The Pyramid of Teti A Layman’s guide Keith Hamilton 27th April 2023 In the above image we are looking at the remains of Teti’s pyramid, looking towards the northwest. In this view we can see part of the stepped core of the kings pyramid along its east side, and in front of this face we have the scant remains of the pyramid temple: also visible are the remains of the satellite pyramid, which still has some surviving casing on its east side. Teti is the first king assigned to the 6th dynasty, with his predecessor being Unas. The family tree between these two kings, as one might expect, is uncertain, but there appears to be no major ruptures in the architecture of their pyramid complexes; indeed, they appear so similar, one could enter their plans in a spot the difference puzzle. Compared to the 4th dynasty, where no two pyramid complexes appear the same, in the 5th & 6th dynasties the pyramid complexes are more similar to one another. 1 In the above map by Perring, we get an overview of the Pyramid complexes at Saqqara. Teti choose a site to the northeast of Djoser’s and Userkaf’s pyramid (Merenre and Pepi I are pyramids built after Teti); not shown on the map above is an unfinished pyramid site just east of Teti’s pyramid, commonly referred to as the ‘Headless pyramid’. The ownership of this unfinished pyramid is uncertain, though it has been suggested as belonging to Menkauhor; the site itself is believed to predate Teti’s complex, being 5th dynasty. Exploration Though the pyramid had been noted by Perring and Lepsius, neither gentleman were able to open the pyramid. This task was accomplished by Maspero who began work on the pyramid on the 18th April, 1881, and completed his works on the 29th of May. Maspero’s account is quite brief on the structure, with his attention being focused on the texts which the chambers contained (this would be the second pyramid to contain the pyramid texts, the first being Unas). Numerous archaeologists would follow Maspero, some concentrating on the texts, whilst others such as Quibell and Firth explored the temple and surrounding areas. Later, others such as Lauer and Labrousse would cast their eye over the ruins, along with the Italian scholars Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R). The site, in common with many others is badly damaged, and parts of it are yet to be investigated, these being the causeway and Valley temple. All we know of the causeway is that the portion by the pyramid temple heads to the southeast, and it has been suggested that this was to avoid the headless pyramid. 2 The above plan and section of the pyramid substructure is plate 1 from Maspero’s publication.1 In order to gain access to the substructure, Maspero started a trench in the centre of the pyramids north face on the 18th of April 1881; shortly after on the 26th of April they hit the core wall of the pyramid. On striking the pyramid core they descended through the debris for some 21m wherein they came across a robber’s tunnel which bypassed the descending passage, which Maspero states was blocked in all its length with large blocks of granite and limestone.2 The tunnel is not drawn above, but he says the thieves had destroyed the last 6m of plug stones at the lower end of the descending passage. Slightly more information comes from Lauer who would clear the chambers in the 1950’s; he tells us that the thieves had tunnelled through the inferior smaller masonry of the pyramid to avoid the large blocks which made up the plug stones and actual passage itself, the thieves broke into the descending passage through the ceiling 1 2 RecTrav 1884, La Pyramide du Roi Teti Ibid, page 1&2 3 slabs of the descending passage, some 5m from its end.3 If we assume that the passage was plugged in its entirety, we can understand why Maspero believed that the thieves had destroyed the last 6m of plug stones. In Unas’s pyramid the robber’s dug a similar tunnel which breached into the vestibule at the bottom of the descending passage; see Maspero’s plan below (see my Unas guide). Unfortunately, I could not find any great detail on the exact route of the robber’s tunnel inside. Maspero’s account is very brief and vague, his attention being more directed towards the pyramid texts inside. Neither is it clear if any surviving plug stones remained in the upper parts of the descending passage; Maspero only states that the last 6m is clear but nothing of the rest of the passage, and while he might state that the passage was plugged along its entire length, is this his belief, or did he actually observe any further plug stones in the passage? His work at the site was short, from April 18th to May 29th; he did not remove the debris from the chambers; it being deemed too expensive and so just piled up the debris. Lauer who cleared the debris from the descending passage in the 1950’s is not clear on any plug stones; indeed his clearance of the north side which had already been recovered in debris from C.Firth & B.Gunn’s time only took 10 days; so the impression is that the passage might have 3 ASAE, Tome LV-2, page 255 4 been free of plugs, by persons unknown in antiquity. Given that so much fine limestone has been quarried from the chambers, it would seem likely that the quarry men would bring it out through the descending passage and not a robber’s tunnel (Prior to Lauer’s work, C.Firth & B.Gunn in the 1920’s cleared the descending passage, but leave no detailed work of what they found, other than the north chapel which covered the entrance).4 Beyond the vestibule the passage becomes horizontal, and midway along its length we approach three granite portcullises; here the robber’s used repeated fire and hammer stones on the portcullises to fracture them and make their way to the inner chamber.5 Maspero found the chambers badly damaged, with the long north and south walls of both the burial chamber and the antechamber destroyed; only the gable end walls were spared destruction, and these contained some of the pyramid texts. In the 1950’s when Lauer and Garnot undertook clearance and made the chambers safe by reconstituting the destroyed walls, they would find hundreds of more fragments of texts amongst the debris, left by Maspero. The sarcophagus was found to still have its lid on, and here the robber’s appear to have smashed away one corner of the lid to access the body. A few blackened body parts, thought to be of the king, were found amongst the chamber rubble. The Pyramid Little remains of the pyramid except a pile a rubble and some visible faces of the pyramids stepped core, which is thought to have numbered five steps. The current ruins are some 20m high, but originally it is thought to have been 52.40m (100 cubits high). Not much casing survived, but Labrousse reports an in situ casing stone at the north corner which was 75m from the axis of the funerary apartments, which makes the pyramid base some 150 cubits long. The casing block also displayed a height/depth ratio of 4/3, or just over 53 degrees.6 4 Excavations at Saqqara, The Pyramid Cemeteries, Vol 1, page 2 RecTrav 1884, La Pyramide du Roi Teti, page 2 6 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes (1) page 44. This angle agrees to the Egyptian Seked of 5 palms 1 digit. M&R would mention Grinsell, and that the passage was not in the exact centre line, but Grinsell merely states, “The entrance in the approximate centre of the north side” Egyptian Pyramids, 1947, page 132. Grinsell also mentions that th th Quibell exposed fine casing on the east side. None of these badly damaged 5 and 6 dynasty pyramids have been accurately surveyed to the standard shown at Khufu’s pyramid. 