Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs

by Christopher Dunn

  The appearance of true arcs on the contour of the eyelid of the Memphis Ramses suggests that the eyeball itself is an accurate sphere around which a radius is drawn in one axis to create the eyelid and, as a naturally occurring function of geometry, when viewed at other angles, always appears as a radius, though with different dimensions. In fact, similar to the crowns that we studied in chapter 1, the entire face has the appearance of being made up of nothing but blended spheres or ellipsoids that predict that, regardless of the angle from which they are viewed, they would present to the eye natural blended radial surfaces.

  The down-to-earth reason for the unnatural smile, therefore, is that when viewed from the ground, it appeared to be natural. The photographs of the bust of Ramses at Luxor were taken with Ramses’ head at ground level. We see Ramses at Memphis along his length, and the mouth seems to be turned in a downward arc. As we can see in figure 3.4, when viewed from the side, each of the Ramses statues—at Memphis, Luxor, and the Ramesseum Ramses—has a mouth that curls up in an exaggerated smile.

  Figure 3.4. The four Ramses statues: (1) Ramses in the open-air museum at Memphis; (2) Ramses bust from the Ramesseum; (3) Ramses bust outside the Temple of Luxor pylon, taken with the camera facing west; (4) Seated Ramses in the Ramses Hall in the Temple of Luxor, taken with a telephoto lens and with the camera facing east, from the Sharia al-Corniche outside the temple.

  Initiates who entered this temple of learning would see an affectionate gaze and normal smile on the lips of Ramses. As they approached the front pylons of the temple and passed through into the Ramses Hall, they would look up at the faces of Ramses and see that they were being observed.

  Not only is the mouth designed to appear normal from below, but also the eyes were crafted with the same consideration as the smile. Their geometry is such that they appear normal when viewed from below. Full of challenges and surprises, Ramses in figure 3.4 clearly presents us with another technique of its creators: the top eyelid is pushed forward, giving the appearance of an eye that is looking down rather than straight ahead, while the head remains erect. And why wouldn’t this godlike statue give an appearance of love and caring? Why wouldn’t he smile down at the temple’s initiates, as they gathered to feed their spirits and luxuriate in the majesty of inspired science, engineering, and craftsmanship that is the Temple of Amun-Mut Khonsu?

  From a manufacturing perspective, in the case of the Luxor bust, it appears that the geometry of the face was contoured and finished before the lips were cut with a different tool that followed a different tool path in order to profile the lips with precision—though not quite dead center to the face. We can discern a small radius where the lips meet the vermilion border (though this is more distinct on the Ramesseum Ramses). Intriguingly, the depth of cut increases beneath the uncommonly sharp and distinct philtrum. In figures 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, the level of precision is greater in the Egyptian Ramses than in the Greek statue and, perhaps, dimensionally superior to the perfection of a woman’s lips.

  A colossal granite statue of Ramses II towering 60 feet (18 meters) once greeted the ancient Egyptians as they walked through the Temple of the Ramesseum, the mortuary temple of Ramses II. The temple is situated on the west bank of the Nile where the statue was felled by forces unknown and the torso and head separated from the body, which now lies supine within the temple walls. The bust weighs more than 7 tons and is dated from around 1270 BCE. A photograph of this statue, plate 8, shows the shape of the mouth from below. As the ancient Egyptians intended, from on high, Ramses is smiling down on pilgrims in the temple. As you can see, the mouth appears natural.

  It is evident in plate 8 that the Ramesseum Ramses has equal, if not more, exact symmetry than the Ramses at Luxor. The geometry of the face is changed, and the question may be asked if this is because the two Ramses were made differently. At this juncture, it is difficult to say without a more detailed examination because of the difference in the camera angle when each Ramses was photographed. When we perform the reverse transparency overlay and bring all the facial features together, however, it is clear that the Ramesseum Ramses was crafted with the similar geometric patterns and with remarkable symmetry from the tip of the nose to the ears and moving along the skull to the upward curve of the Nemes crown.

  Figure 3.5. Jessica’s perfect lips

  Figure 3.6. Imperfect lips

  Figure 3.7. Lips that are too perfect?

  Figure 3.8. Shadow of the Ramesseum Ramses

  When I further investigated the symmetry of the jawline, I drew a line to bisect the head midway between the jaw. The photograph was expanded to five times the size of a human head, and then I made measurements using the measurement tool in CAD using 2 decimal point precision in inches. Figure 3.9 confirms that the geometry of the Ramesseum Ramses is more precise than that of the head outside the Luxor Museum.

  Figure 3.9. Measuring the face of the Ramesseum Ramses

  The design protocol described in chapter 2 seems to be evident in all the Ramses statues. Surely, the implications of this discovery would prompt another study to coax from the Ramses statues all three-dimensional measurements from which accurate models could be created and analyzed further, yielding even better results.

