Glossing the past: the Fifth Dynasty sun temples,Abu Ghurab and the satellite imagery

Over the past two decades, remote sensing techniques have been increasingly used in Egyptology for the study and reconstruction of the archeological landscape of ancient Egypt and the analysis of its topographical and spatial peculiarities. Important contributions have been provided by several scholars, especially as regards the improvement of the cartography of some key areas of ancient Egypt, thanks to the combination of satellite data with modern on-ground tools, such as geophysical surveying and 3D modeling programs. This has led to a better understanding of important aspects of the landscape organization and exploitation in ancient Egypt, as well as to the detailed mapping of specific areas, e.g. Thebes, with significant implications and results not only for the scientific community, but also for the touristic and site management activities.1 In some cases the use of remote sensing tools has also led to the identification of unknown structures, or even entire sites, hidden under the sand and no longer visible to date. The archaeological exploration carried out in the late 1990s and early 2000s in South Sinai by Sarah Parcak and Gregory Mumford, for example, significantly contributed to the discovery of several previously unknown sites as well as the identification of a complex system of communication, dating back to the Old Kingdom, between the Red Sea coast and the copper mines of the Wadi Maghara (Mumford – Parcak 2003: 83–116; Parcak 2004a: 136–141; Mumford 2006: 13–67).2 On a smaller, intra-site scale, it is also worth mentioning the studies of the main sites of the Memphite necropolis. These investigations largely contributed to the knowledge of the area as regards both specific monuments, and the topography and environmental evolution of key sites of the necropolis itself, such as Giza,3Saqqara4and Abusir.5 The area of Abusir – and particularly the area of Abu Ghurab, which is the northernmost foothill of the Abusir plateau – has a primary position in the perspective of the present paper. In fact, starting from January 2017, a three-year based research project (“Rise and Development of the Solar Cult and Architecture in Third Millennium BC Egypt”) has been launched at Charles University in Prague under the auspices of the Grant Agency of Czech Republic (GA ČR, No. 17-10799S). The project – which is directed by the main writer and includes a varied team of specialists from both the above-mentioned university and L’Orientale 110 PES XIX/2017 GLO SSI N G T HE PA S T: TH E FI F TH DY NA S TY S UN TE M P LE S Glossing the past: the Fifth Dynasty sun temples, Abu Ghurab and the satellite imagery Massimiliano Nuzzolo – Patrizia Zanfagna On the northernmost foothill of the Abusir plateau, which is usually known as Abu Ghurab, a few hundred meters from the royal necropolis, the Fifth Dynasty pharaohs built some of the most intriguing monuments of ancient Egyptian architecture, the so-called sun temples. So far, however, only two of the six temples known from the textual sources of the time have been identified and systematically excavated, i.e. that of Userkaf and Nyuserre. Four sanctuaries still remain to be discovered. The present paper has thus the aim to shed some light on their possible locations by means of the combined analysis of archaeological evidence, historical cartography and new remote sensing imagery. Fig. 1 Historical cartography of the Abusir plateau in comparison (from left to right): Lepsius’ map (1849: pl. 32), De Morgan’s map (1897: pl. 11) and the Franco-Egyptian map (EMHR 1978, sheet 21). The circles enclose the two missing Pyramids Lepsius XVI and Lepsius XXVIII PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 110 University of Naples, Italy, with which Charles University signed an agreement for archaeological cooperation in 2015 – has the scope, among others, to reassess the overall topography of the site of Abu Ghurab and, at the same time, to contribute to the identification of the missing sun temples. In fact, out of the six sun temples known from epigraphic and historical sources, only two of them have been archaeologically excavated so far, i.e. the sun temples of Nyuserre and Userkaf (Borchardt 1907; Ricke 1965 and 1969). Since January 2010, the former has also been the object of an overall field re-examination by an Italian archaeological mission – from L’Orientale University of Naples – of which the present writer is co-director (see Nuzzolo – Pirelli 2011; D’Andrea – Pirelli – Iannone – Nuzzolo – Zanfagna 2014: 48–98). However, the location of four sun temples is still completely unknown, and although it is a widespread opinion that these temples must have been located nearby the other two (cf. Verner 2014: 209),6their precise identification has never been addressed in detail in past