listing of vessels and contents gives rise to some confusion, and
therefore, the list of pottery has to be given twice, first according to the excavator, mention-
ing the contents of the pottery, and then by the numbers of the M M A , arranged accord-
ing to the shape of the vessels.
Winlock's List:
7 small saucers, empty, in larger dish [22.3.186]
6 small saucers, empty, in larger dish [22.3.186], contents possibly fallen out
2 small saucers with barley (9)
1 small saucer with grapes
1 small saucer with jujubes (12)
1 small saucer with figs
24 small saucers (the M M A list has 25)
6 small saucers with bread or cake (7) and (8)
3 sealed jars [22.3.156-. 158] (18)
1 jar with liquid [22.3.159] (18)
1 large dish [22.3.186] (14) containing 7 small ones

187 I89
The wood was kindly examined by B. F. Kukachka of Only 22.3.142, . 144-. 146 de-accessioned.
l9
the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ° For this plant sec Keimer, ASAE, 42 [1943], pp.
Madison, Wisconsin. 279-281.
188
Hayes, Scepter I, p. 155, fig. 92.
52

1 smaller dish [22.3.185] with organic liquid (the photo of the findspot shows that the dish was
buried already broken in pieces, pi. 28a)
1 cup (16), not mentioned in the M M A list, 6.5 X4 cm.
M M A list:
[22.3.156] 191 Jar with mud sealing, empty, H. 14 cm.
191
[22.3.157] Jar with mud sealing, empty, H. 15.4 cm.
191
[22.3.158] Jar with mud sealing, empty, H. 14.5 cm.
[22.3.159] Jar with neck, contained liquid, H. 14.2 cm.
[22.3.160-. 184] 25 small saucers or dishes, D. 6.8-10.8 cm. (note that only 24 occur
in Winlock's list)
[22.3.185] Dish, soft b r o w n ware, D. 16.3 cm. (reportedly contained organic
juices-blood?-was broken, and the fragments were piled on top of each
other with some missing)
[22.3.186] (14) Dish, good quality with red wash inside, contained 7 smaller,
empty saucers, D. 33.3 cm.

4.2.2. Southeast Corner (pis. 29b, 52) [MS pp. 147-151]

When the walls above the corner were quarried away, the corner stones were removed and the
deposit hole exposed. T w o of the bricks 1 9 2 lying on top were broken, and some of the tightly
packed objects deeper d o w n were also broken. Nevertheless, the deposit seemed to be complete.
Naville's excavation missed the deposit literally by an inch. Again one of the bricks was empty,
the others contained tablets:
(not in M M A ) (1) Empty brick
22.3.187 (2) Tablet, wood, 1.9 x 5.8 x 14 cm.
22.3.188 (3) Tablet, alabaster, 1.0 x 4.65 x 7.25 cm. 1 9 3
22.3.189 (4) Tablet, bronze, 0.15 X 7.3 x 14.6 cm.
According to an analysis (dispersive X-ray fluorescence) kindly carried out by Pieter
Meyers and Lambertus van Zelst of the Research Laboratory of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, the metal is an arsenical bronze with the following composition:
Cu 98.6 ± 2 . 5 %
As 4.9 ± 0 . 3 %
Sn <0.2%
Pb <0.2%
Zn <0.5%
T h e meat offering consisted of parts of a young ox which were put in with the flesh and skin
still on.
22.3.190 Head, L. of face 30 cm., L. of chin bones 26.5-27.5 cm.
22.3.191 Leg, L. 30.6 cm.
22.3.192 Rib, L. 25.8 cm.
22.3.193-.194 Bones of neck, L. 10.6 and 10.7 cm.
22.3.195-. 197 Bones from skull, L. 7 and 5.1 cm.
Winlock mentioned fragments of conical loaves of bread, about 20 cm. long and 3 cm. in
diameter, but in a very dry state. N o cake was found. The M M A only has:

191 I93
Scalings not de-accessioned. Hayes, Scepter I, p. 155, fig. 92.
192
8 x 15 x 31 cm.
 53

22.3.198-.200 Circular loaves of bread, D. 2.3, 2.1 and 2.05 cm.

22.3.204-.206 Conical loaves of bread, L. 10.5, 7.6. 7.8 cm.
Winlock supposed that one saucerful each of jujubes, figs (3), grapes, and barley must have
been in the pit, but all of these seem to have been poured out.
The M M A has:
22.3.201 Jujubes, D. 1.4 cm.
22.3.202 Barley
22.3.203 Grapes, without mention of figs
T h e pottery is given in the M M A list as follows:
[22.3.207] Jar, H. 13.5 cm.
[22.3.208] Jar with stopper, H. 13 cm.
[22.3.209] Jar, H. 15.8 cm.
[22.3.210] Jar, with conical stopper of mud, H. [of jar and stopper?] 14.7 cm.
[22.3.211-.215] 5 jars, H. 12.4, 15, 13.8, 15, 13.8 cm.
[22.3.216-.237] 22 saucers, 1 9 4 crudely made, D. 6.3-10.5 cm.
[22.3.238] A large dish, red wash inside, D. 33 cm.
[22.3.239] A smaller dish, soft b r o w n ware, stained with meat residue, D. 16.2 cm.

4.2.3 Northwest Corner (pis. 28c-d, 53) [MS pp. 137-140]

As would be expected, three of the four bricks 1 9 5 contained tablets of different materials. The
order of the tablets of the N E deposit was reversed here from north to south. T h e empty space
behind the bull's head indicates that the man filling the pit was sitting in the south corner piling up
the objects in front of him. Since a very coarse and heavy tafl chip fill was piled on the deposit to
form a kind of wall, much pottery was broken.
(not in M M A ) (1) E m p t y brick
22.3.77 (3) Tablet, alabaster, 0.8 X 4.35 X 6.5 cm.
22.3.78 (4) Tablet, bronze, 0.1 X 7.4 X 14.6 cm.
22.3.79 (2) Tablet, wood, 1.8 x 5.8 X 13.9 cm.
T h e meat offering came from a young long-horned cow with black hair. T h e skin and horns
were still on the head, but there was nothing on the ribs.
[22.3.80] (13) Head, L. of face without horns 43 cm., L. of chin bones 35.5 cm.
[22.3.81] (13) Leg bone, L. 29.5 cm.
[22.3.82] (13) Rib, L. 21.7 cm.
[22.3.S3-.84] (13) Bones from back of neck, L. 13.5 and 14 cm.
Winlock mentioned six conical loaves of bread, about 18 cm. long and 3 cm. across, all of them
in the N W corner (5). Traces of a decayed loaf (6) were seen.
The M M A list:
[22.3.85-.87] 3 conical loaves of bread, L. 12.5, 13.7, 10 cm.
[22.3.88] Circular loaf of bread, D. 3.3 cm.
O n e saucer of barley (9), one with a dozen jujubes (10), and one with two figs (12) were
noted by Winlock. N o grapes were found. In the M M A accession file there are:
22.3.89 (12) Fig, D. 2.4 cm.
22.3.91 (9) Barley
[22.3.92] (10) Jujubes

I9S
Winlock counted 23 complete and one incomplete. 7 X 17-18 X 38 cm.
54

The pottery consisted of:

[22.3.94-. 104] (18) 11 jars
[22.3.105-. 124] (15) 20 saucers
[22.3.125] (16) 1 cup
[22.3.126] (14) 1 dish
It is listed by the M M A as follows:
[22.3.94-. 104] (18) 11 jars of red pottery, one with a stopper; one was t h r o w n in
on the deposit (2), then the rest heaped up on top of that in the N E
corner of the pit under the dish. H. 15.2, 15.8, 12, 15.7, 14.3, 15.1,
15.6, 14.0, 13.9, 15.5, 12.5 cm.
[22.3.105-. 124] (15) 20 saucers, red pottery, D. 8.5-10.8 cm.
[22.3.125] (16) Cup with black mud lid, red pottery, H. 12.3 cm.
[22.3.126] (14) Dish or bowl, good quality, red wash inside, containing 14
saucers, all of them empty. D. 32.3 cm.
T h e northwest deposit contained two objects which were not k n o w n from the other three de-
posits:
[22.3.90] (20) 4 bundles of papyrus fibres, 6-7.5 cm. long, tied together
with linen string or " g o o d cord."
[22.3.93] (19) Rush mat or reed tray, consisting of coarse sticks bound to-
gether with rope, perhaps for the jugs, which appear to have fallen
out of it.

