Architectural features of the Great pyramid.

 

 

 

Interior features.
2.21) The Granite 'Plugs'
2.22) The 'Subterranean' chamber
2.225) The Ascending corridor
2.23) The 'Girdle stones'
2.24) The 'Queen's' Chamber
2.25) The 'Well-shaft'
2.26) The Grotto.
2.27) The Grand Gallery.
2.28) The 'Antechamber' and 'Portcullis' System
2.29) The King's chamber.
   2.291) 'Explosion' or 'Subsidence'
   2.292) The King's Coffer.
   2.293) Is the 'kings chamber' a representation of a 'Djedt'?
2.30) The relieving chambers
2.31) The 'Star' shafts.
 
Exterior features.
2.11) The missing capstone/Benben
2.12) The Casing stones
2.13) The Cornerstones
2.14) The 35th row.
2.15) The Door - Was there ever one?
2.16) The 'Trial passages'
2.17) The Water Shaft
2.18) The Sphinx
 
Related features.
2.35) The Iron Plate
2.40) Missing pieces of the puzzle.
2.50) Extra Pieces of the Puzzle
2.60) Summary.

Scroll down for full list.

 

 

 

 

The Exterior.

2.11) The missing capstone (Benben) - The earliest mention of the missing capstone comes from Diodorus Siculus 50/60 BC, who clearly mentions that the capstone is 'missing'.

The fact that Herodotus does not mention it is more likely to suggest that it was there in his day. Also if the top were present his statement that Khafre's pyramid was 40 ft lower would make sense.

Considering all other pyramids have a capstone, one would assume there to have once been one, and although some capstones were found near Giza, none are believed to have belonged to the Great pyramid.

 

2.12) The Casing stones - It is now accepted that all the large 'Memphite' pyramids were also originally faced with white Tura limestone casing-stones, so this feature of the 'Great' pyramid is not a unique one. The importance of achieving a smooth face can be deduced from the amount of extra labour they represent and we must assume that the flat surface was an essential part of any pyramid. In some cases it can be seen how the casing stones were also carved at the back to fit existing stones. Davidson (2), pointed out the following:

 'Another remarkable feature of construction (which) confirms the high degree of accuracy and smoothness of the surface that was considered necessary. Flaws in the visible surfaces of the casing stones were cut out and refilled with accurately fitting pieces of limestone, invisibly cemented in'.

But what purpose or function could this serve? Davidson reasonably concluded that the intention was:

 '...to present a polished unbroken reflecting surface on all four sides'. He also concludes 'It is obvious that it was from the brilliant reflexions  from its casing stones that the great pyramid is named, in the inscriptions of the pyramid period, and in inscriptions of later times, "Khuti - The lights".

It was in fact, Davidson's belief that one of the functions of the Great pyramid was to act as a 'beacon' which reflected the light of the midday, solstice and Equinox suns (Although, this does not explain the presence of 'Tura' casing-stones on other contemporary pyramids).

William Fix found conclusive proof that the exterior of the 'Great' pyramid (or at least a part of it), was once painted red. This remarkable piece of information creates a clear connection with other 'Solar Temples' or pyramids that were also painted red. We can see similarities with the Tibetan religious buildings that are also painted red. (A ossible memory of the primitive use of red-ochre).

 

 

2.13) The Cornerstones - Petrie showed that the primary purpose of the corner sockets was to fix the diagonals of the pyramid (2). However, there is a suggestion that they were also associated with rituals and ceremony. For example, the Lisht pyramid of Senusert I (Dynasty XII), yielded some interesting articles from under its Corner stones. Dr. A. Lithgoe described the discovery;

'Under the platform (of the pyramid) there was found at each of the four corners of the pyramid a "foundation deposit". These were practically identical in character, and in each instance had been placed in a square pocket about 80cm in diameter, and 1 metre in depth, excavated in the bed-rock upon which the platform rested. The bottom of the pocket had been covered, in each case, with about 5cm. of clean gravel upon which there where some 25 to 30 small pottery model dishes and vases, while scattered among them were a number of lozenge-shaped blue glass beads. On these objects were laid the skull and some of the bones of an ox which had been sacrificed as a part of the ceremonial. The pocket had then been completely filled with gravel, on which, at about half its depth, was laid a small model brick of sun-dried Nile mud. Finally the pockets were covered by massive limestone blocks, which in each case formed the corner blocks of the pyramid'. (2)

There are sufficient references in Egyptian hieroglyphs to the ceremony of 'stretching the cord', a procedure which appears to refer to the initial layout and orientation of sacred temples and pyramids etc. It is possible that this ceremony was simply the result of tradition or, as is suspected by many, it may have been a means of 'endowing' buildings with some form of  'sacred' potential.

 

2.14) The 35th row - This particular course of masonry has led to much debate. It is at the same height as the top part of the gabled roof of the Queens chamber. It is noticeable because it is the level at which the masonry becomes larger again, having got progressively smaller each course it rose below. This effect is repeated several times and it's significance is as yet unknown.

 

It has been suggested that this row may represent the height of an earlier construction.

 

 

 It is noted that it is exactly the height of a 'quarter araura' a unit of Egyptian measurement (associated with the solar year). Whether by design or accident, it is the exact same dimension as the diameter of Stonehenge.

 

2.15) The Door - Was there ever one? - Strabo mentioned a hidden 'South' door, which was presumably remained so until after Al-Mamun's time, as he apparently failed to find it. We know that doors were put into other pyramids. For example: (Extract from Petrie, 1883) - 

'The traces of a stone flap door, or turning block, in the mouth of the South Pyramid of Dahshur, have been already described (section 109), as well as the signs of a wooden door behind that. Such a formation of the passage mouth is unmistakable in its purpose; but after drawing conclusions from that doorway, it was a most satisfactory proof of the generality of such doors, to observe the following passage from Strabo on the Great Pyramid. "The Greater (Pyramid), a little way up one side, has a stone that may be taken out , (exairesimon, exemptilem) which being raised up (arqentoV, sublato) there is a sloping passage to the foundations." This sentence is most singularly descriptive of opening a flap door; first, the stone is taken out, or lifted outwards from the face; and then, being thus raised up, the passage is opened. The two different words exactly express the change in the apparent motion, first outwards and then upwards; and they show remarkable accuracy and precision in their use. Besides this description, there is another statement that the Pyramids of Gizeh had doors, in an Arabic MS., quoted by Vyse; this was written in 850 A.D., and, therefore, only twenty or thirty years after Mamun had forced his way into the Great Pyramid, and thus re-discovered the real entrance'.

