by Ian Lawton
2002
from
SaturnianCosmology Website
High-Level Chambers
The particular circumstances of the Great Pyramid cause significant
complications for the pyramids-as-tombs theory. Although we have
seen that many of its features which some of the alternative camp
would have us believe are unique—its Grand Gallery, portcullis
arrangement, alignment to the cardinal points, and so on—are not,
the reason for this complication is its primary and genuinely unique
feature: the fact that it has chambers high up in its
superstructure.
Although we have seen that the Meidum and Dashur
Pyramids, and the Second Pyramid, have chambers which either butt
into or are entirely enclosed by the superstructure, they are all at
or near ground level. By contrast the Queen’s and King’s Chambers
lie at about one-fifth and two-fifths of the height of the Great
Pyramid respectively, and are accessed by a separate Ascending
Passage which branches off from the normal Descending Passage.
Before we look at the implications of this for the pyramids-as-tombs
theory, let us pause to consider a few general issues surrounding
this layout. The question which is always raised by the alternative
camp is: why did the builders go to so much trouble to implement
such a difficult design? In answer, we know that contemporary tomb
robbing was a major problem for these Old Kingdom kings, and at the
start of his reign Khufu would have seen that many of his
predecessors tombs had already been ransacked—including perhaps
those of his father and mother.
Having his architects design
ingenious methods of concealed burial was therefore a major priority
for a king who, above all else, needed to ensure that his body
remained intact so that his spirit could live on in peace in the
afterlife. The leading architects and masons themselves would by
this time have become some of the most influential men in ancient
Egyptian society, and would have been vying for the key posts in Khufu’s entourage by coming up with ever more ingenious designs for
his great monument. And while some of them would have been the
experienced men who worked on the various evolutions of Sneferu’s
Pyramids, others would have been young and bursting with new ideas.
All this sounds pretty reasonable to us. However Alford and others
raise another serious objection: Why did this process not continue
in the subsequent generations? This is a hard one to answer, and as
with so many of these issues requires primarily speculation, as
unsatisfactory as that may be. The main piece of pertinent evidence
we should consider is an analysis of the Great Pyramid by the French
engineer Jean Kerisel. He made a detailed survey of the edifice in
the early 1990’s, and argues that the construction method was
fatally flawed because the builders were attempting to use two types
of stone with substantially differing levels of compressibility:(1)
It is perfectly possible to construct a pyramid of a height of 150m
without incident in a homogenous material; the pyramid of Chephren
is there as a witness. Much more difficult is to introduce a large
internal space lined with rigid material within the pyramid; certain
precautions must then be taken; one cannot mix the “hard” and the
“soft” with impunity in something that is subject to strong
pressures…
During the raising of the pyramid, the superstructure of the
[King’s] chamber, surrounded by nummulitic limestone masonry which
contracted, emerged and efforts were concentrated on it: the
[granite] roof of the chamber and that of the first of the upper
floors fractured. Fine fractures of little depth at first, which
then enlarged and deepened until they crossed some of the beams…
When informed of the first cracks, they would have been worried;
this is proved by the fact that some of the fissures in the chamber
and in several places in the upper chambers were filled in. But
nobody could then penetrate into the upper chambers, as they were
now bordered on their east and west gables by nummulitic limestone
masonry. They therefore ordered a halt to the work in the central
part, and the digging of a pit that allowed access to these
chambers. And this [repair work] was done twice, since one finds
fillings in two different plasters.
These backward steps enable us to see the scale of the disaster:
support wedges in the worn-out roofs, the branches of a compass
formed by the chevron-shaped roof spreading 4cm to the east and 2cm
to the west. There is not really a more improper expression than
that of “relieving chambers”, so often used to describe what was
piled up above the King’s Chamber: on the contrary, they were
heavily overloaded and, moreover, warped…
Cheops then ordered a lighter construction of the upper part of the
pyramid, which recent gravimeter measurements show has a lesser
density. Were the worries of Cheops shared by the clergy and
dignitaries of his regime? Did the effort demanded seem
disproportionate to the result? And is it not the moment to admit
that the testimony of Herodotus concerning the exhaustion of the
people and their loathing for the pharaoh is not, perhaps, pure
fabrication?
The least that can be said is that the construction of the second
part of the pyramid knew some very important incidents. Finally, we
note that Cheop’s successors took advantage of the lesson, since
none of them ventured any more to insert a chamber of this type in
the middle of the bulk of his pyramid.
This analysis contradicts Petrie’s theory, which still has
widespread credibility amongst Egyptologists, that the cement
repairs were performed by the priests responsible for the
maintenance of the edifice after the Pyramid was constructed, as a
result of earthquakes; furthermore he suggests this is why the Well
Shaft was dug, from the bottom up. However in our view this latter
suggestion is entirely at odds with the known facts, as we will
shortly see. As a result, we find Kerisel’s analysis more
compelling—even though both alternatives provide an answer as to
when the passage to Davison’s Chamber was built, and why.
