The Pyramid of Ameny-Qemau A Layman’s Guide Keith Hamilton 06 November 2019 The plan above1 gives us a rough idea of the substructure of the pyramid attributed to the 13th dynasty pharaoh Ameny-Qemau. Unfortunately our knowledge of this pyramid is somewhat limited; the discoverer and excavation of this site was carried out in the spring of 1957 under Charles Arthur Musès, but he appears not to have published any findings of his excavation. Nabil Swelim and Aidan Dodson described Musès excavation as: “Excavations initially revealed Old Kingdom mastabas, one of which, belonging to a certain Ipi, contained a pair of standing, headless statues. The final two weeks of work, however, brought to light what first appeared to be a mastaba, but on further investigation proved to be a pyramid. The discovery was made known via annual summaries of fieldwork, but Musès sponsorship of the work was shortly brought to 1 Adapted from fig 2, Orientalia Vol 37, page 325-338 1 a sudden halt at the end of the season. On 20 June, Dr Musès was detained at Cairo airport, on charges relating to antiquities and currency allegedly found in his possession. The most important charges were overturned at appeal in June 1958, but Musès seems never to have returned to Egypt, and he apparently never completed the book he stated that he was writing on his discovery.”2 How much data Musè could collect on this structure in his final two weeks is debatable; but what little information we have on the site is largely thanks to the Italian scholars Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R). M&R were able to pay two visits to the site in 1968, the first allowed them to obtain a summary of what was visible to them, however, on their second visit, they were restricted to taking photographs of the site only, and so were unable to check and integrate their measures obtained in their first visit. Moreover, as a decade had passed since Musès excavation, debris had obstructed areas from closer examination. What M&R managed to observe was published in 19683, and is basically the primary resource on this structure. M&R would state; “Every attempt we made to get in touch in recent times with the discoverer, Dr Musès, was not successful ..... We are well aware, moreover, that the lack of any news or photographs of the land before the excavation may have left us in the dark of elements of great importance for the understanding of details of both the internal and external structure of the monument.”4 The failure of Musès to publish anything on this site means much valuable data has been loss to us; M&R were unable to excavate and so we are reliant on their brief observations and precedents from other Middle Kingdom pyramids to in effect give us a best guess on the design of Ameny’s Pyramid. Ideally a new excavation is required on the site with more modern techniques in order to provide us with a more detailed picture of the site. The location of Ameny’s pyramid is south east of the Bent Pyramid of Sneferu and about a kilometre south of the Black Pyramid of Amenemhat III. The pyramid sits on high ground overlooking a wadi to the west; M&R could not detect any road 2 MDAIK 54, 1998, page 320 Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, pages 325-338 4 Ibid, page 326 3 2 which could have brought materials to the site, but suggested that it may have followed the wadi, bringing materials in from the north. In the image above we get a rough idea of the pyramids position. A new pyramid was discovered in 2017 during quarrying operations south west of Ameny’s pyramid. At this new site a stone was found baring Ameny’s name, and at the end of this guide we shall have a brief look at this structure as well. Not much remains of Ameny’s pyramid, and in common with so many of these small Middle Kingdom pyramids, it has mostly been quarried away. These pyramids are only slightly larger than say Khufu’s Queen’s pyramids at Giza; Khufu’s Queen’s pyramids are all stone constructions and today a sizeable amount 3 of these structures remain: this is because the fine limestone casing was sought for reuse, the rougher local core limestone having little recyclable value. In contrast, the small Middle Kingdom pyramids are largely a mud-brick construction, cased with fine limestone, with both materials being recyclable. The extent of damage varies between structures, the pyramids of Mazghuna South and North are a good example; the South site being more heavily robbed of its materials, with a sizeable amount of the fine masonry that made up the substructure being robbed. The north site in contrast is luckier, with its substructure still largely intact; unfortunately for us, in the case of Ameny’s pyramid, its substructure more resembles the ruinous state of Mazghuna South. The new pyramid discovered in 2017 is also in a fairly ruinous state; such destruction makes it all the more difficult to determine if such pyramids were originally completed or abandoned at some stage in their construction. M&R suggested that the sudden death of Ameny had interrupted the planned construction of the substructure.5 That said, the level of destruction visited on so many of these sites and the often poor exploration, means it is hard to state definitively on the true status of the pyramid complexes completion. At the similarly ruinous site of Mazghuna South, a mud-brick wavy enclosure wall was found; would such construction been undertaken if pyramid construction had been curtailed due to the early demise of the king? It would appear that only more detailed exploration than what has been done hitherto by the early explorers can possibly answer these questions. The basic design of Ameny’s substructure is quite similar to Mazghuna North though less complex; these two sites used a relatively simple closure device for the sarcophagus, instead of the more complex sand lowering devices that we see at Mazghuna South and Khendjer’s pyramid for example, (the new pyramid discovered in 2017 incorporates a sand lowering device). The quite complex Southern South Saqqara Pyramid has two burial chambers, one incorporating the more complex sand lowering design, while the other a simpler design similar to what we see in Ameny’s pyramid. 5 Ibid, page 337 4 In M&R’s image looking east we can see how much destruction has been visited on the substructure. The plan below will help orient the reader to the remains above. The portcullises are in the closed position, though a significant amount of the 3rd portcullis has been broken away at the top. A large portion of the sarcophagus lid has also been broken away at its north end to allow robbers access to the sarcophagus. The sarcophagus lid would originally have been stored in ‘C’; from here it would be slid onto the sarcophagus after burial of the king, and then the sarcophagus was sealed off by withdrawing the 3rd portcullis from its housing. Most of the masonry that made up the chamber walls and roofs has all been quarried away; this has left us with a large jigsaw missing many pieces. In order to try and reconstruct this substructure we have to look at some of the better preserved pyramids for clues on how it may have looked. 