The Mastabat el-Fara’un A layman’s guide Keith Hamilton 24 January 2018 The view above of the Mastaba el-Fara’un, (which means pharaohs bench) shows the south and west faces of the mastaba, with the cultivation in the background. Once again I am most grateful to Olga Kozlova and the Isida Project for the use of their images. Egyptology attributes this structure to the last king of the 4th dynasty, the pharaoh Shepseskaf; though the evidence for this is mostly indirect. One such piece of evidence was found on fragments of a dolerite statue; Gustave Jéquier reported that the fragments were of excellent work and of the same type as the statues of Khafre and Menkaure. These fragments were found by 1 an enormous hole in the south-west corner of the paved courtyard of the temple, which is to be found against the east face of the mastaba. Jéquier cleared this hole to a depth of 15 metres, and describes the end of it as a rounded pocket, like an abandoned shaft; he thought that this hole may have been an attempt by violators to reach the tomb, and that they were obliged to give up, due to the nature of the ground. Though I feel it may be possible that this hole may have been made to bury a statue. Jéquier found that some fragments with a flat face, displayed partial hieroglyphs; one such piece showed the end of a cartouche that could only agree with two old kingdom kings, the two kings being Shepseskaf and Userkaf. As Userkaf’s pyramid is well known, it is thought that this fragment, therefore, must belong to Shepseskaf. This case is strengthened by the finding of a stele in the temple area; Jéquier used this to suggest that the cult of Shepseskaf operated in the middle kingdom; he also mentions that this piece was not in its original place, though unlikely that it was brought from afar. One further piece of evidence, mentioned by Fakhry in his pyramids book, “It is curious that in writing the name of this royal tomb, the determinative was usually shown as a pyramid, as in all the other pyramid names. In only a few is the determinative written in its correct form of a sarcophagus, the true shape of the monument.” Location The location of the mastaba appears to have been on a virgin site, midway between Djoser’s step pyramid and Sneferu’s Red and Bent Pyramid’s. Today this area is called south Saqqara, and it also incorporates 6th dynasty and middle kingdom pyramids. Why this location was chosen is not known; one suggestion comes from Giulio Magli, in his book, ‘Architecture, Astronomy and sacred Landscape in Ancient Egypt’, here he says; “But why did the king choose to build his tomb in this pristine area so far from both of the two pre-existing necropolises? I believe that the choice of the building site and the design of the monument were planned together in order to harmonise the project with the pre-existing Sneferu-built landscape, with the aim of preserving order-Maat- in the already-old sacred ground. Indeed, if a line is traced from the point located at half the distance between the two Sneferu pyramids to the centre of Shepsekaf’s tomb, the same line prolonged to the north crosses the Saqqara central field in the “entrance” area located near the Teti pyramid. As a result, anyone reaching the summit 2 of the ridge would have seen (and still can see) the kings tomb – due to its “bench” aspect – forming a sort of regular baseline for the doublemountain symbol created at the horizon by the two giant pyramids of Sneferu. On the other hand, it can be easily seen that the position of the monument is not dictated by the morphology of the territory; it has its foundation on an artificial terrace and is relatively far from the ridge of the plateau. We can thus conclude that, in placing his tomb exactly where he did, the king “completed” the landscape of power built by Sneferu, establishing in this way his own power and conveying a message of order and a return to the old, pre-solar traditions.” Miroslav Verner in his Pyramids book says the following on the location; “Shepseskaf’s choice of the site for his tomb may not have been determined by opposition to his predecessors who were buried in Giza. Many Egyptologists clearly underestimate the fact that although the Mastabat Fara’un was erected in a place that was then remote, it was not far from the pyramids of the founder of the dynasty, Sneferu, in Dahshur, whence the stone for its construction came. Thus the selection of this site might also have been, in a certain sense, an expression of Shepseskaf’s sense of belonging to this dynastic line.” It has been suggested by some Egyptologists that a power struggle may have ensued between Shepseskaf and the priests of Heliopolis, Fakhry says; “Although Menkure’s son Shepseskaf began his reign by completing his father’s monuments, it would seem that he felt the pressure of the priests and took certain steps to limit their power. Unfortunately we have no document to tell us the story of the clash between the palace and the hierarchy, but we can see one of the results.” The result being a new form of tomb, he continues, “Shepseskaf built his royal tomb, the Mastabet Fara’un, in a form which differed completely from those used by his ancestors. It was neither a pyramid nor a true mastaba, but had the form of a gigantic rectangular sarcophagus and somewhat resembled the tombs of the kings of the First and Second Dynasties.” Added to this mix, is the form of Shepseskaf’s name, I.E.S. Edwards in his pyramid book states; 3 “At the end of the IVth Dynasty, however, Shepseskaf not only departed from the type of tomb built by his predecessors, but, so far as is known, did not follow their precedent by acknowledging unequivocally, either in name or title, his association with Rē. Whether he was guided by motives of religious principle or political expediency cannot be deduced from the evidence available, but, in view of the caution and conservatism shown by the Egyptians at all times in matters appertaining to religion and the afterlife, it is difficult to believe that Shepseskaf would have introduced such fundamental changes if he had not thought that the increasing power of the priesthood of Rē directly menaced the authority and independence of the throne.” This power struggle is not a view held unanimously among Egyptologists. If there was a struggle, it would appear slight as there appears to be no evidence of trying to expunge his memory. His site appears to have been used up to the end of the 6th dynasty and the cult resumed in the middle kingdom; moreover there is evidence that prince Khaemuas, son of Ramesses II, did some possible restoration; Edwards says; “..because he (Prince Khaemuas) took pleasure in restoring the monuments of the (ancient) kings of Upper and Lower Egypt when they had fallen into ruin. Parts of similar inscriptions by Khaemuas had already been found in the pyramids of Sahurē and Niuserrē and particularly at the Mastaba Fara’un, but they were too fragmentary to reveal what they had recorded.” It is also interesting to note how the chamber design of Shepseskaf’s was so replicated in the pyramids of the 5th and 6th dynasties, starting with the first king of the 5th dynasty, Userkaf, who shared a similar ending to his name. If Shepseskaf had been a lapsed follower of Rē, would the priests of Heliopolis, allow his heretical design to flourish so prominently in the following dynasties? It may be a simple case that when Shepseskaf came to the throne, that he was well advanced in years, and knew that the option of a pyramid was simply not going to happen (I have seen reign lengths for Shepseskaf, varying from 4 to 7 years); knowing that time was against him, did he simply settle for a structure that was feasible? A structure that harked back to earlier times; I doubt such a structure would offend the priests of Heliopolis, who surely would understand that a new pyramid for an old king was not feasible. Indeed, if Alexander Badawy is correct, it seems that the 4 priests of Rē were catered for; in his book ‘A History of Egyptian Architecture’ he states; “Shepseskaf is the only king of the IVth dynasty who did not build a pyramid. His tomb, the “Mastaba Fara’un”, has a superstructure in the form of a house, a step which may be ascribed to Lower Egyptian influences, particularly that of Re’. This is to be found clearly in the disposition of the funerary cult-temple of Shepseskaf: it has the earliest roofed offeringchapel, a lateral connecting-passage to the court, a second court with recessed panelled walls, no statue-shrine, which suggests that all other deities had been discarded except Re’ and that the funerary cult was dedicated entirely to Re’. Mastaba Shape The impression above from Jéquier’s excavation report, shows his reconstruction of the mastaba, which we will go into more detail later. The main superstructure had inclined sides, with the north and south sides extending further to provide two projections; in between these two projections a shallow curved vault was formed. Various suggestions have been offered to explain its shape, Mark Lehner in his ‘The Complete Pyramids” states; “With an outer slope of 70°it may have risen in two steps and certainly took the form of a Buto shrine – a vaulted top between vertical ends.” Other Egyptologist’s have also suggested links to a Buto shrine; Badawy suggested the following; “The main characteristic feature is the transfer of the burial shrines, ascribed to Buto and Sais, from the fore temple to the sub-structure, a transfer which the same Shepseskaf had also caused to occur in Mykerinos’ 5 pyramid. It is the amalgamation of the Abydos tomb and the Buto tomb into a single tomb