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