4.2.4 Southwest Corner (pis. 28b, 53) [MS pp. 152-154]

Since this deposit went as a whole to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, 1 9 6 we are using Winlock's
list at present. Both this deposit and the one in the SE corner had suffered from water damage.
The bricks 1 9 7 had tafl in them, and the mixture left over was dumped beside the bricks on the top
layer of sand. This therefore might have been the last of the four holes to be filled during the foun-
dation ceremonies. 1 9 8
(I) Western brick, without tablet
J d ' E 47328 (2) Tablet, wood, 1.8 X 5.8 x 13.9 cm.
J d ' E 47330 (3) Tablet, alabaster, 0.8 X 3.9 x 6.6 cm.
Jd'E 47329 (4) Tablet, bronze, 0.15 X 7.3 X 14.7 cm.
(5) Probably 6 conical loaves of bread, very rotten (barley?)
(6) Conical loaves of bread, very rotten, apparently "containing
meat" [sic]
(7) Large flat sheets of white bread or cake, of wheat, D. about
20 cm.
(8) Small saucer with a round cake, like (7) in consistency
(9) A saucer full of barley, in the big platter
(10) A saucer full of jujubes, not in the platter
(II) A saucer full of grapes, not in the platter
(12) A saucer with figs, not in the platter

196 197
Jd'E 47326-30. The whereabouts of the objects not rcg- 7 X 15 X 30 cm.
l98
istcred in the Egyptian Museum Cairo is unknown. Jd'E The man filling the hole was apparently squatting in
47327 refers to an unspecific amount of "brown pottery." the NW corner, having an empty space when he stepped out.
 55

4
O.
^
14
i
i-i?

1*
Jd'E 47 328 MMA 22.3.187 MMA 22.3.127 MMA 22.3.79

fcUUUj

o £

I (tarn

-rp^
V^ >4k

Jd'E 47 330 MMA 22.3.188 MMA 22.3.128 MMA 22.3.77

Jl
a
rnn
M
£\
<&Lu
'^mr<N

i^ffl?^

4\ <=s
4
I /IT
Jd'E 47 329 MMA 22.3.189 MMA 22.3.129 MMA 22.3.78

Fig. 12 The inscriptions on the tablets of the foundation deposits. Draw. Ar. on photo after the originals. See pi. 31. Scale 1:2

(13) The meat offering consisting of the head, femur, and a rib of
a young cow, the skin still on its head (skull and femur, Egyptian
Museum J d ' E 47326, but now in the Agricultural Museum, Cairo).
(14) A bowl, tougher and thicker than the others, no wash, con-
taining 15 saucers, H. 10 cm. D. 30 cm.
(15) 20 saucers, 15 in platter (1 with barley), 3 with fruits (11,12),
2 others (1 like |8])
56

(16) A cup, pieces missing, the sediment inside possibly from the
stopper decayed by water, H. 14, D. 10.5 cm.
(17) Rough broken dish, pieces missing, heavily stained with
meat residue, H. 3.5, D. 16.5 cm.
(18) 12 jars, 2 with stoppers, 1 with barley [sic]
(19) Reed tray like that in N W corner but rotted by water, jars
lying on it.

The inscriptions on the tablets (pi. 31, fig. 12) are of t w o different types. O n the first type nearly
the entire titulary of the king appears and nothing else. Either the nsw-bity name nb-hpt-R' or the
s3-R' name Mntw-htp is given along with the Horus, nbty, and Golden Horus names. But both
the nsw-bity and the s3-R' names are never found together on one inscription. In the N W and
SW corners we have twice nb-hpt-R' and once Mntw-htp. In the N E and SE corners it is vice versa,
twice Mntw-htp, and once nb-hpt-R'. What this might mean is not known.
T h e second type of inscription leaves out the first three titles and just shows nsw-bity s3-R', but
it adds "beloved of Montufra] the Lord of Waset." The addition ofRais missing in the N E corner
completely. In the other three corners it appears one time in each pit. The mention of Montu alone
appears in all four deposits. There is no apparent system for the choice of the first or second for-
mula, neither by the material (both types appear on wood and alabaster, while the tablets of
bronze have the first type only), nor by geographical position. Each deposit had both variations.
O n e knows from other deposits 1 9 9 that the god mentioned is always the one to w h o m the tem-
ple is consecrated. In our case, it is natural to expect that this temple belonged to Montu or M o n -
tura. But since the name of Montura appears in complementary distribution with the complete
titulary of the king, might we suggest that the king as well was worshipped in this place? We do
k n o w from other sources that the temple (or at least a part of it) was dedicated to the cult of the
king.
O n e should mention that in three cases the entire phrased-.R' Mntw-htp is found together in the
same cartouche, as it is in the names of the Intef kings and during the earlier part of the reign of
Mentuhotep. But in official inscriptions of the later period, in which the Horus tit\esm3-t3wy was
used, s3-R' always stands in front of the cartouche and Mntw-htp inside.
N o w the old style is also to be found on the linen marks from the deposits under the corners of
the pyramid. This seems to indicate that the people writing linen marks, tablets, etc. were not ac-
customed to the form of the royal name as used in official temple inscriptions. Both series of de-
posits were arranged at the same time, i.e., relatively early in the reign of the king, when the new
form of his name had been introduced but was not yet common. This would be at the time of
building stage C, to which the deposits belong, probably shortly after the change in the royal
titulary. Technically and palaeographically the incised inscriptions very much resemble inscrip-
tions on metal from other foundation deposits. 2 0 0 O n e may suggest that there must have been
some kind of tradition among craftsmen as to h o w to shape the signs on materials such as metal
and wood.

199
Quibell, El Kab [1898], pi. XXI; Pctrie, Abydos II
[1903], pi. XXIII (6-8); Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari
VI [1908], pi. CLXVIII; BMMA, 28, April 1933, Part II, p. 12,
fig. 10; Ricke, Der Totentempel Thutmoses'lII, Taf. 12; Idem,
Das Kamutef-Heiligtum in Karnak, p. 28, Abb. 10; Mond,
Temples of Armant [1940], pi. xxm; Arnold, MDIK, 22
[1967], p.~25.
2m
> Copper box of Amencmhat II from Tod (de la Roque,
Le Tresor de Tod, FIFAO, XI [1953], pi. 1). Axes from de-
posits found under the corners of the central core of the Men-
tuhotep temple (Arnold, MDIK, 27 [1971], p. 127 and pi.
XIXc). Chisel with Temple mark of Mentuhotep (Winlock,
Excavations, pi. 21).
 57

Concordance of all objects found in the four deposits

Objects Northeast Southeast Northwest Southwest

(MMA) (MMA) (MMA) (Eg. Mus.
Cairo)

Brick without tablet 1 1

Brick with wood tablet 1 1
Brick with alabaster tablet 1 1
Brick with bronze tablet 1 1

Head of ox 1 1
Neck bones 2 2
Rib 1 1
Leg bone 1 1

Conical loaves of bread 8- 10 3+ x 6-7 6+ x

Flat circular bread or cake 8 or 3? 1+X 1+X

Saucer with jujubes 1 1

Saucer with barley 2 1?
Saucer with grapes 1 1
Saucer with figs 1 1?

Large dish 1 1
Smaller dish 1 1
Cup 1
Saucers 24-25 23-24 20 ' 20
Jars 4 9 11 12

Reed tray for jars ——

Bundle of papyrus

4.3 The Bread Deposits (pis. 33a-b, 34a, 42, fig. 4) [MS pp. 49-55]

In several spots all over the northern half of the courtyard the Expedition in 1924 discovered
deposits of bread, 2 0 1 sometimes up to seven loaves in one hole, lying just under the surface of the
final grading. They were certainly put there before the construction of the court stone walls. The
loaves were triangular, 22-25 cm. on one side, and were about 3-4 cm. thick. 2 0 2 About one third
of their volume was wheat, and they were full of husks. The milling of the flour was wholly inef-