5 In this view by M&R looking into the north-west corner of the pit that held the substructure; the descending passage would have been constructed in a trench that led to the pit. Economy of rock excavation is apparent in the creation of this pit, it being excavated to fit the substructure; some of the wall stones are some 1.50m thick, others only 60 to 70cm thick, for example the 3 rd portcullis housing shows economy of rock excavation, with parts being lined with thin slabs. M&R reports that were visible, the gap between the masonry and the walls of the pit were filled with stones, and at one point bricks could be seen.6 The rock walls of the pit where preserved by the masonry of the substructure were found to be near vertical. The sarcophagus is made from a single piece of quartzite, with a large recess for the coffin and a small one for the canopic box. Surrounded by limestone masonry, M&R were unable to determine whether the perimeter walls were constructed before or after the heavy sarcophagus was installed; due to the state of the site. The canopic recess was 0.59 deep, 0.66 E-W, and 0.63 N-S. The large coffin recess was 1.07m deep, 2.35 long, and 0.89 wide, and it’s interesting to note how similar the dimensions are to the stone lined sarcophagus in the White pyramid of Amenemhet II; here the recess was 1.09 x 2.36 x 0.89. Indeed, both coffin recesses in Mazghuna North and South are also similar.7 6 7 Ibid, page 330 Guides on these structures are available on my Academia.edu page. 6 The above image gives a rough idea of the chamber layout. The lid for the sarcophagus was stored in chamber ‘C’, this chamber M&R gives at about 3.25 long by 2.20m wide, whereas the sarcophagus is around 4.50 long by 2.25 wide. The dimensions for the lid are incomplete, as it had been broken at its north end, M&R only state that the lid was 0.6 thick; but it seems clear that the lid is too long for chamber ‘C’, and would have extended past the third portcullis. Moreover, the lid had to be narrower than the sarcophagus, as chamber ‘C’ is 5cm narrower than the sarcophagus, and to this we have to add a few more centimetres for lid clearance: we see something similar at Mazghuna North. Any funerary procession would have to walk over this lid to reach the sarcophagus. The doorway into ‘C’ had been angled at its south end possibly to assist in turning the coffin into the chamber. After the coffin and canopic box had been inserted, the lid would be slid onto the sarcophagus; the floor of ‘C’ is some 27cm higher than the sarcophagus, and we see something similar in Mazghuna North, though here the floor of ‘C’ is inclined and the lid rests on two benches with a trench in between, probably to assist in levering the lid onto the sarcophagus. 7 Left, we have Ernest Mackay’s drawings of the similar burial chamber at Mazghuna North.8 Here the portcullis was slid along an inclined quartzite slide into a recess on the opposing wall; M&R would suggest something similar at Ameny’s, (though here the slide may have been of limestone) but were unable to check. M&R gave Ameny’s third portcullis as some 3.0m long, 0.8 wide and thought that it originally may have been more than 2,6 high; such a portcullis is around 14.5 metric tonnes. The housing for the portcullis was 86-88 cm wide, allowing sufficient clearance. Left we have M&R’s drawings of Ameny’s burial chamber. In M&R’s reconstruction with the lid closed, they have elected to use horizontal beams for the sarcophagus and lid chamber, whereas at Mazghuna pent beams covered the sarcophagus area. Also at Mazghnua an extra chamber was constructed south of the sarcophagus, whose entrance was blocked when the lid was in the closed position: this lid fitted into an undercut of the south wall. M&R report that the sarcophagus was embedded for a short distance into the south wall, and this can be seen in their drawing above, though absent in their reconstruction; whether an undercut was provided for the lid as at Mazghuna is uncertain. Robbers, after fracturing off the north end of the lid, would probably excavate into the south wall to allow levers access to push the lid back. From M&R’s drawing above, a sizeable length of the 8 The Labyrinth Gerzeh and Mazghuna, 1912, plate XLVIII 8 lid has been removed from its north end; with the lid in its original position this removed portion would provide ample room to access the king’s body. The only item they could not reach was the canopic box; but would this have been of concern to them? After all, robbers are after valuables not canopic jars, and indeed remains of all four jars were found bearing Ameny’s name 9. Given that the robbers had successfully removed the north end of the lid, they could have breached the partition between the coffin and canopic recesses if it was important to them. Given the extra chamber seen at Mazghuna, might the sliding of the lid back towards the north be an attempt by robbers to check for a hidden chamber? The current position of the lid shown on M&R’s drawing appears strange, if moved to access the canopic box, they seem to have moved it too far to the north (the remnant of the lid is close to 8 metric tonnes). M&R would state “The lid of the sarcophagus was partially destroyed at its northern end so that it could be pushed against the portcullis, in what was necessary to uncover the canopic box and allow entry to the coffin recess.” 10 I have amended M&R’s drawing above by sliding the lid fragment back to its original position; here we can see that the missing north end allows the robbers plenty of access to the coffin recess: more than its current location which appears quite tight for access. There was therefore no reason to push the lid back to access the coffin; the only need to push back the lid was access for the canopics, which were left, or for checking that there was no hidden chamber as found at Mazghuna, and yet the current location of the lid appears strange. One scenario might explain its current position, after the robbers had violated the tomb, the authorities may 9 10 See MDAIK 54, 1998, page 319-334 Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 332 (my translation) 9 have tried to restore the kings burial as best they could. The broken remnant of the lid was still long enough to cover the coffin recess; they may have moved the lid remnant north to cover the king’s body (M&R state that a wooden coffin was found, which should be kept at the Cairo museum11). At a later date, more robbers may have entered the tomb, and simply levered the lid further north to gain access to the coffin recess. For comparison, I include two views of Mazghuna North’s burial chamber, here an undercut was left in the south wall for the end of the lid; beyond this was a further recess, possibly for a closure stone to conceal the entrance to the hidden chamber. I assume M&R made an inspection of Ameny’s south wall to rule out such a chamber; though they have made no comment in their report. The lid at Mazghuna was 30.25 inches high (76.8cm), which is higher than Ameny’s at 60cm. Another difference is in the height of the east and west walls that border the sarcophagus, at Mazghuna they are slightly higher than the lid to provide clearance, being 30.5 to 31 inches high12, and indeed the other similar chamber design that is to be found in the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid displays a similar trait. However at Ameny’s the surviving east and west walls are about one meter high. M&R did note the pent 11 12 Ibid, page 332 See my Mazghuna North guide 10 beams present at the other two sites, and thought that something similar may have been envisioned at Ameny’s. However, they could find no sockets on the side walls that suggested pent beams, and they note how the smooth face of the south wall mirrored the height of the upper course in the lid chamber. They therefore thought a missing course was present above the current remains and that both the sarcophagus and lid chamber were roofed with horizontal beams.13 In M&R’s drawing above they show a level marking of what appears to be 1.03m on west wall (numbers can be hard to make out in their drawings; all levels are taken from top surface of sarcophagus). They also show 2.47m as top of south wall and upper course of lid chamber, therefore any missing course should be 2.47 minus 1.03, or 1.44m high; however in their text they say this missing course should be 1.10m high.14 Reading M&R’s report, the impression is that they thought the construction of the substructure was interrupted by the sudden death of the king15, largely due to the area that I have marked as 1st portcullis (see page 1). Their reasoning appears to be that it was practice to build from the interior towards the outside, and the strange construction in the area of the 1 st portcullis, was evidence of an interruption in the construction of the apartments, due to the