5 5 North Chapel In the above image (I should like to thank the Isida Project for the kind use of their images) we can see the remains of the north chapel, which is built against the north face of the pyramid; we can see in the background part of the stepped core, protruding from the debris. Firth & Gunn discovered the remains of the chapel in the 1920’s during their clearance work, and they provide the plan left. They state; “The temenos wall of the Pyramid of Teti enclosed on the North side a small chapel (built over the entrance to the Pyramid) which probably once contained a black basalt stela. Of the chapel only a single block and the trace of the walls on the floor remain. The floor slab or slabs covered rather than concealed the entrance to the descending passage which led to the funerary chambers of the Pyramid. The entrance to this chapel was by double doors of which the black stone hinge sockets remain and the walls seem, from fragments found in the debris, to have been covered with coloured 6 reliefs, in limestone, of offering bearers. The steIa must have occupied almost the whole of the end (south) wall of the room and have stood against the external casing of the Pyramid (fig. 2). The roof was a singe slab of limestone with a ceiling of yellow stars in relief on a blue painted ground.”7 Placing the chapel over the entrance was certainly a big X marks the spot for robbers’, who only had to kick the doors in and lift the paving slabs which were hardly inconspicuous. The internal dimensions are thought to be 6 cubits wide by 8 cubits long, with exterior being 10 cubits by 14 cubits. The Descending Passage Today modern walls surround the entrance, though the original shelf in the pavement which would hold the paving slabs to close access to the passage still survives, which shows that the covering slabs were only 28cm thick; though likely they received additional support underneath after the passage was plugged. The descending passage according to Labrousse is on average 1.12m wide by 1.35m high, with a slope angle of around 25.65 degrees.8 The chapel doorway is 1.25m wide at its narrowest, so there is sufficient clearance to introduce the plug stones. 7 8 Excavations at Saqqara, The Pyramid Cemeteries, Vol 1, pages 8-9 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes (1) page 50 7 In the above view we are looking up the descending passage from the bottom; a breach can be seen in the ceiling, which is likely created by the robbers’. Just behind, we appear to have some modern repairs to the ceiling; pointed out by the red arrow. The passage width at some 1.12m is quite small compared to other 5 th & 6th dynasty pyramids, for example, his predecessor Unas had a passage width of 1.35m, whilst Teti’s successor, Pepi I, had a passage width of 1.44m. Generally the descending passage width matched the width of the horizontal passage, and this is the case also in Teti’s pyramid. The important thing to note about the narrow width of Teti’s pyramid, is that the sarcophagus is too wide to be brought in via the passages. 8 In this view, we are looking down the descending passage and here we can see more clearly the modern roof repair, which I assume covers up most of the damage made by the robbers’. The passage is given as some 18.23m long, and for the most part is constructed of limestone, though we have one area constructed of granite: this belt of granite which includes walls ceiling and floor (Labrousse states that the threshold here is made of greywacke, whilst the walls and ceiling are of granite9) is to be found at the top of the descending passage. This feature is to be found in several pyramids of this type, and seems to be a hard barrier to deter robbers’; in this area the plug stone would be of granite whilst the remainder of the plug stones in the passage would be of limestone. We have a good example of this in the pyramid of Merenre; here a large granite plug stone was found in place by its granite belt, whilst below it, part of a limestone plug was found.10 Though the granite plug stone no longer exists inside Teti’s pyramid, Labrousse reports mortar traces in the passage suggesting that two limestone plugs existed in front of the granite plug. 9 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 51 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes II, page 56, and plates XXI & XXII 10 9 The above section is part of M&R’s TAV 7,11 I have highlighted the area of the granite belt. Below, looking up the passage, we can see parts of the granite belt. 11 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, di Zedefra, Zedkara Isesi, Teti. 1962 10 The Vestibule In the above view we are inside the vestibule looking north towards the descending passage; the masonry on the floor may be parts of the broken portcullises. From Maspero’s drawings the vestibule is 2.02m wide, 4.44m long and 2.93m high; Labrousse would suggest 4 x 8.5 x 5 cubits, (Maspero’s height of 2.93m seems to be a typo as the south wall measures he provides, give a height of 2.39m, though this seems too small. Labrousse would give a height of 2.62m in his work, and indeed he states that the east and west walls are made of two courses, the lowest course is a single monolith 1.175m high, with the upper course consisting of three blocks 1.44m high, which gives a total of 2.615m). In the above image we can see damage to the masonry immediately above the doorway, so it’s difficult to determine its undamaged profile, but according to M&R there was no chamfer in the ceiling where the descending passage meets the vestibule,12 such as we see in Unas’s pyramid. Such a feature is necessary to provide extra head height for large items such as a sarcophagus as they transition from the inclined floor to the horizontal floor. The vestibule is spanned by four limestone beams laid east-west, and the floor is some 7.25m below the pyramid court. 12 Ibid, page 46 11 In the above view we are looking at the south wall of the vestibule, the yellow lines highlight the course joints. The height of the door here is 1.35m, with the lintel above it having a height of 1.275m: the joints on the east and west walls are some 1.175m above the floor. This doorway leads to the horizontal passage which mirrors the width of the descending passage, being 1.12m. Due to the damage inflicted at the south end of the horizontal passage where it enters the antechamber, Labrousse states that it was difficult to restore its length, but gives an approximate length of 21.83m +/- 1.5cm, (Maspero’s plan measures add up to 21.78m). This value is close to 41.5 cubits and as the vestibule is given as 8.5 cubits long, it may have been intended that the total distance from the bottom of the descending passage to the antechamber was to be 50 cubits. In the above image a fragment of granite can be seen jutting out into the horizontal passage, this is one of the fractured portcullises. According to Maspero the first granite portcullis is 6.06m from the above doorway; though the granite of the walls appears before the first portcullis; for example, the granite walls start at 5.25m (10 cubits) from the above doorway. 