The Minor Pyramids of Giza, Part 2. GI-a, GI-b, GI-c A Layman‟s Guide Keith Hamilton 17th February 2021 Part 2 will concentrate on the minor pyramids that reside on the eastern side of Khufu’s Pyramid. The above drawings1 mark the beginning of modern exploration, when the pyramids were reopened by Howard Vyse in 1837. The pyramids were all violated in remote antiquity, and some show signs of intrusive burials; it is likely that they have been opened several times in various historical epochs. In the above drawing I have annotated the modern numbering system for the pyramids next to Vyse’s system, which shows the northern most pyramid as number seven (Lepsius would have a different numbering system; Vyse’s number seven would be Lepsius V). 1 Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Giza in 1837, Vyse, volume 2, page 67 1 Exploration Howard Vyse would successfully open all three pyramids, along with a similar grouping of pyramids which flank the south side of Menkaure’s pyramid (which will be dealt with in part 3). Unfortunately, Vyse’s findings are rather cursory, and further detail would not be forthcoming until the arrival of Flinders Petrie some 43 years later; however, his valuable skills were somewhat restricted: he states, “Of the smaller Pyramids I had not the time to uncover the bases, nor to open those now closed. Only two of them remain open at present, the northern and middle ones by the great Pyramid.”2 George Reisner would also provide some detail on the Minor pyramids, but again the information like Vyse’s, is rather limited.3 The more detailed information on the pyramids is to be found in the work of Maragioglio & Rinaldi (M&R); carried out in the 1960’s.4 Further small snippets of data appear in other publications, but as a layman I was generally surprised on how little data is available on these pyramids; likely not helped by the black hole properties of the Great Pyramid which sucks in all attention, and leaving mere crumbs for the rest of the necropolis. These three small pyramids along with the three on the south side of Menkaure’s pyramid are generally referred to as Queen’s pyramids, though there is no certainty as to which actual queen was buried in each pyramid. Various suggestions and names have been put forward by various authors, and whilst signs might be displayed outside the pyramids; for example GI-b has a sign saying „The Pyramid of Queen Meritetis‟, care has to be taken in ascribing any particular pyramid to a queen. Mark lehner and Zahi Hawass would state; “The name of the owner of the middle queen‟s pyramid is unknown. Clearly the evidence is sparse enough to admit different possibilities, and it should be noted that we do not know for certain the identity of any of the owners of these three queens‟ pyramids”5 2 The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, Petrie, page 121 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 1, 1942 4 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, 5 Giza and the Pyramids, Lehner & Hawass 2017, page 175 3 2 The sign outside the entrance to GI-b assigns this pyramid to Queen Meritetis; a similar sign by GI-a assigns that pyramid to Queen Hetepheres, whilst GI-c is often attributed to Queen Henutsen. Though it has to be kept in mind that the evidence for such attributions is tenuous. Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth The Site Image AAW1572 courtesy of The Giza Project, Harvard University The above image taken by Peter Der Manuelian in 1982, looking down from the great pyramid, shows the three pyramids and part of the eastern cemetery. The most denuded pyramid left, is GI-a, which has a small boat pit on its south side; the 3 large boat pit in the foreground is one of a pair placed either side of Khufu’s pyramid temple: a further small boat pit is to be found between GI-b & GI-c, not visible in above image. The modern road which runs along the side of the pyramids has since been removed; it was during this operation in 1991 that the small pyramid GI-d was uncovered (this is roughly located across the road by the red car: see part one of guide). The schematic view above gives a rough layout of the main features that surround the queens’ pyramids; GI-a & GI-b are of similar size, whilst GI-c is notably smaller. G7000x is a shaft some 27m deep, discovered in February 1925, which contained the funerary equipment of Hetepheres I, though the fine alabaster sarcophagus was found to be empty. To the south of G7000x a shallow cutting in the rock GI-x was found, Reisner would suggest that this was the abandoned cutting of an unfinished pyramid.6 This idea of an unfinished pyramid was accepted by Lehner who developed a theory that the initial queens pyramid GI-x 6 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 1, 1942, pages 70-71 4 was moved to the current location of GI-a; whilst the trial passages was an abandoned satellite pyramid.7 I hope to revisit these strange features in another guide, as I wish to concentrate this guide on the three minor pyramids; however, I feel inclined to comment on the cutting GI-x, as to whether it belongs to an unfinished pyramid. Though the cutting is generally accepted as an unfinished pyramid; Peter Jánosi doubts it is the beginning of a pyramid passage.8 Having reviewed the available data available to me as a layman, I have to conclude that Jánosi is more likely correct. Reisner’s fig 18, shows the shallow cutting of GI-x: he states; “The sloping passage in the rock, 0.85m wide, had been cut to a length of 3.75m and a depth of 0.54m. At the northern end of the sloping passage an emplacement 6.35m wide had been prepared for the sloping courses of masonry which were to carry the sloping passage up and out to the projected face of the pyramid. In this emplacement the plaster showed that two courses of stone had already been set and afterwards removed on the abandonment of the site.”9 Initially several things come to mind on this cutting; for example, the cutting is but a shallow scratch on the surface and yet masonry was already being laid; one would expect a much deeper cut to anchor any masonry elements: further, pyramid entrances are a standard two cubits wide, 1.05m, greater than the 0.85m recorded. The cut is rather superficial and one could imagine an experienced team of workers knocking this out in a day or two at most. Surface rock can often be more friable and one would expect a much deeper cut to test the suitability of the rock before laying masonry. In Lehner’s reconstruction of GI-x this cutting is the junction were any descending passage cut in the rock would meet the superstructure passage, and 7 The Pyramid Tomb of hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu. Lehner 1985 Giza and the Pyramids, Lehner & Hawass 2017, page 175 9 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 1, 1942, page 70 8 5 he would create the pyramid to be of a similar size to GI-a, such that its north base would be about 4m south of G7000x. Lehner would state; “As Reisner pointed out, the mouth of G7000x is cut into the original unworked rock surface. Beginning about 4 ms. to the south of G7000x (where the north side of the pyramid GI-x would have fallen according to the reconstruction in Fig. 2) the surface has again been worked. Here it has been regularized, but not levelled, in shallow panel-like cuttings.”10 Part of image EG000583 courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University (I have highlighted locations of G7000X and GI-x) Unfortunately I could find no more detail on this regularized cutting; the extent of it east-west; for example did it extend under GI-a and mastaba G7110? I see no note of it in Reisner’s report or on his plan above, or in excavation images.11 But does this shallow cutting described by Lehner above have any connection to proposed pyramid GI-x? At some 4m south of G7000x it also marks the beginning of the street between the queens’ pyramids and the mastabas; could this regularized cutting be connected to the street layout: might even a wall be intended to secure the end of the street, with an entrance to allow priests access to the temples of the pyramids? How likely could this regularized cutting be, as the start of a foundation trench for proposed pyramid GI-x, given the brief time that it would take to create the cutting GI-x, and if such was the procedure for the start of a pyramid build, 10 The Pyramid Tomb of hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu. Lehner 1985, page 15 Unfortunately at time of writing, the Giza archives project is updating its website and a lot of the data is not available to view. 11 6 why do we not see any foundation traces for Lehner’s abandoned satellite pyramid, which would incorporate Petrie’s Trail Passages?12 (See plan on page 4) The above fig 6 from M&R’s TAV 9 shows the considerable amount of work cut in the rock for the trail passages, which is clearly more than a day’s work, and yet nowhere around this site do we see any preparatory work for a foundation trench which would highlight the casing limits if indeed it was intended as a pyramid. Given the length of time to create the above construction, why do we not see more preparatory work above ground? The main item above ground is a shallow trench some 7.35m long which runs parallel to the Trail Passages and which appears aligned with the north-south axis of the queens’ pyramids. The term ‘Trail Passages’ given by Petrie for this construction is a bit of a misnomer, but the name has largely stuck for this construction. 