sudden death of the king. It would appear logical given that the sarcophagus chamber is at the lowest level and furthest from the entrance trench, that this would be constructed first; one would hardly try and bring in such a large sarcophagus, pent beams? etc, after chambers A, B, etc had been constructed. I would have thought that the sarcophagus and lid chamber would have been completed and roofed first 13 Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 331 Ibid, page 331 15 Ibid, page 337 14 11 while the pit was unimpeded with other constructions, allowing sufficient space for the manoeuvring of considerable heavy masonry. After completion of this area, the builders would then turn their attention to the constructions at a higher level, and work back towards the entrance trench. In such a scenario should we not therefore expect to see a pent chamber over the sarcophagus as evidenced at the other two sites? If the area of the 1st portcullis was an interruption in building activity, should this not have occurred at some considerable time after the construction of the burial chamber? The reconstruction by M&R showing a horizontal roof for both chambers would therefore appear strange. In M&R’s fig 13 above, we can see the top of the east wall, and there appears to be a sizeable platform at a significantly lower level than the east wall of the lid chamber, which originally would have been at the same level as the top of the quartzite lintel which M&R give as 75cm high. If the walls that flank the sarcophagus were originally the same height as the lid chamber we might ask why the stone robbers picked the lowest level to extract limestone when there is still limestone available at higher levels. 12 In M&R’s fig 14 above, we can see the top of the west wall that flanks the sarcophagus, and again a sizeable platform is available. M&R appear to have discounted pent beams as they could not discern any sockets for such beams on the sides,16 what they expect to see is not made clear. Generally, pent beams in the middle kingdom pyramids are like Petrie’s drawing left of the Hawara pyramid; here we see the bottom of the pent beams laying on flat platforms and they are prevented from splaying apart by abutting up against masonry. I suggest therefore that these wide platforms could have held pent beams similar to what we see in Petrie’s drawing. When we look at the plan on page one, we might think that chamber ‘A’ might conflict with any beams and the masonry that made up the west wall of this chamber. However, the floor level of ‘A’ is given as 2.90m above the top surface of the sarcophagus, or around 1.9m above the east and west walls that held the beams; so any masonry support for the beams would be well below chamber ‘A’ 16 Ibid, page 331 13 The above reconstruction gives a rough idea of how a pent roof may have looked, with portcullis closed. Close scrutiny of the site might yield clues to the size of the beams at the base; brushing down the debris on top of the walls might provide witness marks. The floor of chamber ‘A’ is a safe distance away from the beams. Though M&R believed the sarcophagus chamber to be roofed with horizontal beams, I feel that the probability that the chamber may have been covered with pent beams is still a valid alternative based on the scant evidence available to us. The walls of the Lid chamber ‘C’ are the best preserved, with the west and north walls complete to a height of 2.20m. Access to ‘C’ was via stairs in the floor of chamber ‘B’ which led to a short passage, entering into the NE corner of ‘C’. The southern edge of the entrance into ‘C’ had a chamfered profile, possibly to assist in turning the coffin, which could be as long as 2.35m to fit the sarcophagus recess; chamber ‘C’ had a width of 2.20m and length of 3.25m. 14 Above we have M&R’s plan and section of how chamber’s ‘C’ & ‘B’ connect. The passage is protected by a large stone (hatched above), which M&R describe as a hard reddish stone that looks like quartzite. This stone would have to support the ceiling stones of ‘C’, along with the masonry which formed the west wall of ‘B’. The height of this quartzite block is given as 75cm (with its top surface aligned with the N & W walls of ‘C’), its E-W (or corridor length) is 1.74m; the N-S length is unknown due to it extending under northern debris, but what was visible was 1.71m. The passage under the block is given as 90cm wide, and as we know the height of ‘C’ as 2.20m we subtract the quartzite block of .75m to obtain a passage height of 1.45m. As the coffin recess is 89cm, the passage width of 90cm allows coffin access; however, as at Mazghuna North we would have an issue in respect of coffin height. Placing the lid in the sarcophagus chamber, such that it took up all available floor space would mean that the entrance into ‘C’ would be partially obstructed, by the 60cm height of the lid, and as the passage is but 1.45m high, this would leave a remaining access height of 85cm. The coffin recess is 1.07m high, so any coffin introduced over the quartzite lid, would have to be slightly less than 85cm, with its wooden lid introduced separately. 15 Above I have amended M&R’s reconstruction of the burial chamber with the lid stored in chamber ‘C’. At Mazghuna North, I suggested that the lid may have been stored further into the sarcophagus chamber, such that the end of the lid was aligned with the coffin recess as in the ammended image below. Such a location may have provided full height clearance into ‘C’, however, as at Mazghuna we have insufficient data to test the idea. 16 In the above image I have coloured in the three floor levels, with zero being the top surface of the sarcophagus. M&R state that the bottom of the quartzite lintel is at the same level as the floor of ‘B’. This lintel in effect becomes one of the wall blocks that make up the west wall of ‘B’. This red stone would stick out against the white limestone that makes up the rest of the chamber, and would certainly arouse the suspicion of tomb robbers. It might be that the chamber walls were to be plastered to conceal this lintel; however, this is called into question at Mazghuna North: here a similar quartzite lintel that covered the passage leading to its lid chamber was painted red!17 Could the hard reddish stone described by M&R also be painted red? It would appear an illogical thing to do, from a security point of view, and something that needs more scrutiny if ever these sites are ever reexcavated in the future. The surviving walls of chamber ‘B’ M&R state as being 1.04m (2 cubits) high, they say, “It is virtually certain that on the partially preserved course there was a similar second, so the total height of the room should not be very far from 2.10m (4 cubits).18 From the remains they were confident that the chamber was 3.72m by 17 18 See my Mazghuna north guide Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 333 17 2.14m (a possible 7 by 4 cubits). In the floor of ‘B’ we have a set of 6 steps that lead down to the lower passage, M&R report that two of these were made of white limestone with the remaining four in whitewashed bricks. Another observation by M&R on chamber ‘B’ is what appears to be dressing marks visible on the east and south walls; they describe them as black vertical dashes, similar to those noted by Jequier in the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid. These marks below from the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid19 were explained by Dieter Arnold, “First of all, the middle axis of the room, scratched into the pavement, was used as a reference line. From the plumb bob suspended above this line, the masons could measure sideways with a cubit rod the amount of extra stock that had to be removed. The cooperation of a second person with mallet and chisel would have been necessary. With a few strokes, he cut a hole of the required depth and marked it in black. This was done repeatedly from the ceiling downward in lines 15 centimeters apart until the end of the wall was reached. The masons could now dress down the extra stock between the marks until the level of the black colour was reached. This state of work is represented in many limestone cased tombs of the Middle Kingdom.”20 M&R also report that the floor of ‘B’ was covered by large sections of pink mortar that prevented them from observing the construction of the floor blocks that made up the floor of the chamber.21 This mortar might be indicative of an attempt to conceal the stairway that lead to ‘C’. For security purposes, one might imagine that after burial of the king, that the stairway would be filled in and a pavement fitted to the floor of ‘B’, thus concealing the presence of the stairway: though we still have the issue of the red lintel to disguise as this would surely alert robbers. 