12 The Portcullises Looking south through the doorway we can see that the walls are made of singular large blocks of limestone, though just before the first portcullis the walls and ceiling beam are made of granite, Labrousse states that the floor slab here is of greywacke.13 This arrangement provides extra security to the first portcullis by preventing robbers’ from circumventing the portcullis by tunnelling around it. The three vertical portcullises all slide down grooves whose east and west walls are constructed of limestone, though the space between portcullis, i.e. wall, floor and ceiling are all constructed of granite, in an attempt to thwart the robbers’. In the background above we can see some of the fractured portcullises jutting out into the passage, and at the farthest point we can just make out the south wall of the antechamber, which has been reconstituted in small masonry blocks. 13 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 53 13 Image courtesy of Greg Slater In the above closer view of the portcullis area, we can see some of the portcullis fragments, and beyond at the end of the passage the south wall of the antechamber is visible. A lot of modern repair has been done in the portcullis area, and unfortunately this obscures a lot of the portcullis housing detail; indeed, Labrousse’s section drawing of the portcullis area omits the upper housing altogether, as it was not visible to him. Maspero provides no detail of the portcullis housing other than a few measures and so we are reliant on the observations of M&R who published their findings in 14 1962; their report appears the more detailed and suggests that a lot of the visible repairs came after their visit and before labrousse’s. The above plan and sections of the portcullis area is by M&R,14 there are many discrepancies in measures between the various authors; for example, the first portcullis groove above M&R give a value of 68cm, whilst Labrousse gives 79cm and Maspero states that the first portcullis was 72cm thick. M&R’s description is also brief, but adds a few more details, they state that the ceiling of the portcullis housing was of granite and some 3.52m from the floor, whilst the lintels either side of the portcullises were of granite, and in their drawing above they show these reaching up to the granite ceiling stone. This arrangement is a more secure method than that found inside Unas’s pyramid. Here some of the portcullis housing was built in limestone and so the robbers’ bypassed the portcullises by tunnelling up through the ceiling and through the limestone partition walls and re-entering the passage, as shown left. Did the robbers’ have detailed knowledge of this weakness at Unas’s and so took advantage of it? 14 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, di Zedefra, Zedkara Isesi, Teti. 1962, TAV 8 15 Based on data from Labrousse and M&R we might have something like this image inside Teti’s pyramid. Mostly constructed of granite it would be a more secure system than that found inside Unas’s pyramid. The only limestone elements are the floor under the portcullises and the east and west walls of the portcullis grooves. There appears to be no attempt at replicating the route taken to bypass the portcullises in Unas’s pyramid; instead the robbers’ used repeated fire and hammering to break up the portcullises. It is possible that the robbers’ were aware of the portcullis construction and so choose a different method here. However, there is confusion between M&R and Labrousse on the highlighted groove above, which M&R show on their drawing on the previous page, and say was half way up the granite block15. But in Labrousse’s account and drawing he has the granite block here being only 1.05m high and above it a 1.13m limestone block, which supports the ceiling block, which according to their drawing is also of limestone.16 Labrousse’s fig 36 is shown below, and here M&R’s groove would appear to be just a joint between a granite and limestone block. 15 Ibid, page 46. M&R would elaborate a bit more on this horizontal groove, and suggest that it may have had been related to the portcullis and its operation. 16 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 53 and fig 36 16 If we accept Labrousse’s interpretation of the north wall, we might instead have something similar to that found inside Unas’s pyramid, with limestone partition walls above the granite ceiling stones, which would allow the robbers’ to circumvent the portcullises, if they were aware of such a design. It is somewhat sad that such basic data such as the makeup of the portcullis housings has not been obtained; the few images I have of the area suggest that there are enough gaps for an endoscopic camera to gain access and clarify the design. We don’t know if the housings for the portcullises are all of the same height; in Unas’s pyramid, the available space above each portcullis differed (see image on page 15), but given the housing ceiling height of 3.52m minus the passage height, we could have portcullises up to 4 cubits high (2.1m): and if we accept Maspero’s value of 72cm thickness for the first portcullis, we could have a portcullis of some 2.6 cubic metres, or 7 metric tonnes.17 Regardless of the method used to circumvent the portcullises it would be a lengthy process and not done by some gang of robbers’ on a single night. One would imagine that repeated fires and hammering of the portcullises would take many days of hard work. When this activity took place is uncertain, though suggestions have been made that such work could have been done in the First Intermediate Period after the demise of the Old Kingdom, with either the complexes being left to the mercy of a lawless period, or local rulers taking advantage of what is often described as a dark period of Egyptian history; we simply don’t know. The similarity of 5th and 6th dynasty pyramid designs must have made the robbers’ job all the more easier; gone is the great variety of design displayed in the 4th dynasty, which we would not see again until the Middle Kingdom Pyramids. Leaving the portcullis area we continue south along the horizontal passage, which is again constructed of large limestone blocks. I have allowed 60cm extra to the passage width of 1.12m, for the groove depth; M&R’s drawing gives depth as 66cm. Therefore portcullis equal to 1.72x2.1x0.72= 2.6 cubic metres. 17 17 In the above view we are looking north along the horizontal passage from the south end of the portcullis area; here we can see the last two granite wall blocks, and a ceiling stone which is thought to be of greywacke. The limestone construction of the passage once again gives way to a granite hard point, which again is common to this type of pyramid. This granite hard point includes walls, ceiling and floor, and its role was to support the shortened pent ceiling beams of the antechamber. 18 In M&R’s drawing above I have highlighted the granite hard point which supports some of the antechambers ceiling beams. The image below is again looking north along the horizontal passage towards the portcullis area, and here we can see more clearly the granite hard point. In the areas that have not been damaged by later violators, the quality of construction and finish is excellent. 