Egypt Exploration Society

The Collapse of the Meidum PyramidAuthor(s): I. E. S. EdwardsSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 60 (1974), pp. 251-252Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3856195 .

Accessed: 18/05/2014 13:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 81.224.229.75 on Sun, 18 May 2014 13:46:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

the mother of the actually reigning, not of the future king; and this seems logical also to us.' Such a use of the title was without doubt that generally assumed by most scholars who utilized it in

genealogical investigations,z taking its significance as self-evident. In order to obtain sufficient

certainty about this title I have collected the relevant materials which, together with the results of my studies, I hope to publish elsewhere.

Accepting this interpretation of the title 'King's Mother', one should apply it also to the inscrip- tion under discussion. Accordingly, we must concede that the son of both Ahmose and Ahmose- Nefertari, Amenophis I, had already acceded to the throne in the year 22 of Ahmose, ruling then together with his father. This conclusion is strongly supported by the date of the stela, representing the highest known regnal year of Ahmose, who is generally credited with having ruled for a period of c. twenty-five years.3 It allows us to assume a minimal duration of coregency, thus explaining the scantiness of positive evidence suggesting a coregency between the two rulers.

In the light of this important testimony, which has not yet been given due consideration- rather strangely, it seems to me-the occurrences of juxtaposition (see above and note i) also gain in argumentative force. Likewise, we need not fear an overlapping of regnal dates of Amenophis I with those of his senior partner4 and predecessor. The former obviously numbered his years beginning from his father's death.5

Other monuments that designate Queen Ahmose Nefertari with the title 'King's Mother' are to be dated to the period of the coregency of Ahmose and Amenophis I, or to that of the latter's sole rule.6

I do not claim to offer here a complete study of matters relating to a coregency of the two kings; it is merely my intention to show-as far as I can see, for the first time-the strong probability of such a coregency. GUNTHER VITTMANN

The collapse of the Meidum pyramid IN the last volume of this Journal,7 Dr. Mendelssohn put forward the theory that the collapse of the outer layers of the Meidum pyramid 'occurred in the final building stage . . . when the outer stone mantle, giving the building its pyramidical shape, was being completed'. Although he repeats this assertion in his Conclusions, adducing as the reason that 'its structure had a number of inherent weaknesses', he makes it clear in the course of his article that he does not mean to exclude the possibility that it did not happen all at once, or, more specifically, that 'for some time parts of the masonry remained in a precarious position at higher levels only to crash down eventually'. He is well aware of the difficulty in reconciling the existence of the New-Kingdom and other

graffiti on the walls of the small mortuary temple attached to the east side of the pyramid with his theory that the collapse took place at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, and he conjectures that the temple may have been dug out 'either immediately after the disaster or during the First Intermediate Period when tomb robbers may have entered the pyramid'.

I I am aware of the problem offered by the circumstance that Queen Ahhotpe II, wife of Amenophis I, bears the title under discussion, there being, however, no son of hers to whom it could apparently refer; cf. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, 11 (1959), 52. Whatever may be the truth in this case, I do not believe that it really diminishes the validity of conclusions based on the occurrence of the title 'King's Mother' in the present inscription, especially since the other testimonies do not seem to contradict our conception of this title as expressed above.

2 I have done so myself in a study on the Queen Khedeb-Neith-iret-binet of the Saite Period (to be pub- lished shortly). 3 Cf. Redford, JNES 25 (I966), I I4.

4 For the terminology cf. the article of Simpson in JNES 15 (1956), 214 ff. 5 This seems to be the case in other possible coregencies of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, see Redford,

History and Chronology, 54. 6 Cf. the statement of Hayes, op. cit. 44, and fig. 2I. 7 JEA 59 (I973), 60-7i.

the mother of the actually reigning, not of the future king; and this seems logical also to us.' Such a use of the title was without doubt that generally assumed by most scholars who utilized it in

genealogical investigations,z taking its significance as self-evident. In order to obtain sufficient

certainty about this title I have collected the relevant materials which, together with the results of my studies, I hope to publish elsewhere.

Accepting this interpretation of the title 'King's Mother', one should apply it also to the inscrip- tion under discussion. Accordingly, we must concede that the son of both Ahmose and Ahmose- Nefertari, Amenophis I, had already acceded to the throne in the year 22 of Ahmose, ruling then together with his father. This conclusion is strongly supported by the date of the stela, representing the highest known regnal year of Ahmose, who is generally credited with having ruled for a period of c. twenty-five years.3 It allows us to assume a minimal duration of coregency, thus explaining the scantiness of positive evidence suggesting a coregency between the two rulers.

