The Pyramid of Khendjer Userkare A Layman’s Guide Keith Hamilton 22nd January 2020 The above plan1 gives us a good overview of the Khendjer complex. The plan is orientated north, with the entrance to the pyramid on its west side. A smaller pyramid is found in the N.E. corner of the complex whose entrance is on its east side. The whole complex is surrounded by an outer enclosure wall, with the smaller pyramid isolated from the main pyramid by an inner enclosure wall. The ruins of a large temple are on the east side, and the remains of a small structure 1 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, Plate II. 1 were found on the north side of Khendjer’s pyramid. Three shaft tombs were also found in the northern part of the complex, which appear to have been surrounded by wavy mud-brick walls. The location of Khendjer’s pyramid had been noticed by Lepsius, and I have annotated its location on his map above, along with some other prominent landmarks. Lepsius gave it the number XLIV, and it was in close proximity to the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid (this was a larger and more elaborate Middle Kingdom pyramid, with no known attribution). Just west of Khendjer’s pyramid, Lepsius annotates an area as XLV; this appears not to be a pyramid, but a ruinous area that appears to have contained monuments contemporary to the 13th dymasty.2 It is thought That J.de Morgan may have visited the substructures of Khendjer’s and the Southern South Saqqara pyramid in the summer of 1893, as his map on the page overleaf, hints at the presence of substructures; though he appears not to have published any details.3 2 3 Ibid, Page 70 Ibid, page 67 2 Above we have Morgan’s map4, which we can compare to lepsius on the previous page. Excavation of the Khendjer pyramid along with its neighbour, the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid was carried out by Gustave Jéquier over three consecutive seasons: 21 Feb to 28 Apr, 1929; 14 Nov 1929 to 11 Feb 1930; and 15 Nov 1930 to 25 Jan 1931. Jéquier’s findings were subsequently published in „Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933‟. This publication is the primary resource for the two pyramids, for it appears that no further excavations have been undertaken on the structures. This unfortunately is quite a common occurrence, and too often the only information we have on many sites are quite old reports, which are often lacking in detail and information. In these early days of Egyptology we would get quite a variety of excavators; some such as Flinders Petrie could display their impressive surveying skills and provide important survey information, while others would omit survey data; measures are often omitted from their reports, and in their place, scale drawings are provided. Ideally all these sites in which we hold only old reports need to be revisited, and be subjected to more modern scrutiny. 4 Carte de la Necropole Memphite, J De Morgan, 1897, plate 6 3 The above plan from Jéquier’s publication5 highlights the close proximity of the two pyramids. This guide will concentrate on Khendjer’s pyramid complex; the larger more complex Southern South Saqqara pyramid will be subject to its own guide. Generally these small Middle Kingdom pyramids have had their building materials recycled, and we are often left with ruinous sites, with little remains. Khendjer’s attribution comes mainly from his cartouche being found on remains of the pyramid temple and on fragments of the black granite pyramidion, which were found in the ruins of the small north chapel. Khendjer Userkare is believed to be a king who reigned in the middle of the 13th dynasty; and the length of his reign is unknown. 5 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, Plate I 4 The deconstruction of the pyramid is uncertain, though Ahmed Fakhry would state; “Apparently the casing was removed during the reign of Ramesses II, as one of his architects named Nashui left an inscription in the temple recording the operation. It is strange that Ramesses II should be responsible for the demolition of this ancient monument, while less than a mile away his son, Prince Khaemwese, was restoring the Mastabet Fara‟un, as well as the pyramid of Wenis at Saqqara!”6 It is not known with any certainty if Khendjer was buried in this complex. The sarcophagus, which was closed and found to have been broken into, was devoid of any material that may have indicated a burial; further, the portcullises were left in the open position. In the smaller pyramid, found in the N.E. corner of the complex, two sarcophagi were found unused, and its two portcullises appear closed. Had Khendjer not been buried in this complex, and Ramesses was aware of this fact, it might explain why it was selected for its materials to be recycled, while his son restored others. The design of the substructure is quite similar to those found at Mazghuna South and the new pyramid found in 2017 at Dahshur. These structures all share a closure mechanism for the sarcophagus that involves the use of sand boxes; this design was first seen in use at the impressive Hawara pyramid of Amenemhet III. In terms of complexity of the substructure, more work would appear necessary in the creation of Mazghuna South, while the new pyramid discovered in 2017 would appear the easiest of the three. 6 nd The Pyramids, A.Fakhry, 2 edition 1970, page 229 5 Above we have Jéquier’s plan and sections of Khendjer’s substructure7. The descending passage consists of two sections; the first is a short steeper section that terminates at the first portcullis chamber, which held a quartzite portcullis. This portcullis would, in the closed position bar entry to the second longer section of the descending passage, which starts at a higher level than the floor of the first section. The second section displays a less steep angle, and this section terminates at the second portcullis chamber; at the bottom of the stairs the level floor that leads to the portcullis is interrupted by a double leafed door, with recesses made in both walls to accommodate the door. The second portcullis mirrors the first, and this portcullis if in the closed position would bar entry to another higher passage, which leads to a small chamber that has a trench in its floor. This trench gives