The Bent Pyramids Temples A Layman‟s guide 24th February 2024 Keith Hamilton Image courtesy of the Isida Project In the above image (I am again most grateful to the Isida project for the use of their images) we are looking towards the northeast corner of the Bent pyramid, whilst in the foreground we can see the remains of what is often referred to as the valley temple; the title is a bit of a misnomer as it is not located down in the valley as such, there being a continuation of the causeway from the temple towards the valley, where it is thought it connected to a harbour basin. The above ruins are Sneferu’s main temple, which for simplicity, I will refer to as the valley temple; another much smaller offering temple is to be found against the pyramids east face. This guide will focus on these two elements. 1 The above early map of the Dahshur necropolis by Carl Lepsius1 shows the route of the causeway along with the location of the valley temple, which is located at the edge of a wadi. Clearly clues remained on the desert surface sufficient for Lepsius to draw these features on his map. Modern exploration of the Bent pyramid did not begin until after the end of the Second World War, when Abdulsalam M. Hussein excavated the pyramid from 1946 to 1949; his untimely death in the summer of 1949 meant that the work on the pyramid complex was undertaken by Ahmed Fakhry, who commenced excavations in March 1951. Fakhry’s first main discovery was the small offering temple on the pyramids east side; also in this first season he had managed to clear some 70m of the causeway. In the second season, begun in October 1951, he continued clearance of the causeway and finally discovered the valley temple entrance on the 28 th of that month. 1 Aegypten Und Aethiopien, Band I, (1842-1845 expedition) Blatt 35 2 Initially Fakhry was sceptical of finding much of the valley temple as stone robbers had done such a fine job in removing stone from the causeway and the pyramid enclosure walls, even attacking the pyramid casing as well; but he was to be pleasantly surprised. Excavations would continue for another two seasons and end in April 1955 (no work was done in 1953-1954 as Fakhry was not in the country), in total some eight months was devoted to the excavations. Fakhry’s findings on the Bent pyramid complex would be published in two volumes, entitled „The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur‟: volume I was published in 1959, with volume II in two parts being published in 1961. These last two parts did not come without difficulty, Fakhry states; “It was mentioned in Volume I that it was the first one of three volumes on the excavations of Sneferu‟s monuments at Dahshur; the second one would be on the temple reliefs and the third on the finds. When I finished the preparation of the material of Vol. II and was ready to be handed to the press in May, 1960 an unexpected problem appeared. I was told that there is an available sum of money in the budget of the Antiquities Department for the publication of Dahshur for the present financial year only, and if the whole manuscript is not in the press before the end of June, there will be no hope to print it next year or in the near future. I had no choice; there is a budget only in the present year and the finds must be published with the reliefs in one volume in less than three weeks instead of one year as it was already planned. Consequently my more ambitious plan of publishing the finds accompanied by translations and some commentary had to be abandoned, and was replaced by giving only a catalogue of these monuments accompanied by the texts inscribed on them and good photographs. I have mentioned these facts for one purpose. There is no doubt that all the colleagues would expect a more detailed publication; none is more disappointed than myself; but there was no alternative.”2 Such bean counting tendencies continue to plague Egyptology; excavation continues to outstrip publication; far too many sites sit for many years without any meaningful publication, and often sites fall of the radar and never get published. This is a major problem for Egyptology; as a layman I have to ask, what the function of Egyptology is if they excavate and fail to publish. They run the risk of important information being lost forever; their actions being not that far removed from that of grave robbers. 2 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part II, The Finds, Preface 3 Fakhry’s excavations would allow him to fairly recreate the plan of the valley temple, shown above in his fig 1.3 The temple does not follow the normal east – west axis seen in the later 4th dynasty temples, but is aligned north-south. The causeway was unroofed and had fine Tura limestone walls, and in the plan above we can see it enter the temple from the bottom left corner; another causeway can be seen heading east on 3 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part I, The Temple Reliefs, page 2 4 the right of the plan; this causeway was of a mud-brick construction and it connected to a mud-brick enclosure wall which surrounded the temple, the temple being constructed of fine limestone. This mud-brick causeway is thought to connect to a harbour basin further to the east. The above reconstruction from Fakhry’s publication,4 gives an idea on how the temple may have looked; but before we look at this in more detail, we need to look at a mudbrick structure, which Fakhry unearthed just to the north of the temple; I have highlighted this structure in his fig 1. On this mud-brick structure Fakhry would state; “The purpose of the brick structure thus also remains unknown. A dwelling house it can scarcely have been, if the four cavities in the floor of the room are to be derived from a secondary habitation. Rather would one like to conjecture a meeting place for priests that was erected when the Sneferu cult was revised in the Middle Kingdom.”5 4 5 Ibid, fig 3, on page 7 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 114 5 The above image PI. LIA from Fakhry’s Volume I show the remains of the mud-brick structure, located on the northern end of the valley temple. In the middle of the image we can make out two circular limestone bases, which at one time would have supported wooden columns. The image left is a part of Fakhry’s large fold out plan of the temple (fig 62 from his volume I). I have highlighted the column bases visible on the image above; the shaded area to the south is part of the limestone valley temple. As can be seen, the mud-brick structure is built at an oblique angle to the north end of the valley temple. Fakhry did not excavate any further north; possibly time ran out to investigate further, and as he thought this mud-brick structure was connected to the Middle Kingdom, he probably thought it best to concentrate on the structures he assigned to Sneferu. 6 In Fakhry’s foldout plan (fig 62) I have shaded the limesone valley temple and causeway which leads up to the Bent pyramid. As we can see, numerous mud-brick buildings and storage facilities can be seen surrounding the temple, though predominantly to the south of the temple. Fakhry would state; “The south side of the valley temple area was completely filled up with the remains of small and unimportant dwelling houses. It is scarcely to be assumed that these houses were used as dwellings of the Middle Kingdom priests with the exception perhaps of the houses whose rear sides border upon the east enclosure wall.”6 Unfortunately there is not much data given in Fakhry’s publication on these mud-brick structures; in his Volume II he would further add: “The stone building (Valley Temple) is inside another enclosure wall built of mud-brick, inside which there were found the remains of mud buildings and specially at the southern side where the store-rooms of the temple and some houses were built; and at the northern side, there was found a building which was, in all probability, for the administration 6 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 114 7 of the temples and a meeting hall for their priests. It dates, as well as many of the store-rooms, from the XIIth Dynasty. The brick temenos wall dates originally from the IVth Dynasty but it was restored more than once and heightened in the M.K.”7 Rainer Stadelmann, who undertook later work at the valley temple would comment; “A strong brick wall ran around the temple, which also included brick buildings, residences of the priests and temple staff from predominantly later times. Numerous finds attest to the cult of Sneferu here from the Old Kingdom up to the 12 th Dynasty.”8 The above PI. VIB (Volume II, part 1) shows some of the mud-brick structures south of the valley temple. I could not find