It is
further supported if we conduct a similar analysis of the Queen’s
Chamber: of course this had a pent rather than a flat roof, and one
might argue that the major stresses were taken by the King’s Chamber
above it anyway. But according to Kerisel’s theories one of the
major reasons why this chamber shows minimal signs of cracks would
be that its lining is made from the same material as the surrounding
core blocks—limestone. The question which immediately springs to
mind is why didn’t the subsequent generations of builders learn from
this and continue to build chambers in the superstructure, but
composed entirely of limestone? The answer is that they did not have
the benefit of this analysis.
Remember also that the effort involved
in lifting the 50 to 70 tonne granite monoliths which formed the
roofs of the King’s and Relieving Chambers was of an entirely
different order of magnitude from that of lifting the smaller and
lighter limestone blocks. This had never been tried before. And if
Kerisel is right, Khufu and his architects caused so much grief for
his builders that none of his successors wanted to repeat the
performance. After this step too far, the overwhelming urge to push
forward the design barriers probably came to a dramatic halt.
There are important additional implications if this theory is
correct. First, those who search ardently for additional chambers in
the superstructure of other pyramids—as at least one scientific team
has done in the Second Pyramid, as we will see later—are likely to
be in for a disappointment. And second, those who search for
additional chambers in the superstructure of the Great Pyramid
itself are also likely to be disappointed, albeit that the logic for
this is less secure.
Nevertheless, there is every indication that for a while size
remained important for Khufu’s successors. Although Djedefre’s
pyramid at Abu Roash was not planned on a particularly large scale,
there is reason to suppose he may have been something of a usurper
who may never have been assured of his position. In any case his
pyramid was unfinished, and his reign was short. Khafre, on the
other hand, built a monument almost equal in size to that of Khufu,
albeit that he made sure that only the roof of his upper chamber
poked into the superstructure.
And Nebka, who Lehner suggests came
next in line before Menkaure, seems to have planned a similarly huge
edifice at Zawiyet el-Aryan, although this was again substantially
incomplete due to his very short reign. Quite what it was that
persuaded Menkaure and all subsequent kings to build considerably
smaller pyramids remains a mystery. We can speculate that it was
either due to economic factors, or changes in religious emphasis, or
a combination of the two. But we cannot be sure. Does admitted
uncertainty on this point invalidate the pyramids-as-tombs theory?
Given the mass of other contextual evidence, we think not.
Empty Chambers?
The next issue that alternative researchers often raise is that no
funerary accoutrements have ever been discovered inside the Great
Pyramid, other than the empty and lidless coffer in the King’s
Chamber. We have already seen that contemporary looting was
widespread in the other pyramids, but is the same true here?
When Were the Lower Reaches First Breached?
The Classical historians provide plenty of circumstantial evidence
that the lower reaches of the Great Pyramid had been entered at
least by their time, which was long before Mamun. Even if it was not
particularly accessible in their day, as we have seen Herodotus
mentions underground chambers, and Pliny the “well”. Meanwhile
Strabo—although he appears not to have visited Giza personally—
mentions a “doorway” in the entrance (an issue we consider in detail
shortly), and in so doing reveals something of the interior (2)
At a moderate height in one of the sides is a stone, which may be
taken out; when that is removed, there is an oblique passage leading
to the tomb.
Only Diodorus’ account gives no clue that the interior might have
been entered before—strangely mentioning the entrance to the Second
but not that to the Great Pyramid, even though he may have actually
visited the Plateau. (3)
Although it is of course possible that these historians were only
relating information that had been passed down from the time of the
builders, we find this unlikely. And in any case there is hard
evidence that the edifice had been entered before Mamun came to the
Plateau, all of which we have already mentioned in passing: First,
Mamun reported torch marks on the ceiling of the Subterranean
Chamber. Second, Caviglia reported finding Latin characters on the
same ceiling; we cannot be sure when these were daubed, but we know
the Descending Passage had been blocked for some centuries before he
cleared it, so these could well date to classical times. Third,
Mamun reported being able to crawl back up the Descending Passage
right to the original entrance without undue effort, and since we
have postulated that it too would have been plugged for some
distance with sealing blocks, these must have been removed
previously.
Although this evidence strongly suggests that the lower reaches of
the edifice had been entered in antiquity, possibly shortly after it
was constructed and repeatedly thereafter, it does not prove that
the upper reaches were breached before Mamun’s time. Since it is
only this which could overwhelmingly prove that the burial chamber
was robbed—which would be why Mamun found it empty—and thereby
provide support for the pyramids-as-tombs theory even in relation to
the Great Pyramid, it is to this issue we must now turn.
When Were the Upper Reaches First Breached?
This is by far the most difficult element of the whole jigsaw of the
Plateau to piece together. It requires the analysis of a multitude
of different pieces of evidence, many of which conflict. Many
researchers from both camps tend to skip over the details,
especially those which do not fit their preferred explanation, and
in truth we were tempted to join them due to the complexity of the
analysis which must be undertaken. Nevertheless we must stick to our
guns and attempt to present all the evidence without being
selective, even if this makes the arguments more complex and leads
to a less definitive conclusion.
The reasons for the complexity are primarily twofold: first, the
uniqueness of the layout; and second, the lack of verifiable detail
in accounts of Mamun’s exploits.
