Great Pits versus Shafts and Tunnels
How might they have constructed the Lower chamber of the Bent
Pyramid?
Keith Hamilton
15th May 2019
During the creation of my series of guides on various structures, two stood out to
me as anomalies; these being the great pits at Zawiyet el-Aryan and Abu-Rawash.
These two sites from the earliest days of Egyptology have been classified as
pyramid sites; however, during my research into these two sites, I came to the
conclusion that the evidence that leads to such a classification is not wholly
convincing, and fails to explain several observations, some of which I have
highlighted in my guides of those sites.1
These great pits have been used by several scholars, to suggest how the lower
chamber and passage may have been built at the Bent pyramid; for example Mark
Lehner says;
“All this building, plus a vertical shaft on the precise central axis of the pyramid,
would have taken place in a trench sunk into the original desert surface.”2
Frank Monnier and Alexander Puchkov also suggest a great pit and trench3, and
more recently Colin Reader would say;
“It is likely that the construction of the Bent Pyramid started with the excavation of
a deep rock-cut trench similar to the example we see at Abu Rawash.”4
The above are just some of the many examples that all lead to the consensus that a
great pit and trench exists also in the Bent Pyramid; but has the classification of the
two great pit sites at Zawiyet el-Aryan and Abu-Rawash prejudiced our view of the
Bent Pyramid? When one looks at the majority of Egyptian structures, it appears
1
https://independent.academia.edu/keithHamilton
The Complete Pyramids, 1997, page 103
3
The construction Phases of the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur. A reassessment. ENiM 9, 2016, page 15-36, fig 13
4
Nile magazine 18, February-March 2019, page 31
2
1
that shafts and tunnels are the bread and butter of the Egyptian builder’s, not deep
pits and trenches, like we see at the two great pit sites.
It is informative to look at the constructions before and after the Bent Pyramid.
Djoser’s Step Pyramid: Various deep shafts, main shaft with granite burial
chamber about 28m deep and very large network of extensive tunnelling to create a
labyrinth of passages, magazines and galleries.
Sekhemkhet’s Pyramid: Extensive tunnelling, small shaft, rock cut chamber,
galleries and magazines.
Layer Pyramid of Zawiyet el-Aryan: Extensive tunnelling, shafts, rock cut
chamber and magazines.
Meidum Pyramid: Lower chambers built in shallow open pit about 6m deep,
upper chamber built approximately at ground level.
Red Pyramid: Chambers and passages built in superstructure (tunneller’s
celebrate)
Great Pyramid: Most passages and chambers constructed in superstructure.
Lower part of descending passage, lower part of well shaft and unfinished
subterranean chamber cut in the rock.
Abu-Rawash: large deep ‘T’ shaped pit, about 20m deep, and trench.
Great Pit of Zawiyet el-Aryan: large deep ‘T’ shaped pit, and trench (about 21m
deep from the desert surface, to the pavement floor, which extends to a depth of
4.50m, total therefore 25.5m)
Khafre’s Pyramid: Lower chamber and passages cut from the rock; upper
chamber walls cut in the rock to a depth of 5.24m, and horizontal passage a mix of
rock cutting and masonry.
Menkaure’s Pyramid: Chambers rock cut, passages largely cut in the rock, other
than when they extend into the superstructure.
The Mastabat el-Fara’un: Chambers and passages built in shallow pit, of
unknown depth, though chamber floor is about 7.5m below surface.
2
In the following 5th & 6th dynasties, the small pyramids are similar to Mastabat elFara’un in being built in shallow pits. In short, we have only the two great pit sites
that share similar features; the majority of structures of the 3rd & 4th dynasty vary
greatly in design, but are linked by extensive tunnelling and cutting chambers out
of the living rock.
The above image shows the trench leading down to the pit at Zawiyet el-Aryan.
Here, if we accept that it is a pyramid, a huge amount of material has to be
removed, passages and chambers would then be built and the whole lot backfilled.
To me this appears illogical, when tunnelling and cutting chambers out of the rock
would be more efficient and quicker. A large pit would also interfere with the
superstructure construction; these pits would take some considerable time to create
and backfill, whereas a rock cut passage and chamber is of little concern to those
3
tasked with building the superstructure, other than were the entrance passage goes
through the masonry of the superstructure. Certainly, if we look at the Giza
pyramids, this pit and trench technique does not seem to have been popular: we
might ask why Khufu did not use it to create his subterranean chamber; here a
passage was cut through the rock of the plateau to a considerable depth, with the
unfinished chamber cut from the rock. (Though there is disagreement among
Egyptology about the subterranean chamber; Lehner/Hawass suggest it was the last
chamber to be built, others that it was an abandoned change of plan)
Likewise, at Menkaure’s pyramid, they could have elected to build the chambers in
a pit, but instead they excavated them out of the rock, and with great skill, brought
in large blocks of granite to case the burial chamber.