dedicated to the king as Osiris.” So what does a Buto shrine look like? Giulio Magli says; “No actual shrines at Buto have been found, but the form of the archaic shrines there (perhaps made of perishable materials) is known from the corresponding hieroglyph, representing an arched-roof building with side poles.” Badawy, in his book, does some reconstructions of shrines with curved roofs, indeed curved roof structures can be found inside Djoser’s complex. It has also been suggested that the mastaba follows the shape of a sarcophagus; the granite sarcophagus found in mastaba 17 at Meidum is a good example of this. This does not mean that the mastaba is a giant sarcophagus, as the design of the sarcophagus is also more likely to represent a shrine. The granite Sarcophagus inside mastaba 17 at Medium 6 An interesting suggestion on a possible explanation for the form of the tomb comes from Giulio Magli, which also has connections with Buto; he suggests that the king’s choice may have been influenced by a total solar eclipse, he says; “In the case of Shepsekaf, on the morning of 1 April 2471 BC a total solar eclipse occurred in Egypt with totality at Buto. The eclipse was visible also from Memphis, although not in totality, and it is not inconceivable that the new Pharaoh was informed of the totality at Buto and decided to return to a pre-solar foundation of kingship and to honour that sacred place with his funerary monument.” Magli admits the proposal is highly speculative, as the chronology of the Old Kingdom is far from settled. For example Lehner gives Shepseskaf’s reign as 2472 to 2467 BC: Peter Clayton in his book ‘Chronicle of the Pharaohs’ gives 2504 to 2500. Further examples can be given, with a wide range of dates, which just highlights the difficulty on Old Kingdom chronology. Certainly I would imagine such events would have a great effect upon the ancient Egyptians. Jane B. Sellers book, ‘The death of Gods in Ancient Egypt’ makes an interesting attempt at reconciling astronomical events with Egyptian gods and beliefs, in what is definitely a difficult subject matter. Exploration J.S.Perring could be described as the first person to try and give a quantitative report of the mastaba; his short report is to be found in ‘The Pyramids of Gizeh, Part III’. The report is short and is here reproduced in full; “The Throne of Pharaoh, so called from an Arabian tradition, that an antient king of Egypt erected it for his seat. It is a pyramidal building, composed of very large stones, and constructed in two degrees or stories, the lower of which has consisted of five courses of masonry, each about 6 feet high; the upper story has also had five courses, each 5 feet 3 inches in height. On the northern and southern faces another course of blocks, about 4 feet in height, has been carried up, which forms at these fronts a sort of parapet, 23 feet in breadth. 7 The materials consist of coarse calcareous stone, in which are semipetrified oyster shells. The building has no doubt been a tomb. Attempts had been made to open the northern and southern fronts, but apparently without success. Near the eastern front are foundations, composed of compact limestone, and of granite, whence a causeway, made with crude bricks, extends due east for about 390 feet, and then inclines northwards towards the village of Saccara.” Perring’s measures and drawing of the mastaba The mastaba was opened in modern times by Mariette in 1858, unfortunately any notes he may have made were not published, and all we have is his drawings that were published by Maspero in ‘Les Mastabas de L’Ancien Empire, 1889’. Apparently Mariette is recorded as having found the name Unas, marked on red on a block; though when Jéquier later excavated the structure, said marking could not be found, and therefore it is thought that Mariette wrongly identified the owner. I have reproduced Mariette’s drawings here in full, to give the reader a better idea of the internal layout. 8 Northern entrance passage 9 Top is section of horizontal passage and portcullises, bottom is section of antechamber and niches. 10 Plan of antechamber ceiling and descending passage 11 Plan of horizontal passage and end views of burial chamber 12 Plan of internal layout, A is burial chamber, B is antechamber. Chambers orientation is east-west and the horizontal entrance passage enters B. 13 We have to wait until December 1924, when major excavations resumed under Gustave Jéquier; at this time there were no longer any traces of Mariette’s work, only mounds of debris in the vicinity of the entrance, which was once again closed. Work on clearing the site extending over two seasons and Jéquier’s findings were published in ‘Le Mastabat Faraoun 1928’. Above we have the general layout of the internal chambers from Jéquier’s report, which agree closely with Mariette’s, though the excavation in the first niche seems to have been extended northwards. Next to examine the mastaba was Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R) and their observations were published in ‘L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VI, 1967’. It is from these explorers that this guide is based on; I will start the guide from the exterior of the mastaba, then the interior, followed by the temple, enclosure walls and causeway. 14 The Exterior It appears we have no detailed survey of the structure, like we would see provided by Petrie, were he would give each side length, azimuths and levels etc. In Lehner’s Complete Pyramids book, he gives the finished mastaba as 99.6 by 74.4m. These are the measurements we see in M&R’s TAV 16; however, how these measures were derived is not clear to me: generally in M&R’s drawings, when they provide other persons measurement, they tend to place those persons initial next to the measure. So in M&R’s TAV 16, they show for example 49.80 J (J stands for Jéquier); this measure is half the N-S distance for the completed mastaba, hence, doubled we arrive at the completed length of 99.6m. The width of 74.4m is shown on their drawing without an initial, so are we to assume that this was measured by M&R, it is not clear from their text, how this figure was arrived at; likewise it is not clear were the 49.80m by Jéquier comes from, as I am unable to find it in his excavation report. If the 74.4m was measured by M&R, one would think that they would have checked the accuracy of Perring’s measure for the nucleus, but this appears not to be the case, For M&R state; “As the measurements of Jéquier, who gives only the data on the finished monument, are lacking, we have adopted Perring’s measurements for the nucleus,” Though M&R say that Jéquier only gives the data on the finished monument, I have been unable to find them in his excavation report; indeed interior measures are also sparse, he tends to use sectional drawings with a scale bar. It might be that the 74.4m was deduced from one of these sectional drawings; indeed I have seen measures in books ranging to a high of 103m N-S to a low of 72m E-W, this variance might suggest an error range, when trying to take measures from small scale drawings. As a layperson, I can only conclude that any measures for this structure need to be taken with caution; pending a detailed modern survey, the intended size of this structure and the chambers relationship to it is unknown. The lack of a detailed survey can lead to problems and assumptions. M&R have used Perring’s measures to suggest that the east and west faces of the mastaba may have exhibited a steeper angle of 65 degrees, compared to the 61 degrees they give for the north and south sides. This suggestion came 15 about when they compared the difference between Perring’s measures for the top and base of the nucleus, which showed a difference of about 7m on each of the N-S sides and about 5.5m on the E-W sides. However the accuracy of Perring’s measures has not been tested and the lack of a detailed survey that can recover the original casing lines, azimuths and levels, means we have little confidence in the relationship between the nucleus and finished casing. Fig 4 above from Jéquier’s report shows some of the surviving casing fragments; these stones varied in length from 1.5 to 2m in length, and he tells us their height was also not constant; he reports measuring some sixty blocks, (none found in situ) with the variation of angle ranging from 61 to 69 degrees. Jéquier explains this variance as; “These differences come from the fact that the foundations of the coating, instead of being strictly horizontal, often dipped inwards in a greater or lesser proportion, as a precaution against slipping; the final dressing was done once all the coating was in place. The angle being, in the great majority of the blocks, from 64 to 65 degrees,” Jéquier also found some corner blocks, which displayed tenons that fitted into its neighbouring block for added security, (M&R were unable to find these corner blocks, and test their suggestion for different angled faces). Also found were two blocks that displayed a rounded surface, which were thought to be from the curved top of the mastaba. 