19 Image courtesy of Greg Slater In the above image we are looking south along the horizontal passage, with a fragment of the last portcullis visible lower right. Beyond this last portcullis we can see the granite wall masonry and greywacke ceiling stone; beyond this we revert to limestone masonry until we reach the granite hard point, arrowed above. The final part of the passage as it entered the antechamber would be of limestone (these last blocks may have been decorated in a similar manner to those found inside Unas’s pyramid), and these blocks would also form part of the antechambers north wall; unfortunately, these blocks along with the north and south walls of the antechamber have been stripped out by the stone robbers. The Antechamber The north and south walls of the antechamber have been quarried away, with the robbers only sparing the gable walls. This destruction allows us to see in more detail the granite hard point; the granite walls are 0.76m deep on east side and 0.90m deep on west side. These walls supported a large granite lintel some 3.76m long, 18 which supported the shortened ceiling beams present on the north side of the antechamber. 18 There are differences in measures between authors as regards the antechamber, M&R would give the lintel as 3.63m long. 20 The above plan drawing is part of M&R’s fig 1.19 The highlighted yellow areas are areas where the fine limestone was stripped out by robbers; they even partially stripped some of the partition walls inside the magazine area. In M&R’s time the damaged chamber walls had largely been reconstructed in small masonry, though the restorer’s had left narrow access points in both chambers which allowed M&R to see the load bearing walls made of rustic white limestone, which supported the pent ceiling beams.20 Unfortunately, from the modern images which I hold, these narrow tunnels have now been sealed off with masonry. The narrow access tunnel can be seen in the plan above in the south wall of the antechamber, and here M&R give the rustic load bearing masonry as being some 2.50m from the missing chamber lining. M&R give the antechamber as 3.12m wide by 3.75m long, a possible 6 by 7 cubit floor plan. Labrousse would give the height of the north and south walls as averaging 6 cubits, with the height of the gable wall being some 4.91m, or close to 9.5 cubits.21 19 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, di Zedefra, Zedkara Isesi, Teti. 1962. TAV 8. Ibid, page 46 21 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 55 20 21 In the above cross-section of the antechamber by M&R, we can see how the thrust of the ceiling beams is absorbed by specially shaped stones of rustic white limestone. This technique is also used in the burial chamber; only the short ceiling beams on the north side of the antechamber are located differently, being supported by the granite hard point. The access tunnel in the burial chamber allowed M&R to observe a second set of ceiling beams above the first; it is thought that three sets of ceiling beams are present. Though M&R show in their drawing the chamber lining touching the ceiling, they may have been like the well preserved walls inside Unas’s pyramid above. Here a significant tapered gap exists between the ceiling beams and the top of the walls; the thrust of the beams being supported by the rustic white limestone. 22 Magazines The magazines follow the design first seen inside the pyramid of Djedkare-Isesi, and consist of three cells. The function of the cells is uncertain; many publications would label these cells as ‘Serdabs’ In the above image we are looking along the passage in the east wall of the antechamber which is intact and decorated; through the passage we can see what appears to be a reconstructed partition wall which made up the individual cells (Maspero, M&R and Labrousse state that both partition walls had been removed, with only mortar traces left in the surrounding masonry to indicate their size). The partition walls appear to be not engaged into the east wall of the magazines, but merely erected after the rectangular magazine was built first. This magazine varies in dimensions depending on the author, for example, its east-west dimension by Maspero is some 2.00 to 2.03m (see page 3): Labrousse gives 2.07 to 2.11m: whilst M&R in their drawing (see page 21) give this dimension as 3.04 to 3.07m! Who is correct is anyone’s guess, especially M&R’s values, where they show the length of one of the partition walls as 2.35m, a value still greater than the other two authors. The predecessor pyramids of Djedkare-Isesi and Unas, have magazines that more reflect the lower value, thought to be 4 cubits (2.09m); however, one of the successor 23 pyramids, that of Merenre displays a mighty 3.49m. Sadly, such discrepancies’ in dimensions is far too common, and not limited to Teti’s pyramid. The above passage leading to the magazines is the first to be decorated; previously the walls of this passage, like the walls of the magazines were left devoid of decoration. The passage is some 0.87m wide by 1.13m high and 1.52m long (Labrousse). As one enters the magazines the ceiling rises considerably to some 2.6m (5 cubits). The total north-south dimension of the magazines appears to be in agreement amongst the authors, being some 6.75m (M&R) a possible 13 cubits. In the image you will notice that the lintel spanning the passage extends the full length of the passage, 1.52m; it also extends the full width of the antechamber, forming the second course of the gable wall. The destruction of the antechamber’s north wall showed that the lintel extended beyond the north wall, and Labrousse would give its half length from the axis of the antechamber as more than 3.92m. If this was matched to the south then the lintel would be some 7.84m long, and as the lintel is given as 1.49m high, then it would be some 18 cubic metres or approaching 46 metric tonnes. Above this lintel the third course consists of three blocks of unknown height, which form the tympana on the antechambers east wall. These large blocks extend the entire way back to cover the magazines and rest on the east wall of the magazine. As the magazine ceiling is 2.6m high and the apex of the antechamber is some 4.9m, then the third course blocks would exceed a height of 2.3m to cover the tympana. From Labrousse’s drawing one of the blocks appears to be 1.3m wide, and if we give a similar purchase for the block on the magazines east wall, as that over the passage, i.e. 1.52m and accept 2.1m for the depth of the magazines, we could have a ceiling stone some 5.14m long; or 40 metric tonnes. Even the decorated north door jamb in the above image is a sizeable piece of masonry; the damage to the north wall of the antechamber shows that it is 2.92m long and would weigh some 13 metric tonnes. These examples show the skills demonstrated by the ancient Egyptians in manoeuvring and placing large blocks with very fine joints. The available data on the substructure is somewhat limited, but one suspects that the pent ceilings were laid first before the introduction of the fine limestone masonry which lined the chambers. The granite hard point which supports the northern pent beams of the antechamber is an obvious bottleneck for large masonry, but such masonry could be introduced into the chambers via the gable walls of the antechamber or burial chamber. As already mentioned, the sarcophagus is too wide for the entrance passages, but this could be introduced via a ramp to one of the open gable walls. The more direct route would be through the open west gable wall of the burial chamber, which would be closed with masonry after introduction of the sarcophagus. Alternatively the sarcophagus could be brought in via the east gable wall of the antechamber, and clearly before the wall was built as the passage is too small; likewise for the partition wall between the antechamber and the burial chamber. This seems to indicate that the sarcophagus was introduced early during construction, and this might explain its somewhat unfinished nature. One can imagine the workshop