12 7 The above section based on Lehner’s fig 2,13 roughly highlights how a reconstructed pyramid GI-x may have looked. In this view14 looking south, we can make out the stairway of G7000X in the foreground; the packing of the shaft had still to be removed when this image was taken. In the background the cutting of GI-x is visible. 13 14 The Pyramid Tomb of hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu. Lehner 1985 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 2, 1955, plate 1c 8 Image A3487_NS, courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University Looking south we can see the GI-x cutting in the foreground, to the right of this we can see some paving which is associated with the pyramid chapel on the east side of GI-a (This paving is also to be seen on the image on page 6): note also the sloping foundation cut along the east side of GI-a; a casing stone can still be found in situ. In the northern sloping part M&R report traces of mortar, „which show that masonry had been placed there, then removed‟; They also say “It is probable that the rock here had been prepared for the laying of the pyramid casing, the first course of which must have been inclined inwards.”15 The fitting of masonry in this sloping cut would appear strange at such an early phase; might they not be better excavating the descending passage and testing the suitability of the rock, it seems a strange thing to do, inserting masonry at such an early phase. Although Reisner ascribes this cutting as the start of an abandoned pyramid, it might be the case that it has no pyramid function, and giving its close proximity to the pyramid temple, did it have a function connected to the chapel instead? 15 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 96 9 Unfortunately the pyramid chapel has left us few traces, other than a leveled platform, which M&R give 16.65m N-S and 5.70m E-W; they also state that “On the extreme north and south limits of this platform, depressions about 2.10m wide are to be noticed in which, very probably, the foundations of the side walls of the chapel, surrounded by a narrow footpath, had been.”16 Such a side wall would likely intercept the GI-x cutting. The form of the temple is unknown, either the stone robbers have stripped it all away, or possibly it was never completed; but I feel that it cannot be discounted that this cutting was connected to the temple. These sloping foundations we generally see at the queen’s pyramids, they vary somewhat and tend to level off near the corners; this construction practice is even noticeable in larger structures, such as Abu-Rawash. If this cutting is part of the temple what could be its function? The sloping cut may have been cut to help support fine masonry, which rose at a greater angle than the temple walls. For example, could the cutting be for a statue Serdab, which would be connected to the temple. The image left is of Djoser’s Serdab next to the Step Pyramid; here a statue resided looking out to the north. Could something similar explain our cutting; with what we think is the start of a descending passage, instead being a cutting to hold a statue? This might be a more logical explanation for this cutting, and help explain why we have traces of masonry fitted so early, as the cutting was complete, and not related to a pyramid. Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth 16 Ibid, page 82 10 GI-a The above diversion will hopefully inject some caution in assuming that there was an earlier pyramid GI-x, which was moved to where we now find GI-a. In Lehner’s work he sees Hetepheres shaft G7000X as being linked to pyramid GI-x, so when the decision was made to relocate GI-x to GI-a that linkage still remained, so her body was removed from G7000X to be placed in GI-a with new funerary equipment. However, he also mentions the possibility that when the satellite pyramid built over the Trial Passages was abandoned due to Khufu’s expanded mortuary temple, that the king may have taken GI-a as his satellite pyramid and that Hetepheres might have been assigned to GI-b.17 To support this view he would mention the distinct lack of temple remains by GI-a, as such a feature would not be required in a satellite pyramid. Whilst we have more remains of a temple preserved by GI-b, and especially more by GI-c which was greatly expanded and used as the temple of Isis in later periods; it cannot be discounted that the chapel by GI-a was robbed of all its stone. Being next to the causeway, it is first in the firing line for the stone robbers, and as one looks at the images of the queens’ pyramid we seem to have a natural sequence in stone robbing with the best preserved being GI-c: nothing much remains of Khufu’s pyramid temple which likely also made its route down the causeway in ancient times. Lehner’s book on Hetepheres was published in 1985, but in 1991 another pyramid was found in the form of small pyramid GI-d, which Lehner today attributes as Khufu’s satellite pyramid.18 If this be the case, should we now not expect a temple against GI-a? Today outside the entrance to GI-a, we have a sign attributing the pyramid to Hetepheres, though Reisner would suggest that the Pyramid belonged to Merytyetes.19 In short, the function and attribution of these minor pyramids will likely always be covered in the dense fog of confusion, waiting for some lucky turn of the spade that could shed more light. 17 The Pyramid Tomb of hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu. Lehner 1985, page 84-85 Giza and the Pyramids, Lehner & Hawass 2017, pages 170-172 19 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 2, 1955, page 6-7 18 11 Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth In this image with the northwest corner of GI-a in view, we can see the gradual destruction of the pyramids from north to south and the somewhat uneven topography of the site; the whole plateau slopes down from northwest to southeast. In the foreground we can see fragments of basalt which are fragments of Khufu’s temple court which was paved with basalt. This temple has been cut down to match the level of the inner pyramid court; the causeway has also been cut down to connect to the temple, this left a ridge of rock on which GI-a was built upon, which is clearly visible above. This elevated positioning of GI-a has caused some disagreement amongst Egyptologists on whether the temple or pyramid was built first. Lehner & Hawass say; “However, Peter Jánosi, who carried out a masterful study of all queens‟ pyramids of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, doubts that pyramid GI-a preceded Khufu‟s upper temple and causeway, believing instead that the small pyramids were built 12 after the temple and in harmony with it. But this does not explain why, if they had so carefully levelled the bedrock for the east side of the main pyramid and the temple and causeway, they would then have founded the first queen‟s pyramid, GIa, so much higher up, on a rougher, much less carefully dressed bedrock surface. In our opinion, the differently worked bedrock surfaces are evidence that the builders came up with the temple and causeway plans after they had begun the queen‟s pyramid, with the design evolving during the course of construction.20 It is difficult to date the many mastaba’s built under Khufu’s reign, but Reisner would suggest; “Thus I conclude that all the cores of three nucleus cemeteries in the Western Field, making a total of sixty-three cores, were built in the reign of Cheops for three different groups of associated persons, each based on a subdivision of the family of Cheops. The construction of these cores is to be reckoned as beginning before year 5 of that king and continuing until the end of his reign.”21 Moreover he would suggest “Finally, the fifteen initial cores of the three cemeteries were all built within a few years which I estimate to have terminated about year 5 of Cheops.”22 The original 12 cores of cemetery G7000, the eastern cemetery neatly arrayed behind the minor pyramids, he suggests was completed about year 17 of Khufu’s reign; though he points out that this time plan is only approximate. 