|
|
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 so lid
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 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...)
T he 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) -
| |
