Topography of Ancient Memphis Previous Theories and New Data

Topography of Ancient Memphis: Previous Theories and New Data ALEXI A. KROL Center for Egyptological Studies – Russian Academy of Sciences

Since 2001 the Russian Institute of Egyptology in Cairo has been working in the northern part of the Memphis ruin field in the vicinity of the modern villages Mitrahina and Izbet Gabry. The site lies at a distance of about 30 km from the centre of Cairo. The RIEC concession consists of three parts: Kom Tuman, Tell Aziz and Kom Dawbabi and lies to the east of Apries’ palace. The overall size of the concession is about 20 hectares. Regular excavations in the central part of Kom Tuman were started by RIEC in 2003. The first two seasons of the RIEC expedition were devoted to geophysical investigations and surface surveys, which enabled us to make some preliminary conclusions about the site and choose a spot for further excavations.1 Magnetic prospecting revealed some extensive earthworks in the western part of Kom Tuman. Electric survey there showed a presence of an anomaly which was supposed to be some highly magnetic object such as a furnace. In fact, excavations started in 2003 proved this suggestion. A very well preserved furnace with four fire chambers was discovered. After a detailed study, it turned out that it was used for bronze smelting and presumably for pigment manufacturing. C-14 analysis of charcoal deposited in fire chambers gave a calibrated date 764 BCE.2 In four seasons, 2003–2007, the Russian mission opened an area of about 1700 square meters to a depth of 0.5–3 m. We determined that this area was densely built over from the Late Period until at least the Ptolemaic Period. Remains of a huge building were discovered directly in the middle of the excavated area. This building was mapped by J. Dimick in 1955 during his work as a project director for the expedition of the Pennsylvania University at the Ptah temple (Fig. 1). At that time, vestiges of the construction were still visible on the surface.3 For the past half-century, the walls of the building were torn down to the foundations through sabbakhin digging. Thus, it is a matter of guesswork to determine a function

1 2 3

Kats et al. 2005 66–69. Krol – Vinokurov 2006 23–25. Jeffreys 1985 42.

2

Alexi A. Krol

of the building. Analysis of the pottery discovered in foundation trenches provides a terminus post quem for the building. It is from the 26th dynasty. At the end of the 2005 season, six more furnaces were discovered. The study of the complex was not completed during this season. However, judging from some evidence we may assume that the furnaces were used for metal and pigment production.4 Although the RIEC exploration of Kom Tuman has only started, even preliminary results may shed new light on some debated problems of Memphitic archeology. One of them is related to the palace of Apries, which up to now is the most interesting monument of the area. For some weeks during the winter of 1900–1901 Daninos Pacha carried out excavations of a 20 m high mound. According to his short article in ASAE, the mound was located in the northern part of the Memphis ruin-field; this of course does not give a precise positioning of the monument, but it could be somewhere at Kom Tuman.5 Daninos Pacha revealed two parallel mud-brick walls 200m in length and 6m in width. The walls were separated by partitions at three meter intervals. The foundations of the walls were reached at a depth of 17m 60cm. The discovered structure turned out to be a five-floored building with rooms 7.58m in width, 6.25m in depth and 2.4–2.6m in height. There were 19 rooms on each floor, making 95 rooms in all. According to Daninos Pacha, this kind of building could only be part of a palace.6 To the west of this construction the workers of Daninos Pacha unearthed a hoard of bronze items, consisting of decorative plaquettes with depictions of the 26th dynasty rulers Apries, Amasis, Psammetichus and the God’s Wife Amenirdis; mirrors; menats, and parts of statuettes7. B. Kemp believes that Daninos Pasha unearthed some parts of the Apries palace.8 In 1909 and 1910 W. M. F. Petrie undertook large-scale excavations of the palace. The general scheme of the building was that it occupied the north-western corner of the great fortified camp of about 12 hectares. The palace itself was built on an artificial cellular platform which was about 20 m high (Fig. 2). From the south a broad inclined avenue led to a gateway of the palace. The building was separated from its approach by a fosse which was most probably crossed by a draw-bridge.9 Clearance of the fosse bottom yielded among other artifacts a number of clay sealings and very thin wood labels with Aramaic inscriptions which Petrie dated to the fifth century BCE.10 A large number of weapons discovered in the fosse as well as in the palace itself evidenced that the camp most probably was a headquarter of a Persian garrison at Memphis.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Belova et al. http://www.cesras.ru/arch/memph/rep.htm Daninos Pacha 1904 142–143. Daninos Pacha 1904 142–143. Daressy 1902 139–150. Kemp 1978 61. Petrie 1909 1–3. Petrie 1910 40–41.

