Academia.eduAcademia.edu
The Pyramid of Djedkare Isesi A Layman‟s guide 27th January 2023 Keith Hamilton Image courtesy of Isida Project The above image shows the east face of Djedkare’s pyramid, with the remains of his pyramid temple scattered in the foreground. The condition of the pyramid complex is not unlike his predecessors pyramid complexes at Abusir. The family tree for Djedkare is uncertain, but he choose not to be buried at Abusir but returned to Saqqara where he built his pyramid complex on a prominent viewpoint (Menkauhor, Djedkare’s predecessor also choose to be buried at Saqqara). Exploration The early explorers such as Perring and Lepsius provide scant detail on Djedkare’s pyramid, with neither gaining entry to the substructure. 1 The above early map of Saqqara is plate 33 From Lepsius’s work,1 (Userkaf was the first king of the 5th dynasty, and Djedkare is thought to be the eighth king of the 5 th dynasty: Menkauhor is believed to be the 7th king of the 5th dynasty). Unas Pyramid is the last king of the 5th dynasty and the first to be decorated with the pyramid texts; he was followed by Teti, the first king of the 6th dynasty. For comparison we have Perring’s map published in 1842. 1 Denkmaler aus Agypten und Athiopien, 1842-1849 2 The owners of many of these pyramids was not known in the era of Perring and Lepsius, and so they were given numbers; Lepsius would give Djedkar’s pyramid as XXXVII and Perring would give it the number 6. Perring would give the following description of the pyramid; “This building is near the village, and is called " Haram e Showwaf," the Pyramid of the Watchman, because it was one of the stations where a look-out was formerly kept, to apprize the inhabitants of the approach of the Bedouins. It was built with unsquared stones, and had a casing of blocks from the Mokattam, which is, however, almost entirely removed. The remains of a causeway, about 36 feet wide, may yet be traced in the direction of the village; towards the Pyramid it was formed by an inclined cutting in the rock, and afterwards by a masonry composed of large blocks. On each side of it, and at about 220 feet from the eastern face of the Pyramid, are the traces of two small buildings, which may have been appendages, like the buildings or temples opposite the eastern fronts of the three larger Pyramids of Gizeh.” 2 There appears to be some confusion on who actually opened the pyramid, with most books assigning the feat to Maspero. However, an article by Patrizia Piacentini suggests that Maspero was out of the country when the pyramid was opened, and that the pyramid was opened under the order of Mariette, with the rais Chahin opening the pyramid in December 1880.3 Maspero, would arrive in Egypt at the beginning of January 1881.4 Mariette likely never entered the pyramid as he was very ill, and a letter from Maspero whose first port of call was to Mariette, dated 11 January, described Mariette as being in a pitiful state: Mariette would die shortly after, on the 18th of January 1881. It’s not clear what was discovered in 1880; Fakhry would state, “Archaeologists investigated it partially at the end of the last century, but abandoned work on it when they found that its interior was uninscribed.”5 The pyramid largely lay dormant until the end of the Second World War, when excavations were resumed by Abdel Salam Hussein and A. Varille. Unfortunately, what they discovered is largely lost, M.Verner would state; “First Alexandre Varille and Abdel Salam Hussain examined it; but their work was interrupted at the end of the 1940‟s, and the documentation of the excavation was lost. Much the same thing happened after Fakhry‟s investigations at the beginning of the 1950‟s.”6 (Hussein died in 1949; Varille in 1951 and Fakhry in 1973). In 2002 the University of Milan acquired the archives of Varille, which contains items relating to Djedkare’s pyramid complex). Clearly the exploration of the pyramid is somewhat unfortunate, and we would have to await the arrival of the scholars Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R) in the 1960’s before we get a clearer picture of the pyramid. Their initial findings were published in 2 Pyramids of Gizeh, part III, 1842, page 12 Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2015, page 356 4 Academie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, 1998, page 1083 5 nd The Pyramids, A. Fakhry, 2 edition, page 180-181 6 The Pyramids, M.Verner, 2002, page 325 3 3 „Notizie Sulle Piramidi‟ 1962, and this was subsequently updated by them in „L‟Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte VIII‟ 1975. Here for the first time, we get detailed drawings and description of the pyramid, which had been opened in 1880! Further work has been ongoing on the complex since 2010 by Mohamed Megahed, with further information being released in magazine articles, but as yet we have no detailed modern monograph on the pyramid. M&R were not equipped to excavate but merely observe what was visible to them, and it’s highly likely that ongoing modern excavations will update and reveal more on the complex. The available data and images are somewhat limited, but hopefully the guide will give the readers a rough idea of the pyramid complex. I am again most grateful to the Isida Project for the use of their images. The Pyramid The pyramid is largely a ruinous mound of debris about 24m high, though some courses of its fine casing still survive at its lowest parts, as the above image shows. The design of the pyramid is much like we see at Abusir in that we have a stepped core made of local limestone (possibly six steps), the core is often described as being inferior to those at Abusir, being of smaller irregular limestone blocks held together 4 with a clay mortar. The steps were filled in with white limestone backing stone and the fine casing.7 Perring would give the pyramid base as about 270 feet, or around 82m; whilst M&R would provide a rough measurement, which suggested to them that a base of 150 cubits (78.5m) was maybe intended. For the angle of the pyramid, M&R state that the average of several measurements displayed an angle indicating a displacement of 5 palms 2 digits on a height of 1 cubit, or around 52 degrees.8 This would give a completed pyramid height of some 95.45 cubits (50m). I have come across no modern measurements for the pyramid; it would be beneficial to remove some debris at the corners etc, and obtain more accurate measures along with azimuth readings. Given the somewhat lengthy reign of Djedkare one would assume that his pyramid complex was completed. Entrance L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 66 Sahure and Niuserre pyramids at Abusir also appear to have bases of 150 cubits; though the angles appear to differ slightly, with Niuserre being similar to Djedkare at 5 palms 2 digits, whilst Sahure appears to be 5 palms 3 digits. 