Introduction

From Early Dynastic times onward, limestone was the construction material of choice for Ancient Egyptian temples, pyramids, and mastabas wherever limestone bedrock occurred, that is, along the Mediterranean coast, in the northern parts of the Western and Eastern Deserts, and in the Nile Valley between Cairo and Esna (fig. 1). Sandstone bedrock is present in the Nile Valley from Esna south into Sudan as well as in the adjacent deserts, and within this region it was the only building stone employed.2 Sandstone was also imported into the Nile Valley’s limestone region as far north as el-‘Sheikh Ibada and nearby el-‘Amarna, where it was used for New Kingdom temples. There are sandstone temples further north in the Bahariya and Faiyum depressions, but these were built with local materials. The first large-scale use of sandstone occurred near Edfu in Upper Egypt, where it was employed for interior pavement and wall veneer in an Early Dynastic tomb at Hierakonpolis3 and also for a small 3^rd Dynasty pyramid at Naga el-Goneima.4 Apart from this latter structure, the earliest use of sandstone in monumental architecture was for Middle Kingdom temples in the Abydos-Thebes region with the outstanding example the 11^th Dynasty mortuary temple of Mentuhotep II (Nebhepetre) at Deir el-Bahri. From the beginning of the New Kingdom onward, with the exceptions of some portions of Karnak temple and especially Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri, which are of limestone, Theban temples were built either largely or entirely of sandstone, and this was also true for most of the temples in the southern portion of the limestone region. When limestone and sandstone are both present in a temple, they are usually employed for different architectural applications with the sandstone particularly favored for segmented columns and architraves. Uniquely, however, in the Seti I temple at Abydos, limestone and sandstone are used side-by-side for wall reliefs with scenes beginning on one rock type and then continuing across the other.

Appendix 1 lists the temples (and other monuments) containing significant amounts of sandstone and figure 1 shows their locations. There are undoubtedly temples missing from this list that are either destroyed, still undiscovered, or known but with unrecognized sandstone elements. The southernmost temple built by Egyptians, also of sandstone, is at Jebel Barkal near the west end of the Nile River’s fourth cataract in Sudan.

Fig. 1. Maps of Egypt and northern Sudan showing the locations of ancient sandstone temples and quarries.

The choice of sandstone

The preference for sandstone over limestone as a building material coincided with the transfer of religious and political authority from Memphis near Cairo to Thebes (Luxor) at the beginning of the 18^th Dynasty. Thebes was closer to the sandstone sources and this probably was a factor, but more importantly the Egyptians at this time also recognized that sandstone was superior to limestone in terms of the strength and size of blocks obtainable, and this permitted the construction of larger temples with longer architraves and roofing slabs.5 The hardness and strength of sandstone depends on the amount and type of cementing agent holding the sand grains together. The most common cements in Egyptian sandstones are quartz, iron oxides (limonite and hematite), calcite, and clay minerals. When these cements are sparse, the rock is friable and so easily disaggregated, and when abundant and filling all the intergranular pore spaces, the rock is well-indurated and durable. Sandstone with abundant quartz cement is the hardest of all and is referred to as ‘silicified sandstone,’ one of ancient Egypt’s most important ornamental and utilitarian stones. Silicified sandstone was not used as a building material for temples and so will not be further considered here.6 It should be noted, however, that on at least one occasion this rock was employed for a small shrine, the so-called ‘red chapel’ of Hatshepsut in Karnak’s Open-Air Museum.

Megascopic properties

Sandstone in temples can usually only be examined megascopically (i.e., with at most a magnifying lens) with the observable properties limited to grain size, bedding, and color. Additional information on texture and especially mineralogy is provided by microscopic (i.e., petrographic or thin section) analysis, and geochemistry can identify amounts of trace elements. Such analyses, however, are destructive and require samples that are not normally available to those studying sandstone monuments.