scholarship, up to the point that some scholars have even casted doubts on their existence (Stadelmann 2000: 529–542). The location in Abu Ghurab of at least some of these temples is instead supported by the main historical source of the time, i.e. the Abusir papyri, which tells us that the sun temple of Neferirkare (actually one of the missing temples) was reached twice a day by boat from the pyramid of the same king, with the aim to perform religious and administrative duties (Posener-Kriéger 1976: 519–520; Nuzzolo 2007: 233). Visually, Abu Ghurab appears nowadays as a restricted area for the solar temples (and the solar aspects of the king’s cult), contiguous to the main royal necropolis for the king’s funerary cult, and this would logically indicate that the other sun temples, too, should be located nearby the ones already known (Nuzzolo 2015: 303–304). The search for the missing sun temples is also extremely promising when we consider that in the sites of Abusir and Abu Ghurab, we have the chance, not very common for other Egyptian sites, to base our analysis on the cross- -examination of an extensive historical cartography of the area with either the Photogrammetrical Map scaled 1:5000 (which was realized in 1978 by the Egyptian Government and the French Aviation IGMF), or the remote sensed imagery derived from both optical and radar sensors. Moreover, the Abu Ghurab/Abusir area offers scholars an incredibly unique case of investigation of ancient sacred landscapes because of its chronologically limited use in a time span of around 100 years, roughly corresponding to the Fifth Dynasty. In fact, the main architectural features of the site were shaped and arranged in the natural setting in the time span between Userkaf and Djedkare, and no longer significantly affected for the coming millennia. In a paper published in 2013, the present author already emphasized the importance of the combined application of remote sensed data and historical cartography for the improvement of our knowledge of the area of Abusir/Abu Ghurab, as well as for the possible identification of its missing structures, in particular the sun temples (Nuzzolo 2013: 163–176). Nowadays, however, the most recent developments of satellite technology, and particularly the generation of the COSMO Sky-Med satellites – and the SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) images generated therein – compared and combined with the traditional panchromatic images, such as the ones available through the Google Earth system, allow us to investigate the abovementioned area with an increased level of accuracy which has not been possible so far. It is not the matter of the present paper to discuss the importance and the benefit of the new radar technology and imagery for Egyptology, given that several studies have definitely proven that they are extremely useful tools of investigation (Parcak 2004b: 63–78; Parcak 2010: 362–382).7Nor will I discuss the differences among the available panchromatic and radar images and all the properties of the latter for archaeological research in desert areas (in this regard, see the wide résumé available in Parcak 2009: 41–80). What has to be stressed instead – especially in the perspective of future investigations in the field, which is also one of the aims of the abovementioned project – is the importance of applying this technology to the Abusir/Abu Ghurab case study. This approach can offer not only a better vision and understanding of the sun temple area in Abu Ghurab, but also complement our knowledge of the overall topography of the Fifth Dynasty royal necropolis of Abusir, which was actually considered, together with Abu Ghurab, as a single conceptual and geo-cultural unit in the Old Kingdom. Before analyzing the new satellite imagery, we will begin by summarizing the archaeological and topographical investigation of the site in the last centuries, in order to get a wider view of the development of the exploration and knowledge of the sun temple area. Historical cartography and explorations of Abu Ghurab As with most Egyptian sites, the modern exploration of the area of the sun temples in Abu Ghurab can be dated back to Napoleon’s expedition. In the famous Description de l’Égypte the French savants recorded the presence of “pyramides en ruines” – certainly corresponding to the actual pyramids of Abusir – and of a very small structure which is called an “éminence que l’on croit avoir été une Pyramide”, most likely Nyuserre’s sun temple (Description 1809: pl. 1). The second brief description of the site was elaborated by the explorers Howard Vyse and John Shae Perring in the years 1837–1938. Although they focused their attention on the cartographical and topographical report of the pyramid field,8the two scholars also recorded, with the number 12, the presence of a small building – supposed to be a pyramid – on the northernmost hill of Abusir, known as the “Reeghah village” (Vyse 1842: 10–12, and fig. 2). The explorers also drew the remains, simply called “ruins”, of a structure supposed to be the valley temple, which was connected by a causeway to the upper temple. The position of these “ruins” on their map of the temple area is noteworthy since they lay on the same east-west axis of the upper temple, a feature which does not GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S PES XIX/2017 111 PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 111 correspond to the real position of the valley temple of Nyuserre’s sun temple (see also Borchardt 1907: pl. 2). The sun temple of Userkaf, laying about 500 m to the south of Nyuserre’s one and unearthed by Herbert Ricke in the 1950s, is not mentioned at all in the description of the archaeological area by Perring and Vyse. It was only in the 1840s that an accurate and detailed topographical map of the entire area of Abu Ghurab and Abusir was produced (fig. 1). This was the result of the famous expedition by Karl Richard Lepsius, who investigated the site on the way from Giza to Saqqara and Southern Egypt. Although the area of Abusir was not the main target of the investigation of the Memphite necropolis, the German scholar’s team was nonetheless very accurate in drawing the monuments of the Abusir plateau,9where we can clearly see, besides the royal pyramids, the remains of Nyuserre’s sun temple, named Pyramid XV, as well as, for the first time, what would later on be revealed to be the sun temple of Userkaf, recorded in his map as Pyramid XVII (Lepsius 1849: 129–131, and Bl. 32). Lepsius’ drawing of Nyuserre’s temple is particularly remarkable when we consider that it is not limited to the overall plan of the monument but also includes several important details, such as the obelisk, described as a pyramid resting on a sort of square pedestal, an inner, open-air courtyard surrounded by an enclosure wall, and two rounded artifacts/blocks (?) in the south-eastern and north- -eastern corners of the central courtyard.10 The causeway and the valley temple, with its two large columns in the façade, are also accurately outlined, as well as a large rectangular-like structure enclosing the valley temple itself, which was later identified by Borchardt as the enclosure wall of the pyramid town (Borchardt 1907: 7–8, and pl. 2). After Lepsius, a few other scholars significantly contributed to our knowledge of the site although they did not focus on topographical issues: among them, special mention is due to two German scholars, Eduard Meyer and Kurt Sethe, whose scholarship was decisive for the identification of Lepsius Pyramid XV as the sun temple of Nyuserre (see Nuzzolo 2013: 163–164, with further bibliography). At the close of the nineteenth century, Abu Ghurab first, and soon after Abusir, were again explored by two important Egyptologists, Jacques de Morgan and Ludwig Borchardt. In 1897, De Morgan carried out the most accurate and comprehensive mapping of the Memphite necropolis hitherto achieved (see fig. 1). The map, which can still be considered one of the best cartographical achievements in Egyptology, included Abu Ghurab, Abusir, Saqqara and Dahshur, while excluding Giza (De Morgan 1897: pl. 11). It must be noted, however, that in the case of Abu Ghurab and Abusir, De Morgan’s map is less accurate than that of Lepsius. In particular, the overall plan of the sun temple of Nyuserre is more a sketch than a real plan: the altar of the central courtyard is not recorded in the right position;11 the sun temple of Userkaf is simply a red, rectangular-like sign on the map. The lack of accuracy in the drawing of this portion of the Memphite necropolis is even more evident when we compare it to Lepsius’ map. This overlapping clearly evidences the absence of many pyramids and “minor” structures in De Morgan’s plan.12 Finally, in 1898, Ludwig Borchardt reached the Abu Ghurab hillock and started working in the sun temple of Nyuserre. This can be considered the beginning of the systematic archaeological exploration of the Abusir plateau. Between 1898 and 1908, the German Egyptologist investigated the main part of the Fifth Dynasty royal necropolis, unearthing, besides Nyuserre’s sun temple (Borchardt 1907),13 four royal pyramids and several “minor” pyramids and private tombs (Borchardt 1907, 1909 and 1910), establishing a lasting association between the necropolis and his name in the history of Egyptology. However, as far as the area of Abu Ghurab is concerned, and despite the accurate and masterful work conducted in the sun temple, Borchardt did not elaborate a new topographical map of the entire site, limiting his work to a new, accurate plan of the sun temple of Nyuserre. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, also for Herbert Ricke’s excavation of the sun temple of Userkaf in the years 1952–1955. The Swiss scholar carried out careful and detailed fieldwork, resulting in a two-volume publication (Ricke 1965 and 1969). Here, however, there is no new, updated topographical map of the area of Abu Ghurab. It was only in 1978, with the photogrammetric map, scaled 1:5000, elaborated by the French Aviation for the Egyptian Ministry of Housing and Reconstruction that we finally obtained a more extensive and updated cartography of the entire area of the Memphite necropolis, with the basic contour plans of sites and monuments therein (fig. 1).14 The analysis of the satellite imagery of the Abu Ghurab site, as well as the comparison with the traditional cartographical material, is therefore particularly important for a general reassessment of the topographical and archaeological features of the area, as well as for the indications it may provide on the undiscovered monuments. Some preliminary considerations on the satellite imagery In this paper, we have used two different kinds of sources: 1) satellite panchromatic images from Google Earth (fig. 2), freely available online; 2) new generation SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) images (fig. 3) from the constellation of the COSMO-SkyMed satellites (acronym of Constellation of Small Satellites for Mediterranean Basin Observation), elaborated in recent years by the Italian Space Agency (ASI).15 Google Earth images provide us with a rather accurate view of the earth and have been extensively used for the investigation of several sites worldwide with important results. However, being panchromatic images of the Earth, their quality highly depends on the general weather conditions, especially the amount of sunlight and elements that can decrease visibility, such as clouds, fog, humidity, etc. Moreover, they are taken at specific times of the year, depending on the movement and parameters of the satellites’ sensors. Nevertheless, they are important to testify what is the current state of visibility of archaeological artefacts on the ground, as well as the overall geomorphology of the area, and with this sole scope they will be used here. 112 PES XIX/2017 GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 112 The SAR images, on the contrary, operating in the radiometric X band, are not influenced by the weather and therefore offer the chance to generate very high resolution images of specific sites observed several times a day. Moreover, the radar sensors generate highly reflective images which have a higher level of penetration of the ground (in particular the sand) than panchromatic images, giving us the chance to detect structures hidden under the top layers of the surface. The integration of these two types of satellite imagery is thus particularly fruitful, especially as regards the areas on the border between the cropland and the desert. While this area consists mostly of desert sand, the moisture of the soil can still surface in the case of archaeological structures hidden under the sand, which absorb the underground water, favoring the growth of rather sparse vegetation above them. When investigated by means of the radar sensors, the structures/artefacts underneath have a specific reflectance, which may of course vary significantly depending on the material they are composed of, e.g., limestone, mud brick or sand. Moreover, in this marginal area between the cropland and the desert, the archaeological structures, if present, are usually hidden a few dozen centimeters below the sand.16 Based on this assumption, the images have been processed through “context operators”, such as filters and detectors emphasizing contours, in order to improve the images’ features and to extract surface and sub-surface discontinuities. This has allowed us to detect structures covered by sand and to obtain a detailed picture of the geometric and material characteristics of the analyzed landscape. These geo-referenced images have then been overlaid with the panchromatic images, the topographical data, and the above-mentioned historical maps. As a result, it has been possible either to re-locate already known structures, currently covered by sand/vegetation, or to search for new, unknown structures. An important aspect of the study was also the analysis of the archaeological structures which had already been excavated and published in the past, in order to have some precise parameters of reference for our search for new evidence. In particular, we have analyzed the plans of the valley temples of the sun temples of Nyuserre and Userkaf by overlaying them with the available satellite imagery (especially the SAR images). This emphasizes some features of the vegetation overlying these structures which is extremely useful for further research in the area. This procedure proves to be particularly important in the case of Userkaf’s sun