7 8 5 Djedkare’s entrance displays two new features when compared to the small pyramids built by his 5th dynasty predecessors. The first is that the entrance does not exit on the face of the pyramid but outside it, in the floor of a small chapel, built against the face of the pyramid. In M&R’s fig 6 above from their TAV 10, we can see their reconstruction of the north chapel. They would state; “The small edifice is totally destroyed and none of the large blocks of limestone which clutter this area of the courtyard can be attributed to it with certainty. Except for a small block embedded in the floor and decorated with five pointed stars (a clear case of reuse) no inscriptions or bas-reliefs have been found on them and none of them has a characteristic shape which may identify it as belonging to the ceiling or entablature of the place of worship or to its dado, if this existed.”9 Though the chapel had been quarried away, there were sufficient traces to create an accurate ground plan of the chapel, which they give as some 9 cubits E-W, and 13 cubits N-S. The decending passage was found to be not centralised inside the chapel but placed more to the east. (Though it is often thought that Djedkare’s pyramid was the first to introduce the north chapel in the 5 th dynasty, we cannot be totally sure if such a feature existed at some of the Abusir pyramids, due to the lack of excavation and destruction visited upon these complexes.) The second unusual feature is that the entrance is not placed in the centre of the north face but displaced some 5 cubits to the west.10 Why this should be is uncertain; it would seem unlikely to be a security feature, given that a chapel is built over the entrance and marking the spot (unless the chapel was a later addition and originally the entrance was supposed to be hidden under the pavement which surrounded the pyramid: Pyramids after Djedkare would incorporate a north chapel). 9 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 74 Ibid, page 66 10 6 Data on the descending passage is also uncertain, M&R state; “The passage is still completely sealed by large blocks so that its length and inclination could not be checked directly. At some 6.5 metres from the mouth the southern edge of a large granite block projects from the rubble covering it and this tells us that the corridor, which was generally lined with white limestone, had at one point floor, walls and ceiling of granite.”11 This granite section can be seen on fig 6, on previous page. In the above image we are looking down at the descending passage and the granite section mentioned by M&R. This granite section, if M&R’s TAV10 is correct, is some 2.8m long, with the rest of the passage in front and behind it, being constructed of limestone. The passage dimensions are uncertain, though their drawing suggests a width of 1.25m and a vertical height of 1.27m? They state that the passage was sealed with large blocks of masonry, though it’s uncertain if what they are describing are original plug stones. In the image above we can see a large granite block in the foreground, could this be a plug stone which sealed the passage? On sealing the pyramid, the builders may have inserted a mixture of limestone and granite plug stones, with the granite plug stone coinciding with the granite section of the passage, which would be a formidable barrier for any robber. 11 Ibid, page 66 7 The robbers had other plans, according to M&R; “The tomb-robbers did not bother to remove such obstacles, but dug a tunnel in the body of the pyramid which passed above the architraves of the descending corridor and came out in the vestibule. As far as may be seen from the outside, the corridor (D) appears very well preserved and only its lower part has been damaged, in particular the ceiling.”12 In the above image we are looking beyond the steel doors of the last image; the end of the granite section can be seen in the foreground: on left we can see the south end of the granite wall block abut up against the remaining limestone wall blocks of the descending passage, and above the granite wall block, spanning the passage we have the granite ceiling block. The images also show modern restorations, with the limestone ceiling stones largely missing, allowing one to stand upright. When the passage was opened and what was found, I could find no data; but clearly someone has cleared the descending passage of M&R’s large stones. If these were original plug stones it would be nice to know more detail on their size, clearance etc, as it’s not often that we come across intact examples, and even when we do, such as the west passage inside the Bent Pyramid, they are often removed without proper recording. Overleaf we have an image looking further down the descending passage; the walls appear to be in good condition, whilst above we have a cavernous ceiling, which is likely the route that the robbers and M&R took. A lot of fine stone has been 12 Ibid, page 66 8 extracted from the chambers by stone robbers, and this material would have to follow the same route, especially if the passage plug stones were still intact. (images were taken in 2013) 9 The above plan by M&R (TAV10, fig1) shows the descending passage from the North Chapel to the vestibule; M&R noted that the axis of the descending passage slightly deviated to the east. The above fig 2&3 are side elevations by M&R. The north wall of the vestibule they report as being destroyed or covered by rubble, so they could not record its length (their fig 2 shows another possible solution as to how the descending passage joined the vestibule). I have not come across any modern data or images, which might clarify the situation. M&R give the descending passage an angle of 26º30', this may be just a guess assuming a 1:2 gradient, as they admit that they could not measure the inclination. This places the vestibule floor at some 9m below pyramid base. The angle may be less as the inclination reading by the intact granite section was some 23.8 degrees. 10 The Vestibule In this view we are looking into the vestibule from its north end (I have highlighted the south wall of the vestibule); a lot of rubble can be seen in the foreground and this might be the rubble against the north wall that M&R describe. Sections of the east and west walls appear in good condition, and the width M&R give for the vestibule is 2.04m, whilst they give a height of 2.23m. They describe the west wall as being constructed of large blocks except at the top, where there is a row of small blocks some 30cm high. Spanning the vestibule was a singular large block of limestone about 1m thick, whose ends extended over the west and east walls by some 60cm, giving a width of some 3.25m, whilst they thought its length must have been more than 4.8m: such a block they suggested was about 16 cubic metres and about 24 metric tonnes. There appears to be no measures to relieve the weight above this massive ceiling slab, as M&R report what appears to be rough core masonry on top of the slab. They also observed that the N-S axis of the vestibule appeared to follow that of the descending passage; however they noted that the highlighted south walls above were not 90 degrees to the east and west walls, but parallel to the north base of the pyramid.13 13 Ibid 66 11 In the above image we are looking at the south wall of the vestibule. A square hole can be seen in the west wall, which may not be contemporary; in the foreground we can see some pieces of granite, which may be remnants of the portcullises. M&R give the doorway as 1.27m high by 1.27m wide (2 cubits, 3 palms?); the horizontal passage would maintain these dimensions all the way to the antechamber, so any precession would be crouched over. Though M&R maintain that the descending passage inclines somewhat to the east, 3D laser scanning of the substructure appears to call this into question. In 2015 the substructure was scanned from 29 scanner positions, with the results published in 2017.14 The 3D scan appears to show that the descending passage deviates slightly to the west instead!15 14 15 EDAL VI, 2017, Djedkare’s Pyramid in 3D, M.Megahed, V. Bruna, pages 166-173 Ibid, Plate XLI 12 In the above image I have created plans and sections of the substructure showing the differences between M&R’s drawings and the results of the 3D scans.16 The scans show no deviation to the east of the descending passage, as is often reported, but more a slight tendency to the west. Moreover, beyond the vestibule the passage tends to slope down slightly towards the antechamber. The slight deviation of the passage system might be just down to building control and quality, there doesn’t seem to be any planned reason for it, and certainly nothing to be compared to the passage system of Niuserre, which appears to be planned.17 The scan measurements give the descending passage as 1.27m wide and 1.32m high (though it’s not clear if this is perpendicular or vertical height): no length or angle is given, but plate XLI shows the descending passage to be shallower and closer to the 23 degrees measured by the Isida project. 