entry into a lower passage, which leads to a large rectangular chamber; midway along this passage another lower passage branches off to one of the sand boxes, next to the sarcophagus. The large rectangular chamber has another trench in its floor that allows the coffin to be introduced into the sarcophagus; finally a squarest hole is also to be found in the floor, this giving access to the other sand box. 7 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, Plate VIII 6 This then is the basic layout of the substructure, and it appears to have been built with skill and care; Jéquier would comment on the first staircase, “The steps of this first staircase are not horizontal, but inclined forwards in a sufficiently sensible manner; the walls and ceiling are made of large blocks of Turah limestone beautifully jointed, the surfaces flattened with the utmost care. The same perfection of work, equal to that of the best epochs of Egyptian architecture, is found in all the underground parts of this tomb.”8 We have no clear picture of the 13th dynasty, it has often been described as a somewhat chaotic era, with numerous short lived rulers; some describe the era as more stable and peaceful than some later texts suggest. If there was chaos in the dynasty it appears not to have affected the quality of construction displayed in the pyramid complexes of the time; granted we don’t have much photographic evidence from these old reports, but what is available suggests no dilution of craftsmanship. The Superstructure As is so common in these small pyramids, little of the superstructure remains, but what does remain is similar to other small pyramids of the era. A square platform has been levelled and isolated from the natural landscape by a trench some 6 to 7 metres wide and two metres deep that surround all four sides of the platform. This foundation trench would receive the fine limestone casing of the pyramid, which would be laid against the brick core that was built on the isolated platform. The foundation trench is slightly wider than what we see at Mazghuna South and at the Pyramid of Ameny-Qemau, with the greatest difference being the depth of the trench at 2 metres, which is practically double the depth of the other two sites. Jéquier would report that the foundation trench consisted of three courses of large blocks, however, the few remaining fragments found in the trench could provide no indication as to the thickness of the casing. Jéquier provides no detailed description of the foundation trenches construction, so it’s not known if the trench was brick lined like the two previously mentioned sites above. The brick platform he gives as some 42m, and with the trench some 6 to 7m wide, we have a possible 8 Ibid, page 31. 7 footprint of around 54 to 56m. Jéquier suggested a pyramid with a base of 100 cubits (52.50m), which would mean a casing thickness of 5m, which he thought was a little excessive but not inadmissible.9 However, I do think that a casing stone some 5m thick at the base is excessive and unlikely; if we accept a base of 100 cubits, then some of this 5m distance may have been taken up by backing masonry or further brick behind the casing stone. Several pieces of casing stone were found that gave an average angle of 55 degrees with small variations (a possible Seked of 5 palms?); Jéquier calculated a height of 37.35m for a base of 100 cubits (52,50m). If we use a cubit of 52.5cm and a Seked angle of 5 palms we obtain a height of 70 cubits or 36.75m. The brick core had been largely carried away and Jéquier reports that the best preserved part contained no more than a dozen beds; each slightly set back from each other and separated by a thin layer of sand fill. A foundation deposit consisting of four small vases was found in a brick lined pit, located in the northeast corner of the foundation trench. The Entrance The entrance passage to the pyramid is on the west side of the pyramid, and its axis is around 7m south of the pyramids E-W axis (based on J.P. Lauer’s scale drawing on page 1). Immediately in front of the entrance a brick lined recess was found and judging from Lauer’s plan it is constructed outside the foundation trench. The floor level of this recess is unfortunately not given, so its relationship to the top and bottom of the foundation trench is not known and Jéquier’s drawings do not clarify matters. The drawings from Jéquier and Lauer show a small staircase leading down to the recess from the west and two further narrow staircases from the north and south. 9 Ibid, page 30 8 In the two drawings above we get a clearer view of the recess found in front of the entrance; the floor of this recess is at the same level as the top surface of the entrance. On the horizontal surface of the entrance opening two grooves have been cut in the limestone, Jéquier suggested that two pieces of wood were fitted into these grooves to aid the closure of the entrance by a large block. From Jéquier’s drawings the recess is about 1.9m N-S, and 1.6m E-W, with the surviving wall height of about 1m; what form this closing block took is unknown, but it is possible that it took the form of a rectangular block, which would be pushed back under the already fitted casing stone; a pavement may have been laid around the pyramid, which took up the remaining width of the foundation trench and providing a path around the pyramid. There are other possibilities as to the closure block; unfortunately not knowing the relationship between the foundation trench and the entrance/recess is somewhat frustrating. 9 In the image10 above looking east, we can see the entrance opening along with the two grooves. Using Lauer’s scale drawing (page 1) a base of 100 cubits would appear to align with the western edge of the limestone and the end of the groove shown above: beyond this we have a space, then we arrive at the recess, whose north and south walls are just visible in the foreground. Note the orientation of the bricks in the background they all appear to be laid as headers. I am most grateful to Isadora Rogger11 for kindly searching through Jéquier’s archives for images not shown in his publication, and to Géraldine Galfetti for her kind permission to reproduce these images in this guide. 