temple, whose valley temple plan is still partially recognizable from the satellite under the vegetation. The analysis of the features of these temples and the comparison with the satellite imagery concerning the already known valley temples of the Abusir pyramids, i.e. Sahure’s and Nyuserre’s, allow us to proceed “by analogy” in the search for missing or new archaeological evidence, especially if we consider that these structures should have GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S PES XIX/2017 113 Fig. 2 Satellite Google Earth image of the area of Abusir/Abu Ghurab (Digital Globe 2015) PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 113 very similar positions in the overall topography of the area as well as common architectural and planimetric characteristics, such as, for example, the shape and the orientation. The search for lost sun temples: satellite imagery, historical cartography and archaeological data Based on the above methodological preamble and the analysis of the historical development of the exploration of the area, we can proceed to discuss the results of the cross-examination of the data and to clarify some elements of the monumental topography of Abu Ghurab and Abusir which are not entirely clear. Attention is mainly focused on two impressive structures which were carefully recorded by Lepsius but disappeared in the later maps, namely Lepsius Pyramids XVI and XXVIII (Lepsius 1849: 130–131, 137–138, and pl. 32). The former has never been investigated, while the latter, although briefly explored by Borchardt at the beginning of the twentieth century (Borchardt 1910: 147), is still far from clear. Lepsius Pyramid XVI According to Lepsius’ description, Pyramid XVI was situated in the area between the sun temples of Userkaf and Nyuserre, around 400 m south-east of the latter (Lepsius Pyramid XV). Lepsius describes the building as a “Ziegelpyramide” (brick pyramid) with a base perimeter of around 75 m. We have no data on the height of this alleged pyramid but the term used by Lepsius to define the building, i.e. “Berge”, suggests a rather sizable structure (Lepsius 1849: 130–131, pl. 32.). Lepsius concludes his description by stating that the extant sides of the structure were oriented towards the cardinal points (see fig. 1). In 1897, De Morgan mapped the building as a small, insignificant dot, without any description (De Morgan 114 PES XIX/2017 GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S Fig. 3 COSMO-SkyMed Image of the area of Abu Ghurab and Abusir. Processed under license from ASI – Agenzia Spaziale Italiana. All rights reserved (© ASI, courtesy by e-GEOS) PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 114 1897: pl. 11), while in 1898, namely only one year later, Borchardt did not mention the building at all in his publication of the archaeological excavation of Nyuserre’s sun temple (Borchardt 1907: 1–6).17 Based on notes made by Lepsius in his notebook on the shape and topographical position of Pyramids XVI and XXVIII, Sethe, who was the editor in chief of Lepsius’ work, raised doubts on the actual existence of this structure and suggested that Lepsius might have gotten confused and mapped a single pyramid twice (Lepsius 1849: 138).18 In 1987, comparing the map by Lepsius and the aerial view of the Abu Ghurab site (see Ricke 1965: frontispiece), Aidan Dodson very briefly gave attention to this structure, reviving Lepsius’ idea that it could have been a pyramid, and specifically a Thirteenth Dynasty pyramid (Dodson 1987b: 231). No archaeological element was, however, called into account to support this interpretation except for the location of the pyramid close to the cultivated area, as is the case with the other Thirteenth Dynasty pyramids analysed by the same scholar in another paper (Dodson 1987a: 36–45). Ladislav Bareš responded to Dodson’s theory by suggesting that Lepsius Pyramid XVI was more probably a Middle Kingdom pyramid (Bareš 1988: 118–119). He himself, however, has to admit that the presence of Middle Kingdom royal monuments in Abusir is not supported by any archaeological or historical elements. Finally, Dodson’s idea that Lepsius Pyramid XVI was a Thirteenth dynasty pyramid was very recently revived by Christoffer Theis. However, as in Dodson’s paper, Theis’ hypothesis is mainly based on the position of the pyramid at the edge of the cultivated area, as well as on the material used for its construction (according to Lepsius’ account), namely mud bricks and not limestone, as would be logical in the case of both Old and Middle Kingdom pyramids (Theis 2009: 335–336).19 More recently, Dušan Magdolen, in a paper on the history of sun temples, also gave attention to Lepsius Pyramid XVI as an interesting and promising area for future investigations, although he did not provide any archaeological-historical discussion on the possible nature of this