Relocation or restoration?

The main tourist attraction of Kharga Oasis, the Hibis temple, is deteriorating so rapidly that a current project to dismantle and relocate it has been postponed indefinitely. Nevine El-Aref looks into the controversy among the experts
Last year, when the Ministry of Culture signed a contract with Arab Contractors for a 30-month project to "rescue Hibis" -- to dismantle the only surviving temple of the Persian era and reconstruct it at a more suitable site -- the idea was applauded. The project had been considered, shelved, reconsidered and debated for more than two decades, and the decision, which was undoubtedly influenced by current efforts to turn Kharga into a thriving tourist destination, was considered timely and appropriate.
However, once steps were taken to dismantle the temple, it proved to be far more complex than the dismantling of the temples in Nubia in the 1960s. Each step resulted in further damage to the already-endangered structure. As a result, the ministry postponed the project for reconsideration.
Simply, was it more appropriate to move ahead with the dismantling project, or abandon the relocation idea and carry out a massive consolidation and restoration project? A committee was formed of archaeologists, restorers and architects. Their first step was to carry out an inspection to check the work being done, consider its effect on the temple and determine its future.
Hibis temple is a magnificent archaeological edifice. As the committee members considered its water-stained walls and passed through the corridors, pillared court, sanctuary and chapels, they wondered whether it would fall into a pile of rubble, and how soon. Although hypothetical and alarmist, their reaction was not far-fetched.
Beyond the wooden scaffolding placed beside the temple's façade, walls and columns, a team of archaeologists, engineers and restorers was totally absorbed in their work, apparently driven by the motivation to save the temple and rebuild it as it was in its heyday.
Zahi Hawass, director-general of the Giza plateau and Bahariya Oasis, who heads the Hibis committee, told Al-Ahram Weekly that the temple began to deteriorate soon after it was built in the 26th Dynasty (it was later completed under Persian rule). Hawass said it was built on top of an earlier New Kingdom temple, which had collapsed as a result of the poor quality of the soil on which it was constructed. "The temple was restored by the Saites [Pharaohs of the 26th dynasty], who also attempted to strengthen the foundations on which it was built," he said.
Back in 1948 and again in 1958, it was reported that the level of ground water in the oasis was rising and might endanger the temple, and some restoration was carried out. Later, in 1979, an effort was made to control the subterranean water, which had risen sharply as a result of irrigation projects in the surrounding area. A drainage channel was dug, and the temple's Sacred Lake was used as a drainage receptacle. But this proved to be no more than a temporary solution, since the temple continued to be undermined by water seepage. Columns began to tilt, cracks appeared in the walls and salt seeped through the porous stone, damaging the reliefs on the walls.
"What 'wet the blanket,'" Hawass says, "was that the cement ceiling installed by Egyptologist Ahmed Fakhri in the 1980s in an attempt to protect the temple put great pressure on the walls and accelerated the deterioration." The situation became such that, in 1989, the temple was declared off-limits to the public. It was left unattended, with its scaffolding still in place.
Last year, the Ministry of Culture gave the go-ahead for the salvage operation to resume. Its aim, as before, was to save the only Persian temple in Egypt for posterity. The plan was to dismantle the temple, consolidate the blocks of which it was built, and reconstruct it in a more suitable dry and rocky area some 400 metres north of its present location.
The site was chosen after careful consideration. It was near an ancient quarry, from which the restorers could cut stones to replace those that were damaged. To protect the temple from possible underground water leakage and the resulting infiltration of salts, it was planned to install special protective layers between the foundation of the temple and the ground.
Unfortunately, when this long-envisioned and frequently- delayed project eventually began, it proved to be totally unsatisfactory. Far from salvaging the temple, the work appeared to be accelerating the decay. According to Shawqi Nakhla, the temple's director of restoration and conservation, an analysis of the blocks proved that 45 per cent were in such critical condition that to handle them, let alone dismantle then, would lead to the temple's collapse. Nakhla considers it essential that the temple first be restored in situ, and then possibly dismantled and relocated.
Abdel-Hamid Qutb, the chief engineer on the project, points out that the cement ceiling is another serious problem which must be addressed immediately. "The load on the temple walls since the 1980s has resulted in the cracks progressively widening, which naturally affects the reliefs. Some parts have flaked and whole sections have fallen off," he says.
All in all, the temple is in a desperate plight. "Even the channel dug round it to prevent irrigation water from nearby farms from seeping into the foundations has disappeared," Qutb adds.
After the committee returned to Cairo, meetings were convened during which countless suggestions were made on possible steps to save Hibis temple. Up to now there is no consensus of opinion as to what should be done. While some noted scholars consider relocation absolutely essential and maintain that it should be carried out without delay, others feel strongly that the temple should be left where it is; that steps should be taken to restore and conserve what remains; and that the surrounding area should be landscaped.
The question continues to be hotly disputed, even though most of the members of the committee are in favour of the latter idea. They say the argument against moving the temple is supported by archaeological, architectural and agricultural considerations.
Archaeologists say that it is too risky to try and remove a temple when 45 per cent of its original blocks are in extremely poor condition, and that if they are replaced by new blocks it will become a rehabilitation project, not restoration or conservation. They point out that during dismantling of the entrance gateway, many blocks fragmented. Moreover, they insist the surviving architectural elements around the Sacred Lake are so friable that their relocation cannot even be considered. They argue that if the temple were moved then the best that could be done would be to build a replica at the new site.
Architects confirm that it would be easier to restore the temple in its present location than to attempt to move it, because since its construction the sandstone blocks have consolidated and it would be extremely dangerous, if not impossible, to try and separate them. In addition, they say the removal of the cement ceiling would relieve the stress factor on the walls and prevent further deterioration. They suggest the ceiling could be replaced by a lightweight foam substance like that successfully used in the Hanging Church in Old Cairo.
As for agriculturists, they claim that the level of the underground water has now diminished because agricultural development in the New Valley has led to an increase in farm land, and thus it is no longer concentrated around the temple. They point out, moreover, that no less than 86 earlier studies have revealed that the underground water table used to be five metres below ground level, whereas more recent studies indicate that it is now nine and a half metres. So, they claim, there is no real threat to the monument from this source.
Soil mechanics, for their part, say that the nature of the soil all over the New Valley is soft sandstone, which cannot possibly support the weight of such a temple indefinitely. Ultimately, they claim, it is bound to collapse, whether in its present location or elsewhere. They suggest that it is better to attempt to consolidate the soil beneath the temple by up-to- date technological means than move the temple.
The final committee report has not yet reached Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni. As soon as it does, he will assign another committee to consider all aspects of the report and then make a final decision.
Meanwhile, winter is almost upon us; rainfall is not unknown in Kharga; and it is clear to all that a quick decision is imperative.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor