The White Pyramid of Amenemhet II A Layman’s Guide Keith Hamilton 23rd September 2019 The plan above1 shows the basic layout of the pyramid complex of Amenemhat II, which appears to encroach on an area of Old Kingdom mastabas (the highlighted area is the location of two undisturbed burials, thought to be relatives of the king). The complex was only partially excavated by Jacques de Morgan in 1894-1895 and the few brief details we have of the complex were published in 1903, „Fouilles A Dahchour‟ (Excavations at Dahshur). Morgan’s publication is unfortunately brief on the architectural details of the complex that he did uncover, though thankfully he did provide some useful drawings. Miroslav Verner would state, “In 1894-95, Jacques de Morgan made an archaeological investigation of the ruins, but unfortunately it was hasty and 1 Fouilles A Dahchour en 1894-1895, J. De Morgan, Plate II 1 therefore superficial. Fascinated by the wonderful jewellery found in the princesses‟ tombs, he did not make a careful examination of the mortuary temple, the causeway, or the valley temple.”2 Olga Kozlova from the Isida Project managed to enter into the pyramid substructure in 2011& 2012 and managed to take some images of the inside of this unusual structure. Once again I am most grateful to the Isida Project3 for the use of their images. Amenemhat II is believed to be the third king of the 12 th dynasty, who reigned around 34 years (1929-1895BC)4. His chosen location for his complex was at Dahshur, close to the pyramid giants of Sneferu. This map of the Dahshur region shows the location of Amenemhat’s complex, highlighted in Red. This would appear to be the first pyramid built at Dahshur since the 4th dynasty. The later mud brick pyramids of Amenemhat III and Senwosret III can be seen south and north of Amenemhat’s. 2 The Pyramids, 2001, Miroslav Verner, page 406 www.isida-project.ucoz.com 4 Chronicle of the Pharaohs, P.Clayton, 1996, page 78 3 2 The term ‘White Pyramid’ comes from the abundance of white limestone chips that litter the site. In the image above we can just make out the top of the pent roofing beams sticking out of the desert, and to the right, some large limestone blocks that are probably remnants of the pyramids core framework. The pyramids substructure is in relatively good condition, though poorly documented by Morgan. Mark Lehner would state, “Amenemhet II‟s is one of the most poorly investigated and documented in the long sequence of pyramids.”5 However, thanks to the photographic evidence gathered by Olga Kozlova (Isida Project), who managed to gain access to the burial chamber in 2011 & 2012, we can add a bit more flesh onto the bare bones that Morgan provides in his published work. I am also most grateful to Dieter Arnold, who alerted me to Morgan’s field notes, and kindly supplied me with Morgan’s field sketches: I am also most grateful to Dominique Herouard (Musée d’Art et d’Histoire Baron Gérard – 5 The Complete Pyramids, 1997, page 174. 3 Bayeux) for her kind permission to reproduce Morgan’s sketches. Needless to say, any comments I make in the course of this guide, do not necessarily reflect the views of the above. The Discovery The site of the white pyramid had been previously noted by Carl Lepsius (18101884). The map above6 by Lepsius is informative, in that several features appear noticeable in his time, such as outlines of causeway and enclosure wall, along with the constructions at the eastern corners of the enclosure: he would number this pyramid LI. 6 Aegypten Und Aethiopien, Band I, (1842-1845 expedition) Blatt 35 4 Excavations on the site would commence on the 10th December 1894; Morgan would sink a pit in the centre of the main mound of debris. He soon came across carefully fitted blocks of white limestone, horizontally laid and arranged symmetrically. Left, we have Morgan’s drawing7 of the masonry walls which he uncovered: we see something similar in the framework of large masonry walls that protrude from the mud bricks at the Pyramid of Lahun.8 Morgan would describe that the base square of the pyramid was divided into eight angles, and partly filled with masonry, however, towards the centre, these triangles were devoid of masonry, but filled with sand instead. Morgan suggested that this was to distribute the weight away from the centre of the pyramid were the burial chamber lay. The limestone blocks that he uncovered varied from 1 to 1.4m in length; .85 to 1m in thickness and 1.10 to 1.30m in width. He also states that they came from the quarries of Turah, and that many of the blocks contained marks left by the masons. Left, some of mason marks found on the masonry blocks. No remnants of casing blocks were found, to give an indication of the pyramids angle: though the site has never been adequately cleared, some clues might yet exist that could help in determining the angle and size of the pyramid, though in the 7 8 Fouilles A Dahchour en 1894-1895, page 29 More details can be found in my Lahun Pyramid guide, available on Academia.edu 5 scheme of things it is a relatively small pyramid, possibly only about 50m square. In the image above, from Morgan’s field notes, we see his sketch of the masonry core construction; the dotted line indicates the roof of the burial chamber. He says; “It is impossible, in the current state of the ruins, to say what were the dimensions of the pyramid both in height and surface. It was entirely built of fine Turah limestone, and there remained during the excavations, only the debris of some of the lower courses.”9 Nothing in his report suggests the use of poorer quality limestone for the core, or even the use of mud brick in its construction. Granted, not much remains of the superstructure, but if such poorer materials were used in its construction, one would have thought that Morgan would have noted it. Pending a more detailed excavation of the site, we appear to have a superstructure built of fine limestone with a soft centre of sand. These fine limestone blocks as shown in the image above, did not make contact with the substructure; Morgan would state, “After removing the last layer of 9 Fouilles A Dahchour en 1894-1895, page 30 6 blocks, my workmen encountered sands, then, in the midst of these fluid materials, the roof of a perfectly built and fitted room”10 In Morgan’s sectional drawing we see the sand infill that separates the substructure from the superstructure; Morgan states, “After the construction of the burial chamber, the architects filled the entire cavity with fine sand, to the level where they intended to place the first course of stones.”11 The burial chamber roof consisted of six pairs of pent beams, and each pair was separated by a small distance which was filled with small stones and sealed with plaster. On discovery of the roofing beams, Morgan turned his attention to the north and soon discovered the descending passage which gave him access to the burial chamber. Though Morgan describes the passage as allowing him to examine the interior of the tomb in the smallest details; he has somewhat neglected to place these details in his publication: indeed his description of the substructure would hardly fill a page of text. We are therefore heavily reliant on his published drawings for information on the substructure; however, as we will see, the photographic evidence provided by the Isida Project, highlights errors in Morgan’s drawings. These have probably come about by his somewhat confusing field sketches and having to rely on his memory, when it came to creating his published drawings. 