16 The above images are examples of the corner block and curved block. The height of the nucleus, measured at its centre, Perring gives as 17.2m with the end parapets as 18.4m. Jéquier in his report, states that the N-S axis was some 3m higher than the top of the N-S walls; in his day the north parapet was nearly entirely gone, the south being the best preserved, with a few traces of casing stone, and he thought the parapet was about 5m wide (M&R have used this measure in their drawings). However, in Perring’s drawing, both parapets appear well preserved and he states them to be 23 feet wide, or 7m; given the better condition of the structure in Perring’s day, I suspect the 7m, might be closer to the truth. South face of mastaba, with pyramid of Pepi II left 17 As the previous image shows, there are two distinct steps that make up the nucleus, both of five courses; each course is generally made of single large blocks of limestone, (though there are instances were two smaller blocks have been laid on top of each other, to reach the required height) thought to have been taken from the same quarries that provided stone to the Red pyramid at nearby Dahshur. Perring says that the 5 courses that make up the lower step are each about 1.83m high; the 5 courses that make up the next step he gives as slightly smaller, at about 1.60m : on top of this at the north and south ends a 6th course has been added some 1.22m high, to form the parapet. Looking at some of the images, there appears to be some variance in course heights within each step, so the measures above are probably averages; but it suggests that the first step is some 9.14m high, the next step 8.0m high, with the parapet course of 1.22m, giving a total of 18.36m for the ends, which agrees with Perring’s 60 feet 3 inches. According to M&R each course is set back by a few decimetres; the distinct step between the 5th and 6th courses, M&R thought to have been about 5 cubits (about 2.6m). I have seen some casing reconstructions, which follow the nucleus profile, in that the smooth casing is in two steps; however both Jéquier and M&R provide good evidence that the casing had a single profile. M&R say; “The nucleus and the casing were not in direct contact, but the space between them was filled with shapeless material bonded with mortar. Traces of this filling remain everywhere, but the greatest quantity is to be seen at the foot of the nucleus and above the fifth course. This goes to prove that the high step noted in the nucleus was filled and that therefore the casing did not follow the line of the nucleus itself, but had flat and sloping faces.” I suspect that what we see here is the same building practices seen used at the pyramids, a stepped core constructed first then followed by the casing. 18 In the above section from Jéquier’s report, we see in this reconstruction how the backing stones, fill the space between the nucleus and the casing. Jéquier comments that the casing rests on slabs of fine white limestone that form a sort of sidewalk around the structure; M&R say of the casing, “It rested on a layer of white limestone slabs placed on the foundation platform or the kerb added to the nucleus. This layer was formed of large slabs projecting 20-30 cms. beyond the final perimeter of the base of the monument: under the upper temple to the east, however, it projected about 2.5m outside the perimeter.” Above we can see some of the fine limestone slabs laying on the coarser foundation platform. On these slabs fragments of granite have been found cemented to it, suggesting that the first course may have been of granite, 19 though whether it followed the slope of the Turah limestone casing is not known, neither is the height of this granite course known. This coarser pavement foundation appears to surround the nucleus, which extends to rest on the natural rock. M&R say; “The remains visible in an excavation in the SE corner seem to prove, however, that there is not a real foundation platform extending under the nucleus, but that this rests directly on the rocky bottom of the excavation, which is 2.5m deep. Round the lower part of the nucleus an additional dado or kerb was built about 2.5-3m broad and about 2 metres high (and which therefore remains about a cubit below the level of the surrounding ground) on which was placed the white limestone foundation of the casing.” Jéquier mentions a large circular hole near the SE corner, which he thought “is undoubtedly the site of a foundation deposit which disappeared during the destruction of the monument.” He also mentions another cavity of the same kind near the SW corner. No hole was found at the NW corner, and the NE corner was so quarried away, that no traces could be ascertained. On the edges of the fine pavement Jéquier noted “a large number of rounded holes which were used for the installation of very heavy stones by means of levers.” 20 The Interior In the view above of the north face, we see the large breach in the middle of the face; the people standing in front of it give an idea of scale. This breach, Jéquier and M&R thought was the work of violators, however another possible explanation has been suggested by Dieter Arnold, in his book, ‘Building in Egypt, Pharaonic Stone Masonry 1991’; here he suggests that this gap, could be a construction gap, he says; “During the construction of a building, it was occasionally necessary to keep open temporary gaps or doors in the masonry in order to provide access for the workers and to permit the delivery of building materials. These gaps were closed only after completion of the work in the masonry that lay behind. Very often, these gaps can still be detected by the arrangement of joints in the core masonry, which clearly separate one block of masonry from the next…..Unfortunately, such gaps have not yet been measured or studied…..The huge trench in the core masonry above the entrance cut of the Mastabat el-Fara’un can also be considered as a construction gap. These trenches permitted the erection of the pyramids at an early phase when work in the underground corridor and chambers was not yet completed. 21 In his book Arnold provides an image of a similar construction gap above the entrance of the pyramid of Sahura at Abusir. There are indications that the chambers of the mastaba were not completed, so it may be possible that this gap was not closed and cased, though it’s hard to be sure as violator activities could have opened up this gap as well. In the view above looking into the breach, we see the entrance to the descending passage, protected by a steel gate and flanked either side by small stones. Though M&R say, “The large breach about 4.5m wide which is to be seen on the north face is clearly the work of plunderers…” in their observation number 2, they say; “As we have said, the large breach to the north presents a notable difference in the appearance of its walls. The first four courses at the bottom are regular, like the outer faces of the nucleus, while the upper courses are very irregular. From this one may conclude that the superstructure was begun when the internal apartments were still under construction and that in the nucleus a gap was left to a height of four courses to facilitate the transport of the blocks, the movement of the workmen and the putting in position of the butting beams covering the crypt and the antechamber. 22 Once the apartments were built and covered and the white limestone core was erected round them the gap no longer had any purpose: it was filled with blocks up to the level of the fourth course and the masonry above it was continued in a uniform manner over the whole edifice.” The white limestone core, mentioned above is a strange feature; the chambers of the mastaba are believed to be built in pits and upon completion, the chambers were covered with a construction of large blocks of Turah limestone. This construction was noticed by Jéquier thanks to the excavations made by violators, he describes it as not only a filling of the pit, but a real mastaba rising well above the roof of the granite chambers and the surrounding ground, M&R say; “The masonry covered the beams so as to form a core of fine limestone which filled the pits, rose to about 6-7 metres above ground and was wholly contained in the local limestone nucleus of the monument.” Jéquier says of this core, my translation; “The bottom of the large breach in the middle of the north face of the mastaba is formed up to mid-height, not by the masonry of the local limestone, but by a vertical wall of Turah limestone, in large blocks, arranged by regular seating. This wall rises above the descending passage, and it is supposed that on the other faces it is at a corresponding distance from the burial chambers, so that the whole of this first construction forms a mass of which we can evaluate the N-S length at 40-50 metres, on a slightly smaller width.” Jéquier describes this fine limestone massif as not necessarily rectangular, but possibly T shaped, he goes on to say; “This white stone construction thus constituted a real mastaba on the royal tomb, but the fact that the outer walls were vertical shows that it was not intended to remain in the open air and that the original plan already included the second envelope, that which forms the mastaba proper.” 23 In the section above from M&R’s TAV 16, we can see the breach by the entrance. On the left approximately 2/3rds down the descending corridor, we have the vertical wall of the fine limestone, which reaches the height of the first nucleus step, as shown by the dotted line. This dotted line of the massif can also be seen on Jéquier’s drawing on page 19. Also noticeable on the section are the different sizes of nucleus blocks, M&R say, “though it may be noted that the blocks used on the outside are larger and better finished: the blocks on the inside appear smaller and the joints, which are inadequately filled with mortar, are larger and less regular.” 24 A closer view inside the breach, unfortunately a lot of debris covers the bottom of the breach. This view further inside, the back wall may be the vertical limestone wall. Notice left corner in the foreground appears to be made of small blocks. 