responsible for the sarcophagus being under time pressure to complete their task, as 24 the sarcophagus had to be introduced at a certain point in time, so has not to hold up superstructure construction. If the entrance passages were made wide enough to allow the sarcophagus to transit, then the workshops would have more than sufficient time to finish the sarcophagus. Maybe it was a security concern of the king, that his sarcophagus could not be removed from the pyramid. Even introducing the sarcophagus in an unfinished state, one would imagine that the craftsman could carry on their work inside the chamber; though there might be competing pressures from those tasked with decorating the chamber walls and ceilings. Maybe the workman were loath to do major work on the sarcophagus inside the chamber; the laying bed of the sarcophagus was left in a raw state, and the bottom long sides of the sarcophagus were undressed, such that on the west side the stone here protruded out some 12 cm beyond the finished upper part on this side. So significant work to finish the sarcophagus remained and of course one ran the risk of an accident occurring that at the very worse could have fractured the box: in such an event there would be no plan B; so maybe caution ruled the day. Returning to the above image of the passage leading to the magazines one can see that the floor of the magazines is raised slightly higher than that of the passage; this would create a stop for a double leaf door which closed the end of the passage (In Unas’s pyramid, the door was placed at the start of the passage). The Burial Chamber 25 In the above image we are looking at the east wall of the burial chamber which is intact; this is the partition wall between the antechamber and burial chamber and is 1.52m thick, which matches the thickness of the antechambers east wall (this can be seen in the background, with its narrower passage). The connecting passage to the burial chamber varies slightly in width, being 1.40m east and 1.42m west, and its height being from 1.39 to 1.40m. This passage was also decorated (note also the giant lintel above this passage). The modern reconstructed walls of small masonry are set back some 15cm from the original position of the chambers north and south walls; the original width of the chamber can be seen were the decoration on the gable wall stops. The chamber is some 3.13m wide by 7.87m long (labrousse),22 likely 6 by 15 cubits; the chamber length being 2.5 times its width. The north and south wall height appear to match that of the antechamber at 6 cubits high, though Labrousse notes that the gable height of the burial chamber seems to be some 7cm higher than the antechamber at 4.98m. Looking up at the east gable wall we can see some slippage of the ceiling beams, and one appears to have slid down the face of the partition wall. The partition wall appears to have been built up against the ceiling beams and likely the ceiling beams of the antechamber were placed against this wall, which suggests a different solution to relieve the weight above the partition wall. According to Labrousse the north ceiling 22 Maspero would give 3.25m x 7.08m, and M&R give 3.45m x 7.90m 26 beam had also slid down by 5cm against the east gable, and this was determined by its relation to the texts on the gable wall; indeed, Labrousse states that without exception every ceiling beam in the burial chamber had slid down.23 This slippage of the ceiling beams was caused by the stone robbers attacking the rustic white limestone which supported the beams The above image is a reconstruction of the chambers inside the pyramid of DjedkareIsesi; this shows the solution used above the partition wall: here three beams create an arch to protect the partition wall below (see my Djedkare-Isesi guide) such a solution may have been used also inside Teti’s pyramid. The ceiling beams consisted of five pairs with each slightly overlapping (the antechamber had three pairs). The ceiling decoration program appears to have not been completed and simply left at the engraving stage. Red painted grids are clearly noticeable on some of the beams, and inside these grids the stars would be outlined in black with this outline being hollowed out. 23 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 62 27 In the above image we can better see the grid on one of the ceiling beams, along with a few outlined stars at bottom of image. There seems to be no indication that any stars were painted, or background colour. It does seem strange that the decoration program for the chambers could not be completed considering that the substructure would be one of the first construction items to be completed. Once the chambers had been built the vast superstructure had to be built and the pyramid cased, not to mention the temples and causeway; one would think that in the scheme of things that they should be able to complete the decoration of the chambers. Work would have been ongoing 28 inside these chambers as the superstructure rose above them, and yet the work is incomplete. This suggests that the work to dress down the walls, then mark out the walls for decoration was quite a time consuming task, and into this mix we have to add the uncertain reign length of Teti which is thought to be 12 years. From the east end of the chamber we are looking west with the sarcophagus placed in the west end of the chamber. The most noticeable ceiling beam above slipped some 50cm. A square patch can be seen on the floor of the chamber, this would be the location of the canopic pit. The west gable wall behind the sarcophagus, according to Labrousse, is made of nine courses of limestone averaging a cubit high; this is noticeably smaller masonry compared to the other walls. In Unas’s pyramid the sarcophagus was flanked on the west, south and north sides with alabaster panels decorated in palace facade. Here no such luxury is present; instead, the palace facade is placed directly on the limestone gable wall, and although the north and south walls of the chamber no longer exist, it’s possible that the west end of these walls next to the sarcophagus were likewise decorated. In the image overleaf one can just make out some of this decoration on the west gable wall. 29 Palace facade on west gable wall 30 The Sarcophagus The sarcophagus is often reported as being of basalt, but is now believed to be of greywacke.24 The dimensions of the box are difficult to determine due to its unfinished nature, especially at the base of the box. The upper part of the box is better refined and here the long sides are 2.78m, with the north width being 1.31m and the south width 1.285m. The minimal height of the box, north side is 1.24m (Labrousse measures). The interior dimensions Labrousse gives as 2m long, 0.64m wide and 0.69m deep. This suggests that the base of the box is at least 55cm thick. The interior space inside the box is not centred but shifted to the north, such that the thickness of the walls on the north, east and west sides are much the same: north and west are 0.32m thick, with west being 0.335 thick, this leaves the south wall thickness as 0.445m. The thicker interior south wall has a sizeable stone patch inserted for some reason. 