Virtual Phenomenology and Viewshed Analysis of the Colossi of Memnon during the reign of Amenhotep III in VR and GIS based environment

(1)

Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia

Virtual Phenomenology and Viewshed Analysis of the Colossi of Memnon during the reign of Amenhotep III

in VR and GIS based environment

Niklas Ekholm

MA thesis 45 credits in Archaeology Spring term 2020 Supervisor: Angus Graham and Daniel Löwenborg Campus Engelska Parken, Uppsala

(2)

Abstract

Ekholm, N. 2020. Virtual Phenomenology and Viewshed Analysis of the Colossi of Memnon during the reign of Amenhotep III in VR and GIS based environment

The Colossi of Memnon are a prominent feature of the constructed landscape at ancient Thebes (modern day Luxor, Egypt). They were built on the West Bank during the later years of Amenhotep III reign and they stood in front of his royal cult temple, Mansion of Millions of Years, known today colloquially as Kôm el-Hetan. There is no consensus on the purpose of the statues and it is plausible that they were meant to represent multiple things. However, what all the theories surrounding their purpose have in common is that they are all reliant on the visibility of the statues. The Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey led by Angus Graham (Uppsala University) discovered that the royal cult temple and colossi statues was built on top of an elevated area of what is believed to be have been a pre-existing wadi fan (Toonen et al.

2018; 2019). To the east of the temple, a minor channel of the Nile river was also discovered.

The aim of this thesis was to analyse the visibility and visual experience of the Colossi of Memnon during the 18^th Dynasty. By analysing the boreholes from the Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey, I have (re)constructed the geological features of the surrounding landscape in a game engine (Unity). The visual analysis was done by a combined GIS spatial analysis and a VR based phenomenological approach.

I concluded that the levees of the minor channel of the Nile were not elevated high enough to create any substantial blocking of the view from the floodplain or from inside of the channel during the low season. It was only when you got up close to the levees and kneeled on the ground that you would lose sight of parts of the colossi. As the surface level of the Nile rose during its annual cyclethe, it would be easier to observe the statues from any part of the minor channel.

As for the visual experience of observing the Colossi of Memnon from different parts of the model, the experience only changed slightly from viewing the statues from the view of the floodplain or the channel. What changed the experience drastically was if you approached the statues from the front of from the side. As you approached the statues from the front you had the statues standing symmetrically in front of the temple and they are in turn facing you. Being in front of the Colossi statues creates a feeling of being part of the statues’ experience. Not only where the humans meant to see the statues, I believe that the statues were meant to see us. This as the most ideal location to observe and visually experience the statues, is where we are in the view of both the Colossi of Memnon. The experience of the statues fades as you approach them from their side where you become the observer rather than the observed. The visual experience from the side also results in that you do not get to fully take part in the experience that both statues provide. This is because one of them becomes slightly blocked by the other.

Keywords: Colossi of Memnon, Kôm-el Hetan, Amenhotep III, Phenomenology, VR, Virtual reality, Viewshed analysis, Visibility, Borehole analysis, Nile river, Reconstruction,

Constructed landscape.

Master thesis in Archaeology 45 hp. Supervisor: Angus Graham and Daniel Löwenborg.

Defended and passed 21/08-2020

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden

(3)

Abstrakt

Ekholm, N. 2020. Virtuell fenomenologi och viewshed analys av Memnons stoder under Amenhotep III tid vid makten i en VR- och GIS-baserad miljö.

Memnons stoder är en del av det framträdande inslaget i det konstruerade landskapet i Thebe (dagens Luxor, Egypten). De byggdes på västbanken under de senare åren av Amenhotep III tid vid makten och de stod framför hans kult-tempel, känt idag som Kôm el-Hetan. Memnons stoder är en del av det framträdande inslaget i det konstruerade landskapet i Thebe (dagens Luxor, Egypten). Det finns inget samförstånd om statyernas avsedda syfte och det är troligt att de var tänkta att representera flera saker. Men vad alla teorier kring statyernas syfte har gemensamt är att samtliga är baserade på dess synlighet i landskapet. Under Angus Grahams Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey (Uppsala Universitet) (Toonen et al. 2018; 2019) upptäcktes att det kungliga kulttemplet och Memnons stoder var byggda på en upphöjd yta.

Öster om templet upptäcktes också en mindre grenkanal i floden Nilen. Syftet med denna avhandling var att analysera synligheten och den visuella upplevelsen av Memnons stoder under den 18:e dynastin. Genom att analysera borrhålen från Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey kunde jag rekonstruera det omgivande landskapets geologiska egenskaper i en spelmotor (Unity). Den visuella analysen gjordes genom en kombinerad GIS-rumslig analys och en VR-baserad fenomenologisk metod.

Jag drog slutsatsen att Nilens vallar inte var tillräckligt höga för att skapa någon väsentlig blockering av utsikten från flodslätten eller från insidan av kanalen under lågsäsongen. Det var först när du kom nära flodens vallar och satt dig på huk som du skulle tappa synen av delar av kolossen. Då Nilens årliga cykel höjde vattennivån i floden, blev synligheten tydligare från floden.

När det gäller den visuella upplevelsen av att observera Memnons stoder från olika delar av modellen, förändrades upplevelsen bara något från att titta på statyerna från utsikt över flodslätten eller från floden. Det som förändrade upplevelsen drastiskt var om du närmade dig statyerna framifrån eller från sidan. När du närmade dig statyerna framifrån hade du statyerna stående symmetriskt framför templet och de står i sin tur mot riktade mot dig. Att vara framför Memnons stoder skapar en känsla av att vara en del av statyernas upplevelse. Inte bara var människor tänkta att se statyerna, jag anser att statyerna var avsedda att se oss. Detta då den mest idealiska platsen att observera och visuellt uppleva statyerna är när man står i statyernas synfält. Upplevelsen av statyerna avtar när du närmar dig dem från sidan då du inte ingår i deras blickfång. Den visuella upplevelsen från sidan resulterar dessutom i att du inte får ta del av det intryck som båda statyerna ger. Detta då de blockerar varandra från sidorna och gör det omöjligt att observera dem i sin helhet.