10 11 Ibid, Plate VII, b Assistant curator, Musée d’ethnographie, Neuchátel 10 Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. In the archive image above, we have two views of the entrance, bordered by much debris when compared to the image on the previous page; the steps that lead down the recess from the west are clearly visible. 11 Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. In the above image after substantial debris clearance, we can now see the steps that descend from north and south; with the northern steps best preserved. These steps are omitted from Jéquier’s Plate VIII (see page 6), but present in Lauer’s drawing, Plate II (see page 1&9). These steps from the north and south, according to lauer’s drawing are outside the foundation trench. It is interesting to note the presence of brick laid as headers in the foreground that flank the limestone of the entrance: if lauer’s drawing is correct, this visible brick above appears to extend some distance across the foundation trench. Unfortunately Jéquier provides us with little detail on the foundation trench, so the position of the entrance above in respect of pyramid base level is not known, or its position in the foundation trench. It might be possible that the visible brick above are the remains of a brick sub-foundation, which would line the floor of the foundation trench; then on top of this would be laid the limestone foundation blocks. In the pyramid of Senwosret III, we see a 12 brick sub-foundation laid, several courses thick and on top of this two to three courses of limestone foundation blocks12 The above reconstruction is just a tentative guess on possible closure of the entrance. Jéquier only states that the entrance opening is below the pavement level, 12 The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur, Dieter Arnold, 2002, page 27 13 unfortunately, he provides no detail via measures or drawings to clarify the area in question. In my reconstruction, I have a plug stone occupying the recess; this would be levered across the foundation trench and under the already fitted casing stone, which would be supported by foundation stones either side of the entrance. With the plug stone in position, closing off the entrance, further foundation stones would be placed in the vacant area left in the trench for the moving of the plug stone: then a fine paving stone placed on top, and finally the recess area landscaped over. There are other reconstructions that I can think of, but the site needs to be excavated in more detail in order to narrow down the options; moreover, practical concerns such as providing sufficient clearance for the coffin have to be kept in mind. Concealing the entrance in such a way, would make the job of robbers difficult, unless they had prior knowledge of its location. The First Portcullis In the above view of the subterranean complex, we see the location of the first portcullis, which is a short distance from the entrance. The steps leading down to the first portcullis are steeper than the stairway that leads to the second portcullis, 14 Jéquier’s drawing suggests 35 degrees and 20 degrees. Both stairways have smooth banks either side of the steps, which could accommodate the runners of a sledge. When it comes to the first portcullis chamber, it quickly becomes apparent the limitation of scale drawings when trying to create a 3d model: unlike Petrie who would often give detailed dimensions in his publications, Jéquier along with many other archaeologists omit such detail and provide only scale drawings. In the image above, which is a portion of Jéquier’s drawing (see page 6) we can see the section G-H of the first portcullis chamber. In photoshop, I have moved this section and aligned it with the main section, and we can see immediate discrepancy; unfortunately such discrepancies are to be found in his drawings. By not including dimensions in his text, such drawings are best treated as schematic. I often come across the same problems from other archaeologist’s; for example in my White Pyramid guide, de Morgan’s impressive drawings demonstrate major errors. It highlights the need for many of these sites, were our only knowledge comes from old reports to be revisited, and examined under modern standards. At the bottom of the first stairway, a short horizontal passage leads into the first portcullis chamber; the east wall of the portcullis chamber is a quartzite block, which has a sloping shelf cut into its upper surface, to help guide the large quartzite portcullis, which would descend and rest on a shelf made in the north wall of the chamber, and prevent access to the 2nd stairway. The 2nd stairway entrance (coloured green above), had a large quartzite lintel; this lintel along with 15 the quartzite slide were further security features to prevent robbers from circumventing the portcullis block. The rough impression above gives an idea of the first portcullis chamber; not shown in his drawings but reported in his text, are grooves lined with wooden slats to facilitate slippage of the portcullis. Jéquier would state; “The ceiling of the portcullis housing is horizontal while the floor is inclined at an angle of 9 degrees, so as to allow the block to slide by its own weight to take its final place after being suspended for the time necessary for the completion of works and for burial; grooves lined with wooden slats were intended to facilitate sliding. The portcullis, during the waiting period, was kept roughly horizontal by a support now disappeared, erected above a pocket of sand that was emptied at the desired moment. This is probably how to explain, by analogy with the operation of the sarcophagus cover, the presence of an almost cubic cavity, separated from the corridor by a thin wall. As a precaution, beams held by plaster wedged the portcullis against the opposite wall. For some reason, this device did not work; despite the efforts of which we note the trace on the anterior wall of the small cavity, the portcullis is still at the 16 bottom of its housing and the entrance to the corridor has remained free; perhaps the slope was not sufficient or the surfaces of friction were too rough, although the Egyptian architects are not customary of such errors or malfunctions.”13 The scenario described by Jéquier appears to be a rather complicated solution to a problem that might