We are of the opinion that it is
highly likely that Mamun was responsible for digging the intrusive
tunnel which provided a second entrance into the Pyramid—or possibly
even an exit to remove items that would not fit round the corner at
the junction of the Ascending and Descending Passages. (4) However,
it is far more complex to judge whether he was also responsible for
the tunnel which by-passes the granite plugs at the base of the
Ascending Passage. And there is another crucial factor which affects
our judgment: could the Well Shaft have been used to enter the
upper reaches in early antiquity?
Let us take these in reverse order, and examine the Well Shaft
first. In his The Great Pyramid, published in 1927, David Davidson
(who as we have seen was a supporter of the “encoded timeline”
theories promoted by Menzies, Smyth and Edgar) included a sketch
which suggested that the block which had originally sealed the upper
entrance to the shaft had been pushed out from below.
Others have
since relied on this analysis, but they are now in the minority.
Apart from the physical improbability of attempting to dislodge a well-cemented and sizeable block from below in a cramped space, a
close examination of the chisel marks on the topside of the blocks
which surround the upper entrance to the shaft reveals that it was chiselled out from above.(5) This is a piece of evidence we would
love to omit, because it would make this discussion a great deal
easier.
Many Egyptologists have suggested that the Upper Chambers
were plundered in antiquity by robbers who knew about the Well Shaft
and used it to gain access into the upper reaches, and this is a
nice simple theory which makes perfect sense if it was not for this
piece of evidence. To spell it out, if the block sealing the Well
Shaft was removed from above there can only be two explanations:
-
It is possible that the shaft was originally built in secret
without official sanction. The workers would have bribed the foreman
to allow them to build an escape route, but it would have to be kept
secret. The entrance would have been sealed off, but when the
plugging blocks had been released down the Ascending Passage they
would have chiselled up the block sealing the shaft and escaped.
However, there is no general precedent for the ancient Egyptian
kings deliberately entombing their workers alive along with them.
Consequently we must reluctantly turn to the alternative…
-
The shaft was discovered only after the tunnel which by-passes the
granite plugs in the Ascending Passage had been dug. Consequently
whoever dug this tunnel was indeed the first person to enter the
upper reaches of the edifice.
We cannot be sure of the accuracy of the accounts of
Mamun’s
exploration. It is therefore possible that he did find a body in the
King’s Chamber, and a lid on the sarcophagus, and various other
funerary ancillaries—as suggested by Hokm’s account. However, if the
pyramids-as-tombs theory is to remain vindicated in the Great
Pyramid, we must examine the possibility that Mamun was not
responsible for digging the by-pass tunnel. There are a number of
possibilities which might point to this being the case:
-
First, we have noted that the older accounts of
Mamun’s
explorations are unreliable. Because of this both omissions therefrom and statements therein can be used to argue for and
against any given point, with little solid justification. However it
is worth postulating that while most of the accounts talk about him
using fire and vinegar to tunnel the intrusive entrance, few of them
mention the circumstances of the tunneling to by-pass the plugs. Is
it reasonable to suggest that the circumstances of the “miraculous”
dislodging of the limestone block concealing the granite
plugs—without which piece of fortune Mamun could never have
discovered the Ascending Passage unless it was already
by-passed—were embellishments to make a better story, which have
grown to become part of pyramid folklore?
-
Second, we have already seen that in the Arab historian
Edrisi’s
first-hand account of entering the Pyramid he records having seen
what could only be hieroglyphs on the Queen’s Chamber ceiling. We
have also already noted that his accounts are accurate and detailed
in most respects. This is by no means definitive proof that the
chamber had been entered in antiquity, but it certainly adds to the
picture.
-
Third, a large portion of the corner of the coffer in the Kings
Chamber has been broken off. It is highly likely that this occurred
as a result of someone trying to prize off the lid—the original
existence of which is proved by some rarely mentioned evidence of
fittings (see Appendix II)—rather than through the petty efforts of
vandals or souvenir hunters. The implication of this is that either
Mamun did find a lid on the coffer, and almost certainly prized it
off himself, or someone else had been in there before him. Again,
not definitive proof, but the arguments are building up.
-
Fourth, there is similar rarely mentioned evidence that a “Bridge
Slab” originally spanned the gap in the floor between the Ascending
Passage and the Grand Gallery (this gap occasioned by the horizontal
passage leading off to the Queen’s Chamber), and also that the
portcullis’ in the King’s Antechamber were originally in place—
evidence that we will consider in detail shortly. None of the
accounts of Mamun’s exploration record him having to demolish these
obstacles. Is this simple omission, or had they already been
removed?
These points might start to swing the balance in favour of a
pre-Mamun by-passing of the plugs. But we must now look at a further
complicating issue: what happened to the debris resulting from the
digging of the by-pass tunnel? The standard accounts suggest that
Mamun explored the Subterranean Chamber first, then turned his
attention to by-passing the Ascending Passage—and that the rubble
from this operation was allowed to fall down the Descending Passage,
thereby blocking it until Caviglia cleared it. Vyse’s and other
contemporary reports of Caviglia’s work are likely to be more
reliable than much of the other evidence we are currently
considering, so we can assume that the Descending Passage was
blocked when he found it. But by what?