Whatever the function of the two great pit sites, they appear short lived; but are we
correct in suggesting their use at the Bent Pyramid? In this article I will suggest
possibly not and that the lower chamber and passage was constructed using shafts
and tunnelling.
The pyramid built before the Bent Pyramid, was the Meidum pyramid, so we need
to look at the construction of this pyramid to find clues in how they may have
constructed the lower chambers of the Bent. The Bent Pyramid is poorly explored,
so I am grateful to Olga Kozlova (Isida Project)5, and Colin Reader for the use of
their images. Ultimately only so much can be deduced from images, and hopefully
some future exploration can determine the true makeup of the Bents lower
chambers.
Meidum Pyramid
The Meidum pyramid consists of two small chambers built in a shallow pit cut in
the rock, whereas the main burial chamber is built on top of the rock. The upper
chamber is corbelled to relieve the weight from the superstructure; the lower
chambers are also relieved by corbelling, though these cannot be seen, due to the
horizontal ceiling beams. The following image should hopefully clarify things.
5
www.isida-project.ucoz.com
4
In this rough section of the Meidum chambers, it is thought that the two small
lower chambers are masonry constructions, built in a shallow rectangular pit. The
larger burial chamber is constructed on top of the natural rock and is accessed
through a vertical shaft. The distance between the upper and lower pavements is
about 6.25m. There might be some important symbolic reason, why some
chambers were to be placed below ground and some above.
5
In this image looking towards the south wall of the burial chamber, we can see
some of the surviving pavement resting on the natural rock. Note also the small
breach at the bottom of the south wall; here we can see that chamber floor has been
cut down a further 80cm and that tiles adhere to the natural rock.
6
In this closer image, we can see masonry lying on top of the natural rock, and were
the floor has been lowered; this natural rock feature was covered by thick tiling.
This tiling feature can also be found in the vertical shaft, and as we will see, this
tiling feature can be found in the lower chambers of the Bent Pyramid.
7
In this view looking up the south wall of the vertical shaft, one can quite clearly
make out the natural rock; present on the south, east and west sides of the shaft. At
the top of the south wall, one can make out some small residual tiling, and right,
tiling adhering to the west wall. The wooden beams I have suggested were to hold
a vertical portcullis, details of which can be found in my Meidum guide.
8
Looking down the vertical shaft, we can see surviving tiling on the west and east
walls, with the north wall constructed out of masonry. It is not to be excluded, that
thick tiling or lining is to be found in some areas of the lower chambers; the pit
need not be a perfect rectangle, but could roughly follow the contour of the
chambers, utilizing the natural rock as part of the construction. This tiling that we
see suggests clever economy in rock cutting; cutting through natural rock is
arduous enough, without unnecessary further cutting. This economy of rock cutting
I have highlighted in some of my other guides, so we should not be surprised that
they utilise the natural rock to their advantage. This economy of rock is clearly
absent in the two great pit sites, and further calls into question their function as
pyramid sites.
The Bent Pyramid
The lower chambers of the Bent Pyramid are at a considerable depth in the rock,
with the floor of the antechamber at about 23m below base; this depth being
similar to the two great pit sites, which is probably why the pit and trench method
has been suggested for the Bent as well. On the next page, we have a section and
plan of the lower chambers by Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R). The descending
passage enters the antechamber, which maintains the same width as the descending
passage. The antechamber soars to a height of 12.60m, and has a corbelled ceiling.
9
Above I have highlighted the lower chambers; the natural rock floor of the lower
chamber is about 6.75m above the antechamber floor, or some 16.55m below base.
10
The above impression gives a rough idea of the lower chambers layout; those
interested in more detail on the above, can find more information in my Bent
Pyramid guides.
11
In this image, we can see the natural rock wall, which is the south wall of the
antechamber. Today these old steps have been replaced by more modern solid
steps which prevent us from viewing this wall. Here we see a similar economy of
rock excavation, like we see at Meidum: no evidence of the large pit floors seen at
the great pit sites, or the deep masonry floors like at Zawiyet, made of monolithic
blocks to a depth of some 4.5m. Like at Meidum, the images also suggest that the
east and west walls of the antechamber are also tiled.
12
In the above image we appear to see some natural rock visible on the east wall of
the antechamber, and possible missing tiling, note modern stairs.