23 It should not be any surprise that mastaba’s were being built so early in the reign of Khufu; important courtiers and family members required tombs, with the more immediate family members being assigned to the eastern cemetery, such as prince Kawab, believed to be Khufu’s eldest son. It is likely that planning and provision for the eastern cemetery would have been of a similar time frame to the western cemeteries, as its hard to imagine senior royal members being of a lower priority to the mastaba’s in the western cemeteries (unless one assumes that all burials were originally intended to be in the western cemeteries only, with the eastern cemetery being a later change of plan). The mastaba’s should not have taken too many resources from the priority build of Khufu’s pyramid; the mastaba cores vary slightly (some consisted of solid limestone cores), but mainly consist of masonry retaining walls holding various fills of debris, of which there would be no shortage from the construction of Khufu’s pyramid. The mastaba’s built under Khufu’s reign appear rather austere; if they were a car, think Ford model T with no optional extras. The impression is that 20 Giza and the Pyramids, Lehner & Hawass 2017, pages 173-174 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 1, 1942, page 80 22 Ibid, page 78 23 Ibid, page 84 21 13 Khufu’s focus was on his pyramid; the rest was rather utilitarian and basic. So it is of little surprise to me that GI-a sits atop a protuberance of rock; resources were not to be wasted in removing this rock to the level of the temple (at Menkaure’s pyramid the minor pyramids sit lower than Menkaure’s pyramid; here we have the opposite situation in which material would have to be added, in the form of massive foundation blocks, which would require significant resources). The priority and concentration of quality would be to the Kings structures such as his pyramid, pyramid temple, valley temple and connected causeway; a causeway which Herodotus tells us took some 10 years to build and finely decorated. At the beginning of Khufu’s project much planning would be required; site selection, the route of the causeway (which would require massive earth works to support it as it left the plateau) and the location of the valley temple. It’s hard to imagine that everything was ad hoc on a project such as this; but rather carefully planned from the start. I can imagine the pyramid court and pyramid temple being marked out and leveled, along with the causeway in the early stages (lehner would suggest that an expanded pyramid temple would lead to the abandonment of a satellite pyramid over the Trial passages;24 however, I have come across no evidence to suggest that the pyramid temple was expanded from an earlier phase, and neither is it certain that the Trial passages were the substructure of a pyramid). How much preparatory work or build of Khufu’s structures was completed before the decision to build the queens’ pyramids along with the eastern cemetery is unknown, but I would favour the priority of Khufu’s elements first; it was not a necessity to expend resources in bringing the queens’ pyramids down to the same level as Khufu’s court. As the queens’ pyramids were adapted to the sloping topography of the site, we end up with structures of relatively unknown dimensions. The northwest corner of GI-a (visible in image on page 12) according to M&R is 2m higher than the southeast corner25; they further state, “It is easy to understand that because of the slanting of the ground, the sides of the base are not parallel nor at right angles, and therefore result of different lengths. Some of our measurements demonstrate that on a horizontal plane passing through the north-west corner (the higher one) this small pyramid had a base side 90 cubits long, that is about 47 metres. The inclination of the faces, measured on the only block still in situ, was 51º50´, which is that of the major pyramid.”26 24 The Pyramid Tomb of hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu. Lehner 1985, page 84 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 78 26 Ibid, page 80 25 14 The above plan27 of GI-a highlights the somewhat trapezoidal shape of the structure; Though M&R suggest a possible base of 90 cubits, Lehner would suggest the possibility that it was 1/5th of Khufu’s pyramid, i.e. 88 cubits wide by 56 cubits high.28 Various measures have been given for these minor pyramids, and it would be nice to see a more modern survey carried out on them. From M&R’s plan above the entrance is displaced slightly to the east. 27 28 Ibid, part of TAV 11 Giza and the Pyramids, Lehner & Hawass 2017, page 178 15 Image courtesy of Isida Project In this view looking west (Great Pyramid in the background) we can see some of the sloping foundations on the pyramids south side next to the boat pit, though they tend to level off at the corners. 16 Image courtesy of Isida Project In this close up image of the south side we can see how the sloping cuts to receive the casing stones vary somewhat, and again at the southwest corner we see it level off (this is also replicated in GI-b whose northwest corner is visible above). M&R report only one surviving casing stone on the east side, which is visible on the archive image on page 9. The cuttings according to M&R are around 17 to 18 degrees, with the foundation trench being about 1.5m wide; on these cuttings fine casing stones would be laid inclined, much like the surviving casing stone on page 9, but eventually they would revert to being laid horizontal, via a course of wedge shaped blocks. It would seem that the uneven topography of the site was of concern and they wished to strongly anchor the casing. The minor pyramids exhibit stepped cores29, the faces of the steps tend to be large roughly squared local limestone blocks; these act as a retaining wall for a fill of 29 The number of steps and heights of steps is uncertain and require more detailed work, see Giza and the Pyramids, page 178-179 17 smaller less worked blocks. The exterior faces of the steps show an angle of about 75 degrees; the block faces are vertical, but each course is slightly stepped back to create the angle. Against the stepped core were placed the backing and casing stones. The Entrance Image courtesy of Isida Project The above entrance to GI-a highlights the fine limestone used for the architrave and entrance passage side walls. The wall block left of the gate M&R give as 2.35m wide (the right is 2.5m); its height would match the entrance passage of about 1.2m. Two similar blocks reside behind these for a total distance of some 4.53m, were they abut against the natural rock, and from here the passage walls are cut from the natural rock. As a lot of damage has been made in the vicinity of the entrance, it is uncertain were the entrance exited the pyramid, though M&R would suggest that the passage floor was on a level with the second casing course.30 The large architrave according to M&R’s TAV12, is part of a grouping of 4 30 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 80 18 similar stones laid on edge, which take up a total distance of 4.73m, were they abut against the rock; the remainder of the ceiling passage being cut from the rock (the architrave in the image above would be around 30 metric tonnes). An interesting observation was made by M&R, they state; “Near the top of the lower architrave, we noticed some ornamental bas reliefs which indicate that the block originally was part of a destroyed building and was used again in this pyramid. On each one of the visible architraves, almost in line with the side walls of the descending corridor, is a short, deep and vertical notch, the scope of which we cannot explain.”31 In the above image, we appear to have a neat vertical notch on the face of the first architrave, could this be related to the ones M&R mention? In Lehner’s ‘The Pyramid Tomb of Hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu, fig 25’, he shows an interesting image of the trench by Petrie’s Trial Passages, which appears to align with the entrance of GI-a, and states; “With GI-a the alignment to trench D is closer to the passage which is offset a little under 2 ms. from the pyramid axis” further: “The axis of the trench D, aligns with the west side of the entrance passage of the first queen's pyramid, GI-a.”32 Ideally a more detailed survey is required of the queens’ pyramid to rule in or out any possible connections to Trench D.33 31 Ibid, page 80. The Pyramid Tomb of Hetepheres and the satellite Pyramid of Khufu. Lehner 1985, Pages 51-52 33 For example, confusion is to be found on M&R’s TAV 11. Here they give north side of GI-a as 45.40m, with the east side of the entrance passage being 20.70m from east and the west side of passage being 23.25m from west. These two values subtracted from 45.40m leave a passage width as 1.35m, However they give the width of the passage as 1.05m (2 cubits) on TAV 12. 