10 11 Ibid, page 29 Ibid, page 30 7 Above, we have an excellent artist’s impression by Frank Monnier of the substructure, based on Morgan’s published drawings. The remnant of the northern descending passage led to a short horizontal corridor that held two portcullises, the first was a vertically lowered portcullis, while the second was a horizontal portcullis. Beyond these, the passage opened into the main chamber; on the west side of the chamber, a sarcophagus made of sandstone blocks was sunk into the floor of the chamber (see section on previous page). In the impression above, a trench can be seen in the middle of the chamber floor, this gave access to a descending passage, which led to a level floor area that contained a pit in the floor: this lower passage mirrored the width of the upper passage. This trench appears to have been concealed with masonry that would have blended in with the floor of the main chamber. In the main chamber four magazines are to be found, two in the south wall, and one each in the west and east walls; Morgan would state that they were placed symmetrically and separated from the chamber by a thin wall of limestone. In the west end of the north wall, he describes a small hiding place (see section on previous page, magazine on right and small hiding place (Niche) on left). 8 In Morgan’s published drawings above12 we have a section and plan of the chamber. His section suggests that the descending passage inclines at a gentle 10 degrees, and above the flat ceiling of the descending passage, a pent roof ceiling has been constructed to relieve weight from above. He states, “The corridor 12 Ibid, page 34. 9 measures inside 1.22m wide by 1.33m high; it provides the necessary space for the passage of the wooden coffin which contained the mummy.”13 Above, we have Morgan’s published drawing and his field sketch, of the descending passage. The height of 1.33m appears to be the vertical height of the passage, as another sketch shows it as vertical: at 10 degrees the perpendicular height would be a slightly smaller 1.31m. One sketch suggests that the surviving floor length of the descending passage is about 11.25m (which closely agrees with his fig 81 on the previous page). It is interesting to note that the pent relieving roof above the passage is somewhat narrower than the passage that it protects. Above the rock trench in which the passage was built, we see that he writes „briques‟, unfortunately his brief report does not clarify what these are, possible mud-brick? When you look at the section on the previous page, you will see that Morgan maintains the same passage height on his scale drawing for the horizontal passage that leads to the main chamber. We see that the roof line of the passage is drawn as only slightly less than the roof line of the western magazine, which he gives as 1.5m high; however, there is a major discrepancy in this drawing and what the Isida Project photographs reveal. 13 Ibid, page 33 10 In the image above, we can see the horizontal passage enter into the main chamber in the bottom right hand corner, and it is immediately apparent that the roof line of this passage is considerably lower than that of the western magazine, which still has most of its closure stone still in place. As we will see, the height of the entrance turns out to be only 1.02m high! The image above was taken in 2011, and as you can see, the chamber is largely covered in debris; however, images taken in 2012 show significant digging in the areas of the sarcophagus and floor trench by persons unknown. When these images were taken, the only access to the chamber was through a breach in the ceiling at the east end; in the image above, another breach appears to have been started in the ceiling. In Morgan’s day he gained access through the descending passage, and he makes no mention of any breach in the ceiling; unfortunately for us, he provides no detail on the condition of the chamber, other than to say, 11 “The pyramid had been entirely covered by spoilers. They had exploited a part of the corridor, opened the sarcophagus, broken the partitions which formally closed the rooms of the offerings (Magazines); nothing had escaped their investigations, and no object remained.”14 The images show significant damage to parts of the chamber, but which are new and which are old, would require careful scrutiny. To gain entry, one needs to be able to squeeze through a 28cm gap, between the large pent roofing beams, and then be lowered by rope through the breach in the ceiling. This breach is disturbing; at first I thought that it might have happened during the Egyptian revolution in 2011, but a source suggested to the Isida Project that it happened in 2007. I am led to believe that the tomb has now been sealed to prevent any further entry, possibly in 2015. In Morgan’s field sketch above, we can see that he gives a height for the entrance at 1.02m, which is some 48cm lower than the west magazine at 1.50m. This together with the image on the previous page suggests that Morgan’s fig 81 (page 9) is in error. We can also gleam from the sketch above that the east magazine is 1.47m high, that the height of the chamber is 2.17m, and width at the ceiling 2.93m (he would give 2,92m for the floor: Morgan provides few measures in his 14 Ibid, page 34 12 published work, with most measures being shown only on his sketches. The sketches themselves can often be confusing, be it measurements that don’t add up; indeed, it’s difficult to determine which sketches relate to the pyramid, as other structures would be drawn on the same page, and encroach on another sketch) The impression above will give a rough idea of the tombs layout; portcullises are in the closed position and I have reduced the height of the horizontal passage to 1.02m (2 cubits?). Were visible, in the images I hold, I have highlighted the joint lines in the main chamber; debris preventing observation of the lower wall course. From Morgan’s sketches and the images available, we appear to have three wall courses that make up the chamber above floor level; the first two, 75cm high, with the top course being 67cm for a total of 2.17m. The Isida Project, obtained measures for the top course on the south wall, which gave a chamber length of 7.32m (14 cubits?) 13 In this 2011 image of the entrance, Isida measured the width of the lintel above as 1.56m (3 cubits?). This would appear to be the width of the unlined horizontal passage; on the right we can see some of the surviving wall lining, some 17cm thick, whereas on the left, the lining appears robbed, with the lintel receiving no support on this side. Two wall linings of 17cm thickness would leave a remaining width of 1.22m, which would agree with the width of the descending passage; however, there are possible indications that the passage may originally have been only two cubits wide, therefore matching the height of the entrance. 14 This view just inside the entrance shows a strange recessed area on the ceiling; just in view on the right, is the damaged edge of the wall lining, the end of which we saw in the previous image, and behind that, we can make out the opening for the horizontal portcullis. On the west wall, the lining appears to have been removed; but is it possible that the lines on the ceiling denoted the original thickness of the wall lining? Was some modification carried out to increase the width of the passage; could this explain why the pent ceiling above the descending passage is somewhat narrower than the passage below, was the whole passage widened at some stage? I have no measures for the lines we see on the ceiling, and the distortion on the images can be misleading, but the appearance is that the unlined horizontal passage may have been 3 cubits wide, with original wall linings half a cubit thick, leaving us with a square passage of 2 cubits. Alternatively, was the ceiling required to be shaved down a bit, to provide clearance for a large item on its way to the chamber? 