Nyckelord: Memnons stoder, Kôm-el Hetan, Amenhotep III, Fenomenologi, VR, Virtuell verklighet, Borrhålsanalys, Rekonstruktion.

(4)

Acknowledgements

I would like to show my appreciation to my supervisor. Angus Graham, for the time and effort he has put into guiding me throughout the writing process of this thesis. His help has contributed to the completion of this thesis and for that, I am forever grateful! A thanks to Daniel Löwenborg for support with the technical side of the thesis.

I would also like to thank my classmates for the years we have spent together at the university and a special thanks to Rachel Elliot, for taking the time to read through my thesis and give me feedback.

And lastly, a thanks to my girlfriend Michaela and my puppy Luna, although she (the puppy, not girlfriend) can be a handful, she helped me get out of the apartment and take necessary breaks during the more challenging parts of the writing.

(5)

List of Figures

Figure 1. Landscape surrounding Kôm el-Hetan. Boreholes from Toonen et al (2018; 2019) geoarchaeological survey marked. Image made by author. ... 30 Figure 2. Soil textural triangle, texture coloured after Toonen et al (2019): Appendix A.

Triangle edited by author. ... 31 Figure 3. Boreholes from line 1, based on Toonen et al (2019): Appendix A. For more in

depth information, see said appendix. ... 31 Figure 4. Interpretation of the Nile Channel branch. Based on borehole analysis. Figure by

author. ... 32 Figure 5. Boreholes from line 2, based on Toonen et al (2019) appendix A. For in depth

information, see said appendix. ... 34 Figure 6. Early stage of terrain. Black markers placed along Line 1 and Line 2. White markers in place of Colossi of Memnon. Created by author ... 35 Figure 7. Model with coloured terrain and added water terrain layer. Shown from above.

Created by author. ... 35 Figure 8. 3-D Model of the landscape, built in SketchUp Pro 20.0. 1024x1024m. Model

created by Author. ... 35 Figure 9. 3-D model implemented in ArcScene, built in SketchUp Pro 20.0. Models created

by Author. ... 35 Figure 10. Viewshed of Colossi of Memnon from top of base, standing (left image) (approx.

165cm) and kneeling (right image) (approx. 100cm). (Top left, each image) Character indicates what position the individual is in. ... 36 Figure 11a. Position A. Standing and kneeling in the eastern floodplain, 605 meters east of the

Colossi of Memnon. (Bottom left) Character indicates what position the character is in.

(Bottom middle) Bird eye view of the landscape 1024x1024m, red dot indicates where in the landscape the character is standing. (Right) Model of the northern colossi of

Memnon, scanned and created by Mafto (Mission Archéologique Française de Thèbes- Ouest) and Insight (Insightdigital.org). Downloaded from Insights scetchfab page (https://sketchfab.com/insight) 15/04-20. Edited by author to include double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt by author. Dark transparent area indicates the blocked view of the Colossi from the character. ... 37 Figure 11b. Position B. Standing and kneeling in the eastern floodplain, next to borehole

AS111, 505 meters west of the Colossi of Memnon ... 38 Figure 11c. Position C. Standing and kneeling in the eastern floodplain, just to the east to the

eastern levee, 465 meters east of the Colossi of Memnon. ... 39 Figure 11d. Position D. Standing and keeling on the eastern levee, 430 meters west of the

Colossi of Memnon. ... 40 Figure 12a. Position A. Standing and keeling on the eastern levee, 310 meters west of the

Colossi of Memnon. (Bottom left) Character indicates what position the character is in.

(Bottom middle) Bird eye view of the landscape 1024x1024m, red dot indicates where in the landscape the character is standing. (Right) Model of the northern colossi of

Memnon, scanned and created by Mafto (Mission Archéologique Française de Thèbes- Ouest) and Insight (Insightdigital.org). Downloaded from Insights scetchfab page (https://sketchfab.com/insight) 15/04-20. Edited by author to include double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt by author. Dark transparent area indicates the blocked view of the Colossi from the character. ... 42 Figure 12b. Position B. Standing and keeling on the eastern levee, 270 meters west of the

Colossi of Memnon. ... 43

(7)

Figure 12c. Position C. Standing and keeling on the eastern levee, 230 meters west of the Colossi of Memnon. ... 44 Figure 13. Line 1, position A, B & C, approximate 560 meters north of the northern colossi of

Memnon. (Bottom left, each image) Character indicates what position the user is in.

(Bottom middle, each image) Bird eye view of the landscape 1024x1024m, red dot indicates where in the landscape the character is standing. (Top left, each image) Nile surface level during the scenario. (Right) Model of the northern colossi of Memnon, scanned and created by Mafto (Mission Archéologique Française de Thèbes-Ouest) and Insight (Insightdigital.org). Downloaded from Insights scetchfab page

(https://sketchfab.com/insight) 15/04-20. Edited by author to include double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt by author. Dark transparent area indicates the blocked view of the Colossi from the character. ... 45 Figure 14a. Approaching the Colossi of Memnon by climbing the eastern levee. Surface level

is set to 67.5 msl+. (Bottom Left) indicates user is standing (Bottom right) Bird eye view of the landscape 1024x1024m, red dot indicates where in the landscape the user is

standing. ... 47 Figure 14b. Approaching the Colossi of Memnon by climbing the eastern levee. Upper image, half way up the levee. Lower image, on top of western levee. ... 48 Figure 15a. Approaching the Colossi of Memnon during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley

in a standing position. Surface level is set to 68.6 msl+. (Bottom Left) indicates user is standing and is on a vessel. (Bottom right) Bird eye view of the landscape 1024x1024m, red dot indicates where in the landscape the user is standing. ... 49 Figure 15b. Approaching the Colossi of Memnon during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley

in a standing position. ... 50 Figure 15c. Approaching the Colossi of Memnon during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley

in a standing position. ... 51 Figure 16a. (Upper image) Sight of the Colossi of Memnon, from the view of the north-

eastern levee. Surface level set to 72.2 msl+. Character (Upper image, bottom left) indicates user is in a standing position. (Bottom image) Bird eye view of the same scenario. (Upper image, bottom right) Bird eye view of the landscape 1024x1024m, red dot indicates where in the landscape the character is standing. ... 53 Figure 16b. Approaching the Colossi of Memnon during the high season (surface level 72.2

msl+). ... 54

(8)

List of Tables

Table 1: Approximate discharge from the tributaries of the Nile basin. Based on Woodward et al 2007. Table by author. ... 11 Table 2: Colossi of Memnon, South & North Colossi height shown in msl+ (Mean sea level)

from various parts of the statue. Based on information from Sourouzian & Stadelmann 2003. Table by author. ... 16 Table 3: Water surface slopes, based on information from Simons et al (1990). *Simons et al

did not include Luxor, distance shown is from Esna-Nag Hamadi. NH=Nag Hamadi.

