| Discussion of virtual reconstruction and interpretative choices |
- Title
-
Pyramid memorial temple: Labrousse and Moussa (1996: fig. 39) provided an axonometric perspective reconstruction of the pyramid temple and this was generally followed for suggested roof heights (ie. the taller central naves, flanked by lower side rooms), their reconstruction was simplified, as interior details and exact differences in heights of the pyramid temple was not prioritized for this project; the central open courtyard had 18 pink granite columns (many later reused, extant examples are in the Louvre and British Museums), the outer temple courtyard was reconstructed using these column and architrave heights, and the surrounding building corresponds with those heights in the central nave, with building ceilings at approximately 7m, see Labrousse et al. (1977: fig. 13) for reconstruction drawing; interior spaces were not a priority for the model, so interior doors and spaces were often highly simplified or not modeled; the Labrousse and Moussa (1996) axonometric drawing of the pyramid temple was used for general appearance and materials/textures; the excavators state that their plan of the five interior niches for statues in the innermost temple, as well as the hall before them, are mostly hypothetical, recreated based on similar later temple examples, so they are included (with a highly hypothetical height of 3m) but with little other detail in the modelSecondary/subsidiary pyramid: Labrousse et al. (1977: fig. 8) suggested this structure had an angle making it originally ~10.5m tallThe original enclosure wall height remains unknown, possibly it was similar in size to that of the Teti enclosure (around 7m tall with a rounded upper edging and possibly walkway), so the Teti enclosure was used as a basis for the height and upper form in the model; the Unas enclosure originally maintained a slight batter, this detail was not included in the modelThe Unas pyramid form (in concert with all the Dynasty 4-6 pyramids in the model) alters to a deflating ‘ruin’ in the 3D model at the time-slide to Dynasty 18 (1548 BCE), approximately 1000 years after its construction in Dynasty 5; this does not correspond with a single destruction event in reality, but represents a general marker to the reader that many of the stone monuments of the Old Kingdom may have been naturally deflating or intentionally reused or their stone repurposed during the New Kingdom, see: Jaromir Málek, “A meeting of the old and new: Saqqara during the New Kingdom,” in Studies in Pharaonic religion and society: in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths, ed. Alan B Lloyd (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992), 60, 65-73; inscribed blocks from the Unas causeway and other Old Kingdom monuments have been identified as reused in the New Kingdom temple tombs by their recent excavators (see Section 2); in Dynasty 26, deep shaft tombs were cut into the area of the memorial temple of Unas, and by this point, Unas’ memorial temple may have been in ruins, and in the model the walls and interior of the memorial temple disappear in Dynasty 26, in order to make room for these new constructions; in reality, parts of the floor, lower walls, and bases of columns must have remained, as these were found in situ during excavations, and how the new Dynasty 26 tombs were functionally integrated into the ruins of the memorial temple remains unclearValley temple: detailed ground plans and elevations in Labrousse and Moussa (1996, 2002) were used for the reconstruction of the Valley temple, these publications included detailed information on the heights of the quay and ramps and this information was incorporated in the model; most exterior detailing (including cornice molding) was not included in the model; Labrousse and Moussa’s (1996: 16 28, fig. 38) reconstructions were followed for doors heights, and their axonometric perspective reconstruction was followed for basic understanding of granite materials and overall appearance, thus red granite (columns and doors) and a simple white limestone block texture was applied for walls, the quay, and base of structure; Labrousse and Moussa’s (1996: fig. 16 27) reconstructions suggest the base/platform was composed of ~7 courses of stone, so the texture was modified accordingly to match this sizeThe possible width of valley temple quay walls was based on the proposed reconstruction by Labrousse and Moussa (1996: fig. 9) based on geophysical survey; the south wall is completely hypothetical, as is the additional 30m extent on the north wall; Labrousse and Moussa (1996: fig. 11) suggested that the platform was covered with a limestone paving (best preserved in the south and on the ramp) so that was added to the entire floor level on the model, a plain white limestone color was added to the superstructure since the size of the original blocks was not clear from the publication
|