32 19 Image courtesy of Isida Project In this view we can see another large block above the entrance architrave; M&R give this as roughly 3.2m wide, and placed edgewise; M&R suggested that there were two superimposed layers of architraves. It is interesting to note what appears to be another neat notch cut in the upper architrave. These notches are to be found on other monuments; Lehner & Hawass have suggested that they are crude axis markers34, though it would be nice to see more research on these notches, wherever they are found. 34 Giza and the Pyramids, Lehner & Hawass 2017, page 431 20 Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth In this view we can see what appears to be surviving casing in the foreground. M&R did not report these, but it seems that the north side may have still been encumbered with debris in their day, as they state that the northern foundation trench was only visible near the western extremity; moreover, the modern road west of the queen’s pyramid would further obstruct observations of the queens’ pyramids on this side. 21 The sketch above is from Howard Vyse’s publication and shows how the entrance looked in 1837; the notches on both architraves are noticeable. The Substructure The descending passage Vyse gives as 33º35´, which M&R confirm by their measurements. M&R would suggest that its total original length was about 19.2519.50m; whilst Petrie would give passage azimuth as -14´ 40̋ +/-20̋. The passage bore appears to agree with the standard evident in many of the pyramids and first observed in the Red Pyramid at Dahshur; that is 1.05m wide by 1.21m high (2 cubits wide by 2 cubits 2 palms high): though Petrie noted that the bottom of the passage narrowed slightly to 40 inches at bottom from 41.5 (1.05m) further up. M&R report that the rock cut part of the passage is well worked and dressed, with notches to facilitate transit cut in the floor, which they say are certainly not original. At the bottom of the descending passage we have a short horizontal passage some 3.30m long, matching the height and width of the descending passage; at the junction of the ceilings the rock has been cut away for a length of about 50cm and a height of 13cm, possibly to assist in clearance at this junction. 22 The above section gives us a rough idea of the substructure layout. Beyond the short horizontal passage we enter into a chamber, which is effectively a turning chamber to allow large items manoeuvring space to turn west, and then descend down a short descending passage into the burial chamber. The turning chamber widens to around 1.77m and some 4.25m in length,35 and its highest point at its south end is some 2.94m. Starting at its north end the floor descends at an angle of 29º30´; it is much broken at its south end, but if it continued to the flat floor of the chamber it would be around 3.68m long and align with the north wall of the short descending passage. Whether the floor extended this far is uncertain, it may have stopped shorter with a vertical foot, with the sarcophagus controlled as it came off 35 There is inconsistencies in measures between various authors, sometimes signifgicant; unless otherwise stated the dimensions are taken from M&R’s drawings. 23 the end of the ramp: at this location Petrie states; “The floor is much damaged by the tearing out of various blocks which had been inserted to make good flaws in the rock.”36 To assist the turning of a sarcophagus, the east wall is further cut into by .52m for some 2.0m N-S and 1.80m high; the north edge of this cutting is bevelled for some 26cm. On the east wall by floor level is a narrow groove about 60cm high and 22cm wide, and in front of it a hole in the floor, some 38cm deep and 18cm in diameter. Petrie would state; “The use of this circular hole seems to be for holding a stout post, around which ropes could be passed to control the coffer when sliding it down the lower passage, the groove behind it being to allow for the thickness of the rope.”37 Petrie would calculate that the hole was positioned on the axis of the small descending passage; he would also calculate what size roofing beams could be brought in via the cubic diagonal of the turning chamber, and suggested that the coffer (allowing for clearance) could be no more than 94cm wide by 2.13m long. There are no surviving sarcophagi in these three queens’ pyramids, but one was found in Menkaure’s queen pyramid GIII-b which was 2.03m long by 79cm wide. The north wall of the short descending passage was lined with two courses of limestone of variable thickness; its beginning is about 64cm thick reducing to 46cm at its end: this reduces the rock cut part of the passage from 1.64m wide to .98m wide for the lined portion at its upper end. It’s likely such lining was fitted after the introduction of the sarcophagus, to provide more turning space. This short passage had a perpendicular height of 1.04m (2 cubits) and descended at an angle of 34º15´. Its floor begins some 50cm from the west wall of the turning chamber and enters through the lining of the burial chamber about 90cm above the paved floor of the chamber. 36 37 The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, Petrie, page 121 Ibid, page 122 24 Image courtesy of Isida Project The view above is looking down into the turning chamber, with the passage leading to the burial chamber on the right, and one can just make out the wall lining. In the foreground we can see how the end of the inclined floor is cut off, creating a large gap which is bridged by the wooden floor boards which terminate on the flat floor of the turning chamber. The cut recess is also visible on the east wall to help turn the sarcophagus, and one can make out a further smaller recess in its top edge, which M&R say is too regular to be a break, though it was not mentioned by Petrie. 25 Image courtesy of Isida Project In the above view we are looking north out of the turning chamber along the short horizontal passage; the wooden boards to assist tourists in climbing the entrance passage are in the background. Burial Chamber The burial chamber consists of a roughly dressed excavation, around 5.15m E-W, 4.35m N-S, and 3.45m high, and inside this void, fine limestone lining was inserted along all four walls; along with a pavement and roofing beams orientated north-south. Economy of rock excavation is displayed by the floor and ceiling, were areas of rock have been left: this economy is not present in all queens’ burial chambers, though GIII-b is quite similar. A sizeable amount of this lining is missing, likely robbed in antiquity, and according to Petrie their thickness varies. The wall courses seem to have stopped 64cm below rock ceiling and along the east and west sides Petrie found a ledge some 6.6cm to 11.4cm wide, which he suggested the roofing beams would rest on. 26 The lining appears not to be all mortared to the rock walls, M&R state; “The distance of the face of the lining walls to the rocky walls of the excavation is somewhat variable as is also the thickness of the room facing blocks. Therefore, between the back of the facing and the rock a narrow empty space remained. The pavement was about 45cm high but it has been largely destroyed, so now it is no longer possible to know where the sarcophagus was and not even if it were placed on the pavement or bedded into it.”38 Though Vyse mentions a shallow recess on the western side which might have held a sarcophagus; he also mentions fragments of polished basalt, which he thought may have belonged to the sarcophagus 39: M&R would suggest that such fragments may have come from the pavement of Khufu’s pyramid temple. Image courtesy of Isida Project 38 39 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 82 Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Giza in 1837, Vyse, volume 2, page 68 27 The above view looking into the southwest corner shows some of the surviving lining still in situ; note also the unexcavated bar of rock by the ceiling along the west wall. Image courtesy of Isida Project In the above close up image of the southwest corner we can see red construction lines; sadly too often these lines are not recorded (Petrie records some in GI-b), though they can provide important information on the construction process. The dimensions for the lined chamber vary somewhat between authors, as the table below shows;40 mostly in width and height. 