201
Mentioned in BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 10 and graphic Magazine, LXXX [Oct. 1944], p. 434; BMMA, 19,
fig. 6. Dec. 1924, Part II, p. 10 and fig. 6; Ibid., 21, March 1926, Part
Hayes, "Daily Life in Ancient Egypt," National Geo- II, pp. 8-9.
58

ficient. According to a letter from Dr. Johannes Griiss they were "aus einem Weizenmehl gebak-
ken nach Art unseres Schiffszwiebacks." The following deposits were found (compare pi. 38):
a) Deposit about 5.5 m. east of the north postern gate (see fig. 4) directly under the edge of the
stone wall: three loaves of bread in a circular hole dug about 30 cm. into the fill.
b) Deposit about 8.75 m. southwest of a) (fig. 4), in a similar hole, containing a fragment of a
loaf with other fragments scattered nearby.
c) Deposit east of the ramp of Tuthmosis m (see pi. 43), about 15 m. east of its SE corner and 12
m. N E from the last tamarisk tree in the N E corner. In a shallow hole of 75 cm. there were seven
loaves of bread.
d) Deposit 5 m. south of the ramp of Tuthmosis ill (pi. 43) and 1 m. west of the third tamarisk
tree (from the east), with a single loaf of bread well below the level of the garden. 2 0 3
e) A group (?) of fragments of 7 loaves found scattered, about 12 m. south of the northern wall
of the court and 35 m. N E of the last tamarisk tree in the N E .
f) Pit (?) east of the ramp of Tuthmosis in (pi. 43), about 9 m. east of its N E corner and 18 m.
N E of the last tamarisk tree in the N E .
g) A single loaf was found by Naville in the north triangular court, probably near Naville tomb
l, 2 0 4 "in the rubbish immediately overlaying a plundered XI Dynasty t o m b . "
h) Three corners of a loaf found in 1926-27 at the place called "Wilkinson's Much
Pottery." Whether they belonged to the XI or XVIII Dynasty is impossible to say.
Winlock had the theory that a line connecting all these deposits, or at least a)-d) (pi. 38), would
indicate the axis of the temple in the period of the shield-shaped court. They would have been laid
out at equal distances of 8.75 m. from the burial of the cow westward. Winlock realized that this
hypothesis implied that most of the deposits presumed to exist along this line had not yet been
found. In order to find them, a trench was dug in December 1926, starting near the cow burial, 6
m. wide, westward up to the temple. But no other deposits were found. Furthermore, there is a
strong objection to the theory that the deposits marked the axis of the original temple: this line of
deposits was laid out along the top level of the court which belonged to building phase C and D,
i.e., in a period when the temple already had the new and final axis. But the temple with the
hypothetical oblique axis based on the line of deposits would have to be at a much deeper level, if
it were there at all.
Some of the loaves are in the following museums:
M M A 25.3.230
25.3.231
[25.3.232]
[25.3.233]
25.3.234
[25.3.235]
Eg. Mus. Cairo Jd'E 49095
49096
49097
49098
Brit. Mus. London 40942
The whereabouts of the other nine loaves is u n k n o w n .

203 20
MMA, M5C8. < Naville, III, pp. 18, 24 and pi. XIX.
 59

4.4 The Bread Moulds (fig. 13, pis. 33c-d, 44) [MS pp. 88-89]

About 37.5 m. west of the so-called elbow in the Mentuhotep brick wall under the middle ter-
race of Hatshepsut, a fireplace was found in 1930-31 right next to the inner side of the brick wall
still containing 30 moulds (pi. 44). The fireplace was made of two bricks of XI Dynasty type
(7 X 16 X 32 cm.) not from the wall. Its floor of ashes lay 30 cm. above the level of the court on tafl
chip (pi. 33c). The ashes had been produced by straw and small twigs. U n b u r n t straw lay about in
the near vicinity. Fire had burnt t w o bricks in the wall, but does not appear to have burnt long
enough to indicate that the moulds were used in smelting; it would, on the other hand, have been
long enough to bake long conical loaves of bread, and one may be sure that the fireplace was the
remains of a small stove for baking bread.

Fig. 13 Three examples of XI Dynasty bread

moulds. Draw. Ar. after sketch of Expedition.
See pi. 33d. Scale 1:5

Winlock suggested Dynasty XI as the date, since there would have been no bricks of this type
available in later times, and since the oven was built directly on the clean tafl chip on which the
brick court walls were built. T h e bread moulds (pi. 33d) were 17-26 cm. long, of fine b r o w n ware,
roughly modelled outside. T h e interior surfaces were coated with a 1 mm. thick slip of b r o w n
clay and offered a perfectly smooth and regular surface. While the moulds were charred in spots,
especially on the exterior, they showed no signs of any very intense firing. The top rims were par-
ticularly irregular. Some of them had been broken in antiquity and some of the moulds used again
after the breakage. In all, 30 examples were found, 25 from the fireplace and five from the neigh-
borhood. 2 0 5

205
D o r o t h e a Arnold contributes the following remarks
on the date of the moulds:
In this g r o u p of pottery there are t w o different forms of
conical pots. T h e very n a r r o w one is k n o w n to us as the typi-
cal form of a mould to make fine bread or cake in the M K (cf.
Davies, The Tomb of Antefoker [1920], pi. XIa-XIIa; Klebs, Die
Reliefs und Malereien des mittleren Reiches [1922], p. 120).
Moulds like these were found at Kahun (Petrie, Kahun, Gurob
and Hawara [1890], pi. XII, no. 34) and in great quantities in
the M K settlements of N u b i a (cf. Smith, " K o r , " Kush, 14
[1966], p. 237 and figs. 16-18), but they also occur in founda-
tion deposits (Sesostris II at Illahun: Petrie, Ibid., pi. XIV, no.
14), a m o n g the pots used for magical proscription (Vila, " U n
D e p o t de Textcs d ' E n v o u t e m e n t au M o y e n E m p i r e , " journal
des Savants [1963], p. 151 and figs. 12,7) and in and around
t o m b s (as found by the German Archaeological Institute in
the necropolis of cl-Tarif in t o m b s of the early XI to the XII
Dynasties).
T h e second m o r e open variety of pots has frequently been
found in graves of the First Intermediate Period (Petrie and
B r u n t o n , Sedment I, [1924], pi. XXX, no. 34; B r u n t o n , Qau and
Badari II [1928], pi. LXXXVII no. 77D; Petrie, Qumeh [1909],
pi. XV no. 196). T h a t this variety is also a bread or cake mould
is suggested by the similarity in the fabric of the pot and also
by Winlock's find of such pots together with the examples of
the better k n o w n n a r r o w forms. Since not enough moulds
are published, w e cannot yet date the M e n t u h o t e p temple
g r o u p m o r e closely than to a period between the XI Dynasty
and the earlier N K . Later NK moulds found in N o r t h Karnak
by the IFAO (Jacquet, "Fouilles de Karnak N o r d , Q u a t r i e m c
campagne 1971," BIFAO, 71 [1972], p. 154) have the same
general appearance but a different form of the base, and seem
to be made of a slightly different kind of clay. A date rather
near the building period of the temple is nevertheless proba-
ble because of the very similar appearance of the temple
moulds to those found in el-Tarif. T h e importance of the
present group lies in the fact that the t w o varieties are s h o w n
to have been in use side by side.
60

The bread moulds are in two museums:

M M A 31.3.4
31.3.5
31.3.6
31.3.7
31.3.8
31.3.9
31.3.10
31.3.11
Eg. Mus. Cairo Jd'E 56266
56267

4.5 The Workmen's Equipment

4.5.1 The Mallets (pi. 34b, 35a-b) [MS 94]

"In the ruins of the causeway walls" from 100 to 200 m. east of the court, six mallets of acacia
wood were found in 1928-29. 2 0 6 Since Winlock did not say which wall it was, they could have
come from the walls of Mentuhotep or Tuthmosis ill, for Winlock considered the latter to be part
of the Mentuhotep causeway at that time. H o w e v e r one may assume that they belong to the
period of the destruction of the temples of Mentuhotep and Tuthmosis ill. They are about 25-32
cm. long (pi. 34b).
A group of eight more mallets and a block of w o o d of u n k n o w n purpose were found close to-
gether in the winter of 1926-27. 207 They were buried in the XI Dynasty fill 10 m. east of the north-
ern end of the rough fieldstone wall, 2 m. below the surface and 50 cm. above thegebel (pi. 35a-b).
Winlock may, therefore, have been right in assuming that they belonged to the XI Dynasty. In the
Journal d'Entree of the Egyptian Museum Cairo the t w o mallets 51872 and 51873 are described as
"found in a small cache in the grading which is certainly XI Dyn., and which had never been dis-
turbed and they may be taken quite safely as XI Dyn. in date." T h e description probably refers to
items in this group of eight.
Edouard Naville had made similar finds, probably in the temple itself: " T h e mallets were very
numerous, probably fifty were found altogether. The handle was in one piece with the rather
pineapple-shaped hitting part. The wood is acacia." 2 0 8 Another one that he found in the stratum
of the destruction of the temple was considered to be of the Ramesside period. 2 0 9 O n e of the
M M A mallets was examined by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1965 and was
found to be acacia. The mallets were 25-35 cm. long (pi. 35b).