not even exist. These beds are inclined at a relatively shallow angle, and given the great weight of these portcullises I can imagine they can rest quite freely on these beds, without fear of crashing down; or if it was a concern a simpler solution could be devised, such as a wooden prop against the facing wall. With such shallow slopes I should imagine that repeated levering operations would be required to maneuver the portcullis over to its shelf on the opposing wall. I feel it is unlikely that such portcullises slid under their own weight; for example I came across an experiment to determine the static friction angle between two pieces of polished granite, which gave a result of 18 degrees. None of these portcullis designs are well documented, but it is interesting to note that in Mackay’s exploration of the Mazghuna pyramids, which held four such portcullises, he mentions no cavities in the portcullis beds or any breaches in the corridor wall to operate any such sand lowering device. 13 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, pages 31-32 17 In the above section of one of the portcullises found in Mazghuna North, we see the portcullis in the open position. It is generally thought that this pyramid was not used for burial, as both portcullises were left open, as was the burial chamber portcullis; moreover, the sarcophagus lid was still stored in the antechamber. Here these two portcullises still rest safely today, and there is not even a wooden prop to help restrain them. If a sand lowering device similar to that described by Jéquier was used here, surely Mackay would note such a feature. Can we say that the Mazghuna North portcullises also failed? I think the answer is no, and that this is their natural resting position before being levered across the passage. Jéquier says even less on the second portcullis found at the end of the second stairway in Khendjer’s pyramid, other than to comment that it was exactly similar to the first, but that it was positioned in the opposite direction and was in the open position. He doesn’t mention if this portcullis had failed as well, but even if these portcullises had failed in the operation described by Jéquier, the builders could still have levered them across. In 2017 a new pyramid was discovered at Dahshur that was similar in design to Khendjer’s 18 Image Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities In the image above at the new pyramid site we see the inclined portcullis bed, with a hole in the bed, similar to what Jéquier describes. Unfortunately nothing has been published on this site yet, but it’s tempting to think that the small block next to the hole, might have come from it. There appears to be no breach of the thin wall facing the passage, and the opposing wall appears to be vertical, whereas khendjer’s opposing wall appears to be parallel to the face of the portcullis block (see image on page 17). In my Ameny pyramid guide I gave a brief look at this new pyramid site and suggested that this hole may have been an additional security feature. The image of the new pyramid site overleaf will hopefully explain. 19 A possible explanation for this hole in the limestone bed is shown above; here I have sliced the portcullis in half to reveal a hole cut into the underside of the portcullis itself. Into this hole would be placed a stone block; as the portcullis was gradually levered across the passage to its closed position the stone block would fall into the hole of the limestone bed, and act as a further security device to prevent robbers from trying to lever the portcullis open. Hopefully in the future these small pyramids will receive more modern excavation; and maybe some of these surviving portcullises such as found at Mazghuna and Ameny’s can be lifted off their beds for a more detailed inspection. That such devices were in the mindset of the ancient Egyptians is demonstrated at the tomb of Senwosret-ankh at Lisht. In this tomb four vertical portcullises were used, but the first had an added security feature in the form of two oblique bolts in the side walls, which would slide out of their holes after the portcullis was lowered and thus preventing the portcullis from being levered up by robbers.14 As previously mentioned, none of the inclined portcullises such as the one above are well documented, but it’s fair to suggest that improvements in their design should be expected to counter any successful breaches by robbers, possibly made in earlier tombs with a similar portcullis design. It is probably apt to look at the prototype of this portcullis design which is to be found in the Hawara pyramid. 14 Building in Egypt, Pharaonic stone masonry, Dieter Arnold, page 226 and fig 5.16 20 In the above image, we have the first granite portcullis in the Hawara pyramid. In this view I have left the portcullis in the open position, though it was found closed. Here the portcullis is horizontal, not inclined, and Petrie calculated the portcullis to weigh around 22 tons. The other two portcullises of similar design were smaller and were found in the open position; this does not necessarily mean that they were never closed, as it’s possible that robbers levered them back into their housings. The first portcullis was found originally closed, with a shelf left for it on the opposing wall, however, robbers circumvented this portcullis by creating a breach in the softer limestone wall underneath and gaining access to the upper passage. We would not see this design again, and this might suggest that Hawara was robbed before the later designs came into being, as they appear to have amended their design of the portcullis accordingly. The new design came with a granite/quartzite slide and lintels that would deter robbers from circumventing the portcullis, and by inclining the portcullis, those inclined to lever the portcullis back into its housing would have a much harder task moving a heavy block uphill. Yet we should never underestimate the ability of ancient Egyptians to move heavy 21 blocks in confined spaces, and it is possible that some ingenious robber managed to retract one of these inclined portcullises. This continual warfare between robbers and those tasked with tomb security will lead to modifications in design and improved defenses; one such modification