An original translation of Strabo's Geographica dating to 1857, says: "…a stone, which may be taken out; when that is removed"—not "raised up". The translation of the original Greek is clearly important.

Conclusion - Strabo talks specifically of a 'hidden' entrance on the South (North) face with an opening door. The fact that the entrance and descending  passage was not described for so long after this suggests that it was 'closed' until the entry by Al-Mamun. This clearly suggests that the door could be either open or closed and 'Hidden'.

Petrie's study of the Bent (Vega) Pyramid (The only pyramid with remaining doorways around the intact entrance), found that on either side of the entrance, there were holes cut opposite each other, about 9cm in diameter by 14 cm deep. These holes were just inside the entrance and only 15cm from the top of the passage. Petrie interpreted these as being hinge sockets to swing a stone door from. Behind these sockets, the passageway contained more door sockets. These were smaller vertical sockets for a very lightweight door.

The following two prints are from Petrie, 1882.

The mechanical proofs of the existence of a door to the Great Pyramid are of some weight, though only circumstantial, and not direct evidence like that of the above authors. No one can doubt that the entrance must have been closed, and closed so as not to attract attention at the time when the Arabs made their forced passage, about a hundred feet long, through the solid masonry. Moreover, it is certain that the entrance was not covered then by sand or rubbish: (i) because the Arabic hole is some way below it, and the ground-level at the time of the forcing is seen plainly in the rubbish heap; (2) because the rubbish heap, which is even now much below the original doorway, is composed of broken casing, and the casing was not yet broken up at the time of forcing the passage. Therefore the doorway must have been so finely closed that the various accidental chippings and weathering on all the general surface of the casing completely masked any wear or cracks that there might be around the entrance; and so invisible was the door then, that, standing on the heap from which they forced their hole, the Arabs could not see anything to excite their suspicion on the surface only 35 feet above them; they, therefore, plunged into the task of tearing out the stone piecemeal, in hopes of meeting with something in the inside. Yet we know from Strabo that the Romans had free access to the passage, though he says that it was kept a secret in his time. No extractable plug or block, weighing necessarily some tons, would have been replaced by every visitor until the Arab times, especially without there being any shelf or place to rest it on while it was removed.*

* Exactly the same reasoning applies to the Second Pyramid. Diodorus Siculus mentions the foot-holes up to its entrance, and Herodotus correctly describes the form of its passages and yet the Arabs forced a large passage in it, in entire ignorance of the real entrance, which must, therefore, have had a door like the Great Pyramid. (This all assumes that the 'Arab's' had no knowledge of the door, whereas it is also possible that they had complete knowledge of it).

The restoration of a door would agree to these various historical requirements, and be in harmony with the arrangement at Dahshur such a block would only need a pull of 2.5 cwt. on first taking it outwards, and 4 cwt. to lift it upwards to its final position; it would leave no external opening; it would also allow just half of the passage to be quite clear; and from the passage being halved in its height by two courses at the beginning, such an opening is the most likely. Though the general form is thus indicated, the details are of course conjectural.

Some photos of the Gabled entrance:-

All of the stones (above), would have been hidden by the original structure.

Note: It was suggested by Lepre that the perforated stone in the bottom-left photo is one of the missing 'Portcullis stones' from the 'Kings' ante-chamber. (see below)

 

The 'Tetragram' that was once reported as being carved over the door is no longer visible. (See photo's above). "According to Walter Marshall Adams, the triangle was meant to symbolize the 'door of the horizon', the hieroglyphic sign for the horizon…having been carved inside the triangle, which from a distance, assumes the form of a pupil. Thus, Adams believes, the hieroglyphic sign must be the pyramids divine name". (16)  

This symbol can be considered of the highest significance...It serves no structural function and is therefore purely symbolic.

  

Comment - It has a vague similarity to features found in the 'subterranean' chamber (above).

 

 

2.16) The 'Trial passages' - Found to the east of the pyramid, they contain sample lengths of all the buildings main passages in their correct dimensions, but with certain particular differences.

  • The subterranean passage is cut at an angle, instead of horizontally as in the pyramid.

  • The well shaft leads upwards from the intersection of the ascending and descending passages, instead of downwards from the grand gallery.

  • The bottom end of the ascending passage is tapered both horizontally and vertically, instead of only horizontally as in the pyramid. It is unclear what their original purpose was. It is possible that these 'trial' passages show something still undiscovered. What lies above the granite plugs is still unknown.

It has been suggested that the trial passages are in-fact the remains of a small pyramid, now dismantled. (Lehner). This idea is reasonable considering the internal layout of a satellite pyramid to the 'Bent' pyramid, 30km South of Ghiza. It is perhaps ironically called the 'Cult' pyramid, and lies along the 'Bent' pyramid's axis, on the south side. The entrance is at just over ground level. 'The passage first descends then ascends and comes out in a small, corbel-vaulted chamber not quite 7 meters high. Many scholars consider this corridor to be the model for the grand gallery in khufu's pyramid'. (Ref: 20, pp181 pic.)