  WITNESS TO A SMALL MISTAKE

  Ramses’ smile in the statue of Ramses from the Ramesseum may appear innocent enough, but the mouth is loaded with silent information regarding a manufacturing mistake and the work that was performed in an attempt to correct it. Figure 3.10 shows this close-up. As in other Ramses faces, it appears that when the statue was created, the contours of the face were crafted first and then another tool was employed to cut the contours of the lips, leaving an unnatural cusp at the vermilion border. In fact, it would appear that for some reason, the lips on the Ramesseum Ramses were cut deeper than necessary, particularly when we compare them to those of the Luxor and Memphis Ramses heads shown in figure 3.4. This detail is not present on the statue of Ramses at Memphis—perhaps because the Memphis statue was crafted from limestone instead of granite, which would make it easier to remove material in order to smooth the cusp. On the other hand, when the heads sat 40 feet, or 12 meters, in the air, these mistakes would be imperceptible to visitors and, therefore, not considered important. They do, however, become more pronounced when we study them in closer detail out of the context of the overpowering majesty of a grand temple.

  In figure 3.10, we perhaps find a reason for the lips being cut deeper into the face. In the corner of the mouth on the left side of Ramses’ lips is an undercut that gives him an almost snarling appearance. This is clearly a mistake in the crafting of the mouth, but what does the mistake imply? From a manufacturing perspective, this undercut is obviously the reason for the lips being cut deeper. It seems this was done to remove as much of the mistake as possible without going too deep into the face. If the craftsmen had pushed the contours of the lips uniformly into the face in order to remove the undercut entirely, the margin between the vermilion border and the lips would be even more unnatural and bizarre looking. Moreover, this would have taken much more work to accomplish. As it is, the cusp is overlooked by casual observers—including me, until I started to examine the photographs in greater detail in my computer. What is more startling to me and to others who have performed work in brittle materials is the uniformity of the lips and, though they are cut deeper into the face, the existence of the cusp that is so sharply defined without significant crumbling of the edge. This point alone may cause us to wonder what kind of tools the ancient Egyptians possessed. It does not seem possible that such a mistake could result from the slip of a stone chisel. The undercut and the cusp on the Ramesseum Ramses point clearly to a previously unknown method of stone cutting in which a substantial amount of material is removed by mistake—and without being noticed.

  Figure 3.10. Ramses’ mouth

  When we examine a close-up of the Ramses statue at Luxor, it appears that the lips are similarly crafted, though not cut as deep into the face
as on the bust of the Ramesseum Ramses—and without the mistaken undercut. Intriguingly, we can see a faint tool path that follows the contour of the upper lip from the nostril to the vermilion border on Ramses’ right upper lip. Associated with these lines appear to be several cuts that are slightly deeper, causing a ripple effect at the border—but this observation deserves more investigation and cannot be considered conclusive at this juncture. Nevertheless, the irregularity at the vermilion border seems fairly conclusive, especially as seen in figure 3.11, where the shadow from the light reveals the variations. On the other hand, Ramses’ left lip, seen in figure 3.12, has a shadow that is consistent with the graceful arc of the lip that keeps the light from shining onto the upper lip.

  Figure 3.11. Detail of right vermilion border

  Figure 3.12. Detail of left vermilion border

  Figure 3.13. Tool marks on Ramses’ mouth

  If we examine the upper lips more closely, faint marks left by a cutting tool (witness marks) show that a mistake was made on Ramses’ right lip, causing a jagged edge at the vermilion border, but his left lip was shaped accurately—though there, too, we can detect faint witness marks of the tool that cut the contour from the nose down to the border (see figure 3.13).

  For purposes of displaying here the best evidence possible, this was too tantalizing to ignore. I had previously traveled to Egypt specifically to photograph the Ramses heads to determine their symmetry, which demanded a technique that did not include zooming in on small sections of the head. I needed the entire head in my viewfinder. Yet with the ability to take high-resolution photographs, what appeared to be tool marks became evident when I zoomed in digitally on my computer. It became clear to me while writing this chapter that in order to finish it properly, I had to make another trip to Egypt. The digital zooms were intriguing, but I could obtain better photographs using optical zooms with a macro lens. I would then have high-resolution, close-up images with greater detail and clarity.

  In chapters 1 and 2, we learned that if we are to accept Ramses’ challenge to create another just like him, in simply creating the head and crown alone, we are faced with an enormous task. These, however, are only a small fraction of the entire statue. As we have learned, the seated statues at Luxor are approximately 40 feet in height, and the raw block from which each was made must have weighed up to four hundred tons. The head is a small representation of the fine craftsmanship that fittingly swells modern Egyptians’ pride in their ancestors.

  For our study, it is bittersweet fortuity that a head was available for close study, but I would certainly not have enjoyed being in the vicinity when it fell to earth. The forces that caused it to separate from the body must have been enormous—for one characteristic of the Ramses statues is their “unnatural” appearance because they are controlled by engineering considerations that must take into account strength and stability rather than anthropometric accuracy. The arms and legs of Roman and Greek statues do not have the same substantial connections to the principle mass of stone that Egyptian statues have, and therefore, they are more natural in appearance. The standing statues in the Ramses Hall do not have arms and legs that separate from the body. They are cut more in alto relievo; the body of each statue is carved out of and is firmly a part of a sturdy pillar, a gargantuan rock. There is no separation of any appendage from the torso or the pillar.