might be a locking block as shown in the image on page 20, a simple device that prevents any robber from retracting the portcullis back into its housing. In Khendjer’s portcullis above, we appear to have the near perfect portcullis; when in the closed position, it fits snugly into the space left in the opposing wall, and the masonry overhang on this wall will prevent any robbers from trying to lever this end of the portcullis up to a horizontal position and gaining access to the upper passage by sliding underneath. Combined with a possible locking pin using the hole to prevent levering the portcullis back into its housing, it would be a formidable obstacle to any robber. The only weakness in the design is the close proximity of the hole to the passage; any robber who knew of this design could break through to the locking pin and extract it, it would be better for the hole to be further back. Though it may have been a conscious decision by the designer to have it closer to the corridor, in case they feared accidental closure or some malicious act; at least they could recover their work by breaking the pin and retracting the portcullis, if the pin was further back much destruction would be required to access it. Of course robbers may well have been aware of this and took advantage; is the reason Jéquier reports that the support is missing, a result of robbers extracting a locking pin? 22 In the more complex Southern South Saqqara Pyramid, three of these portcullises are to be found, but unfortunately Jéquier provides no detail on them other than to say that they were similar to Khendjer’s. Part of Jéquier’s Plate XVII15 shows a pair of portcullises from the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid; in this structure two portcullises were open and one that appears partially closed. In this plan view a squarest outline appears beneath the portcullises. In the image below Jéquier provides a section of one of them. In the section we can see a block on the floor beneath the portcullis, with the caption ‘temporary support pile’, but could it be a removed locking block? The current position of portcullises can be deceptive until we have a better understanding of how they operated: some currently in the open position may have originally been in the closed position. A detailed study of these portcullises can also help in determining the chronology of these 13th dynasty pyramids, as we might expect those that demonstrate better security features to be later structures. 15 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933 23 Returning to Khendjer’s pyramid, we can see that the second portcullis is basically a mirror image of the first. At the bottom of the second longer stairway, another short horizontal passage leads to the 2nd portcullis chamber; though midway along this passage two recesses are to be found in the walls of the passage, were it is believed wooden doors were present. Leaving the 2nd portcullis chamber via its upper passage, we travel along a passage that falls a little to chamber A; the passage height drops a little by the chambers entrance. Chamber A is basically a turning room for the coffin and other large funeral items, which would make their way to chamber B via a lower passage, which starts in a trench in the floor of A. It is likely this trench would be concealed after burial in the forlorn hope that robbers who got pass the portcullises might be content with this chamber. Continuing along the lower passage, an opening in the floor gives access to one of the sand boxes; the end of the lower passage terminates in a long trench in the floor of chamber B. This long trench is a requirement to allow long items such as the coffin access; likewise the trench in the middle of B is long to give the coffin access to the quartzite sarcophagus. At the west end of B we have a small opening that gives access to the other sand box. The eagle eyed amongst you might notice that the similar long chamber in the new pyramid (see image on page 20) has three 24 long trenches, when generally access to sand boxes is through small openings. However this structure which appears built for a king contained a princess in the sarcophagus; so I suspect that this structure may have been repurposed for multiple burials. The openings for the sand box passages could have been enlarged to create these long trenches, which would be a necessity to introducing a coffin into the passage for burial: afterwards the trenches would be filled and disguised against discovery. Unfortunately, it is nearly three years since this new pyramid was discovered, and nothing has been published on it; long gone are the days of prompt publication so favoured by Petrie, he would state; “It is a golden principle to let each year see the publication of the years work, in any research: but the writer places himself thus at the disadvantage of showing how his information may have been defective, or his views requiring change, as year after year goes on. Such a course, however, is the honest and the most useful, as half a loaf is better than no bread. This volume, therefore, with all its imperfections, its half-gleaned results, its transitory views, comes forth to show what is already ascertained, and to supply a mass of certain facts for the assimilation of scholars, who may accept or not the way in which they are built up. It may be said that further research in what is already known ought to have been made, before placing results in such a form. I think not. So long as enough study is given to the materials to present them in an intelligible and usable form, it is better to let them be at the disposal of all students, without waiting for a final summing up at the close of the excavations.”16 In the modern media era, there is too often a tendency to announce a new discovery in the glare of the world’s cameras, have its fifteen minutes of fame and then wither on the vine to be slowly forgotten. Margaret S. Drower who did an excellent biography of Flinders Petrie, and provides the above quote, would state; “Too many excavators sit for years on their material, hoping to cross every T and elucidate every puzzle before they commit themselves to print, while their memory of their fieldwork fades, costs of production rise, and the world waits for the information only they can provide”17 16 17 Naukratis Part I, 1886, page 2 Flinders Petrie, A Life in Archaeology, 1985, page 432. 