 

2.17) The Water Shaft - In the 1920's and 1930's, an Egyptian archaeologist made a startling discovery at Giza of which very little is known:

Extract from 'Giza: The truth' - 'Selim Hassan cleared the central Mastaba field, which lies between the sphinx and the second pyramid, and in doing so revealed a deep vertical shaft running off a tunnel under the middle causeway, which was filled with water at its lowest level, although he reported that he could see a "colonnaded hall" under the water. No matter how much he attempted to pump the water out in the hope of investigating further, the level remained the same'. (10)

Extract from 'Excavations at Ghiza' Vol 5 by Selim Hassan (Shafts of the Saitic Period-600BC):

'The most striking example of this type of shaft is that which was cut in the causeway of the second pyramid and discovered by me in the sixth season's work. Upon the surface of the causeway, they first built a platform in the shape of a Mastaba, using stones taken from the ruins of the covered corridor of the causeway. In the centre of this superstructure they sank a shaft which passed through the roof and the floor of the subway running under the causeway to a depth of about 9m. At the bottom of this shaft is a rectangular chamber, in the floor of the eastern (he in fact means northern) side of which is another shaft. This descends about 14m and terminates in a spacious hall surrounded by seven burial chambers in each of which is a sarcophagus. Two of these sarcophagi, which are of basalt and are monolithic, are so enormous that at first we wondered if they contained the bodies of sacred bulls. In the eastern side of this hall is yet another shaft, about 10m deep, but unfortunately it is flooded. Through the clear water we can see that it ends in a colonnaded hall, also having side chambers containing sarcophagi. We tried in vain to pump out the water, but it seems that a spring must have broken through the rock, for continual daily pumping over a period of four years was unable to reduce the water level'. (10)

Extract from 'Giza: the Truth' - 'Returning in February 1997, the Schor Expedition team set about exploring the 'Water Shaft' under the second pyramids causeway…In his time (Salim Hassan's), the lowest or 'Third level' had been completely under water, but the Schor team found it only partially flooded, and while attempting to obtain a level platform for their cameras they scraped away some debris on the floor and discovered the top of a sarcophagus lid'. (10)

 

 

 

 

The Interior.

2.21) The Granite 'Plugs'  - The three granite 'plugs', at the  bottom of the ascending passage are believed to have been built 'in-situ' by some sources, and 'slid' into place by others. While other pyramids also show evidence of having had 'plugging' stones, those at Giza can still be seen.

The ascending passage tapers inwards slightly at the bottom end which required extremely accurately cut blocks. The granite blocks fit almost seamlessly into the passage, barring a 4 inch cavity between the bottom block and the next one up reported by Petrie (13). This has now closed, unsurprisingly, considering one of the tapered sides is exposed.

Extract from Petrie - 'The present top one is not the original end; it is roughly broken, and there is a bit of granite still cemented to the floor some way farther south of it. From appearances there I estimated that originally the plug was 24 inches beyond its present end' (13)

Extract from Petrie :- The broken end of the upper block, and a chip of granite still remaining cemented to the floor of the passage a little above that, showing that it was probably 24 inches longer than it is now, judging by marks on the passage. Thus the total length of plug-blocks would be about 203 inches, or very probably 206 inches, or 10 cubits, like so many lengths marked out in that passage.....the plug-blocks cannot have stood in any place except on the sloping floor of the gallery.

Extract from the Edgar Brothers :- (Vol II) - The Granite plug is composed of three blocks of red granite. There is a space of a few inches between the lowermost and middle blocks (Petrie says 4 inches). The top end of the uppermost block is much fractured in appearance…Professor Petrie says he saw a bit of granite still cemented to the floor two feet further up the passage. We, also, saw what for some time we took to be a piece of granite at the place indicated; but on more careful examination it proved to be a lump of coarse red plaster. We saw several similar pieces of plaster adhering to the angles of the floor and walls throughout the length of the passage, and we required to clear some of them away as they hindered careful measuring. We also saw at least one such piece of plaster in the Grand Gallery. This coarse red, or, rather, pink plaster was very extensively used by the ancient workmen in the core masonry of the building, and some of it can be seen in certain wide joints in the dilapidated portion of the First Ascending Passage. We believe that the upper end of the Granite Plug is in its original state, and that its rough unfinished appearance has symbolic significance. The upper end of the lowermost block also has a fractured appearance, which is certainly original, for the stone is very inaccessible and there is no room for anyone to work at it'.

There has never been a suggestion that the plugs were actually cemented in place themselves. This and the (now closed) cavity between the top plugs suggest that the plugs could have been slid into place. Petrie however, says that he found 'a chip of granite still cemented to the floor'. The Edgar brothers say they found what '...Proved to be a lump of coarse red plaster'. Either way, if the plugs were slid into place, from where do these lumps of plaster originate? This is clear evidence that either the plugs were not slid into place, or that some legitimate work took place after the pyramid had closed. (i.e. the passage was used as a 'skip'). - It has been suggested that masons gained entry after the pyramid was closed to cut the Davison channel and repair the damaged beams of the Kings chamber, perhaps this can explain the origin of the rubble.

It is most unlikely that masons would have re-entered a 'tomb' for repairs after it was closed, but as there is evidence of repair work in the breaching of Davison's chamber and the use of plaster for repairs in the Kings chamber, we can assume that this work was done either during construction or after. (Although we still have no explanation for the lumps of plaster on the floors and walls of the descending passage as it is unlikely that any plaster would have been wasted after the plugs were fitted due to the difficulty in getting it in). However, the repairs in the kings chamber is associated with Davison's chamber (cut through existing masonry), and that provides a reasonable explanation for the rubble, assuming the repair work was done after the pyramid was closed, or the rubble would have been taken outside (which makes the rubble and plaster original).

Comment - While it appears probable that the granite 'plugs' were placed 'in-situ', it is possible that they were slid into place. The tapered passage and plugs were clearly designed to seal the upper parts but just how does the 'tomb' theory tie in with pre-fitted plugs? It is interesting to note that the start of the ascending passage was cut through pre-existing masonry (ref?), which obviously accords with the 'change of plan'. If on the other hand, it never was for a burial, why hide the upper parts?

Questions - If the bottom section of the ascending passage was cut through pre-existing masonry, then the plugs would have had to be slid in that far. How do you maintain the accuracy of the tunnel etc with it blocked? (It has no part in the 'change in plan' theory). Could there be a passage directly above the granite blocks, as in the 'trial passages' outside.