Table and re-measured distance by author. ... 23 Table 4: Water surface level the year 1892 in Asyūt and Aswan. Based on information from

Willcocks and Craig (1913). Elevation shown in a 5-day mean. Tables created by author.

... 24 Table 5: Water surface slopes during the year 1892, based on information from Simons et al

(1990) and Willcocks & Craig (1913). Numbers have been rounded up to two decimal places. Calculation and rework of the slope by author. ... 25 Table 6: Water surface elevation during the year 1892 in Asyūt & Luxor, based on

information from Simons et al. (1990) and Willcocks & Craig (1913). Luxor calculated from the reduced Asyūt model. Calculation and reworking of the data by this author. ... 27 Table 7. Estimated water surface elevation during the year 1353 BCE in Luxor, presented as a table and graph. Based on information from Simons et al (1990) and Willcocks & Craig (1913). Calculated from reduced Asyūt model. Calculation and reworking of the data by this author. ... 28 Table 8. Historical flood markers from the Third Intermediate Period, based on Lauffray

1971: Figure 9bs. Calculated to the year 1353 BCE using the accumulation rate at ∼1.1 mm/year with margin of error at +/- 10 %. ... 29 Table 9. Each borehole from line 1 and line 2 shown in msl+ during 18^th dynasty and with

geological interpretation. Based on Toonen et al (2018: 2019) and discussion in chapter 4,2... 33

(9)

1. Introduction

The Colossi of Memnon are a prominent feature of the constructed landscape of ancient Thebes (today’s Luxor, Egypt). They were built on the West Bank during the later years of Amenhotep III reign and they stood in front of his royal cult temple, a Mansions of Millions of Years, today colloquially known as Kôm el-Hetan. There is no consensus on the purpose of the statues and it is plausible that they were meant to represent multiple things. However, what all the theories surrounding their purpose have in common is that they are all reliant on the statues being visible.

During Angus Graham’s Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey (Uppsala University) it was discovered that the royal cult temple was built on top of an elevated area of what is believed to be have been a pre-existing wadi fan. To the east of the temple, a minor channel of the Nile river was also discovered.

By analysing the boreholes from the Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey, I set out in this thesis to create a reconstructed model of the landscape where I could test the visibility of the Colossi of Memnon. A focus was placed upon the geological features deduced from the borehole analysis and of how much they block the view of the statues. The Colossi will be observed from the floodplain, levees and from inside the channel where the character in this thesis will be standing on a hypothetical boat. The changes to the landscape that the annual cycle of the Nile would bring are tested to see how the rise in surface level would affect the visibility. The model is experienced through Virtual Reality (VR) goggles to create the illusion of being in the landscape. A phenomenological approach is conducted in conjunction with the visibility analysis to try to get a better understanding of how the visual experience would differ as you approached it from different directions and during different times of the Nile’s annual cycle.

It is my belief that this will give us a better understanding of what the role of the Colossi of Memnon’s had in the constructed landscape on the West Bank during the 18^th dynasty.

(10)

1.1 Purpose and Research Questions

The research aim of this project, is to understand the visible relation between the Colossi of Memnon and the surrounding landscape. Utilising the data provided by Angus Graham’s Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey (Toonen et al. 2018; 2019) and bearing in mind that the Colossi of Memnon were intended to be viewed by individuals travelling through the landscape, my intention is to analyse to what extent the channel affected the view of the Colossi The landscape for this project is restricted to a 1024x1024 meter area where the boreholes from the Luxor Harbours and Waterscapes Survey located the minor channel.

By analysing different scenarios in a GIS and VR based environment, I hope to be able to answer the following research questions:

• Did the changes during the annual cycle of the Nile change the visibility of the Colossi from the view of the channel? And how did the levees affect the visibility?

• By approaching the Colossi of Memnon from different directions, how does the visual experience of the Colossi change?

• How does the methodological approach of using a VR environment complement the more traditional GIS based viewshed analysis?

My hope is that answering these questions will lead to a better understanding of the Colossi of Memnon’s role in the constructed landscape during the 18^th dynasty, and furthermore lead to a methodological discussion of the usage of a combined VR and GIS based viewshed analysis.

(11)

2. Background

In this chapter, I will give a brief background of the Nile River and its annual cycle. I will also touch on the geomorphological aspects of the river’s migration in the Nile valley. This is intended to give the reader the background to be able to understand the borehole analysis (see chapter 4.2) and the calculations of the Nile surface level (see chapter 4.1).

2.1 The Nile River

The Nile stretches nearly 6700km, from its youngest part in the highlands of Ethiopia to the Nile delta in northern Egypt where the river meets the Mediterranean Sea. The Nile’s main tributaries are three rivers; the White Nile, the Blue Nile and the Atbara River. The rivers come from two different basins and they meet up in Sudan and form the Nile river. The Blue Nile and Atbara River leave their catchments in the highlands of Ethiopia and the White Nile flows from the Great Lakes region of Central Africa (Abtew & Behailu Dessu 2019: 1f, 4; Williams et al 2015:72). Over the last century, dams have been built on the Nile river and its basin, giving humans more control over the river. In 1971, the Aswan High Dam was finished and with it,an end tothe high and low seasons of water flow and the sediment discharge into the Egyptian Nile Valley and Delta (Woodward et al. 2008:263).