any detailed data on these structures to help in determining when they were constructed; one might for example, expect brick sizes to differ in size from the 4th dynasty to the M.K.; along with differences in manufacture etc. 7 8 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part I, page 1 Die agyptischen Pyramiden, 1985, page 100 8 The valley temple was largely left after Fakhry’s excavations; it was not until 2004 to 2006 that Rainer Stadelmann undertook restoration measures on the temple. In more modern times, thanks to the work of the German Archaeological Institute Cairo, who undertook more modern excavations of the valley temple from 2012 to 2016, we have a somewhat more complicated picture of the valley temple. These more modern findings on the temple can be found in „Dahschur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der knickpyramide‟ by Felix Arnold, and published in 2021. One of the more important findings from this work was that the brick building north of the limestone valley temple would turn out to be an earlier construction, and was part of a sizeable garden complex. Further excavation would reveal a rather elaborate garden complex, and in the image above I have overlaid this earlier complex on top of Fakhry’s plan. The southern end of the complex was built upon by the later valley temple, which meant that the southern brick wall of the earlier garden complex had to be removed; though care seems to have been taken to not damage the earlier mud-brick buildings, with the north wall of the later valley temple being built fairly close to the earlier structure. The earlier complex was also aligned on a north south axis, though is offset slightly to the east by 6.3 degrees; the later valley temple, was more accurate at 3.1 degrees; neither display the accuracy of orientation shown by the Bent Pyramid, which is just 0.2 degrees.9 9 Dahshur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der Knickpyramide, Felix Arnold, 2021, page 26 9 The above schematic gives a rough view of how the garden complex may have looked; the entire site has not been totally excavated in order to better preserve remains to allow future technology to better identify the plant remains. 10 In some areas remains are uncertain, but it is thought that the internal space enclosed by the enclosure wall is around 52.7m by 76.2m; the enclosure wall is around 1.65m wide and may have had two entrances, one in the east wall and one in the south wall (the south entrance is uncertain as this wall was removed to make way for the later valley temple). These faced entrances into the mud-brick buildings that Fakhry unearthed; the main entrance appears to be the eastern one as it had a sizeable niche to frame its doorway. This eastern doorway was 1.27m wide and leads into a narrow room measuring 8.50m long by 3.03m wide; the floor consisted of a 5cm layer of Nile mud, which then had a screed of white clay placed on top: this floor was around 40cm higher than the exterior.11 In the southwest corner of this room another doorway 1.09m wide, gives access to another room, which had two limestone column bases, which are thought to have held wooden columns to support a roof. This central room is a main junction which gives access to the south entrance, the open court, and a further room to the west; it measures 7.82m long by 5.65-5.71m wide. Floor construction in the central room was the same as the previous, though slightly elevated, being around 10cm higher. The western room is more square being 7.81m by 7.68m; here the floor has the same construction as the previous rooms, but again the floor is higher, being around 10 11 Ibid, page 19 Ibid, page 30 10 30cm higher than the central room. In the western room a pool/basin was found measuring around 4.5 by 5.0m and about 30cm deep; at some stage this was partly filled in and a smaller pool/basin 3.5 by 3.5m was made: this room would be uncovered. A 1.52m wide doorway from the central room gives access to the open court, which is some 20.75m wide (the southern doorway from the central room is 1.45m wide); the northern wall of the court was destroyed, but traces of the court floor might suggest that the court was square. At the northern end of the court, further limestone column bases were found, though not in their original position; it is thought that wooden columns supported a portico at the north end. The court floor had the same treatment as the previous rooms, and in the eastern half of the court another basin 10.5x3.5m was found cut into the floor to a depth of 3540cm. This basin had been lined with papyrus mats when the plaster was still wet; it is not thought that the basin was a water pool but more a plant basin for plants which required quite a lot of water.12 At some stage this basin was filled in and a newer one constructed on the western side of the court; this basin suffered a similar fate and a further basin was constructed; renewal of the court floor appears to also have been carried out on each occasion. In a possible connection with these pools are three circular pits found in the eastern side of the court, which contained broken ceramics.13 The expanse between the mud-brick buildings and the enclosure wall was largely taken up with rows of planting; on the west side we have evidence of four rows of planting, whilst on the north and east sides we have three rows of planting: it is not known if planting framed the south part, as the valley temple was built over this area. So far plant remains suggest a mixture of sycamore, cypress and palm trees, with channels created around the base of the trees to help with irrigation. The enclosure wall is built on a very wide foundation of Nile mud, which greatly exceeds the width of the wall; the wall is built on the exterior edge of this foundation, with the remainder of the foundation creating a pathway which surrounds the garden. The previous schematic image is thought to be the initial phase of the garden complex; Arnold would suggest three building phases to the garden complex,14 and it seems that in each phase the large basin inside the open court was moved to a new location. 12 Ibid, page 32. The pool in the western room may have served a similar function Ibid, page 33 14 Ibid, page 30, Abb.11 13 11 The above schematics highlight the 2nd and 3rd phases, though it’s uncertain as to which elements pertain to any particular phase. Initially the first phase was 25.20m wide (24 cubits), but it was decided to create an extension on the west side, of which only the southern end remains, but it is thought that it may have stretched the full length of the building; this extension increased the width of the building to 33.09m. The internal width of the new extension was 5.75m (11 cubits) and access to the extension was through a new western doorway; also at this time it is thought that the pool/basin in the western room was reduced in size and the basin in the court was relocated to the western side of the court. In the 3rd phase the basin in the court was relocated slightly east of its previous position, whilst the small pool/basin in the western room was filled in and replaced with limestone column bases and wooden columns in order that this previously open 12 space could be roofed over: also a doorway was made in its west wall to allow access to the new extension, which had a cross-wall built with a doorway in order to divide the extension into two distinct parts. The extension encroached into the area which once contained rows of planting; at least three of these rows would be built upon, and it’s uncertain if the westernmost row of trees was left intact during the extension build. Possibly all the planting was removed on the western side of the extension, for on the eastern side we appear to have an attempt at some symmetry by removing planting on this side and replacing it with two areas either side of the eastern enclosure wall entrance, surrounded by a thin mud-brick wall. At some time another thin mud-brick wall was built north of the original garden complex, and here we have further planting; moreover, we appear to have another large area of planting further to the east.15 The new western extension as previously stated had an internal width of 5.75m; this closely matches the width of the central room which is 5.65-5.71m wide, which required two columns in order to support a roof over this distance.16 Arnold would mention remains of organic wickerwork found on the floor of the new extension, which he thought may have belonged to a collapsed roof structure; however, no column bases were found in the extension area, which we might expect in order to span a width of 5.75m. So it’s possible that the extension was an open space. 