19 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, Plate XX Building in Egypt, Pharaonic Stone Masonry, 1991, page 139-140 21 Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 333 20 18 Left, we have M&R’s reconstruction of chambers B&C. When it comes to chamber ‘A’ clues are few, M&R state; “Here, however, the destruction is very extensive, so much so that a precise reconstruction is absolutely impossible.”22 They were therefore largely reliant on comparison with other Middle Kingdom pyramids in reconstructing chamber ‘A’. They suggested that it was almost certain that a small staircase was also originally present to connect to the lower chamber ‘B’. For security reasons, this chamber may also have been paved over to conceal the staircase. On the next page I have placed M&R’s drawings side by side to compare their reconstruction with the actual remains of the site. In the masonry surrounding chamber ‘B’ cuttings are visible for stone or wooden dovetails. 22 Ibid, page 334 19 20 Access to chamber ‘A’ was via a short passage whose east end was sealed by a large quartzite portcullis; this second portcullis M&R give as 1.60 x 2.15 x 1.40m (over 11 metric tons). This portcullis is quite similar to those found in other Middle Kingdom pyramids; originally in the open position it would be stored on an inclined bed, south of the passage. After burial of the king the portcullis would be slid down this bed and engage on a shelf left on the north wall. This portcullis when in the closed position would form the inclined ceiling of a lower passage which headed east to an area that may have contained the first portcullis. Above we have M&R’s reconstruction of the 2nd portcullis; I have coloured in the quartzite. At the west end of the passage under the portcullis we have a quartzite block; this can be seen as a security device to prevent robbers from circumventing the closed portcullis above. In Mazghuna North such blocks had an inclined ledge cut into them to assist the closing of the portcullis; though M&R don’t draw such a feature in their drawing above. Their reconstruction also suggests that the lower passage height is 1.20m, which they appear to mirror in the upper passage leading to ‘A’. There appears to be some inconsistency in M&R’s scale drawings and dimensions in their text that are difficult to reconcile; it is indeed a pity that they were only allowed to take photographs on their second visit. For example the dimensions they give for the 2nd portcullis appears at odds with their drawings and images. For the 2nd portcullis they give 1.60 x 2.15 x 1.40m. 21 In M&R’s fig 15 above, looking south, we see the 2 nd portcullis in the closed position; it is clear from the images that the longest dimension is the N-S length of the block, and so M&R’s 2.15m must apply to this. In M&R’s text 23 they give the short passage as 1.60m long and less than a metre wide, which appears confirmed in their drawing below (which suggests 1.59 x 0.90m). In their plan left, we appear to have a length of 11.35 minus 9.76, which gives us 1.59m in close agreement with the text. However, as can be seen from the image above and the plan, the portcullis E-W dimension is clearly greater than the short passage. By scale rule the portcullis is close to 1.80m wide; as previously mentioned, the clarity of the dimensions on M&R’s drawings can be hard to make out, but 1.80 from 9.76 gives us 7.96, which might agree with the poorly written dimension on the plan. The next dimension west appears to be 7.30, which would give the quartzite slab as .66 23 Ibid, page 335 22 wide, which is agreeable to scale rule. It is not clear what M&R’s dimensions of the portcullis 1.60 x 2.15 x 1.40 relate to, as they do not follow the Length X Width X Height convention. 1.40m may relate to the height; the upper passage that leads to ‘A’ from the portcullis may have been similar to the lower being 1.20m, and though M&R report that the north end of the portcullis rests 20cm lower than the top of the quartzite slab, a portcullis 1.40m high can comfortably cover the entrance to the upper passage. As added security, the lintel stone that covered the upper passage may also have been made of quartzite, which is what we see at Mazghuna. This leaves us with the 1.60m measure; an explanation for this might arise if they took this width from under the portcullis. In their drawings the quartzite slab is only shown west of the portcullis; yet were we normally see this design of portcullis an inclined shelf is cut into the slabs top, to help guide the portcullis over to its recess in the opposing wall. In the image above24 we see the 2nd portcullis at Mazghuna South; here an inclined shelf some 19cm deep has been cut into a granite slab. It might be the case that M&R were unaware of this feature at Ameny’s pyramid, and if they measured the width underneath, it would give them a false reading. If this is where they got their 24 The Labyrinth Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, plate XLIII 23 1.60m reading, and we allow for a 20cm shelf, we would have a portcullis 1.80m wide, which agrees more with their drawings and images. I have amended the drawing above to incorporate a possible inclined shelf. M&R thought that the height of chamber ‘A’ may have been 4 cubits (2.10m). The above image gives a rough idea of how the 2nd portcullis may have looked like. Sometimes long grooves are to be found on the limestone bed that the portcullis is stored on. The area under the portcullis, M&R state as a small square 24 shaped room 1.40m N-S, and 1.30m E-W.25 While the 1.40m agrees with their drawings the 1.30m does not, adding yet more confusion to this area. Leaving the 2nd portcullis behind and travelling east along the short passage we come across what M&R term their well chamber. Here we have a rectangular space 2.20m N-S and 2m E-W; in this space at passage floor level, we have an almost square well in the centre of the floor, which leaves 40cm of floor north and south, and 20cm east and west.26 Thus the well would be 1.4 x 1.6m; the well has an unknown depth as it was full of debris. M&R thought the passage continued beyond the well chamber eastwards for about 60cm, were it was closed by two blocks of white limestone; beyond these the fine stone masonry abruptly ceases. Unfortunately the lower end of the descending trench was full of debris, which prevented any observation of how any passage and descending passage may have looked. In M&R’s images above, we can see the remains of the well chamber, and possible continuation of the passage a short distance to the east. M&R paid particular attention to this unusual chamber, and noted that the west wall of the well was a 25 26 Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 335 Ibid, page 336 25 large vertical slab of rustic quartzite, whose upper side was partly horizontal, with the rest sloping towards the south: further, that the floor north of the well was higher than the southern portion, though no measures are given. They therefore suggested that what was originally planned for this area, was the same as the 2 nd portcullis, but mirrored, such that the portcullis slid down from north to south. However, they suggest that the sudden death of the king caused this construction of the 1st portcullis to be interrupted, and modified. In M&R’s plan and section above of the well area, we see a tunnel east of the well, which M&R say, was so small, that it was not possible to explore this part in depth. However, they thought it certain that a lower passage was planned and started here. I have highlighted the area that is the west wall of the well that should be in quartzite, though M&R’s hatching suggests limestone. 