206 207
Many have been found, but it is difficult to date them. BMMA, 24, Dec. 1965, p. 132, fig. 4; two of them
See De Morgan, Fouilles a Dahchour en 1894-1895 11903], p. (27.3.154 and 27.3.158) are shown in Hayes, Scepter I, p. 290,
105, fig. 153; Petrie, Tools and Weapons [1917], pi. XLVI; Peet fig. 192.
2(l8
and Wooley, The City of Akhenaten I [1923], pi. XIX (3-4); Naville in, p. 30 and pi. XXXIII (2).
20
Dabrowska - Smektala, ASAE, 60 11968], p. 129 and pi. " Ibid., ill, p. 18 and pi. xxix (3). It is now m the British
xxxvi (3). For the use of mallets see Clarke and Engelbach, Museum (No. 41.187).
Ancient Egyptian Masonry [1930], p. 194 and fig. 264.
 61

MMA 27.3.154
27.3.155
[27.3.156]
27.3.157
[27.3.158]
Eg. Mus. Cairo Jd'E 51872
51873
Brit. Mus. London 41187
South Kensington Science Museum London (two examples)
Royal Ontario Museum Toronto (several examples, probably from Deir el-Bahari)

4.5.2 The Lever (pi. 34c-d) [MS p. 93]

In January 1929 a tamarisk trunk was found 200 m. east of the court in the original fill of the
causeway, about 40 cm. below its surface. It was 1.77 m. long, 10 cm. thick, and bevelled at one
end for a distance of 30 cm. Again it must be said that there is no indication that it was found along
the causeway of Mentuhotep and not that of Tuthmosis III. The photo on pi. 34c offers no help in
the identification. It is in the Egyptian Museum Cairo, Jd'E 56293.

4.5.3 The Baskets, Pick, and Hoe (pis. 35c-d, 36a-b) [MS p. 174]

In December 1922 and February 1924 t w o baskets of rope, a wooden pick, and a h o e 2 1 0 were
discovered near the northern end of the south lower colonnade of the Mentuhotep temple. The
baskets 2 1 1 were behind the northwestern corner of the colonnade on the foundation blocks of the
south retaining wall of the ramp (pi. 35c), while the pick and hoe were lying to the side of the
broken pavement in this place (pi. 36a). They apparently belonged to a quarryman of the
XXl-XXll Dynasty w h o had been removing stones and had hidden his tools overnight but could
not collect them again, perhaps because the fill of the terrace broke down and buried them. Since
the tools were made of wood like those used by farmers, and not of metal, one may assume that
the man was not an official mason but a farmer quarrying in the temple ruins for some reason.
The tools had been recently sharpened (pi. 36b). The pick was 60.5 cm. long; the hoe had a handle
of 51 cm. and a blade of 45 cm. in length.
Edouard Naville found a similar hoe in the stratum of the destruction of the temple and
thought it to be Ramesside. 2 1 2 A basket was also found there "in the upper strata of the rubbish
overlaying the temple." 2 1 3 He also mentioned "a wooden pick . . . of which perhaps a dozen
were found. The blade was still fastened to the handle with its rope of palm fibre."214
M M A 23.3.42 pick
23.3.43 hoe

21(1
Although I could not find a similar pick, the hoes seem
to be rather frequent, see Petrie, Tools and Weapons [1917], pi.
LXVIII; Mond and Emery, Annals cf Archaeology and An-
thropology (Liverpool) 14 [1927], p. 19 and pi. ixb; Hayes,
Scepter II, pp. 215-216, and fig. 128. Several are exhibited in
the Egyptian Museum Cairo.
2
' ' Similar baskets, which were probably used for carry-
ing grain as well, are in the Egyptian Museum Cairo. See also
Petrie, Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa [1915], pp. 34-35
and pi. x x x (4); Idem, Objects of Daily Use [1927], p. 48 and pi.
XLI (157) and Naville, III, pi. XXVIII (1).
2I2
Naville, III, p. 18 and pi. xxix (2).
2I3
Ibid. Ill, pp. 18, 26 and pi. XXVIII (1).
214
Ibid. Ill, p. 30 and pi. xxix (2), XXXIII (3). A similar one
was found in the temple of Tuthmosis III: Dabrowska-Smek-
tala, ASAE, 60 [1968], p. 130 and pi. XXXVI (4).
62

4.5.4 The Buried Baskets (pi. 36c-d) [MS p. 95]

In 1921-22 50 baskets were dug u p 2 1 5 outside the southern parapet wall of the court, full of
stone chips and lined up in rows of 11-17 examples each. The baskets were on the level of the
shield-shaped court. Apparently the basket boys did not return to their work, and when it was re-
sumed after some years the baskets were already so rotten that they could not be used again. So
they were left there and buried under the debris on which the brick parapet wall was built after-
wards (pi. 51 section 14). Unfortunately one cannot tell h o w much time would have been neces-
sary for the baskets to rot, since this would indicate the length of time between the two building
phases. However, one can be certain that the baskets belonged to the time of building phase C.

4.6 T h e Buried Animals

4.6.1 The Sacrificed C o w 2 1 6 (pis. 37d, 38) [MS p. 51]

About 23 m. east of the eastern court wall in front of the Hatshepsut court (pis. 38, 42) a burial
of a cow was discovered. It must have been a young cow of hornless breed. The lower legs and the
ridge of the back were black, the rest of the body covered with black and white spots. The small
breed and the immature age suggest that the animal was bred for eating. It was lying in a pit cut 60
cm. deep in thegebel. The legs were tied together as if it had been sacrificed. The area in front of
the neck was caked from being soaked with blood. The skin on the throat was gone. The pit mea-
sured about 1.24 X2.65 m., the animal from head to tail 2.25 m. Photo M M A M 4 C 69-71.

4.6.2 The Bulls (pis. 37a-c, 38) [MS pp. 65-66]

East of the above-mentioned cow, about 32 m. east of the court wall, the Expedition discov-
ered in 1922-23 2 1 7 the bodies of several bulls (pis. 38, 42). They were lying on rubbish 25-30 cm.
above thegebel, where they had obviously been rolled d o w n a bank of tafl fill of the courtyard
grading and been buried by subsequent dumpings. Their throats had not been cut, and all circum-
stances seem to show that they were work cattle that had died during their labors (pi. 37a).
a) Long horned, some bones missing which might have been torn off by dogs in ancient times
during the night before they had been fully covered by debris. Cud in mouth, white hair, skin of
throat intact.
b) Short horned or hornless. Yellow and black hair, stomach full, throat intact. Photo M M A
M 4 C 61-62, 72-73.
In a deposit of Hatshepsut material in XI Dynasty fill of the causeway, at least two more bul-
locks were found in 1922-23 (pi. 37b-c). Since there are no detailed notes, it is not clear if it was the
causeway of Mentuhotep or that of Tuthmosis III. Photo M M A M 4 C 69-71.

215 2lf
BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922, Part II, pp. 29-30, fig. 22. For > Compare Winlock's theory that the location of this
the technique of basket making see Wainwright, Bull, de la sacrifice helped determine the original axis of the temple.
Soc. Sultanien de Geographic, IX [ 1920], pp. 177-179 and Idem, p. 58.
217
ASAE, 24 [1924], p. 108. Mentioned BMMA, 18, Dec. 1923, Part II, p. 24.
 5. S E Q U E N C E O F W O R K O F T H E E X P E D I T I O N I N T H E TEMPLE
O F M E N T U H O T E P (pi. 42)

1920-21 2 1 8 Discovery of the tombs of Princesses Mayt and Aashyt on the temple
platform.
1921-22 219 Clearing of the area around the southern walls of the court, discovery
of the rough fieldstone wall east of the court, clearing of the large tree
holes and the southern half of the garden, discovery of the four founda-
tion deposits of the temple terrace.
1922-23 22 ° Finishing the excavation of the large tree holes in the east of the court,
discovery of the two seated figures of the king, the bench marks, ex-
cavation of the fill between the causeways of Hatshepsut and T u t h -
mosis ill, discovery of the carcasses of the bullocks, clearing the north
triangular court and its shafts, clearing deposits of Hatshepsut material
("Hatshepsut holes") in the causeways of Tuthmosis ill and Mentu-
hotep.
1923-24 221 Clearing the northern half of the garden, re-excavation of the Bab el-
Hosan, digging a series of trenches across northwest corner of court in
search of the tomb of Imenet, discovery of the bread deposits, clearing
area outside north wall of Hatshepsut court, work in the t o m b of Queen
Neferu. Dismantling of old Expedition House of EEF (January 1924).
1924-25 2 2 2 Finishing work in the t o m b of Queen Neferu, surveying and planning.
1930-31 2 2 3 Excavation of the Mentuhotep walls under the terrace of Hatshepsut,
search for the southern part of the rough fieldstone wall, correction of
the dating of the causeway of Tuthmosis ill.