40 Vyse, Vol 2 page 129: Pertrie, Pyramids and temples, page 122: M&R TAV12: Reisner Vol 1, page 129 28 The variability of dimensions seem strange for such a small chamber, given the amount of lining which still survives; a more detailed survey is required using all available clues, such as the unreported construction lines to come to a better determination of chamber size. Image courtesy of Isida Project In this view we see the entrance in the east wall of the burial chamber; the lining blocks which line the north wall of the passage are visible; the upper course is smaller than the lower course. The excavation made in the north rock wall extends back some 1.45m and was reported by Vyse as an „air-channel.‟41 The burial chamber in GI-a is only slightly smaller than those in GI-b & GI-c; though of the three it has the longest entrance passage and the deepest set chamber. All three queens’ pyramids, follow a similar design, a descending passage leads down to a turning chamber, which turns the passage to the west and gives access to the burial chamber: only in GI-a does the passage enter the burial chamber in the northeast corner, the other two enter in the southeast corner. On the unusual substructure layout M&R state; “The crypt of the small north pyramid is found under the north-west quadrant of the base, like the crypts of the other two queens‟ pyramids. This eccentric position of the crypt with respect to the 41 Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Giza in 1837, Vyse, volume 2, page 68 29 vertical axis of the monument is certainly not common. It is possible that the reason of this anomaly may be found in the fact that, in the north-west quadrant of the base, the rock was much higher, therefore presented greater security in supporting the weight of the superimposed masonry of the little pyramid, and greater defence of the crypt. This same eccentricity can be noticed in two of the queens‟ pyramids of Mycerinus, built on ground similarly slanting from north to south.”42 In the above partial scan of M&R’s TAV 11, I have highlighted the passage/chamber systems; as we can see the crypt of GI-a is in the south-west quadrant and is the only one to be placed south of the pyramids east-west axis. The remaining two, whilst in the north-west quadrant, still maintain the greater bulk of the pyramids substructure above them. At Menkaure’s pyramid only GIII-b appears noticeably away from the centre of the pyramid. On the south side of GI-a we have a boat pit, shaped as if to receive the keel of a boat; no boat fragments were found, only dry masonry walls from a later date which divided the pit into compartments. 42 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, observation 64, page178. 30 Image C11283_NS courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University Compare the above image of the boat pit to the modern on page 17, the masonry walls can be seen and may have been connected to intrusive burials. 31 Image courtesy of Isida Project A ledge has been left around the pit, shallow at the ends for cover stones, and deeper at the widest parts of the pits for more substantial cover stones. Whether such pits contained physical boats is uncertain; they may have been merely symbolic. The two dismantled boats of Khufu were found in rectangular pits, whilst boat shaped pits are to be found on the east side of his pyramid. 32 Image courtesy of Isida Project In the view above, we can see one of the cover stones still in situ at the west end and through it has been cut a hole with a rebate around it, possibly to hold a cover stone. It is not known if this is an original feature or connected with later intrusive activity. I was unable to find any detailed information on this pit. Pyramid GI-b GI-b is located about 10m south of GI-a, and is of similar size and alignment. Like GI-a the pyramid is constructed on uneven ground; this is best illustrated by the surviving casing where we see the first casing course at the north equating to the third course at the south; a height difference of some 1.10m. 43 M&R could not measure the north side due to the modern road, though they could measure the actual length of the east side as 48.90m. In a similar procedure deployed at GI-a, 43 Ibid, page 84 33 they calculated a horizontal plane from the north-west corner would provide a level base of about 47.10, which they suggest as 90 cubits, the same as GI-a. Image courtesy of Isida Project The above view of the south-east corner of GI-b shows the surviving casing stones; according to M&R the third course here equates to the level of the first course at the north-west corner. 34 Image courtesy of Isida Project This view looking at the north-east corner, shows the pyramid to be in better condition than GI-a; the stairs leading to the north entrance are visible along with the architrave over the entrance; also visible is one of the core steps of the superstructure. 35 Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth In this view looking at the south-west corner with the badly denuded GI-a in the background. In the foreground we have the much smaller pyramid GI-d, which was discovered in 1991, during the removal of the modern road; the casing stones along with entrance wall stones are modern reconstructions to help visualise the site for visitors. Today GI-d is referred to as Khufu’s satellite pyramid, though it has to be kept in mind that there is no conclusive evidence that Khufu actually built it; Charles Rigano would make an argument that it may have been built during the reign of Khafre or Menkaure.44 GII-a by Khafre’s pyramid is very similar in design and size, but which came first? Construction is complicated around Khufu’s pyramid, not least cemetery GIS, a line of mastaba’s along the south side of 44 Origins of Pyramid GI-d, Southeast of the Great Pyramid, The Ostracon, Volume 14,number 2, summer 2003, pages 2 to 5 36 Khufu’s pyramid, which Reisner assigned to the end of Khafre’s reign or the beginning of Menkaure’s reign.45 Image courtesy of Isida Project Looking along the north side of GI-b, we can see the familiar sloping foundation trench, with some surviving casing stones near the entrance. This entrance is placed higher in the superstructure, hence the need for steps. M&R would report that the wall and architrave blocks around the entrance are much smaller than in GI-a. Somewhat unusually, the entrance axis is displaced to the west of the pyramids north-south axis by some 3.40m.46 45 46 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 1, 1942, page 83 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 86 37 Image courtesy of Isida project The above entrance to GI-b has noticeably smaller stones which make up the ceiling and walls of the entrance passage; neither do we appear to have an overlying architrave as seen at GI-a. M&R thought that the original floor length of the descending passage was around 14 to 14.5m long. A significant portion, due to the higher entrance location was constructed of masonry; M&R would report that the finishing of the ceiling was done after the laying of the architraves, as the bedding joints were some 5cm lower, and corners were rounded not sharp. Petrie would provide an azimuth for the passage as -3´20̋ +/- 10̋. The bore of the passage appears to be the normal pyramid standard, though it varies in width slightly along its length from 1.10m at the entrance to 1.03m (middle) and 1.0m end (M&R’s TAV 13). The angle of the descending passage is given as 33º10´. At the end of the descending passage it joins a short horizontal passage some 3.45m long on floor, and 2.80m at ceiling. 