It has already been shown that Al-Mamun was probably specifically seeking entry to the upper parts. He presumably had no idea that there was an alternative access to the upper parts via this well-shaft. The evidence of a forced-entry prior to Al-Manun is important. It has been suggested that the ascending / descending junction had already been breached independently of Al-Mamoun.

If the granite plugs have been in place since the pyramid was built, and as it has been shown that the 'well-shaft' was part of  the original design (with the probable exception of one 'roughly cut' part), it seems possible that the upper parts were not just hidden to prevent an 'accidental' entry (being left incomplete so that only an 'initiate' would be able to 'force-entry' at a later date - which they presumably did!), but also perhaps, to prevent water damage (the 'rough-cut' section of the well-shaft was cut through blocks). This supports the earliest Arab legends which say that the 'purpose of the pyramid was said to be to conceal the literature and science held within it, well hidden from the eyes of the initiated, and to protect them from the flood'. Although this could be a reference to the annual Nile flooding, it is possibly a reference to an archetypal flood. It is a curious association to be sure. The great pyramid of Giza and the great flood in the same sentence. (The 'sudden' appearance of writing in Egypt is specifically interesting, in relation to this Arab legend).

Context - Other pyramids have evidence of granite 'plugs' too.

And finally, another solution presents itself. The following is an extract from Pochan (16), 'Then where were these three blocks stored? The solution is simple…The three blocks were stored in a niche constructed in the west wall near the bottom of the Ascending passage, parallel to the latter and connected, by means of a narrow shaft, with the descending passage. By being simply tipped over, and then allowed to slide for 2.50 metres, the blocks would arrive at their final position. Once the job was completed, the workers cold regain the Descending passage through the narrow shaft, which would itself eventually be sealed with cemented limestone blocks'.

 

2.22) The 'Subterranean' chamber - The first noticeable thing about the subterranean passage is that it has he appearance of being unfinished. The southern passage was in the process of being carefully cut, and adds to the idea that work was stopped in the middle of the chamber. The obvious question is why it was left unfinished, when it was such an obviously original feature of the pyramid. The Polar shaft was a feature of all the other Memphite pyramids. The idea that it was 'left' unfinished strongly suggests a change in the design occurred as does the fact that it was neither finished at the bottom nor connected to the new design (having closed the upper parts off).

The 'pit' in the floor of this chamber contains a granite stone with holes it it (below), similar to the one at the entrance to the same chamber, and the one by the main entrance, and the one in the well-shaft. These are believed to be the 'portcullis' stones from the King's chamber above.

 

 

2.225) The Ascending corridor - The beginning of the Ascending corridor was determined to have been cut through pre-existing masonry. This suggests a possible change in design (at the upper level of the cutting). The angle of 26° 30' is also the same angle as that from Giza to Jerusalem. (The same location as identified independently by Manetho).

As the descending corridor extends up to the 35th level (including gable-stones), we can conclude that any fitted masonry features below that level, must be from the original design also. (which brings us to some interesting conclusions). There relevant features below the 35th level include: The upper parts of the Well-shaft, the Queens chamber and Star-shafts, the Grand Gallery and the Ascending corridor that leads to these features. There is a problem in that the lower part of the Ascending passages are said to have been cut though existing masonry, which suggests that a change of plan took place. It is at the top of the level that has been cut that we have to look, as it was here that we can assume the builders decided to cut a new shaft through the upper parts of the pyramid. Unless a different and satisfactory reason can be determined for the suggestion that the lower parts were cut through existing masonry, it is reasonable to conclude that this is good evidence of a change in plan, as suggested by Petrie. However, in order to accept this theory, the other internal features need to be explained within the same context.

The top of the Ascending corridor 'meets' the top of the Well-shaft. If the upper part of the Well-shaft is proven to be original, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the lower, neatly cut sections were also original. Of course, this lends weight to the idea that the upper parts were in the original design, but still requires an explanation for the lower section being cut (with at least one girdle-stone in situ)

The presence of Girdle-stones in the areas discussed however, lends weight to the original idea that the corridor (and all other upper parts) were in fact planned from the start.

 

2.23) The 'Girdle stones' - These three stones in the Ascending corridor are baffling. They are described in detail by the Edgar Brothers: (Vol I). who said the following of them:

 

Extract from Edgar Brothers, Vol I - '…The chief discovery was, that at stated intervals the smaller blocks forming elsewhere separately portions of the walls, floor, and ceiling of the passage, were replaced by great transverse plates of stone, with the whole of the passage's hollow rectangular bore cut clean through them; wherefore, at these places, the said plates formed walls, floor, and ceiling, in one piece…Additionally, let into the walls immediately below the three upper Girdles, there are peculiar inset stones, which look like pointers…let into specifically large wall stones'… And…' It is quite probable that the stones forming the three upper girdles were built in entire, and the bore of the passage cut through them in situ. The two roof stones immediately above and below each of the three upper Girdles, are in themselves partial Girdles'.

 

Mendelssohn (5) argued that the Girdle-stones are evidence of buttress walls from an internal step-pyramid structure. He say's the following;

'Since earlier and later stone pyramids relied on a basic core of buttress walls it is more than likely that the same design was used in the great Giza pyramids. Borshardt has drawn attention to the existence of 'girdle-stones' in that part of the ascending passage of the Khufu pyramid which was cut through already existing masonry at the first alteration of the interior design. These are large vertical slabs through which the new corridor passes at intervals, and he has taken them as part of internal buttress walls', but then he says 'This view has been disputed by Clarke and Engelbach, who have pointed out that it would be wholly fortuitous for the passage always to have encountered whole stones. They also maintain, rightly, that the walls of this passage are made of fitted stones...'

In order to reconcile this information, he concludes that;

'...probably both sides are correct. The passage was evidently lined with new masonry and the girdle-stones, while not being part of the original buttress walls, were placed to mark their positions. This seems more likely since the girdle-stones are spaced at intervals of 10 cubits (about 5m.), which is the distance between buttress walls in the medium pyramid. This indication of internal buttress walls shows that no novel features seem to have been introduced in the core structure of the Giza pyramids'.