It is entirely possible that
this was primarily the debris from the post-Mamun stripping of the
casing stones, combined with the sand which would have blown in and
accumulated once the edifice was opened up by him. This in turn
allows for the possibility that the debris from the by-pass tunnel
was entirely separate, and— although if intruders dug the tunnel
they almost certainly would have let the debris fall down the
Descending Passage—it could have been cleared long before by
restorers. This in turn would have allowed the Subterranean Chamber
to be visited, as we are fairly certain it was, by travelers in
classical times.
Before attempting to draw any preliminary conclusions from all this,
there is one further piece of evidence which we must review, albeit
that once again it raises more questions than it answers.
The Denys of Telmahre Affair
Lehner, along with many others, quotes the observations of one
Denys
of Telmahre, described as a “Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch”, who
supposedly accompanied Mamun’s party to Giza and, furthermore,
recorded that the Great Pyramid was already open.(6) They therefore
suggest that Mamun did not dig the intrusive tunnels, only
rediscovered and possibly enlarged them. Of course if this were true
and as simple as it sounds, all our worries would be over. But,
alas, it is not. In fact these are gross over-simplifications.
Perusal of Vyse’s Operations reveals what Denys actually recorded.
The first is a translation provided by Latif, as follows:(7)
I have looked through an opening, fifty cubits deep, made in one of
those buildings [the Giza Pyramids], and I found that it was
constructed of wrought stones, disposed in regular layers.
This extract is backed up by a reproduction by Vyse, in French, of
Denys’ own account.(8) Both clearly indicate that what Denys did was
look into one of the pyramids on the Plateau—but he doesn’t say
which one. Furthermore, from his use of the word deep it would
appear that he was looking into a passage which went down, not in
horizontally. Finally, his description of “wrought stones disposed
in regular layers” seems to confirm that he was looking into one of
the original descending passages, not into the horizontal and forced
entrance in the Great Pyramid. Since we stick with our view that the
latter was forced by Mamun or a contemporary, logic dictates that
the original Descending Passage in the Great Pyramid was concealed
at this time. So Denys must have been looking into one of the
descending passages in either the Second or the Third Pyramid.
Unless we have picked up entirely the wrong element of Denys’
account, this tells us nothing whatsoever about the state of the
Great Pyramid at the time of Denys’ visit, and—even if it is true
that he accompanied Mamun—of the latter’s explorations.(9)
|
|
AL MAMOUN'S
CAVITY; showing the upper portion of the exposed west
side of the GRANITE PLUG which blocks the entrance of
the First Ascending Passage in the Great Pyramid.
. |
The upper
south end, and portion of the west side, of the GRANITE
PLUG which completely blocks the lower end of the First
Ascending Passage in the Great Pyramid of Gizeh; showing
two of the series of three great stones, hidden in the
masonry for three thousand years, and exposed by Caliph
Al Mamoun in the course of his excavations in the year
820 A.D. |
Lehner mentions another account, that of
Abu Szalt of Spain, which
he suggests is sober and trustworthy. In Lehner’s words: “He tells
of Mamun’s men uncovering an ascending passage. At its end was a
quadrangular chamber containing a sarcophagus.” This in itself does
not tell us much, but Lehner then adds what appears to be a direct
quote. (10)
The lid was forced open, but nothing was discovered excepting some
bones completely decayed by time.
At the time of writing we have been unable to check this intriguing
account further. In any case, whilst it may add support to the
pyramids-as-tombs theory, as with all other reports of this age it
cannot be regarded as definitive proof.
Buried Elsewhere?
For those of you who still believe that Mamun was the first to reach
the King’s Chamber and found an empty coffer, we present one final
alternative, proposed by Wheeler and others.(11) It is that, for
fear of defilers, Khufu was not buried in the Great Pyramid at all,
but elsewhere and in secret. Provided we accept the context that it
was always intended as a funerary edifice, this latter explanation
would still demand that he complete his pyramid, and conduct a false
burial therein—including the lowering of the portcullis’ and granite
plugs, and the incorporation of the Well Shaft to allow the last
workmen to escape. Clearly he was expected to erect a magnificent
pyramid, as were all kings at the time.
But the best way to preserve
the anonymity of his resting place, and ensure his body remained
intact to allow his spirit to continue in the afterlife, would be to
be buried in an unmarked and deep shaft tomb. If he did execute this
plan, it would have two likely preconditions: First, it would have
to be kept incredibly secret. Literally only one or two of his most
trusted advisers would have been informed. And second, given the
unparalleled complexity of the interior of his pyramid, he would
almost certainly have chosen this path only once the Great Pyramid’s
construction was either well under way or even nearing completion.
What could have led him Khufu to this drastic course of action? It
is possible that the original tomb of Hetepheres—his father’s wife
if not his mother—had been ransacked, possibly at Dashur; (for more
on Hetepheres’ reburial, see Appendix II). If this were the case,
almost certainly he himself ordered her re-burial in a deep unmarked
shaft next to his pyramid, although he may not have been told that
her mummy was already missing. Was this what forced him to change
his mind, if indeed he did? Who knows.