15 Ibid, see Abb.5 on page 23 Suggestions have been made that the central room was only half covered, though Arnold would state that there is no solid evidence for this. Ibid, see page 31 16 13 In the previous image I have pointed out the limestone column bases found in the central room and in the western room. In the foreground we can see a series of holes in the eastern room; these holes are also to be found in the central room and inside the open court, and they tend to congregate along the side of the walls, though in the eastern doorway we find such holes, which would appear to be an obstruction. According to Arnold, the holes originally had a diameter around 15-25cm and a depth of 20-25cm, and do not date from the time when the building was constructed, as they had been cut through the finished floor.17 Similar holes were found along the south wall of the open court; the smaller holes had the profile to contain beer jars and one such jar was found stuck in the ground, whilst the larger holes may have been for bread moulds. Interestingly, Arnold found that the holes in the court did not all come from the same phase; here we had three rows of holes for vessels along the south wall, with the oldest row, being from the first phase, with the other rows coming from later phases of work done to the court floor.18 So the practice of burying vessels in the floors appears to have started early after construction of the first phase and had some important religious function. Whatever their function, the vessels were removed and the holes filled with Nile mud. The three circular pits found in the eastern half of the court, range in diameter from 2.6 to 3.1m and each is thought to be connected to the three basin phases of the court. These pits contained large quantities of pottery shards, the vast majority was of beer jars, of which in one pit, some 94% was beer jars, with the remainder being bread moulds. The form of the pottery is typical for the 3rd and early 4th dynasty.19 One might assume that the earlier garden complex was a construction wholly undertaken by Sneferu, though it cannot be totally ruled out that a predecessor may have paid a part in its construction. Its design roughly follows that of earlier cult complexes in being aligned north-south with an entrance in its southeast corner. Its role is uncertain, though Arnold was of the impression that whatever festival was celebrated, it was not regular and may have been years apart.20 The planting was certainly impressive, though not unique to this site; planting to a lesser degree was found by Sneferu’s Red pyramid temple and at other sites under different rulers.21 17 Ibid, page 30 Ibid, page 33 19 Ibid, pages 37-39 20 Ibid, page 51 21 Ibid, page 54 18 14 In the above Middle Kingdom pyramid complex of Senwosret II at Lahun, we can see extensive planting surrounding the pyramid complex. The eastern entrance into the main building inside the garden complex appears to be the main entrance; this entrance being highlighted by a recessed niche in the east facade of the building: here the visitor travels through a narrow room, which acts as a chicane, and prevents prying eyes from observing what goes on in the central chamber, with the two columns. This design providing privacy is not isolated and examples are to be found elsewhere. 15 We see something similar at the pyramid temple built by Sneferu against the east face of the Meidum pyramid; with the roof removed, we can see that privacy is guaranteed from outside prying eyes. That said, the southern entrance in the Bent garden complex building rather defeats the notion of privacy, with its wide doorway given unfettered access inside the central room, and even beyond into the open court itself. This southern door is on the central axis of the court and along with the northern doorway into the court, these are the widest doors in the building. It’s possible that the southern door was mostly closed, and that there was no corresponding door in the southern enclosure wall; these wide doors may have had a more practical function, such as ease of access for maintenance of the court. The narrow doorway in the southwest corner of the long eastern room at just 1.09m wide, along with the narrow width of this room, would cause an obstacle to any sizeable item which needed to be brought into the court. For example, we do not know the function of the portico at the north end of the court, it may have held statues. A wide central access route would easily allow for statues/barques or other essential maintenance tasks. The central access route could also play a part in any festival precession, which may have paraded around the garden before finally ending inside the court. 16 The Valley Temple In Fakhry’s plan above, I have highlighted the earlier brick building of the garden complex. In the above image we can see part of the western mud-brick enclosure wall which surrounds the valley temple, whilst in the bottom right hand corner we can just 17 make out the angled masonry causeway cutting through the brick enclosure wall, as per plan. According to Fakhry the causeway was not roofed and quickly became sanded up; its length from the pyramid enclosure wall was some 704m, and it was not entirely straight along its length; there being a slight deviation to the south, some 75m from its upper end, as it approaches the pyramid enclosure wall. The difference in height from either end is 27.47m, with an average gradient of 4 degrees. The limestone causeway walls were 2m thick at the base and 1.90m high, with sloping sides; the top of the wall was protected by bevelled stones. The open space between the walls is over 3m wide and the floor of the causeway is Nile mud plaster, which appears to have been laid after the dressing of the causeway walls, as the plaster sits on top of limestone debris.22 In the above image, taken in a similar direction to the last image, we can better see the best preserved part of the causeway as it enters the valley temple: the mud-brick enclosure wall can be seen either side of the causeway, as can part of the east enclosure wall in the background. The north wall of the causeway abuts directly against the southwest corner of the temple (see plan, though a doorway is thought to exist at its eastern end to allow access to the west side of the temple), whilst the south wall connects to a wall which runs parallel to the south wall of the temple. This creates 22 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 105 18 a forecourt in front of the temple entrance, and at the west and east ends of this forecourt, we have doors. At both corners of this parallel wall, large stelae were erected, and the remains of these can be seen in the above image; their location is also noted on the plan. 19 The above images show the remains of the southwest corner stele (inset images show direction of camera). As can be seen in the lower image the masonry can be quite irregular in size with numerous small patch stones. The walls appear to sit on a limestone foundation which can be seen projecting beyond the wall. At the base of the wall the dressing of the wall appears to have stopped a short distance above the foundation. Fakhry would give the dimensions of the stele as 106cm wide, 80cm thick and about 5m high, and inscribed in a similar manner to those found by the offering temple by the pyramid and satellite pyramid. Faint traces of the decoration are still visible on the southeast corner stele; this view is looking north, Sneferu’s Red pyramid can be seen in the background. 