 

2.24) The 'Queen's' Chamber - The 'Queens' chamber is called so because of its shape, which Arab tradition ascribes to female burials. It lies at the very heart of the pyramid.

Petrie was the first to suggest that the chamber was the serdab of the pyramid (a chamber containing a statue of the dead pharaoh. Traces of a stairway and a table for offerings are still clearly visible on the floor in front of the niche. Petri also notes a number of small fragments of black stone. The serdab of Kagemni at Saqqara seems to be a 'replica' of this chamber. (16)

The Queens chamber is one of the greatest mysteries of the pyramid. It's deliberate placement in the centre of the pyramid gives it a significance which is increased by the curious fact that it was disguised by so many numerous hidden doorways and stone-slabs.

Having gained entry to the upper parts of the pyramid, the most obvious place to continue searching would have been the kings chamber as the passage to the Queens chamber was concealed by a huge stone slab over the floor of the 'Grand-gallery'. Even more significant then is the fact that the 'star-shaft's' which were perfectly visible in the kings chamber were also 'hidden' or at least remained sealed over, concealing two more 'star-shaft's' - which are blatantly not that at all, as they lead only to the 50th level (the course that the 'Kings' chamber rests on).

It has been this very revealing of such 'hidden parts' of the Great pyramid that has given it such status. Other pyramids appear to have no such 'hidden' chambers, and more interesting still is that the frustratingly slow wait to discover what else may be 'hidden' behind the 'doors' at the ends of these passages is being hampered by Egyptian bureaucrats who appear neither willing to allow others to research these chambers or to do so themselves. (This site awaits their next move with baited breath).

 

2.25) The 'Well-shaft' - In the 1830's Captain G. B. Caviglia cleared the descending passage of debris, exposing the 'pit' for the first time since the Pyramid had first been opened by Al Mamun. At the same time, Caviglia also discovered and opened the 'well-shaft'. Its upper opening was concealed at the point where the horizontal passage to the Queens Chamber branches off. Clearing the debris from the well-shaft is said to have improved the otherwise stifling air quality in the Pit and Descending Passage.

It is important to determine whether the passage was built before the pyramid was constructed, or after.

The Well shaft lies precisely on an E-W plane parallel to the pyramids passages and chambers. It can be separated into seven sections, with the upper three sections passing through 60 ft of limestone masonry and the lower segments being tunnelled through another 150ft of natural rock. With the exception of section C which was tunnelled through the masonry in a rough and irregular manner, and section G, two of whose squarish sides were left rough and not quite horizontal; all the other sections are straight, precise, carefully finished, and uniformly angled throughout their lengths. The Edgar brothers showed conclusively that the upper short horizontal passage (A), as well as the vertical section (B), were part of the original construction (Section B is precisely the same length as D). They also found that the lower vertical section (D) was built with masonry blocks as it passed through the 'Grotto' in the bedrock. It could only have been so constructed when the rock face was still exposed, before the grotto was covered with the masonry of the pyramid.

The geometry of the shaft, the fact that the top part of the tunnel was incorporated into the design and the bottom parts cut neatly and correctly except for the last section, and that the last section was cut through solid masonry all support the idea that the Well-shaft was built (but not necessarily completed), as the pyramid was constructed.

The missing blocking stones, chiseling around the entrance, and the fact that a part of the Well-shaft was roughly cut through existing masonry has led to the reasonable conclusion that the well-shaft was breached at some time in the past to access the pyramid, presumably after construction. The next question then is how was it accessed?  

Extract from the Edgar Brothers (Vol II) - The mouth of the Well is formed by a portion of the ramp on the west side having been broken away: and the appearance of the masonry surrounding this Well-mouth suggests the thought of the once covering ramp-stone having been violently burst out from underneath….In addition to the breaking of the ramp-stone at the head of the well-shaft, a portion of the lower end of the floor of the Grand Gallery appears to have been forcibly removed.

This observation leaves the reader with the impression that the Well-shaft was cut from bottom up. However, the following quote creates a different picture.

'There is incontrovertible evidence that the well Shaft is an original feature that was dug from the top down…a close examination of the chisel marks on the topside of the blocks that surround the upper entranced to the shaft reveals that it was chiselled out from above'. (10)

In fact, an examination of the area shows that the blocking stones were originally cemented in place, with a part of the top one still in place. 

What about the idea that the blocking stones were removed by the last crew after sliding the granite plugs into place? Apart from the fact that the plugs appear to have been built in-situ, this theory relies on the improbable suggestion that the last workers would have been expected to break their way out.

We are left with the following possibility: That the shaft was cut surreptitiously after the pyramid was finished by someone who shared or passed on the knowledge of its whereabouts. But if this is the case, how did they enter the pyramid. Either it was Al-Mamoun, of which there is no record, or someone before him. The suggestion is not a new one. In fact, the only thing that stands in its way is the chisel marks at the upper entry, which have been established to have been cut from the top. But what if the shaft was cut from the bottom, then opened out from the top?

Extract from Great Pyramid Passages: Vol I - 'We have taken a number of photographs and careful measurements of the lower end of the Well, where it enters at the west wall of the Descending Passage - See Plate X. The opening in the wall is rather broken and rough around the edges, although the sides are, in a general way, vertical and square with the top. Professor Flinders Petrie believes that the opening was at one time concealed by a stone' and that 'Al Mamoun's workmen made their way down the Well shaft from its upper end in the Grand Gallery, and forced the concealing block of stone from its position at the lower end'. (14)

Comment - It feels significant that it terminates at the same level as the 'Queens' passage and chamber. That it was blocked (built over), for a section towards the top end during construction, but not completely to the top, is also significant. There must have been a good reason for concealing it and re-entering it. Yet we can assume that it was not meant to be found easily yet probably intended for 'reasonably easy access' at a later date. Whoever completed the tunnelling had a plan from which to work by in order to make the final connection and that whoever cut it was privy to that information.  'It is also possible that the short passage that connects the two sets of chambers in the Bent pyramid, which is clearly not part of the original design, was also tunnelled by robbers who knew the layout'. (10) Why is it so long?