13
In this image we appear to have some mortar adhering to the surface. Obviously
only so much can be deduced from images; a thorough examination of these
chambers is really needed. However, the tiling of the vertical shaft at Meidum
suggests that the tiling of the antechamber walls is a distinct possibility.
14
Close up view of previous image
The tiling of the antechamber walls may have been done with tiles of variable
thickness, with deeper recesses cut in the natural rock walls to receive them: the
height of the antechamber walls is considerable so they may have wished to
provide extra support to the tiles.
15
A closer view of the better preserved parts of the antechamber wall
16
Above, looking down at the north wall, the impression is that we have deteriorated
fine white tiles adhering to the east and west walls, beyond these, the remainder of
the east and west walls appear homogeneous with the north wall. The construction
of the north wall is hard to determine from the available images, though where the
corbelling commences on the antechamber, the north wall appears to be of
masonry. If trenched like the two great pit sites, we should expect the north wall to
be made of masonry; however, if the entire north wall is of masonry, it may not
indicate a trench, but instead a function of how the descending passage joins the
antechamber, which I will describe later. The following images highlight more of
the antechamber north wall.
17
This image is slightly further up the north wall, and again the deterioration makes
it difficult to ascertain its makeup.
18
Slightly further up the north wall, we appear to see some masonry lines. When I
zoom in on these on the high resolution image, some appear less convincing. In the
next image, we have another view of this area that shows what appears to be a
horizontal joint in the image above to be not so horizontal; though neat masonry
blocks do seem to appear next to the masonry corbels.
19
In this view from a different angle and camera (hence the change in colour) we can
see what appears to be a horizontal joint line in the previous image, appear to be
curved in the view above. Again we appear to have neat masonry blocks
coinciding with the start of the masonry corbels. Clearly a long ladder and a closer
examination of the north wall are required.
20
The corbelled ceiling of the antechamber, neat masonry on the top of the north wall
appears to coincide with the masonry corbels
21
It might be the case that the antechamber is a deep shaft, which may have been
tiled on all four walls, leaving the natural rock to bear the load of the corbelled
ceiling. The southern rock wall may have been tiled, but removed by robbers in
their searches, as we have a sizeable excavation at the base of this wall. The
corbelled ceiling in the antechamber has a shallow projection compared to the
larger lower chamber: the corbels projecting only a palm in the antechamber
compared to 2 palms in the lower chamber.
The Lower Chamber
The larger lower chamber appears to have a strange mix of construction; here we
have evidence also of sizeable tiles.
This view of the south wall next to the chimney entrance (which is sadly filled with
rubble and prevents us from looking at the excavation at the south wall of the
chimney; which would help determine the nature of the natural rock at this
location), clearly shows tiles adhering to the south wall.
22
In this view, we get an idea of the thickness of the tiles, what the tiles adhere to is
not clear. In a large chamber like this they may have used the natural rock, but in
some areas, such as doorways, the chimney etc they may have elected to build with
masonry blocks; so we could have a mix. The chambers east wall to the left is quite
well preserved and could be tiled with similar tiles that we see on the south wall.
23
Close up view of the southern wall tiles
24
The west wall exhibits some damage as show by the above images, but again it is
hard to deduce much from the images. It is possible that the south, east and west
walls are similarly tiled, but to what is not known. For example the chamber may
have been constructed in a shaft, lined with masonry and then tiled with fine white
limestone, or a mix of masonry and natural rock: certainly some of the images
suggest masonry as the quality of the limestone that the tiles adhere to, appears of a
25
better quality, than we see in the antechamber. That said, the quality of rock can
vary greatly as they cut through the strata; At Zawiyet (see image on page 3) one
can see a smooth patch repair on the west wall of the trench, were we have a layer
of poor quality rock.
The north wall is a curious construction, in the image above, a noticeable line is to
be seen running down the wall. This line appears to be a white plaster finish, as the
next image shows.
26
What appears to be a fine layer of white plaster applied to the masonry of the north
wall.
27
In this image of the north wall, we can make out the masonry joints of the north
wall; the thickness of the wall is 52cm (1 cubit). The entrance has been enlarged
and we can see some of the corbels belonging to the antechamber behind this wall.
The first corbel that protrudes 2 palms (15cm) can be seen above the entrance, and
strangely, we appear to have some thin tiles adhering to the wall beneath the first
corbel. To the right we might have damage to possible tiles of the east wall.