  The Nemes crown, which is adorned with a uraeus (cobra), is more of a headdress than a crown, and most statues have this feature. From an engineering viewpoint, the headdress serves to give stability and strength to the head, because it provides mass by being integrally a part of the body, flaring outward to span the width of the shoulders. Stability and strength at the front of the neck is provided by the false beard, which is firmly attached to the chest and provides a buttress to the chin. With the characteristics of a bas relief, the ears are a part of the head and the Nemes crown. False beards were worn by the pharaohs of Egypt because they were believed to provide them with godlike powers. The false beard on all the statues in Egypt are carved from the native rock, just like the rest of the statue.

  In the standing statues, native rock connects the pillar to the back of the legs. In figure 3.1, we can see that a little added symbolic support to the pharaoh’s outstretched leg is given by his wife, Nefertari, who appears to be naked, but because of the smoothness around the groin, may be depicted as wearing a seductive, diaphanous garment. Figure 3.14 seems to clarify this conjecture. Note in figure 3.1 that Nefertari also has a web of granite between the back of her leg and the back pillar.

  Figure 3.14. Nefertari’s gown.

  Figure 3.15. Seated Ramses

  The seated statues of Ramses have modified arms that allow the forearm to rest unnaturally on the thigh. A human’s elbow and forearm does not rest on the thigh when a person is seated upright with his hands on his knees. By adding length to the upper arm and mass to the forearm, the designers eliminated a potential weak spot in the statue, and they firmly attached all elements of the body by leaving webs between arms and chest, and legs and pillar.

  Seemingly, the ancient Egyptians were more focused on engineering strength and efficiency than on creating true-to-life statues. The forearms and the hands of the seated Ramses are relatively smooth and devoid of natural human features, such as knuckles on the fingers and the toes.

  The absence of knuckles on the fingers and toes of Ramses is more pronounced when we compare him to the statue of Constantine, now on display in an interior courtyard at the Musei Capitolini, Rome.

  From its head to its toes, Ramses presents a unique challenge to modern engineers. How would we replicate such a piece of art? While there are areas of the statue that are asymmetrical, they do not detract from the places that are. If we had a statue that was more humanlike in appearance, with natural variances between left and right, the challenge would be easier—we could rule out the need for extreme precision and the tools and engineering considerations that go along with it. As it is, the symmetry between both sides of the face epitomizes and summarizes the most difficult aspects of the challenge.

  To gain an understanding of what we are faced with in trying to replicate the statues, we can select a familiar item in the home or office—a computer mouse, a telephone, a CD player or radio. These are symbols of modern technology. If we were asked what technology they symbolize, we would probably answer “communication” or “entertainment.” They certainly symbolize these two; more meaningful to me is that they symbolize the evolution of manufacturing.

  Figure 3.16. Ramses absent his knuckles

  Figure 3.17. Ramses’ toes

  Figure 3.18. Constantine’s toes

  If we study these items closely, we note that they have smooth contours with geometries that blend to create a three-dimensional shape that is pleasing to the eye. For functional engineered devices, however, this kind of contouring was not always the case. When product design and development were in the hands of engineers who accessed their left brain more than their right brain, all kinds of monstrosities were created. We may remember some of the original appliances that were developed to make our life easier—but for those who don’t recall, there are museums and books to teach us of these baby steps toward what we enjoy today. An old steam iron or vacuum cleaner has engineering functionality, but compared to what is available today, neither may appeal to our artistic sensibilities.

  Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the evolution of manufacturing has reached a point where the poorest quality product that comes to market today is vastly superior to the finest quality that was available one hundred years ago. Machines and manufacturing processes have been perfected to the point that many of the variables and imperfections that used to appear randomly have been all but eliminated. We take them for granted, but high-quality, inexpensive consumer goods were not always available.

  Influencing the evolution of manufacturing all along have been artists who were employed to exert their influence on consumer products
quite simply to make them more visually appealing and feed the desire to buy more products. As a case in point, a Bang and Olufsen phonograph turntable has been exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art. To put it bluntly, it was the desire for profit that forced the evolution of manufacturing. Behind this desire for profit, however, were the desires of the population to have in their possession creations that gave them pleasure—whether from making their lives easier or impressing their friends and neighbors with their latest acquisitions.

  For most people today, the science and engineering behind a product is subordinate to its visual appeal. Little notice is given to how a device works—to how electrons move through circuits and cause motion such as sound or how energy moves through cavities to produce motion such as propulsion. Shapes and colors that appeal to the right brain overpower the analytical left-brain function in the majority of people and are usually the deciding factors when we select a product for purchase.