25 These small blocks along with the smooth walls and ceiling are possibly the work of Baraize, for he was tasked with shoring up the northern breach in the winter of 1926-1927. Baraize appears to be the go to person, when it came to engineering works at this time; he was responsible for pouring tons of concrete into the Sphinx at Giza along with building massive buttress walls to hold the sand back from the Sphinx enclosure. Entrance passage The entrance is said to be in the centre of the north face, though this needs to be confirmed by an accurate survey. M&R thought that the entrance may have exited the casing, about 5 cubits from the ground. Looking down the descending passage, the passage is made of large blocks of granite, which rest on a limestone foundation, which forms the floor, the dimension are about 1.1m wide by 1.27m high. About 17m of the passage survive, and M&R thought that originally it may have been about 21m long. A large portion of the ceiling is missing, with only the last 7-8 metres intact, a lot of cement can be seen on the ceiling, which might be repairs carried out by Baraize, to bridge this loss. 26 Looking up the descending passage Looking further down passage, note ceiling repairs 27 Towards end of passage, we see surviving granite ceiling beams End of descending passage, note red line denoting passage axis on ceiling block, to the right is the vestibule and ahead the fist portcullis can be seen 28 There is some confusion as to the angle of the descending passage; M&R say that, “The joints are all at right angles to the slope, which, according to our measurements was about 28° 30′.” However, Jéquier in his report gives an angle of 23 degrees, which I have seen repeated in other publications; this confusion grows when you take measures from Jéquier’s drawing that suggests a value closer to M&R’s. If we do the same thing to the drawing by Mariette, we obtain a value closer to 23 degrees! Sadly, like the nearby great pyramids of Sneferu, we have yet another structure in need of a proper survey. The Vestibule In the view above looking north, we see the entrance to the descending passage and to the west the recess that M&R call the vestibule. The last wall block of the descending passage has been cut vertically to marry with the horizontal corridor walls; the damaged ceiling block, was possibly likewise cut vertically. The vestibule is about 2.67m N-S (about 5 cubits), its height around 2 metres and about 1.88m E-W. (Because a lot of the granite in the chambers has not been dressed, it is hard to determine what the intended dimensions are.) 29 Looking south, the horizontal passage continues southwards out of the vestibule towards the portcullises. The blocks of granite are large; the lowest granite block on the west wall is a single monolith. The floor of the horizontal passage, is said to be of limestone and appears to run under the side walls, and not inserted between the walls. The Portcullises At about 2.1m (4 cubits) south of the vestibule we come across the first of three portcullises; M&R say, “Here one finds the system of three vertical portcullises, each consisting of a large slab of granite about 30 cm thick.” and that these granite slabs were guided by sliders that were recessed into the side walls by some 25-30cm. However the above statement appears incorrect and there is much confusion; first let us look at Mariettes’s section of the portcullis (page 10), here he annotates that the sliders are 30cm wide by 20cm deep and in the next annotation, he says that the portcullis have a sufficient clearance of 6-7cm. Clearly M&R’s 30cm thick portcullises seem at odds with Mariette’s drawing, especially when we see, that he gives us the value of 29cm in his drawing, apparently contradicting his own text value of 30cm. In Mariette’s drawing we see the spacing between the portcullises as 89, 89 & 70cm to the raising of the horizontal corridor roof, which is 30 significantly different to M&R’s TAV 17, were the corresponding values are 94, 93 & 95cm. Jéquier’s report cannot help us, he merely reports three portcullises 30 cm thick raised halfway up, that was either the work of violators or the tomb not being used. Clearly someone is wrong, and this appears to be a fine example of the illusory truth effect, were scholars accept previous author’s accounts without checking. However, thanks to the Isida project, we can clear up some of this mess; in their expedition to the mastaba in March 2013, they say; “Portcullis are unusually thin. First-16cm thick, the second and third- about 25cm.” The second and third portcullis is closer to the clearance mentioned by Mariette, but the first is unusually thin, and if the slider that holds it is 30cm wide, it would appear to be a very excessive clearance (In M&R’s TAV17 fig 2, the measures for the sliders from north are 25, 30, & 26cm). Obviously the whole area along with the whole mastaba deserves better scrutiny. Having different thicknesses of portcullises is not unusual; this portcullis design is seen as a common feature in later pyramids and some of these display variable thicknesses. This portcullis design is very common and it maybe that the three portcullises have some symbolic meaning; Khufu’s pyramid contains a grouping of three portcullises, albeit of a different design, as does Menkaure’s pyramid. The portcullises were found half lowered or half raised, depending on your viewpoint, Jéquier thought that the tomb may not have been used, and therefore the plugs are in the stored position, alternatively, violators raised the portcullises halfway to gain access to the tomb. Given the rough and ready nature of the stones that support the portcullises, I rather favour the idea that violators are responsible, and it is unlikely that portcullises would be stored in a halfway position, therefore obstructing the passage of goods into the inner chambers. 31 In this view looking south, we can see the three portcullises, being supported by various fragments of stone, placed into the slider recess and jutting out into the corridor. Looking south we see the rough stones supporting the last two portcullises. 32 The image above is of the southernmost portcullis, showing the rough stones of the west wall; the shadow at top hints at the clearance. The Horizontal Corridor The horizontal corridor can be said to start at the end of the descending passage, first running through the vestibule, then the portcullises; at about 8.4m (16 cubits) from the end of the descending passage, the ceiling of the horizontal corridor jumps in height and allows one to stand upright, as the height of the corridor then becomes 1.84m (3.5 cubits): prior to this the height of the corridor through the portcullis section appears to mirror the height of the descending passage at 1.26m. This high ceiling portion runs for a distance of some 8.16m (15.5 cubits), wherein it reduces in height again as it approaches the antechamber for the last 2.9m (5.5 cubits). This reduction in height was probably done to provide support for the roofing beams of the antechamber; this appears to be mirrored in the passage leading to the niches, were the corridor height rises after a short distance. The total distance from the descending passage to the antechamber is about 19.46m (37 cubits). M&R state the high portion of the Horizontal corridor at 8.16m and that the ceiling rises very slightly, the 33 difference between the two ends amounting to about 7-8cm (this appears to have been noted by Mariette, see drawing page 10). In this view looking north, standing in the high portion of the horizontal passage, we can make out the southernmost portcullis and the start of the raised ceiling. In this area a large portion of the floor is missing, but the remnants show that the walls rested on a limestone foundation, that extended into the corridor. 34 In this view similar to the last view, we have a closer look at the granite masonry; the granite block that meets the granite beam that spans the corridor appears to have a curved joint. Looking south here we see the missing floor and different joint levels. 35 Looking south towards the antechamber, the height of this granite beam M&R give as 74cm, whereas the other end is measured as 58cm. Though M&R state that the ceiling rises slightly, their TAV 17 differs to Mariette’s drawing by showing the ceiling to be level, and as a consequence, their drawing shows the ceiling of the low horizontal corridor that leads into the antechamber to be noticeably lower that the corresponding low ceiling of the corridor that passes through the portcullis section: a more detailed survey will be required to determine who is correct. The short portion of the corridor that leads to the antechamber, M&R thought may have been intended to have an inserted floor, as they expected the foundations on which the walls rest to have been particularly strong, to help in supporting the roofing beams. Also just visible in the image above, we can see that the ceiling block has been dressed underneath to increase the ceiling height; this feature is to be found in all the passages that connect into the main chambers. 