Topography of Ancient Memphis: Previous Theories and New Data

3

Besides excavations of the palace itself Petrie surveyed the enclosure wall of the camp in search of the gate. He expected to find it in the middle of the eastern wall in the area which he called Kom el-Kalb11 but it turned out that the so-called Great Gate was uncovered near the north-eastern corner.12 For the time being it is difficult to estimate whether the Apries palace and the camp’s wall are from the same building period or not. Jeffreys believes that the enclosure wall might have been built later than the 26th dynasty.13 Kemp thinks that the whole area inside the great enclosure was artificially formed but this could be verified by excavating against the wall foundations to see if a foundation trench is present or not.14 One of the main observations made by Petrie in the course of his excavations was that the palace was built on top of an accumulation of levels representing earlier palaces. His assumption was derived mainly from findings of some earlier pottery in the filling of the platform. Among them were some blue painted potshards characteristic of the late 18th dynasty.15 Judging from some similarities between palaces in Deir el-Ballas, Kom el-Abd and the Apries palace, Jeffreys supposed that the latter might originally be of a date earlier than the 26th dynasty rebuilt by Apries.16 In Jeffreys’ opinion, blue-painted shards in the fills of the compartments provide at least a terminus post quem for the palace foundations.17 Petrie’s idea of the earlier than the 26th dynasty date for the Kom Tuman mound was “quickly dispelled” by his compatriot B. Kemp during his two and a half day brief examination of the Apries Palace in March 1976.18 The main result of Kemp’s study of the mound was the confirmation that it was artificial and of a single construction phase and that the fortified part at least was modified and remained in use well into the Late Ptolemaic if not the Roman period. At present the area of the Apries palace is a concession of the Lisbon University expedition. Unfortunately not much information about Portuguese excavations is published and only in Portuguese.19 Recent results of Russian archaeological excavations at Kom Tuman give more arguments for Petrie’s idea. The RIEC excavations at Kom Tuman have revealed a number of blue-painted potshards, although re-deposited in much later layers. It is too

11 In Arabic Kom el-Kalb means Dog mound. This name is mentioned nowhere except in Petrie’s publication. We may suppose that he invented it for the sake of easy documentation. However, it is interesting why Petrie gave the name Dog mound to the central part of the camp’s wall. D. Harris believes that it was because of finding here a mithraic relief depicting a dog (Harris 1993 174). We may suggest a much simpler explanation. Nowadays, as possibly 100 years ago, all prominent parts of Kom Tuman are occupied by packs of dogs from surrounding villages. 12 Petrie 1909 12. 13 Jeffreys 1985 42. 14 Kemp 1977 101. 15 Petrie 1909 1; Petrie 1910 40. 16 Jeffreys 1985 42. 17 Jeffreys 1985 42. 18 Kemp 1977 101. 19 Lopes 2002 45–83; Lopes 2005 11–120.