Before the Aswan High Dam, the discharge was highly seasonal. The water brought sediments that would get distributed across the Nile Valley and flushed out into the Mediterranean Sea (Williams et al. 2015:73). When it comes to the water flow, it is highly dependent on the season. From June to September, the Nile experiences its annual peak flow.

Heavy monsoonal rains fall on the highlands of Ethiopia and the water runs downstream into the Blue Nile and Atbara that then transport it down to the Nile river. During this peak flow, the Blue Nile makes up around 68% of all the water flow into the Nile from its major basins.

The rain in the highlands also powers the river Atbara that makes up 22% of all water flow into the Nile during this season of inundation. The White Nile, on the other hand, makes up only for 10% of the discharge during this time, but the steady flow from its basin in Central Africa is seen during the drier months when the highlands of Ethiopia experience a much drier climate.

Throughout the low flow season, the White Nile stands for around 83% of the water flow and the Blue Nile stands only for the remaining 17%. The Atbara river dries out during the low season (Woodward et al. 2008:277).

Low season High season

White Nile 83% 10%

Blue Nile 17% 68%

Atbara - 22%

During the annual peak of the Nile’s discharge (before the construction of the Aswan High Dam), the water level would rise and overflow the lower levees along the Nile River, finding ways into the valley that has up to this point, been free from the water. This water would transform the valley into a lake-like landscape. The landscape stayed this way for about a month, then the water started to drain more and more rapidly downstream towards the

Table 1: Approximate discharge from the tributaries of the Nile basin. Based on Woodward et al 2007. Table by author.

(12)

Mediterranean Sea. In December or January, the valley would have returned to its ordinary appearance. By looking at the documented floods from the later parts of nineteenth century, we see an average rise in the Nile of 8.2 meters at the city of Aswan in late July to September, while in the Cairo area, the flood only reached 6.5 meters. We can also see a delay as the floodwater first reached Aswan 12 days earlier than Cairo in May and six days earlier in September (Said 1993: 96f). The rise of the Nile during the inundation period has varied greatly over the centuries and even from one year to the next, depending on the discharge from the basin running into the Nile. This information is important to remember when we attempt to calculate the 1353 BCE surface level in the Luxor area (chapter 4.1). The ancient Egyptians recognized the pattern of the annual flooding of the Nile and created three main seasons based on it (Bard 2000: 56f).

The Nile Valley is what is called a convex river floodplain and it has, for the majority, an alluvial foundation. It is made up of silt, clay and sand that the Nile brought with it during the annual flooding. This sediment gets horizontally and vertically sorted along the Nile Valley.

The finer sediment got carried and deposited across the floodplain, while the coarser sediment got deposited along the banks, creating a faster build-up along the banks compared to the rest of the floodplain. The result was that after the flood had moved further down the valley, high levees would have been built along the banks of the river (Said 1993: 61). The sediment could also accumulate and form banks or islands along the riverbed. This could in time force the water to split into two or more channels, creating a braided pattern. It is believed that the Nile River was more like a braid during the Pharaonic period and that the straightening of the modern river is a result of lower discharge of water and sediment in the valley. The split channels could in time silt up, as the river abandoned minor channels (Graham 2010: 125ff.). Rivers that have an alluvial river bed also have a tendency to fill up. This means that sediment that is being transported by the water flow gets deposited on the riverbed, which makes it harder for the water to flow in that direction; if the stream is not strong enough to erode the new sediment on the riverbed, it may continue, building up over time, forcing the water to find a new direction to flow (Singh 2006: 404f). In the case of the Nile, it could also be a result of the migration of the river itself. The river migrates laterally back and forth along the valley and this is believed to cause the shifts or ‘jumps’ around islands and silt up the channel that is left behind (Graham 2010: 126).

The Nile River has migrated its course laterally across the Egyptian valley over the centuries. We know this from many sources, including the archaeological finds, where the settlements are located in the valley during certain historical periods, by analysing sediment size, and also from geological finds, such as old levees that now stand on dry land away from the main Nile River. It is not only the main Nile River that changes its routes in the valley, its branches change direction or even dry out and disappear over time.

This is the result of the natural processes of erosion and deposition together with a high discharge and sediment load. The Egyptian valley is covered by a layer of alluvium, which is highly susceptible to erosion. The high discharge led to a meandering and braided river. We see this in the topography of the floodplain, as it has in conjunction with the decreasing of discharge and sediment load, undertaken changes. The river has become straighter and less braided.

Additional branches and channels also silt up as the discharge decreases (Graham 2010: 125f;

Said 1993: 61f). However, during ancient times the Nile is believed to have been able to move up to 9 km every 1000 years (this includes channel jumps). The river tends to move outwards and downstream at its bends, as long as it does not reach the desert edge (Lutley & Bunbury 2008: 3).

(13)

2.2 The use of virtual reality and synthetic landscapes in archaeology

In this chapter, I will give a background to the reader of how Virtual Reality (VR) and other similar visual technologies, have been used in archaeology. I will also give my own explanation of why I chose a VR approach in this project.

With the introduction of VR technology and VR modelling, its potential to be used in scientific research was quickly realised by archaeologists and other disciplines. In the archaeological discipline, it was mainly used to create illustrations of the past. Gillings (2008) critiqued this early approach and argued that the use of VR in archaeology was not being used to its full potential. He believed that VR technology tended to be applied to archaeological data without any clear research questions in mind, hence producing sub-optimal results (Gillings 2008: 223f).