Throughout most of the world, grain size in sandstone and other clastic sedimentary rocks is specified according to the Udden-Wentworth grain size scale (table 1). In studies of Egyptian rocks by German geologists, however, the grain size terminology usually follows the DIN (Deutschen Instituts für Normung) 4022 scale.7 This scale recognizes only three grain size divisions for sand: coarse (2.000-0.630 mm), medium (0.630-0.200 mm) and fine (0.200-0.063 mm). In the present paper, it is the Udden-Wentworth scale’s five-fold division for sand that is employed throughout. The modal or average grain size of temple sandstones is easily determined through the use of a visual comparator. There are many such aids commercially available, but the author prefers the one shown in figure 2. This is placed against a sandstone surface and viewed along the right edge with a magnifying lens (5-10X) to match the sand grains in the rock with a size-calibrated image on the comparator.

Table 1. The Udden-Wentworth grain size scale for clastic sedimentary rocks.

Fig. 2. Grain-size comparator of the American-Canadian Stratigraphic Company (Denver, Colorado, USA). Not shown to scale. The upper (U) and lower (L) halves of the five Udden-Wentworth sand-size classes (vf, f, m, c and vc) are shown with a grain-roundness comparator along the bottom edge. Grain sizes are given in μm and also in phi (Φ) notation, where [phi size] = -log₂ [mm size]).

When sandy sediment is deposited it can exhibit a number of bedding types depending on the environmental conditions. The principal ones and the easiest to recognize in temple sandstones are planar bedding, and tabular and trough cross-bedding. These structures are defined by the attitude of laminations between the major bedding planes (fig. 3). The laminations can be difficult to see, however, on dirty or weathered rock surfaces. When no laminations are present, the rock is said to exhibit massive bedding. Sometimes the laminations are merely indistinct and thus give the false impression of massive bedding. All bedding types are encountered in Egyptian sandstones, but by far the most common is tabular cross-bedding (fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Diagram illustrating planar bedding, and trough and tabular cross-bedding. The heavier lines represent major bedding planes and the lighter ones are the internal laminations.

Fig. 4. Tabular cross-bedding in sandstone at the Nag el-Hammam quarry. Smallest scale division is 1 cm. The scale rests on a major bedding plane separating two cross-bed sets.

With few exceptions, the sandstone quarried in Ancient Egypt has an internal coloration that varies from light shades of gray, yellow, orange, brown or pink, or mixtures thereof (figs. 5-6). Yellowish-brown is the most common hue. Such normally colored sandstones, which vary from very fine- to coarse-grained, can be collectively referred to as drab-colored. Nearly white sandstones are occasionally encountered and these constitute another distinct color variety.

Fig. 5. Typical drab-colored sandstone (very fine-grained) from the el-Mahamid quarry.

Fig. 6. Typical drab-colored sandstone (fine-grained) from the Gebel el-Silsila quarry.

A very different-looking sandstone was employed only during the 12^th and especially the 11^th Dynasties and this is medium-grained with a uniform, moderately dark reddish- to mainly purplish-brown color (fig. 7). It was used for several temples in the Abydos-Thebes region, including the Osiris-Khentyimentyu temple at Kom el-Sultan in Abydos,10 the north temple of Min and Isis in Qift,11 the Senwosret I temple within the Amun temple complex at Karnak in Luxor,12 and on the Luxor West Bank in the Amun temple at Medinet Habu,13 and the Mentuhotep II mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri.14 It is probably not a coincidence that the 11^th Dynasty saw both the first use of purplish sandstone in Egypt and also the opening of the first mine for amethyst, a purplish gemstone, near Wadi el-Hudi, 25 km southeast of Aswan.15 Also in the Middle Kingdom, there was a surge in the popularity of purplish-red garnet for jewelry. It is thus apparent that the color purple was especially favored during this period but the reason for this is unknown.

Fig. 7. Purplish sandstone column fragment in the Mentuhotep II temple at Deir el-Bahri. Smallest scale division is 10 cm.

A final color variety is the light green sandstone employed in Karnak temple’s 5^th pylon (fig. 8), which dates to the reign of Thutmose I.16 This rock, which is fine-grained with tabular cross-bedding, is only known from this example. It may have been chosen for the symbolism represented by its color, with green signifying rebirth in the afterlife (as represented by Osiris, whose figure is typically depicted in green) as well as fertility and joy. Challenging this suggestion, however, is the fact that the 5^th pylon was originally covered by a limestone casing with the green sandstone hidden from view.