6. L I S T O F M E M B E R S O F T H E EXPEDITION

The work was carried out by the following members of the Egyptian Expedition:
Harry Burton (Photographer) 1921-1931
Charlotte R. Clark (Assistant to the field director) 1928-1931
Lindslcy Foote Hall (Architectural draftsman) 1921-1923 and 1930-1931
Walter Hauser (Architect) 1921-1931
William Christopher Hayes (Egyptologist) 1927-1931
Gouverneur M. Peek (Architect) 1924-1925
Charles K. Wilkinson (Artist) 1921-1931
Herbert Eustis Winlock (Egyptologist and field director) 1921-1931

218 221
BMMA, 16, Nov. 1921, Part II, pp. 36-52; Winlock, BMMA, 19, Dec. 1924. Part II, pp.5-14; Winlock, Ex-
Excavations, pp. 35-46. cavations, pp. 84-88.
219 222
BMMA, 17, Dec. 1922, Part II, pp. 21-32; Winlock, Ex- BMMA, 21, March 1926. pp. 8-11; Winlock, Excava-
cavations, pp. 48-53. tions, pp. 100-103.
220 223
BMMA, 18, Dec. 1923, Part [I, pp. 22-31; Winlock, BMMA, 27, March 1933, pp. 18-23, 28-31; Winlock,
Excavations, p. 72. Excavations, pp. 201-203, 208.
 7. L I S T O F B R I C K TYPES

Causeway
Regular pavement 8-10 X 17-18 X 35-37 cm. little straw, brick marks
Reused in M M A no. 820 8-10 x 1 6 - 1 7 x 3 2 - 3 7
Reused in M M A no. 820 8-10 x 1 6 - 1 7 x 3 4 - 3 5
Reused in M M A no. 820 8-10 x 1 7 x 3 5 - 3 6
Reused in M M A no. 820 8-10 x 17-18 x 35-37
Reused in M M A no. 820 8-10x17-19x35-38
Reused in M M A no. 820 8-10 x 1 7 - 1 8 x 3 5
Near t o m b SAE no. 386 (Intef) 8.5-10.5 x 1 6 - 1 8 x 3 5 - 3 6 blackish, without straw

Bab el-Hosan
Serpentine wall 6-7X16-16.5X33-34 light grey, small stones
Blockage of entrance 12 x 17 x 37 without straw
Northern brick building ? x 18-19.5 x ?

Parapet walls
S., over rough fieldstone wall 6-7 x 15 x 28-31 grey, without straw
S., near corner ? x 15X34 grey, small stones
N., upper end (east of court) 7 x 15 X30 b r o w n tafl
N., upper end (east of court) 8 x 17X32 white tafl
N., near SAE no. 386 (Intef) 8-10X15-17X29-33 b r o w n or 'white tafl

Court walls
U n d e r Hatshepsut terrace 9 . 5 - 1 0 X 1 7 . 5 X 3 4 - 3 6 cm. blackish, without straw
U n d e r Hatshepsut E. wall ?X 17.5-18.5 X ?
South wall 7.5-10X17.5-18X36-41 dark grey, without straw
Southeast corner 9 x 16.5-19x37 blackish, without straw

Royal Tomb
Blockage of model chambers;
see Mentuhotep I pi. 36 10x18x36 blackish
Roof of tomb chamber 8 x 19x40 blackish?

Foundation deposits
NE 7 x 16 x 32 black with straw
and pebbles
SE 8x15x31
NW 7 x 17-18 x ;
sw 7 x 15x30

Later constructions
Retaining wall at SW
corner of terrace
(see Mentuhotep I p. 18) 6.5-7x15-17x33-34 without straw
Priest's house in
south triangular court 12 X 1 6 X 3 4 with straw
Brick piers, N . colonnade 8 x 13-14x28
11 x 15 X31.5
8. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S F O R H E R B E R T W I N L O C K ' S NOTEBOOK
"Xlth D Y N A S T Y T E M P L E S "
(in parentheses the pages of the present publication)

Pages
1 List of drawings in N e w York of the Mentuhotep Temple
2-6 Previous excavations in the Nebhepetra and Seankhkara Cemeteries
7-8 Topography of Intef, Nebhepetra, and Seankhkara Cemeteries
9-10 History of Mentuhotep kings (excerpts)
11-16 Description of Walter Hauser's unpublished map (scale 1:1000) of the
XI Dynasty Asasif
17-18 Description of the map of the unpublished Seankhkara Cemetery
(scale 1:1000)
19-42 The Mentuhotep causeway (p. 5)
43-45 T h e sandstone of the Mentuhotep Cemetery (p. 31)
46-89 The court of the Temple complex (p. 9-17)
46-48 Original plan of the Temple complex
49-55 The original axis of the Temple complex, the cow and the bread deposits
(p. 57-58, 62)
65-66 The bulls (p. 62)
67-70 T h e ancient bench marks (p. 27)
73 The cubit of the Temple (p. 29)
74-76 T h e postern gates of the court (p. 11)
88-89 The bread moulds (p. 59)
90-92 The brick marks of the causeway (p. 7)
93 T h e lever (p. 61)
94 The mallets (p. 60)
95 The buried baskets (p. 62)
96-100 Clippings from the reports in the BMMA
101-112 The Mentuhotep garden (p. 21)
113-125 T h e statues of Mentuhotep (p. 46)
126-132 The statues of Amenhotep I
133-135 The south triangular court (p. 16)
136-156 The foundation deposits (p. 49-57)
137-140 The northwest corner (p. 53)
141-146 The northeast corner (p. 51)
147-151 T h e southeast corner (p. 52)
152-154 The southwest corner (p. 54)
157 The ramp of the temple and the unfinished foundation deposit (p. 32)
158-175 The main temple and its reconstruction drawings (p. 32)
158-159 The ramp and the lower colonnades (p. 32)
159-161 The ambulatory (p. 33)
161-162 The peristyle court (p. 35)
163 T h e hypostyle hall (p. 36)
164 The speos (p. 36)
165 The pyramid (p. 34)
168-169 The granite doors of the ambulatory
171 The decoration of the ambulatory
172-173 The granite doors of the ambulatory
66

174 The pick and hoe found in the south lower colonnade (p. 61)
175 The brick piers in the lower colonnade (p. 28)
176-203 Excerpts from E. Naville,
The Xlth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari i-lll
204-213 The Seankhkara Temple site
214 Pieces of a sandstone door j a m b (p. 12)
215-217 Sections 4, 5, 6 (sketches) (pi. 50)

Material used from Herbert Winlock's notebook "Intramural T o m b s "

5 pages The Bab el-Hosan (no. 19) (p. 24)
2 pages The "original layout for the Bab el-Hosan" (p. 26)
6 pages The royal tomb (Naville-Winlock no. 14) (p. 37)
3 pages The t o m b of Queen Tern (Naville-Winlock no. 15)
1 page Naville-Winlock t o m b pit no. 16
 9. D E S C R I P T I O N O F P L A T E S 38-51

Indications of heights are underlined when taken by the Expedition. Those not underlined
were measured by me.
38) The Temple and its court, reconstruction 1 : 800. This plan shows all Middle Kingdom
monuments in the Temple area and is mainly a copy of a pencil drawing of Walter Hauser
(1 : 400) with a few alterations. The causeway system had to be corrected (see p. 5) and the temple
proper-not drawn in Hauser's map-had to be added from m y o w n plans.
39-41) The temple proper, reconstructions. These are the drawings of Gouverneur M. Peek
(1 : 300) after (no longer extant) pencil drawings of Walter Hauser. These are the only drawings
which were completely finished by the Expedition and ready for publication in 1973. The discus-
sion on p. 32 of Winlock's reconstruction of the Mentuhotep temple shows that I cannot agree in
all points with these drawings. But since they are a valuable piece of his work and are necessary to
understand his proposals for the reconstruction, it seems worthwhile printing them. The origi-
nals contained a larger part of the court. However, because of the size of these drawings they had
to be cut out.
42) Winlock's w o r k in the XI Dynasty Temple of Deir el-Bahari, 1 : 800. Only a very rough
pencil and ink working sketch (1 : 400) was in the Expedition's records. The limits of the excava-
tion and the trenches were not completely indicated. M y addition of the EEF House was only
roughly estimated, and an error of up to 2 m. may have occurred. For easier orientation the
causeways of Tuthmosis ill and Hatshepsut and some outlines of her temple have been added, as
well as the buildings of Amenhotep I. The map, as incomplete as it is, may help later excavations
to locate Winlock's activities.
43) The north triangular court, 1 : 250. Drawing after a pencil drawing 1 : 100 with additions
from G. M. Peek's map pi. 39, and from the drawing of the tomb of "King I n t e f (Naville-Win-
lock no. 28). The pavement of the lower northern colonnade was copied from my own plans. The
ramp of Tuthmosis III and his kiosk were included since their remains may have seriously de-
teriorated since Winlock's time. The M M A drawing really adds nothing new to H. Ricke's map
(in L. Borchardt, Agyptische Tempel mit Umgang [1938], pi. 14) but shows h o w accurately both of
them surveyed the remains. The section through the tombs (7) was only included since it shows
the construction of the revetment of the Mentuhotep temple terrace.
44) T h e north brick wall of the court, 1 : 250. This plan was put together from three field pencil
drawings 1 : 100, from a sketch combining all the remains of the temple of Amenhotep I, from a
drawing of the t o m b of Neferu, and a drawing of the lower north hall of the Hatshepsut temple
(published in Winlock, Excavations, fig. 8). The tombs of the Late Period are included only so far
as they intrude into the older monuments. The Expedition drawings of the western end are not
quite finished. They show, however, the pillars and the wall of a Ptolemaic ruin standing in the
debris east of the Punt Hall (see pi. 14a). The temple of Amenhotep I was also included in order to
correct the mistaken impression that one gets from PM II2, pi. XXXIV-XXXV where this temple is
confused with a supposed "Pyramid T e m p l e " of Hatshepsut which Winlock once believed to ex-
ist in the area of the lower terrace of Hatshepsut (Winlock, Excavations, plan in the end papers).
This "Pyramid T e m p l e " never existed and the temple of Amenhotep I was more to the north, un-
der the ramp of Hatshepsut and north of it.
45a) T h e brick east wall of the court under the Hatshepsut limestone court wall, 1 : 250. After a
pencil drawing of the Expedition 1 : 100. Only the section of the pencil drawing showing the
Mentuhotep wall under and in front of the Hatshepsut walls is included. A few more remains
were visible under the northern half of the Hatshepsut wall.
45b) T h e south of the court with ramp beams, 1 : 200. After a pencil drawing of the Expedition
68