25 The Sand Boxes The central trench in the floor of B allows the coffin to progress into the sarcophagus; the sarcophagus itself is a large monolithic block of quartzite weighing some 60 tons; cut out of this block was space for the coffin and canopic chest, and it’s possible the space above contained other funerary items. In Jéquier’s drawing above, we can see that the sarcophagus was covered by two large quartzite blocks; Jéquier reports that the permanently fixed block was slightly hollowed out underneath to allow more space. The other moveable block was profiled to match the pent ceiling beams that protected the sarcophagus; this was a requirement as originally this block would have been raised clear of the sarcophagus and balanced on two granite props, which in turn would be supported by a column of sand contained in a sand box. Jéquier’s provides no detailed drawings of the sandbox mechanism, and his drawing above shows further discrepancy, so we have to rely on his description. Here, he informs us that the moveable lid exceeded the width of the sarcophagus by about 40cm on each side; the lid itself was supported by two granite props 1 metre high by 40cm thick. These props rested on the sand contained in the sandbox and he states that at the bottom of these sand boxes “a moving stone held the mass of sand and, after burial, it was enough to remove this stone, to carefully pour the sand on both sides at the same time so that the two props descend regularly”.18 18 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 33 26 Inage Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities The above image of the new pyramid discovered in 2017 has clear similarities to Khendjer’s substructure. Though similar substructures had been excavated before Khendjer’s pyramid, neither excavator could determine the function of the passages that led to the sand boxes. The earliest prototype of this sand lowering device is to be found in the Hawara pyramid; here, Petrie worked in severe conditions, the passages being largely filled with acrid water, which curtailed detailed exploration. 27 Above, we have a rough reconstruction of the Hawara burial chamber; here we have a similar long chamber, which had a trench in the floor to allow the coffin access to the burial chamber. At each end two squarest openings in the floor gave access to passages that led to the sand boxes (for more detail, see my Hawara pyramid guide). The actual form of the sand boxes here is unknown and sadly rising water levels mean that the whole substructure is now submerged, so we are unlikely to learn more. The other excavator to come across this design of substructure is Ernest Mackay, who excavated the Mazghuna South pyramid and published his findings in 1912.19 Mackay’s failure to understand the function of these passages, in hindsight appears strange, as he had not the working conditions that Petrie had to contend with. The 19 The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912 28 position of the sarcophagus lid appears to have thrown Mackay of the scent (for more detail, see my Mazghuna South guide) The above reconstruction of Mazghuna South, again clearly shows similarities to Khendjer’s pyramid. Mackay would follow Petrie’s terminology and label these passages as false passages. Paradoxically, though Mackay was not aware of their function, his description gives us the clearest view of the sand box design. Below are Mackay’s comments on the first and third false passages. FIRST FALSE PASSAGE (sect. VI, pl. xl (O). On the western side of the passage I 57.5 inches from its northern end there was a well in the pavement projecting into the corridor for 22 inches. On investigation this proved to be part of a short passage running west, the end of which was blocked by a quartzite slab. This we first thought to be the side of a concealed sarcophagus, but it afterwards proved to be a separate block of stone, 35 inches long, 13.5 inches wide, and 37.5 inches deep. The dimensions of the passage were 135.5 inches long, 29 inches wide, and 36 inches high. 29 The base of the quartzite slab was not resting on the same level as the floor of the passage, for a recess was cut in the paving 14 inches long and 4.3 inches deep, east of the end of the passage, to take it.20 THIRD FALSE PASSAGE (sect. VI, pl. xl (Q and R). In the south-west corner of the great northern chamber there was a well in the paving 34 inches N. to S. x 33.5 inches E. to W., and 36 inches deep. This formed part of a passage 33.5 inches wide that ran south for 144 inches. At the southern end of this there was another well 37.5 inches deep entering a passage that turned at right angles to the east. This further passage was 124 inches long, 30.5 inches wide, and 37.5 inches high, and was stopped at its eastern end by a quartzite block similar to that present in the first false passage (R). Also for 13.3 inches before the block was reached there was a drop in the pavement 6.7 inches deep. The quartzite block measures 35 inches long, 13.5 inches wide, and 41.5 inches high.21 Above, we have a portion of Mackay’s plate XL, which shows the features he describes. Mackay’s description and drawing is the best description that we currently have of the sand box and how it may have operated, it would appear that the drop in the pavements immediately in front of the quartzite props, would originally have been the location for the moveable stone that Jéquier describes. 