26 Top, we have M&R’s reconstruction, and below I have created a rough image of how a first portcullis may have been originally planned. 27 It might seem strange to have two portcullises so close together; however, we see such an arrangement at the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid. It is interesting to note that the north-south distance for the opening in the floor of the well chamber is 1.40m, which matches the space under the 2nd portcullis. The east-west distance of the well chamber at 2.0m is greater than the 2nd portcullis, but this need not be a concern as we sometimes find that the portcullises differ in width. At Mazghuna North & South this is what we find; for North, 1st is 2.0m wide, 2nd is 1.7m: and for South, 1st is 1.49m wide, and 2nd 1.59m; all other dimensions of these block pairs are unchanged.27 Possible reconstruction of substructure 27 The Labyrinth Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, pages 43, 51, 52. (one of the dimensions at Mazghuna is in error, see page 6 of my Mazghuna North guide) 28 The passage width between the two portcullises is 0.9m which agrees with the passage width from ‘B’ to ‘C’, and seems designed to allow an item to pass for the coffin recess, whose width is 0.89m. However, for the other recess dimensions of 2.35m x 1.07m, no rectangular box of the coffin recess dimensions can past the portcullises. Any such rectangular coffin, would have to be reduced in height, with the lid brought in separately, of course an anthropoid coffin would offer more manoeuvrability. Due to the confusing measures in the area of the portcullises, it is difficult to determine what size items can pass these defences. It was the view of M&R that the sudden death of the king probably occurred as the first portcullis was in construction, and as they believed that the substructure was built from the interior to the outside; that this was as far as the planned construction got. Plans had to be modified to make the tomb usable for the king; there was no time to build a descending passage, so the area of the first portcullis was modified, so the king could be introduced from above. The passage below the first portcullis would be abandoned and filled up; M&R state, “It therefore appears practically certain that, at the time of the King‟s death, only the filling of the pit was carried out quickly and with lose material, and consequently, no part of the built nucleus. The monument was to be presented as a large mastaba with a square plan and of no significant height.”28 The fact that M&R mention a quartzite slab forming the west wall of the well chamber, and that the floor is higher on the north than the south, does support the suggestion of a sliding portcullis mirroring that of the second portcullis. That said, it’s hard to discern any sliding surface on this quartzite block; granted picture quality is not great. If we take the higher north side of the well chamber floor (M&R provide no measure for this difference in levels) as evidence of a limestone bed for the portcullis; might we not expect to see a sizeable cutting in the north wall of the pit, or the start of one to accommodate the limestone bed and portcullis housing? 28 Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 329 29 In M&R’s plan we can see extensive cutting of the rock south of the 2nd portcullis, which was some 2.15m long. However, north of the intended 1st portcullis, we see no evidence of rock cutting for a portcullis design similar to the 2nd portcullis. Another unusual feature is the 20cm wide ledge east of the shaft, why does this span the complete N-S distance of the well chamber? The reconstruction above shows the perimeter ledges that surround the well shaft; if a lower passage existed, then the eastern 20 cm ledge would be broken by the lower passage as shown above. Generally in this design of portcullis, we can have 30 only one guiding ledge for the portcullis, present on either a quartzite or granite slide; or sometimes a small ledge also exists on the opposing wall to help guide and support the portcullis. In the image left from Mazghuna North29, we see the presence of a small ledge; such features can also be found in other complexes. If we follow the logic of M&R’s suggestion that the well chamber was an abandoned sliding portcullis similar to the 2nd, and that they say, “The well was filled and thus the already built part of the lower corridor that led to it.”30: Then the question has to be asked, why was the east ledge completed when they filled the lower passage? Unfortunately M&R show no images of the east ledge or describe it; all they say is that the north ledge is higher than the south, and that the western rusticated quartzite slab had an upper side partly horizontal, and which in the rest showed a sensible slope towards the south.31 At the 2nd portcullis block, M&R noted that the inclination of the portcullis, showed a drop of 20cm over a distance of 1.40m or about 8 degrees; the squarest space under this portcullis they describe as 1.40m N-S, and 1.30m E-W: if this 1.30m is correct then it might suggest that small ledges also exist at its east end. In the image left I have amended M&R’s drawing to show possible ledges that might exist under the second portcullis. Now if the 1st sliding portcullis had been abandoned by the sudden death of the king, why was the eastern ledge completed during the filling of the lower passage? I assume it also had a sensible slope down to the southern ledge, which they say was lower than the northern ledge; if it did not slope, I should have thought that they would 29 The Labyrinth Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, Plate XLVII Orientalia Vol 37, 1968, page 337 31 Ibid, page 336 30 31 have reported it. Above we have M&R’s four images of the well chamber; unfortunately the quality of the images makes it difficult to discern the slope from north to south. 32 In the two images above, I have made two options of how a lower passage may have been blocked off. In the first, a simple rectangular block could have been used; such a block would stand out in comparison to the lower southern ledge, and one would think that M&R would report such a feature. If we follow M&R’s description and drawings of the area, we have a perimeter around the shaft, with the southern ledge lower than the north, and a perimeter that appears unbroken. This might suggest that any blocking stone would have to be cut to maintain the perimeter down to the southern ledge, as shown in the second image; and yet this would appear illogical, as the sliding portcullis from the north had been abandoned according to M&R. Another issue is M&R’s description of the masonry that makes up the southern part of the well chamber, which they describe as beautiful, and well worked monolithic limestone blocks; should we not expect more unfinished work in this area? If we expect a portcullis system based on the second, I would imagine a sizeable rock cutting made into the north face of the trench, and then large masonry introduced into the area, whose joint faces had been prepared to match with adjoining masonry, but with excess stock left on its exposed faces to protect it. For example the limestone bed, on which a portcullis would be stored upon, might only have its inclined upper surface finally dressed after the masonry had been laid in position, this incline could have been followed as they dressed the east and west walls, with the masons finally dressing down the south wall to provide the lower ledge. If we accept the sudden death of the king, why was the masonry so beautifully done? Why not a more utilitarian finish? Would they create a beautifully built southern part of the chamber, before preparing the north? 