1 : 100 which gave only the beams and the outlines of the walls. More details were added by
myself. For the description of the beams see p. 28.
46) The east wall of the court and the upper end of the causeway, 1 : 250. After a pencil drawing
of the Expedition 1 : 100. T h e original included more of the causeway of Tuthmosis III, then still
considered to belong to Mentuhotep, and more of the bricks from the pavement of the causeway
of Mentuhotep. These were left out since they were obviously done schematically. For the details
of the main gate see fig. 2.
47) T h e south triangular court, 1 : 200. After a pencil drawing of the Expedition, with a few
additions from the map of G.M. Peek, pi. 39, m y o w n plan of the lower south colonnade, and my
observation of the temple itself.
48) T h e Bab el-Hosan, section, plan, and t w o details, 1 : 750. T h e original, a pencil drawing of
the Expedition 1 : 400, leaves open the question of the sequence of levels near the mouth of the
Bab. Three levels above the rock clearly exist according to photos (see pi. 18). Emil Baraize's
drawing in ASAE 2 [1901], p. 203 fig. 2, also shows the desert gravel above thegebel and above the
first tafl fill of the court. The third, thinner layer (the grading), is given in the drawing of Winlock.
T h e same situation also occurs in section 9-10 and partially in 13 (pi. 51). The details were drawn
after field notes of W. Hauser (sketch with measurements). Since no indication of north is given in
the original drawings, and the t o m b is covered over, I could only transfer the north direction
from pi. 38 to this drawing. This was not a wholly accurate procedure.
49) T h e garden of the temple, 1 : 333 V3. D r a w n from a 1 : 200 pencil drawing which included
the main temple (unfinished).
50) Sections of the north court wall (1-6) and court (8). See pi. 42. The upper section 8 is 1 : 300
after a pencil drawing of the Expedition 1 : 100. It shows that the tree holes were dug d o w n from
the highest level of the court, and that after their refilling no new grading of the court was carried
out. The laying out of the tree holes and their refilling was, therefore, the last building activity in
the court. If the drawing is correct-and I doubt it very m u c h - t h e seated figure of the king would
have been buried when the court was graded, i.e. before the tree holes were dug. This idea should
probably be abandoned, however, since it would imply that the figures were decapitated and
buried during the lifetime of the king.

Layer 1) tafl-rock
2) natural gebel gravel
3) boulders rolled into the bottom of the Deir el-Bahari valley. Just a heap, or
built up to form a north-south embankment of the court? Probably building
phase A
4) water-washed sand and gravel on valley bottom. After 5
5) surface gravel. Contemporary with 6-7
6) surface gravel and sand
7) desert gravel dumped from south (?)
Layers 5-7) probably phase B or C

T h e lower sections 1-3 are drawn 1 : 150 from rough field sketches of Winlock (1 : 50). They
show the empty foundation trench (a) of the shield-shaped court wall with a foundation block
still in position (section 1,6). T o the north one can see two steps cut into thegebel for a retaining
wall of rough fieldstones (b, c). Above the trench there is a high fill of tafl and other material (parts
of the destroyed older wall?) (d), and on top of it is the brick court wall of phase D (e). It is remark-
able that the wall is standing on top of this fill on the court side as well.
Sections 4-6 are also drawn from 1 : 50 sketches of Winlock and show the same features as sec-
tions 1-3 but are further west. Directly north of the brick wall, drifted sand (f) had accumulated
 69

and, together with the wall, had been covered by the fill of the terrace of Hatshepsut (g). In
Ptolemaic times, for some u n k n o w n reason, a huge trench was exavated between the rock and the
brick wall (h) which cut into the Hatshepsut fill. Broken pieces of the temple fell into this trench
or were buried in it, and in section 6 the pillar of the chapel of Ptolemy ill, which was built out of
re-used "Punt blocks," is shown (see also pis. l l a - b , 14a). The position of the pillar deep under
the level of the terrace is difficult to explain. Was the chapel intended to be underground?

Layer a): foundation of shield-shaped court wall (phase C)

b/c): steps in gebel with dubsh retaining walls on top
d): chip fill (after dismantling of shield-shaped court wall)
e): brick court wall of phase D
f): drift sand accumulated between phase D and time of Hatshepsut
g): fill for Hatshepsut terrace
h): late excavation filled with masses of fragments from temple of Hatshepsut

The t w o middle sections in this drawing cannot be exactly identified. They are drawn 1 : 300
from two 1 : 50-sections of Winlock and described as "Fill at south end of the Mentuhotep dubsh
wall east of forecourt." The left one is the east side, the right one the west side of the trench. P r o b -
ably from the area shown on pi. 4a-5b.
a): clean tafl chip which covered the lower part of the wall
b): blown sand and dust (west side) and tafl chip (east side)
c): wind-blown sand and dust
51) Section 9: A (natural?) layer of desert gravel (1) on the tafl rock. This gravel must have been
the surface in phase A of the court. In the east part of the court it is covered by a layer of tafl (2),
which also appears in section 10 (2), and which might correspond to b) at the Bab el-Hosan. Its sur-
face varies from about 107.4 to 108.1 m. RL. It is remarkable that the foundation blocks of the
shield-shaped court wall (9) are nearly on the same level as the foot of the brick court walls.
Section 10: Same features as section 9 but further west. From here to the east, the final grading
of phase D starts (4), which no longer seems to be extant to the west. Still, it should be identical
with the fill of the old foundation trench to the north (pi. 50 section 1-6).
Section 11: Here the final grading of section 10 (4) has disappeared and the tafl fill of section 10
(2) has not yet begun.
Section 12: Similar features as before. The rather confused stratification of layers 3-7 seems to
be a result of the " H a t h o r d u m p " (p. 28).
Section 13: In this section and section 14, layer 1 starts to disappear and the natural tafl rock
nearly reaches the surface on which the walls are standing. Between the walls a beam belonging to
the ramp used in dismantling the court walls is visible.
Section 14: T o the south, wind-blown sand is piled up (4), containing late intrusive burials (p.
3). Also here is the brick parapet wall standing on the fill which covered the buried baskets of
building phase C (p. 62, pi. 36c-d). O n top is Naville's d u m p (5).
 GENERAL INDEX