38 The image above gives us a rough view of the substructure layout of GI-b. At the end of the short horizontal passage we enter into a turning chamber, which differs to that found in GI-a: here, the ceiling of the turning chamber is raised some 35cm and instead of a large niche cut into the east wall, we find the east wall of the turning chamber angled first towards the southeast for some 1.72m before reverting back to a north-south direction for a further 1.83m. The floor of the chamber slopes down and stops about 1.13m from the south wall, where the floor becomes level. M&R give the chamber as 2.78m N-S, 3.01m at its widest (south wall) and its highest point 2.40m (south wall). Petrie would calculate what size of sarcophagus could be introduced via this chamber; measures in inches: he states, 39 Vyse unfortunately is very sparse on information pertaining to these small pyramids, but he tells us the following on GI-b or his Eighth Pyramid, he states; “Having dismissed these persons, I entered the Eighth Pyramid, and found in the anteroom twelve or thirteen skulls, and a bronze armlet, with a piece of brown stone shaped like part of a female hand, which was remarkable, as the building was supposed to have been the tomb of the daughter of Cheops. The entrancepassage and sepulchral chamber were on the same plan as those in the Seventh and Ninth Pyramid; the masonry had been pulled down in search of other apartments; and a quantity of bones and broken mummy-cases were found in it, by which it would appear that it had been subsequently used as a general place of sepulture; but there were not any remains of a sarcophagus. I did not think it worthwhile to be at further trouble or expense about these tombs, as they had been completely ransacked.”47 Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth 47 Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Giza in 1837, Vyse, volume 2, page 89 40 Intrusive burials are a very common feature, and as the above floor image of GI-b shows, they can be extensive excavations in their own right. Here we have what appear to be anthropoid shaped cutouts, through the pavement and underlying rock for intrusive burials. The short descending passage from the turning chamber down to the burial chamber is some 3.80m long, and its upper end starts some 89cm behind the west wall of the turning chamber: it’s height is 1.15m, and width some 97-98cm, with an angle of 29 degrees. M&R were under the impression from the remaining lining on the east wall of the burial chamber that the inclined floor of the passage was not displayed in the wall lining, and that the floor may have been level through the lining at some 1.26m above the pavement.48 They also mention traces at the east end, which made them think a short staircase rather than an inclined ramp connected to the passage outlet. The plan left of the burial chamber and turning chamber from M&R’s TAV13 shows a curious feature in the rock cut void for the lined chamber, in that it appears oversized, with a space of some 1.70m between the north rock wall and the finished lining of the chamber: in contrast the lining on the south side is quite thin at around 49cm thick. The north wall is not all constructed of fine masonry, as M&R say “Behind the north wall there was a rather wide space which was filled in with rough masonry.”49 Petrie would merely say that the north wall was cut too deeply. This curious layout is also to be seen in GI-c; this is in stark contrast to GI-a where we see economy of rock excavation, which appears absent here. M&R would suggest that this excess space to the north was to assist in the maneuvering and placing of the ceiling beams, and in support of this they mention the excavation in the north wall of GI-a (see page 29); here they suggest that this hole was used in a likewise fashion. However, from the L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 88 and TAV13 (M&R state 1.10m in text but show 1.26m on TAV13) 49 Ibid, page 88 48 41 images and M&R’s own drawings, this hole is quite below the ceiling line and would be covered by several courses of wall lining. Indeed if this hole was used for such a role, why was it not replicated in the other chambers, instead of cutting back the whole length of the north wall, for what appears to be an excessive depth to introduce beams? The ledges in the lining found by Petrie, to support beams in GIa (see page 26) are not deep, the beams had only to support their weight, and nothing was bearing down on them. Beams as described by Petrie for GI-a would weigh just over a metric ton50, which would hardly task the experienced Egyptian builders. They only had to ensure a sufficient space was left in the rock cut ceiling height to allow the beam to be inserted at an angle, leveled up and withdrawn slightly to rest on the opposing wall; indeed if it was a concern, they only had to widen one small area of the chamber to introduce a beam and when level, slide the beam down along the top of the walls to its required location; indeed there are several simpler solutions. Unfortunately there are several inconsistencies in dimensions from various authors, but modeling from M&R’s more detailed drawings, I could find no interference in inserting beams up to 1 cubit high. For example in GI-a Petrie states that the ledge of the upper course which received the beams as some 64cm to 66cm below the rock ceiling; sufficient to install a beam by pivoting one end on one wall and lifting the other end to engage on the opposing wall. For ceiling clearance in GI-b, Petrie can only offer the clue that there was no mortar traces visible from about 83cm below the rock ceiling and states, “this probably shows at about what level the walls ended, and the roofing-beams were put on.”51 In contrast on M&R’s TAV 13, M&R have a distance for the ceiling at only 56cm below rock ceiling; though no explanation is given in their work at how they arrived at this deduction. The plan of the rock cut void seems to have been square, close to 10 cubits on a side52; Petrie would mention red construction lines on the rock walls which would show were the planes of the lining were to go. These constructions lines are reported on the south side of the chamber by Petrie and it would be interesting to know if any such lines exist on the north side behind the rough masonry fill: On M&R’s TAV13, they do show one vertical line on the north wall, which with its corresponding line on the south wall would denote the lining plane of the chambers 50 Petrie suggested a beam half a cubit wide, 1 cubit high and 126 inches long, which equates to 0.26 x 0.52 x 3.2m, which is 0.43 of a cubic metre, if we take 2500kg per cubic metre, we obtain just over a metric tonne. The width of GI-a chamber is uncertain, GI-b is given as 3.15m so the beam would be slightly longer in GI-b. 51 The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, Petrie, page 124. Though he notes that the roof of the doorway was about 73cm below ceiling, and possibly ceiling beams were flush with that. 52 Ibid, page 123 42 east wall. It would be useful to search for more constructions lines; for example if we found vertical lines on the east and west walls at the north end, similar to those found on the south end, it would suggest an intent to create lining against the rock face and a possible larger chamber. If such a larger chamber was originally planned, its greater size would likely prevent it from being roofed with limestone beams; which is not necessarily a problem as lined chambers with a dressed rock ceiling are known. In the partial scan of M&R’s TAV 14 left, we have the plan of GI-c; here we see a similar situation where we have a square cut rock void, except in this chamber we have no rough rock fill behind the north wall lining but an empty void about 1m wide. It’s hard to make out what the rationale was behind the burial chambers GIb & GI-c; where they originally intended to be larger, but some circumstance dictated that the chambers be reduced in size? One possibility is that the wider northern side was constructed first, and then the ceiling beams brought in and parked on top of the lined northern wall and back fill; the distance suggests that the centre of gravity of any beams would rest behind the chambers north wall. The remainder of the chamber is then constructed and then the beams are carefully moved across from their parking positions and engaged on top of the finished south wall (however, if this was the scheme, why is there no backfill in GI-c to help stabilize this wall, especially if ceiling beams were to be dragged across it? Unless the void had been filled with masonry at one time, but removed by searchers: I could find no detail information on this void. As a layman I was shocked at how little information we hold on these pyramids, be it substructure or superstructure; ideally they all require modern surveys and more detailed investigation, before we can even attempt to understand what is going on with these structures. 