20 21 Ibid, Page 44 Ibid, page 45 30 Thanks to Mackay’s detailed measures we can try and make an attempt of reconstructing the sand box and a possible method of operation. In the above section of the sand box accessed through the third false passage (see image page 29) we can see that the quartzite prop at 41.5 high, when resting on the passage floor cutout, is below the top surface of the sarcophagus.22 A similar exercise on the other granite prop using Mackay’s measurements, shows the passage floor cutout here to be 36.70 below the top surface of the sarcophagus, though the prop in this sand box is 37.5 high: this would appear to leave the prop slightly proud, but we have to take tolerances into account, and we can be fairly confident that both props when resting on the floor cutouts would be below the upper surface of the sarcophagus We next need to determine, how much of the granite props engaged into the sand boxes when the sarcophagus lid was open. The lid Mackay tells us was 102 wide and the sarcophagus he gives as 84 wide; this means the lid overlaps the sarcophagus on each side by 9 inches, with the props both being 13.5 thick. The lid is shaped so that in the raised position it does not interfere with the pent beams, 22 Calculation; upper sand box passage 36 minus trench at 33.6 = 2.4. Therefore floor cutout will be 2.4 plus lower passage at 37.5 plus 6.7 for cutout, gives 46.6 below trench floor. However, Mackay states that the sarcophagus is 5 below trench floor; therefore cutout is 41.6 below top surface of sarcophagus. The prop is 41.5 in this sand box. 31 with the side walls supporting these pent beams given as 42.5 above the sarcophagus (see plate XL page 30). This is about the maximum height that the lid can be raised, however, the props at 41.5 and 37.5 high are the limitations to the storage height of the lid, and we should expect a portion of the props to be engaged in the sand boxes. The trench leading to the sarcophagus is 33.6 deep, 41.7 wide, and 82.3 long, and it is likely sufficient clearance is available in its construction for the introduction of a coffin. The coffin recess in the sarcophagus being 41.5 deep, 35.5 wide, and 94.5 long. From these dimensions it is clear that any coffin intended to take up the whole height of the coffin recess would need to be introduced in two pieces, first the body and then the coffin lid. The actual stored height of the lid is an unknown, but in the above example, if we place the lid at 33 above the sarcophagus the shorter prop would be engaged in its sand box at 4.5 below upper surface of sarcophagus, while the longer prop would be engaged by 8.5 inches. It is not known if the lid rested on these props during the entire build of the pyramid; for in the neighbouring Southern South Saqqara pyramid, its more impressive lid was supported by four masonry piers. Something similar may have existed at Mazghuna and Khendjer’s pyramid; were the lid would be safely stored on temporary masonry piers, with the lid not being lowered on to the props until the time of burial. 32 It is difficult to determine the fourth side of the sand box, the sarcophagus would form one side and passage masonry the two short sides of the box; the opening side to allow the sand out is the questionable side. The passage floor cut out in front of the prop appears to mirror the thickness of the prop at 13.5, so it may be possible that a stone of this thickness fitted in this space whose height brought it to the same level as the top of the sarcophagus. This stone coloured yellow above, would be held in guides of the passage walls; a boss was probably left on its face to allow a lever or oblique prop purchase. After burial this stone would be raised out of its floor cutout a short distance to allow the sand to be extracted; a cutout in the passage ceiling would be required for the raised stone. Granted Mackay’s plate XL shows no guides in the wall or ceiling cutout, but we are unable to know how detailed his drawing is; he himself did not know the function of these passages and the quartzite slabs at the end of them, so the dotted line highlighting the course of the passage may just be schematic. I can think of several permutations for the sand removal side, so the above is just one guess; only detailed exploration of the area can provide clues to narrow the possibilities. 33 From Jéquier’s scale drawings I have aligned the plan and section to highlight the discrepancies. On one side a uniform passage leads to the prop, whilst on the other side we appear to have a narrowing of the passage and lowering of the ceiling; there appears to be no lowering of the passage floor in the vicinity of the props. The problem with drawings is that they have to be treated with care, as to the level of accuracy and detail that any particular excavator wishes to portray. Unfortunately, in these early days of Egyptology, architectural detail, be it through text or drawings tended to be somewhat limited. In my White pyramid guide, de Morgan’s impressive drawings had serious errors in them, which can only be rectified by modern excavation. Currently we have five complexes that display this sand lowering design, Hawara, Mazghuna South, Southern South Saqqara pyramid, Khendjer, and the new pyramid discovered in 2017. Hawara is lost to us through flooding, but the rest should still be accessible to us, and I feel it would be beneficial for these sand boxes to be closely inspected, so we have a clearer picture of how they were operated. We might find development in design, which like the portcullises could help in establishing their chronology; even close examination of the sand is worthwhile to see if it was local or had any special qualities that may have suited it for the task in hand. 23 Ultimately Khendjer’s pyramid is in a bit of a mess; this is not the fault of Jéquier, as his report is normal for the era, but much is still to be learned from the structure. At the time of Khendjer’s burial, we might imagine that the king’s coffin and canopic chest were placed in their respective recesses; afterwards further funerary equipment may have been placed in the sizeable space above the coffin. If masonry 23 In the great pyramid unusual large grained sand, sometimes referred to as weeping sand, was found behind the wall of the horizontal passage leading to the queens chamber. This sand was not local but similar to sand found in the Sinai. (Studies in Egyptian Culture No.8, Non-Destructive Pyramid Investigation (2), pg 88) 34 piers had been fitted for the sarcophagus lid, these would be carefully dismantled, with the lid now being supported by the props. The sand boxes would be operated, the lid lowered onto the sarcophagus, and the workers exit the passages. The openings and trenches in the long chamber would probably be filled with masonry and an effort made to disguise them; in the hope that any future robbers who broke into the long chamber might be content with what was found in there. Nothing was found in the sarcophagus, Jéquier