24 Ibid, page 64 and footnote 96 31 In the schematic image above I have removed the east wall of the sarcophagus to better see the inside of the sarcophagus. The patch stone on the south side takes up the entire interior width of the box and sits on a ledge about 18cm deep, cut in the original box. The south end thickness of the box is noticeably more than the north end and this offset of the interior space to the north is also reflected in the lid which is suitably adapted to mate to the box. Though the exterior dimensions of the box are uncertain the interior dimensions are very similar to that of Unas’s sarcophagus (Unas 1.99 x 0.63 x .665m: Teti 2.0 x 0.64 x 0.69m). How the sarcophagus was found by Maspero is uncertain, he would only comment that the sarcophagus had once been leaning against the west wall, but had been moved by thieves. Today we see the box resting on pieces of limestone and a wooden beam, and it would seem something similar would have been needed originally as the bottom of the box is left in a raw state and would only rock about. Given the design of the lid, it had to be slid on from the west and M&R report the existence of a masonry block which would have supported the lid behind the sarcophagus, and that the lid would have been engaged slightly into the box by 3cm. 25 Labrousse would mention the traces of a bench which supported the lid behind the sarcophagus. M&R report that the palace facade decoration did not extend from the top of the box to the floor of the chamber, whilst Labrousse suggests that chemical degradation of the stone has meant this decoration has been lost. It might make sense not to waste time decorating behind the box as it would not be seen. Inside the pyramid of Djedkare-Isesi the stone platform behind the box to support the lid, still exists; whilst in Unas’s pyramid it might have been dismantled so the box could be pushed back against the wall and secured in position by pins dropping from the bottom of the box into the pavement. This would be a good security feature as the lid can only 25 Notizie Sulle Piramidi, di Zedefra, Zedkara Isesi, Teti. 1962. Page 49 32 be pushed back the way it came, but with the box pushed against the wall, the lid could obviously not be pushed back. What the solution was for Teti is unknown. Maspero was of the opinion that the box was against the wall and had been moved; certainly a stone platform for the lid is to be expected to store the lid, but it may have been removed after the lid was rolled over, and the sarcophagus placed against the wall for security. In any event the robbers seem to have fractured the south end of the lid in order to gain access to their treasure, with the majority of the lid still in position. If the sarcophagus had been placed away from the wall why not push the lid back? There is nothing in the reports to suggest that the lid had securing pins, or that the lid had been mortared on; I have no idea if the authorities have attempted to remove the lid or inspected underneath to see if there are any sealing methods. Looking through the breach in the lid we can see the stone patch whose joint line I have highlighted. One can see a U shaped groove on top of the patch; this groove would run along all four sides of the box, with an almost constant depth of 1.3cm, though its width would vary from 1.4 to 2.2cm. A similar groove was also found 33 inside Unas’s box and Labrousse would suggest that it held a copper lining for the box, especially as Teti’s interior walls were not polished.26 The only polishing visible inside the box are the polished strips which contain hieroglyphic texts; some of which can be seen in the above image: the end walls have a vertical inscription, whilst the side walls have a horizontal inscription, and finally the floor has an inscription along its middle. Looking inside the box we can see further texts along polished strips. In so far as we know, this is the first sarcophagus belonging to a king that was inscribed with texts. It would seem strange to go to all this effort only to hide it all, if we accept that a valuable metal lining was fitted. In the side walls we can see two vertical grooves on each wall about 11cm wide and 3cm deep; M&R would suggest that they could be to provide clearance for ropes during lowering of the coffin, or even the possibility that the coffin was reinforced with external battens. Labrousse would discount those ideas and suggest a gold lining of the box, whose upper edge would be engaged in the U shaped groove and the sides would be flattened against the box by planks of wood in the vertical grooves.27 These vertical side grooves are also to be found in later sarcophagi of the 6th dynasty, though their profile is markedly different to that found inside Teti’s above, and some such as Merenre have a flat ledge instead of a U shaped groove around the perimeter. 26 27 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 65 Ibid, page 66 34 In the above image28 we have examples of the vertical grooves found inside the sarcophagi of Pepi I (left) and Merenre I (right). I have arrowed the grooves in Merenre’s image, and below we have an image showing their respective plan profiles. These grooves are much smaller and of a different profile to Teti’s. Teti’s is by far the widest groove at some 11cm, whilst Merenre above is only half as wide. That of Pepi is strange in that it appears to be just two grooves separated by a ridge of rock that is on the same plane as the side of the box. It’s debatable whether such grooves could hold wooden tenons to hold a metal lining in place; unfortunately detailed data on these sarcophagi makes it difficult to come to any conclusion. The battens idea of M&R, whilst possible in Teti’s, fails on the later sarcophagi; but what of the idea to allow ropes to lower the coffin? Given the profiles above, we would be looking at cordage or fabric straps, rather than thick ropes. I suppose the grooves being to help lower the sarcophagus is still a possibility. The grooves don’t appear to reach the 28 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes II, plate XVb & plate XXXa, also fig 93 & 142 35 bottom of the box and no channel is cut in the floor of the box, but the coffin could have been lowered onto wooden battens, which would provide clearance for the lowering straps/cordage to be withdrawn. But what of the U shaped perimeter groove which is to be found in so many of the boxes, what could its function be if the grooves were for lowering the coffin? Merenre’s box omits this groove and has a flat edge of about 2.5cm of which its grooves appear to take its whole depth (see image on previous page). If the vertical grooves were for lowering the coffin, might the perimeter groove have held a cover after the coffin had been installed; for example sheets of copper could be placed over the top of the coffin, with the edges beaten into the perimeter groove. This cover would further protect the coffin, before the heavy lid of the sarcophagus was rolled over. Another possibility, especially if the coffin was a close tolerance inside the box, would be to drive wood down these grooves which would tighten against the coffin and hold it fast; and so further hinder the robbers. In these images we can see that a significant gap exists between the lower face of the lid and the U shaped perimeter groove; if the groove helped hold any valuable metal it would seem that space was available for the robbers to extract the material even with the lid in place. Note also in the above image the rebate cut into the lower east edge of the lid, which abuts against the east wall of the sarcophagus. The east wall of the sarcophagus is higher than the west side, by the amount that we see in the rebate, this prevents robbers from pushing the lid off from west to east. The lid is of a common design having rectangular ends with the greater part having its top surface curved; on this curved portion of the lid we find another line of hieroglyphic text, the only external text on the sarcophagus. (Images courtesy of Isida Project). 