43 The above table shows the lined dimensions for the burial chamber GI-b from various authors. It is interesting to note how Reisner’s dimensions closely match Vyse’s, this is true for both GI-a and GI-c; did he use Vyse’s dimensions and fill in the dimensions that Vyse omitted? No sarcophagus or fragments of one were found, which should be no surprise, given the intrusive burials; any original sarcophagus may have been removed or broken up at some point in its history. The pavement is not so thick as that found in GI-a, M&R gives around 30cm; the thinnest pavement being that in GI-c which M&R give as 22cm. Chapel Little remains of the Chapel on the pyramids east side; above is M&R’s reconstruction of the scant remains. It is thought two niches occupied the west wall which was built up against the pyramid; the front wall of the chapel is thicker than the side walls, a possible 5 cubits for the front and 4 cubits for the side. The entrance was in the middle of the east wall, and this opened up into a long 44 rectangular space. The N-S length of the facade M&R give as 14.75m, which they suggest as 28 cubits. The inner rectangular space may have been intended to have been 20 by 4 cubits; the surviving niche at the north end, appears to start 1 cubit from the north wall and is 2 cubits wide. Given the sloping nature of the site a levelled platform was constructed on which the chapel was built. Image courtesy of Isida Project The above image shows the remains of the west wall and the northern niche, the southern niche has disappeared, but it is thought one existed of the same dimensions and symmetrical to the northern one. 45 Image courtesy of Isida Project In this view we can see a block whose rear has been angled to fit against the casing; it rests on the chapel platform, whose level is about half way up the second casing course. In front of the chapel entrance four slabs were found (see plan, page 44) M&R state; “Nothing justifies the reconstruction, made by Reisner, of the chapel entrance shaped as a corridor except, perhaps, a paving (formed by four slabs, ranged in a north-south direction, visible at a certain distance from the east front of the building) on which absolutely no traces are to be found. Signs of a foundation or pavement exist in the rock east of the chapel facade, but it is difficult to explain them correctly.”53 A chapel of this size and style could also fit on the platform by GI-a, but given the extensive enlargement of the chapel by GI-c in later times into the Isis temple, it cannot be discounted that later modifications were also added to the chapels of GIa & GI-b. 53 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 90 46 Pyramid GI-c Pyramid GI-c is slightly smaller than its two northern companions; its north-east corner is 3.80m south of the south-east corner of GI-b and 3.65m west.54 Its west face is roughly in alignment with its larger neighbours and like its neighbours its highest corner is the north-west and its lowest the south-east. The topography of the site was not as favourable as its neighbours, and so it was required that a significant sub foundation was required for a major part of the south side. M&R would suggest, “It is evident that the scope in shifting the monument towards the north and west was to diminish, as much as possible, the subfoundation which the slanting of the ground had made necessary.”55 The extent of the sub-foundation is not known, a modern trench near the south-east corner allowed M&R to see at least two courses of large blocks of yellow limestone, with a combined height of 1.50m. Surviving casing measured by M&R indicated an angle of 51º40´, and like on the previous pyramids M&R took a horizontal plane from the north-west corner and calculated a length of about 46.50m, and suggested a base of 85 cubits or 5 cubits shorter than its neighbours. The better preservation of this pyramid allowed M&R to deduce three steps of the core; they felt a fourth step was unlikely, but that the masonry atop the third step was filling behind the casing stones. The chapel on the east side is of a similar style to that found at GI-b but smaller. Here, the walls of the chapel are only about 3 cubits thick, and the internal space which contained the niches was only about 15 cubits N-S, though it was still 4 cubits wide. The entrance to the chapel is displaced to the north, whilst the chapel itself appears aligned to the axis of the pyramid, but for 0.50m. According to M&R a breach in the west wall of the chapel suggested that the pyramid was finely dressed before the construction of the chapel.56 This small chapel was greatly expanded during the New Kingdom to the Saite period to become the Isis Temple , and would require a guide on its own. At this temple, what is now called the Inventory Stela was discovered by Mariette in 1858. This stela has created a lot of controversy, but it is from this item that the name Henutsen was found, and why today the pyramid has been attributed to her. 54 Ibid, page 90 Ibid, page 180-182, observation 71 56 Ibid, page 94 55 47 The above reconstruction of the chapel by M&R (TAV 14) shows the plan of the chapel by GI-c. Below we see the remains of the Isis temple in the foreground stretching towards the east face of GI-c. Image courtesy of Jon Bodsworth 48 Image 472218767, courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University In the above image, the plan of the Isis temple is taped onto GI-c in the bottom left corner; the outline of the small chapel is visible at the bottom. On the east side of the pyramid the same plan is to be seen, highlighting how it encroaches onto the mastaba to the east. 49 Image courtesy of Isida Project The above view shows the south-east corner of GI-c; we can also see some of the temple meet the pyramid face. Some of the lower dressing of the casing seems incomplete, as can be seen along the south side; where in the middle of the face we see dressed casing at a lower level than the blocks east and west of it. The better preserved casing prevents us from seeing whether this pyramid exhibited the inclined foundations seen at GI-a & GI-b. 50 Image AAW1051, courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University This view looking down at the north-west corner of GI-c, we can see the entrance on the north side; the better preservation of this pyramid means that the casing stones still frame the entrance. Along the west side (which was not visible to M&R in their day due to the modern road) we can see how the casing follows the topography of the ground, and areas where extra stock of the casing stone has not been dressed. 51 Image courtesy of Isida Project This view is of the west side looking south, this is a close up of the casing, which we can see in the bottom right corner of the previous image; here, we can better see the extra stock of stone which was undressed. 52 Image courtesy of Isida Project This view looking west between GI-b & GI-c (left); even in GI-b we appear to have unfinished dressing of the casing, as can be seen in the middle of the image above. 53 Image courtesy of Isida Project Sometimes protuberances are to be seen on some of the stones, as seen on several of the stones above. The best preserved above appears to have a finely dressed face along with its protuberance; one would be inclined to think that such blocks were robbed from another construction, and that the protuberance was part of some decorative feature, possibly part of a wall frieze: though today they are often described as handling bosses. We recall on page 19 how M&R report a possible reused block from a destroyed building found on GI-a; so it is probably worthwhile to have a closer inspection of blocks such as those shown above; as its difficult to find a reason why such blocks should appear finely dressed. There are a large number of similar blocks on the south side of GI-c, and even though their front faces appear to have neatly dressed vertical faces with a protuberance, they are often roughly cut back at the sides, in a chamfer, which appears to align with the slope of the pyramid face. 54 Image courtesy of Isida Project The entrance to GI-c is the lowest entrance of the three pyramids, with its threshold about level with the north base; with its opening concealed by two casing courses. Damage around the entrance prevents reconstruction, but M&R thought that the two courses which covered the entrance may have been of varying widths, so as to conceal its location.57 Though the large architrave some 3m wide by 1m high, being so close to the ground would be an easy find for robbers; moreover, a second architrave some 2.95m wide sits above the first. 