36 In the image above, we can clearly see the dressing of the ceiling blocks. This ceiling block is also part of the antechamber’s north wall, and if M&R’s drawings are correct would weigh about 19 metric tonnes. End of horizontal corridor and entrance into antechamber 37 The Antechamber Above we have the view of the antechamber from Jéquier’s excavation report; looking west, we have the horizontal corridor entering the chamber in the north wall, the other opening in the antechambers west wall leads down into the burial chamber. The rectangular chamber measures 8.31m by 3.05m (from M&R’s drawing), the chamber is made of large granite blocks that form the walls and ceiling. The walls consist of three courses, with a fourth course, providing the 38 tympana (the triangular blocks under the ceiling) of the east and west walls. M&R state “The tympana have received the final dressing and in fact their visible faces are noticeably further back than the rest of the walls” The rest of the chambers walls have been left undressed, M&R go on to say; “Each of the courses of the short walls of the antechamber often consists of a single block and shows regular bondings at the four corners of the room. At the bonding points the blocks were dressed, as was logical, very accurately, so that the four corners of the antechamber are straight, vertical and much closer than the adjacent walls to the final corners resulting from the eventual finishing of the chamber. It was possible to verify that, over the whole area, the finishing of the walls would have involved the removal of a thickness of 10-15 centimetres of granite.” Further scrutiny would be required in order to try and recover the intended chamber dimensions after dressing (M&R mention a vertical line drawn with ochre made on the eastern jamb at the end of the horizontal corridor, that appears to determine the finishing plane of the north wall); but the antechamber may have been intended to be 16 by 6 cubits and the burial chamber 7.5 by 15 cubits. The entrance in the north wall may have started 4 cubits from the west wall; the entrance width of a possible 2 cubits would leave a remaining 10 cubits to the east wall. According to Jéquier, no traces of flooring were found in the chambers, M&R state; “The floor of the chamber was certainly planned to be laid between the walls. It is now completely missing and only the under-pavement of white limestone on which the blocks of the lowest course of the walls rest is visible. These blocks are about 40 centimetres higher than the other courses (which are about 2 cubits high)” On the walls of the antechamber and also the burial chamber a horizontal building line can be seen, that appears to denote floor level. An inscription is to be found above this line and repeated three times, twice in the antechamber and once in the burial chamber, according to M&R, Grinsell translated these markings as “Upper side of the paving stone, true line.” It seems that the intended floor may have been similar to that found in Khufu’s granite chamber; there the granite walls rest on limestone and the granite floor was inserted between the walls, such that the top of the floor 39 was noticeably higher than the base of the granite walls. This might suggest that the flooring was not fitted as the walls still had to be dressed. In the image above of the antechamber you can make out the ochre floor line on the south wall running behind a large granite block; the grey fragments of stone next to the granite block are thought to be the broken remains of a sarcophagus. This granite block appears to be a mystery, M&R say, “Near the SW corner of the antechamber is a large, fairly well squared block of granite which is out of position but shows fractures and traces of mortar.” In their observation 11 they elaborate some more; “Owing to its size, the block of granite that is now seen in the SW corner of the antechamber is very unlikely to have belonged to the floor. The traces of mortar round the mouth of passage X (they mean the inclined short passage visible above in the west wall that leads into the burial chamber) suggest that it was sealed after the funeral had taken place. The block may have been the sealing plug of the passage itself and been removed by the plunderers. We must, however, say that the block is chipped while the perimeter of the mouth of the passage X is intact.” 40 Unfortunately M&R did not take any dimensions of this granite block, to ascertain if it fits passage X; the block is omitted entirely in their drawing. The block is drawn in Mariette’s drawing (see page 13), and if drawn correctly to scale, it suggests that in its current alignment it is too narrow to Plug passage X; even rotated 90 degrees, it appears too small, though a closer fit; obviously a more forensic examination is required on this block and the traces of mortar. The entrance to passage X, M&R gives as 1.13m wide and 1.25m high; the distance from X to the south wall is 98cm and to the north wall 91cm. If I allow 80cm for the thickness of the granite block and if its other dimensions fit the entrance to passage X, we are looking at a plug block around 3 metric tonnes. Keeping in mind this block may have been mortared in place and placed on a 10 degree incline, it would appear to be a remarkable achievement to remove it in one piece without any noticeable damage to the entrance of X. Any attempt to push it forward would be met by a narrowing of X as its enters the burial chamber, which M&R give as 1.11m wide. We also need to consider, possible ancient restorations performed after ancient violations of the structure; passage X could have been blocked by a 41 collection of smaller blocks for example. Then again, it is possible that passage X was never blocked, a solid block fitted into the entrance, would never conceal the entrance; the very nature of under cutting the architrave basically shouts entrance this way, and would only delay violators. There might be another reason for this granite block; it may be possible that a stone receptacle was placed in the antechamber, and that the lid for said receptacle was stored on the granite block, which would be slid over after the insertion of any contents. The sarcophagus fragments according to Jéquier, were found against the west wall of the burial chamber, and at the base of this wall, he mentions an inscription drawn in black ink, which he thought might be related to the ceremonies of the sarcophagus (this inscription was translated by Grinsell as “Upper side of the paving stone, true line.”). These sarcophagus fragments have somehow been moved into the west end of the antechamber (unless Jéquier has got his chambers mixed up in his report, though the inscription location is correct); Jéquier thought it was made of very fine black sandstone, other authors have suggested greywacke (a hard sandstone) to Basalt, there appears to be no definitive answer. M&R say; “The black stone sarcophagus (of gres or basalt) which was in the crypt has been reduced to minute fragments. Some of these have been piled up in the antechamber and show that the sides of the sarcophagus were about 22-23 centimetres thick and are probably not inscribed or decorated. The outer corners were protected by a torus which made the casket similar to that of Mycerinus as drawn by Perring. The horizontal upper torus was not made on the casket, but formed part of the lid, which was probably decorated with the Egyptian cornice.” There appears to have been no attempt of reconstruction of the sarcophagus, some of the pieces are quite sizeable and there may have been more in Jéquier’s day; it would have been interesting to know if enough pieces existed that could have given us the width of the sarcophagus and whether it could transit through passage X or the other corridors. Though it appears to resemble Menkaure’s sarcophagus, I am always reluctant to claim that some sarcophagi are original to the structure that they are found in; Vyse removed the sarcophagus in Menkaure’s pyramid, which suggests that it could have been introduced during an ancient restoration, we see for example that the wooden boards found in Menkaure’s pyramid are believed to be a Saite 42 restoration. We can be fairly confident that sarcophagi found in Khufu’s, Khafre’s and mastaba 17 at Meidum for example are original, as much destruction of their structures would be required to remove them. Sarcophagus fragments 43 Looking at antechamber east wall, you can just make out the level line and inscription at the base of the wall; niche entrance is on right 44 In the view above of the south east corner of the antechamber, we see the entrance to the niches is similar to the entrances leading to the burial chamber and the horizontal corridor, in that the architrave has been undercut. The width of this passage M&R give as 81cm, which is less than the other two; though the side walls look like they still need to be dressed to reflect the undercut above, and hence all three may have been intended to be around 2 cubits wide. Also visible above is the floor level line. M&R report another inscription, found under the level line, on the south wall of the antechamber, that I have not seen deciphered. 45 The Burial Chamber The burial chamber is accessed via the short passage X that inclines downwards into the chamber; this passage passes through the large granite blocks about 1.54m wide that form both the west wall of the antechamber and the east wall of the burial chamber. The floor of the burial chamber M&R thought was about 30cm below that of the antechamber; the difference in levels of the chambers is clearly demonstrated, by the horizontal wall joints being somewhat lower than the corresponding joints of the east wall. Looking east, we see passage X enter the chamber, this entrance has no undercutting of the architrave on this side. We can see how the north and south wall joints are positioned lower than the east wall joints; there may have been some symbolic reason why one chamber should be lower than the other. The ceiling is similar to what we see in Menkaure’s pyramid, in that the beams have been shaped into a curved profile. The granite blocks are undressed and like in the antechamber, the tympana have received final dressing; M&R report that final dressing of the walls had begun in the NW corner, at about 1m from the floor. Some of the granite blocks are particularly large and both chambers display trapezoid joints (see Mariette’s drawing page 13). 