15 In this view, we are looking into the housing in which the horizontal portcullis was stored, when in the open position. Morgan’s sketches suggest that this housing is 1.91m deep and .68m wide; however, it’s not clear from his sketch if this 1.91m measure was taken from the lined or unlined part of the passage, so 17cm may have to come off that. As to the nature of the portcullises, Morgan has only this to say; “Two granite portcullises (fig 81) once closed the access gallery, and from the first of these portcullises the pavement of the corridor became horizontal”15 Nothing else is said, he fails to even indicate that he found fragments of the portcullises; the reader is left to accept his view in good faith, but equally is this just a reconstruction, and that this is what he believed? 15 Ibid, page 34 16 On the floor of the horizontal portcullis housing are two recessed grooves, these may have held two runners that raised the portcullis a slight way of the floor. These would reduce the friction surface area, and allow levers to access under the portcullis; the lower front edge of the portcullis may have been cut in a certain way to initially help in withdrawing the portcullis out of its housing (the portcullis that closed the burial chamber at Mazghuna North had its lower edge adapted). Repeated operations with levers would gradually walk the portcullis across the passage floor and fitted into a recess in the west wall, which would be created by the now missing wall lining. These raised runners could also work as an added security feature, for as the end of the portcullis came off them and lay flat on the floor; future robbers would soon encounter a problem if they merely thought that all they had to do was lever the portcullis back into its housing, as the raised projections would prevent it. 17 Moreover, even if they knew of these runners, it would be somewhat difficult to get levers near the rear of the block to lever it up. With wall linings in place the passage width would be 1.22m, the housing at 1.91m deep, if taken from the unlined edge, could mean that the portcullis could be 2.08m long (1.91 plus .17 lining thickness). With the portcullis closed, some .69m will be left hid behind the east wall. Another possible security feature is the presence of a small lintel found to span the roof of the portcullis housing; they could have designed the portcullis such that it could only be opened or closed if perfectly level. Robbers who may have not known of this feature and just tried to lever one end while pushing back the portcullis at an angle, would hit this lintel and scupper their plans. The following images will hopefully provide a clearer picture. In this image, we can make out the small lintel that spans the 68cm wide portcullis housing. The distance from the housing ceiling to the passage ceiling, according to Morgans sketches is about 49 cm. The lintel appears to be half this distance; and 18 could be ½ a cubit wide and high, so hardly an imposing beam that could support a lot. Dressing marks can be seen left on the stone by the ceiling, and the ceiling line that we saw on the ceiling south of the housing (image, page 15) appears to carry onwards, on the ceiling stone north of the housing. It’s hard to define if the line is visible on the east side, but there appears to be traces of white plaster adhering to the ceiling. There also appears to be a well defined area of dressing, under the lintel. In this view looking up into the housing, we can compare its positioning with the surviving wall lining and the ceiling line; here it appears to align with the ceiling line, whereas the surviving wall lining appears to align with the dressed area under the lintel. It is quite difficult to determine the masonry make up in this area from a few images and how it all knits together, though this small lintel appears somewhat superfluous. 19 The above is one possibility, which might explain the features we see; however, it can only be tentative, the whole area requires clearance and more detailed scrutiny; Morgan’s questionable measures and drawings allow several permutations. On the next page we have Morgan’s published drawing, showing his section of the horizontal portcullis housing. I have annotated his drawing16 with measures that are a mix taken from his scale drawings and his field sketches. In this drawing he maintains the error of the passage height as 1.33m, which we see on his other section drawing (see page 9). 16 Ibid, page 35, fig 81 (Morgan has made an error in his number sequence as he also has a fig 81 on page 34; this is the main chamber section, which is on page 9 of this guide.) 20 In Morgan’s section above, we cannot know how much artistic licence he used in drawing the masonry; but it is interesting to see the drawing of thin wall lining on the west wall. Maybe more existed in his day that was subsequently robbed, though in one of his sketches he has the chamber entrance as 1.39m wide: this agrees with the Isida measure (see image page 14), suggesting that this lining that would have supported the lintel was also missing in his day. The 1.22m width he gives for the passage, must therefore be between the wall linings; as the entrance lintel at 1.56m wide, is supported on east wall by a 17cm thick wall lining: if we allow the same thickness for the missing lining on the west wall, we obtain a passage width of 1.22m. The lintel, he shows as extending into the ceiling masonry and aligned with the passage, whereas the photographs, suggest that the lintel protrudes more into the passage. 21 Please compare the above image to the image on page 18. Above, we see the ceiling stone at the top of the image, which contains the lintel; behind it we appear to have a void, the passage east wall can be clearly seen to extend upwards. One would be forgiven for thinking that this was the vertical portcullis housing, but this cannot be, as his drawing and sketches show the vertical portcullis to be over a metre further north, and it probably resides behind the stone in the background. The void that we are looking at is probably a collapsed ceiling stone; with wall linings removed, little will support it other than mortar; any future excavations would need to shore up this passage. So how do we explain the strange masonry make up of this passage? Granted, we have little data to go on, but I suspect that what we are looking at is a passage inside a passage, and hopefully the following images might explain what we see. 22 In this view looking at the main chambers north wall, we see the three courses that make up the wall, and the surviving east wall lining stone, supporting the lintel above the entrance (I have placed a west wall lining stone, further down the passage for effect). The wall linings and the ceiling stones that rested on them would form a distinct passage, and this in turn would be supported by the thick floor stones which rested on ledges of the trench. These floor stones of the upper passage became the ceiling of the lower passage. This double decker passage arrangement would be protected by the larger masonry that formed the walls of the chamber, and protecting the lower passages. This larger surrounding masonry would extend northwards to join with the descending passage. Inside this void, left for the upper and lower passages, thick floor stones would be fitted on the ledges left in the trench, and on this floor the upper passage, consisting of the wall linings and their ceiling blocks would be fitted, along with the small lintel that spans the horizontal portcullis housing. 