The uses and accessibility of VR technology has grown in conjunction with the spread of low-cost immersive technology. This is a result of the growing interest in the VR entertainment industry with electronic games (also known as “serious games”) as its main selling point. While it has become easier and cheaper to develop VR models in recent years, VR is not being used to its full potential in the archaeological discipline. VR is mainly being used as a tool to illustrate or preserve the past in collaboration with cultural heritage studies rather than a tool to investigate the past. By using the infrastructure and technology that is being used to develop serious games, museums and companies working within the cultural heritage domain have started to develop interactive media within VR and Augmented Reality (AR) to reach out to the general public. By combining storytelling with dramatization, they have managed to deliver an experience that captures the user’s interest (Ferdani et al. 2020: 6ff). Examples of where this technology has been used include Ancient Pompeii (Maïm et al. 2017), A night in the forum (Ferdani et al. 2020) and the virtual reality reconstruction of Otanto (De Paolis et al. 2011). The technology has also been used to record, restore and digitalize artifacts and sites for preservation (Bruno et al. 2010: 42; Doležal 2019:85; Marto et al. 2019: 79ff).

The use of VR as a tool to create simulations or to analyse the landscape is not as commonly used, but there are a few exceptions. In Ferdani et al. (2020), they did use the data they gathered from letting people use the model to create a workflow prioritization map and a map that showed where in the model of “A night in the forum” the users had spent most of their time.

However, this was only a small part of the project to show off the potential of the work (Ferdani et al. 2020:8f). Stuart Eve (2012) applied a phenomenological approach to both a VR and AR landscape. In his VR experiment, he imported elevation data of the landscape into a gaming engine (CryEngine2) and built a basic model of a historical structure (Peel Gap, UK) to be experienced. He compared this experience with a real-life reconstruction and an AR application that allowed him to experience a similar model to his VR experiment in the real landscape (Eve 2012:590ff). Eve believes the AR approach holds the most merit due to it being a combination between a computer-based analysis and phenomenological fieldwork in the real landscape. In 2017, he again applied the AR approach in his development of “embodied GIS”. In this case, he transformed GIS data into an iPad that he took with him into the physical landscape. While being in the field, he could by looking through the iPad see his GIS data in forms of models of houses and markings in the landscape (Eve 2012: 590ff; 2017).

While I see the appeal of the AR approach Eve has taken over the fully VR approach, it does lead one to assume that the landscape remains unchanged since the era used in the analysis.

In the case of this project, it is not possible to go with an AR approach. This is because the landscape surrounding the Colossi of Memnon has drastically changed since the day they were constructed. This is seen from in the borehole analysis from The Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey (see chapter 4.2). The VR approach provides the opportunity to reshape the landscape.

(14)

2.3 Amenhotep III

Amenhotep III was the ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt throughout a 38-year long period (ca.

1391-1353 BCE) during the 18^th dynasty. He inherited the empire from his father Thutmosis IV, who left him an empire that stretched from northern Syria to the Fifth cataract of the Nile in Sudan in the south. His reign was a time of relative peace and Egypt experienced a time of wealth and power (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:33ff).

His mother was Mutemwia, a minor wife of Thutmosis IV. Mutemwia played a major role in her son’s reign and on the monuments, we see her being called “great royal wife”

(hemet nesu weret), “king’s mother” (mut nesu) and “God’s mother” (mut netjer). The two latter titles would have been given to her after her son’s coronation. In the temple of Luxor, Amenhotep III’s divine birth is depicted. The god Amen-Ra, taking the form of Thutmosis IV, visited Mutemwia in her palace (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:35f).

“When he had transformed himself into the majesty of this husband, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Menkheprura, given life, he found her as she was resting in the beauty of her palace (…) Words spoken by Amen-Ra, lord of the thrones of the two lands, before her:

“Amenhotep, ruler of Thebes, is the name of this child have I placed in your body. He shall exercise the beneficent kingship in this whole land. He shall rule the two lands like Ra forever” (Urk. IV: 1714, 6-1715, 16).”

This depiction shows us the importance of Amenhotep III. He was seen as a god and in this scenario, his father is not his predecessor Thutmosis IV, but rather the god Amen-Ra himself taking the form of Thutmosis. He is the one that gives the child his name and he declares that Amenhotep shall rule the two lands, Upper and Lower Egypt, forever, just like Ra. It also shows the significance of his mother, Mutemwia, as she is the wife, chosen by Amen-Ra to bear the god’s child and future ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt. Mutemwia appears next to Amenhotep III on the Colossi of Memnon outside of his royal cult temple, Kôm el-Hetan (See cap 2.4).

When it came for Amenhotep III to inherit the throne after his father’s (Thutmosis IV) passing, he was still just a boy of 10 or 12 years of age. However, within the first two years of his reign, it is documented that he ordered the opening of new limestone quarries at Tura.

During his reign, he only participated in one military campaign during his fifth regnal year and it was to strike down rebel tribes in Kush (today’s Sudan) (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:36f). Instead of going out on military campaigns, Amenhotep focused on leaving behind great monuments.

On a building stele from his Mansion of Millions of Years, Kôm el-Hetan, it says;

“His Majesty’s heart was pleased with making very many great monuments, the like of which never existed before since the primeval time of the two lands” (Urk. IV:1648, 4-5)

And so he did. With the exception of Ramesses II, who ruled for a longer period of time, Amenhotep III is the ruler who has left the most monuments and buildings behind (Kozloff &

Bryan 1992:33). In lower and middle Egypt, he expanded and reworked old shrines to give them new life. Sites like Athribis, Bubastis and Heliopolis got reworked during Amenhotep III’s reign. In Upper Egypt and the region of Sudan, new sanctuaries with enormous sculptures where created and old sanctuaries got redecorated (Kozloff 2012:120). In Thebes, Amenhotep renovated and added extensions at Luxor Temple. This changed the temple from being a collection of small shrines to a coherent, magnificent temple (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:33). On the West Bank of Thebes, prior to Amenhotep III, was a long history of necropolis extending as far back as the Old Kingdom with its centre in the north. During the reign of Amenhotep III, he constructed the temple and palace complex of Malkata and the artificial harbour, known today as Birket Habu, located in the southern part of the western bank. This is seen to imply a transfer of importance from the old urban centre on the eastern bank of Thebes to the new site in the west (Kemp & O’Connor 1974:114, 134). Slightly north of the temple complex, the construction of Amenhotep III’s royal cult temple was constructed with two colossal seated statues of himself in front of the first pylon (See chapter 2.4, 2.4.1) (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:33).