46 In the image above we can make out the floor level line running around the chamber, we also see some of the underpavement that the walls rest on. M&R say; “The walls rest on the underpavement of white limestone and on them may be seen the horizontal line, already noted in the antechamber, which very probably marked the level of the intended floor.---It should be noted that in the crypt, as in the antechamber, the level of the underpavement is very variable: from 20 to 50 centimetres below the point fixed by the line traced on the walls. On some blocks of granite quarry marks may still be seen.” We do not know what material was intended for the floor, if a granite pavement was intended, they may have cut into the softer limestone underpavement to enable the granite slabs to adhere to the level line. 47 NW corner, inscription mentioned by Jéquier is visible on west wall Excavation under granite block, M&R report the depth of granite block as about 2 cubits and the underpavement more than 60cm thick 48 One of the three inscriptions found above the level line In Jéquier’s time he found an excavation in the floor of the chamber, going down some three metres; however he gives us no detailed information as to what this excavation went through, was it perhaps 3m of foundation blocks terminating in bedrock, we simply do not know. In his work he suggested that the two large chambers required a trench, at least 22m long by 7-8m wide and 7m deep; he also suggested a trench of 8x12m for the niche corridor and another gentler one for the descending passage. However M&R point out that according to Jéquier’s own drawings the floor of the antechamber “is about 7.5m below the level of the ground outside and that the floor of the crypt is still lower”; M&R thought the 3m deep excavation was unlikely the work of violators digging through bedrock, but more likely masonry and so suggested that the pits of “the principal rooms, must have had a depth of about 20 cubits (about 10metres) from the level of the ground surrounding the monument.” They go on to say; “This measurement is also reached by adding to the 7m given by Jéquier as the depth of the pit the 2.5m average depth of the excavation which received the so-called foundation platform of the nucleus. It may therefore be thought 49 that Jéquier’s measurements refer to the rim of the pit and not to the surrounding ground. The fact that the rooms are not sunk very deep with respect to the ground level is also noted in the pyramids immediately subsequent to the Mastabat Faraun.” I can only add that in Jéquier’s report, we have two drawings with scale bars that M&R could have used; we have fig 3 drawn by Dunham (see page 19) and the general plan by Lauer (see page 14). Dunham was in charge of architectural surveys but was replaced by Lauer, as he had to resume his position with Reisner. The Dunham drawing suggests the antechamber floor as being about 7.5m below base, though Lauer’s suggest 7m; such drawings can only give us rough approximations, we also have to take into account the differing opinions for the descending passage angle; here Lauer’s drawing is closer to M&R’s value. Clearly a modern survey is required and a reopening of the violator’s excavation to better determine the makeup of the foundations, and the location of the bedrock. Unfortunately detailed architectural analysis is very low in the priorities of Egyptology, which is a shame, as much can be learned from it. Above we see the slightly staggered joints of the ceiling 50 The Niches In the image above we see access to the niche corridor in the south wall of the antechamber. On the entrance to the corridor M&R say; “Originally this opening must have been closed with a single leaved wooden door, as is indicated by the hole for a hinge made in the floor by the east jamb, and by traces of mortar in the upper part of the opening. These traces suggest the existence of a wooden lintel in which the upper hinge of the door was fixed.” The corridor heads south for a distance of some 10.65m (maybe 20 cubits, we need to take into account the amount of dressing required on the south wall of the antechamber; if 15cm, then 10.50m would give 20 cubits of 20.67 inches). Along the east wall of the corridor we have four niches/magazines, of roughly similar size, on the west wall we have one niche of a different shape; the corridor extends past the last niche by about 1.5m, and practically creating a sixth niche. On the corridor M&R say; “The corridor is about 0.8m wide, but of variable height. The first stretch is, on average, 1.5m high. It then suddenly rises to 2.2m but for a distance of 70 centimetres the ceiling slopes downwards, so that at the end of this part the height is 2.05m. Afterwards the corridor has a height of 2.3m and continues horizontal right to the end.” Not shown on Jéquier’s and Mariette’s drawing, but visible on M&R’s, is that the floor of the corridor appears to be 12 cm lower than the antechamber. 51 We have measures of the niches from Mariette’s drawing (see page 13) and M&R’s TAV 17. The discrepancy between the two can be seen in the plan above; the red outline is M&R. Three of the niches on the east display a similar depth 2.10 -2.13m (4 cubits?) the remaining niche on the east is 2.27m deep. The widths of the east niches, starting from north by M&R, are 84, 88, 82, 82cm. Spacing between east niches is also variable, being 96, 92, 83cm; both authors agree that the first niche starts at 3.10m from corridor entrance. The height of the niches is about 1.45m; the niche in the west is the largest and is shaped differently: its entrance by M&R is 96cm wide, it goes back 1.05n (2 cubits) wherein the niche widens to 1.16m for a further depth of 1.60m, giving a total depth of 2.65m (5 cubits). The corridor and niches are made from a mixture of granite and fine limestone. The corridor walls, ceiling and lintels over the niches are all in granite, the lintels and door jambs show the granite to be 1.05m thick (2 cubits); only at the very southern end of the corridor do we find limestone being used, immediately after the southern granite door jambs, which belonged to the southernmost niches. As the lintels and door jambs of the niches were 2 cubits thick the remainder of the niches are constructed of fine limestone. 52 Inside niche corridor looking south, niche entrance visible on left The red dot is on the south wall of the corridor and chisel marks on the limestone are visible 53 View inside west niche, an excavation is visible on north wall Views inside one of the east niches, again chisel marks are visible 54 Looking north toward the antechamber, we can see the rise in ceiling height and the inclined ceiling stone, which is probably part of the special masonry used to counter the thrust of the antechamber ceiling stones In the north wall and ceiling of the first eastern niche, a large excavation has been carried out, thanks to this excavation M&R say; “it is possible to have an idea how the butting beams covering the antechamber in line with the corridor were laid. One of the granite architraves of the corridor was fitted into a slanting cut made in the blocks forming the wall of the corridor, so as not to be subject to possible subsidence’s, even under the thrust of some of the butting beams which covered the antechamber. These beams, which were over the void made by the corridor, were thus laid over the strong and immovable architrave specially shaped for the purpose, which was capable of supporting both their weight and thrust. The breaks and attempted breaks of the robbers were made in the white limestone masonry which, as Jéquier says, completely covered the underground apartments.” 55 View of the breach in the first niche, showing the granite and fine limestone The function of these niche/magazines is not known, some have suggested that they held statues; others that they were storerooms that held provisions for the king. Badaway in his ‘A History of Egyptian Architecture’ gives his view on the niches as; “As in the pyramid of Mykerinos the four shrines for the inner organs and a room for the crowns have been added to the sarcophagus-chamber.” Jéquier states “There was not found a single ancient object in the tomb itself, and Mariette did not mention any discoveries during his work in the mastaba”. The only items found are the sarcophagus fragments, and even here caution is required; we cannot say with certainty that it is contemporary to the structure, or indeed if it is a sarcophagus, it could just as well be some other stone receptacle that had an entirely different function. 56 The Temple The temple located against the middle of the east face of the mastaba, has been all but quarried away; Jéquier says, “barely there remains two or three blocks to mark the emplacement of walls, and even floors were partially torn off, so that to re-find the original plan of the monument, we are reduced in many ways, to substructures. These are usually crushed earth under the pavements, and stone where the walls should rest, but this provision does not offer any absolute guarantee and especially no precision.” Jéquier’s plan of the temple; the dark patches indicate areas of certainty for wall layout, and the hatched areas indicate a probable layout. M&R say, “The destruction of Shepseskaf’s mortuary temple was almost complete and only some clues or traces make the position and composition of a few rooms certain.” 