Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/709

Rh With the XIXth Dynasty there is a notable change perhaps due to the filling of the hypothetical canal. No more was added on the southern line of building, but westward Rameses I. erected pylon No. II. at an ample distance from that of Amenophis III., and Seti I. and Rameses II. utilized the space between for their immense Hall of Columns, one of the most celebrated achievements of Egyptian architecture. The materials of which the pylon is composed bear witness to a temple having stood near by of the heretic and unacknowledged kings of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Haremheb’s pylon No. IX. was likewise constructed out of the ruins of a temple dedicated by Amenophis IV. (Akhenaten) to the sun-god Harmakhis. Rameses III. built a fine temple, still well preserved, to Ammon at right angles to the axis westward of pylon No. II.; Sheshonk I. (Dynasty XXII.) commenced a great colonnaded court in front of the pylon, enclosing part of this temple and a smaller triple shrine built by Seti II. In the centre of the court Tirhaka (Tirhaka, Dynasty XXV.) set up huge columns 64 ft. high, rivalling those of the central aisle in the Hall of Columns, for some building now destroyed. A vast unfinished pylon at the west end (No. I.), 370 ft. wide and 142 ft. high, is of later date than the court, and is usually attributed to the Ptolemaic age. It will be observed that the successive pylons diminish in size from the outside inwards. Portions of the solid crude-brick scaffolding are still seen banked against this pylon. About 100 metres west of it is a stone quay, on the platform of which stood a pair of obelisks of Seti II.; numerous graffiti recording the height of the Nile from the XXIst to the XXVIth Dynasties are engraved on the quay.

Besides the kings named above, numbers of others contributed in greater or less measure to the building or decoration of the colossal temple. Alexander the Great restored a chamber in the festival hall of Tethmosis III., and Ptolemy Soter built the central shrine of granite in the name of Philip Arrhidaeus. The walls throughout, as usually in Egyptian temples, are covered with scenes and inscriptions, many of these, such as those which record the annals of Tethmosis III., the campaign of Seti I. in Syria, the exploit of Rameses II. at the battle of Kadesh and his treaty with the Hittites, and the dedication of Sheshonk’s victories to Ammon, are of great historical importance. Several large stelae with interesting inscriptions have been found in the ruins, and statues of many ages of workmanship. In December 1903 M. Legrain, who has been engaged for several years in clearing the temple area systematically, first tapped an immense deposit of colossal statues, stelae and other votive objects large and small in the space between pylon No. VII. and the great hypostyle hall. After three seasons’ work, much of it in deep water, 750 large monuments have been extracted, while the small figures, &c. in bronze and other materials amount to nearly 20,000. The value of the find, both from the artistic and historical standpoints, is immense. The purpose of the deposit is still in doubt; many of the objects are of the finest materials and finest workmanship, and in perfect preservation: even precious metals are not absent. Multitudes of objects in wood, ivory, &c., have decayed beyond recovery. That all were waste pieces seems incredible. They are found lying in the utmost confusion; in date they range from the XIIth Dynasty to the Ptolemaic period.

The inundation annually reaches the floor of the temple, and the saltpetre produced from the organic matter about the ruins, annually melting and crystallizing, has disintegrated the soft sandstone in the lower courses of the walls and the lower drums and bases of the columns. There is moreover no solid foundation in any part of the temple. Slight falls of masonry have taken place from time to time, and the accumulation of rubbish was the only thing that prevented a great disaster. Repairs, often on a large scale, have therefore gone on side by side with the clearance, especially since the fall of many columns in the great hall in 1899. All the columns which fell in that year were re-erected by 1908.

The temple of Khons, in the S.W. corner of the great enclosure, is approached by an avenue of rams, and entered through a fine pylon erected by Euergetes I. It was built by Rameses III. and his successors of the XXth Dynasty, with Hrihōr of Dynasty XXI. Excavations in the opposite S.E. corner have revealed flint weapons and other sepulchral remains of the earliest periods, proving that the history of Thebes goes back to a remote antiquity.

See Baedeker’s Handbook for Egypt; also Description de l’Égypte. Atlas, Antiquités (tome iii.); A. Mariette, Karnak, Étude topographique et archéologique; L. Borchardt, Zur Baugeschichte des Ammontempels von Karnak; G. Legrain in ''Recueil des travaux rélatifs à l’arch. Égypt.'', vol. xxvii. &c.; and reports in Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte.

 KARNAL, a town and district of British India, in the Delhi division of the Punjab. The town is 7 m. from the right bank of the Jumna, with a railway station 76 m. N. of Delhi. Pop. (1901), 23,559. There are manufactures of cotton cloth and boots, besides considerable local trade and an annual horse fair.

The stretches along the right bank of the Jumna, north of Delhi. It is entirely an alluvial plain, but is crossed by the low uplift of the watershed between the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal. Area, 3153 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 883,225, showing an increase of nearly 3% in the decade. The principal crops are millets, wheat, pulse, rice, cotton and sugar-cane. There are several factories for ginning and pressing cotton. The district is traversed by the Delhi-Umballa-Kalka railway, and also by the Western Jumna canal. It suffered from famine in 1896–1897, and again to some extent in 1899–1900.

No district of India can boast of a more ancient history than Karnal, as almost every town or stream is connected with the legends of the Mahabharata. The town of Karnal itself is said to owe its foundation to Raja Karna, the mythical champion of the Kauravas in the great war which forms the theme of the national epic. Panipat, in the south of the district, is said to have been one of the pledges demanded from Duryodhana by Yudisthira as the price of peace in that famous conflict. In historical times the plains of Panipat have three times proved the theatre of battles which decided the fate of Upper India. It was here that Ibrahim Lodi and his vast host were defeated in 1526 by the veteran army of Baber; in 1556 Akbar reasserted the claims of his family on the same battlefield against the Hindu general of the house of Adil Shah, which had driven the heirs of Baber from the throne for a brief interval; and at Panipat too, on the 7th of January 1761, the Mahratta confederation was defeated by Ahmad Shah Durani. During the troublous period which then ensued the Sikhs managed to introduce themselves, and in 1767 one of their chieftains, Desu Singh, appropriated the fort of Kaithal, which had been built during the reign of Akbar. His descendants, the bhais of Kaithal, were reckoned amongst the most important Cis-Sutlej princes. Different portions of this district have lapsed from time to time into the hands of the British.  KÁROLYI, ALOYS, (1825–1889), Austro-Hungarian diplomatist, was born in Vienna on the 8th of August 1825. The greatness of the Hungarian family of Károlyi dates from the time of Alexander Károlyi (1668–1743), one of the generals of Francis Rákóczy II., who in 1711 negotiated the peace of Szatmár between the insurgent Hungarians and the new king, the emperor Charles VI., was made a count of the Empire in 1712, and subsequently became a field marshal in the imperial army. Aloys Károlyi entered the Austrian diplomatic service, and was attached successively to embassies at various European capitals. In 1858 he was sent to St Petersburg on a special mission to seek the support of Russia against Napoleon III. He was ambassador at Berlin in 1866 at the time of the rupture between Prussia and Austria, and after the Seven Weeks’ War was charged with the negotiation of the preliminaries of peace at Nikolsburg. He was again sent to Berlin in 1871, acted as second plenipotentiary at the Berlin congress of 1878, and was sent in the same year to London, where he represented Austria for ten years. He died on the 2nd of December 1889 at Tótmegyer. 