monument (Magdolen 2012: 25–26, 31). Nowadays, thanks to the combined analysis of the abovementioned topographical map made in 1978 (EMHR 1978, sheet 21), the satellite imagery of the area and the evidence still visible in the ground, we can provide some new elements for the comprehension of this mysterious structure. In fact, based on the analysis of the isohypses of the 1978 map (see fig. 1), we can note the existence of a tell – situated very close to the valley temple of the sun temple of Userkaf – which is higher (28.6 m) than the surrounding area, whose isohypses are around 20 m. This aspect seems particularly significant when we consider that the archaeological evidence is situated on the border between the cropland and the desert, which is usually a rather flat area, as also demonstrated by the isohypses of the other valley temples of both the pyramids and the sun temples of the area of Abusir/Abu Ghurab, all situated at a height of about 20 m. On the Google Earth imagery (fig. 2), the tell has the aspect of a sandy hill whose contours are quite precisely evidenced on three sides by sparse vegetation. The tell on the Google Earth imagery clearly matches both Lepsius Pyramid XVI and the abovementioned hill evidenced in the 1978 map (see also Nuzzolo 2013: 166–168). The analysis of the SAR images of the area (fig. 3) also confirms the existence of archaeological evidence in the same topographical positions. The spectrometric characteristics of the area, especially when we apply various filter contours to the satellite images (see pl. 4 [F]), show rather evident traces of a rectangular-like structure whose north- -western and north-eastern sides are particularly evident on account of the high reflectance of this area compared to the surroundings. A third side (south-eastern) of this structure is also quite visible, although not so highly reflective as the other two. The central part of this structure, cor responding to the highest part of the hill on the Google Earth image and the 1978 map, is not particularly reflective. This may signify that this was the core of the hidden building, which is nowadays buried under a deeper layer of sand which hampers the SAR penetration into the terrain. Alternatively, this may imply that the core structure was made of mud bricks, which are not as reflective as limestone (or other kind of stones, e.g., granite or quartzite). Most importantly, the structure evidenced by the SAR image does not seem to be oriented either on the north-south or on the east-west axis, an element which, although in this preliminary stage of analysis, would lead us to exclude the possibility that Lepsius Pyramid XVI could really be a pyramid. Last but not least, the tell in account is also clearly recognizable by means of direct observation on the ground. It is characterized by the presence, on the surface, of several limestone fragments, as well as of a number of chips of granite and quartzite, although they are quite haphazardly scattered on the spot and do not demonstrate, per se, the presence of archaeological evidence underneath. The first logical conclusion that comes to mind is thus that this structure could be a sun temple, or better the valley temple of a sun temple (Nuzzolo 2013: 166). Indeed, the structure is located in between two solar sanctuaries, and according to the Abusir papyri, as already mentioned, all the sun temples should be located quite close to the respective pyramids, so as to be reached twice a day by boat to perform religious and administrative duties (see footnote above). Against this opinion, one could argue that the area might have been used as a funerary field for Early Dynastic mastabas, which were indeed found at the edge of the cultivation zone on the north-western side of Nyuserre’s sun temple (Radwan 1991: 305–308; Radwan 2000: 509–514). However, these mastabas usually do not present a significant elevation aboveground (as is instead the case with Pyramid XVI) either before or after excavation. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that even the large predynastic mastaba tombs at Saqqara do not appear as impressive as Pyramid XVI in any nineteenthor twentiethcentury maps, including the above-mentioned ones by Lepsius and De Morgan. Moreover, the orientation and size of the building as evidenced by the SAR image, appear more suitable with (although not exclusive for) a valley temple rather than an Early Dynastic mastaba. Whatever the case, the significant size of the mound, still visible today on the ground and on the Google Earth GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S PES XIX/2017 115 PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 115 image, the presence (in Lepsius’ account and in a surface survey) of stone artefacts, as well as the orientation of the building as evidenced by the remote sensing, seem to confirm that the