57 M&R in their TAV 15 have shown a few possible reconstructions: other reconstructions are available from other authors. However as a layperson, I feel there are insufficient remains to enable an accurate reconstruction. The Meidum and Menkaure’s temple appear to rest up against the pyramid casing, but Shepseskaf’s temple appears bonded to the mastaba casing, as M&R say, “Since some blocks of the temple walls were embedded in the casing of the mastaba, it is certain that the two constructions proceeded pari passu.” Two blocks of Granite found in situ, suggest that the outer face of the temple may have had a lower course of granite, to match the granite course of the mastaba; this granite course also appears to be visible in the interior face of the courtyard, the blocks had a height of .95m. There appear to be three entrances into the temple, two on the east façade and one on the south façade. On the east façade an entrance appears to open into a sizeable courtyard, paved with irregular limestone slabs; opposite to this entrance we have another entrance in the west wall of the courtyard, which affords access to the western part of the temple. The other entrance on the east façade appears to connect to a long corridor that bypasses the courtyard and give access to the western part of the temple; this corridor appears to be connected also to the entrance on the south façade. There appear to be differences in reconstructions between M&R and Jéquier, one example being that M&R do not recognise the second entrance on the east façade, only the entrance into the courtyard. M&R’s interpretations seem to differ, “because account must be taken, in our opinion, of the position of the ceremonial causeway and other features not considered by Jéquier.” Having read Jéquier’s report, I feel this is a somewhat unfair statement, Jéquier was well aware of the features, and I cannot find anything new in M&R’s work that he missed; given the scant remains, it all comes down to the interpretation of any given author. Jéquier gives the thickness of the external walls of about 2.20m (about 4 cubits), and that the partition walls of the destroyed rooms were of the same thickness. The mastaba foundation extends some 2.5m into the western part of the temple, after this it appears the walls of the temple are built on blocks of white or yellow limestone. The layout and function of the temple rooms 58 west of the courtyard, is a bit like the niches inside the mastaba, open to interpretation. The drawing above is part of PL.VI from Jéquier’s report, and here we see two unusual features, and that is two well constructed drainage systems that led to two receptacles located outside the temple on its north side. The drainage systems run under the north wall, the one from the large courtyard enters into a large rectangular stone basin of one piece, which Jéquier describes as having the shape of a sarcophagus, though it did not have a lid. This box was laid oblique to the axis of the monument; the other drain came from an area in the western part of the temple, but this drain went into an earthen basin, described by Jéquier as being about 1.25m deep, “with walls regularly inclined with crushed earth, without any coating or border of stone.” The dimensions at ground level he gives as 6 x 4.10m reducing to 2.75 x 1.20m. The channel that led from the courtyard to the oblique stone basin, M&R say; 59 “it is more probable that it served to convey the blood of the sacrifices or the liquids of any libations carried out during particular ceremonies outside the building.” Jéquier’s view of the inclined earthen basin west of the stone basin; “The orientation of the basin and its location in relation to the royal monument prove that it should be part of the original monument. It was already filled at the time of the later constructions, that is to say probably in the middle kingdom, since a small wall of bricks rises on the cuttings which fill it. The purpose of this small pond was not only to serve as a weir to the water coming from the yard, but probably also to be devoted to the cultivation of water plants such as the papyrus, symbol of north Egypt.” This brick wall can be seen on the drawing (page 59), running across the pond and the corner of the stone basin; M&R thought it probable that this stone basin was a later addition, placed there when the inner enclosure wall was modified, as they thought the inner mud brick enclosure wall would run over the stone box and connect to the stone wall of the temple. Above one of M&R’s reconstructions 60 However Jéquier does not show the walls meeting and it is to be noted that the enclosure wall on the south side does not connect to the temple but rather to the causeway. M&R have suggested another entrance into the temple in the north-west corner which would allow access to the basins and the inner precinct. I am always wary of mud brick structures, as it is often difficult to determine when they were built and what phase, but there is nothing definitive to me, which suggests that the stone basin was a later addition. The unfinished nature of the chambers suggests the death of a king before completion; its possible that a successor built the walls of mud brick and not particularly concerned about the basins, built over one of them; or alternatively if the entrance in the NW corner did not exist, a gap in the wall would be needed to access the basins, as its hardly likely they would expect people to walk around the mastaba to gain access to the basins. It seems clear that in the middle kingdom at least, the basins had no function as they were filled in and built over by a brick wall. As to the function of these basins, I think Jéquier might be in the right direction. In recent years evidence has emerged of gardens next to temples, a particularly large one is next to the Bent pyramids valley temple, and in the Red pyramids temple, tree pits were found north of it. Here at the mastaba we have two basins, one of stone with no outflow and the other made of earth; could Jéquier be correct in suggesting heraldic plants? The heraldic plants of Egypt were the blue water lily for Upper Egypt and the papyrus for Lower Egypt; the stone basin full of water could be suitable for the water lily, and the earthen basin for the papyrus, which can survive in moist muddy soil. In front of the temple we appear to have an extension made of mud brick that creates a large courtyard as big as the temple itself; in the inner faces of the courtyard the brick displays the palace façade motif. For some reason the north wall displays a larger version than the east and south walls. An entrance is found in the middle of the east wall, just as we find in the stone courtyard; the other entrance was via the brick causeway. Jéquier thought that the north wall connected to the stone temple, and was a continuation of its north wall; at some indeterminate time, the western end of the brick wall was demolished and that the remaining section was joined by an angled wall to the inner enclosure wall: at the same time a wall was built on the south side of the temple that isolated the temple. Jéquier thought that these works may have dated from the middle kingdom. 61 In the drawing above from Jéquier, we can see the mud brick wall layout; from the north and south we see the inner enclosure wall come into view. The brick courtyard with the palace façade motif is visible; the western end of its north wall was demolished and the thinner angled connecting wall was built that connected to the inner enclosure wall, and continued further westwards over the basins. Jéquier describes the brick of the connecting wall as larger than the others and less neat; at the same time a wall was built south of the temple from the corner of the enclosure wall to the mastaba and isolating the temple from the precinct of the mastaba. The brick structure in the middle of the brick courtyard, consisted of two brick walls joined together by a filling of rubbish; Jéquier thought it was from a later period 62 and used in the exploitation of stone from the mastaba cladding. The causeway enters by the SE corner, Jéquier commented on how degraded this area was, and that it could not be reconstructed with any certainty. The above image from Jéquier’s report, highlights how little of the temple remains. This view looking down from the mastaba, shows the approach of the mud brick causeway and the remnants of the mud brick court; in the foreground we see mostly the remains of the stone courtyard, with a sizeable portion of its paving slabs intact. One can make out the drainage channel next to the granite block on the north wall, which suggests that the lower granite course was visible both sides of the wall (the walls consisted of two faces of fine stone, with the space between them filled with small stones and chips). The shaft is visible at the SW corner of the courtyard, Jéquier says; “The entire south-west angle of the paved courtyard and the walls which bordered it on this side have disappeared, for a huge hole had been made in this place, at an interminable time, dug irregularly into the inconsistent soil. The exploration of this cavity was imperative, the more so because at its orifice I had found several fragments of a royal statue, it required heavy 63 support work and gave no result: at about 15 metres, the search ended in a rounded pocket, like an abandoned well. The only supposition to be made about this hole is that it was an attempt by burial violators to reach the tomb by the shortest route, an attempt to which they were obliged to give up, given the nature of the ground.” M&R say of the shaft “We think rather that it is a funerary shaft of a later epoch, dug to a certain depth and then abandoned.” I can only add that buried statues such as those found at Giza, mean that we cannot exclude the possibility that this statue was likewise buried at one time; whether it was buried to such a depth is questionable, the empty shaft after removal of the statue, may have been enlarged for an intrusive burial at a later date or violator activity. In the image above from Jéquier’s report, we can see the other drainage channel that came from the western part of the temple and connected to the earthen basin. 