23 In this view, we see part of the large masonry construction that would protect the lower passages. With the floor blocks laid on the ledges, construction of the upper passage could commence; a sort of smaller passage built inside a larger passage. 24 In this view the yellow stones are the masonry that constitutes the upper passage. The small lintel stone that spans the horizontal portcullis housing, probably went no higher than what is shown above, it merely rested into cut outs provided for it in the ceiling stones next to it with its upper surface flush with them; the top of the portcullis housing being bridged with the larger surrounding masonry. 25 In this view the upper passage has been completed, and then the larger surrounding masonry is laid on top to protect it. This sequence best explains what we see today; however, it can only be tentative, as we know so little about this passage. Morgan omits any description of this passage, other than it held two granite portcullises; he makes no mention of wall linings, the lines on the ceiling, the grooves on the portcullis floor, etc. To be kept in mind also, is the possibility that originally the wall linings, may have been thicker at half a cubit each, giving us a square passage of two cubits. 26 In this image taken in December 2012, we can see that persons unknown have excavated in the area of the trench and chamber entrance (compare to the images taken in December 2011 on pages 11 & 14). We can see what appears to be a ledge left for the floor stones; unfortunately we have no camera shot from the opposite direction to see if a ledge exists on the east wall. Though Morgan’s section (see page 9) shows intact flooring in place, we do not know if this is artistic licence, and a reconstruction of how he envisages the floor to be like originally. The image above clearly shows that flooring is missing from the passage and it might be the case that no flooring exists along its length; if this is the case, it would appear that the only thing keeping the lintel and wall lining in place are the tenacious properties of Ancient Egyptian mortar. 27 In this view, we can see a thick surviving floor stone against the south wall of the main chamber; beneath this, we have what appears to be well fitted but less thick masonry. Though the debris sloping out of the entrance passage obscures a lot of the trench, we do appear to have a clean vertical face surviving on the west side of the trench. Unfortunately we have no images from the other side to show the east side of the trench. The chamber floor level is easily visible even with the missing chamber floor stones: a dusty ledge can be seen, probably left as the masons did the final smoothing of the chamber walls. 28 In this view looking down into the trench, we can still see what appears to be a considerable amount of well fitted masonry against the chambers south wall, and a possible hole in the floor of the trench. This is somewhat at odds with Morgan’s drawings were he shows the trench devoid of masonry. We do not know if the ledge carried on across the trench, or if the trench was simply filled with masonry, after whatever was deposited in the lower passage: one would have thought that the masons would have fitted an irregular chamber floor over the trench, to disguise its presence; having a regular row of floor stones matching the entrance passages width would only raise the interests of robbers. 29 In the view above, I have reconstructed how the missing wall lining and floor stone may have originally looked. From Morgan’s published scale drawings, he suggests that the passage floor stones are about 60cm thick: for comparison, the first course above the floor level would be 75 high, and as the entrance is 102 high, the distance, between the next course line and the top of the entrance is 27cm. On the next page, I highlight some of the issues which are apparent from Morgan’s published drawings and his sketches. The shaded green area denotes the lower passage height of 1.02m, and the dimensions are the best guess I can obtain from Morgan’s drawings and sketches. 30 In Morgan’s sketch above, we see that he gives a height of 222 for the south wall of the trench, and 258 from the chamber floor to the inclined floor of the trench, at north wall. Given the image on page 29, he could not measure the south wall due to the masonry but only infer it by trigonometry; however, his published drawing above is at odds with his sketch. In his published drawing the dimensions 222 & 258, appear more related to the position I have placed them, on his fig 81. The 258 may be the distance between the two passage floors, or the end of the inclined 31 floor, where in one of his sketches, he shows a small step of 7.5cm: it might be possible that the distance between the two level floors was intended to be 5 cubits. Though Morgan’s published drawings look impressive and detailed, they are clearly at odds with the photographic evidence, for example, he places a single large lintel stone above the chamber entrance, when what we should have is a small lintel from the true height of the passage shown in green, to the level that equates to the top of the west magazine, this small lintel is then protected by the top masonry course of the chamber, (see images on pages 11 & 14). On his fig 81 he has drawn Diorite supports partly embedded in the walls, these he informs us, are to provide further support to the passage floor under the portcullises, though he only draws them under the vertical portcullis (these supports are also drawn on his other fig 81, see page 21). Further anomalies are to be found in his sketch of the lower passage overleaf. For example, he appears to draw a niche in the east wall of the lower passage (see red arrow), which he does not mention in his text, were he only mentions the square pit in the floor. This small niche seems clear in his drawing, were he gives it as 38 wide, 55 deep and a height of 70, with the niche being 47 from the north wall. It is hard to determine what he is implying from this sketch, and one wonders if it has any relation to his plan (fig 80, see page 9) were he draws a recess next to the outline of the pit. In this plan he shows the recess for the horizontal portcullis, and we might think the smaller recess is to denote the vertical portcullis housing, though at 55 deep, it would extend beyond the wall linings and we appear to have no counterpart recess on the opposing wall, which we might expect. Only further excavation can clarify what Morgan shows on his sketches. 32 Above we have Morgan’s sketch of the upper and lower passages; the questionable niche is highlighted by the red arrow. It is noticeable that Morgan provides no solid line for the upper passage floor, just a dashed line; this might suggest that the floor was missing in his time. This could explain why he got the horizontal passage height so wrong; for if the floor had been fitted he could hardly fail to notice the difference in height, being bent over in a passage barely a metre high. If there is no flooring present under the debris we see today, then it might be the case that Morgan merely assumed that it mirrored the height of the descending passage at 1.33m, and therefore leading to the errors we see in his drawings. 