(15)

All rulers where seen as gods, but Amenhotep took this a step further. Most temples from the New Kingdom were dedicated to the traditional gods, but during the reign of Amenhotep III, he put himself among the gods. Temples and shrines that were dedicated to him and his divine being were constructed. It is believed that he wanted his people to see him as one of the gods and not just their representative on earth (Kozloff 2012:122).

2.4 Amenhotep III’s Mansion of Millions of Years, Kôm el-Hetan

Amenhotep III’s royal cult temple, Mansion of a Millions of Years, Kôm el-Hetan, was built west of the Nile River in the Theban Nile valley. This sort of building often gets the term

“mortuary temple” connected to it, but many Egyptologists believe this term is too connected to modern western attributes to be applicable to the structures in ancient Egypt. The royal cult temple is more than just the final resting place for the individual as the term “mortuary temple”

indicates. Instead, as is the case for Amenhotep III, he was buried away from the cult temple, in the valley of the kings; the cult temple’s purpose was to sustain his life in “millions of years”.

It was a place for the royal cult of Amenhotep III to be tended to and ensure regular regeneration of the divine ruler (Haeny 1997:86f, Ullman 2016:417f, 432).

The royal mansion was built during the 18th dynasty, around the year 1400 BCE. To the south of the royal cult temple, the palace town Malkata with the adjacent harbour, Birket Habu, was located. In the west, the royal cult temple reaches as far back as the mountains of Thebes.

The location of the mansion stands out as it is the only royal cult temple from the New Kingdom that is located on the modern-day floodplain in Thebes. The location chosen for the royal cult temple has been used to explain how the annual flood has been a primary factor in the destruction of the temple during the Ramesside Period (Casciati & Borja 2004:1721;

Sourouzian 2000:1021ff). One of the theories as to why it is located in an area in danger of the annual flooding is based on the idea that the lower courtyards were meant to be flooded, as a tribute to the annual flood and also to symbolize rejuvenation. However, the work of the Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey concludes that the temple was not in any substantial danger of being flooded during the period it was active (Toonen et al. 2019). This is because it was built on the highest elevated area of what is believed to be a pre-existing wadi fan. The flood did not reach the floor level of the temple courts regularly during the inundation season until the Ptolemaic Period, and by then the destruction of the temple had already occurred (Toonen et al. 2019:203f). During the flooding of the Nile River, the royal cult temple would instead be standing dry on top of the wadi fan, with the surrounding landscape covered by the flood. This would give the image of the temple resemblance to a mythical primeval mound. The primeval mound comes from the Egyptian creation origin where the land was covered by the “nun”

(water) and the primeval mound was the first land that emerged into visibility and life, while still being surrounded by the nun (O’Connor 1998: 160). The resemblance of the royal cult temple being surrounded by the flood to the primeval mound could be one of the reasons why it was selected as a location for the royal cult temple (Toonen et al. 2019:204).

Instead of the flood, the reason behind the temple’s destruction is believed to have been earthquakes. The foundation the temple stood on is thought to have been insufficient to withstand the natural disaster (Haeny 1981:108). Karakhanyan et al. (2014) have dated the first evidence of an earthquake to have occurred after the year 1200 BCE (Karakhanyan et al.

2014:54). After its destruction, the temple was used as a quarry for building blocks that were then reused in other constructions (Casciati & Borja 2004:1721; Sourouzian 2000:1021ff).

During the time it was active, it was believed that the royal temple had a surrounding wall that stretched 700 meters along its north-south dimensions and 550 meters along its east-west dimensions (Sourouzian 2015:78). This is problematic based on the new information acquired by Toonen et al. (2019), which indicated that the surrounding wall would have reached from the high ground on top of the wadi fan, down into the floodplain where it would have been exposed to the flooding of the Nile on an annual basis (Toonen et al. 2019:200ff). Keeping in consideration that the theory needs to be re-evaluated based on the new information available

(16)

concerning the landscape during the 18^th dynasty, I have determined to not use the large surrounding wall in the model.

2.4.1 Colossi of Memnon

At the entrance to the royal cult temple stands the two colossal statues that are the main analytical element of this thesis. These statues, known as the Colossi of Memnon, depict Amenhotep III in a sitting position on his throne with his hands placed on his knees. He is wearing the royal headcloth, nemes, and a loincloth. He is also believed to have been wearing the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, which today is missing from the colossal statues.

By his legs stands a queen on either side of him. They are the king’s wife and mother. To his right (south) stands his wife Tiye and to his left (north) stands his mother Mutemwia (Sourouzian & Stadelmann 2003:440ff). The presence of his mother, Mutemwia, among the statues could indicate that she was still

alive during the construction of the Colossi (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:36).

The two statues are slightly different in size with the south colossus base being 3.60 meters at the front and 4 meters at the back while the north colossus base being 3.30 meters in the front and 4.40 meters in the back, both measured from the base of the temple floor. The statues themselves are 13.97 meters (northern colossus) and 14.76 meters (southern colossus) tall. The missing double crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt are believed to have been around 3 meters high each. This would have given the statues a height of around 21 meters each (Sourouzian & Stadelmann 2003:440ff).

The damaged colossi still stands in front of the temple ruins of Kôm el-Hetan. Today most of the first, second and third pylons have now all disappeared together with the

decorated surrounding wall (Sourouzian 2015:77ff).

The colossal statues were not purely meant to be decorative; instead, they had both a symbolic and practical purpose. The depiction of a king sitting on his throne is a commonly used motif for royalty in ancient Egypt. Statues of the seated ruler were often the recipients of sacrifices, offerings and prayers (Kozloff & Bryan 1992:130). The colossal size of the statues also indicated that the king had entered the realm of the gods and left the human dimension.

The two statues were erected in front of the first pylon and marked the entrance to the royal cult temple. All of the statues were additionally considered living entities and they served as the guardians of the temple. The impressive size was certainly also meant to impress and/or frighten people who gazed upon it and show the rulers’ political and military power (Badawy 1978:97ff;

Bickel 2002:78;). Bickel (2002) argues that the Colossi was also erected in front of the temple to give the common people of Egypt a way to interact spiritually with the divine being of Amenhotep and the gods. She emphasises the importance of the statues being accessible at all time for the people. (Bickel 2002:78; Kozoff 2012:127). This can only be achieved if the statues are visible in the landscape.