36 In the above image we are looking at the rear of the sarcophagus (west side). The image seems to show that the lid is dovetailed onto the box, this would prevent robbers from trying to lever the lid off. The shallow curved top to the lid can just be made out in this view. The stone patch inside the box is finely done and is symmetrical i.e. the joint lines visible on page 33 are mirrored also on the east side of the box. Labrousse would suggest that some fault in the quarried stone necessitated a repair, and yet, if we remove the patch stone, we would find the south wall thickness at nearly the same thickness as the north wall. The patch has the appearance of a sliding door, could something be behind it? We see decorated slab stele’s hid behind stone panels at some Giza mastaba’s, could a thin stele be hid behind this patch? The pit for the canopics was a short distance in front of the sarcophagus and close to the south wall of the chamber; it was a square of some 82cm and 97cm deep and showed that the chamber pavement was at least 55cm thick with a foundation layer beneath of 42cm. The pit would be covered by a lid some 91cm square.29 29 L’Architecture des Pyramides a Textes I, page 64 37 The Pyramid Temple The above schematic view is based on Lauer’s drawing of 1969.30 Data on the temple is somewhat scattered and incomplete and not as good as I had hoped. It has been subject to various excavations that tended to end early, be it for war, death of an excavator, changing focus to a different site altogether, and so the data is not as comprehensive as some other temple sites. 30 Le temple Haut du complexe Funeraire du roi Teti, J.-Ph. Lauer and J. Leclant, 1972, plate XXXV 38 The design of the temple is quite similar to other 5 th & 6th dynasty pyramid temples, with the most important features aligning along the pyramids east-west axis; these being the Great hall, the Pillared court, Statue niches and Offering hall. The causeway here does not connect directly to the Great hall, but joins the temple at its southeast corner, wherein a long north-south corridor leads to the entrance to the Great hall. During his excavations Quibell made soundings to the east of Teti’s pyramid to find a suitable area to dump his excavation spoil and discovered a fine stone mastaba amongst other structures built over it. Quibell’s sketch is shown left and I have highlighted the mastaba, and in the more detailed map shown right I have highlighted the headless pyramid as well. These two sites obstruct direct access for any causeway approaching the middle facade of the temple and so the solution was to join the causeway to the temples southeast corner. The headless pyramid is thought to be 5 th dynasty, whilst the large mastaba is thought to be 3rd Dynasty.31 As one can see from the contour lines both the headless pyramid and mastaba are constructed on the edge of a steep escarpment; one wonders what design was intended for the headless pyramid as regards temple and causeway positioning, being so close to the cliff edge. Even Teti’s location is not without problem and one would expect large embankments to carry the causeway to a valley temple, likely located somewhere to the southeast. The route of the causeway and the location of any valley temple are not known. Teti’s temple in common with so many is badly destroyed as the image on page 1 shows. We are often just reduced to mere outlines of where rooms once stood, and sometimes not even that, and so the excavator looks to other better preserved temples in order to fill in the missing pieces of the jigsaw. Often doorways have totally gone with just a threshold of hard stone left to mark their location. The principal doorways into the temple and those giving access to the more important elements of the temple often had thresholds made of quartzite and basalt, which are thought to have been framed with granite door jambs. Likewise, alabaster paving was reserved for the more important elements of the temple; this alabaster paving starts in the Great hall, which Lauer gives as 10 by 40 cubits. The Great hall had substantial thick side walls, also of 10 cubits and these would have supported a vaulted ceiling which spanned the great 31 Ibid, page 2 39 hall. This ceiling would be decorated with stairs, with the walls thought to be covered in fine reliefs; fragments indicate that the top of the walls were decorated with a Kheker frieze. The above plan views show a comparison between the temples of Teti and his predecessor Unas. Though Unas had the smallest pyramid of the 5th & 6th dynasties, the general designs are quite similar. Site selection may have curtailed Unas’s development in the southern half of the temple (see my Unas guide), though for Teti no such restriction appears to exist; indeed, the magazines in the southern half of the temple are longer than the northern half: did causeway location allow for this extra expansion? If the causeway could not be brought closer to the pyramid axis, and they wanted the north and south magazines to be symmetrical in size, then a very thick exterior wall would be needed on the south side; maybe it was easier to keep the exterior wall at 8 cubits thick and expand the storage space. As we leave the Great hall travelling west we enter into the pillared court which was also paved with alabaster. Here the ornate columns from previous 5 th dynasty pyramids have made way for simple square granite pillars. Eighteen pillars are placed in the court, with the corner pillars being rectangular in order to support architraves meeting at 90 degrees. Only a fragment of one granite pillar was found near the southeast corner. Only the square foundation sockets remain, which display different depths, indicating that the pillars came from the quarry in different lengths, with it 40 being easier to adjust the softer limestone foundation than trim the granite, to ensure that the top of the pillars were all level in order to receive the architraves. In the middle of the court the remains of a large alabaster altar were found. Lauer would give the court as being 45 by 30 cubits; though this would have to be reduced somewhat as he states that facing stone some 30cm thick surrounded the court. These ambulatory walls would also be decorated with reliefs. As we leave the pillared court through its western door we come to a long transverse corridor; which also contain reliefs; at the north end of this corridor a doorway gives access to the northern pyramid court, likewise for the southern doorway which gives access to the southern pyramid court, and also to the satellite pyramid. Two further doorways on the east wall of the transverse corridor provide access to the north and south magazines. Steps were found in the southern magazine area, which are thought to give access to the temple roof. Also found in some of the magazines were stone tables. In the middle of the west wall of the transverse corridor we have eight shallow steps which lead up to the statue niches; these steps are made from a single monolithic block of alabaster of 2.27m x 1.35m. The higher floor of the statue niches is 1 cubit (0.52m) higher than the floor of the transverse corridor. At the top of the steps a large monolithic threshold of quartzite was found of 3.8m by 1.40m and this indicated the presence of a double