Question: It was reported that the Well-shaft was partially filled with`debris when it was found. Questions come to mind such as 'How did the person who filled it get out?', 'Where did the debris originate', and 'what was the purpose of filling it for that matter', in fact, was it ever re-sealed at the bottom end?

Pochan (16) manages to 'clear away' the issue of rubble at the bottom of the tunnel. He quotes Coutelle, from the Napoleonic expedition who recorded the following:

'While descending, I had stopped at a sort of grotto found above the steep part of the well; that is, in the second vertical part. This excavation had been made by removing pebbles, bits of which still remained stuck to the arch; there were more underfoot. I rested there (and) compared the pebbles I was carrying with these pebbles and ascertained that the pebbles at the bottom of the well derived from the excavation of this grotto'.

The logic of the finding is sufficient to conclude that it is probably right. It does, however, mean that whoever displaced the pebbles had no intention of exiting the building via the bottom of the well-shaft.

 

2.26) The Grotto. It has been suggested that the grotto was an original landscape feature, and that the pyramid might have even been built around it. However, it is the 'Queens' chamber that occupies the central position of the pyramid, and not the grotto (although its upper entrance is on the same level).

The block-work from the upper entrance down to the grotto has been shown to have been laid as the pyramid rose up which points to the idea that in some way, the area down to the grotto was an original feature. (The same is true of the tunnelling below the grotto. It is clean and well worked). The only rough cut passage is above the grotto, cutting through the existing masonry until it meets the prepared passage above it.

According to Lepre, there is a part of the portcullis system in the grotto. This is a difficult thing to understand in any context.

It has been suggested that the grotto was built to allow the first intruders room to work. This suggestion seems reasonable as, looking at it as in order to cut through the blocks above, there would need to be a well sited workspace. We can assume that the 'Grotto' has been excavated in the past (from the 'rubble and sand' found in the tunnel below, which is similar in composition to that found in the grotto). We can also assume that when this was done, there was another way out above the excavators.

 

2.27) The Grand Gallery.  One of the great mysteries about the Great Pyramid remained the apparently incomprehensible design of the Grand Gallery, a seven levelled, elaborate corbelled vault forming the upper half of the Ascending Passage leading to the King's Chamber. One of the most elegantly simple, coherent, and widely ignored theories about the Great Pyramid was the astronomer Richard Anthony Proctor's explanation of this aspect of its design. Proctor was inspired by a passage in the neo-Platonic philosopher Proculus's commentary on Plato's Timaes, which mentioned that before the Great Pyramid was completed it was used as an observatory. Based on his reading of the account he surmised that when the Pyramid was completed to its fiftieth course, i.e. to the level of the top of the Grand Gallery, which was also the floor of the Kings Chamber, it would have made an excellent observatory. He documented his theory in a book published in the late nineteenth century titled The Great Pyramid, Observatory, Tomb and Temple.

The function of the ascending passage lies hidden in the conclusions. The design features suggest that it had a specific purpose. If it was symbolic, then the features will have symbolic explanations. The sockets in the sides are all roughly filled except one. Who has filled them, or were they always filled. The corbelled roof shows remains of a slot along its length on the 3rd instep. It appears, at first glance to have held a false roof. The Ascending passage was 'cut through' the pyramids masonry in the first instance, rather than constructed. So why was the limestone at this point of a higher quality than that used in the rest of the core masonry?  (They were planned from the beginning, but not finished until later).

 

There is another feature of the Grand Gallery which is worth examining: on each side a groove—about 7 inches high and 1 inch deep—has been cut into the third layer of corbelling along its entire length. In addition, at the top of the grooves there are rough chisel marks running along their entire lengths. At first impression it seems as though these may have once housed a 'false ceiling', an idea repeated by several people.

It has been noticed that the Gallery better is 'finished off' at the Northern, bottom half than the 'rough' Southern top section.

 

In 1843 Borchardt found an impression, in the walls of the Great Gallery (BORCHARDT, L., "Einiges zur dritten Bauperiode," Berlin 1930). He established that it was made of mortar, in which a long, round object had originally been embedded, and later removed. He could not determine what that object may have been, but he assumed that it had been attached to the Gallery wall by means of the mortar.

Comment - It has been suggested that this mark was left be a piece of cord, probably used for some kind of measuring purposes. One was also found in one of the 'Star-shafts' but it is vertical (see left), and alone makes no sense in terms of facilitating measurement. The Edgar Brothers reported finding a number of plaster impressions in the ascending passages, and of having to clean many off in order to take correct measurements.

The following is an extract from Pochan (16) -

'Various hypothesis, each as unlikely as the next, have been put forward concerning these slots….But the number of slots should have attracted the attention of Egyptologists. Wasn't Cheops the twenty-eighth king of Egypt after Menes? I propose that the twenty-eight slots twenty-eight bases for twenty-eight facing royal statues, and that the Grand Hall is actually the gallery of King Cheops' ancestors!

The absence of the twenty-eighth slot in the western banquette, whose place is now taken up by the opening of the 'well', serves to confirm the views expressed by Petrie; to wit, that the connection of the Grand gallery wit hthe primitive shaft used by descending stonecutters, a hole drilled through the masonry, was a task undertaken after the pyramid had been built.

That the Grand gallery is simply the gallery of the ancestors is corroborated by two ancient Arab authors. Muhammed Ishaq ibn al-Nadim, quoted by Ahmed ibn Ali al-Maqrizi, writes: "…A passage pierces this pavement…; the arch is made of stone and one sees there portraits and statues standing or resting and a quantity of other things, the meaning of which we do not understand."  And Ibrahim Wassif Shah writes: "…In the Eastern pyramid, chambers had been built in which the stars and heavens were depicted, and in which was amassed what Surid's forebears had accomplished in the way of statues." (Undoubtedly, the manuscript's text has been misreported; it should read: "…in which were amassed the statues that were done of Surid's forebears.")'.

Comment - If Pochan is correct then this is of course, important. The question is, how many Kings were there before Choeps? Also, perhaps it is worth counting the slots in the valley temple (note that they are far less deep.) Note also that we can see the same kind of damage at Hatshepsut's temple. (see below)

Suggestion - The slots in the 'Gallery' may have served the same function as those in the entrance to the 'Queens chamber', namely, to support a false floor.