20 The best preserved stele from the Bent pyramid complex is the one found by the satellite pyramid, shown above. Fakhry would state that all the stelae in the complex were decorated in the same way:23 in the previous colour image we can only make out the palace facade on which the king would be enthroned, likely wearing the double crown and the robe of the Heb-sed, as shown in the better preserved stele above. In all, we would have six stelae; two by the satellite pyramid, two by the offering temple of the Bent pyramid and two at the south end of the valley temple. Interestingly, the limestone causeway along with the southern forecourt wall and stelae were not built at the same time as the valley temple, as originally the limestone valley temple was surrounded by the mud-brick enclosure wall, which had entrances on its west, south and east sides. At a later date, part of the west mud-brick enclosure wall was taken down in order to allow the stone causeway to connect to the temple; with the bricks of the repaired enclosure wall against the causeway, being of a different size to the original enclosure wall.24 Whether by design or accident, the axis of the causeway when viewed from the southwest corner of the valley temple aligns with the setting sun on the winter solstice, with the sun setting at the Bent pyramids northwest corner.25 23 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 89. Dahshur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der Knickpyramide, Felix Arnold, 2021, pages 89-90 25 Ibid, page 87 24 21 In the above schematic we have a rough idea how the phase II may have looked.26 In Arnold’s publication he would show six development phases for the temple. In phase II above, the fine limestone temple is constructed along with a mud-brick enclosure wall, which had three entrances, with the southern entrance aligned with the temple axis. The extent of the east and west enclosure wall towards the north is uncertain; but if we made the north enclosure wall symmetrical with the south wall, it would cross the court of phase I (as shown in red above). No traces of the north enclosure wall were found, so they may have blended the new enclosure walls with the existing enclosure walls of phase I. A tapering gap between the north wall of the stone temple and the south wall of the earlier mud-brick building was left; this gap being 1.35m wide at east end, and widening to 2.15m at west end. This tapering effect is a result of the more accurate alignment to north of the stone temple; the gap would still allow access to phase I via its southern doorway, though lengthy items would be restricted somewhat. It’s not known if the earlier phase was abandoned in favour of phase II, but given that a gap was left between the two constructs, it suggests that maybe the earlier phase had still a role to play; at least until the new phase II came online. Whilst there are similarities in design of both phases, we can never be sure that they both performed the same role. 26 Phases based on Arnolds fig 55, fig 112 & 113 22 The laying out of the temple is not the most accurate, especially when compared to the accuracy on display at the pyramid. The plan layout more resembles a parallelogram as the image left shows. The deviation of the northeast corner from the northwest corner is 66cm to the south; whilst the southwest corner deviates from the southeast corner by 38.5cm to the north.27 This misalignment means that the eastern rooms at the south end of the temple are longer than the western rooms; though they seem to have corrected themselves when it comes to the court. Possibly the orientation of the earlier phase I threw them off in their calculations; for example, they may have elected that the gap between the phases was 4 cubits (2.1m), assuming that the earlier phase was aligned correctly: however, with the earlier phase misaligned they had to adjust the angle of the north wall to allow a sufficient gap at the east end, resulting in the somewhat skewed layout. Arnold would develop a cubit plan for the temple28 suggesting that its external dimensions were 50 by 90 cubits, and the central court being 40 cubits E-W by 35 cubits N-S. The areas north and south of the court he gives as equal spacing being 27.5 cubits each N-S.29 27 Ibid, page 58 Ibid, page 58, fig 31 29 M&R would see spacing different, they give 28-34-28 see L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte III, 1964, TAV 17, fig 2 28 23 In the above schematic we can see phase III of the temple complex; here the stone causeway from the pyramid makes its way through the mud-brick enclosure wall towards the temples southwest corner. The southern wall of the causeway is joined to a wall which runs parallel to the temples south wall, and at its corner we have our two stelae. This new wall creates a forecourt in front of the temples main entrance and screens off prying eyes from the enclosure walls southern entrance. There were three doorways off the forecourt; anyone coming through the southern enclosure wall entrance had to walk towards the northeast and gain access through a doorway at the east end of the forecourt. At the west end of the forecourt another doorway closed off the end of the causeway; whilst a further doorway bridged the gap between the causeways north wall and the temples southwest corner: this last doorway would allow people access from the doorway in the eastern enclosure wall and also access down the west side of the temple. A further mud-brick causeway was built from the east enclosure wall entrance and this is believed to connect to a harbour basin, some 140 metres further to the east. An underpass was constructed to allow people to pass this new barrier. 24 The above schematic highlights phase IV of the temple complex; here we see significant buildings to the south of the temple. The underpass opens into a broad L shaped space left between the temples enclosure wall and the dwellings. The western enclosure wall entrance was bricked up, as was the southern entrance; in the case of the latter, a new entrance was created a short distance east from the original entrance. The mud-brick causeway had a doorway inserted some 11m from its upper end, and a new doorway created where the northern causeway wall abuts against the enclosure wall. This mud-brick causeway was subject to some 12 construction phases from the 4th dynasty to the Middle Kingdom, including the addition of a barrel vault roof in the 6th dynasty.30 This settlement south of the temple may have had connections to the priests who performed duties inside the temple and is thought to have been in use during the 4th and 5th dynasties. In connection with this settlement is the presence of a much larger settlement north of the temple complex which geophysical surveys suggest covers 2 hectares, and may be Sneferu’s pyramid town. 31 At this stage dwellings are confined to the outside of the temple’s enclosure wall, though it’s possible that a rectangular structure existed inside the enclosure wall at its southwest corner. 30 31 Ibid, page 93, 104 Ibid, page 131 25 The above schematic highlights phase V of the temple complex; in this phase the earlier settlement is abandoned and we have much building inside the temples enclosure wall: most of this activity is believed to be connected to the 6 th dynasty. The doorway in the south enclosure wall has been bricked up, as has the doorway where the north wall of the mud-brick causeway abuts against the enclosure wall. The open stone causeway has largely filled up with windblown sand, which is held back by a brick retaining wall, which has steps laid against it to allow access (I have left the earlier phase I in the schematic’s as its difficult to determine when this phase was abandoned). The earlier abandoned settlement outside the enclosure wall (phase IV) seems to have succumbed to a sudden event, such as an earthquake, as many of the brick walls with their wooden door lintels were found lying on the ground.32 Whatever the event, we don’t seem to have a smooth transition from the 5 th to the 6th dynasty, with the temple supposedly out of action for a time. Whoever brought the temple back online in the 6th dynasty seems content to build extensively within the temples enclosure wall, in a similar manner to the extensive building also to be seen in Menkaure’s valley temple at Giza. 32 Ibid, page 173. Egypt is prone to earthquakes, the most recent serious earthquake which caused much damage to Cairo was in 1992, whose epicentre was at Dahshur. 26 At the collapse of the Old Kingdom the temple appears to have been vacated, but it seems to be revived in the Middle Kingdom when the kings Amenemhet II & III, along with Senwosret III returned to Dahshur to build their pyramid complexes. Most of the changes at this time appear to be in connection with the route of the mud-brick causeway as shown left. First a path was created to lead directly to the forecourts eastern doorway; this was later replaced by a more direct route which branched off the original causeway, and then finally, a new causeway parallel to the old was created. A small amount of building was also built upon the court itself, along with a new southern entrance in brick. Fakhry thought this settlement was from the New Kingdom for quarry workers who dismantled the temple, though Arnold thought this to be unlikely.33 The Middle Kingdom revival of the temple was probably short lived, with its final demise probably coming from that great kleptomaniac of all things stone, Ramesses II. Today little of the temple remains thanks to the quarrying of stone from the temple; not a single roofing slab or architrave has survived, so some artistic licence is involved in the reconstructions of the temple. 