Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists Abstracts of Papers

XICE – Abstract of Papers
extension of afterlife beliefs registered in the Coffin Texts, or later in the Book of the
Dead.
Architecture of the temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir El-Bahari. Some remarks on
the Hypostyle Hall
Rafal Czerner
The monograph on architecture of the temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir el-Bahari was
presented by J. LIPIŃSKA in 1977, soon after the archaeological excavations concluded
(Deir el-Bahari II, The temple of Tuthmosis III Architecture, Warsaw 1977). The
architectural research continued, however, resulting in corrections to the initial
theoretical reconstruction, mainly to the temple’s general plan, published in 1992 (cf.
R. CZERNER and S. MEDEKSZA, in: Sixth International Congress of Egyptology, Turin
1992). The present study aims at adding some more observations about the roof
structure of the temple Hypostyle Hall, in particular its central part. This section of the
roof was supported by higher and stronger columns than the rest of the hall. This was
so, because the hall represents the basilical arrangement – one of the first in Egyptian
architecture (cf. G. HAENY, Basilikale Anlagen in der Ägyptischen Baukunst des
Neuen Reiches, Bf 9, Wiesbaden 1970).
The different sizes of columns, larger intercolumniations, bigger architraves, and
thicker and longer ceiling slabs obviously had to be elements of a separate structure,
different from that of the hall’s lower section though not structurally independent.
This is because its peripheral supports had to be laid on the roof of the lower level.
They had thus to match the schema of column distances, not simply according to the
logic of the central part. This was the weak point of LIPIŃSKA’S reconstruction in
which the peripheral supports were not always above the columns of the hall’s lower
section but sometimes mid-way between them. This was soon corrected in the review
by D. ARNOLD (The Temple of Tuthmosis III, Architecture..., OLZ 75/2, 1980, 111-
122), who suggested that the ceiling slabs of this section of the hall must have
surrounded it fanwise. The architraves of this part thus could only have been put in a
circumferential way, with no architraves linking the two circumferences. This,
however, seems an unlikely arrangement. The ties were structurally necessary and one
such probably linking architrave is preserved, whose sharpened ends were obviously
designed to be inserted into V-shaped recesses in the two adjacent architraves. Later
studies showed that the central part of the hall was longer in the north-south direction
- perpendicular to the temple’s main axis. That is, it comprised 12 columns in two
rows, not merely 8 as was initially reconstructed by LIPIŃSKA. In such a developed
array it seems even less probable that the two circumferences of architraves could be
left untied.
The present study aims to reconstruct the most reasonable scheme for the roof of
the central part of the hall from the point of view of construction, which allows all the
preserved parts of architraves to find their logical places. This is particularly
important since these pieces, although not very numerous, nevertheless present quite a
variety of kinds and dimensions. We also find preserved, ceiling slabs of considerable
size; three column bases; and parts of some other elements. Precise measurement of
the column arrangement in both the high-central and low-side sections of the hall
could also serve as a basis for study. It shows the pattern where two concentric
perimeters of the architraves in the central section would have been tied with two
55