Wheeler in fact goes further with his analysis, arguing that a
number of factors point to the entire edifice being completed with a
minimum of detail, and with some elements left incomplete. He
singles out: (12)
-
The unfinished state of the Queen’s Chamber and of the passage
leading to it—both of which are valid observations but could be
explained by replanning.
-
The rough and apparently unfinished state of the exterior of the
King’s Chamber coffer—which ought to be the focal point of the
edifice. This is probably the most valid of his observations.
-
The fact that only three sealing plugs were used instead of the
full complement of 25. Again, a valid but not conclusive argument.
-
The supposed evidence that the three main portcullis’ were never
installed. On this point he is almost certainly mistaken, as we will
shortly see.
Whilst we have some sympathy with Wheeler’s extended argument, it
clearly also has some flaws. In any case we can disagree with this
extension without it affecting the validity of his basic “buried
elsewhere” proposition. Is there any other evidence which backs up
his basic theory? In fact, yes. Diodorus makes the following
observation: (13)
Although the kings [Chemis/Khufu and Cephres/Khafre] designed these
two for their sepulchers, yet it happened that neither of them were
there buried. For the people, being incensed at them by the reason
of the toil and labour they were put to, and the cruelty and
oppression of their kings, threatened to drag their carcasses out of
their graves, and pull them by piece-meal, and cast them to the
dogs; and therefore both of them upon their beds commanded their
servants to bury them in some obscure place.
Diodorus’ account is not the best by any means, but this observation
is a unique one—albeit that it links in with Herodotus’ general
comments regarding the unpopularity of both Khufu and Khafre. Could
it have some basis in truth? Many Egyptologists also suspect that,
for example, Djoser was buried in his “Southern Tomb” and not
underneath his pyramid.
It is possible that all these early kings decided to be buried
elsewhere.
J.P. Lepre in particular presents a compelling argument that all
early kings had two burial edifices, one in the north and one in the
south, to represent the duality of their reign over both Upper and
Lower Egypt. On this basis he suggests that the reason that so many
coffers have been found empty, even when sealed, is that the
pyramids in which they were found may have been merely cenotaphs
connected with ritual practices.
As a corollary he even suggests
that, since most of these edifices are relatively speaking in the
north, their real tombs may be found much farther to the south: in
fact he suggests the old “twin cities” of Abydos and nearby
Thinis
(the latter being the ancient capital of Upper Egypt before the
unification of the two lands by Menes) may hold a cache of hidden
rock-tombs or shaft graves of Old Kingdom kings similar to the New
Kingdom ones found more or less by accident in the Valley of the
Kings as late as the 1920’s. (14)
In our view the “burial elsewhere” theory is a perfectly valid
alternative regarding the Great Pyramid, and possibly others.
However it requires just as much speculation as the previous
interpretations of when the upper reaches of the Great Pyramid were
first breached. While we await further evidence which may one day
come to light to sway the balance one way or another, in the
meantime we leave you, the reader, to decide which is your preferred
solution. Indeed you may decide, like us, that both have their
merits and neither deserves to be singled out. This is not
woolly-minded, merely an acceptance that on a few issues more than
one theory has equal validity.
Security Features
We have already indicated that in order for us to be able to
evaluate how and when the Great Pyramid may have been breached, we
need to review the orthodox theories as to the security arrangements
for its unique interior. This might also help us to evaluate the
purpose of some of the more detailed features which might otherwise
be regarded as unexplained enigmas—such as the regularly cut
recesses in the Grand Gallery walls.
The Entrance
Starting at the outside, we have Strabo’s supposed report of a
hinged door-block. The original existence of this is normally taken
for granted, but—although this is a point rarely picked up by the
alternative camp—it begs the question as to why it would be
necessary if the pyramid was only to be used once, as a tomb, before
it was sealed up. The standard response is that it was required to
allow the priests to enter the building to perform maintenance and
inspections.
However this argument runs directly contrary to the
evidence which we have already reviewed, for example in relation to
the Second and Third Pyramids, that the descending passages were
sealed with blocks. Although we have no concrete evidence that this
was also true of the Great Pyramid’s Descending Passage, we should
ask ourselves why, if context is king, the Great Pyramid should have
been any different from its counterparts. Clearly the Ascending
Passage was sealed with blocks, so why not the Descending Passage
also?
Is there physical evidence for a hinged-block system? The casing
stones around the original entrance have now been stripped, as have
many of the core blocks behind them, so it is impossible to judge.
However the huge double gables over the “inner” entrance, albeit
that they were built for support rather than decoration, somehow do
not appear to us consistent with the idea of a small hinged door.
Meanwhile Egyptologists such as Petrie and more recently Lepre have
conducted detailed analysis’ of the way the “doors” might have
worked, based primarily on the fact that the Bent Pyramid’s western
entrance apparently shows signs of just such a system. (15) The
blocks on either side of the entrance are reported to contain
distinct sockets in which the hinges would have swiveled, while the
floor— although now filled in—originally contained a deep recess
which would have been necessary for the block to swivel inwards;
(this is Lepre’s reappraisal of Petrie’s theory, which suggested,
apparently incorrectly and based on Strabo’s original description,
that it would have swiveled outwards).