structure should be identified as a significant architectural building. Taking into account the consolidating construction activities carried out by Fifth Dynasty pharaohs up to the reign of Nyuserre, and the location of the latter temple, suggesting a symbolic and architectural continuity with the monuments of his royal predecessors, it is thus possible that Lepsius Pyramid XVI was indeed a sun temple, or the valley temple of a sun temple (Nuzzolo 2013: 166–169). If the core of this hypothesis is correct, this would confirm the fact that the sun temple area was quite restricted and uniform in terms of topographical features, forming a sort of consecrated field for the solar aspects of the king’s cult, next to the royal necropolis for his funerary cult (see also Nuzzolo 2015: 303–304). In the current state of our knowledge, however, and even if we admit the correctness of the above hypothesis, it is impossible to establish which sun temple may potentially be hidden under the sands. On the one hand, Neferirkare’s sun temple would appear as the most obvious candidate, being by far the most cited one in the epigraphic sources of the time (Nuzzolo 2007: pl. 1; Nuzzolo 2010: tab. 1). On the other hand, however, Sahure’s sanctuary – which should be, theoretically, the closest to the sun temple of Userkaf, being the second one to have been built – may equally be a suitable candidate, although the temple is mentioned in the contemporary textual sources only a few times (Nuzzolo 2007: pl. 1; Nuzzolo 2010: tab. 1). Regardless of the question of the identification of the above-mentioned structure, what is even more interesting is that the SAR images may testify to the presence of another structure in the area in account. In fact, immediately to the south-east of the area just discussed, the SAR images 116 PES XIX/2017 GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S Fig. 4 Overview of the area of Abu Ghurab with the indication of the main monuments: (top) digital model of the area based on Google Earth and the topographic data; (middle) an image of the area from the ground; (down) satellite Google Earth image (Digital Globe 2015). A, H: Userkaf’s sun temple and valley temple; B–C: the two hills in between Userkaf’s and Nyuserre’s sun temples; D–E: Nyuserre’s sun temple and valley temple; F: the hill corresponding to Lepsius Pyramid XVI; G: area with a consistent presence of unknown archaeological remains PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 116 show the presence of an intense concentration of artefacts under the vegetation, which may actually feature the corners of another square/rectangular structure with the same orientation as the previously described one (see pl. 4 [G]). We do not have enough data at the moment to maintain with certainty that this is a separate structure and not a part of the previously discussed one. However, it is worth noting that upstream from the valley area we are dealing with, in the area between the two unearthed sun temples of Userkaf and Nyuserre, we have at least two wide hills which could serve as a large and suitable location for the upper temple of a solar complex (fig. 4 [B-C]). These tells are particularly impressive when observed in the field and are clearly distinguishable in both the Google Earth imagery and the 1978 photogrammetric map, where they are marked with a isohypse of 44.1 m and 50.9 m respectively (figs. 1 and 5), namely much higher than the hill where the sun temple of Nyuserre is located, at the height of 34.6 m. The latter mound was so inconvenient, from the architectural standpoint, as to force the architects of Nyuserre to build a huge artificial platform to support the temple on the northern side (Borchardt 1907: 26–27). Therefore, if the two above-mentioned tells were natural in origin, the choice for the location of both the sun temples of Userkaf and of Nyuserre would appear rather unsuitable and inconvenient from both topographical and architectural standpoints, especially for Nyuserre, who had the entire plateau of Abu Ghurab at his disposal when he assumed the throne. In another paper I had argued that one of the possible reasons for the location of the sun temple of Userkaf might have been the inter-visibility with other prestigious monuments located at Saqqara, Giza and Dahshur (Nuzzolo 2015: 292–293). The height of the hill where Userkaf’s sun temple is located should also have played a central role in his final choice, when we consider that the sun temple, being a completely new monument specifically dedicated to the sun god, had to play the role of a symbolic landmark of the sacred landscape of the early Fifth Dynasty. The same criteria of visibility and interconnection with previous royal monuments should certainly have been taken into account also by Nyuserre. However, as already said, the hill where Nyuserre’s sun temple was built is