33 Another aspect of the well chamber is that the upper passage appears to extend further eastwards for a distance, and that the passage appears closed by two blocks of white limestone, leaving a space of 60cm. If this was an abandoned portcullis, why does this passage continue? M&R suggested that the well shaft would be the access to the tomb from above, with the lower passage filled; then blocks superimposed on this filling to create an east wall of the chamber: and yet the blocks east give the impression of an upper passage continuing. Why not create an east wall with blocks running N-S, resting on the side walls of the abandoned lower passage? M&R suggested that after the death of the king, the monument was to be presented as a large square shaped mastaba of not significant height. If this was the case, we might imagine a vertical shaft descending through this mastaba to connect to the well chamber. Given the seventy day period before burial, could such a sizeable structure be built, and would a successor be inclined to build such a structure? The 13th dynasty is often described as an era of decline, which was littered with a large number of kings, who normally exhibit short reign lengths; so would a successor expend time and energy completing Ameny’s complex? Might it be more likely that a successor just bury the substructure, and level it to blend with the surrounding desert, with only a chapel to show on the surface? In the latter scenario, one would not need a vertical shaft, one could block off the lower passage, and build a short passage extending further east, at the same level and dimensions as the short passage that connects the two portcullises (such a design helps the introduction of long items as the well shaft is but 2.0m E-W). The kings body and funerary items would be brought down the trench cutting in the rock and enter the newly made short passage. After burial of the king, the 2nd & 3rd portcullises would be closed and the workers would exit out the newly created short passage; in the area of the well chamber, it may have been adapted to hold a vertically lowered portcullis, whose bottom profile matched the slope of the perimeter. After exiting the short passage, they may have introduced masonry into it as extra security, and maybe the two blocks that M&R mention are the remains of such blocking. Finally the remains of the natural rock trench would be filled in with debris. This is but one permutation of several that I can think of to explain the available evidence; ideally what is needed is a detailed excavation, the clearance of 34 the shaft and the debris that covers the end of the trench should hopefully provide a clearer picture. In the above reconstruction I have placed a vertical portcullis in the raised and closed position; the ceiling stones for the passages have been omitted for clarity. It is unknown if there was any connection between the visible substructure and the base of the pyramid, via a descending passage. On the trench excavation leading to the pit that held the substructure, M&R state; “You could follow the general progress of the excavation itself, but not determine its slope, nor the point where it reached the bottom of the pit, because only the upper edges were visible: at the time of our exploration the bottom was partly full of sand and fragments of rock that prevented any observation.”32 In M&R’s time access to the pit was via a narrow passage along the north wall of the trench, with the remaining width of the trench filled with fragments of masonry, brick and blocks of white limestone. On this dry fill, M&R would state that it was “built here in an unknown time, but certainly very ancient.” And further, “In the absence of an excavation report it is not possible to say whether this masonry reached the north wall and therefore blocked the entire ramp.” It may be possible that this narrow passage was created by Musès during his excavation a decade earlier. 32 Ibid, page 330 35 In what was visible to M&R, they could detect no traces of perimeter walls that may have indicated a possible descending passage that led to the substructure. They therefore suggested that the interruption of the building works, as evidenced by the strange construction of the well chamber; probably meant that the building of a descending passage was abandoned, and subsequently the descending trench was filled in. Hopefully some future excavation will clear the significant amount of debris that covers the bottom of the trench and discover whether any remains of a descending passage are present. The descending trench was cut in the middle of the east side of the superstructure; M&R would state, “Given the width of the passage carved into the rock and the difficulty of exact measurements, we can assume that the axis of the descending passage was designed to coincide with the E-W axis of the monument.” M&R would say that entrance axis was displaced slightly to the south by 65cm; moreover, they highlight that the horizontal passages that incorporate the first two portcullises appeared much shifted to the south with respect to the centreline of the trench. They therefore suggested that any descending passage may have connected to another room, with perhaps a further portcullis.33 Little remains of the superstructure; M&R were of the opinion that the pit was filled in with loose material after the death of the king, and therefore no part of the pyramid nucleus had been built. Instead, “the monument was to be presented as a large mastaba with a square plan and of not significant height.”34 What remains of any possible pyramid superstructure is to be found in the form of a trench, shown left, which is found on three sides of the monument. This trench approximately 2 cubits deep is cut out of the bedrock, and at a practically constant 33 34 Ibid, page 337 Ibid, page 329 36 level. At the east end of the north and south trenches, the trenches opened out onto a levelled area of rock at the same bottom level of the trenches: the excavated rock from the east side appears to have created an eastern boundary. The width of the trenches varied from 5.85 to 6.20m, and the walls of the trenches were faced with mud brick (A similar brick lined foundation trench is to be found at Mazghuna South and other sites). These trenches created a square rocky plinth; 45.20E, 45.30W, 44.80S & 44.20N. M&R added the widths of the N&S trenches to the N-S measures of the plinth to obtain 57.55-57.65m or 110 cubits: they therefore suggested that the pyramid side could have been 100 cubits, leaving the foundation trench to extend a further 5 cubits as a possible perimeter courtyard, which may have been surrounded by a wavy mud brick similar to that found at Khendjer’s pyramid. Above, we see a portion of the brick lined northern trench; this trench does not have a constant width, but at some 26.25m from the west trench wall, it widens from 6.50m to 9.60m: here M&R suggested a possible chapel location. At the bottom of the trenches M&R report various blocks of local and white limestone scattered about, none apparently in place, and they suggested that the 37 foundation may not have been carried out. They suggested that at 2 cubits deep, the lower course may have been of local limestone about a cubit thick, with a white limestone course also a cubit thick fitted on top to create the courtyard. In the image above, I have created a possible reconstruction of how a foundation trench may have looked. Local limestone may have lined the floor of the trench, and these may have been laid on a thin layer of clean sand, as found at Mazghuna South. Above the local limestone the finer white limestone of the casing and pavement would be laid; the lowest course of casing may have displayed a vertical foot, with the pavement laid up against it. The core of the pyramid could be made largely of mud