Lepre also suggests that the
Meidum Pyramid contains similar sockets. We can only say that we
have been unable to inspect these entrances for ourselves. But even
if Lepre’s analysis is correct, at least in relation to the western
entrance of the Bent Pyramid—which is unique in itself anyway—we are
inclined to think that it does not carry over to the monuments on
the Giza Plateau.
Let us now examine Strabo’s account in more detail. It is by far the
shortest and least detailed of those prepared in classical times.
What is more the translation of his work which is normally
reproduced is as follows:
“A stone that may be taken out, which
being raised up, there is a sloping passage”.(16)
However an
original translation of Strabo’s Geographica dating to 1857, which
we consulted and have already reproduced, merely says: “…a stone,
which may be taken out; when that is removed”—not “raised up”. The
translation of the original Greek is clearly important.
Edwards and Lehner both admit that if a hinged-door had existed in
Strabo’s time, it could only have been put in place long after the
edifice had first been violated. (17) We were prepared to write this
off as an unlikely theory which relies too heavily on Strabo’s
account until we considered the following. Whoever dug the intrusive
entrance tunnel—and in our view it is highly likely that this was
Mamun—was clearly unable to locate the original entrance.
Furthermore, unlike the situation at the Second Pyramid, in this
case the forced entry is below the real entry, so accumulated sand
and debris cannot be the solution as to why the explorers could not
locate it.
For this reason, at whatever time this tunnel was
created, the original entrance must have been cleverly concealed.
This view is supported by the fact that reports of Mamun’s
exploration do not mention him fighting his way through insects,
bats and their excreta in the various passages—a common feature of
future explorers’ accounts, which suggests that his entrance was the
first to open the edifice up to vast numbers of such creatures.
Since there is every reason to believe the edifice had been entered
long before this, the original entrance used by all previous
explorers cannot have been left open.
Therefore we can only surmise that someone—possibly Saite period
restorers—had either fitted a hinged-block, or had accurately
refitted the missing casing stones. The case for the former is
enhanced by the fact that it is likely that the interiors of all the
edifices were repeatedly entered at least in pre-Classical times,
and in accepting this inevitability the development of such an entry
mechanism may have proved less of an effort than continually
refitting the casing blocks. It may even be argued that the priests
at this time would have allowed restricted entry to the edifice for
the important, initiated or wealthy— in just the same way as is now
being proposed for the edifice to prevent it from rapid decline due
to the incursion of thousands of tourists every year.
A Dummy Chamber?
The next point we should consider about security is that some
Egyptologists have suggested that the Subterranean Chamber was
deliberately built as a decoy, to prevent robbers from searching for
the real chambers up in the superstructure. Given the emphasis that
was placed on security, this is at first sight a plausible theory.
However, we have already seen that there is persuasive evidence that
this chamber has such an unfinished appearance because it was
abandoned in favour of the higher chambers as part of a replanning
exercise. Furthermore, if it were built as a decoy they would surely
have finished it so it looked like a proper chamber. These two
theories are mutually exclusive, and we are minded to stick with the
latter.
The Plugging Blocks
We have already agreed with Vyse’s suggestion that the Descending
Passage was originally plugged with limestone sealing blocks,
perhaps as far as its junction with the Ascending Passage. Moving on
we have the granite plugs which block the bottom of this latter
passage. We know that these would have been concealed by an angled
limestone block in the roof of the Descending Passage, which would
have been indistinguishable from the rest of the ceiling. Three of
these blocks are still in position, and they are the ones that are by-passed by the additional intrusive tunnel. Two questions arise
concerning these blocks.
-
First, were they slid into place or built
in situ?
-
And second, how many of them were there originally?
Furthermore these two questions are inter-related.
The most convenient theory is that they were slid into place,
because this would explain the existence of the regular slots cut
into the side ramps of the Grand Gallery—which Borchardt surmised
were used to house wooden beams which held the plugs in place while
they were being stored therein. It has been suggested that these
blocks are such a tight fit in the Ascending Passage itself that
there is no way they could have been slid down without snagging, and
that consequently they must have been built in situ. However this is
not as valid an argument as it at first appears, for a number of
reasons:
-
First, Lepre produces some highly important and rarely publicized
measurements which show that the Ascending Passage is uniquely
tapered, unlike all the other original passages in the pyramids
which are always built with great precision to consistent
dimensions. (18) Where it emerges into the Grand Gallery it measures
53 inches high by 42 inches wide; half way down it measures 48 by
41½ inches; and at the bottom (where the three plugs are now) it
measures 47¼ by 38½ inches.
In the few places where the passage is
not worn away by visitors, it is clear that it too was originally
finished with great precision, so we must conclude that this taper
of 5¾ inches in height and 3½ inches in width over the 124 feet of
its length is deliberate. The clearance remains sufficiently small
that the blocks would still have been in grave danger of snagging as
they neared the bottom, but a number of researchers have suggested
that the process was assisted by a lubricating mortar—of which
traces have been found.
-
Second, the distance between the ramps on either side of the
Grand
Gallery is exactly the same as the width of the top of the Ascending
Passage, suggesting it was deliberately designed to hold the
plugging blocks.