In the light of this important testimony, which has not yet been given due consideration- rather strangely, it seems to me-the occurrences of juxtaposition (see above and note i) also gain in argumentative force. Likewise, we need not fear an overlapping of regnal dates of Amenophis I with those of his senior partner4 and predecessor. The former obviously numbered his years beginning from his father's death.5

Other monuments that designate Queen Ahmose Nefertari with the title 'King's Mother' are to be dated to the period of the coregency of Ahmose and Amenophis I, or to that of the latter's sole rule.6

I do not claim to offer here a complete study of matters relating to a coregency of the two kings; it is merely my intention to show-as far as I can see, for the first time-the strong probability of such a coregency. GUNTHER VITTMANN

The collapse of the Meidum pyramid IN the last volume of this Journal,7 Dr. Mendelssohn put forward the theory that the collapse of the outer layers of the Meidum pyramid 'occurred in the final building stage . . . when the outer stone mantle, giving the building its pyramidical shape, was being completed'. Although he repeats this assertion in his Conclusions, adducing as the reason that 'its structure had a number of inherent weaknesses', he makes it clear in the course of his article that he does not mean to exclude the possibility that it did not happen all at once, or, more specifically, that 'for some time parts of the masonry remained in a precarious position at higher levels only to crash down eventually'. He is well aware of the difficulty in reconciling the existence of the New-Kingdom and other

graffiti on the walls of the small mortuary temple attached to the east side of the pyramid with his theory that the collapse took place at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, and he conjectures that the temple may have been dug out 'either immediately after the disaster or during the First Intermediate Period when tomb robbers may have entered the pyramid'.

I I am aware of the problem offered by the circumstance that Queen Ahhotpe II, wife of Amenophis I, bears the title under discussion, there being, however, no son of hers to whom it could apparently refer; cf. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, 11 (1959), 52. Whatever may be the truth in this case, I do not believe that it really diminishes the validity of conclusions based on the occurrence of the title 'King's Mother' in the present inscription, especially since the other testimonies do not seem to contradict our conception of this title as expressed above.

2 I have done so myself in a study on the Queen Khedeb-Neith-iret-binet of the Saite Period (to be pub- lished shortly). 3 Cf. Redford, JNES 25 (I966), I I4.

4 For the terminology cf. the article of Simpson in JNES 15 (1956), 214 ff. 5 This seems to be the case in other possible coregencies of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, see Redford,

History and Chronology, 54. 6 Cf. the statement of Hayes, op. cit. 44, and fig. 2I. 7 JEA 59 (I973), 60-7i.

25I 25I

This content downloaded from 81.224.229.75 on Sun, 18 May 2014 13:46:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

Petrie's' account of his excavation in I89I-2 leaves little room for doubt that the temple had remained completely covered by masonry from the time of the collapse of the east face of the pyramid. He describes the problems which he encountered in moving the overlying 'large blocks of casing and other stones from the pyramid', and he certainly found no evidence which suggested to him that it had ever been cleared in antiquity and been reburied. Still, the theoretical possibility can- not be denied that the casing of the east face, or the part of it above the temple, remained in situ until a time after the Eighteenth Dynasty, the date of the latest graffiti. But it seems to be forcing the evidence to fit the theory.

The main question at issue is not whether Dr. Mendelssohn is right in his contention that the

collapse was a result of structural weakness, which seems probable, but when it occurred. What

appears to be a clue for determining the terminus a quo is offered by the graffito of the scribe May, who came to see 'the very great pyramid'2 in the 3oth year of king Amenophis III (c. 1387 B.C.).

It is very hard to believe that he would have described the pyramid as 'very great' if it was

already in a state of partial disintegration when he visited it. The ancient Egyptians were quite capable of recording that their monuments were in a ruined condition, though their purpose in

doing so was generally to claim credit for restoring them. Until further excavation has revealed what lies beneath the sand and fallen masonry at both the

Meidum pyramid and the northern pyramid at Dahshr, the tracing of the building sequence of these monuments and their relationship to the Bent Pyramid are bound to remain speculative. If the outer layers of the Meidum pyramid did not collapse in the final building phase (c. 2590 B.C.), but even a few years later (to say nothing of more than a thousand years later), the builders of the two other pyramids could not have been influenced by 'the disaster'. Dr. Mendelssohn believes that much of the structure was destroyed 'within a few minutes', perhaps 'triggered off by a heavy rainfall' which washed away the sand beneath the foot of the outer mantle. The present writer is more inclined to think that the cause of the collapse was an earth-tremor (an infrequent occurrence in Egypt, but one which has been responsible for the destruction of other monuments), and that it happened in the New Kingdom, after the time of Amenophis III. I. E. S. EDWARDS

A further re-appraisal of the terms: Nhh and Dt3

WHEN in 1953 I communicated to the YEA observations on the possible connotations of the two terms: nhh and dt,4 I did not ever imagine that they would still be a subject of controversy.5

My remarks were, in fact, written with a definite object in view. Ultimately, this object was an endeavour to offer a definition of these terms based on the setting and destiny of the life-span of

individuals, permanently identified with an unchangeable cycle of days and nights, as well as on what each person had to face during his lifetime. This also happened to be intrinsically governed

I Medum, 3. 2 F. L1. Griffith, in Petrie, op. cit. 41 and pi. 36 (No. I7). 3 I wish to point out that this reappraisal was prompted by the fact that I am in the process of editing the

Calendar in P. Sallier IV in parallel with the text of P. Cairo Calendar no. 86637, already published in I966. This new edition will, I hope, incorporate the commentary on the mythological entries in the calendar, as well as a revision and sifting of the notes already published.

