Four Annotated Images of the Model on October 9, 2001:
Questions:
1. Were the stone offering tables of the outer sanctuary more accesible to the 'public'?
2. Were the concrete ramps covered by stone or mud brick?
3. How were the statues of the royal family arranged and who could see them?
4. Appearance of the pylons and general coloration questions.
Decisions thus far:
1. It is unkown at this stage whether these tables were more open to the townsfolk, but it seems they were not. The masses of mud-brick altars near the Gem-Pa-Aten point to their possible use by the commoners. Furthermore, the sanctuary was surrounded by walls not pictured here as of yet, adding further credence to their closed-off nature.
2. It is known that in antiquity most of the stonework was removed or destroyed, so a stone-paved reconstruction is possible. However, it appears that the foundation is concrete alone whereas even the stone altars seemed to have individual stone foundations, thus pointing toward a lighter material on top of the concrete.
3. The statues' positioning based on archaeological evidence is unknown here, but some tomb pictures show the columned portico supporting statues of the king and queen. Other temples roughly concurrent can be used to more accurate place these statues and reconstruct their appearances. (I am having trouble right now with my texture mapping of the statues- hopefully this will be corrected soon.
4. The tops of the pylons are not in their finished state and are exempt from this discussion. The reasoning behind the abnormal appearance of the straight and small pylons. The Lavers plan ignored the absence of stronger foundations necessary for massive, outward sloping pylons. I followed Kemp's suggestion of two higher wall-like structures.
Area functions: Great entryway, route of religious processions, dedicatory altarspace outside the sanctuary proper, placement for statues of royal family, possible site for religious proclamations.
Questions:
1. Were there palm trees or perhaps smaller trees or any trees at all?
2. Will I model the outer walls and what were their purpose?
3. Was the ground paved outside the first raised platform or not?
Decisions thus far:
1. The restored plan of Lavers shows four shrub-like trees along where I have placed the lower ramp. However, the COA plan of the excavated remains of the Sanctuary indicate four tree-pits along the second ramp. The newer reports fail to mention them at all. At the moment the trees are included for aesthetic reasons- it remains to be seen where they will end up if they are to be included at all.
2. The outer walls will be modeled by next week. Judging by their foundations, they appear to be quite low and non-imposing. The outer gateways have the same effect. They appear to set this inner space off as sacred, but the allowance of sunlight belies to whom this temple is built.
3. The COA and newer reports both give evidence of widespread mud-brick paving within the outer walls. This will also be added by next week.
Area functions: Possible gathering place for townspeople to gather for religious ceremonies and proclamations, processional route,
Questions:
1. What was the rear of the sanctuary used for?
2. What was the purpose of the square platform to the rear center of the sanctuary? When will this be added to the model?
Decisions thus far:
1. Kemp hypothesizes that the rear wings may have had ceremonial uses such as to hold musicians and performers when the pharaoh was present. He admits their odd nature but leaves out any further discussion, calling them 'most enigmatic'. They certainly do have some relationship with the square platform in the middle, which will be discussed next.
2. The square platform which is so evident in the aerial photographs sits to the rear of the sanctuary between the two aforementioned wings. Not much else remains in that area, especially any evidence of its possible phyical connection to the sanctuary itself. However, Lavers did reconstruct it as the 'mud-brick altar'. It seems more likely, as it is placed outside of the sanctuary and in light of the discussion above, that the platform may be a throne-like area for the king to sit on while in residence as the chosen of the sun-god here on earth. This possibility will be more fully investigated later and may prove to be one of the greatest contributions that this study will offer.
Area Functions: Near possible high altar or even royal throne of sorts, extensions for musicians and performers.
Questions:
1. What about the strange, L-shaped wall next to the stairway?
2. How much can the tomb pictures help us reconstruct the temple?
Decisions thus far:
1. This feature has yet to be fully explained by any of the excavation reports I have come across. There appears to be a significant foundation trench for this wall- perhaps I shall have to rethink its height. I believe it serves to function to produce a shadowy (albeit temporary) entryway into the sunlit inner sanctum. My addtion of a torch emphasizes this point. This area of contrast is clearly of religious importance.
2. As much as we as archaeologists would like to use the pictures as floorplans with which to reconstruct the temple, we must be aware that their ancient purpose was not nearly as exact. They take elements from various structures in Amarna and are often deliberately inaccurate. Therefore, the pictures are of limited use, but are helpful in certain cases(see the discussion above on the placement of the statues).
Area Functions: This is an overview of the sanctuary as far as I have completed it. Using the 1987 Kemp plan as the primary basis for my model, I built ramps surrounding three sides of the structure, dual ramps leading to a columned porch, a somewhat shadowy entryway leading to a sunlit inner sanctum of chapels and offering tables.