33 Another issue we have is the measure 94cm to the diorite supports from the end of the descending passage, this too is clearly at odds with his published drawings, and likewise the 177 seems too little for the head height of the lower passage. It could be that the 94 is to the bottom of the diorite supports, were his fig 81 suggests that the supports are about 35 high, and as the same drawing suggests about 60 for floor thickness, the two measures could account for the 94. Similarly if we add the 35 to the 177 we get a head height of 212 for the lower passage. If this be the correct interpretation, then the distance between passage floors would be 177 + 94 = 271. This would appear to be too large, as his scale drawing seems to be a closer match to his dimension of 258, if the 258 was to the end of the inclined lower passage and we add the 7.5 of the step we obtain 265.5. Given building tolerances and the small scale drawings which he provides, it’s probably the best that can be hoped for. On his sketch he shows the width of the horizontal portcullis housing as 68, no measure is given for the vertical portcullis housing, but his scale drawing suggests that they are the same; the 54 might relate to possible portcullis thickness, maybe witness marks such as mortar traces provided this dimension perhaps. It is difficult to reconcile his roof measures for the upper passage, and how the 68 fits in, but clearly the 162 is the combination of 108 & 54, added to the 155 we have a total of 317, which appears to mirror the lower passage floor which he also gives as 317, or a possible 6 cubits. His measure for the height of the vertical portcullis housing is interesting in that at 132 it is somewhat less than the vertical height of the descending passage at 133. This would lead to the strange situation were any robbers coming across this portcullis could clearly see the top of it. One would have thought they would have taken care to conceal the height of the portcullis from any robbers. This could be rectified by having the portcullis when stored in its housing to be actually higher than its housing and protruding below the ceiling line some distance; but this runs the risk of reducing the head height at this junction even further and causing an obstacle to large funerary items. As I have already reduced the height of the horizontal passage to 102, any further reduction might hinder the introduction of a wooden coffin for example. The sketch shows the pit in the lower chamber to be a fairly square 89cm (which is similar to the internal width of the sarcophagus, also given as 89); its construction 34 might be similar to the sarcophagus in being constructed of individual slabs of masonry. Though the sketch shows the measure 122, if we combine the measures by the pit the width becomes slightly more at 127. Returning now to the main chamber, Morgan’s Fig 8317 below, looking east, gives a good idea of the layout. Sunk in the west floor of the chamber we have the sarcophagus which is made of several slabs of sandstone, and surrounded by Turah limestone. The S.W. magazine is shown on the south wall and on the north wall we have the niche: just visible on the east wall, is the opening for the eastern magazine. In this drawing he has drawn the niche too low on the north wall and placed a huge stone on top, when in reality the top of the niche is aligned with the top of the magazines (see page 11 & 23). 17 Ibid, page 36 35 In his sketch of the S.W. magazine, we see that it extends to a depth of 184; this is closely matched to the other magazines (east 184, west 182, & S.E. 182). The height of the magazine at 150, matches that of the west, east he gives as 147, and S.E. as 148; likewise the widths of the magazines all closely match being between 104 and 105. Though Morgan states that they are all placed symmetrically, we will see that he has placed the S.W. magazine in the wrong position along the south wall. The course above the magazine he gives as 68, giving a wall height in this location of 218. There appears to be some confusion in the layout of the ceiling, he reports that the ceiling slabs are 90 thick, and are supported by 1m on the north and south walls, and that the spread of the large pent beams above the ceiling is 4.25m18. If we look at his fig 83 on the previous page, we see that he has drawn the ceiling beam on the south wall being supported by 1m of wall and the north end is clearly not supported by 1m of wall. He appears to have taken the width of the ceiling as 2.93m added the 1m support of the south wall and subtracted them from the 4.25m spread to give a support of 32cm only on the north wall. His drawing then places the axis of the pent chamber south of the main chamber axis. Given the span of the chamber and size of these beams, one would expect more support than 32cm; again more scrutiny of this area is required to clarify this confusion. 18 Ibid, page 35 36 In the above image I have modified Morgan’s fig 83 in photoshop to provide another possible solution. We now turn our attention to the niche, which Morgan describes as “A small hiding place had been formed in the north-west wall.” Thanks to his field sketch we can see that the niche is 37 deep and 145 wide, and taking the chamber wall joint lines into account from the available images it appears to be 75 high. This niche had been covered by a plate of stone some 10 cm thick, and part of this plate still survives. To robbers who did not know the layout of the chamber this plate of stone would simply appear as a wall course stone; but tomb robbers are a smart foe, and whatever was behind this plate has been long robbed. 37 In this 2011 image, we see the debris spill into the niche; we can also make out some of the surviving cover plate still in place. Note the masonry joint lines that show that the top of the niche aligns with the top of the magazine. The west magazine is the only magazine that appears to have retained most of its closure stone; here a small breach has been made in its top left corner: Morgan’s sketch shows this stone to be some 35 thick, reducing the available storage space to a depth of 1.47m. 38 This view is inside the niche looking to the west, with the cover plate left. The back of the plate appears to have been left quite rough, compared to the rest of the niche, and inside the niche we see numerous dressing marks left by the masons. As to the function of the niche, the only thing I can think of is that it may have held a slab-stela: given the care in concealing the sarcophagus in the floor, why not do the 39 same for a slab-stela, whose positioning in the chamber effectively makes it a headstone for the sarcophagus.19 In this view, taken in Dec 2012, we can see that someone has obviously shifted a lot of debris to access the sarcophagus immediately below the niche. An excavation has been made in the back of the niche. The chamber floor line coincides with the top of the damaged wall, seen at bottom. A lot of white limestone can be seen piled up on right; how Morgan left this chamber is not clear, one might assume he cleared it of debris, but if this was the case, were has all this new debris come from? Indeed, if we look at the earlier image of 2011, on page 11, we can see sizeable pieces of masonry on top of the debris; the obvious concern is that all this debris might be more recent. Anyone unscrupulous enough to punch a hole through the ceiling will have no qualms about digging elsewhere. 