4 See YEA 39 (I953), IIo; also consult references in Zabkar's review cited in the next footnote. 5 In this connection I am deeply indebted to Professor L. Zabkar's review of T. G. Allen's edition of the

Book of the Dead in JNES 24 (I965), 75-87, as it was through his review that I became inspired to reconsider

my original remarks published in I953 (see note 2 above). To his numerous references I may add: E. Hornung, 'Zum igyptischen Ewigkeitsbegriff', in Forschungen und Fortschritte 39 (I965), 334-6.

Petrie's' account of his excavation in I89I-2 leaves little room for doubt that the temple had remained completely covered by masonry from the time of the collapse of the east face of the pyramid. He describes the problems which he encountered in moving the overlying 'large blocks of casing and other stones from the pyramid', and he certainly found no evidence which suggested to him that it had ever been cleared in antiquity and been reburied. Still, the theoretical possibility can- not be denied that the casing of the east face, or the part of it above the temple, remained in situ until a time after the Eighteenth Dynasty, the date of the latest graffiti. But it seems to be forcing the evidence to fit the theory.

The main question at issue is not whether Dr. Mendelssohn is right in his contention that the

collapse was a result of structural weakness, which seems probable, but when it occurred. What

appears to be a clue for determining the terminus a quo is offered by the graffito of the scribe May, who came to see 'the very great pyramid'2 in the 3oth year of king Amenophis III (c. 1387 B.C.).

It is very hard to believe that he would have described the pyramid as 'very great' if it was

already in a state of partial disintegration when he visited it. The ancient Egyptians were quite capable of recording that their monuments were in a ruined condition, though their purpose in

doing so was generally to claim credit for restoring them. Until further excavation has revealed what lies beneath the sand and fallen masonry at both the

Meidum pyramid and the northern pyramid at Dahshr, the tracing of the building sequence of these monuments and their relationship to the Bent Pyramid are bound to remain speculative. If the outer layers of the Meidum pyramid did not collapse in the final building phase (c. 2590 B.C.), but even a few years later (to say nothing of more than a thousand years later), the builders of the two other pyramids could not have been influenced by 'the disaster'. Dr. Mendelssohn believes that much of the structure was destroyed 'within a few minutes', perhaps 'triggered off by a heavy rainfall' which washed away the sand beneath the foot of the outer mantle. The present writer is more inclined to think that the cause of the collapse was an earth-tremor (an infrequent occurrence in Egypt, but one which has been responsible for the destruction of other monuments), and that it happened in the New Kingdom, after the time of Amenophis III. I. E. S. EDWARDS

A further re-appraisal of the terms: Nhh and Dt3

WHEN in 1953 I communicated to the YEA observations on the possible connotations of the two terms: nhh and dt,4 I did not ever imagine that they would still be a subject of controversy.5

My remarks were, in fact, written with a definite object in view. Ultimately, this object was an endeavour to offer a definition of these terms based on the setting and destiny of the life-span of

individuals, permanently identified with an unchangeable cycle of days and nights, as well as on what each person had to face during his lifetime. This also happened to be intrinsically governed

I Medum, 3. 2 F. L1. Griffith, in Petrie, op. cit. 41 and pi. 36 (No. I7). 3 I wish to point out that this reappraisal was prompted by the fact that I am in the process of editing the

Calendar in P. Sallier IV in parallel with the text of P. Cairo Calendar no. 86637, already published in I966. This new edition will, I hope, incorporate the commentary on the mythological entries in the calendar, as well as a revision and sifting of the notes already published.

4 See YEA 39 (I953), IIo; also consult references in Zabkar's review cited in the next footnote. 5 In this connection I am deeply indebted to Professor L. Zabkar's review of T. G. Allen's edition of the

Book of the Dead in JNES 24 (I965), 75-87, as it was through his review that I became inspired to reconsider

my original remarks published in I953 (see note 2 above). To his numerous references I may add: E. Hornung, 'Zum igyptischen Ewigkeitsbegriff', in Forschungen und Fortschritte 39 (I965), 334-6.

252 252

This content downloaded from 81.224.229.75 on Sun, 18 May 2014 13:46:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions