| |
The Amun temple
of Karnak: Plan
of the main axis
Introduction: The Temple
The Amun temple of Karnak is an incredibly complex site. The terrain is
a veritable jungle of stone structures, erected, torn down and renovated
again over the course of twenty centuries. The main axis of the temple,
from the first pylon till the Back-temple, measures about 3 hectares
(7.5 acres): 100 meters across, 300 meters long. The total area of the
Amun precinct, which includes a Sacred Lake, a secondary axis and
several smaller temples, is close to 30 hectares (75 acres) large.
The temple’s main axis runs roughly east-west, the secondary axis has a
north-south orientation. The north-south axis is not part of the temple
proper, though. It is a highly monumentalized part of a procession way
towards the nearby temple of Mut, and beyond this to the temple of
Luxor. The plan here presented is confined to the east-west axis only.
The main axis has six pylons, the secondary one has four. It is
customary to number the pylons in the order in which one would probably
visit them: first the numbers one till six along the main axis, going
into the temple, and then the numbers seven till ten on the secondary
axis, going out. This numbering has no correlation with the historic
order in which they were constructed, but its use is now so widespread
that ignoring it is not going to be helpful.
In the plan, the pylons are marked with Roman numerals.
An east-west orientation was the “ideal” orientation for an ancient
Egyptian temple. In this way, its axis coincides with the daily path of
the sun. This helps in embedding the temple into the mental picture that
the ancient Egyptians had of their world. This process is known as
symbolic geography.
Another key element in this symbolic geography was, that the river Nile
flows from south to north. An east-west orientation of a temple would
therefore bring it ideally at a right angle with the banks of the Nile.
The real river Nile flows however in substantial bends, so there was
often a certain tension between these two demands of symbolic geography.
The usual solution was, to have the temple at an axis perpendicular to
the bank of the Nile, regardless of its actual orientation[1].
Since the Nile at Karnak does not follow the ideal south-north
trajectory, the orientation of the Amun temple is not exactly east-west.
The deviation is about 30 degrees. This comes however close enough to
allow referring to the front side of the temple as the “west side”, and
the back as “east side”. It is a practice that is almost universally
adhered to.
[1]
A notable exception to this orientation rule is presented by the
temple of Luxor. This temple lies parallel to the Nile, with its
pylon oriented straight towards the Amun temple of Karnak. This
remarkable state of affairs may be the result of the ritual
dependence of the Luxor temple from the Karnak temple.
The plan
The following plans served as starting material:
-
Willem J. de Jong: “Het hart van de Amon-tempel in Karnak” (1986),
pages 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 and 85.
-
Kurt Lange & Max Hirmer: “Aegypten” (1967), pages 136, 137 and 139.
-
J. Leclant: “Aegypten, Band II – Das Großreich” (1980), reproduced
in “Egypte, Het land van de Farao´s” (1997, editor: Könemann), page
157.
I have combined these, adding my own observations made during several
visits in February, 2004. (The point that most often had to be
corrected was the position of the doorposts: whether the doors opened
inwards or outwards.)
For information about the building history, I have made use of the
following (in addition to the excellent and very detailed work of De
Jong, already mentioned):
-
Dieter Arnold: “Die Tempel Aegyptens”, 1992.
-
Paul Barguet: “Karnak”, in “Lexikon der Aegyptologie”, 1980.
-
Hans Bonnet: “Theben”, in “Reallexikon der Aegyptischen
Religionsgeschichte”, 1952.
In addition to being long and complex, the building history of the
temple is not yet completely clear. There is still debate on many
issues. Excavation is going on though, so new insights are gained on a
regular basis.
* * *
The present plan shows the various elements of the temple that still
exist today, restored to their original dimensions. This means that e.g.
now missing columns, as well as the missing parts of walls that clearly
once were complete, have in the plan been restored. The result is a plan
that more or less represents the temple as it was at the end of its
building history, under the Ptolemies.
More or less, which means that some qualifications apply.
Even with the abundance of stone structures that today is in evidence,
it is certain that under the Ptolemies many more existed. All open
courts were no doubt once filled with statues, donated by kings and
wealthy citizens alike. These donors hoped, through their statues, to
benefit from the offerings that the god was to receive. And there were
once many more small structures, such as bark stations, shrines and
chapels, strewn all over the premises. Some have, in varying degrees of
completeness, survived as filling of later structures such as the grand
pylons. Some of these have been reconstituted in the nearby Open-Air
Museum.
Of the original Middle Kingdom temple (the grey section of the plan),
not enough is known to give a fully reconstructed plan.
The different building phases are in the plan indicated with different
colors. A key to these colors (which includes a short summary of the temple’s
building history) is provided in a separate document (see the links
below).
Many elements of the temple have been worked over, restored, rebuild and
/ or redecorated by several kings in succession. This means that the
historic picture that can be gleaned from a plan can only be a rough
indication. Some further details can be found in the paper “A Visit
to the Amun Temple of Karnak”, elsewhere on this site.
* * *
On the plans, I have mostly ignored elements that are on or close to the
ground. This includes thresholds, the bases of columns and shallow
ramps. It curtails the work somewhat, and it results in a more open
representation. But if you happen to use a wheelchair, and you’re
planning a visit, you would have to take this into account.
The dimensions of the torus moldings that regularly appear on the
outside corners of buildings have been somewhat exaggerated in size. At
scale, they would have been almost invisible.
In several rooms, dotted lines appear. These indicate a “split level”
situation. That part of the room that is closest to its entrance has
only one floor, the part on the other side of the dotted line has an
extra floor, mostly between 1 and 1½ meters up.
The color bright yellow is used for all statues, sphinxes and empty
pedestals for statues, regardless of period. Pillars, altars, and
pedestals for barks, naoses and obelisks bear the color of their
presumed construction period. Squares with a diagonal cross refer to
obelisks (either present or now gone).
Osirian statues are marked with:
Staircases and rooms inside pylons have been ignored.
To the plan (pdf)
Key to the plan (pdf)
Back
|
|