64 The Enclosure Walls Jéquier states that the mastaba had two mud brick enclosure walls, the inner around 10m from the mastaba and the outer around 48m from the mastaba. In the view above from Jéquier’s report, we see the best preserved part of the inner enclosure wall located in the west that had a height of about 2.5m; this wall was visible along its entire length, except for a few metres near the NE corner, everywhere else had at least two or three brick beds. 65 Above, a similar view today, the Bent and Red pyramids are visible Jéquier describes the walls as being 2.05m (4cubits) wide at the base, the batter on both sides was the same, so that at a height of 2.5m each side had decreased by .50m; he thought that the total height of the walls would not exceed 3 or 3.5m, with the top rounded to protect against the weather. Jéquier’s section of the enclosure wall is shown above 66 Jéquier states that the enclosure walls were plastered with a yellow-brown plaster, which he calls characteristic of the end of the 4th dynasty. On the whole perimeter of the inner enclosure wall, only one entrance was found, opposite the NW corner of the mastaba; here was found a narrow vaulted door that had been walled up. It is thought that this may have been a service door, used for access during construction, which was subsequently closed when it was no longer needed. Image of access door from Jéquier’s report Within the precinct of the inner enclosure wall and mastaba Jéquier says; “The space between the wall and the mastaba was entirely free, with no monument built, no funerary shafts for members of the royal family. There was not even found a single object that could be considered contemporary with the monument. The only particularity to report is the presence of a rectangular basin immediately to the north of the chapel, at an equal distance between the perimeter wall and the mastaba facing;” Jéquier thought that in the eastern sector, the wall was originally supported at its two ends against the side walls of the temple, and at a later time these extremities were cut to establish a connection with the brick courtyard. He thought original access to the precinct was made via the south entrance of the temple and that another was possible on the north wall, but there was no evidence to support its existence. He does not seem concerned or noticed 67 that the wall would cut across the corner of the stone basin, which was noted by M&R. Another possible issue is the southern entrance into the temple, if we compare the temple plans on pages 57 & 62 it can be seen that Jéquier has the east wall of the south entrance in alignment with the west wall of the courtyard; if we now look at the plan on page 62 and extend a line southwards from the west wall of the court, it will be seen that it hits the middle of the enclosure wall: if the drawings are correct it would suggest that if the brick wall connected to the south wall of the temple, it would obscure some of the southern entrance, which seems illogical. So we seem to have a position where if the inner enclosure wall connected to the temples north and south sides, we would have the wall run over the stone basin to the north and to the south the wall would obscure the south entrance. Unfortunately we do not know if the wall connecting to the temple was an opinion of Jéquier or based on remains discovered during excavation; the report is not clear and the detailed plan on page 62 is of little help, but I would have thought that if brick remains or foundations of the missing portions of the wall were visible during the excavation, they would have been noted in the drawing, but the drawing shows nothing. The outer enclosure wall, Jéquier could only find scant remains, some small sections to the south and evidence it came up against the causeway; after the causeway it resumed north for a short distance were it appears to have been cut to make room for more recent tombs. Access to the area bounded by the two enclosure walls seems to be made by two small doors one in front of the other, that were made in the causeway. The Causeway The remains of a covered causeway (approx 760m) made of mud brick can be traced from the cultivation to the mastaba. From the cultivation it follows a SW route up a gentle incline towards the mastaba; at approximately 100m from the mastaba it changes direction to a more westerly direction. As the causeway approaches the brick courtyard of the temple, the north wall of the causeway appears to join the south-east corner of the brick courtyard; the southern wall of the courtyard continues along its course and joins with the end of the inner enclosure wall. The vaulted causeway passage Jéquier gives as about 1.7m wide and its height at the keystone less than 3m; the walls at the base were 1.2m thick. The causeway appears to have been built in sections, with gaps left for the workers to gain access, which were 68 subsequently closed up and plastered over like the rest of the causeway, no decoration was found. In the view above from Jéquier’s report, we see the causeway change course and form a sort of ramp up to the temple. The causeway is better preserved nearer the cultivation, where a portion of the vaulted ceiling still survived. This vaulted causeway is reminiscent of a brick causeway discovered at the Bent pyramid complex at Dahshur; here a brick causeway was found to lead from the valley temple to a possible harbour (details of this causeway can be found in The Necropolis of Dahshur, Eighth Excavation Report 2011/12 by the German Archaeological Institute). In this report they say that the original brick causeway was open at the time of Sneferu and that the vaulted alteration can be dated to the 6th dynasty; as shards of 6th dynasty pottery was found between the vaulted bricks. In Jéquier’s report he mentions 6th dynasty pottery fragments found in the causeway, which he thought came from the nearby necropolis; he also mentions bases of columns found in the cuttings at the bottom of the causeway, which he thought may have come from a portico at the end of the causeway, or a different origin altogether with a more recent date. 69 The above image from Jéquier’s report, shows a surviving portion of the vaulted ceiling, but is it contemporary or 6th dynasty as we see at Dahshur? The area seems to have attracted interest to Pepi II (last king of the 6th dynasty), who built his pyramid next to the mastaba; also groupings of mud brick tombs from the 6th dynasty flank the mastaba and encroach into the mastaba complex as evidenced by cutting into the outer enclosure wall. It seems clear that the mastaba appears to have held interest in later eras, but it is difficult to understand what modifications or restorations were done to the mastaba complex. A valley temple if it exists would be submerged in the cultivation. 70 Concluding Remarks It feels that we have barely scratched the surface of this monument, and like the nearby giant pyramids at Dahshur, it seems to be in a bit of a mess, and in need of a modern survey, inside and out. A more forensic approach is needed to sort out the sequencing of the mud brick walls; Jéquier mentions part of the walls being built by the middle kingdom, but what about the possibility of other dynasties? From the current condition of the chambers, it does seem to suggest the early demise of the king; yet given the considerable amount of time it would have took to cover the chambers and case the mastaba etc, one would have thought that they could have dressed more of the chamber walls than we currently see (maybe the king was ill and they prioritised the build of the mastaba over the finishing touches of the inner chambers). The king lists suggest a short reign for shepseskaf which the mastaba’s condition seem to confirm by the extensive use of mud brick; but is this mud brick all contemporary to the structure or later? If we had a king in poor health it might explain the choice of structure over a pyramid; a structure that could be built quickly but still imposing enough to befit a king. I don’t think Shepseskaf had any sort of conflict with the priesthood; indeed the chamber design inside his mastaba appears to be the blue print for the later 5th & 6th dynasties. The use of granite is still excessive, maybe stock leftover from the huge amounts used at Menkaure’s pyramid. The construction of the mastaba appears to have the same techniques used in the pyramids; the chambers are built on and surrounded by a core of good limestone, and against this, coarse local limestone was used, with the outer parts being of larger blocks and creating a step (not unlike what we see in the cores of the queens pyramids at Giza for example). Against these large coarse blocks the casing and backing stones was placed. Hopefully sometime in the future this impressive structure will be revisited by archaeology, as I feel this structure has a lot more to teach us. 71