19 In G1201 at Giza, we have an example of a slab-stela with a covering slab. See plate II, Reisner, A history of the Giza Necropolis volume 1 40 The most visible damage to the chamber is sadly the S.W. magazine, in this location we see extensive excavation has been done through the upper wall course and into the ceiling beam. You can just make out the clean vertical edges of the magazine entrance, and then the rough cutting above as they cut through the upper wall course which formed part of the ceiling of the magazine. 41 In this different view, taken from inside the sarcophagus, we see the badly damaged S.W. magazine; damage is also visible on the wall to the right of the magazine. There is much evidence of damage throughout the chamber, which is recent and which is ancient, is a question that a thorough excavation can probably only answer. 42 In this view I have highlighted the damaged lintel stone above the magazine entrance. Note also the square hole in the south wall, this can be seen on the image on page 28. According to Morgan all these magazines were separated from the main chamber by a thin wall of limestone; remains of these walls may yet remain in place under the debris pile. Clearance in the area of the sarcophagus allows us a good look at the covering stone for the west magazine. 43 Looking up into the north-west corner, from inside the sarcophagus, it appears that the west magazine has been closed with two plates of stone that match the wall courses; likewise the covering plate for the niche blends in with the chamber wall courses. However, robbers would soon be suspicious of two equal blocks on top of each other; the entrance would be better concealed, if the top block, had been made a different width. That said, the joints are quite close and a fine piece of the mason’s skill in fitting them in the tight confines of this corner. From Morgan’s sketch the plate of stone is 35cm thick, with the lower two chamber courses being 75cm high and the entrance being 105cm wide, then one of these stones would be 0.28 of a cubic metre. Solid limestone at about 2700kg a cubic metre means that they weigh about 740kg each! This is no small weight to put in place; further no rebate appears to have been left in the walls of the magazines to insert the block against. (The damaged lintel on the previous page is 238 wide, Isida, 68 high and 134 deep, Morgan Sketch; this gives 2.17 cubic metres, around 5.9 metric tonnes) 44 Looking through the breach in the upper closure stone, we can see into the west magazine, the thickness of the closure stone reduces the depth of the magazine to 1.47m. Morgan would report that the robbers had done a thorough job, and that no object remained in the tomb other than a piece of diorite statue, which bore the inscription below. 45 In this view looking down into the sarcophagus, from inside the S.W. magazine, I have placed red lines to denote the chambers floor level. Though called the sarcophagus, it is not like the solid fine sarcophagus boxes that we come to expect in ancient Egypt, but could be more accurately described as a stone lined pit. The linings of this pit are of made of sandstone; and they create a void 236 long, by 89 wide and 109 high. This void was covered with sandstone slabs some 30 thick, and on top of these, chamber flooring some 37 thick were placed to help concealed the location of the pit. We appear therefore to have a chamber where great effort was put into concealing all the magazines, the niche and the pit: one can imagine robbers on first breaching into this chamber being met by a plain rectangular room. 46 Inside the sandstone pit looking north; floor level would be some 67cm above the top surface of the pit. Some undercutting of the north wall appears to have been made and some faint mason marks can still be seen; this appears to have been done to allow engagement of the sandstone covering slabs (see Morgan’s fig 83, page 35) 47 In this close up view we can see some of the mason’s marks on the undercut; note also what appear to be streaks of red mortar present on the sandstone. On the next page we have Morgan’s sketches of the chamber, which again highlight some errors on his published drawings. 48 When I first saw the Isida Project images, it seemed that the S.W. magazines location did not agree with his published drawings, figs 80 & 82; indeed it seemed a strange place to position a magazine were the pit would obstruct access. In the above sketch he provides a distance of 143 for the magazine from the west wall of the chamber, compared to the 105 given for the S.E. magazine. This makes logical sense to displace the S.W. magazine further east to help with access. 49 The images I have, definitely suggest that Morgan’s measure of 143 is more likely to be correct, and so I have amended his figs 80 & 82 above to show the effect. That the amended figures are more likely correct can be deduced from the measures Isida provide for the top course along the south wall. These measures of the top course are shown on the next page, and I have placed Morgan’s dimensions for the magazines on the same drawing. 50 In the drawing above we can see that the magazines are surmounted by large lintel blocks of similar size. Logic might suggest that the centre of these blocks should correspond with the centre axis of the magazines; in the case of S.E. magazine, its axis from the east wall is 157. The centre of its lintel is half of 241 plus 37, which amounts to 157.5. A similar exercise on the axis of the S.W. magazine shows it to be 195 from the west wall, and the centre of the lintel to be half of 238 plus 76 which provides 195. This then provides another clue that Morgan’s published scale drawings are incorrect. More confusion comes from his sketch on page 49, and that is in the measures that should highlight the length of the chamber. Isida shows that the chamber length amounts to732, which is in close agreement with his fig 80; however, his sketch suggests 105+104+377+104+143 = 833 (if we take that he meant to write 277 we obtain close agreement at 733). Another method from his sketches could be 105+104+97+122(for trench) +97?+104+143 = 772, which is too long. Such confusion generally runs throughout his sketches, making it difficult to get a true picture of the chamber. 51 From the available information the above plan is my best guess of the chamber. Here I have the passage axis divide the chamber into two equal parts. In this scheme the S.E. magazine would be 96 from the trench (which agrees closely with the 97 on his sketch); however, the S.W. magazine would only be 58 from the trench, which does not agree with his sketch. The next issue to address is the following statement by Morgan, “The corridor measures inside 1.22m wide by 1.33m high; it provides the necessary space for the passage of the wooden coffin which contained the mummy.”20 20 Fouilles A Dahchour en 1894-1895, page 33 52 The internal height of the sarcophagus is 1.09m and if the corridor was 1.33m it is clear that a box 109 would have clearance; but as we now know that the height of the horizontal passage is only 102, we have an issue to address, as to what can pass the junction of the descending and horizontal passage. With the vertical portcullis flush with the horizontal passage ceiling, a box of length 235 and 89 high could just squeeze pass the junction; any lid would have to be introduced separately. The internal space created by the sandstone sarcophagus is considerable, at 236 long, 89 wide and 109 deep; Khufu’s by comparison is 198 long, 68 wide and 87 deep. What burial practice Amenemhat elected to use, such as a nested box configuration we do not know, but given the large space available in the sandstone sarcophagus, it is possible that space could be found for canopic jars. A Canopic chest could also be placed in one of the magazines, or even in the pit found in the lower passage; though this appears a bit distant from the sarcophagus and a lot of work to create this location. 