brick, which supported the casing. M&R commented that the upper surface of the plinth showed no traces of coarse limestone blocks, further, “Nor can we assume a core of bricks as no traces remain, while the peripheral brick walls of the plinth and trenches have been preserved.”35 35 Ibid, page 329 38 At the south east corner of the monument remains of crude brick walls were found some 6 metres from the plinth (see plan page 36); it was impossible to give a plan of this structure due to its destruction. It is not known if any traces of causeways, valley temple etc exists; though M&R suggest that they may never have been started. We are indeed fortunate that M&R paid a visit to this site and provided much needed information that Musès neglected. That said, much more information is required, which can only come about by a thorough excavation of the site, and one can only hope it receives this attention in the not too distant future. We now turn our attention to the new pyramid discovered in 2017; discovered during quarrying activities; the above satellite image highlights its precarious hold 39 at the edge of the quarry. Announced to the press in April 2017; not much more has been released on this structure since. The clearest picture of the structure so far is courtesy of a documentary „Egypts Lost Pyramid‟.36 From this documentary, and the few images released by the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities I will attempt a rough reconstruction of the substructure. Initial excavations uncovered a poorly inscribed alabaster slab baring Ameny’s name, but subsequent inspection of the sarcophagus led to the discovery of female remains. Image Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities The well preserved descending passage was located on the east face of the pyramid; above we can see steps leading down to a portcullis chamber, similar to the 2nd portcullis in Ameny’s pyramid. On top of the passage walls we can make out dovetail joints between blocks; at the end of the passage a large granite block spans the passage. 36 Channel 4, (UK) first shown 29 Sep 2019 40 Image Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities In this view looking east, we can see more clearly the remains of the portcullis chamber; the inclined limestone bed probably held a granite portcullis, which slid down towards the north, and thereby sealing the end of the descending passage. The large granite lintel would dissuade robbers who thought they could circumvent the portcullis by going over the top; likewise the granite slide for those who thought they could go underneath. The top of the granite slide forms part of the passage floor that led to a small chamber, whose floor outline can be made out by the wall blocks that also display dovetail joints. In the south wall of this chamber a passage would continue south to a long east-west orientated chamber; openings in the floor of this chamber, would lead to the sarcophagus and the sand boxes that lowered the heavy lid onto the sarcophagus. 41 Image Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities In this view looking south-east, we can see the shaped lid suspended by the overhead gantry; originally this lid would be lowered by stone props engaged in boxes full of sand. The controlled removal of the sand from the boxes, would allow the props to sink into the boxes and bring the lid down to seal the sarcophagus. This design, first seen in the Hawara pyramid, was also used at Mazghuna South and Khendjer’s pyramid, the latter two sites being more similar to the one above. Also of note in the above image, is what appears to be a surviving ceiling stone on top of the opening leading to the western sandbox, and at its base, double dovetail joints. Note also two notches in the limestone to the right of the lid above; in the documentary footage a matching pair is to be found on the other side: they appear neatly cut with their bottoms inclined. These might be original features to allow the use of long levers to control the lid as they set it onto the sand box props. 42 The above reconstruction is my best guess based on the limited documentary footage, and so is very tentative. In the video footage, the walls at the bottom of the stairs are slightly rebated on both sides of the passage, and on the southern side a small square hole is seen, which may have been for a door latch; so it may be possible that a wooden door was originally present in this location. After the portcullis chamber, a short passage at a higher level enters into a small chamber whose main axis is N-S. In the south wall of this chamber another short passage leads into the long E-W chamber, with the entrance appearing to be midway between the trench that leads to the sarcophagus and the trench that leads to the eastern sand box. It is possible that these three trenches after burial would have been filled with masonry and flooring fitted to disguise their presence; the hope being that any robbers who breached the portcullis and gained entry into the long chamber, would not be alerted to the hidden sarcophagus. Though we appear to have only one portcullis chamber, it might be possible that one existed higher up the descending passage, close to the entrance, similar to what we see in Khendjer’s pyramid. 43 Image Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities In the above image we have a clearer view of the limestone bed that held the portcullis; two grooves can be seen to run along its length and in between at its north end we have a hole. Though we have many examples of this portcullis design found in these small Middle Kingdom pyramids, we unfortunately have little information on them and mode of operation. The old excavation reports do not describe these portcullises in any great detail and often just admit their presence. These grooves are not always reported, or may not exist in some cases. Mackay would comment on a limestone bed at Mazghuna South, were he reports the presence of a single groove, he says; “The limestone bed on which the eastern end of the portcullis rested was provided with a wide and shallow groove running down its axis in order to minimise friction 44 when moving the block. This groove was but irregularly made, and had been cut after the bed was built.”37 A lot of the portcullises in these small pyramids are either closed or left in the open position, so observation of their beds can be difficult, especially the presence of any holes in the floor of the bed. In Khendjer’s pyramid Jequier reports on a limestone bed that appears to closely resemble the image on the previous page. Here Jequier reports „grooves lined with wooden slats were intended to facilitate slippage‟38 ; he also reports a hole in the floor, which is shown in his drawing below. In Jequier’s section above (from plate VIII) we can see the similar hole in the floor of the limestone bed (Jequier does not draw the grooves with wooden slats in his drawings). The explanation for this hole is given as, “the portcullis, during the waiting period, was kept roughly horizontal by a support now disappeared, erected above a pocket of sand that was emptied at the desired moment.” However, it’s not all together clear to me how such sand would be removed, given the close proximity of the portcullis above; moreover, is there even a need for such a device? 