16 17 Based on Plate XLI See my Niuserre guide. 13 Scan measures give the Vestibule as 4.43m long, 2.07m wide, and 2.20m high.18 M&R report that in the southwest corner of the vestibule a heap of broken fine terracotta vessels was found, and of similar quality to those found inside the magazines attached to the antechamber. They suggest that the vestibule fragments might have been part of a ceremony conducted after the burial of the king and the lowering of the portcullises, in which the vessels were deliberately smashed. Clearly there are uncertainties in M&R’s drawings,19 though we have to recall that they were not equipped to excavate and could only observe what was visible to them. Modern technology such as 3D scanning should be embraced more widely, and old sites revisited to ensure accuracy; for example, although M&R state the entrance to be displaced to the west by some 5 cubits, has this been tested by modern surveying? M&R admit they could only take a rough measurement, they state; “Perring stated that the base consisted of a square with sides of 82 metres, but from a rough measurement it seems that the original base side was very probably 150 cubits, which is equal to about 78.5 m.”20 Even the North Chapel drawn by M&R is under doubt, and appears to not agree with modern excavations, as described by B.Mathieu. “Le dallage du péribole de la pyramide a été déblayé depuis l‟accès à l‟appartement funéraire jusqu‟au mur d‟enceinte. Devant l‟entrée du tombeau, des traces au sol ordonnent un petit bâtiment très différent du modèle jusqu‟alors proposé: ce sont deux espaces, sans doute à ciel ouvert, qui se succèdent du nord au sud. Ils sont desservis par des portes disposées en chicane. Depuis le péribole, une entrée très étroite et aménagée en longueur d‟est en ouest, commande une petite cour carrée, d‟environ dix coudées de côté, dont les murs est et ouest semblent s‟appuyer directement sur le parement de la pyramide. Dans la moitié sud de la cour, sur son axe est-ouest, le ravalement du dallage aménage un lit d‟attente rectangulaire, allongé du nord vers le sud, de 0,95 m de largeur par au moins 2,10 m de longueur. C‟est le seul indice d‟un petit monument placé jadis devant l‟entrée de la pyramide.”21 The Portcullises The 3D scan shows the horizontal passage to slope downwards towards the antechamber; the passage is well preserved and mostly of limestone, except where it passes through the three portcullises, which are of granite. M&R give the passage a square bore of 1.27m, whilst the scan results give the width as 1.27m and height as 1.23m. EDAL VI, 2017, Djedkare’s Pyramid in 3D, M.Megahed, V. Bruna, page 170, table 1 Some of which I have highlighted previously in my Bent pyramid guides. 20 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 66 21 BIFAO 101 (2001), page 546. See also Abusir and Saqqara 2015, page 246 18 19 14 From inside the vestibule we are looking south along the horizontal passage; the person standing in the background is standing inside the first portcullis housing. According to M&R’s TAV10, the total length of the horizontal passage, i.e. from the north wall of the antechamber to the south wall of the vestibule is some 20.69m, whilst the scan measures suggest 18.38m.22 M&R give the start of the granite as 5.1m from the south wall of the vestibule, with the granite containing the three portcullises having a length of 4.44m. The ceiling, walls and floor of this section are all of granite, though the grooves of the first two slots are of limestone. In M&R’s plan of the portcullis assembly we can see that the first two slots are of limestone whilst the last slot is a singular granite block which has been shaped to form the slot. 22 EDAL VI, 2017, Djedkare’s Pyramid in 3D, M.Megahed, V. Bruna, page 170, table 1 15 In the above image we are looking along the portcullis assembly (I have numbered the portcullis blocks). The first two granite portcullises had been broken in half, presumably by the original violators; however the 3 rd portcullis appears uninjured. Today the remains of the first two portcullises have been raised back into their housings, cemented in place and supported by a stone pier in their eastern slots. M&R thought that the violators simply raised the 3rd portcullis. An unusual feature of the portcullis assembly is described by M&R, they state; “One of the peculiarities of this system is that the two northern portcullises consist of taller blocks than the one forming the third. The chamber, in which the vertical slabs were housed in the waiting position, has the ceiling at two different levels - it is higher over the first two portcullises and lower over the third.”23 In the image above we can see some of the limestone making up the western slot of the 1st portcullis; we can also see the large on edge granite ceiling stone, though above this, the impression is from the few images I have that the rest of the portcullis housing is constructed of limestone. 23 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 68 16 In M&R’s section of the portcullis assembly, we can see the higher height of the portcullis housing over the first two portcullises, whilst the 3rd portcullis is markedly smaller. I could find no data on the dimensions of the portcullises, but M&R seem to imply that the first two were some 1.70m high, whilst the last portcullis was 1.50m high. The thickness of the portcullises is not know, though the slots measure from north, 66cm, 59 cm, and 64 cm, and a few cm’s might be taken off these values for clearance (slot depth rd on 3 portcullis also seem less). A rough guess could see the first portcullis being some 2.25 cubic metres, or some 6 metric tonnes; with the smallest portcullis being just over 4.5 metric tonnes; still a hefty weight to raise. Did the original robbers have some inside information on the above strange layout, such that it was within their abilities to raise the last portcullis instead of breaking through it, by slowly levering the last portcullis up? That said, it would seem strange for robbers to raise it all the way back into its housing, when levering it enough of the floor to allow a person through would be sufficient. Of course what we see today may well be different from what was seen in 1880 when the pyramid was opened and its current position may have been done by the authorities during restoration. There are no grooves made on the granite floor stones for the portcullis to sit in when lowered, to prevent pry bars from gaining purchase. There is some confusion in M&R’s reports on the portcullis assembly, in their earlier report they imply that the masonry above the 3rd portcullis was of granite and that this was to create a strong barrier against thieves who may have circumvented the first two portcullises via their limestone housings, and that this was reinforced by the 3rd slot being also of granite; however, in their section above we appear to have limestone above the 3rd portcullis.24 Clearly a thorough examination of the whole portcullis assembly is required in order to obtain a clearer picture of its construction. 