The aforementioned aspects of the Colossi of Memnon are all reliant on the statues being visible. This indicates that the statues were meant to stand out and be easily seen in the landscape. As previously stated in chapter 2.4, the location chosen for the Colossi and the temple itself enhanced this aspect as they were placed on top of the wadi fan. In the

Table 2: Colossi of Memnon, South & North colossus height shown in msl+ (Mean sea level) from various parts of the statue. Based on information from Sourouzian & Stadelmann 2003. Table by author.

(17)

phenomenological analysis of this thesis, their visibility will be tested during different phases of the Nile’s annual cycle.

2.5 The Beautiful Festival of the Valley

One of the periods during the Nile’s annual cycle that will be analysed in this thesis, is one that occurs during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley.

The festival was celebrated annually during the 18^th dynasty in the second month of the summer (Šmw II) (Fukaya 2007:98). By using Von Beckerath’s (1997) conversion Tables C and B, to convert the month first into the Julian calendar and then subtract the requisite number of days into the Gregorian calendar, we understand that during the later years of Amenhotep III’s reign (approximately 1353 BCE), the second month of the summer equates to early April to early May in the Gregorian calendar (Von Beckerath 1997:195ff). The surface level of the Nile during the festival is discussed in chapter 4.1.

The Beautiful Festival of the Valley was closely associated with funeral beliefs. It was a time when a cult statue of Amun was transported by a procession of priests from Luxor over to the West Bank of the Nile. The cult statue of Amun took up residence in his chapel at Deir el Bahri, close to the shrine of Hathor. From there, he visited the royal cult temples located on the West Bank. The visit itself to the cult temples on the West Bank was meant to symbolize renewal of the god through the merging of the divine rulers (Ullmann 2016:7). The festival was not only important for the ruler and the state of the cosmos, but as with most festivals in Thebes, it gave the common people a possibility to see and interact (from a distance), with the cult statue of Amun. The families also spent their nights at the family tombs awaiting the encounter of their deceased loved ones by drinking and feasting all night (Bell 1997:137)

One of the most important stops during the festival would have been the reigning king’s cult temple (Bell 1997:137; Kozloff 2012:313). Kozloff (2012) writes about the possibility that during the reign of Amenhotep III, his royal cult temple could have been the start and end of the trek on the West Bank. She argues that the close proximity to the artificial harbour Birket Habu would mean that the cult statue of Amun could be offloaded and then carried through the royal cult temple. Reaching the back of the temple, they would turn northward and walk along the desert edge until they reached the royal cult temple of Hatshepsut, Deir el Bahri (Kozloff 2012:313f).

On an inscription on a stela in the royal cult temple of Amenhotep the III, (see 2.4), it says;

“resting place of the Lord of the Gods at his Festival in the Valley in Amun’s procession to the West to visit the gods of the West when he will reward his majesty with life and dominion”

(Teeter 2011:66).

The inscription shows that the royal cult temple of Amenhotep III was certainly meant to be a resting place for Amun during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley. Whether the procession used the temple as a starting and ending point on the West Bank as Kozloff proposes is uncertain. Kozloff’s (2012) theory was formed before the Nile minor channel was discovered during the Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey (Toonen et al. 2017; 2018), but as the procession would have to travel by boat to reach the West Bank of the Nile, the idea of utilizing the harbour that was built during Amenhotep III’s reign is not unlikely. But how does this change with the discovery of the Nile channel branch? It is still possible that Kôm el-Hetan could have been the first stop on the West Bank, but instead they could have utilized the Nile channel branch to travel to the temple.

Another interesting aspect of Kozloff’s (2012) theory is how the procession reached the temple at the end of the festival. As previously mentioned, there are believed to have been two different ways to approach the temple: through the first pylon, on the east side of the temple or by the same gate in the back of the temple which Kozloff suggested the possession used in the beginning of the festival to exit Kôm el-Hetan and reach Deir el Bahri. It is potentially more

(18)

likely that the procession at the end of the festival would have travelled from Deir el Bahri north of the temple and entered the temple from the front, through the first pylon. By taking this route, they would have to travel along the Nile channel branch, and I propose that there is a chance that they would have utilized the channel to travel to the temple by boat.

Johnson (1998) argues that both sides of Thebes during the New Kingdom period, were essentially one large temple complex dedicated to the cult of Amun-Ra, and that the different festivals in Thebes were interconnected with one another to represent different aspects of Amun. The festival of Opet took place on the east bank at Luxor temple where Amun was born and also reborn during the festival. North of Luxor temple was the temple complex of Karnak where Amun resided for most of the year and across the river in the west was the land of the dead, where Amun was celebrated as the deceased king during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley (Johnson 1998:66f). This idea of the festivals being interconnected with one another is also argued in Masashi Fukaya’s (2007) comparative study of life force in the Beautiful Festival of the Valley and the Opet festival (Fukaya 2007:95f, 104, 115f).

During the Opet festival, throughout the reign of Amenhotep III, parts of the procession was made by boat. This can be seen in depictions of the festival scenes and was an essential part of the festival (Darnell 2010:5f). I suggest that there is a possibility, based on similarities with the Opet festival that during the Beautiful Festival of the Valley, boats could have been utilized to a larger extent than just to travel over the Nile to the West Bank. Therefore, in the analytic part of this thesis, I will analyse how the Colossi of Memnon would have appeared for the procession traveling on the Nile channel branch in a southward direction.