33 Ibid, page 174 27 Fakhry reports that in the Middle Kingdom the brick enclosure wall was raised, he states; “When the mud-brick enclosure wall of the valley temple was raised during the middle kingdom, this was also led across the walls of the causeway. On its pathway, a covered through-room was inserted, a kind of lock that could be closed at both ends by doors. The floor of this room lay as high as the upper surface of the drifted-up sand outside, and a ramp in the causeway led up to it. “34 The through-room location is shown above; also shown is the brick bastion built against the original 11 cubit wide niche entrance of the temple. In this location Fakhry found a recycled stele belonging to a prince Neter’aperef being used as a lintel for this door.35 Fakhry would find that the vast majority of the temple floor was of Nile-mud plaster; though in the M.K. he states that the entrance hall was paved in limestone, and here he reports drag marks on this pavement and entrance sill, probably caused by sledges. Off the entrance hall we have two rooms to the west and two to the east; the doorways to the east rooms are at the south end of the entrance hall, whilst the doorways to the west rooms are at the north end of the entrance hall. For some reason the easternmost room was paved in limestone; Fakhry would state: “The finely divided pavement that has survived in the most easterly room of the front section lies above rubbish from the Middle Kingdom, and it thus appears to be later. Holes have been 34 35 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 106 Ibid, page 114 28 systematically hollowed out in this pavement, but they are distributed with little care, for what purpose is unknown. Under the paving lay a small cellar that could have been roofed with limestone slabs.”36 The only other area of the temple which was paved in limestone was the six chapels and is likely an original feature of the temple. In Fakhry’s plate XLVI above we can see the brick bastions built against the original niched entrance. The upper image is looking west across the forecourt; whilst lower is looking towards the northeast. 36 Ibid, page 114 29 Today the brick bastions no longer survive as the image above shows; this view is looking west through the east doorway of the forecourt, see inset image. This view also gives us a good impression of the sloping batter given to the temple walls. Also now lost to time is the brick wall, steps and through-room. Overleaf we have Fakhry’s plate III37 showing the remains of these features. The modern lower image from a similar viewpoint, shows the remains of the brick retaining wall in bottom right corner, 37 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part I, plate III 30 31 In the above view we are looking north through the temple entrance and along the entrance hall; the middle of the image is the end of the hall, with opening visible to the court, which has a large masonry block resting on the ground. In bottom right corner we can see the doorway leading to the first eastern room. When Fakhry excavated the entrance hall he found its western wall preserved to a height of around 1.85m, whilst the east wall was only preserved to a height of 50cm. It was on this western wall that he would find reliefs showing a precession of women representing the southern nomes of Egypt (i.e. Upper Egypt). In order to preserve these reliefs, Fakhry had them removed; fragments from the east wall of the entrance hall displayed similar reliefs, but representing the nomes of northern Egypt (i.e. Lower Egypt). Overleaf we have Fakhry’s plate XII38 showing the reliefs present on the west wall of the entrance hall. The lower image shows that the reliefs, whilst taking up the long walls of the hall, they are also to be found on the entrance jambs on either end of the hall. 38 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part I, plate XII 32 33 During excavations Fakhry found two tapered pedestals, each with a hole on top, which he thought may have been forerunners of the flag-staves found in the New Kingdom. He thought these pedestals may have been placed in front of the temple containing emblems, though he was unsure as to what time period they came from. 39 As previously mentioned, the hall is believed to have been paved with limestone in the M.K. and Fakhry would also state that a small conical stone basin had been inserted in the floor near the west wall.40 The rooms either side of the entrance hall contained various fragments of stele, statues and pottery, some of which dated to the O.K. but the greater number was from the M.K. Fakhry would further state; “In the two western chambers there were found some remains of offerings of an ox, its legs and head, and vases of pottery of different sizes; all of them are of a M.K. date. In the first eastern chamber there was found under the floor a small crypt built of mud brick walls. This crypt must have been built for the preservation of the treasures of the temple during the M.K. and was in all probability covered by a slab of stone.”41 Only a few items were recovered from this crypt, such as a gold bead, and a M.K. faience sealing, bearing Sneferu’s name. The original function of these four rooms during Sneferu’s times is unknown, though Fakhry thought that in the M.K. statues were kept in the western rooms and that offerings were presented to them there.42 On leaving the entrance hall through its north end we enter into the temple court; here it was noticed that some paving appears to extend from the hall into the court for a short distance; one wonders if a stone path existed across the court in a manner which we see at Menkaure’s valley temple. The court would contain hundreds of inscribed fragments, as well as fragments of stelae and statues. 39 Ibid, page 3 Ibid, page 3 41 Ibid, pages 3-4 42 Ibid, page 4 40 34 In the above view we are looking south from the badly destroyed chapels; I have highlighted the area of the open court. In front of the chapel remains, we can see the masonry supports which once held the now missing pillars; many of which have been subject to modern restoration. The south, west and east walls of the court all exhibited a similar batter to that on display on the temples exterior walls, with all other walls in the temple, including the entrance hall being vertical: the east and west walls of the court would maintain this inclined batter all the way up to the chapels, with the facade of the chapels also displaying this batter. These four walls enclose an area of 40 by 49 cubits, which incorporates the open court and the roofed pillared hall; the pillared hall appears to account for 14 cubits N-S with the open court accounting for the remaining 35 cubits.43 The continuation of the reliefs found in the entrance wall, restarts on the battered walls which is covered by the pillared hall (i.e. the 14 cubit section), no reliefs are to be found on the exposed walls of the court It would seem important to the design that this area be outlined in this way, as one could easily leave the chapel facade as vertical, as this area is largely obscured by 43 Dahshur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der Knickpyramide, Felix Arnold, 2021, page 60 35 the pillars; moreover, the 14 cubit long walls which held the reliefs could have been left vertical and help create a wainscot for the architraves. The above fig 8 from Fakhry’s publication shows the location points for the nome reliefs. Below we see part of the west wall of the pillared hall. 36 The pillared hall may have looked a bit like the above image; however, no roofing elements have survived to help us in the reconstruction of the temple, but it is possible that the temple reached a height of 6.4m. The reconstruction shown in Fakhry’s publication (see page 5) shows a protective overhang over the first row of pillars; this drawing was created by H. Ricke and he would use a similar feature in many of his temple reconstructions, though Arnold would point out that such a feature was first noted in the much later complex of Sahure (5th dynasty).44 The above reconstruction is based more on Arnolds reconstruction, showing the same bevelled coping stones which were found on site, some of which can be seen below; similar stones are thought to have been used on the causeway. 