37 38 Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 42 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, pages 31-32 45 These beds are inclined at a relatively shallow angle, and given the great weight of these portcullises I can imagine they can rest quite freely on these beds, without fear of crashing down; or if it was a concern a simpler solution could be devised, such as a wooden prop against the facing wall. With such shallow slopes I should imagine that repeated levering operations would be required to maneuver the portcullis over to its shelf on the opposing wall. Jequier would report that this portcullis failed to slide across and seal the passage; however, he also reports that the support had disappeared. This makes little sense, as the support should be present in the hole; this leads me to think that the hole had a different function altogether. A possible explanation for this hole in the limestone bed is shown above; here I have sliced the portcullis in half to reveal a hole cut into the underside of the portcullis itself. Into this hole would be placed a stone block; as the portcullis was gradually levered across the passage to its closed position the stone block would fall into the hole of the limestone bed, and act as a further security device to prevent robbers from trying to lever the portcullis open. Hopefully in the future these small pyramids will receive more modern excavation; and maybe some of these surviving portcullises such as found at Mazghuna South and Ameny’s can be lifted off their beds for a more detailed inspection. The sarcophagus was covered by a lid of two separate pieces (though there may be a small third piece at its south end); the largest piece which appears to have been cemented onto the sarcophagus was hollowed out underneath. The smaller part of the lid, was shaped to fit the profile of the pent beams that would have covered the 46 sarcophagus; this smaller lid piece would sit on top of stone props (In Khendjer’s pyramid granite props were used): the hollowing out of the larger piece allowed the introduction of the coffin; after the coffin and canopic chest were in position the sand would be removed from the sand boxes, the props descend and the 10 tonne lid would seal the sarcophagus. In the image above the lid is in the open position supported by two granite props. These props descended into their respective sand boxes; unfortunately like the sliding portcullises, we have surprisingly little information on the operation of these sand boxes and how the sand was removed. The documentary showed a brief glimpse along the passage to the sand box; but it was too dark to discern any detail: the narrator, Egyptologist Chris Naunton said that the passage was blocked by a wall of granite; this could either be the side of the sarcophagus or a granite prop. Hopefully this more modern excavation will provide more information on the operation of these sand boxes and whether any special sand was used. The central trench that led to the sarcophagus would extend under the south wall of the chamber, and also take up much of the width of the chamber floor in order to assist in introducing a coffin; however; the video footage seems to suggest that trenches extend across the greater width of the floor for the sand boxes as well, which seems strange. Normally we see just a squarest opening against the chamber wall, sufficient for a person to jump down and make their way along the passage that in the example above would head south for a short distance, were it would join 47 a lower passage that led to the sand boxes. Hopefully the excavation report, when published can provide more information. The inclination present in the sarcophagus lid gives us a possible guide to the angle of the pent beams that would have covered the sarcophagus; these beams may have been anchored at their base, by large masonry, some of which would have also roofed the sand box passage. This whole assemble would be protected from splaying by the walls of the pit that it was built in and tight against. It would seem that like so many of these small pyramids that it was quarried for its fine limestone, and so it is difficult to determine if the monument was ever fully completed; though the satellite image on page 39 appears to show a portion of a possible wavy enclosure wall. A large mass of mud brick is also to be found in the S.E corner of the substructure (see page 42). If we accept M&R’s suggestion that such substructure’s were built from the inside out, and given the good preservation of the descending passage, could this suggest that the substructure was completed? 48 After burial, one would expect that the trenches would be filled in and disguised in the hope of not alerting any robbers to the true location of the sarcophagus; such that any robber’s breaking into the pyramid may have come across a plain rectangular chamber as shown above. This chamber would probably be roofed over with horizontal beams laid N-S; while the smaller chamber north of it would be roofed with beams laid E-W. Though such a large chamber would likely not disappoint robbers, as it may have been used to contain various funerary items; maybe even a false sarcophagus/coffin to try and throw robbers of the scent. Inside the sarcophagus the remains of a female were found; the burial itself had been robbed, the canopic jars missing, and the canopic chest dislodged from its recess. This wooden chest was found to contain the title, the king’s daughter, Princess Hatshepsut. Who she was related to is not known with any certainty; though the stone slab baring Ameny’s name might indicate that she was a daughter of this king. As pointed out in the documentary, it is somewhat unusual for a mere princess to be buried in such a fine structure, which seems designed for a king. In the documentary Mark Lehner suggested that maybe Ameny built two pyramids, with one meant to be a decoy; but if this was the case, why not choose the one that 49 was more complete? If we accept M&R’s view that Ameny’s substructure was unfinished, why not choose the other site that appears more complete; granted we still have no detailed excavation report from the new pyramid yet, to help ascertain the level of its completeness (which is not helped by the extensive modern quarrying, which will have destroyed much evidence). The documentary came to the conclusion that the body was robbed at the actual time of burial, by those tasked with the sealing of the tomb; such things being not unusual in ancient Egypt. The reasoning for this conclusion was because the lid was still in the closed position, and could not have been opened since the time of burial. However, this seems unlikely to me; it seems clear that large amounts of fine masonry have been taken from the substructure. The people involved with the removal of this fine masonry from the walls, pent beams etc, could hardly fail to notice the sarcophagus in their midst, and even more unlikely to ignore the sarcophagus. This opens up another scenario, that the body was robbed during the stone robbing phase and not by those tasked with the burial. Unfortunately I have only some video footage from the documentary to go on; but I was surprised to see how easy they managed to fit the lifting straps, and there appeared to be clear damage to the upper surface of the sarcophagus, at the trench end, when compared to the fine surface at the sides. Also the rear of the lid appeared more damaged than the front. These may be indications that stone robbers had loosened the lid, especially if it was lowered onto mortar at time of sealing. The quarrymen could have devised a method of raising the lid a short distance, fitted a timber baulk to hold it in position while a slim lad was introduced to rob the contents of the sarcophagus; afterwards, as timber was valuable, the baulk was removed and the lid lowered to its closed position, only to be lifted again in 2017. Concluding Remarks These small Middle Kingdom pyramids are generally poorly explored and documented, and ideally should be re-examined under more modern scrutiny. In this guide we have the tale of two pyramids, both of which we know little about. Ameny’s pyramid may have been lost to us but for the work of M&R, who did a good job despite the restrictions imposed on them; as for the new pyramid we have 50 to await the archaeological report, always assuming that one will be published. Modern scrutiny of the new pyramid can help answer some questions, unanswered by the early expeditions, which were carried out on similar structures over a century ago: maybe the findings of this new pyramid will lead to the reexamination of the other sites, which would be very welcomed. 51