(19)

3 Theory and Method

3.1 Theory

The theoretical approach that will be employed in this study is based on the theory of, landscape archaeology, constructed landscape and phenomenology. At its core, landscape archaeology is based on the notion that the landscape is constructed by the interactions between biological agents and processes from humans, both individuals and social groups. The landscape can be seen as a temporal and spatial environment that manifests the relation between humans and the environment. A landscape by this definition is a social construct (Ekblom 2016:97; Ekblom &

Ljungkvist 2018:92f). Constructed landscape builds on this and states that any constructions, how small they may be, does change the meaning of the landscape. A trail or a campsite, that does not change the landscapes topography or a more conspicuous constructions, as a farm, village or a larger monument are all reflections of the humans projecting ideas and emotions onto the landscape (Knapp & Ashmore 1999:10).

The landscape approach is well suited to be used in an interdisciplinary study where archaeology draws upon other social sciences, humanities and natural sciences (Ekblom 2016:97) and in this study, I will use the natural science of geomorphology to analyse the boreholes and model the Nile River (see 2.1, 4.2 & 5.1).

The theoretical landscape approach works well in conjunction with the phenomenological approach. The key to phenomenology is embodiment. It is how humans experience and understand the world around us by virtue of our senses. The landscape is seen to have an agency in relation to humans. This affects how we think about and experience the landscape through the five senses of the human body: smell, touch, sight, hearing, and taste. Therefore, the human body is the primary research tool of phenomenology (Tilley 2008:271).

3.1.1 Phenomenology

Christopher Tilley’s (1994) “A phenomenology of Landscape” and Chris Gosden’s (1994)

“Social Being and Time” are seen as having introduced the theory of phenomenology to the field of archaeology, which over the last two decades has developed into a complex theory and archaeological method. Phenomenology has its origin in the post-processual archaeological critique of the 1980s, where the need for investigating symbolism, meaning and subjectivity grew among archaeologists (Gosden 1994; Johnson 2012a: 270; Tilley 1994). The base of phenomenology is, as mentioned in the previous section, embodiment and use of our senses in the environment as an analytic tool. By moving around in the landscape once inhabited by the humans we are to analyse, archaeologists can get a better understanding of how the humans of the past perceived the land around them. The argument is that our bodies and senses are still very similar to those of early humans, and we will experience phenomena in the landscape in a similar way (Tilley 1994: 4f; 2011: 25ff).

The phenomenological approach has been criticised a great deal over the years and it has been described as “one of the most provocative theoretical developments in the discipline in recent years” (Brück 2005:45). Critics argue that phenomenology relies too much on the personal experience of the individual undertaking the fieldwork. Fleming (2006) also believe

(20)

that the modern western mind-set that comes from living in a Western society is reflected in the archaeologist’s thought process and can therefore not be compared with the humans of the past (Brück 2005:46; Fleming 2006: 273ff). An example of this can be seen in Shanks’

phenomenological analysis of the medieval castle of Dunstanburgh (Shanks 1992:118ff).

Johnson (2012a) points out that Shanks fails to mention aspects of safety concerns for children from the precipitous cliffs, an aspect that most parents would have been quick to pick up on.

He does this to highlight the problems with the phenomenological approach. There is a risk that individuals with other backgrounds than the authors could be silenced during phenomenological studies (Johnson 2012a:277).

Fleming (2006) takes a step further and argues that phenomenology is too opinion- and experience-based to even be considered a science. He believes that published results from phenomenological fieldwork is close to an imaginative text that is backed up by an individual’s feelings instead of facts in the form of documented literature. This leaves it almost impossible to criticize in a scientific manner (Fleming 2006:275).

The critiques presented above can be summarised as critiques of the fundamental idea of phenomenology that modern humans would experience the landscapes in a manner similar to human living in the past and that phenomenology is not based on documented literature but rather observations and feelings.

Tilley (2010) answers the first criticism by agreeing that the human body is culturally constructed and that he does not intend to claim to know what individual women, men and children would have thought when traveling the landscape. Instead, he wants to document what they would have felt when traveling the landscape. He emphasises the importance of our shared senses regardless of the gender and cultural background of the prehistoric individual, assuming that the person was not handicapped in a manner that would prevent an upright two-legged posture or sensory impairment; hence, he or she would experience the landscape in a similar way to a modern human. By standing on a hill or a river cliff, both modern and ancient humans would have the same visual experience and be able to smell, for example, the sea salt in the air.

He also points to the fact that Vicki Cummings (2002) despite having a different background, made similar observations in her work with megalithic monuments of southwest Wales (Cummings et al. 2002:58ff; Tilley 2010:473ff).

Johnson (2012a,b) raises the argument that few archaeologists today would deny the importance of considering issues of meaning and subjectivity when analysing archaeological landscapes. He does this with the provocative statement, “We are all phenomenologists”.

(Johnson 2012a:279). With this quote, he argues that phenomenological theory in archaeology is inevitable. By confirming that the very exploration of different ways of living in and experiencing the world are a necessary and justified part of archaeological research, then archaeologists also subscribe to the phenomenological theoretical basis. In response to the methodological criticism, Johnson challenges the critics of phenomenology to provide an alternative method to achieve an understanding of the human experience (Johnson 2012a:279;

Johnson 2012b:517ff).

The humans of the past are gone, we can not go back and ask them how they experienced different phenomena in the landscape; however, by disregarding our own experience when visiting sites, we would miss out on vital information available to us.

When it comes to the second criticism, that phenomenological work is hard to criticise as it is based on individual feelings and observations rather than documented literature, the criticism is not applicable to this project. As I had to create the landscape myself criticism could be made of my interoperation of the model (see chapter 4.2). By combining visibility and phenomenology, I am able to avoid unrestricted subjectivity in my analysis, as backed by Criado Boado & Vazquez’s (2010) development of “archaeology of perception”. They set out in their development of this approach to evaluate the effect of natural and artificial landscape features based on past human observations. They opted to use visibility for their methodology in an attempt to avoid unrestricted subjectivity (Criado Boado & Vazquez 2010:188ff). The use of technologies such as GIS and VR also gives me an opportunity to present the “hard” scientific data that I apply my “soft” observations on, in a different manner than documented observations in the landscape would. This gives the reader an opportunity to acquire their own opinion of

Virtual Phenomenology and Viewshed Analysis of the Colossi of Memnon during the reign of Amenhotep III in VR and GIS based environment