4444 Ibid, page 64 37 We don’t know if the roofs were at one level or had multiple levels, but it seems that roof drainage may have been provided for the odd rain event. Three basins were found on the exterior of the temple, the one above is to be found against the temples east wall, (this basin along with one against the west wall are drawn in Fakhry’s plan, see page 4: the one above is opposite the mud-brick causeway). A further basin was found behind the temples north wall, and it is thought that they collected rainwater via drains from the roof; there appears to be no provision for drainage from the temple court. Ten pillars would support the roof for the pillared hall, thought to be single monolithic blocks, none survived the blows from the stone robbers: Fakhry would state, “When the workmen were cutting the pillars to small pieces, for some reason or other they stopped their work and left the site. All the ten pillars were knocked down and broken to fragments, the larger blocks were taken away, but the site was abandoned before transporting the smaller blocks. The great majority of these inscribed fragments were found thrown all over the place in the large temple court 38 which was used by the workman as a workshop, and were mixed up with sand, debris and other uninscribed fragments from the same monument.”45 As one can imagine, there is much confusion on these pillars, not only on their size, but also their decorative program and which sides of the pillars were decorated. The fragments of pillar reliefs don’t tell us which fragment came from any particular pillar; all we can say is that the pillars were decorated. Fakhry was of the opinion that only three sides of the pillars were decorated, that being the east, west, and south sides, with the north sides facing the chapels being undecorated.46 Fakhry’s fig 48 shows a reconstruction of a side of an unknown pillar. The fragments show a great variety of scenes, such as a running Sneferu taking part in the Hebesb festival. Fakhry would give the height of the pillars as approximately 5m (which may include foundation depth), with their width varying between 1.85m to 2.10m; the front row was thinner than the back row, 1.20m versus 1.40m. The pillars were placed on a foundation stone, some 50cm thick and about 80cm below the court; the pillar was further secured by large stone blocks on all sides, whose upper edges were slightly bevelled. Arnold would report that some of these support stones had processing marks which suggested that the blocks had previously been installed in another monument.47 45 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part I, page 59 Ibid, page 59 47 Dahshur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der Knickpyramide, Felix Arnold, 2021, page 60-61 46 39 In this view we are looking towards the southeast, the ruins of the Black pyramid can be seen in the background. In the foreground we can see the remains of the chapels along with their limestone paving, and in front of these the location of the pillars, with two empty sockets clearly visible. The remains suggest that the easternmost and westernmost pillars of each row were wider than the other pillars; this is likely to help bridge the larger gap created by the batter of the courts east and west walls. The remaining pillars appear to match the width of the chapels partition walls, so as the chapel doorways are not obstructed; however, the wider end pillars slightly block the line of sight from the end chapels. 40 Arnold would calculate the cubit spacing for the chapels and their partition walls and wondered why the architect did not create pilasters on both east and west walls of the pillared hall.48 I have modelled the effect above; the left side is what was constructed and the right side shows the effect of a pilaster. One would think the pilaster is the aesthetically more pleasing solution; it would keep all pillars of the same dimensions as well as the openings. The pilaster supporting the architraves could be extended to the north wall providing a vertical plane for the reliefs and an area clearly demarcated from the court wall. We have a total of six chapels, which appear to conform to the same dimensions; however, due to the misalignment of the temples north wall, we have a situation where the westernmost chapel has a depth of 1.93m, with the depth of succeeding chapels reducing as we go east, such that the easternmost chapel has a depth of only 1.61m. Arnold would suggest that the depth of the chapels was intended to match their width, i.e. 4 cubits.49 The rear walls of the chapels were constructed of large monolithic blocks, of which a niche was made containing a statue of the king carved from the same block, and larger than life size. None of these walls survive today, and much like the pillars we have only fragments on which to reconstruct them. 48 49 Ibid, page 65 Ibid, page 65 and fig 31 on page 58 41 In Fakhry’s fig 119 shown left, we have his reconstruction of how one of the rear chapel walls may have looked like. All six chapels appear decorated differently, but the recovered fragments are not sufficient to obtain a clear picture. Fakhry would state; “Two of the three statues from which some parts were found have the crown of Upper Egypt, but to say that the other statues had the crown of the north or that some of them had another crown, or to say in which chapel they were, is a pure speculation.”50 In Fakhry’s fig 127 shown left we can see the king flanking the niche wearing the double crown, though the nature of the statue inside this niche is unknown. This niche differed to others in that it was surrounded by a torus decoration. The reliefs still held some of their original colour. It is uncertain if the east and west walls of the chapels were decorated, though Fakhry reports on a fragment, which may have come from one of the chapel side walls.51 50 51 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol II, part I, page 111 Ibid, page 122 and fig 123 42 The six chapels are closed with double leaf doors which opened outwards into recesses some 2 cubits deep, though due to the batter of the chapel facade, the open doors towards the top will protrude beyond the facade. We appear to have levelling issues with the temple as well as alignment issues, as Arnold reports a noticeable slope to the east, such that the pavement of the westernmost chapel is some 40cm higher than the pavement of the easternmost temple, he also reports that some of the door thresholds are inclined, to the extent that a quarter circle region had to be made in the threshold in order for the doors to open.52 The temple in some ways is similar to later O.K. temples, though the later temples would be aligned east-west, as opposed to north-south. In the later temples the statue chambers would face towards the east, and the decorations of the court and pillars would show a clear division relating to the two lands, i.e. Upper and Lower Egypt. So the pillars and walls south of the temple axis would incorporate decorative motifs more relevant to Upper Egypt, whilst north of the temple axis, they would refer more to Lower Egypt. In the case of the Bent’s valley temple, we would have to rotate the temple 90 degrees anticlockwise to obtain the same effect; regardless of temple orientation, care seems to have been taken to divide the fairly symmetrical temple into areas dedicated to each land, so it might be possible that the chapels reflected this division, with the three chapels to the west being more connected to Upper Egypt, with the three chapels to the east connected to Lower Egypt. They could have easily orientated the temple to the east-west if they wanted, but there might be a religious motive for the N-S alignment at this time. One possibility is that the Bent pyramid complex was part of a dual pyramid complex always intended by Sneferu. The idea of a dual pyramid complex was suggested by Juan Antonio Belmonte and Giulio Magli, who state; 52 Dahshur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der Knickpyramide, Felix Arnold, 2021, page 67 and fig 37 43 “The two pyramids built during the Old Kingdom by the 4th Dynasty King Sneferu at Dahshur are usually considered as two consecutive projects, the second – that of the Red Pyramid – being generated by a presumably failure of the first, the Bent Pyramid. In the present paper we show that the archaeological proofs of such a scenario are far from obvious and that, on the contrary, a series of architectural, topographical, epigraphic and astronomical hints point to a unitary project probably conceived from the very beginning in terms of the two pyramids and their annexes. The two pyramids all-together are thus shown to form a conceptual, sacred landscape associated with the power of the Pharaoh and his afterlife.”53 My own study of the Bent pyramid has also cast doubt on the readily accepted theory that it was a failure which necessitated the construction of the Red pyramid. 