24 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, 1962, see TAV 4&5, and page 24 17 In this view we are looking south and I have numbered the 3rd portcullis, which appears to be supported in its housing on modern stone piers, which fill both the east and west slots. There is damage visible to the lower edge of the portcullis. As we approach the end of the horizontal passage we come across another area of granite, which is common to this design of pyramid. Here a strongpoint is made in the passage to provide support for the pent ceiling beams of the antechamber. The luxury of a high passage which allows a person to comfortably walk upright is dispensed with here. 18 In the above section25 we are looking west, and I have highlighted the granite strong point (in this earlier drawing from M&R’s first publication they show the floor of both the portcullis and strong point to be of limestone: their later publication has the floor under these points as granite; however, this might be worth rechecking as some of the images I have, seem to suggest limestone). Beyond the granite strongpoint the passage continues in limestone, though most of this is severely damaged due to the activities of the stone robbers. The Antechamber The antechamber has been badly attacked by the stone robbers, but sufficient remains to recreate its dimensions. The east wall of the antechamber is best preserved up to a height of 4 cubits (2.1m); in this wall a small doorway, 70cm wide and 2 cubits high leads into three small cells. The function of these cells is uncertain, but it would be a common feature found in subsequent pyramids till the end of the 6 th dynasty (Currently Djedkare’s pyramid is the first to have this 3 cell feature, though some of the badly damaged pyramids at Abusir still await excavation. In recent years excavation inside Sahure’s pyramid has found a series of cells, possibly six in mumber, behind the east wall of its antechamber). In some publications these cells are referred to as Serdab’s, but it’s probably more likely that they are storage magazines. The magazines inside Djedkare’s are well preserved, with only the southernmost cell having its floor lifted, and here M&R report a pit containing at least three layers of white limestone blocks, each about a cubit high; with it possible that more might exist beneath.26 The magazines are given as 2.04m high, width around 1.50m and depth around 1.30m; there is no evidence of any doors. 25 26 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, 1962, TAV 5. L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 68 19 The plan left is from M&R’s TAV10; here we can see the horizontal passage enter the antechamber at 1m from the antechambers east wall. They give the antechamber as 3.10m wide and 4.02m long (scan results were 3.061m by 3.99m). The chamber like the burial chamber appears to be an intended 6 cubits wide, which again is a common dimension in these pyramid designs. The dividing wall between the antechamber and the burial chamber has been quarried away, leaving only one block remaining at the south west corner. The apex height of the roof is around 4.63m, whilst wall height by scale rule is about 3.38 (M&R thought that the top of the wall would not contact the ceiling but end in a flat shelf, such as we see inside the pyramid of Unas: this prevents any settling of the ceiling blocks from fracturing the upper wall masonry, and so they give a wall height of 3.22m in their drawing). Where the pyramid apex resides on the above plan is uncertain; there were plans to scan the exterior of the pyramid and connect it to the substructure scan, but I have seen no further data on it. As it currently stands the antechamber and burial chamber could both be in the western side of the pyramid, with the magazines in the east. In the west wall of the antechamber a doorway gives access to the burial chamber; M&R give a width for the door at 1.27m (scan 1.25m), and suggest a similar height for the door: the wall is around 1.18m thick. The Burial Chamber M&R give the length of the burial chamber as 7.84m (possibly 15 cubits, which makes it two and a half times the chamber width. There is no whole cubit length for the antechamber, though it may have been intended that the total distance from the west wall of the burial chamber to the east wall of the antechamber be 25 cubits: 15 went to the burial chamber and 10 to the antechamber, with the partition wall being included in the 10). At the west end of the burial chamber a shallow pit about 12cm deep is 20 believed to have held the sarcophagus, and behind his we have a stone platform which is believed to have stored the sarcophagus lid. In front of the sarcophagus close to the south wall we have a pit, which is believed to have held the kings canopics. The above schematic gives a rough idea of the chamber layout. The magazines were roofed with large flat limestone beams laid east-west. A breach on top of the antechambers east wall allowed M&R to observe that there was no further weight relieving measures above the magazine, but just rough core masonry. The cells were twice the height of the passage which provided access to them. The ceiling system is similar to that found inside Niuserre’s pyramid, in that the partition wall between the antechamber and burial chamber was not relieved by the pent beams visible inside the chambers, but by a system of three components, which incorporated a horizontal wedge shaped beam which transferred its load to the surrounding masonry which lined the construction pit, via angled beams at either end. These beams are not well finished as they would not be seen. M&R state; “It was not possible to measure the width of the gap occupied by the device and compare it with the thickness of the wall below it. We therefore do not know whether the partition penetrated between the butting beams of the ceiling or ended against their intrados. It has been impossible to find out 21 whether there were other layers of similarly or differently arranged blocks above the horizontal beam and the inclined supports.”27 How common this feature is in other contemporary pyramids is hard to say; the wanton destruction inside the Abusir pyramids (some of which still await excavation), and the good condition inside some of the Saqqara pyramids, makes it difficult to determine which other structures may have had a similar device. It does appear a strange device, why not just carry the sequence of pent beams along the full length of both chambers, and omit this feature? As this feature is sat higher than the neighbouring ceiling profiles, it is unknown if the partition wall was built up to the beams: given that the width of the feature is unknown, we cannot compare it to the partition wall thickness; this would leave several possibilities. M&R would expand more on this feature; “What we have said in the text on the subject of the very rough bulge on one of the northern butting beams of the antechamber next to the gap between the ceilings of the two rooms (A) and (C) might make one incline to the hypothesis that the partition wall ended against the intrados of the beams covering the rooms