4

Alexi A. Krol

early to state anything certain, but taking into consideration that blue-painted pottery was not a cheap ware for everyday use, and the fact that two sites where one may easily find this type of pottery are Malkata and Amarna, we may assume that the area of Kom Tuman was occupied at least by the time of the late 18th dynasty and was not in the periphery of the city.20 The main unexpected discovery of the 2004 season was a quantity of Old Kingdom pottery found in layers of the Late and Ptolemaic periods.21 Although they were found in a secondary context they were certainly not brought there from far away. The most plausible assumption is that this pottery came from Old Kingdom layers of Kom Tuman disturbed in the Late period during some extensive building activity on the spot. Discovery of Old Kingdom pottery which varies from the 4th to the 6th dynasties showed that the area of Kom Tuman and adjacent territory was settled already in this period. This evidence completes the picture of the Memphis town development drawn by scholars working in the framework of the Memphis project by the Egypt Exploration Society which has continued since 1982. Let us briefly recall some results of this continuing project. The completion of an overall surface-survey and field work carried out by the EES at Memphis produced a number of results which confirmed that the eastward shift of the Nile, clearly evident in post-Roman times, was also taking place in earlier periods.22 One of the directors of this project, L. Giddy, put forward a hypothesis that there was a gradual expansion southwards and eastwards from the earlier occupied area, an expansion related to a gradual movement of the Nile towards the east.23 In some opinion the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Memphis was essentially a ribbon development along the west bank of the river, now perhaps defined on the west side by the Libeni channel.24 S. Love believes that in the Early Dynastic-Old Kingdom period Memphis was a kind of peripatetic city, which shifted along the western bank of the river following a shift of the necropolis. She even goes so far as to assume that in the Old Kingdom pyramid cities functioned as national centers for industry, commerce and administration. Love considers the Memphis of the Old Kingdom as a 30 km area from Abu Rowash to Dahshur.25 Excavations carried out by the EES at Kom Fakhry and Kom Rabia revealed quantities of Old Kingdom potsherds and a number of Old Kingdom artifacts

20 Colin A. Hope after a detailed study of some blue-painted vessels coming from Memphis and its environs came to the conclusion that Memphis was a place where this type of pottery was started to be manufactured in the mid-18th dynasty and only by the time of the late 18th dynasty did it spread to the Theban region and Amarna. In her opinion, blue-painted pottery must have been in great demand primarily amongst the royal family and governing elite (Hope 1997 261–262). 21 http://www.cesras.ru/arch/memph/r_2004.html 22 Jeffreys – Smith 1988 55–66. 23 Giddy 1994 195. 24 Jeffreys – Tavares 1994 159. 25 Love 2003 82.

Topography of Ancient Memphis: Previous Theories and New Data

5

although in re-deposited layers of the Middle and New Kingdoms.26 Taking into consideration the fact that Kom Fakhry lies directly to the east of the 6th dynasty funerary monuments of Saqqara South, Giddy supposed that the core of Old Kingdom Memphis which adopted the name of Pepi I’s funerary monument Mn-nfr had been situated there. Drill core 65 which was taken in the middle part of Kom Tuman during the EES field season in 1989 produced a sequence of occupation deposits above a course of yellow alluvial sand. In Jeffreys opinion this finding mirrors the results of earlier coring on Kom Rabia and Kom Qala27 and shows that the site of Kom Tuman represents occupation of Old and Middle Kingdom.28 Taking all these evidence into consideration we may argue that some palatial installations of the 3rd dynasty were situated in the area of Kom Tuman. Although it is a very speculative idea, it follows the pattern of the city development drawn by Giddy. The site is located almost opposite the Djoser and Sekhemhet mortuary complexes and at the same latitude as Kom Rabia, where, according to Giddy, the core of the 6th dynasty city lay. A. Badawy even went so far as to suggest that the Apries palace had been built inside the enclosure of Djoser’s palace.29 One of his arguments was similarities in orientation and dimensions of the mortuary complex and the Kom Tuman enclosure. In our opinion, the same consideration might be taken in order to find reasons for the building of pharaoh Apries’ palatial complex at Kom Tuman. We believe that the latter’s architectural layout copied main features of the Djoser mortuary complex which in its turn simulated in stone the residence of the first ruler of the Old Kingdom built in perishable material.30 The ideology of the 26th dynasty would fit very well into this spatial symbolism (Fig. 3). Let us recall that it was in the Saite Period when the Djoser complex was the focus of attention. J-Ph. Lauer’s excavations revealed that Southern and Northern temples served as the offices of the Saqqara necropolis administration. At the time of the 26th dynasty rule, a new southern passage inside the Step Pyramid was cut through. Another argument for our hypothesis is similarities between underground relief panels of the Step Pyramid complex and reliefs depicting a ruler performing rituals of his sed-festival which were discovered by Petrie in the eastern part of the fosse between the inclined avenue and the palace itself.31 These reliefs, which were dated by Petrie to the 12th Dynasty, were in reality carved during the 26th dynasty as imitations or copies of Memphite reliefs of Old Kingdom date.32 It was presumed that

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Kemp 1976 25–28; Giddy 1993 193. Giddy et al. 1990 12. Giddy et al. 1990 13. Badawy 1978 29. Goedicke 1996 44. Petrie 1909 5. Myœliwiec 2000 129.