This chamber has had modifications done to it, by who and when is not known. For
example, the excavation made into the south wall of the antechamber, if done by
robbers, could suggest that the pyramid was violated before the masonry staircase
was built in the antechamber (the outline of this staircase can be seen on M&R’s
section on page 10). It is cautious not to assume that everything we see in the
structure is contemporary to the original build.
How the lower chambers were built and how they used the natural rock to best
effect and economy of excavation, will require a thorough exploration of the lower
chambers; but given what appears to be sensible economy of rock in the
antechamber, it would appear illogical to create a huge trench like the image on
28
page 3, in order to create the descending passage. So how might they have created
the descending passage if not by trenching?
The Descending Passage
The rock on which the pyramid sits would appear to be good quality; indeed the
quarries that provided the core for the pyramid, are barely a stone’s throw away.
We might ask that if the stone is good enough to build the pyramid, surely it’s
good enough to safely protect a tunnel. I therefore suggest that the builders could
have tunnelled through the natural rock and lined the tunnel with fine limestone to
blend with the masonry built part of the descending passage. If we assume that the
rock starts at 2.5m below desert surface, we could have a tunnel some 47m long
that would require excavation. So how might such a tunnel look like?
In the image above, we are looking down the short descending passage in Queen
Khentkawes tomb at Giza. Here they cut a tunnel out of the natural rock and lined
it with granite blocks, the roofing stones have long disappeared. This tunnel is
roughly 2.3m wide by 1.9m high. The floor stones rest on the rock with the walls
29
resting on the floor stones. When lined, the passage reduces to 87cm wide by 82
cm high. In the Bent pyramid passage, the built passage appears to be two cubits
wide (1.05m) by 2 cubits high; however, the 1 cubit thick floor stones are inserted
between the walls and hence the height of the passage minus paving is 3 cubits
(1.57m). The wall stones at Khentkawes are about 70cm thick, if we allow the
same for the roofing stones, and use this example at the Bent, we would need a
tunnel 2.45m wide by 2.27m high. Such a tunnel some 47m long would require the
removal of some 261 cubic metres of rock; or about 1/10th of the amount of
material required by an open trench to the north wall of the antechamber.
Such a tunnel is not cramped and can allow several workers to go about their work.
At the great pit of Zawiyet, the width of the trench was some 5.80m (these two
great pit trenches taper outwards as do their pits, requiring even more material to
be removed, which I have not included in my rough calculation)6 Building a
descending passage in an open trench also requires more work; the large amount of
masonry backfill, would probably necessitate that the passage was relieved of this
weight by corbelling above the passage. Tunnelling by comparison does not
require this added work, as the passage is protected by the natural rock.
A tunnel some 47m long is surely feasible and simple to achieve, one only as to
look at the miles of it under the Step Pyramid to see how efficient they were at
doing this kind of work.
The greater part of the north descending passage is built of two wall courses,
totalling 3 cubits perpendicular height; the paving stones are inserted between the
walls and are 1 cubit thick, and therefore reducing the bore of the passage to a
square of 2 cubits
6
I have given the height of the trench as 21m, the width 5.8m and horizontal length 41m, such a rectangle is 4994
cubic metres, half of this gives a rough value of an open trench as 2497 cubic metres
30
In the better preserved north end of the descending passage, we can just about
make out the joint lines between the two courses. This method of construction
using two courses does not extend for the whole length of the descending passage
as some 12.60m from the entrance is constructed of large single wall blocks.
31
In this impression, we see the junction between different wall type constructions.
This junction with a noticeable drop in the ceiling is often explained as settlement
along an abandoned 60 degree pyramid. I have suggested an alternative step
pyramid structure for this feature in my Curious case of the 60 degree pyramid
paper. From this junction we have approximately 19m of the passage that would be
constructed out of masonry in the superstructure of the pyramid, before we get to
the natural bedrock and commencement of the tunnel. However, we would also
likely have a short further stage, a sort of hybrid between the masonry and tunnel
constructions: depending on the quality of rock, the builders of the tunnel would
ensure they had a sufficient depth of rock to protect the start of their tunnel. So we
would likely have a short passage created in a trench, sandwiched between the
lined tunnel and the superstructure part of the passage. This then provides us with
four possible distinct constructions that make up the descending passage.