Fig. 8. Greenish sandstone block in the 5th pylon at Karnak temple. Note the chisel marks.

Determining sandstone’s color can be problematical because its appearance on dirty, weathered exterior surfaces can be very different from what is seen internally on fresh breaks. On quarry and temples walls and especially on natural outcrops, the sandstone usually has a fairly uniform light brown color. Where long exposed to the elements, the rock will develop a patina known as ‘desert varnish’. This has a variable composition but normally consists of iron and manganese oxides plus clay minerals.17 It thickens and darkens with age, eventually becoming nearly black and completely obscuring a rock’s internal color. Color determination is further complicated when working with archaeological objects because, of course, these cannot be broken to reveal their true (internal) color. The best one can do is look for relatively fresh breaks in the external surfaces that occurred during excavation or subsequent handling. These are not always present or recognizable, however. And finally, color perception varies from person to person and under different lighting conditions, and so it is often helpful to use a standard color guide, such as the Geological Society of America’s ‘Rock-Color Chart’ (Boulder, Colorado, USA).

Internal sandstone colors in shades of yellow and brown are caused by the presence of hydrated iron oxides (i.e., iron hydrates). These are collectively referred to as ‘limonite’ and represent a number of poorly crystallized phases with the generalized formula of FeO•OH•nH₂O or Fe₂O₃•nH₂O. Goethite (FeO[OH] or HFeO₂) is a common, well-crystallized phase within the iron hydrate group. Shades of pink, red and purple are the result of anhydrous iron oxide (i.e., hematite; Fe₂O₃). Some Egyptian sandstones have an orangey coloration. Orange is a blend of red and yellow and so in rocks this probably represents a mixture of hematite and limonite. When iron oxides are absent, the rock has a light grayish to nearly white color which is the natural hue of the quartz sand grains. The green sandstone in Karnak’s 5^th pylon gets its color from the presence of sand-size grains of dark green glauconite, a type of clay mineral.

A final megascopic attribute of temple sandstones is the tool marks commonly left on their surfaces when blocks were dressed to adjust their size and shape (e.g., fig. 8). Indications of when the dressing was done can be gleaned from the different forms taken by the marks and the metal residues of the tools that made them.18

Formations

The various sandstones used in Egyptian temples were collectively referred to in the past as the Nubian Sandstone. Stratigraphical difficulties with this designation caused geologists to later redefine the sandstones into numerous, and at times conflicting, formations. A sedimentary formation is a sequence of strata distinct from the rock layers both above and below by virtue of its lithology or paleontology, and thus is a mappable stratigraphic unit. The formations described in table 2 for Egypt are the most widely accepted ones,19 and these are defined primarily by their fossil content. Despite the new terminology, these rocks are still informally referred to as the Nubian Sandstone or Nubian Group. More formally in Sudan, the correlative stratigraphic units are usually identified simply as the Nubian Sandstone Formation. From the table it can be seen that the petrology of a sandstone will vary somewhat according to the formation supplying it. The geologic ages of sedimentary strata (and consequently also formations) decrease from south to north in the Nile Valley due to their slight (approximately 2 degree) northerly inclination, and this means that the sandstone properties also change in a downriver direction. The boundaries between the formations in the Nile Valley are shown in figure 1.

Table 2. Egyptian Sandstone Formations.20

Quarries and provenance determinations

Appendix 2 lists the 44 known ancient sandstone quarries in Egypt and northern Sudan, and figure 1 shows their locations. A locality name and coordinates are provided for each quarry along with its period of activity, size, current status, and, in some cases, a general petrological description. Although the list is long, it is far from complete. There are undoubtedly more quarries awaiting discovery, as well as others that are forever lost because they have been destroyed through urban growth or especially as a result of modern quarrying for rough construction stone. Although not destroyed, numerous sandstone quarries are no longer accessible because they are now under Lake Nasser.