6

Alexi A. Krol

they once had decorated the gateway of the palace but were later carefully buried in the fosse after the structure had been taken down.33 Most probably they were made during the troublesome reign of Apries and then dismantled by one of his successors, or during the Persian occupation of Egypt.34 Certain is that they very much resemble sed-festival reliefs of king Djoser from the underground galleries of the Step Pyramid,35 representing a kind of residence that the king would use in the next world and which certainly imitates the residence of the living king.36 There is another argument which we should consider in this virtual debate between Flinders Petrie and Barry Kemp. The choice of the area for the building of the Apries palace did not follow one of the patterns of the city development reconstructed by D. Jeffreys. The scholar argued that from the very beginning of its history, Memphis was a port city. That means that the city had to follow the constant eastward shift of the river. Terrain left by the Nile and emerged islands most frequently were used for the building of port installations, palaces and temples.37 Thus, drill-cores below the palace of Merneptah at Kom Qala and below the vast Ptah temple complex of Ramses II taken by the Egypt Exploration Society expedition in 1988 confirmed earlier observations that these structures were built directly on virgin silts left by the retreating Nile.38 That means that the Apries palace certainly was not built on the bank of the river which by the time of the 26th dynasty had shifted much farther to the east. In this case, something more important made Apries reject a beautiful view of the Nile and choose Kom Tuman for the building of his palace. We believe that besides the fact that Kom Tuman lies opposite the Step Pyramid, the site was somehow sanctified by earlier palatial occupation. Before the rule of Apries the area of Kom Tuman was a suburb of the city, the core of which most probably lies much further to the east. This conclusion comes from the above mentioned fact that a vast industrial complex was discovered on Kom Tuman during the RIEC excavations in 2004–2006. We assume that so many furnaces, which bore a constant danger of fire, were most probably separated from the densely populated quarters of the city. During the rule of Apries the area was leveled and a huge palatial complex was built there. Later on, the Kom Tuman area did not lose its status as the governmental center of the Memphite city. We may presume that under the rule of Amasis, colonies of Carian and Ionian mercenaries were settled here beside the Apries palace.39 It remained a main stronghold of the city under the Persian dominance in Egypt. Most

33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Petrie 1909 5. Kaiser 1987 124. Kaiser 1987 143. Arnold 2005 40. Jeffreys 1996 290–292. Jeffreys – Giddy 1989 8. Herodotus II 154; Thompson 1988 83–84.

Topography of Ancient Memphis: Previous Theories and New Data

7

probably the Apries palace and a camp surrounded by an enclosure wall was the White Fortress (Leukon Teikhos), where, according to Herodotus, a Persian garrison was disposed.40 According to D. Thompson, a palace was built on Kom Tuman under the Ptolemies. There they stayed during a coronation ceremony in the nearby Ptah temple.41 Although the ideas advanced in this article require further substantiation, which we hope to gain during continuation of the “open end” RIEC excavations at Kom Tuman, we believe that the data accumulated during four seasons of archaeological work at the site allow us to suggest that the area of Kom Tuman was an important place long before the rule of the 26th dynasty. REFERENCES Arnold 2005

D. Arnold: Royal Cult Complexes of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. In: B. E. Shafer (ed.): Temples of Ancient Egypt. Cairo 31–85.

Badawy 1978

A. Badawy: Architecture in Ancient Egypt and the Near East. Cambridge, Mass. Belova et al.: Report on the Fourth Field Season at Memphis (02.12.2004–09.01.2005), http://www.cesras.ru/arch/memph/rep.htm

Chassinat 1911

E. Chassinat: Sur un sylindre trouvé à Mit-Rahineh. BIFAO 8 145–148.

Daninos Pacha 1904

M. Daninos Pacha: Sur les fouilles de Metrahyneh. ASAE 5 142–143.

Daressy 1902

G. Daressy: Une trouvaille de bronzes à Mit Rahineh. ASAE 3 139–150.

Giddy et al. 1990

L. Giddy et al.: Memphis, 1989. JEA 76 1990 1–15.

Giddy 1993

L. Giddy: Memphis and Saqqara during the late Old Kingdom: some topographical considerations. In: C. Berger – G. Clerc – N. Grimal (eds): Hommages à Jean Leclant. Vol. 1. 189–200.