32
In this image showing the bottom of the descending passage, we can still just about
make out the joint lines between courses. Here we see extensive deterioration of
the passage, not unlike what we see at Meidum. In the many images I have seen of
the lower parts of the descending passage, though we have extensive deterioration,
the joints of the masonry all appear to be quite tight; whereas in the upper parts we
often see opening of the masonry joints in the area that coincides with the
superstructure section. The superstructure section would be more liable to
movement, if the surrounding core masonry was not closely fitted. We also have to
bear in mind the extreme age of the pyramid, some 4500 years old, and the effect
of unknown seismic activity in its past: the Cairo earthquake of 1992 which caused
extensive damage and fatalities, had its epicentre at Dahshur.7
When one looks at the extensive deterioration of the ceiling blocks, one wonders
why they have not collapsed, especially if they were built in an open trench and
back filled with out relieving corbelling. If they have been inserted in a tunnel,
there will be no superincumbent masonry weighing down on the ceiling blocks.
7
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70169014
33
Another unusual feature noticed by M&R, is the following, they say;
“Along the upper edge of the side walls it is possible to note that the ceiling blocks
are placed like the teeth of a saw. This fact which is seldom apparent in the lower
part of the corridor, becomes almost a rule in the upper part. Due to the good state
of preservation of the ceiling we were able to notice that the wall blocks were
intentionally cut in the upper part in order to receive the ceiling slabs and that the
indentation of the saw-teeth varies from 2 to 4 cm. In the lower part of the corridor
the joints are very thin while in the upper part they are wider and several of them
are open. Moreover, in correspondence with the lower apex of the saw-teeth the
walls have numerous cracks and this confirms that a sensible settlement took place
in the pyramid masonry.”8
Example of Saw-tooth ceiling block
8
L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte III, 1964, page 62
34
35
On the previous page are further examples of this saw tooth feature. Unfortunately
for us, M&R do not indicate on their drawings were exactly this feature starts.
In the 150 odd images the Isida project kindly sent me of the north descending
passage, it appears that this saw-tooth feature coincides more with the subterranean
section of the passage. The view above, south of the junction shown on page 32,
does not appear to show any saw-tooth features; they appear to be only visible in
the close fitting subterranean section of the descending passage. M&R’s comment,
“Moreover, in correspondence with the lower apex of the saw-teeth the walls have
numerous cracks”, I have not been able to confirm on the images available to me
this observation; though on the superstructure section of the passage, cracks are
visible, it is not altogether clear if these are saw-tooth features, as shown in the
next image.
36
In the superstructure section of the passage, there are several examples of the
above, though it appears not to be a saw-tooth feature, as the ceiling line appears
aligned. M&R may have assumed such features were related to saw-tooth features;
certainly in the west passage they appear to have drawn features that do not show
up on the photographs (see my Bent Pyramid guide, part 1). The saw-tooth feature
does not appear on the upper section of the passage, which is made of large single
blocks.
If these saw-tooth ceiling blocks only appear to be in the subterranean section of
the passage, they may be indicative of a tunnel construction. The builders may
have been concerned of cumulative sliding forces of the ceiling stones if they were
all laid flat on top of the wall course. Keying the ceiling stones into the upper
course would dissipate such forces; the wall courses themselves would likewise be
keyed into the sides of the tunnel. At some intervals thicker wall course stones
could be inserted into deeper recesses of the tunnel; the lower wall course blocks
may even have varied in height, to fit into deeper recesses cut into the tunnel floor.
Likewise, the paving stones inserted between the walls, could have varied in
thickness, to fit into recesses left on the tunnel floor. These are just examples of
37
how the builders could have adapted their masonry if they were concerned about
cumulative sliding forces of the masonry throughout this lengthy part of the
passage, of approximately 47m. Such concerns would not be so much of an issue
in the superstructure section of the passage, were the passage masonry can easily
be keyed into the surrounding core masonry.
Having made the tunnel down to the shaft of the antechamber, how might they
have lined this tunnel? Working from the bottom, the lower wall course stones can
be slid down the tunnel and into position. The second course stones, could have
been placed on a sledge with a raised platform, such that the stone just requires
sliding onto the lower course; a similar raised platform could be used to insert the
ceiling stones, into their saw-toothed notches, let into the upper wall course: finally
the paving stones would be inserted between the walls of the passage. Such a
construction in a tunnel would be more efficient and quicker than the massive
amount of work required in excavating a huge trench and pit, such as we see at the
two great pit sites. Certainly, if I was tasked with the job, I know which method I
would prefer.
It should be relatively easy to confirm if the passage is built in a tunnel, small holes
could be drilled in the ceiling and cameras inserted much like Dormion and
Verd’hurt have done at the Medium pyramid. Indeed it may not be required as
some holes exist in the deteriorated ceiling that might be utilised, as shown in the
image on the next page. If a tunnel exists, we need to discuss how it joined with the
antechamber.