Aashyt 1, 63 fill east of the court 7-8

acacia w o o d 51, 60 fill of the middle terrace of Hatshepsut 18-21
alabaster 34 n. 127, 38, 51-54 foundations 16, 17, 36
Amenhotep I, statues of 3 n. 12, 46, 48 foundation deposits 16, 17, 49-57
temple of 67 foundation trenches of walls 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 43
Assuan, sandstone quarries 31
gardens of the T e m p l e 21-24, 44, 68
Bab el-Gusus 8, 20 granite 38
Bab el-Hosan 3, 21, 22, 24-26, 40-41, 68 grapes 51, 53, 54
barley 50, 51, 53, 54
baskets 61, 62 " H a t h o r D u m p " 28-29
bench marks 27-28 H a t h o r sanctuary of Mentuhotep 18 n. 61, 43
bread 12 Hathor sanctuary of Tuthmosis III 29
bread deposits 57-58 Henttawy, t o m b of 20
bread in foundation deposits 50-54
bread moulds 59 n. 205, 60 Imenet, t o m b of 63
bricks 6, 7, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 n. 74, 24-26 n. 90,
28, 37 n. 143, 41, 48 jujubes 51, 53, 54
bricks in foundation deposits 50-54
brick marks 7 n. 33 lime m o r t a r 43
bricks of white tafl 6 n. 32, 16
brick piers in lower colonnade 28 mallets 60-61
brick types, list of 64 M a y t 1, 63
brick walls 15-16, 19-21 measurements, ancient 10, 12, 16, 26 n. 91, 29-31
bronze 51-54
meat offerings, bones, etc. 25 n. 87, 50-53, 55, 56
building cubit, see ancient measurements Minmosi, t o m b of 20
building phases of the T e m p l e 39—45
phase A 40 Neferu, t o m b of queen 8, 18-20
phase B 40-41 date of t o m b 19
phase C 14, 41-42 north triangular court 17—18, 43, 67
phase D 14, 42-14 northern brick building 26, 44
bulls, buried 62
older structure in southeast corner of the court 9
cake 51-54 original axis of the T e m p l e 58
causeway of Mentuhotep 5-6, 39
statues in causeway 47, 49 papyrus bundle 54
causeway of Tuthmosis III 3 n. 13, 5, 16, 39 n. 148 parapet walls 5, 8, 16, 19 n. 62, 20, 43
construction sketch, ancient 23-24 pavement of causeway 6
cow, sacrificed 62 pick and hoe 61
pivot block 11, 34, 38, fig. 3, 4
destruction of the Temple 14 n. 46, 28 n. 102, 38, plastered and whitewashed walls 17
60-61 postern gates 11—14
diorite 11, 34, 38 pottery from Bab el-Hosan 25-26
d o o r bolts, holes for 14 foundation deposits 50-54, 56
door jambs, inscribed 11-14 near south brick wall of the court 29
door sill 11, 38 "Wilkinson's Much P o t t e r y " 8
pottery bread moulds 59 n. 205, 60
Espahornufer, graffito of 14 priest's house 15, 17
Ptolemaic structure in front of the Punt colon-
Ficus sycamorus 21, 23 nade 20, 69
fieldstone walls, rough 5, 8-9, 19, 40-41 pylon of Mentuhotep 5, 10 n. 44
figs 51, 53, 54 " p y l o n " of Tuthmosis III 29
final grading of the court 16, 68-69 pyramid 34—35
 71

Ramses IV, mortuary temple of 5 statues of Amenhotep I 3 n. 12, 46, 48

reconstruction of statues of Mentuhotep, standing 12, 29, 44,
lower colonnades 32 46-49
ramp 32 seated 25, 49 n. 179
upper colonnades 33 in Bab el-Hosan 49
ambulatory 33 decapitation of 48
pyramid 34-35 date of burial 68
middle court 35 statuettes of servants, wooden 18
partition wall 35 stelae in the hypostyle hall 36
hypostyle hall 36 stone walls of the court 10-18, 43
sanctuary 36 sycamore box of Mentuhotep 25, 41
roof of the temple, height of 37
royal tomb 37-38 tamarisk trunk (lever) 61
rubbish holes in the court 12, 29, 47-48 Tamarix articulata 21-22
rush mat or reed tray 54, 56 Tern, tomb of 3, 34 n. 127
titulary of Mentuhotep 12, 25, 42, 55, 56
sajf-tombs (El-Tarif) 34 tomb shafts 17, 20
sandstone quality 15, 31 n. 114, 42
serpentine or undulating walls 24—25 n. 81, 41 valley temple 5
shield-shaped court walls 14-15, 17,19, 20, 41,43
six royal ladies, tombs of the 3, 41, 42 "Wilkinson's Much Pottery" 8
south triangular court 16-17, 43, 68 wooden coffin of Mentuhotep 25
surveyor's peg, ancient 9, 12
PLATES 1-53
 PLATE 1

a The Expedition's work at Deir el-Bahari, December 1926. Note freshly filled trench on "original axis'
of Mentuhotep Temple. M8C 15

b Upper end of the causeway of Mentuhotep (left) and Tuthmosis m (right). See pi. 46. M10C 39
 r
>
H

a Marked bricks of causeway. M8C 418 b Marked bricks of causeway. M8C 419

- ..I •

c Marked bricks of causeway. M8C 41' d Marked bricks. M8C 420

 ; • > "

.,-•

*•?
Mm<
gEwfefcs
&s& ^ * * * ^ ftii-Si PisiiI
v%$8%^.
w a
''Jt,

HUH Ky?&$

a Marked bricks in causeway, east of north part of pylon. Photo Ar b Marked bricks. M8C 421

c Marked bricks. M12C 347 d Marked bricks. M12C 348

r
>
H
W
 r
>
H
w

a North end of rough fieldstone wall. Above the wall are some of "Wilkinson's much b Same as 4a, seen from east. M8C 37
pottery". M8C 38

c South end of north part of rough fieldstone wall. M8C 216 d South part of rough fieldstone wall. M11C 1<
 PLATE 5

a Boulder revetment underxi Dynasty filling between cause- b South part of rough fieldstone wall, looking north.
ways of Tuthmosis in and Hatshepsut, seen from west. M8C 15 M11C 187

c Southeast corner of brick walls, with fieldstones in d Same as 5c with tafl step in foundation trench,
older foundation trench. M8C 214 looking northeast. M8C 215
 r
>
H
m

a North court wall with south retaining wall of Hatshepsut ramp built on top, and b West end of south court wall. M3C 280
palace facade wall of Hatshepsut lower terrace behind. M5C 177

c Detail of masonry near 6b. Photo Ar d Foundation slab of east court wall with chisel marks. Photo Ar
 *£
a South triangular court with priest's house, foundation trench of shield-shaped b Remains of main gate of court. M4C 5
court wall on right, and three south court walls in center. M3C 278

c Southwest postern gate. Photo Ar d Mentuhotep brick wall under east wall of Hatshepsut court. M8C 70
r
>
H
 r
>

oo

a South postern gate (front right). M3C 65 b Same as 8a, seen from south. Observe later brick sealing of postern gate. M3C 76

„ J

c Brick sealing of south postern gate, seen from inside. M3C 84 d Brick parapet wall, foundation trench of shield-shaped court wall with foundation
block in it, and retaining wall, all south of court. M3C 139
 PLATE 9

a South triangular court. M3C 123

b Priest's house in south triangular court. M3C 168

PLATE 10

- ^*— - - - —.-- % - » . - -j» <**T' — ^&* '.WOKS'-

.?• - . - -WT.. *A-."~. ------ • ' • -: !' 2^g|g£ . ..;'

a Southwest corner of north triangular court with shield-shaped court wall (right), and retaining wall of terrace (left).
M6C 145

b Southeast corner of north triangular court, with terrace retaining wall of building phase C (right), and court wall of
phase D (left) built against it. M4C 23
 a—b Brick court wall (left, in tafl)
and foundation of shield-shaped
court wall under the terrace of
Hatshepsut temple. M12C 251-252

c North brick court wall and foundation trench with block of shield-shaped court d Same as l i e . M12C 158
>-e
wall. M12C 150 r
>
H
W
PLATE 12

*." ' : "T-. „ < ? -

•~z ' - %fr'

a Brick court wall, parapet, and retaining wall north of Hatshepsut temple court. M5C 183

b Brick wall and fieldstone retaining wall under terrace of Hatshepsut temple. M12C 157
a Brick court wall and parapet wall east of lower north colonnade of Hatshepsut b Brick court wall under Hatshepsut temple terrace. Observe late burials in the fill.
temple. M6C 305 M12C 169 r
>
H
W
PLATE 14

a Brick court wall under south retaining wall of terrace of Hatshepsut temple. Observe Ptolemaic building left, above,
and tomb of "King Intef", right below. M13C 6

b Brick court wall (left) and entrance to tomb of Neferu (right) with its brick facade. M6C 326
a Garden of large single tree, east of remaining section of ramp to temple of b Construction sketch on sandstone slab MMA 22.3.30. M3C 283
Tuthmosis m. M5C 39

c—d Roots of sycamore fig trees in Temple garden. M3C 165 and 163
<-a
r
>
H
 *0
r
>
H
m
i—i
ON

-
» - B •

a Tree hole S m with buried statue and flower beds behind. M3C 143 b Tree hole S vn with spiral steps for workmen. M3C 48

c Tree hole N iv with mud altar and buried statue. M3C 142 d Tree hole N iv with mud altar. M3C 146
a Tree hole S iv with buried statue and tree hole S in behind. M3C 145 b Tree hole S vm with buried statue and the trench of section 13 (pi. 51) behind
M3C 39