Goedicke 1996

H. Goedicke: Zoser’s Funerary Monument. BACE 7 43–54.

Harris 1996

J. R. Harris: Mithras at Hermopolis and Memphis. In: D. M. Bailey (ed.): Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt. The Proceedings of the Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, held on 1–4 December, 1993. Ann Arbor.

Hope 1997

C. A. Hope: Some Memphite Blue-painted Pottery of the Mid-18th Dynasty Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East. In: Phillips, J. (ed.): Studies in honor of Martha Rhoads Bell. San Antonio. Vol. 2. 249–286.

Jeffreys 1985

D. Jeffreys: The Survey of Memphis I: the archaeological report. London.

Jeffreys – Tovares 1994

D. Jeffreys – A. Tavares: The historic landscape of Early Dynastic Memphis. MDAIK 50 144–173.

40 Herodotus III 91; Chassinat 1911 147; Jeffreys 1985 41. 41 Thompson 1988 16.

8

Alexi A. Krol

Jeffreys – Smith 1988

D. Jeffreys – H. Smith: Memphis and the Nile in the New Kingdom: a preliminary attempt at a historical perspective. In: A.-P. Zivie (ed.): Memphis et ses nécropoles au nouvel empire. Nouvelles données, nouvelles questions. Paris 55–66.

Jeffreys – Giddy 1989

D. Jeffreys – L. Giddy: Memphis, 1988. JEA 75 1–12.

Jeffreys 1996

D. Jeffreys: House, palace and islands at Memphis. In: M. Bietak (ed): Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Vienna 287–294.

Kaiser 1987

W. Kaiser: Die dekorierte Torfassade des spätzeilichen Palastbezirkes von Memphis. MDAIK 43 123–154.

Kats et al. 2005

Kats et al.: Integrated Geophysical Survey at the Kom Tuman Site, Ancient Memphis (Egypt). In: S. Piro (ed.): Proceedings- Extended Abstracts of the 6-th International Conference on Archaeological Prospecting. Rome, Italy, September 14–17, 2005. Institute of Technologies Applied to Cultural Heritage, Rome, Italy, June–July 2005. 66–69.

Kemp 1976

B. Kemp: A Note on Stratigraphy at Memphis JARCE 13 25–28

Kemp 1977

B. Kemp: The palace of Apries at Memphis. MDAIK 33 101–108.

Kemp 1978

B. Kemp: A further note on the palace of Apries at Memphis GM 29 61.

Krol – Vinokurov 2007

A. Krol – N. Vinokurov: A Metallurgical Furnace from Memphis. In: M. Barta – F. Coppens – J. Krejci (eds.): Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005. Prague 23–25.

Lopes 2002

M. Lopes: Projecto Argueológico: “Palácio de Apriés, Mênfis” (F.C.S.H.-U.N.L.) – Relatório: MKT Novembro/2001 Hathor. Estudos de Egiptologia 5 45–83.

Lopes 2005

M. Lopes: Projecto Argueológico: “Palácio de Apriés, Mênfis” (F.C.S.H.-U.N.L.) – Relatório: MKT Janeiro 2002 Hathor. Estudos de Egiptologia 6 11–120.

Love 2003

S. Love: Questioning the location of the Old Kingdom capital of Memphis, Egypt. PIA 14 71–84.

Myœliwiec 2000

K. Myœliwiec: First Millenium B. C. E. The Twilight of Ancient Egypt. Ithaca-London 2000.

Petrie 1909

W. M. F. Petrie: The palace of Apries (Memphis II). London 1909.

Petrie 1909

W. M. F. Petrie: Memphis I. London 1909.

Petrie 1910

W. M. F. Petrie: Meydum and Memphis (III). London 1910.

Thompson 1988

D. Thompson: Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton 1988.

Topography of Ancient Memphis: Previous Theories and New Data

Fig. 1. General map of Memphis North. Drawn by D. Karelin (based on J. Dimick map [R. Anthes: Mit Rahineh 1955. Philadelphia 1959]).

9

10

Alexi A. Krol

Fig. 2. Ruins of the Apries palace. View from East (photo by A. Krol).

Fig. 3. View of the Step Pyramid from the top of the Apries palace (photo by K. Nikolskaya).