and did not arrive against the protecting device built above the wall. We should remember, however, the great skill with which the Egyptian masons worked the stones so as to fit them together and how they preferred to chisel blocks already in position rather than those which still had to be laid. So we are even more inclined to accept the hypothesis that the partition penetrated between the butting beams of the first tier of the ceiling as far as the horizontal beam of the protecting arch. What is more, we may also draw from it a precious chronological datum, since the partition must already have been constructed when the lowest tier of the butting beams of the antechamber was set up. Naturally the visible part of the wall was dressed and smoothed and the part hidden by the ceilings of the rooms left rough. The arch device prevented the weight of the superincumbent masonry from bearing on the partition wall, but it is not easy to understand why it was wished to avoid a vertical load on the top of a large, massive wall that was solidly built and crossed only by a passage of limited height and width. It must also be noted that it would have been just as possible to avoid the load on the wall by not leaving the gap between the pairs of butting beams of the crypt and those that covered the antechamber. Perhaps the device was adopted so as not to make the whole rigid and to prevent any possible settling of one of the rooms from reacting on the other too. It is perhaps a consequence of the fact that the crypt and antechamber and their coverings must have been carried out at different and successive times.”28 It’s difficult to come to a conclusion on this feature, as much more data is required; for example, what is the situation above these beams; M&R observed in a breach that a further set of pent beams exist over the visible ones, and it’s possible that there might be a third; what of these beams, did they span over the feature below? In many ways the feature appears illogical; it would hardly task the builders to use normal pent beams above the partition wall; instead we appear to have a more 27 28 Ibid, page 72 Ibid, page 92, Observation 7 22 complicated solution. Pending more data, the only thing I can think of is that the builders left a gap in the roof construction which they could utilise. If it matched the thickness of the partition wall of 1.18m, it would be a sizeable gap that could allow materials to be lowered into the chambers below, especially if works in the horizontal passage created a bottleneck. Ventilation and illumination of the chambers during work are also improved; when the majority of the work was complete inside the chambers, the builders could lower the horizontal wedge shaped beam onto already built in angled supports. On top of this further arches may have been constructed. In the above sectional drawing by M&R29 I have highlighted the fine masonry of the partition wall and chamber wall. M&R would see the large pent ceiling beams being supported by rough white limestone blocks, which lined the walls of the construction pit (the northern ceiling beams of the antechamber were shorter in length as these fitted into a notch left in the granite strong point in the horizontal passage). Between the rough white limestone masonry and the fine limestone masonry which made up the chamber walls a fill of irregular masonry was put in position. All the thrust and load of the large pent ceiling beams was supported by the rough white masonry in conjunction 29 Ibid, TAV 11, fig 2 23 with the natural rock walls of the construction pit. This construction may have been know by the stone robbers who happily removed most of the chambers fine wall masonry, with the knowledge that the ceiling above was well secured against collapse. The fine walls of the chambers, even though of considerable thickness (surviving blocks on the west wall of the burial chamber are some 1.3m thick), therefore were not load bearing, other than to support their own construction. In the Burial chamber we have six pairs of pent beams, though in the antechamber we only have two pairs of pent beams, which are noticeably wider than those in the burial chamber. Unlike in the Abusir pyramids the pent beams inside Djedkare’s are all largely intact; certainly there is still much fine white limestone available for the robbers to extract: maybe some unknown interruption saved the substructure from further damage. In the above view we are looking at the west wall of the burial chamber; here we have the surviving fine masonry which made up the walls of the chamber (it’s difficult to say whether the west wall was built first and the ceiling beams placed against it from the images available to me). We can also see a few surviving blocks of the north wall in the northwest corner of the chamber, and this appears to consist of three courses with the upper course being sensibly smaller in height. The black crates occupy the sarcophagus position and appear to be full of sarcophagus fragments. 24 The crates appear to be full of sarcophagus fragments, a nice jigsaw for someone. M&R give the following description of the sarcophagus; “The sarcophagus of greyish basalt has been reduced to tiny fragments. The floor, which has survived in the west part of the crypt, shows that the casket was embedded in it to a depth of about 12 cms. Some of the fragments have two parallel worked faces and so it was possible to ascertain that the sides of the casket were about 24 cms. thick. Other fragments make it certain that the lid was fastened to the lower part with the usual dovetail joint ending in a rabbet.”30 Behind the sarcophagus a stone platform was built which held the lid for the sarcophagus. The drawing left is fig 4 from M&R’s TAV10. The top of this platform can be seen in the image above, to the left of the crates, The top of this platform has three grooves across it which align with holes in the west wall. These are thought to have contained wooden runners to assist in sliding the lid over the sarcophagus. M&R give the height of the top of the hole as 90cm from the floor, to this we had the sarcophagus pit depth of 12cm, which gives us a rough idea as to the height of the sarcophagus (minus lid) of 30 Ibid, page 72 25 around 1.02m likely 2 cubits high. No dimensions are given for the sarcophagus pit, but by scale rule it’s roughly 1.2m wide by 2.6m long (possibly 5 cubits long, and as the chamber is 6 cubits wide, it leaves half a cubit either side). Given the uncertainties in the dimensions of the descending passage, and the form of the north wall of the vestibule, it would seem that a sarcophagus of the above dimensions can traverse the passage system; though, if the partition wall was in place when the sarcophagus was delivered, the sarcophagus would have to be rotated 90 degrees in order to go through the partition wall doorway, but as the chamber is 3.1m wide and the diagonal of the above box is about 2.86m then the clearance is there to rotate the box. In this view we are looking down on top of the lid platform, where we can just make out some of the grooves and holes in the west wall (compare to M&R’s plan drawing on page 20). Also noticeable is a sizeable piece of the sarcophagus resting on top of the platform. Judging from the drawings, any lid stored on this platform would have overlapped the side of the sarcophagus somewhat, but not enough to obstruct the interior space and the introduction of a wooden coffin. The sarcophagus is often described as being made of basalt, though I don’t know if this early classification by archaeologists has been tested by geologists for accuracy, to rule out other stone types such as greywacke. 