Context - The following two pictures show the same style of building corbelled constructions from inside other Egyptian pyramids:-

 

Corbelled Roofs from inside the Red pyramid, and the 'unfinished' Meidum pyramid.

Comment - Here is an internal feature similar to that of the 'great' pyramid. There is a strong suggestion, especially in the 'Red' pyramid, of a contemporary design (Note - Similar designed stone on entry to chamber, Lack of internal funerary scripts etc). The same feature can be seen in the 'Bent' pyramid. Mendelssohn says the following:-

Extract from Mendelssohn - An inscription found near the Red pyramid mentions the 'two pyramids of Snofru' and it was at first assumed that the other Snofru pyramid must be that at Meidum. More recent work at the bent pyramid has, however, shown that this one, too, definitely belonged to Snofru. We are left with what Sir Alan Gardener called the 'unpalatable conclusion that Snofru did possess three pyramids'.

It has been pointed out that 'Davidson's' chamber, was clearly 'cut through after the blocks had been put in place'. (10).

 

 

2.28) The 'Antechamber' and 'Portcullis' System - The theory that the antechamber once housed a 'portcullis' system is generally accepted, although a model of the system that explain all the features of the antechamber is still forthcoming. The best research in this area came originally from Lepre, who studied the question in depth. While his findings are far from conclusive, they are reasonable and remain the only conclusion of any merit. First, an extract from Petrie:

'The rubbish that had accumulated from out of Mamun's Hole was carried out of the Pyramid by a chain of five or six men in the passage. In all the work I left the men to use their familiar tools, baskets and hoes, as much as they liked, merely providing a couple of shovels, of picks, and of crow-bars for any who liked to use them. I much doubt whether more work could be done for the same expense and time, by trying to force them into using Western tools without a good training. Crowbars were general favourites, the chisel ends wedging up and loosening the compact rubbish very easily; but a shovel and pickaxe need a much wider hole to work them in than a basket and hoe require; hence the picks were fitted with short handles, and the shovels were only used for loose sand. In the passage we soon came down on the big granite stone which stopped Prof. Smyth when he was trying to clear the passage, and also sundry blocks of limestone appeared. The limestone was easily smashed then and there, and carried out piecemeal; and as it had no worked surfaces it was of no consequence. But the granite was not only tough, but interesting, and I would not let the skilful hammer-man cleave it up slice by slice as he longed to do; it was therefore blocked up in its place, with a stout board across the passage, to prevent it being started into a downward rush. It was a slab 20.6 thick, worked on both faces, and one end, but rough broken around the other three sides; and as it lay flat on the floor, it left us 27 inches of height to pass down the passage over it. Where it came from is a complete puzzle; no granite is known in the Pyramid, except the King's Chamber, the Antechamber, and the plug blocks in the ascending passage. Of these sites the Antechamber seems to be the only place whence it could have come; and Maillet mentions having seen a large block (6 feet by 4) lying in the Antechamber, which is not to be found there now. This slab is 32 inches wide to the broken sides, 45 long to a broken end, and 20.6 thick; and, strangely, on one side edge is part of a drill hole, which ran through the 20.6 thickness, and the side of which is 27.3 from the worked end. This might be said to be a modern hole, made for smashing it up, wherever it was in situ; but it is such a hole as none but an ancient Egyptian would have made, drilled out with a jewelled tubular drill in the regular style of the 4th dynasty; and to attribute it to any mere smashers and looters of any period is inadmissible. What if it came out. of the grooves in the Antechamber, and was placed like the granite leaf across that chamber? The grooves are an inch wider, it is true; but then the groove of the leaf is an inch wider than the leaf. If it was then in this least unlikely place, what could be the use of a 4-inch hole right through the slab? It shows that something has been destroyed, of which we have, at present, no idea'.

These 'anomalous' granite stones were concluded by Lepre to be parts of the original portcullis system.

Extract from 'Giza the Truth' - 'It is often suggested that no fragment of the three missing portcullis' has ever been found, and from this many alternative researchers—and even some Egyptologists—deduce that they were never even fitted. In the first instance, the continued presence of the counterweights—which are above the level of the passage and therefore would not obstruct the progress of an intruder—suggests to us that the portcullis' were originally in place but were broken up by the early robbers. Again we would suggest that, as with the "Bridge Slab", the debris from this operation would have been cleaned up by restorers. However, in addition to this evidence, Lepre produces a real coup de grace on the matter: he has matched the four blocks of fractured granite found in and around the edifice to the dimensions of the portcullis'.

Extract from Petrie - In brief, each of the main slabs would have been a minimum of 4 feet high by 4 feet wide—probably more depending on the degree of overlap into the slots—and most significantly about 21 inches thick (to allow a tolerance of ½ inch in the slots). He examined the four blocks—one lies near the pit in the Subterranean Chamber, another in the niche in the west wall just before the entrance to this chamber, another in the Grotto in the Well Shaft, and another outside the original entrance—and established that whilst they were all less than 4 feet in height and width, they were all 21 inches thick! (Note that there is a loose block of granite in the King's Chamber, but this is known to come from the floor thereof and was therefore omitted from the analysis.) As if this were not sufficient evidence, he found that three of the four blocks have 3½ inch holes drilled in them—in fact the one in the pit has two, and the one near the entrance three. Furthermore, the holes in the latter are spaced 6½ inches apart. So he established that not only do the holes have the same diameter as the channels for the ropes in the south wall of the Antechamber, but they are also spaced the same distance apart. Although Lepre is unable to provide a foolproof explanation as to how these four fragments ended up in their present locations—he suggests a variety of high jinks by early visitors to the monument—nevertheless this strikes us as pretty convincing evidence that these are indeed fragments of the original portcullis'.

This is of course, a hugely important finding. Should the other stones indeed be a part of an original 'portcullis' system, what did it look like and why was it there? Why is there a piece in the 'Grotto'? Can we track the movement of these pieces with the historical accounts? There do not seem to be enough pieces, but the size of them suggests that they may be remnants.