-
Third, Noel F. Wheeler, the
Field Director of Reisner’s
Harvard-Boston Expedition, wrote a paper published in the periodical
Antiquity in 1935 which again provides rarely publicized evidence.
(19)
He noted that there are five pairs of holes in the walls at the
base of the Grand Gallery, in the “gap” between the end of the
Ascending Passage and the continuation of the sloping floor of the
Gallery—this gap occasioned by the branching off of the horizontal
passage which leads to the Queen’s Chamber. He argues that these
were used to locate wooden beams that supported a “Bridge Slab”
which would have provided a continuation of the sloping floor. It
would have been at least 17 feet long, thick enough to support the
plugs as they slid down, and would also have effectively sealed off
the passage to the Queen’s Chamber—which shows no signs of having
been itself sealed with plugs.
Although no traces of this slab have
ever been found—in our view because it was probably destroyed by
robbers in early antiquity, after which the debris would have been
cleared out by restorers—this would be a necessity for the “sliding
plugs” theory to work. In support of this theory, there are 5 inch
“lips” on each side of the gap against which the slab would have
rested.
-
Fourth, Borchardt’s replanning evidence regarding the change in
orientation of the blocks from which the Ascending Passage is formed
precludes the possibility that the plugging blocks were placed in
situ. Since he theorized that the lower section of the passage was
originally solid masonry which was subsequently carved out, the
plugs would still have had to be slid down it, albeit for a shorter
distance.
-
Fifth, Lehner notes that in the Bent Pyramid’s small satellite
there is a short ascending passage which may represent an admittedly
far smaller-scale prototype for that in the Great Pyramid. (20) At
the point where it increases in height from the normal few feet,
there is a notch in the wall which he believes may have been used to
locate a wooden chock which, when pulled away by rope, would have
released the plugging block or blocks it was supporting.
There is one additional feature of the Grand Gallery which we must
examine: 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. Lepre suggests that this was used to locate a wooden
platform, presumably accessed by a ladder at each end, which at this
height would still be 6 feet wide, along which the funeral cortege
would have progressed—thereby avoiding the plugging blocks housed
below. (21)
(Some Egyptologists have suggested that the blocks
themselves were housed up on this platform, with the cortege passing
below, but we find this an unlikely scenario which would require far
greater complexity in getting the plugs down again; in addition the
wooden boards might have had difficulty in supporting the weight of
the blocks).
In addition, at the top of the grooves there are rough
chisel marks running along their entire lengths, from which Lepre
argues that whatever was housed in the grooves was valuable to
robbers and well worth the effort of removing. He therefore surmises
that the platform may have comprised cedar panels inlaid with gold.
Although this platform would have been somewhat higher than appears
necessary, and although we are not entirely convinced by Lepre’s
explanation of the chisel marks, this theory appears the most
plausible so far put forward.
Even though they accept that a funeral procession would only involve
an inner wooden coffer while the granite one remained in situ, some
alternative researchers have still argued against this theory by
suggesting that this supposedly sombre and formal occasion could
hardly be expected to be conducted while effectively negotiating an
obstacle course. However we regard this argument as fatuous, since
the processions which had to negotiate the cramped space and steep
incline of the descending passages in all the other pyramids would
have faced equally awkward conditions.
All of this seems to us to point towards the “sliding plugs” theory
being the correct one. Furthermore it appears to offer a reasonable
explanation for the otherwise enigmatic features of the Grand
Gallery.
Although in no way would we wish to denigrate the exquisite design
and execution of this remarkable feature of the edifice, we are
forced to conclude that it had a primarily functional rather than
symbolic purpose.
We must now turn to the equally vexing question of how many blocks
were actually used to seal the Ascending Passage. Given our
preference for the “sliding plugs” theory, we know that there would
have been provision to house about 25 of them in the Grand Gallery.
We also know that the grooves for locating the chocks, and indeed
for the overhead walkway, run along the entire length. But does this
mean that this many were actually used? We know that the intrusive
tunnel at the bottom of the Ascending Passage only by-passes the
three which remain in situ.
We can see no reason for previous
intruders to have broken up a full 22 massive granite blocks from
the top down. After all, what would be their motivation to perform
such a mammoth task in the first place if they had already entered
the upper chambers, and in any case why would they leave the last
three in place? It is possible that additional limestone plugs were
used, so that whoever performed the tunneling got past the granite
blocks and then continued on through these softer plugs themselves.
However we find it more likely that only three blocks were ever
used.
Given that the Gallery was clearly designed to house so many more,
we must then ask why the change of plan came about, and indeed when.
After all, the decision would have to have been reached at the
latest before the roof of the Gallery was completed in order that
the chosen number of plugs could be lowered into it, and yet after
the first three corbels of the Gallery’s walls had been completed
with their various niches and grooves. As unsatisfactory as it is to
indulge in mere speculation, we can only suggest that it was decided
at this point that, in combination with the other security features
discussed in this section, three plugs would be enough.
This would
certainly have saved significant time and effort, notwithstanding
that short-cuts are not a regular feature of this edifice; (the
other alternative, as we have already seen, is that Khufu decided at
this point that he wanted to be buried elsewhere). Meanwhile we
should note that the chisel marks indicate that it must have been
decided that the possibly gold-inlaid walkway should still run the
entire length of the Gallery.