26 In the above image we are looking down into the remains of a small pit, which is believed to have held the canopic jars. The north side of the pit has been largely destroyed, though the ledge for a covering stone is clearly visible on the remaining three sides. M&R would state; “At about 3.4 m. from the west wall and 40cms. from the south wall of the crypt a small square hole with sides of about 0.7 m. and a depth of 0.85 m. was made in the floor. An offset for the insertion of a stone cover that has now disappeared was cut in the blocks of the floor. Shapeless masses of organic material and part of an alabaster vase with the name of the Pharaoh were found in the hole, which was evidently the repository for the canopic vases.”31 A curious observation by M&R was made on the floor of the chamber, they state; “The floor has for the most part disappeared. What remains makes it certain that it rested on at least four layers of white limestone, each 1½ cubits thick, as may be observed where the thieves dug a pit in front of the place where the sarcophagus stood. The floor and its under foundation were certainly built before the walls: it is very probable that this massive platform also ran under the rough surrounding masonry that supports the beams of the ceiling.”32 A similar statement is made in their earlier 1962 publication, where they state that in front of the sarcophagus; “The floor is mostly gone, but the remains make it certain that it consisted of at least five layers of white limestone blocks, each 1.5 to 2 cubits thick.33 (0.79 to 1.05m) 31 Ibid, page 72 Ibid, page 72 33 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, 1962, page 26 32 27 In their 1975 work, 4 courses of 1.5 cubits would be a depth of some 3.1m, whilst their earlier 1962 work, if we take the average between 1.5 and 2 cubits could suggest a floor some 4.5m deep. Both these floors seem excessively deep compared to other 5 th and 6th dynasty pyramids.34 In the above image we are looking into the excavation in front of the sarcophagus (This image is looking towards the chambers north wall; the surviving fine wall masonry at the northwest corner is just visible on left, compare to image looking west on page 24. The viewpoint is taken from above the canopic pit; note light on foundation stone and compare to image on page 27). The limited images of the area I have suggest one course of foundation sitting on the bedrock; certainly no evidence of the deep floor which M&R describe. The 3d scan of the floor also does not pick up such a deep floor, but rather agrees with the images I have. The scans show destruction to the floors of both the antechamber and the burial chamber, but nothing deeper than 1.5m.35 (In the southern magazine, M&R report a pit in the floor consisting of at least three layers of white limestone, each about 1 cubit high; this would give a depth of around 1.5m, though they thought there might be further layers: 34 Architectural data on many of the pyramids is incomplete, but were observable, some floors are more around 1.3m deep; see A.Labrouse L’Architecture Des Pyramides A Textes II, page 172, fig 136 for Merenre. See also M&R Notizie Sulle Piramidi, 1962, page 48, on Teti pyramid, where they could observe the bedrock of chamber floor, and their TAV7 suggests a floor depth of around 1.3m. See also my guide on Userkaf’s and images of chamber floor. 35 EDAL VI, 2017, Djedkare’s Pyramid in 3D, M.Megahed, V. Bruna, see fig 2 28 the magazines were not subject to the 3d scan). Hopefully ongoing excavations can clear up this discrepancy. If the deep pit in front of the sarcophagus existed, then it must have been filled in sometime after M&R’s visit; though it’s hard to see evidence of this filling in from the available images. If it did exist, it doesn’t necessarily mean that such a deep pit extended throughout both chambers, magazines, or even the horizontal passage; it might be localised to just one area. For example, the builders might come across a sizeable gravel filled void, such as we see in the grotto inside the Great Pyramid; such a fault in the rock could be dug out and filled with masonry to provide a stronger foundation for the chamber. Also in the above image you can make out marks left by the builders; these marks are numerous throughout the chambers, though today they are largely covered over by consolidation works; thankfully they have all been recorded,36 and hopefully more detail will be published in the future. An example of one of the many markings, which could be made in red, black or yellow. What was found inside the chamber in 1880 is uncertain, and neither is much information available from the excavations in the 1940’s. A letter by Varille would state; “Some human bones covered by bitumen, if they belong to the king, will once again raise the technical question of mummification under the Old Kingdom.” Also 36 Prague Egyptological Studies, XXI, 2018, page 35 29 found were a few fragments of stone vessels bearing the name of the king and an Arabic lamb from the middle ages.37 Though it would appear that more was found as M&R state on the magazines; “Many fragments of vessels found inside the pyramid are now piled up in this storeroom. The vessels, which were of fine terracotta, alabaster and also varieties of hard stone, were of excellent manufacture and some, as may be seen from the fragments, had shapes that are somewhat rare and elaborate.”38 The human remains were examined by A. Batrawi in 1947 who believed they belonged to a male aged 50 to 60. These remains were further examined by E.Strouhal whose study suggested an age of 52.8 +/- 8.5 years; moreover, the remains appear to match features found in the kings daughters from nearby mastaba’s, along with an identical blood group A. The remains were further supported by Radiocarbon dating; six samples were taken, which gave a date some 160-390 years higher than the Egyptological dating of the Old kingdom.39 M&R would state; “That the body was that of the King is made probable, according to Batrawi (ASAE, XLVII, p. 98), by the fact that the descending corridor is still blocked and a mummy of later date is unlikely to have been introduced into the apartments owing to the narrow and winding tunnel dug by the violators.”40 This last remark seems to enforce the idea that the large stones inside the descending passage were the original plug stones. Today, all the walls of the chambers have been reconstructed, even the partition wall, in small masonry blocks. The floors have been filled in, and the north wall of the canopic pit restored. The impression seems to be that the authorities are possibly preparing the substructure for tourism. Unfortunately, the nuts and bolts of how they built the substructure is largely buried behind all this reconstruction work; hopefully, everything has been recorded in detail, and will eventually be published. 37 Abusir and Saqqara, 2015, Varille documentation on the pyramid complex of Djedkare-Izezi, page 357-358 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 68 39 Anthropologie XXXIX/1, 2001, Identification of Royal Skeleton Remains from Egyptian pyramids, page 22 40 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 72 38 30 The Pyramid Temple The destruction of the pyramid temple is quite extensive, leaving mostly floor stones and a few masonry elements scattered about. On top of this, intrusive burials from later eras’ obscured the area. In this view we are looking south (The giant pyramids at Dahshur, the Bent and Red Pyramids, can be seen in the background) across the scattered remains of the pyramid temple. 