54 I also suspect a preconceived plan to construct a dual pyramid complex; I suspect that pyramids have two distinct phases of construction, the first being the stepped inner core, which on completion is then subject to the casing phase. At Dahshur the Bent would have its core and inner chambers constructed first, and as they started its casing phase, the core of the Red would begin construction, with the goal being that when the Bent was finished being cased, the Red’s core should be complete and be ready for casing. At this time of casing the Red, Sneferu would also start converting the Meidum pyramid into a true pyramid, though neither the Red nor Meidum pyramid complexes would be completed, likely because of Sneferu’s death. At the Bent valley temple some year marks were found indicating year 15 of Sneferu’s rule; whilst a foundation corner stone at the Red pyramid also displays year 15 and Egyptology have used this to suggest that the Red was started also in year 15 as they tend to see the pyramid as a homogeneous construction: this despite the numerous examples of stepped inner cores to be found in many pyramids.55 So this year 15 at the Red pyramid could be a bit of a red herring and instead of suggesting the start of construction of the Red pyramid, it might only reflect the date of the casing phase, with the many years of the core construction being unaccounted for. As the Red pyramid complex was unfinished, we don’t know what was intended for its causeway and valley temple, unless one accepts that only one valley temple was to be shared between the two pyramids, that being the Bent, which seems unlikely. A similar valley temple may have been proposed for the Red, also in an N-S alignment, but here it may have been a mirror of the Bent’s temple, with the statues facing north. The Bent Pyramid would represent Upper Egypt with the statues facing south, whilst the Red Pyramid would represent Lower Egypt, with the statues facing north; this duality might explain the orientation of the Bent’s valley temple. 53 Astronomy, Architecture and symbolism: The Global Project of Sneferu at Dahshur. Journel for the History of Astronomy 2015, Vol 46(2) 54 See my recent Bent pyramid revisited guide, as well as previous guides. 55 Examples include Menkaure pyramid, and that of two of his queens, where we only have their stepped cores completed. It would also help explain the anomaly of Neferirkares pyramid, were despite years of successfully building true pyramids, Egyptology believe Neferirkare instead elected to build a step pyramid instead and then attempt to convert it to a true pyramid: see my Neferirkare guide. 44 The Offering Temple The above image which I took in September 2023 shows the remains of the offering temple which is to be found on the east face of the Bent pyramid. It has been subject to many building phases and Herbert Ricke would suggest six building phases for this small temple. The first three phases are believed to have been undertaken by Sneferu, with phases 4&5 being undertaken in the 12th dynasty, with the last phase being uncertain.56 In the view above we are looking south; the mud-brick walls in the foreground along with the external wall which encloses the temple are believed to be 12th dynasty constructions. Most of the temple is of mud-brick construction, with the fine limestone being limited to the two large stelae, the offering altar and its protective walls; which can be seen in the middle of the image above; these elements are aligned on the pyramids east-west axis. According to Ricke, the first phase of the temple was quite a sparse affair, consisting of the two stelae and the altar. 56 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, pages 98--104 45 Phase 1 of the offering temple according to Ricke would look like the image above, and dominated by huge stelae approaching some 9m high. Fragments of the stelae suggest that their east faces bore similar reliefs to those found on the other stelae found by the valley temple and the satellite pyramid. A limestone altar made of three pieces of limestone formed a hotep altar, whilst on top of this a smaller hotep altar made of alabaster, was inset into the larger, and protruded some 6cm above the larger altar. The stelae are given as 1.90m wide and 1.15m thick; today only the stumps of these stelae remain, approaching 3m in height. These huge monoliths would require substantial foundations to support them; however, I have been unable to find any detail as to how deep the monoliths extend below the pavement and how they were secured in place, though likely similar to what we see at the valley temple. This open space was paved with limestone blocks with open joints and coated with two layers of Nile mud plaster, of which the lower layer is thought to be contemporary with Sneferu.57 This pavement of limestone blocks extends to the base of the pyramid. The altar is unusual in its orientation as Ricke explains; “It is remarkable that the hieroglyph thus formed is to be read as from the offerer instead of from the graves occupant, as is later the rule and as is the case with the pyramid at Meidum that Sneferu erected.”58 57 58 Ibid, page 98 Ibid, page 98 46 In Petries pate IV shown left, we can see the different orientation of the altar inside the unfinished temple.59 The next phase was to cover the altar area in fine limestone masonry, though it is uncertain if this was done during phase 2 or sometime between phases 1 & 2. Ricke would report that the westernmost roofing block had been derived from another building and reused.60 Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R) would report similar in their work, they state, “Walls of limestone blocks were erected along its sides, and a flat roof of other limestone was built on the walls. Some of the blocks were reused and, in fact, one was certainly part of another building since it still bears traces of a basrelief decoration.”61 59 Medum, Petrie, 1892 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 101 61 L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte III, 1964, page 74 60 47 In the above images we can see the reused roof block, with neat bevel edges, along with a rounded corner. I could not observe any Bas-reliefs, though M&R’s report was published some 60 years ago. 48 In this view looking west we can see the cut-outs in the limestone altar, which would have received the now missing alabaster altar. In Fakhry’s plate XXXI-B below we can see the alabaster altar inserted. 49 The above more modern image also shows the cut-out for the missing alabaster altar. In phase 2, a mud-brick building was built in front of the altar, and may have been used to prepare offerings. Ricke was unsure of its construction, but thought it was 50 either covered with a brick barrel roof or a flat roof. Ricke reports that tiny offering bowls were found under the construction of these walls, showing that offerings were being made.62 The walls of this new addition were plastered and whitened, inside and out. Phase 3 incorporated enclosure walls about 1.5m high which offered protection from sand being blown in, and some privacy from prying eyes. It is not thought that these wing walls extended to the face of the pyramid, as later M.K. walls would appear to leave a gap, possibly to allow access for cleaning.63 The above construction is believed to have remained relatively unchanged till the end of the Old Kingdom. Overleaf we have the fine Frontispiece from Fakhry’s Volume I, by Herbert Ricke. 62 63 The monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Vol I, page 101 Ibid, pages 101-103 51 Frontispiece from Fakhry’s Volume 1 52 Phase 4 of the temple would receive major building works during the revival of the temple in the Middle Kingdom. The old wing enclosure walls were largely demolished, with only the short section marked ‘A’ above being retained; the new enclosure walls were constructed of very large bricks, with the walls being much larger than the old ones, being some 2.15m thick, with remains surviving up to a height of 2.85m. The building east of the altar was also lengthened to the east, by removing the old east wall and repositioning the original doorway further east, with the old doorway bricked up; though this doorway was bricked up with bricks which don’t agree with any brick form previously used in the temple, so its period of closing is uncertain. A new entrance to the temple was made in its northeast corner, and it would appear that in order to enter the extended building, one had to use the west entrance which faces the altar, with the original entrance leading to a small open space in the southeast corner. 53 Fakhry’s plate XXXI-A gives an indication of how thick and massive these walls once were; the walls have denuded somewhat since this picture was taken, compare to image on page 45. 