53 In the above image, courtesy of Dieter Arnold, and based on Morgan’s published drawings, we see a second coffin placed in the lower passage.21 Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain a copy of Arnold’s article, so I can only comment on the image above. It certainly makes logical sense that a second wooden coffin or even a stone sarcophagus could be placed in this area; the level floor in this area is certainly capable of holding another sarcophagus, as it is some 3.17m long and over 1.22m wide. Could we perhaps even be looking at a double burial? The strange tombs found to the west of the pyramid also contained double burials. The sizeable pit in the floor could have held a canopic chest; or it may have contained valuable items, with the canopics in the coffin, or even in the mysterious niche that Morgan draws in his sketch (see page 33). In the image above, Arnold has drawn a stone that would rest on the diorite supports; I assume in this scenario that the large coffin had been brought in while the trench was open, and that the trench was subsequently closed, with access ‘Buried in two tombs? Remarks on cenotaphs in the Middle Kingdom’, The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in honour of David B. O’Connor (Cairo, 2007), 55-61 21 54 being thereafter restricted via the passage floor. A wooden coffin would be beneficial in this scenario, as its light weight compared to a stone sarcophagus, would allow it to be moved, to access the pit or the niche on the east wall if it exists. Another option is that a stone sarcophagus was fitted in this space; the smooth ramp is beneficial for such a heavy item. In a scenario like this, one can see all access being via the trench. If a burial, the stone sarcophagus could be transported down the descending passage, minus its lid, to the trench in the chamber floor. Prior to this, items would be placed in the pit and niche, the niche and pit would be covered and the sarcophagus brought down the ramp and placed on the level floor, providing additional security to the pit and niche; as the sarcophagus would prevent access to these locations. After this operation had been completed, the trench would be filled with masonry and its existence would be disguised by the chamber floor. It might seem strange and time consuming to bring in all this masonry at the time of burial, and yet, we see sizeable amounts of introduced masonry brought into the Hawara pyramid; and even at Mazghuna South, the so called false passages which led to the sandboxes were filled with masonry. 22 So the closing of a pyramid may not have been a quick affair; no doubt the people doing all this clever concealing might have divulged this information to robbers or took part in the violation of the tomb themselves. The above scenarios are just examples, but whatever the function of this area, the design of the lower passage, would appear to be in the original plan of the tomb and not some later modification; though this could only be confirmed by detailed excavation. 22 Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 50 55 In this view looking east, we can see the ceiling breach in the S.E. corner. Looking at the undamaged areas shows the quality of construction to be quite fine with very tight joints; it would have been a very impressive sight when new. Some cracks are visible in the walls and on the ceiling; but given its age and the violations inflicted on it, the structure is generally in good condition. 56 In this earlier view of the S.E. magazine, we can see that the magazine is still largely filled with debris, compared to the image on the previous page. Note also the ceiling breach. 57 Close up view of the ceiling breach. The roof covering the chamber is a somewhat unique design as can be seen on Morgan’s fig 82 & 83 (see pages 50 & 35). Six pairs of large pent beams span the chamber below; with each pair separated by a small space, which Morgan states was filled with small stones, sealed with plaster. 58 The small gaps between the pent beams is the only access route into the chamber, and one needs to be slim enough to squeeze through a gap of 28cm. 59 A view inside one of the stone filled gaps 60 The gable end of the pent beams was closed with horizontally placed blocks. The whole construction is quite utilitarian. 61 Looking out through one of the gaps 62 At a distance of 1.30m above the thick ceiling slabs we come across the roof floor which is supported by partition walls. The image above shows the breach in the roof floor, and through this we can see the sunlight coming through the gap between the pent beams. How accurate Morgan’s drawings are of this roof, I am unable to say from the available images. 63 In this view we are looking down through the roof floor breach, and below we can see the breach that was made in the chamber ceiling stone. This concludes the guide to the pyramid substructure; for the reminder of the pyramid complex I will only give brief points, as we have no modern images of the rest of the complex to help us, and Morgan’s own publication is very sparse in detail. Those readers interested in the jewellery found in one of the western tombs, can easily find Morgan’s work online. 64 The complex is enclosed by a 225m long rectangular enclosure wall; no detail is given on the construction of this wall. On the causeway leading to the enclosure Morgan only states that it was a long paved avenue, which was enclosed with brick walls. At the entrance to the enclosure Morgan states; “To the right and to the left of the enclosure door, at the point where the avenue ends, were once two monuments, of which only the formless blocks of masonry are left today. The stones are connected to each other by means of hardwood dovetails very well preserved.”23 What these structures are, is not known, but it has been suggested that they might be similar to pylon like structures found at the pyramid of Djedkare-Isesi (5th dynasty). Morgan thought that whatever these constructions were, they must have been quite ornate, as many pieces of painted sculpture was found in their rubble. Beyond this rubble, a wide space exists before the pyramid; here he reports that the disorder was much greater than the entrance constructions. Here he believed was the location of the funerary temple, in this area he found granite door thresholds, 23 Fouilles A Dahchour en 1894-1895, page 38 65 parts of limestone columns, friezes, steles, and inscriptions of all kinds; many of which bore the cartouche of Amenemhat II. North of the pyramid outside of the enclosure wall, he came across more unknown construction, which had been raised above mastabas of the 4th dynasty. Here more column fragments were found, and in the middle of this square building he found a curious stone table with sockets for a door, amongst a massive block of bricks. Left, we have the stone table; Morgan thought that the appendage had been destined for the flow of liquids. As previously mentioned the whole site is poorly explored and documented. In the case of the causeway and area of the enclosure entrance some near-surface magnetic investigation has been carried out, the authors state; “We have successfully detected four main structures in the area east of the pyramid; the causeway that connected the mortuary temple with the valley temple during the Middle Kingdom of the 12th Dynasty, the mortuary temple and its associated rooms, ruins of an ancient working area and an Egyptian-style tomb structure called a Mastaba.”24 The authors managed to trace some 300m of the causeway; the walls probably of mud brick were about 1.25m thick and distance between walls about 25m. At the western end of the enclosure three tombs that contained double burials were discovered; two of these tombs had been robbed but that of Princess Ita and Princess Khnoumit had been missed by the robbers. These long rectangular tombs are apparently quite similar, and created in a trench in the ground; Morgan could find no trace of any superstructure above these tombs, so it may have been intended that these tombs were purposely meant to be concealed. ‘ Discovery of the causeway and the mortuary temple of the Pyramid of Amenemhat II using near-surface magnetic investigation, Dahshour, Giza, Egypt’. Geophysical Prospecting, 2010, 58, 307-320. 