31 Scattered amongst the remains we find some surviving architectural elements such as the fallen granite column above and below. 32 The above granite feature shows Djedkare’s cartouche. 33 A fine example of a possible ceiling fragment, which at one time would be yellow stars painted on a dark blue background. 34 Decorative frieze The above image gives a rough idea of temple layout. The causeway from the Valley temple arrives at the entrance hall, which in turn gives access to the open court. Still travelling west from the open court, we arrive at the more private part of the temple, 35 which is elevated higher than the open court; here we find the statue niches, offering hall and associated storerooms. The above image is a schematic view of the pyramid temple; there are many various plans of the temple, from that created by M&R to ones produced during more recent excavations; the above is roughly based on a plan by P.Janosi. 41 The destruction of the temple means that many areas are largely unknown; for example, though five statue niches are shown above, this area was totally destroyed, and no traces of the niches exist, and so we are reliant on clues from better surviving contemporary temples to help reconstruct what the temple may have looked like. I certainly will not dwell too much on the temple as data is sparse, and excavations are still ongoing. The causeway arrives at the east facade of the temple and enters the Great Hall; though just before the hall a doorway appears to exist on the south wall at the causeway end which opens into some chambers. M&R report that 41 PES XXV/2020, page 94, fig 4 36 only 30 metres of the causeway were excavated at its west end, with the pavement being of white limestone. Fragments of alabaster found in the Great Hall suggest that this was paved in alabaster (sometimes referred to as calcite or travertine). The north and south walls of the Great Hall are especially thick (the core of these walls can be seen on the image on page 35); these are thought to have held a false vaulted ceiling. The lowest limestone course of the hall still survived in situ, and indicated that no hard stone dado was used; it also allowed the plan of the hall to be measured as 40 cubits by 10 cubits.42 The Great Hall opened into the columned court, which M&R give as 45 by 30 cubits. Though M&R state that 18 palmiform granite columns would have occupied the court, recent excavations have shown that there were only 16 columns. Only fragments of granite remain in the court, the columns along with their bases, architraves etc, have all fell victim to the stone robbers. The court was paved in alabaster, and there are no indications that the walls surrounding the court had a hard stone dado, such as granite or basalt. It is possible that a basin may have been in the centre of the court, such as we see at Niuserre’s temple. From the causeway there appears to be no other method of entering the temple other than going through the Great Hall and Court; the chambers south of the causeway’s end are uncertain, but they may have allowed priests to circumvent the important Hall and court by walking around the south pylon. In Sahure’s and Niuserre’s temples we have small separate entrances which would allow the priests access to the temple without using the causeway. Given the destruction to the temple it’s possible that any separate entrance, if it existed, has vanished without trace. As we head west and leave the columned court we enter a transverse corridor; this corridor is a major junction, which allows access to various parts of the temple complex. In the middle of its west wall a small flight of steps would give access to the higher elevated statue niches (M&R give the pavement here as 0.84m higher). These niches are thought to number five, and constructed of a hard stone such as granite. This elevated area is the start of the private area of the temple. North of the statue niches a doorway gives access to storerooms, whilst a similar doorway to the south give access to further storerooms and also a square antechamber, whose roof was supported by a single granite column (this column can be seen on page 32). From here we enter into the all important Offering Hall, which is aligned with the pyramids eastwest axis. Badly damaged, it is thought to be 10 cubits wide (5.24m), and the thick north and south walls suggest another vaulted ceiling. A further doorway in the north wall of the Offering Hall gives access to another series of storerooms. At the east end of the Offering Hall, M&R report the remains of a drain constructed of quartzite heading in the direction of the court. This likely connected to a basin in the Hall with the drain continuing through the court (connecting to any basin in the court) and the Great hall and emptying into a large basin outside the causeway, 42 This is the same dimensions as seen in the temple of Niuseerre and Sahure, though both halls here had a granite dado. 37 such as we see at Niuserre’s complex. Recent excavations have found a drainage channel at the west end of Djedkare’s causeway similar to that found at Niuserre’s. In the transverse corridor we have doorways at both south and north ends, which give access to the paved court which surrounds the king’s pyramid along with the satellite pyramid. Also at the north and south ends of the corridor we have doorways in the east wall of the corridor, which give access to chambers and storerooms which flank the |Great Hall and Court. The chambers on the northern side also have a small portico with two columns, which give access to an open area, and in the north east corner of this area a doorway is found which gives access to the queen’s pyramid complex. A similar sized area is also to be found on the southern half of the temple, and here we have a structure which appears to have five long spaces; but it is so badly damaged we don’t even know if it had doors or how it was accessed, or what its function was. The structure appears to be a standalone building not connected to the main temple; the preserved foundations are around 21.8m N-S by 19.85m E-W. The five rooms are around 14.3m x 2.15m, possibly 27 x 4 cubits.43 The building appears to be a unique feature to this complex only, as a similar structure is not to be found in contemporary pyramids. A wild guess might be that it was used as some sort of symbolic building to store barques related to the king’s journey. Two massive bastions of stone, which are often referred to as pylons, grace the front of the temple, the southern one appears in better condition and this can also be seen on the image on page 35. The pylons along with the square antechamber and column seem to be features carried over from Niuserre’s complex where they first appear. Hopefully when excavations are complete a more detailed account will be published. Though it’s quite noticeable how the use of granite and basalt is more low key here, compared to some of his predecessors. Why this is the case is uncertain, though given the use of granite columns and doorframes, supply from the granite quarries at least seem to be uninterrupted. Basalt appears totally absent, to be replaced with alabaster; maybe it was just a personal choice: Khufu would seem to pave his temples in Basalt, though Khafre would prefer alabaster. The design scheme for the temple certainly displays many of the features seen in the temples of his predecessors. Finds are largely limited to fragments of reliefs which once decorated the temple. Various parts of statuary were found, including alabaster fragments of a statue of the king, two sphinxes and a seated lion: a statue of a kneeling captive was also found. One of the better preserved elements was four limestone Djed-pillars, three of which are fairly well preserved. These pillars were 93cm high and had the Djed-pillar only carved on two faces suggested that the pillars were positioned in the corner of some chamber; the tops of the pillars were quite smooth and flat, suggesting that something was to be placed on top.44 The Djed-pillar sign was a common element in at least four of the kings five names (see image on page 33). 