As a practical matter, the building stones used at ancient construction sites usually came from a quarry in the immediate neighborhood. This quarry was probably on the upriver side of a site because it was easier to float a heavily loaded boat down the Nile than to sail it upriver against the current, even with the prevailing northerly wind. A notable exception to the local derivation of building stones is the high-quality sandstone from Gebel el-Silsila. This quarry, the most extensive in Egypt for sandstone, provided large, fracture-free blocks of uniform color and texture. It was the principal building material for temples in the Theban region, over 100 km to the north, as documented by ancient inscriptions.21 It was no doubt used for many other distant structures, especially those in a downriver direction. The second largest sandstone quarry is at the now drowned site of Qertassi and although it apparently did not supply rock of as high a quality as that coming from Gebel el-Silsila, it was mainly used outside its immediate area. Inscriptions tell us, for example, that it was employed for the Philae temple complex 35 km to the north,22 and it was probably also used for other structures in the Aswan area. For most temples, however, the quarry supplying the stone will be found close at hand. It is expected, therefore, that more quarries remain to be discovered, especially near the Nubian temples along the Nile in southern Egypt and northern Sudan.

It is not yet possible to identify by analytical means the specific quarry supplying a particular sandstone, but the formation, and hence the general location in the Nile Valley, can sometimes be established. For example, very fine-grained sandstone with planar bedding almost certainly comes from the Duwi or Quseir Formation whereas coarse-grained sandstone with trough cross-bedding probably comes from one of the formations near Aswan or to the south of it. Fine- to medium-grained, tabular cross-bedded sandstones – the predominant lithology – can come from any formation. Further distinctions require petrographic microscopy. There are just a few published sources of petrographic information on Egyptian sandstones in the Nile Valley: two for natural outcrops in the Aswan23 and el-Mahamid24 areas, another for ancient quarries throughout Egypt but only providing incomplete qualitative data,25 and the last for the ancient Gebel el-Silsila quarry.26 The present author has also done petrographic analyses of samples from several quarries between Esna and Aswan as well as from two sandstone temples closely associated with quarries south of Aswan. With one exception, all the aforementioned data combined still represent too few samples to say anything definitive about the mineralogical differences among quarries or formations. The exception is total feldspar content (i.e., orthoclase + microcline + plagioclase). This ranges between 5 and 15% for the el-Mahamid, el-Keijal, el-Bueib and Nag el-Raqiqein quarries – all within 20 km of Edfu – with the first two in the Duwi Formation and the last two in the upper part of the underlying Quseir Formation. All other tested quarries south of Nag el-Raqiqein have a total feldspar content of less than 5%. These percentages, all from the author’s petrographic analyses, are provided in appendix 2. The feldspar-rich sandstones are what petrologists call ‘arkose’, ‘subarkose’ or ‘arkosic arenite’, depending on the classification scheme followed, with all the other sandstones, except the glauconite-rich ones, termed ‘quartz arenite’. Other minerals in Egyptian sandstones show no consistent differences among quarries and formations, at least based on the currently available sample data.

The finding for feldspar content is supported by the trace element analyses of samples from four quarries: el-Mahamid, Nag el-Falilih, Nag el-Sheikh Garad and Gebel el-Silsila.27 It was found that rubidium is significantly higher for el-Mahamid than for the other three quarries. Rubidium is a trace element associated with feldspar and so it is to be expected that it will be high in sandstones rich in this mineral. Because feldspar grains are more easily broken and abraded than quartz grains, which are the main constituent of sandstone, the amount of feldspar in sand tends to increase with decreasing grain size. It is this relationship that probably accounts for the differences in feldspar content among quarries, although it is also possible the feldspar content reflects different geologic sources for the sand.

The source of the Middle Kingdom’s purplish sandstone is unknown. The quarries at Qubbet el-Hawa, Nag el-Hammam and Wadi Shatt el-Rigal are previously suggested possibilities,28 but all can be excluded. None possesses beds of medium-grained sandstone of the requisite color that are at least 1 m thick, the minimum dimension required for the largest architectural elements and statues cut from the purplish sandstone. The most likely source at present appears to be the Gebel el-Silsila quarry but more fieldwork is needed to evaluate this possibility. This quarry is also the only known source of a white sandstone, which was used to a minor extent in the Karnak temple.