38
When it comes to the junction of the descending passage with the antechamber,
there are a few scenarios that I can imagine. For example, if a tunnel exists and the
north wall of the antechamber is made of masonry, how could such observations be
explained? Depending on the quality of natural rock at this location, they may have
wished for better quality and stronger masonry blocks at this junction; so instead of
a rectangular shaft that roughly followed the outline of the antechamber being
sunk, they may have elected to cut a ‘T’ shaped shaft, with masonry blocks
lowered into the top of our ‘T’ and sandwiched between the natural rock.
39
Above we have a rough outline of the four possible sections of the descending
passage.
1. Tunnel section: The largest section of the passage and quite deteriorated, though
the joints are very close, and were the saw-tooth feature appears quite prevalent.
2. Trench Section: A short hybrid section partly built in a rock trench and roofed
with superstructure masonry.
3. Superstructure Section: Built in core masonry; in this section, we have fractures
and openings of the joints.
4. Casing section: Well constructed and built of large single wall blocks, as
opposed to the two courses that run throughout the rest of the descending passage.
Though it’s often reported that the Bent pyramid is built on the Desert surface, I
feel that this is an unlikely event. Wainright’s tunnel at the Meidum Pyramid
shows how the builders took care to scrape down and anchor the step pyramid onto
the natural rock: only the later casing phase was founded on a platform on the
desert surface, with the steps of the tower carrying most of the load of the casing.
40
I have opted for a stepped core instead of a 60 degree pyramid, for more detail on
this please read my previous papers on the Bent Pyramid.9
Were the natural rock surface begins under the desert surface at the Bent Pyramid
is not known with any certainty; for the purposes of this exercise I have placed it at
2.5m below, which would place the height of the first step at about 8.5m above
rock. Step heights can vary significantly as shown by Petrie’s survey at Meidum
and his drawing below.
In the above image we see Petrie draw the passage exiting on top of a step, which I
have replicated in my previous image. This would appear to be a logical choice, as
the top of the step provides a useful working platform around the entrance. A
similar design may have been a feature of the Bent Pyramid; moreover, it allows
the end of the casing section to be firmly anchored and supported by the step.
9
Curious case of the 60 degree pyramid, and layman’s guides to the Bent pyramid. Available on academia.edu
41
At the junction of the casing and superstructure sections a noticeable drop is
evident. This is always explained as settlement, though when Petrie first examined
it, he came to a different conclusion; he says,
“This formation is not due to settlement, for (1) a settlement of 11 inches in such
solid masonry, not far from the ground, is impossible, the more so as it would need
a uniform settlement of the whole of the lower part of the passage, which should
quickly cease at one point, and soon after continue at an equal amount; and (2)
because the roof on the upper side of the dislocation is cut away in a slope for 23
inches, 1.1 being removed at a maximum. This shows that the builders were well
aware of this formation in their time; and yet that they did not wish to smooth it all
out, as if it were an accident or settlement, though nothing would have been easier
for them than to have removed all trace of it. This part, like the rest of this
Pyramid, needs far more examination.”10
Given the large masonry blocks and casing that constitute the casing phase onto the
step structure, and especially if the end of the passage is further supported by a step
founded on the bedrock, I would tend to agree with Petrie. Indeed, when one looks
at the images of the casing section, one is struck by the straightness of this section;
it is as if the whole passage has conveniently pivoted about the entrance, an
extremely unlikely event in such solid masonry.
10
Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, page 145
42
43
In the above sequence of images looking down the casing section of the passage to
the superstructure section, we can see how remarkably straight the passage is by
looking at the ceiling lines. This straightness of the passage appears maintained up
to the entrance of the pyramid, indeed, if one had a 12m straight edge and run it
along the ceiling, would we find any deviation? Given that we are told that a
sizeable settlement of some 11 inches has occurred, should we not have more
evidence of breaks and settlements along this section?
44
In this view looking up the casing section towards the entrance, we again see how
the passage maintains its straightness along its length (compare this image with the
one at the top of page 43; the ceiling and east wall damage are also visible on that
image).
In my previous papers, I have suggested that this feature was purposely built this
way; for example, it may have been intended to plug this section as security, the
Meidum Subsidiary Pyramid, has a large step in its floor to restrain plugging
stones, as to, do the great western tombs at Meidum. We do not know the extent of
any movement or issues the builders may have had with the superstructure section
of the passage, (where most movement is visible) at the time of construction. At
some 4500 years old and untold earthquakes under its belt; what we see today does
not necessarily reflect what the builders had to contend with. But if there were
issues at their time that caused movement in the superstructure section, which
prevented it from being successfully plugged, they may have elected to adjust the
casing section, with the intent of only plugging that section. Petrie is surely right
when he says it needs more examination.