43 44 PES XXI/2018, Preliminary report of the 2017 season, pages 34 - 44 PES XVII/2016 Sculptures from the pyramid complex of Djedkare Isesi, page 24-33 38 The Valley Temple In the 1940’s the location of the Valley Temple would be under a palm grove, today it resides under a village, and probably out of reach for future excavation. It appears that Varille made a start on excavating the temple, but it’s uncertain as to what he achieved. L.Grinsell would state; “Excavations now in progress (November 1945) are revealing the remains of the lower temple, some of the walls of which are decorated in low relief. From this point the causeway extends for about 67 metres westwards to the upper temple, now being excavated by Prof. Alexandre Varille.”45 Fakhry would state; “The causeway leading to Djedkare Isesi‟s Valley Temple is well marked, and some of the granite blocks of the latter may be seen among houses at the edge of the cultivation. The Valley Temple has not yet been excavated, and the whole complex requires more work before the final plan can be given.”46 Causeway Little is known of the causeway, M&R state; “The layout of the ceremonial causeway is clear for the whole of its length, which was measured by us, along the slope, as being about 220 m. The causeway descends with varying inclinations as far as the Valley and ends at the edge of the palm grove that surrounds the village of Saqqara, near a half-buried canal. For a little more than 3 metres east of the entrance doorway to the upper temple the inclination was only 4°, then up to the end of the present excavation (about 30 metres) the slope was measured as being 7°; further to the east again, it seems that the causeway was slightly steeper....... The direction of the causeway is not exactly east-west but inclined a few degrees to the south. Only some thirty metres have been excavated at its western end, at the point where it reached the upper temple, and a trial dig has been made about halfway along its course.”47 Modern excavations thus far, have been unable to confirm the deviation to the south noted by M&R, but the western end of the causeway shows it to run straight into the temple.48 Satellite pyramid The satellite pyramid was placed in its own enclosure, though its north and west enclosure walls were notably thinner walls, just some 1.1m thick. Though no doorway was found in the thinner north wall, it is thought that one existed opposite the end of the temples transverse corridor. The small pyramid is located in the western part of its 45 Egyptian Pyramids, L.Grinsell, 1947, page 143 nd The Pyramids, A.Fakhry, 2 edition, 1969, page 181 47 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 86 48 PES XIX/2017, page 50, note 4. 46 39 enclosure, such that the space in front of its east side amounts to some 16 cubits, whilst the spacing on the other three sides averages out at about 3 cubits.49 Little remains of the small pyramid, though it’s thought to be a small step pyramid cased with fine limestone casing. Today we largely see poor core filling and a crater where the chamber used to be. M&R would give the base as being 15.6m or 30 cubits, they would also give the slope of the pyramid as about 65 degrees, or 3 palms and 1 finger of batter to 1 cubit of height. Such an angle would give a height of 32.3 cubits or just under 17m, and given that the thicker main pyramid enclosure wall is some 8m high, its apex would certainly be noticeable. The design of this small pyramid follows that of other contemporary satellite pyramids in having a relatively simple ‘T’ shaped substructure. The surviving ceiling block above the descending passage gave M&R the passage dimensions of 0.8m wide by 0.97m high, with an angle of about 26 degrees. Debris prevented M&R from exact measures, though they give the rectangular chamber as 2.2m wide and about 4.4m long. 49 L’Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part VIII, 1975, page 84 40 The above reconstruction by M&R from their TAV14, shows a section and plan of the satellite pyramid. In the above image we are looking down the descending passage with the surviving ceiling stone; I have arrowed a notch on the face of the stone. 41 I have mentioned similar notches in the past,50 and Lehner and Hawass have commented on them.51 The above entrance is Queens’ pyramid GI-a at Giza; here we can see a notch on the massive ceiling stone, whilst a shifted architrave stone above displays another notch. The function of these notches is uncertain, though Lehner and Hawass have suggested that they are crude axis markers. Concluding Remarks This guide is fairly brief as there is scant data to go on. Though the pyramid was opened in 1880, it is only in recent years that excavation has resumed and some preliminary articles have been published. Much remains to be done, including the queens complex, which I have omitted from this guide; but it is hoped that in the future a detailed monograph of the complex is published, as we can ill afford to have further excavations unpublished. Djedkare’s complex has suffered like so many sites of not being published or poorly published in the early days, and as a result important data has been lost. Various reasons exist for non publication, from the death of an excavator, lost notes, or an institutions reluctance to fund a detailed publication etc. The end result is valuable data being lost forever: I have already mentioned this lack 50 51 See my Minor Pyramids of Giza, part 2, guide page 20 Giza and the Pyramids, 2017, page 431 42 of detailed publication in previous guides, and unfortunately this practice of excavation and non publication is very much in practice today. Egypt is cursed with too much archaeology, new sites and finds are being regularly discovered, that it’s hard to keep up. Often new sites get their fifteen minutes of fame in the media, followed by a brief summary in a journal, and that is often the last we hear of it. One only realises how bad the situation is when you go searching for detailed data, only to find there is none. This malaise even applies to well known structures such as the Great pyramid, which one would rightly assume was drowning in detailed data, given the interest that it attracts; but my guide on that structure just highlights a sea of confusion. Maybe Egyptology needs to slow down a bit, and revisit some of the earlier sites that were poorly recorded; for example, it beggars belief that one of the finest and best preserved substructures in Egypt, that belonging to the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid has been forgotten about, since the 1940’s when Grinsell walked its corridors. Maybe its tourism and the drive to find new discoveries that is the driving factor today; unfortunately, we are all poorer by neglecting the earlier sites. 43