There is no known quarry that could have supplied the green glauconitic sandstone at Karnak. This rock is closely associated with phosphatic deposits (phosphorite) in the upper part of the Quseir Formation and also especially in the overlying Duwi Formation (table 2).29 There are numerous, thick glauconitic sandstone beds in both formations, but only in the Western Desert’s Bahariya, Dakhla and Kharga Depressions. Rare, thin-bedded occurrences of this rock have been reported from the Nile Valley, but with no specific localities identified.30 If beds of glauconitic sandstone are to be found along the Nile, it is most likely to be near Edfu, where there are outcrops of phosphatic rocks in the Quseir and Duwi Formations. This is further indicated by a sample of glauconitic sandstone from Karnak’s 5th pylon that was analyzed by the author and found to contain 6.3% total feldspar, which is consistent with a derivation from one of these formations. If an 18th Dynasty quarry for glauconitic sandstone once existed near Edfu, it may have been destroyed by the extensive phosphate mining that occurred in this region beginning in the early 1900’s.

Although the megascopic properties of sandstone may not allow the identification of a specific formation or quarry, they are still useful for recognizing that multiple sources of building materials were used in different temples or in different construction phases of a single temple. What is needed, therefore, is a systematic study of sandstone used in Egyptian temples for purposes of both basic documentation and source characterization. More research is also needed on the sandstone quarries, including further megascopic and petrographic descriptions as well as an analysis of pottery to be better establish their ages.

Conclusions

Sandstone was the principal building stone used in Upper Egypt and Nubia from the Middle Kingdom onward. It came from forty-four known quarries (and others yet undiscovered) that were excavated in eleven geologic formations, all informally referred to as the Nubian Sandstone. This rock can be quite variable in its grain size, bedding type, color, and mineralogy. These properties can sometimes identify the formation – and, hence, the general geographic location of the source – for a sandstone used in a temple. For example, a quarry in the Duwi Formation or upper part of the Quseir Formation, and thus in the Edfu region, is indicated by either a greenish (glauconitic) sandstone, a sandstone of any color containing over 5% total feldspar, or a very fine-grained sandstone with planar bedding. It is not currently possible to recognize specific quarries for these or any other variety of sandstone used in temples, except where these associations are indicated in ancient inscriptions.

Bibliography

Ahmed, S. M., Al-Sheikh, H. A. and Osman, R. A. (1993), ‘Facies and depositional environments of the pre-Maastrichtian clastic rocks of west and southwest Aswan, Egypt’, Egyptian Journal of Geology 37/2, pp. 69-96.

Ahmed, M. I. S. and Hussein, S. A. (1983), ‘Petrophysical properties of some sandstones facies from EL-Mahamid, Eastern Desert, Egypt’, Egyptian Journal of Geology 27/1-2, pp. 21-26.

Arnold, D. (1979), The Temple of Mentuhotep at Deir El-Bahari, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition.

Arnold, D. (1991), Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Attia, M. I. (1955), Topography, Geology and Iron-Ore Deposits of the District East of Aswan, Cairo: Egyptian Geological Survey.

Baedeker, K. (1929), Egypt and the Sudan – Handbook for Travelers (8th ed.), Leipzig: Karl Baedeker Publisher.

Baines, J. and Malek, J. (2000), Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Andromeda/Checkmark Books.

Baioumy, H. M. (2007), ‘Iron-phosphorus relationship in the iron and phosphorite ores of Egypt’, Chemie der Erde 67, pp. 229-239.

Baioumy, H. M. and Boulis, S. N. (2012a), ‘Glauconites from the Bahariya Oasis: an evidence for Cenomanian marine transgression in Egypt’, Journal of African Earth Sciences 70, pp. 1-7.

Baioumy, H. M. and Boulis, S. N. (2012b), ‘Non-pelletal glauconite from the Campanian Qusseir Formation, Egypt: implications for glauconitization’, Sedimentary Geology 249/250, pp. 1-9.