45
Also to be taken into account, are the time frames when these sections were built.
The casing phase of the step pyramid would be many years away from the
superstructure section; during this time improvements and processes involved in
construction continually evolve, and problems solved.
In the image above, the reader would be forgiven for thinking that it was an image
of one of the Red Pyramids chambers; it is in fact an image of the Bent Pyramids
subsidiary pyramid, and highlights the continuing improvement in masonry. When
the Bent Pyramid was first started, the construction of the core may have more in
common with what we see at Meidum. Petrie would say of Meidum;
“The inner masonry, within each of the finished faces is very rough; no attempt
has been made to fit the blocks, except by selecting chance adjustments; the
courses are approximately equal, but a coarse mortar is largely used to fill the
hollows that are left.”11
11
Medum, Flinders Petrie, 1892, page 7
46
The view above is from the Meidum Pyramid and gives an indication of the
masonry quality. Would they have carried this quality over to the initial phase of
the Bent Pyramid? If the superstructure section was built within such masonry, it
might explain the movement visible in this section,
The masonry is often criticized at the Meidum and the Bent; yet even such fine
pyramids as the Giza giants are not as well built as many suppose. Excavations
made into these structures often highlight rough masonry. M&R on reporting on
the robbers tunnel in Khafre’s pyramid, state,
“it was probably enlarged later when it was cleared of rubble as Belzoni had to do
when he made his first attempt to enter the monument: in fact the Italian explorer
found the tunnel had collapsed at several points and he himself caused not a few
falls when he removed the fallen blocks. This was without doubt due to the
incompactness of the internal masonry and the lack of mortar, so that the blocks
are not always in contact at the sides and cannot mutually support each other as
happens in a vault. This observation can be easily extended to the entire nucleus of
47
the pyramid and seems to prove that, while the outer part of every course of the
nucleus is regular and formed of squared blocks, the inner part consists of a filling
made of very roughly shaped blocks with large joints devoid of mortar.”12
In the view above, we have a closer look at the junction of the two sections; in both
walls we have sizeable voids, just in front of the junction face. When these voids
were created is not known; but given the unusual layout of this junction and
change of masonry, from two wall courses to one, it would not have escaped the
attention of violators, who may have decided to excavate into this junction in the
hope of some find. If such excavation took place, it would undermine support to
the surrounding masonry, allowing fractures to propagate and opening of masonry
joints.
12
L’Architettura Delle piramidi Menfite, Parte V, page 52
48
Looking into the voids of the west wall, and below east wall
49
In the above impression I have restored how the original junction may have looked
like: I have removed the cubit high paving from the passage for clarity, as it would
obscure the protuberance. These protuberances were noticed by M&R and appear
to be no higher than the inserted paving stones. The impression based on M&R’s
TAV 11, fig 5, also shows a step in the ceiling and floor of about 8cm further south
of the junction. In a recent article by Colin Reader he mentions this area, he says;
“Further evidence for movement in the Northern Passage occurs a short distance
downslope of the major dislocation, where there is an 8cm step in the ceiling. A
lack of movement of the joints in the adjacent passage walls indicates that this
smaller step is unlikely to be the result of settlement however, the joints between
the ceilings blocks at this position have widened by approximately 2 cm, allowing
glimpses of the masonry above.”13
This appears at odds with M&R’s report, were they appear to conclude settlement,
they say,
13
Nile Magazine 18, Feb-Mar 2019, page 35
50
“In the north descending corridor we saw that:
A)- there are two sinkings: the first is 23cm while the second one is 8cm. If the
system had been intentional, the second would not have been made because it
would have been useless.
B)- the connection in the ceiling obtained by cutting away a maximum thickness of
3cm demonstrates that this was the entity of the settling during the building of the
pyramid. If the entity had been greater, the cutting too would have been deeper.
Moreover, there is no trace of a connecting cut in the ceiling in correspondence of
the lesser dislocation (the 8cm one).”14
M&R would go on to suggest, that a small sliding of the masonry may have
occurred during the build, with the more important sliding possibly occurring
many years after the closing of the pyramid.
Looking up the passage to the junction, the 23cm disparity in ceiling blocks is
visible. However, the 8cm step is questionable, and could simply be an artefact
14
L’Architettura Delle piramidi Menfite, Parte III, page 98
51
left by degradation of the ceiling stone next to it. The image also seems to confirm
Reader’s observation that such settlement is not reflected in the wall courses (see
image on page 48, for view in other direction). The images also suggest that the
ceiling line is fairly straight; in short, the 8cm settlement is called into question as
to whether it even exists.