The Portcullis System
We have already noted that the granite-lined King’s Antechamber
contains four sets of slots in the side walls for portcullis’ to be
lowered into position. We have also noted that this is a feature
present in many of the other pyramids, although this particular
arrangement is more complex than most. Each of the three main sets
of slots is 3 feet deep and 21½ inches wide, while the northernmost
slots only reach down to the level of the passage roof.
Two granite
slabs are still in situ in the latter, but a significant space
remains above them. Since the west, south and east walls of the
Antechamber itself, and the passage, are also lined with granite, we
can assume that this was the material from which the portcullis’
would have been made. The whole of this section of the interior was
clearly intended to be extremely hard to break through.
Once again we must turn to the invaluable scholarship of Lepre to
assist our understanding of this mechanism. (22) He indicates that
there are three channels cut into the south wall of the antechamber,
each about 3½ inches wide, which would have been required in order
that the ropes used to lower the portcullis’ into place would not
snag between the slab and the wall. Although he points out that
there is some doubt over the oft-touted possibility that wooden
rollers may have been housed above the slots, around which the ropes
would have operated, he suggests that the slabs in the northernmost
slots would have acted as counterweights—thereby refuting the other
oft-touted suggestion that the uppermost of them is missing.
He also
indicates that from the rear or northern side of the upper
counterweight protrudes a semi-circular boss—although again he
points out that it does not seem to be properly designed to act as a
boss around which a rope could have been secured, and is forced to
leave its true function as a matter for further study.
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’. (23)
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’.
The Well Shaft
It is appropriate now to return to the question of who dug the
enigmatic Well Shaft, and why. It has been suggested that it was dug
by the earliest robbers, who needed a mechanism to get into the
upper reaches of the edifice, and who knew the internal layout
sufficiently to dig upwards from the bottom and still find the base
of the Grand Gallery. However there are a number of factors which
suggest that this analysis is incorrect.
-
First, it is clear that the
top end of the shaft was originally sealed by a block which fitted
into the ramp in the west wall of the Grand Gallery, and clearly
mere robbers would not have concealed their tunnel in this way.
-
Second, it would be infinitely harder to excavate this tunnel
upwards rather than downwards—it would require platforms, and the
fragments of rock would continually fall into the workers’ faces.
-
Third, at the bottom the shaft continues a little below the level of
the Descending Passage, which it would not do if it had been dug
from there in the first place.
-
Fourth, the top third of the shaft
runs through the superstructure (the remainder through the bedrock),
and the uppermost section of this was not tunneled through the
masonry but deliberately built into it during construction; (24)
(this would also support the replanning theory, in that the lower
part of this top third would have been tunneled through the masonry
after it was decided to abandon the Subterranean Chamber).
-
Fifth, any intruder who had discovered the upper reaches of the
edifice by by-passing the granite plugs would have had no reason to
then dig this additional shaft.
It is therefore almost certain that the
Well Shaft was dug at the
time the edifice was constructed. It is likely that its purpose was
to provide the workers responsible for sliding the granite plugs
into place at the foot of the Ascending Passage with a means of
escape; after all, the distance involved and the weight of the plugs
(even if there were only three) meant they would not have been able
to release the chocks from beneath the passage “remotely” by rope.
We can surmise that once the plugs had been released, they would
have let themselves down into the shaft; and that once they were all
out they would probably have hidden the bottom of the shaft with an
appropriate block so that it would not be discovered.
It is perhaps enigmatic that the tunnel was designed to travel for
such a long distance—several hundred feet—in a vertical and then
southerly direction, when it could have been made far shorter either
by traveling vertically down, or even better by sloping in a
northerly direction at a respectable distance underneath the
Ascending Passage. However Maragioglio and Rinaldi suggest that it
was dug to provide additional ventilation for the Descending Passage
and the Subterranean Chamber during their construction, and as an
ancillary motive this might explain the lengthy course.
Conclusion
We have considered a great deal of detailed analysis in this paper,
not all of it conclusive, but to reach a conclusion we must once
again stand back from the detail and remind ourselves of the
context. We have all the ancillary evidence from the other pyramids.
We have the fact that all the pyramids, including the Great Pyramid,
were clearly the focal point of funerary complexes.
We have the fact
that the Great Pyramid cannot be removed from the chronology. And we
have the fact that it was sealed with plugs and portcullis’ just
like all the others, that its coffer was designed to take a lid, and
that the Grand Gallery and its slots and grooves, and the Well
Shaft, all had specific functions in a funerary edifice. Therefore,
despite the detailed areas of uncertainty that remain, we stand by
the theory that the Great Pyramid was primarily designed as a tomb
for king Khufu.
The only other aspect of the Great Pyramid that we have not
revisited in this analysis is the enigmatic “air” shafts in the
King’s and Queen’s Chambers, which we consider in a later chapter.
We believe that these almost certainly do have a symbolic rather
than a practical function, but we are also of the view that
acceptance of the important role played by symbolism and ritual in
the pyramids is not mutually exclusive with the tombs theory.
|