Extract from the Edgar Brothers: Vol I; (In reference to the granite block in the descending passage) - 'We also instructed our men to shift the position of the large limestone block which then lay diagonally across the passage floor a little distance above the granite block'. (14) We can assume for now that it is the same stone that now sits in the 'pit'. (see photo below). In Vol I (14), Plates LVIII and LIX show the block in the recess before the subterranean chamber.

 

Three Granite slabs from inside the Great Pyramid - Are these parts of the Portcullis system?

From left to right - bottom right of the descending passage, outside the main entrance and bottom of the subterranean pit. (Apparently, the fourth one is in the well-shaft)

 

Question - How are these stones to be explained in the context of the 'tomb' theory? The remaining slabs were never intended to fall and it appears possible to bypass the system regardless. Is this system evidence that the structure may have had a function before it was sealed?

Extract from Edgar Brothers: Vol I - (In reference to the Portcullis system) 'Some writers have suggested that the three opposite pairs of broad vertical grooves originally contained sliding portcullises of granite, which at one time cut off all entrance to the Kings Chamber…this suggestion was supported by Col. Howard Vyse…His idea was that, during the lifetime of the King, the now missing portcullises were suspended above the floor of the Ante-chamber on a level with the top of the low passages, just as the Granite leaf is now suspended; but that after the death and internment of the King, they were one by one lowered gradually by chiseling away the supporting granite immediately below them on the side walls, until, sinking down by their own weight, they finally rested on the floor'. (14)

The Edgar's noticed however, that: '...when, however, we begin to investigate the subject more closely… we find that there are distinctive peculiarities about the "granite leaf", which make it certain that it, at all events, had not been intended by the architect to serve as a portcullis'.(14) So what was the remaining stone for. It is of interest that the 'Boss' is well recorded in Egypt. It was believed to have been left on the stones in order to maneuver them more easily, although in this particular case it is worth noting the following observation: 'The granite leaf appears to be an inch narrower than its corresponding grooves in the wainscots…Close examination shows that this difference is made up by narrow one-inch projections or rebates on the north face of the leaf, which make it fit tightly into its grooves. With the exception of these rebates (which are evidence of special design), the whole of the north face of the leaf has been dressed or planed down one inch, in order that one little part in the middle might appear in relief'. (14)

Pochan emphasizes that it must have been closed off at some time. He says: 'Contrary to the claims made by certain authors…the three portcullises were actually set in place and lowered. The south wall, in fact, shows clear, significant traces of damage, which would be totally inexplicable had the passage to the king's chamber been open. It is obvious that the damage done to the Antechamber's south wall was effected from the space located above the lowered portcullises. The first despoilers, having experienced great difficulty in trying to raise the granite block closing off the entrance to the antechamber, were unable to force the portcullises and had to settle for making a man-sized hole in the upper part of the corridors wall, opening onto the chamber of the sarcophagus'. However, this raises the question: Why was the antechamber then subsequently cleared of blocks?

In a final note, it is worth quoting Petrie over the granite portcullis stones of the second pyramid, when he says: 'The skill required to turn over and lift such a block, in such a confined space, is far more striking than the moving of much larger masses in the open air, where any number of men could work on them. By measuring the bulk, it appears that this portcullis was nearly two tons in weight, and would require 40 to 60 men to lift it (?); the space, however, would not allow of more than a tenth of that number working at it; and this proves that some very efficient method was used for wielding such masses'. (14)

 

2.29) The Kings chamber - (So called because Arabs buried their kings in flat-roofed chambers and Queens in corbelled chambers).

The section on the 'King's' chamber is divided into the following three categories (2.291-2.293).

 

 

2.291)  'Explosion' or 'Subsidence' - It has been noted that the Kings chamber appears to have expanded or shifted. This has been suggested to have been caused by an explosion. An interesting idea considering both al-Mamun and Vyse used explosives (although we must assume it was done before - as it was plastered over?). Need to take into account the fact that the 'star-passages' were still blocked but correctly aligned still and considered 'candle holder areas' by Petrie until they were opened by him. The fact that the supporting beams of the chamber were plastered up 'by hand' definitely points towards movement within the chamber after its finish. If something had exploded so violently within the chamber, how did the walls, ceiling and 'coffer' remain in such good condition?

If movement has occurred however, it needs to be considered what the cause was, which other part of the pyramid appears affected (except possibly the lack of casing stones). Le-Mesurier mentions two candidates, one in 908 AD and the other in 1301AD. (Apparently 30,000 people perished in Egypt during the 908 earthquake).

Davison (2), came to the conclusion that there has been movement within the pyramid.

How these repairs are to be explained is another mystery. There is no way that the damage was caused by the repairers. Anyone who would go to the lengths of plastering the walls of the king's chamber in order to hide the cracks, would also, one would presume, fix all the damage on the way out. This was not done.

 

 

2.292) The 'Sarcophagus' or 'Coffer' - Pochan (16) says of it; 'The sarcophagus, made of Aswan granite, was equipped with a sliding dovetailed lid; it is similar to many other sarcophagi, particularly that of Unas and most especially those of the great mastaba of Meidum and the pyramid of Kephren. Upon closing, three rods inserted into holes in the lid dropped into three corresponding holes in the cask, which were not as deep as the length of the rods'. 

The Kings Coffer (with removed floor stone in background)

(The Volume of the interior is equal to half the Volume of the exterior...)

The coffer's dimensions also demonstrate the application of a  3:4:5 triangle - incidentally demonstrating the geometric method of creating the angle of slope for Khafre's pyramid.

 

Note - It is often claimed (erroneously), that the Coffer would have had to have been placed in the King's chamber from above as it is too big too fit through the passage entry.

'Petrie's measurements of the passage were 41.08 to 41.62 inches wide by 47.13 to 47.44 inches high, and his dimensions of the box were...41.97 inches outside width, and 38.12 inches outside height'. (1)

- (Answer... think about it.. think about it...  Turn the box sideways) -