Above we have M&R’s drawing of the junction, and I have highlighted the
protuberance and 8cm settlement that they show on the floor and ceiling. Today we
are unable to validate whether this drop in the floor exists, due to the wooden
boards.
Pyramids are not nice environments to work in, they can be hot and in places
movement is restricted. How long M&R had to examine this area is not known,
they may have taken notes and relied on memory to formulate their impressions at
a later date. Their work consists of large plan drawings, and photography is absent
52
from their work. It is therefore possible that errors can be made in the creation of
their drawings.
Another questionable settlement drawn by M&R, in their fig 4 above, is related to
the western corridor of the Bent Pyramid. Here they report,
“In correspondence to the fracture there is a dislocation very similar to the one we
noted in the north corridor, but here the sinking is only 5cm.”15
This fracture is east of the continuous joint in this corridor (the continuous joint in
the north passage is at the junction of the two passage sections. 16) As in the north
passage, M&R have drawn a step in the floor; however, images of the area in
question show the floor to be clearly smooth.
15
16
Ibid, page 66-68
For more detail see my ‘Curious case of the 60 degree pyramid paper’
53
The two images show the area connected with fig 4; here we can see that the floor
is clearly smooth (for orientation, note the square holes in the wall, the lower
image shows the square hole in the top left corner). Note also how the joint line of
54
the two wall courses appears level throughout this area (compare joint lines with
fig 4).Further, like the 8cm settlement that they highlight in the north passage, is
this just another artefact, created by the degradation of the ceiling stone, next to it?
Clearly a more detailed forensic analysis is required of these areas in order to
establish the true masonry makeup. From the evidence available to me as a layman,
I have to conclude that Petrie’s original observation that the north passage is not
due to settlement is still a valid hypothesis.
In Colin Reader’s article17, he observed how the masonry around the entrance to
the north passage had been cut in a particular manner.
In the somewhat distorted view above, we can see the large lintel that protects the
entrance, and either side of that, we find masonry whose lower edge has been cut at
an angle; this masonry then levels out and maintains a constant height, throughout
the remainder of the pyramid course, which is a lesser height than the lintel, above
the door.
17
Nile Magazine 18, Feb-Mar 2019,
55
In the view above, we can see how the masonry has been cut at an oblique angle,
and then becomes horizontal, for the rest of the course. Colin Reader would
suggest;
“The thicker casing block over the northern entrance (and the adjacent blocks), all
appear to have been cut to accommodate the dropped outer ceiling of the northern
entrance.”18
However, there may be another explanation for this feature, and that is simple
economy of rock, and the task of casing the pyramid. According to M&R’s
drawing19 this lintel is some 1.43m high by 3.18m wide, depth not recorded. If I
allow a depth of 1m, we could be looking at 4.5 cubic metres of Lintel, or about 12
metric tonnes. It may be more, as Petrie would comment that the casing blocks
tended to be very deep from back to front; some that were only 20 inches high and
about 60 inches wide, would extend back about 80 inches (2m). It would appear
beneficial therefore, that such casing blocks be kept to a manageable size. The
18
Ibid, Figure 10, page 36.
L’Architettura Delle piramidi Menfite, Parte III, TAV 11, fig 7
19 19
56
massive lintel has a job of protecting the void beneath it; such large blocks would
be uneconomical to continue around the whole course of the pyramid. They could
lighten their workload in casing the pyramid, by reducing this course to more
manageable proportions.
Concluding Remarks
Whatever the method of construction for the lower chambers and passage, be it
like the two great pit sites, or shafts and tunnels as I suggest in this paper; it is quite
clear that an immense amount of exploration is still required at the Bent pyramid.
Too much certainty has been written about this structure, be it 60 degree pyramids,
settlement, changes of plans etc, and all based on a poorly explored structure.
Surely we owe it to the great Egyptian builders to thoroughly explore their
immense efforts; but as I have said many times in previous guides, architectural
study is a low priority for Egyptology, and it’s hard to see how this state of affairs
can improve. Thankfully our knowledge of the Bent Pyramid is slowly beginning
to improve, thanks to the good work of the Isida Project, and others, such as Colin
Reader, who has been fortunate to look inside: though much work remains to be
done.
Over 130 years ago, Petrie would comment, “This part, like the rest of this
Pyramid, needs far more examination.” Hopefully, we will not have to wait a
further century before this examination begins.
57