57 Ibid, page 92 55 Image B5831_NS, courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University In the above archive image we can see the entrance to GI-c, and around it we can see some limestone walls have been built. M&R in their time comment; “Immediately west of the entrance and at right angles to the pyramid face, are a few blocks of white limestone: Probably a later addition.”58 The only information I can find on this construction is in Reisner’s dairy pages; here, a portion of the construction was found on the 26th Dec 1925, and in his entry on the following day he states “The structure noted yesterday was a later well made in the SaitePtolemaic period when the burial chamber was reused as a burial place.” Also in connection with the entrance he would note two large deep vertical post holes which he thought may have been used for lowering a heavy weight, such as a sarcophagus.59 58 59 Ibid, page 94 See Digital Giza, Harvard University, Diary pages , Vol 15. Pages 106 to 108 56 The Substructure According to M&R the entrance is in the middle of the north face, and from their TAV 14, the masonry ceiling extends for some 4.70m before meeting the rock. Two courses of wall masonry create the beginning of the passage, the upper course extending some 4.65m before it meets the rock; the lower course 3.46m. The floor masonry meets the rock of the floor at about 2.5m. The bore of the descending passage matches that of its neighbours, though there are inconsistencies between various authors M&R give the total length of the passage as some 16.98m, at an angle of around 28 degrees. The horizontal passage that we see in the other two pyramids is largely omitted here, where we see only a small 22cm section before entering into the turning chamber. This turning chamber is a more simple design being a simple rectangular room some 3.34m N-S, 2.64m E-W and 2.00m high. In the south-west corner the opening for the short descending passage which leads to the burial chamber is found. Its floor starts 50cm behind the west wall of the turning chamber and measures some 2.90m along the rock floor: the bore of the short descending passage is around 1.05m square or two cubits: though in the chamber lining it narrows to 98cm (a similar narrowing is to be seen at the end of the main entrance passage). The angle of the short passage is about 25 degrees. The rock cut void for the burial chamber, like in GI-b is mostly square, about 5.15m N-S and 5.0m E-W (3.58m high); and like in GI-b the lined burial chamber appears to not take advantage of the larger rock cut void, with the lined north wall some 1.65m from the rock excavation, leaving a space of 1m behind the wall. I could find no information on what is inside this space; in M&R’s plans of GI-b & GI-c (see pages 41&43) the hatching shows masonry fill, though the hatching is omitted in GI-c ; moreover, nothing in M&R’s text discusses what was found in this space, though in GI-b they point out rough masonry fill. Also not mentioned in their text is a 2m long by 17cm deep and 54-62cm high, cut out in the south rock wall, some 65cm below the ceiling: this cut out can be seen on their plan on page 43. Also on this plan is a shallow niche some 4cm deep found on the east end of the lined south wall, which they do mention. 57 The above schematic shows the layout of GI-c; M&R thought that the lining of the east wall would match the incline of the short descending passage, such that the floor of the opening would be some 32cm above the chambers pavement, which they give as only 22cm thick. A comparison of authors dimensions for the lined chamber; Petrie could not gain access to this pyramid. The main divergence is in heights; this inconsistency in measures extends to the rock cut void, were Reisner gives 5.28m x 4.67m and 3.39m high; compared to M&R who give 5.15m x 5.0m and 3.58m high. 58 Inconsistencies extend also to the drawings between M&R and Reisner. For example on Reisner’s Fig 65 left60 he shows the plans for GI-c. In the burial chamber he shows a thicker pavement, and economy of rock excavation that we see in GIa: this economy of rock cutting at pavement level is also shown on his GI-b plans; yet this feature is omitted in the drawings of M&R for both GI-b & GI-c (if we look at the image on page 40, we have a paving fragment in the corner with a darker band above the level of the rock floor, close up images suggest that this darker band is part of the lining block above as the joint lines go through both). If we look at section C-D we see that Reisner has a step from the end of the descending passage as it enters the turning chamber. M&R noted this anomaly of the step and state that they could not notice it.61 Note also how Reisner has the pyramid entrance significantly above the north base. As Reisner gives a lined chamber as 2.9m high, he must have omitted beams, as he gives the rock void as 3.39m high, leaving us 49cm for pavement and beams, but his scale drawing suggest 0.5m for the paving. I could write pages of inconsistencies, but it highlights the problems in trying to study these structures when we have such conflicting data. In Reisner’s fig 65 above, you will notice lines showing the outline of a corridor through the turning chamber. Masonry found in this chamber made Reisner believe that after the sarcophagus was introduced, that the chamber was converted into a ‘L’ shaped corridor. M&R examined some of this surviving masonry and thought they were of a more recent period and connected to the intrusive burials.62 60 A history of the Giza necropolis, Volume 1, 1942, page 131 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part IV, page 94 62 Ibid, page 182 observation 73 61 59 Image courtesy of Isida Project This view of the burial chamber of GI-c shows the surviving lining; the north wall with the 1m space behind it is on the right. Cut deep into the floor we have more anthropoid shaped voids for intrusive burials. One of these burials has cut under the north wall at the north-west corner. 60 Image courtesy of Isida Project In this view we are looking into the north-west corner, where the rock floor has been excavated under the north wall, in what appears to make room for an intrusive burial. The red lines denote the upper surface of the rock floor on which paving 61 would be fitted, and this is where the bottom of the lining of both walls rest: here we also see a dark band visible on the west wall lining, likely denoting paving height, which M&R gave as 22cm thick. From the available images I have to conclude that the economy of rock cutting shown on Reisner’s plans is probably incorrect for pyramids GI-b & GI-c. Image AAW1190, courtesy of the Giza Project, Harvard University In this view looking east (GI-c on right) we find that another boat pit, not unlike the previous one, though much smaller was squeezed between the two pyramids (see plan on page 4); unfortunately I could not find much detailed information on this pit either. No boat pit has been discovered south of GI-c. Concluding Remarks In many ways I am happy to conclude this part of the guide, as it is very frustrating to make out any sense of these structures on the scant and often confusing data that is held on them. Once again we are heavily reliant on quite dated reports when what is required, is a more detailed forensic study of both the superstructures and 62 substructures of these pyramids, so at least we have some accurate data to work with. On the available data and as a Layman, I feel that the cutting GI-x is not related to an abandoned pyramid, but more likely has a connection to the destroyed chapel of GI-a, though it’s hard to say if it was an original feature of the chapel or a later addition. This is based on a cutting which is too narrow for a pyramid passage, and which would only amount to a day or two’s work, so why was masonry being fitted so early into the cut? More likely is that the sloping cut was to receive masonry for a sloping wall connected to the chapel, much like we see in the casing fitted to the sloping foundations in the pyramids. The concern raised by the elevated position of GI-a in respect of Khufu’s pyramid temple can be explained by Khufu’s desire to concentrate efforts on his own complex; why expend huge resources to try and level these pyramids, when they were quite capable to adapt them to the topography of the site. So it’s probably not a case of which came first, the temple or the pyramid, but more likely both could have been planned at the same time. Undoubtedly much work remains to be done on these pyramids; unfortunately, they are somewhat overshadowed by their giant neighbour: one can only hope that they receive much more attention in the future. 63