Breasted, J. H. (1906), Ancient Records of Egypt – Historical Documents, Vol. 4, The Twentieth to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasties, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, S. (1910), ‘Architectural descriptions’, in E. Naville (ed.), The XI^th Dynasty Temple at Deir El-Bahari (pt. 2), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, pp. 13-19.

Clarke, S. and Engelbach, R. (1930), Ancient Egyptian Masonry – The Building Craft, London: Oxford University Press.

Description de l'Égypte. (1809-1829), Description de l'Égypte, ou Recueil de observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l'éxpédition de l'armée française, Paris: C. L. F. Panckoucke.

Fakhry, A. (1973-74), The Oases of Egypt, Vol. 2, Bahriyah and Farafra Oases, Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

Fitzner, B., Heinricks, K. and La Bouchardiere. D. (2003), ‘Weathering damage on pharaonic sandstone monuments in Luxor, Egypt’, Building and Environment 38/9-10, pp. 1089-1103.

Ghanem, M., Zalata, A., Abd El Razik, T., Mikhailov, I., Mirtov, J., Razvaliaev, A. and Touliankin, V. (1968), Geological Map of Idfu-Qena Area (1:200,000; with accompanying stratigraphic column and cross-sections), Cairo: United Arabic Republic General Organization for Geological Researches and Mining Geological Survey.

Glenn, C. R. (1990), ‘Depositional sequences of the Duwi, Sibaiya and Phosphate Formations, Egypt: phosphogenesis and glauconitization in a Late Cretaceous Sea’, in A. J. G. Notholt and I. Jarvis (eds.), Phosphorite Research and Development, London: Geological Society (Special Publication No. 52), pp. 205-222.

Glenn, C. R. and Arthur, M. A. (1990), ‘Anatomy and origin of a Cretaceous phosphorite-greensand giant, Egypt’, Sedimentology 37, pp. 123-154.

Gohary, J. (1998), Guide to Nubian Monuments on Lake Nasser, Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

Harrell, J. A. (2012a), ‘Building stones’, in W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. [Read Online]

Harrell, J. A. (2012b), ‘Ornamental stones’, in W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. [Read Online]

Harrell, J. A. (2012c), ‘Utilitarian stones’, in W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. [Read Online]

Harrell, J. A., and Madbouly, M. I. (2006), ‘An ancient quarry for siliceous sandstone at Wadi Abu Aggag, Egypt’, Sahara 17, pp. 51-58.

Harrell, J. A., and Storemyr, P. (2013), ‘Limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient Egypt: tools, methods, and analogues’, Marmora 9, pp. 19-43.

Heldal, T., Bloxam, E., Storemyr, P. and Kelany, A. (2005), ‘The geology and archaeology of the ancient silicified sandstone quarries at Gebel Gulab and Gebel Tingar, Aswan (Egypt)’, Marmora 1, pp. 11-35.

Hermina, M., Klitzsch, E. and List, F. K. (1989), Stratigraphic Lexicon and Explanatory Notes to the Geological Map of Egypt (1:500,000, 20 sheets), Cairo: Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and Conoco Coral.

Hölscher, U. (1939), The Excavation of Medinet Habu, Vol. 2, The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Issawi, B., El Hinnawi, M., Francis, M. and Mazhar, A. (1999), The Phanerozoic Geology of Egypt – A Geodynamic Approach, Cairo: Egyptian Geological Survey (Special Publication No. 76).

Kitchen, K. A. (1991), ‘Building the Ramesseum’, Cahiers de Recherches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et d'égyptologie de Lille 13, pp. 85-93.

Klemm, R. and Klemm, D. D. (1993), Steine und Steinbrüche im Alten Ägypten, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Klemm, R. and Klemm, D. D. (2008), Stones and Quarries in Ancient Egypt, London: British Museum Press.

Klemm, D. D., Klemm, R. and Steclaci, L. (1984), ‘Die pharaonischen steinbrüche des silifizierten sandsteins in Ägypten und die herkunft der Memnon-Kolosse,’ Mitteilungun des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 40, pp. 207-220.