24 66 The elongated tombs basically followed a north-south orientation; entrance was on the north and one would enter a long corridor, at certain points along the west wall, openings were left that provided access to the fine stone sarcophagi: these openings would be closed by a vertically lowered stone after burial (there are some issues with Morgan’s text and drawings on these tombs that I find difficult to reconcile, so I will not dwell long on them). The sarcophagi were placed below the floor level of the corridor and spaces were left that allowed the deceased access to the offering chamber which was located under the corridor floor. Morgan’s section shows the offering chamber under the corridor pavement, spaces were left to connect the offering chamber to the space that held the sarcophagus. The design of the tomb led Morgan to conclude that the sarcophagus must have been put in place at the same time as the tomb had been built. This would prevent access to the offering chamber via the spaces between the two; access to the offering chamber was through a hole in the corridor floor, which was closed with a slab. The whole corridor after burial was filled with well fitting blocks of stone, while above the sarcophagus the cavity was filled with blocks of stone that had all been marked as to their location, these had in turn been closed off by the large slab ‘D’ whose positioning was assisted by grooves found on the top of block ‘e’. Morgan did not remove the corridor blocking but accessed the sarcophagus by removing the stones above it, were he found the top of the sarcophagus protected by 11cm thick wooden planks. The sarcophagus he describes as a well polished hard sandstone, and inside was a fine wooden coffin. 67 Here we have the plan of Princess Ita’s tomb, with three spaces being left between the sarcophagus and offering chamber; the canopic chest is bottom left. Who these individuals were and their relationship to Amenemhat II, is not clear cut. Lisa Sabbahy has done an interesting article on the female family of Amenemhat II, for those interested in looking further into this subject.25 In the items that Morgan found in the tomb, hieroglyhic inscriptions whose animal signs had been truncated, i.e. legs removed, were found. This incomplete form of hieroglyhics was the subject of a study by Gianluca Miniaci26, and it would appear that the system was introduced in the latter part of the reign of Amenemhat III, as it is rarely seen at his Dahshur pyramid complex. The offering table of Neferuptah found in the burial chamber of the Hawara pyramid is a good example of this new system (see my Hawara guide). Chronology is often imprecise, but using P.Clayton’s dates from his book, ‘Chronicle of the Pharaohs’ we have Amenemhat II at 1929-1895, and Amenemhat III at 1842-1797. This suggests that Amenemhat III came to the throne some 53 years after the death of Amenemhat II, and as it is thought that he moved to Hawara in about the 15th year of his reign, this would give a period of at least 68 years, if we assume that the incomplete system of hieroglyphics was developed at Hawara. If the people buried in the western tombs were known to Amenemhat II, they must have died at a good old age. It would be interesting to examine the remains of Ita above to determine her age. 25 www.academia.edu/7141838/Female_Family_of_Amenemhat_II 26 www.academia.edu/8048615/The_Incomplete_Hieroglyhs_System_at_the_end_of_the_Middle_Kingdom 68 This considerable gap in time calls into question as to when were the western tombs constructed? Would such tombs be constructed at the same time as Amenemhat II’s tomb, and left for what would appear to be a very considerable time, or would the tombs be constructed at a later date and not contemporary to Amenemhat II’s complex? A detailed comparison with Amenemhat’s tomb, building techniques, mason’s marks etc might offer some clues as to whether the tombs are contemporary. The quality of the western tombs is said to be quite high, Morgan would state, “The stones and woods are so neat that in most cases it would not be possible to slip a sheet of paper into the joints.” Concluding Remarks The available material on Amenemhat II’s complex, barely allows us a brief glimpse on this enigmatic site; it really requires a full excavation. Morgan’s report is sparse in detail and his drawings somewhat suspect; though we have to remember the era in which his excavations were carried out; I have come across worse excavation reports and some not as old as his, so it would be unfair to single him out; indeed, for the time, his report is better than most. Amenemhat’s tomb is now sealed against any further intrusion and it’s unlikely that we will learn anymore. As I have pointed out before, architectural study is not a priority for Egyptology; when one looks at the history of Egyptology, few have studied Egyptian architecture, so it’s unlikely that the debris in Amenemhat’s tomb will be cleared and the structure given the study that it deserves. Though we know little about Amenemhat’s complex, the same could be said about its giant neighbour, the Bent pyramid. Here also, we are reliant on old reports that provide an incomplete picture of the structure: from such limited data Egyptologists have to build a narrative that explains the report’s findings. In the 1960’s the Italian scholars Maragioglio and Rinaldi made the following Observation, “We have often noted an almost total absence of critical spirit as regards the interpretation of data obtained from excavation, so that the excavator‟s conclusions, which are often questionable, have never been discussed, but almost always accepted as verba magistri. In some cases, moreover, to sustain a given theory, incontrovertible excavation data have been neglected, or in fact 69 deliberately ignored. In other cases again, what were only hypotheses in need of confirmation have been repeated by everyone who has taken a superficial interest in the problems and thus assumed the appearance of acquired facts.”27 In the series of guides that I have done so far, not one could be said to have been satisfactorily explored. Too often our primary knowledge comes from old excavation reports; when what is required is more modern scrutiny. Too much certainty has been assigned to structures which I feel is not justifiable on the scant data that we hold on them. Much work remains to be done on the subject of Egyptian architecture; maybe less needs to be spent on reading hieroglyhs and more spent on reading the stones. 27 L’Archetettura Delle Piramidi Menfite, Part II, page 7 70