neither the highest one nor the most comfortable in Abu Ghurab. This would logically seem to demonstrate that the two hills to the south of Nyuserre’s sun temple might have been already occupied when Nyuserre started building his sun temple so as to force him to erect the monument in that specific position. Unfortunately, these two still unexplored tells between Userkaf’s and Nyussere’s sun temples, when investigated by means of the SAR technology (see pl. 4 [B–C]), do not present spectrometric features comparable with the valley area and do not show any archaeological evidence hidden below ground. Additionally, no trace of archaeological material is visible today on their surfaces, nor was it in the past (see also Bareš 1988: 119). We have to bear in mind, however, that, if a sun temple was actually located here, it may lay under several meters of sand and this would hinder its identification by means of the sole SAR images, which using the X band, cannot penetrate so deeply into the terrain (see above concerning the depth of penetration of the SAR images). Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII was situated at the south-east corner of the Abusir necropolis (see fig. 1), not too far from the valley temple of Nyuserre’s pyramid (Lepsius 1849: 137–138, pl. 32). Lepsius describes the pyramid as a remarkable building, composed of mud bricks and several small limestone blocks, and oriented towards the cardinal points. The size of this building, in particular, is very interesting when we consider that, based on Lepsius’ account, the pyramid had a square base of about 95 m and a considerable height, which is, however, not specified: “Die Höhe ist ganz beträchtlich” (Lepsius 1849: 137). If the account of Lepsius is right, this pyramid would be the largest of all of the Abusir pyramids except Neferirkare’s. In De Morgan’s map, this pyramid is completely missing, although the presence of an anomalous hill in the same topographical position is recorded (see fig. 1). During the excavations of the pyramid complex of Sahure in 1908, the site was briefly investigated by Borchardt, who concluded that it was probably a Middle Kingdom pyramid (Borchardt 1910: 147). However, his interpretation of the building is not entirely convincing. Indeed, in his report, we find very little evidence suggesting that the structure is a Middle Kingdom pyramid. First of all, Borchardt did not completely dig the structure because of the high groundwater level: as a consequence, he could only investigate the top layer of the site and he was not able to reach either the oldest levels of the building or its foundation, a crucial part to determine the date of a structure due to the great difference between Old and Middle Kingdom architecture in the lower levels. He also could not find any evidence of the casing stones of this building, which would also have helped him establish the date as well as the shape and slope of the pyramid.20 Secondly, besides some small, intrusive decorated objects of the Late Period, Borchardt found mainly a few fragmentary blocks of limestone, quartzite,21 basalt and granite, as well as some small pottery sherds datable from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom. In the only trench he was able to dig, only a few mud brick structures were found, together with a large concentration of tafla clay. These archaeological findings would agree more with a pyramid temple rather than an actual pyramid, and with an Old Kingdom rather than a Middle Kingdom date, also considering that Middle Kingdom pyramids are usually composed mostly of mud bricks, which were not found in the area. Thirdly, according to Borchardt himself, Lepsius Pyramid XXVIII seems to have been somehow connected to other mastaba tombs situated further to the south-east of the pyramid itself and dated to the late Old Kingdom, or the beginning of the First Intermediate Period at the latest (Borchardt 1910: 147–149, and pls. 2 and 15).22 Last but not least, it is also worth noting that no royal pyramid of the Middle Kingdom is actually missing and, as far as we know, the site of Abusir does not seem to have been used during the Middle Kingdom by the members of the royal family, whose tombs are located elsewhere. The area, instead, was the centre of official and popular cults devoted to the Fifth Dynasty rulers buried here (especially Nyuserre) during the late Old Kingdom and throughout the GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S PES XIX/2017 117 PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 117 118 PES XIX/2017 GL O S SI N G T HE PA S T: TH E F I F TH DY NA S TY SUN TE M PL E S Fig. 5 Topographic map of the area of Abusir and Abu Ghurab with isohypses and the related elevation model. Basic contour plans of the both pyramids and sun temples are overlaid. PES XIX_2017_studied_90-136_PES 14.12.17 9:47 Stránka 118