54 In Phase 5 we can see that a small forecourt has been built in front of the northeast entrance. An area north of the building has been created by building a wall from the altar’s limestone cover to the north outer wall, with a space left as a through way; in this area a brick altar was placed. The gap between the outer walls and the pyramid casing was also closed, though it’s uncertain as to which phase this belongs to. 55 Phase 6 is a very uncertain time, but Ricke thought it happened at a very much later age, when the temple was very much decayed and the east wall of the building was so decayed only the lowest courses of bricks survived. This would be the new entrance into the temple, which used the old north and south walls of the building as a corridor, which led to a new construction (highlighted in yellow above). This new construction may have had a barrel vault and it was built directly against the limestone covering which protected the altar. On the west side of the limestone covering another vaulted chamber was built which extended to the pyramid face. Strangely there was no entrances into this narrow space, it being sealed at both ends; all that was found was a layer of pure sand. The east wall of this construction ran over the loaf part of the limestone altar, so it was no longer visible, and Ricke thought that at this time, a loaf shaped piece of alabaster was added to the alabaster slab which was inset into the limestone altar to create a new hotep altar. The function of the vault between the altar and the pyramid is uncertain, Ricke would state; “The vault behind the altar that resembles a tomb chamber in appearance was certainly never used as a burial place otherwise a few sherds of pottery vessels, beads or the like would have been left behind in the course of a thorough robbery, or some remains of a looted mummy in the immediate neighbourhood. The chamber probably contained, only fictively, one of the contents used for magic perhaps concerned with an Osiris cenotaph or the like.”64 64 Ibid, page 104. Rickes description of the six phases can be found on pages 98-104. Fakhry’s description pgs 75-87 56 In Fakhry’s plate XXVIII above, we can see the remains of the vault before its removal. According to Fakhry, though the cult of Sneferu was much neglected after 57 the Middle Kingdom it apparently continued till the 18 th dynasty.65 The vaulted construction may even have come from much later times, Fakhry would state; “We know that during the Late period, in the Saitic times and even in Ptolemaic times, there are monuments which mention names of priests related to the cult of Sneferu; there were the endowments of the temple which found always someone who was willing to get them; and at sometime, in all probability in Ptolemaic times, one of these priests tried to revive the cult of Sneferu at Dahshur. The Valley Temple was already in ruins and sanded up and so he cleaned the southern part of this temple from the accumulated sand, block the back side of the stone shelter with a few rough stones and built behind it a vaulted narrow construction without window or door which connected the stone shelter with the pyramid casing.”66 In Fakhry’s section (from his fig 44) above looking north, we can see the vault on the left; this end of the vault is closed by a rough masonry wall, whilst the vault is a mudbrick affair. One might wonder if the vault was left open at this end with the brick construction being built against the face of the limestone shelter, as was done on its east side; however, Fakhry’s fig 43 suggests that the rough masonry wall is built against the limestone shelter, and therefore one assumes that the brick was built against this masonry wall. 65 66 Ibid, page 82 Ibid, page 82 58 In Fakhry’s fig 43 above, the lower image is a plan of the shelter, at its east end we see brick built up against it, whilst at its west end we have masonry and not brick. If we assume that Fakhry’s drawing is correct, then the masonry blocking must have existed as the brick vault was built, which might seem strange, as one would have thought that access would be needed inside the vault during construction, and that this end be left open and blocked after construction of the vault. Unfortunately the images can’t clarify if Fakhry’s drawing above is correct. The upper image is looking west through the shelter, with the masonry blocking showing: on the floor of the altar stood two inscribed stone altars and in between them a pottery stand, all assigned to the Middle Kingdom. 59 The only image of the masonry blocking is from Fakhry’s plate XXIX-B; this blocking appears to be confined within the walls of the limestone shelter. Today this blocking and brick vault have been removed, so we will never know if Fakhry’s drawings are correct; but if they are incorrect, the possibility would exist that the vault was open from the altar, and that this blocking was done later. The blocking may have been done by priests to protect the vault, which in any event was breached by searchers who dug through the brick; maybe a final ceremony was performed on the altar stands that Fakhry found in this space, with the pottery stand still containing some half burnt charcoal. Maybe the vault was originally open at the altar end and created a sacred space connected the offerings directly to the kings pyramid, not so much a false door but a false tunnel. Concluding Remarks Much mystery still surrounds Sneferu’s works; Arnold would state; “As is often the case in archaeology, the follow up investigations in the Bent Pyramid Valley raised more questions than they answered. Nevertheless, the results show how much information can still be found in places that have long been considered researched. The work in the valley of the Bent Pyramid is far from complete.”67 67 Dahshur IV, Tempelanlagen im Tal der Knickpyramide, Felix Arnold, 2021, Foreword (google translate) 60 We may never know what festivals or activities were carried out in the valley temple, though suggestions have been made, such as Sed, Sokar and Hathor festivals. We can’t even be certain that the earlier garden complex performed similar roles, and that the later stone temple was an upgrade to the earlier mud-brick structure. Though the Bent pyramid is often portrayed as a building disaster, it was the only pyramid complex completed by Sneferu. One wonders that if the pyramid was so bad, why he persevered in expending resources on it, such as building the stone valley temple, could he not adapt and use the existing mud-brick phase? A lot of work was done using fine limestone resources to complete the Bent pyramid complex, which seems at odds with the failed narrative that is often given to the pyramid. Debate continues as to which pyramid Sneferu was buried in, the greater weight seems to favour the Red Pyramid; regardless, offerings were made at both pyramids, even though we have no causeway or valley temple for the Red: only a badly destroyed pyramid temple, again mostly of mud-brick. Even though many phases are present at the Bent’s temples, some undertaken by later dynasties, which were more likely aware as to the true place of Sneferu’s burial, it is no guarantee that Sneferu was buried inside the Bent. If we assume Sneferu was buried in the Red, why continue the offerings at the so-called failed pyramid of Sneferu? The answer might be that the pyramid was not a failure but part of a well executed double pyramid project that had equal standing to the Red pyramid, regardless of which one Sneferu was placed. The Bent pyramid is one of those sites often considered researched, but as my last guide on the structure highlights, I could make the case that the structure has not be researched. The failure of the Bent pyramid is so ingrained in Egyptology literature that it is not even questioned. That they would build a successful pyramid with dual angles and dual passage and chamber systems is never considered; everything has to be looked through the lenses of failure to explain its design, and all without any hard evidence to corroborate this narrative. Had Sneferu lived long enough to complete his Red pyramid complex, we likely would have two fine pyramids with their associated temples and causeways, and we can see the improvements in masonry skill as they continued to hone their skills; one only has to compare the fine corbelled chambers of the Red to those of the Bent. If I had a choice I would choose the Red to be buried in. The Red though appearing technically superior to the Bent, doesn’t mean the Bent is a failure; we could say the same about the Bent being technically superior to Meidum: improvements and new techniques would always be sought in such challenging projects. The idea proposed by Belmonte and Magli should not be dismissed lightly, though I doubt a dual pyramid complex will find much traction with Egyptology; though as a layman, I think the available evidence does tend to favour a dual complex. 61