Klitzsch, E., List, F. K. and Pöhlmann, G. (eds.) (1987), Geological Map of Egypt (1:500,000; 20 sheets), Cairo: Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and Conoco Coral.

Knox, W. O., Stadelmann, R., Harrell, J. A., Heldal, T. and Sourouzian, H. (2009), ‘Mineral fingerprinting of Egyptian siliceous sandstones and the quarry source of the Colossi of Memnon’, in N. Abu Jaber, E. G. Bloxam, P. Degryse and T. Heldal (eds.), QuarryScapes: Ancient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean, Bergen: Geological Survey of Norway (Special Publication no. 12), pp. 75-83.

Kramer, A. H. (2009), ‘Talatat shipping from Gebel el-Silsileh to Karnak – a literature survey’, Bibliotheca Orientalis 66/1-2, pp. 6-20.

Larché, F. (2009), ‘A reconstruction of Senwosret I’s portico and of some structures of Amenhotep I at Karnak’, in P. J. Brand and L. Cooper (eds.), Causing His Name to Live – Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane, Leiden: Brill, pp. 137-173.

Lucas, A. (1905), The Blackened Rocks of the Nile Cataracts and of the Egyptian Deserts, Cairo: Ministry of Finance.

Marouard, G. and Papazian, H. (2012), ‘The Edfu Pyramid Project: recent investigation at the last provincial step pyramid’, The Oriental Institute News and Notes 213, pp. 3-9.

Mohamed, A. A. (2012), ‘Quarrying for the king – the sources of stone for Kushite royal monuments’, Sudan & Nubia 16, pp. 2-7.

Murnane, W. J. (1996), The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt, New York: Penguin Books.

Petrie, W. M. F. (1903), Abydos (Pt. 2), London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Petrie, W. M. F. (1938), Egyptian Architecture, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Potter, R. and Rossman, G. (1977), ‘Desert varnish: the importance of clay minerals’, Science 196, pp. 1446-1448.

Potter, R. and Rossman, G. (1979), ‘The manganese- and iron-oxide mineralogy of desert varnish’, Chemical Geology 25, pp. 79-94.

Quibell, J. E. and Green, F. W. (1902), Hierakonpolis II, London: Bernard Quaritch.

Seton-Williams, V. and Stocks, P. (1988), Blue Guide – Egypt, London: A. & C. Black.

Shaw, I. and Jameson, R. (1993), ‘Amethyst mining in the Eastern Desert: a preliminary survey at Wadi el-Hudi’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79, pp. 81-97.

Shukri, N. M. and Ayouti, M. K. (1953), ‘The mineralogy of the Nubian Sandstone in Aswan’, Bulletin de l'Institut Désert de l'Égypte 3/2, pp. 65-88.

Spence, K., Rose, P., Bunbury, J., Clapham, A., Collet, P., Smith, G. and Soderbery, N. (2009), ‘Fieldwork at Sesebi, 2009’, Sudan & Nubia 13, pp. 38-46.

Van Houten, F. B. and Bhattacharyya, D. P. (1979), ‘Late Cretaceous Nubia Formation at Aswan, Southeastern Desert, Egypt’, Annals of the Geological Survey of Egypt 9, pp. 408-419.

Ward, W. C. and McDonald, K. C. (1979), ‘Nubia formation of central Eastern Desert, Egypt: major subdivisions and depositional setting’, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 63, pp. 975-983.

Weigall, A. E. P. (1907), A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (the First Cataract to the Sudan Border) and Their Condition in 1906-1907, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weigall, A. E. P. (1910), A Guide to the Antiquities of Upper Egypt, from Abydos to the Sudan Frontier, New York: Macmillan Co.

Wilkinson, J. G. (1847), Hand-book for Travellers in Egypt, London: John Murray.

Wilkinson, R. H. (2000), The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt, London: Thames and Thames.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Ancient Egyptian Sandstone Temples31

Appendix 2. Ancient Egyptian Sandstone Quarries34

Appendix 2. Ancient Egyptian Sandstone Quarries37