Wfi" • -* ''^ "J •- -

< •*•* -•

c Tree holeS v (?). M3C 40 d Buried sections of sycamore fig with sprouting shoots and roots. M3C 157 <-a
r
>
 r
>
H
Pi
i—»
oo

a Dromos of the Bab el-Hosan. M5C 68 Dromos of the Bab el-Hosan with the remains of the brick sealing and a stone
offering table (right). M5C 69
 PLATE 19

a Court of Temple with north brick building and garden of the large single tree behind the Bab el

b Serpentine brick wall south of the dromos of the Bab el-Hosan. M5C 175
PLATE 20

a North lower colonnade with the remains of the terrace retaining wall and brick piers. M4C 95

b The same as 20a, seen from the south. M4C 96

 PLATE 21

a Ancient bench mark on west side of the south part of the "pylon" with a loose bench mark to the right. M4C 6

b Ramp beams between stone and brick walls south of the court. M3C 86
 r
>
H
m
to

a Unbonded joint between

the north stone wall (Dl)
and the brick wall (D2) at
the northwest corner of
the north triangular court.
Photo Dieter Johannes m *
b Blocks of the wall of the shield-shaped court (phase C) visible in later brick wall
(phase D2). Photo Dieter Johannes

c Unbonded joint between the older retaining wall of the terrace's northeast corner d Same as 22c, seen from inside triangular court (west). Photo Ar
(phase C) and the later east wall of the north triangular court (phase D). Photo Ar
a Buried statue behind south part of court "pylon." M4C 3 b Buried seated statue in trench drawn in section 8 pi. 50a. M4C 4

c Buried statue at tree hole S in . M5C 16 d Rubbish hole in north court with buried royal head MMA 26.3.29. M5C 55
it
r
>
H
Pi
PLATE 24

a-d Sandstone head of King Mentuhotep, MMA 26.3.29. 200428-200431

 PLATE 25

iit»A*

a-d Sandstone statue of King Mentuhotep, MMA 26.3.29. 200424-200427

PLATE 26

- ps

••%• v * » A '^5

*••£??*' 1" *;-'* -*i. ;*-* -*

a—d Seated sandstone figure of King Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari. Photo Dieter Johannes
 PLATE 27

• * " . .
*-.r|
h> flj

*H&11

a—d Seated sandstone figure of King Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari. Photo Dieter Johannes
 r
>
H
w
to
00

1^^^^

a Foundation deposit under the northeast corner of the temple terrace. M3C 119 b Foundation deposit under the southwest corner of the temple terrace. M3C 176

c—d Foundation deposit under the northwest corner of'the temple terrace. M3C 170 and M3C 121
a Foundation trench of south terrace wall with disturbed southeast foundation b Remains of disturbed foundation deposit under the southeast corner of the
deposit. M3C 90 temple terrace. M3C 89 r
>
H
Pi
to
NO
 r
>
H
Pi

a Foundation bricks of northeast foundation deposit before opening. M3C 120 b The same after opening, showing the three tablets of wood, alabaster, and
bronze. M3C 121

SW A NWk

c Skulls, leg bones, and ribs of oxen from the four foundation deposits. M3C 255 d Remains of bread and cake from the northeast
foundation deposit. M3C 282
 PLATE 31

The tablets of wood, alabaster, and bronze from four foundation deposits of the SW, SE, NE and NW corners. M3C 270
 P3
r
>
H
Pi

a The pottery from the northeast deposit. M3C 264 b The pottery from the southeast deposit. M3C 262

y#
:

•
if' l^^

c The pottery from the southwest deposit. M3C 263 d The pottery from the northwest deposit. M3C 265
a Bread deposit B, southwest of north postern gate. Deposit A perhaps visible in b Bread deposit A in position. M5C 60
upper right corner. M5C 62

c Fireplace with 30 bread moulds at south side of northern brick wall d Examples of the bread moulds from the fireplace in 3 3c. M12C 277
terrace of Hatshepsut temple). M12C 196 r
>
p-;
 r
>
H
Pi

4»

a Examples of bread from the bread deposits. The left one certainly from b Examples of mallets from causeway. M12C 350
deposit A. M5C 245

d The same as 34c. Ml2C 346

c Tamarisk lever found in causeway filling. MIOC 41

a Group of xi Dynasty mallets found near rough fieldstone wall. M8C 23 b Same group ofxi Dynasty mallets as in 35a. M8C 45

c Baskets buried behind north-

west corner of lower south
colonnade. Observe unfinished
foundation pit in foreground.
For foundation pit see
Mentuhotep i p. 13 fig. 4. .-?=*' • o*>.,*.;0 . >•':>

M5C 115
d The two baskets from 35c. M5C 144 P3
r
>
H
PI
on
 P3
r
>
H
pi
ON

a Pick and hoe from destruction of temple found at the north end of the lower b Pick and hoe from 36a (MMA 23.3.42 and 23.3.43) M4C 167
south colonnade. M4C 1

v- *
c Group of 50 xi Dynasty baskets buried outside south parapet wall. M3C 108 d Detail from the same group of baskets as in 36c. M3C 111
 PLATE 37

a Long horned and hornless bullocks buried in the fill b Hornless bull buried in a so-called Hatshepsut hole.
east of the court. M4C 62 M4C 105
.

•••> J.

i •
1
v i V'

c Detail of another hornless bull buried in a so-called d Sacrificed cow buried east of court. M4C 71
Hatshepsut hole. M4C 107
PLATE 38

o 50 100 200 300M

Reconstruction of the Temple and its court in its final state. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. Ar. Scale 1:800
 PLATE 39

Reconstruction of the plan of the main temple. A = Mayt, B = Aashyt, C = Sadhe, D = Kauit,
E = Kemsit, F = Henhenet. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. G. M. Peek. Scale 1 : 300
PLATE 40

" ••; • -. •;'.-'.• v .• • • :v-.. • i ' . . :—

.-"

25 M
4

Reconstruction of an east-west section of the main temple.

Constr. W. Hauser, draw. G. M. Peek. Scale 1:300
 PLATE 41

10 25 M
55S

Reconstruction of the facade of the temple. Constr. W. Hauser, draw. G. M. Peek. Scale 1:300
PLATE 42

Unrecorded trenches

Drawn sections 1-14

• •-• -- -"• -r nr -r Limit of excavation

HATSHEPSUT
CAUSEWAY

THUTMOSIS
CAUSEWAY

Wl02-20

MENTUHOTEP
CAUSEWAY

C^*l

1929-3l\\V

Survey of the Expedition's work in Middle Kingdom monuments

at Deir el-Bahari. Constr. and draw. Ar. Scale 1:800

50 100 200 300 M

4 ^ h H h
 PLATE 43

doubtful ©

The north triangular court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:250
PLATE 44

The north brick wall of the Mentuhotep court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:250
 PLATE 45

a The east brick wall under the east wall of the Hatshepsut Temple court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:250

mm

A|0- 36,83 -^>B

0 10 30 40M
"•'""I I I I I I I I I

b The south walls of the court with the ramp beams. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:200
PLATE 46

The east wall of the court and the upper end of the causeway.
Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:250
 50 M

The south triangular court. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:200 P3
r
>
H
Pi
 r
>
H
Pi
oo

The Bab el-Hosan, section and plan. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:750
 • n a n D D D a a a a o D

a .a a • n a n • a n a n a

w @ 0 o O © ©•

\ o ©. © ©
o o S I N lb:.;-;;

e o © o
o o
© © © ©

© P

o © o © ©

o © © o
© O © Q
Q Q

S IV N IV

30 60 M

PJ
r
The central part of the garden of the Temple. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:333 1/3 >
H
Pi
-£.
NO
 P3
r
>
H
Pi

O
5 10M
H 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1

Hatshepsut terrace

I I I

Section nos 1—6, and 8. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:150 and 1:333 1/3
 PLATE 51

10
l I I l I i I l

Section nos. 9—14. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:333 1/3
PLATE 52

^° oX\r© - * * °
° ©©©^, ©©^Q©°^©©© *
^ © ^ 0 ^ ^ © © © ^ <3 &\

SOUTHEAST DEPOSIT

Sections and plans of the southeast and northeast foundation deposits. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:13 1/3
 PLATE 53

SOUTHWEST DEPOSIT
100
i""| 1 1 1- iCM NORTHWEST DEPOSIT

Sections and plans of the southwest and northwest foundation deposits. Surv. Exped., draw. Ar. Scale 1:13 1/3
 THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART
' 'wnwillllll Hill lllll Hill Hll

till millliliini imi iii'.iiiiiiiimiir.iii...,,,.

3 0620 00442960 0

FW 0
bT 5"? 'N5 y,2j

THE METROPOLITAN
MUSEUM OF ART

Thomas J.Watson Library