leaf door. Five statue niches are thought to exist; remains of some of the north niches suggest that their partition walls were of limestone and that the door jambs were of granite. A northern doorway from the statue niches gives access to further storerooms, whilst a southern doorway is the start of the route which eventually leads to the important Offering hall. It first enters into an east-west orientated chamber (this area was badly damaged and so Lauer used the example from Pepi II to restore this area); a southern doorway from this chamber would lead to further storerooms. Beyond this chamber we arrive at a square antechamber, which had a single quartzite column. In the north wall of this antechamber we finally enter through a doorway into the Offering hall. Lauer gives the offering hall as 10 by 30 cubits; little remains of the room though it is also thought to have had a vaulted ceiling like the Great hall. At its west end was found a huge quartzite base, which is thought to have supported a large false door. Indications in front of this quartzite base also suggest the presence of an altar. A north doorway from the Offering hall gave access to yet more storerooms; it might be possible that some of those storerooms which front onto the pyramid are two storied, such as we see at Unas’s. 41 There is some evidence of drainage at the temple, in the above plan by Lauer I have highlighted in red, the discovery of drainage remains. One appears to lead from the offering hall, and we might expect a basin to be present in the Offering hall, though where it discharges to is unknown. The second set of drainage remains is to be found at the south end of the transverse corridor; it appears to start in the passage which gives access to the pyramid court, then go under the doorway which provides access to the satellite pyramid court and then curve run and discharge itself under the enclosure wall. Could the two drains be connected? Did the one from the Offering hall go under the statue niches, the steps, and then turn south running under the transverse corridor to join with the other remains. The detail on these drains is sparse; Lauer describes the one by the satellite pyramid as a flow channel starting in the paving of the court, and being some 10cm wide by 7 cm deep; but was this carved onto the pavement surface, or a drain under the pavement. It would appear to be cut into the paving surface, for Lauer later in his report, mentions a branch from this flow channel which appeared to connect to one of the basins in the satellite court being filled in with small pieces of cut stone (this branch can be seen in the above drawing).32 If this is a channel cut in the surface of the pavement, would it extend along the transverse corridor to connect to the one from the Offering hall? I would expect such a drain in this corridor to be hid under the pavement. Possibly they are not connected, and maybe the drain by the satellite 32 Ibid, see page 23 and page 40. On page 40, if my translation is correct, he states the flow channel was cut into the pavement. If the drain was meant to be hidden, it would be under the pavement. 42 pyramid merely discharged rainwater from the satellite pyramid court, along with any rainwater from the pyramid southern court which made its way down the long passage to the south door of the transverse corridor; one would want to avoid rain water getting into the transverse corridor. The Satellite Pyramid The Satellite pyramid was discovered by Quibell in 1906-1907, and in his above plate III,33 we can see two basins which flank the east side of the small pyramid; the corner of the pyramid can just be made out middle left. The farthest basin is thought to have at one time been connected to the flow channel, but later filled in. The basins are an unusual feature with an uncertain function; two further basins are to be found on the pyramids west side. Quibell gives the quartzite basins with an upper square of 1.01m with a hemispherical shape of 72cm in diameter; they also had an inlet or spout on their east side. The smaller alabaster basin is not a cube like the others but more a bowl polished internally.34 33 34 Excavations at Saqqara (1906-1907) J.E.Quibell, plate III. Ibid, page 2 43 In Quibell’s plate IV above he provides his drawings of the Satellite pyramid, he shows three quartzite basins and one smaller one of alabaster; note also the numerous intrusive burials that inflict the site. It is interesting to note that Quibell also notes the flow channel in his drawing above (labelled gutter), though not the covered branch that Lauer mentions. The pyramid is given as having a base length of 30 cubits and its thought that its height was designed to match its base length, which provides a steep casing angle of just over 63 degrees; again similar to that of Unas’s satellite pyramid. This equates to an Egyptian Seked of 3.5 (i.e. imagine a right angled triangle whose height is 7 palms and base is 3.5 palms). Though this small pyramid is larger than Unas’s satellite, it 44 appears to follow the same relationship to its parent pyramid in being 1/5 th of its length (Unas Satellite base is 22 cubits, which is 1/5th of Unas pyramid which is 110 cubits). According to Quibell, thieves had broken in through one of the chambers roofing stones, and there appears to be evidence of fire having been used. The descending passage is given as 92cm high by 72cm wide and Quibell reports a plug stone still in situ at the bottom of the passage.35 The entrance is in the middle of the north face and would be concealed under the pavement. At its lower end we have a horizontal passage leading to a rectangular chamber which was roofed over by 4 large beams, which he gives as some 5.2 x 2 x 1.7m or 17.7 cubic metres, a hefty 45 metric tonnes. He provides no measures for the rectangular chamber, but from his drawing the width of the chamber seems to match its height of around 2m, whilst its length is some 5.8m (a possible 4x4x11 cubit chamber). M&R report that in their day, access was not possible to the substructure, and it’s unclear from Lauer’s report if he could gain access. Lauer’s drawing is a close copy of Quibell’s, though strangely he gives the chamber as 5 by 2.5m, with its height being 2m; apart from the 2m height the 5 by 2.5m does not agree with his own drawing or Quibell’s.36 35 Excavations at Saqqara (1906-1907) J.E.Quibell, page 2 Le temple Haut du complexe Funeraire du roi Teti, J.-Ph. Lauer and J. Leclant, 1972, page 37, see also fig12 on page 40 36 45 The satellite pyramid retains a fair bit of casing in its lower parts, possibly due to later intrusive construction which protected it; we can see in Quibell’s drawing a 19 th dynasty pavement set at a higher level. The casing stones from the above images appear nicely worked, though the presence of numerous patch stones is clearly evident, such patches can also be seen in the thin enclosure wall which borders the pyramid on its north and south sides. These thinner walls are only 2 cubits thick and display no batter, unlike their thicker counterparts which form part the outer enclosure wall which surrounds the pyramid complex, these being some 8 cubits thick. Concluding Remarks It’s sad to see yet another pyramid complex where the data is not as good as I had hoped. What we have is mostly from dated reports which often give scant detail and are more suited to the audience of their era. One cannot but help thinking that much work remains to be done on the complex to update the older reports. 46