states; “Thieves must have confined themselves, given the hardness of the stone, to making a small breach at the junction of the tank and lid, and through this opening where only a child could slip. They removed the entire contents of the sarcophagus, without leaving even the smallest piece of wood, bone or pottery in it, to the point that one might wonder if the tomb was ever occupied; the fact that the cover has been carefully placed makes it possible to rule out any hypothesis of this kind.”24 It would seem strange that that the sarcophagus was entirely bare, especially if the breach could only admit a child. One can imagine a child being slid in and instructed on were to best look for valuables; much destruction and rifling of the body would be expected, but would every last vestige of the king disappear; what motive could there be in removing every last splinter? Can we play devil’s advocate and question if the tomb was indeed occupied? It is true that the lid was lowered, but according to Jéquier, thieves had probably lowered the props in the Southern South Saqqara pyramid during their searches25: the heavy lid still rested on its masonry piers. The lid here was more sizeable than what we see in Khendjer’s, so the masonry piers found here may be unique to this structure, and may not have been required in Khendjer’s. Yes, the two portcullises are in the open position; but until these are examined in detail and their mode of operation clarified, it’s hard to come to a conclusion about them. To add to the confusion, in the small pyramid present in the NE corner, we have two sarcophagi unused, but with their two portcullises apparently closed; moreover, the Egyptologist Kim Ryholt suggested that Khendjer’s successor, Imyremeshaw usurped the throne.26 So the solution is not as easy as it appears. 24 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 33 Ibid, page 64-65 26 The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second intermediate Period, c.1800-1500BC, carsten Niebuhr institute publications vol. 20. 25 35 The quartzite sarcophagus as previously mentioned was protected by pent limestone beams; the long chamber B that gave access to the sarcophagus was spanned by 2 metre thick ceiling stones laid horizontally, and Jéquier reports that thieves had broke into this tomb by piercing this ceiling.27 Above this ceiling further protection was afforded by constructing a brick vault, as shown in the image below; Jéquier would also comment that a similar construction was found above the pent beams that protected the sarcophagus. Jéquier would comment that the violation of the tomb was from an unknown era, but thought that it probably corresponded to the period of the Hyksos. In the large chamber B, large crude drawings in black ink were found on the east wall, representing boats and geometric shapes. On the west wall a Kufic inscription was found, and from its style was thought to originate in the first centuries of the Hegira. Ask this pit who destroyed it after its glory 27 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 34 36 The Subsidiary Pyramid A smaller pyramid was found in the N.E. corner of the complex (see plate II on page 1), not much information is given on this structure; after translation, the text description neatly fits on one page of A4. The above plan and section give an outline of the substructure; a short descending stairway of around 33 degrees leads to the first quartzite portcullis, which he describes as exactly similar to its parent pyramid and in the closed position: the second portcullis was found broken and the 37 roof of this portcullis chamber and the central area had been removed (see fig 27 on previous page). Though this portcullis had been broken, Jéquier assures us that it was in the closed position. No further information is given on the portcullises; no mention of support blocks, holes in the limestone bed or breaches in the corridor wall to allow the sand to be removed etc. This would appear a strange omission as it would bolster his case for these features found in the parent pyramid. After the second portcullis a short passage led to an antechamber; in the north wall of this chamber a doorway gave access to the northern sarcophagus and canopic box, both made of quartzite. In the above section we can see that the north sarcophagus is sunk in the floor, such that its upper surface is level with the passage floor and antechamber floor; the south sarcophagus is placed at a lower level and access to this was via a trench in the antechamber floor. Both sarcophagus lids were stored near their respective ceilings on masonry piers, five for the north lid and six for the south lid; there are no fine sand boxes to be found here, just the fine skill of the ancient Egyptian workman in carefully removing these piers and lowering the lids, in a very confined space. 38 The above rough reconstruction, based on the sections provided on the previous pages gives an idea of the substructure layout. In this view I have left the portcullises open. Note the masonry joints in the descending passage walls, Jéquier would report that they were neither horizontal nor parallel to the slope of the staircase; but that the jointing and finish of the walls were perfect. 39 Another view, again with portcullises open 40 As previous view, but with portcullises closed 41 Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. Found in the archive, was the above image; here we are looking down into the antechamber, the passage leading to the north sarcophagus is visible, as is the sarcophagus. The quartzite lid is clearly in view, just below a surviving ceiling stone, and the void to the right of the image is the remains of the second portcullis housing. 42 In the above image I have used Photoshop to give a better idea of the layout by reconstructing the north and west walls of the antechamber. One can imagine the difficulty in lowering this hefty lid from its masonry piers in this tight space, always being conscious of not damaging the contents of the sarcophagus. No dimensions are provided for this substructure, and so like its parent pyramid it is not possible to try and give a reconstruction in cubits. Jéquier tells us that the entrance is in the middle of the east face and that the pyramid base is almost exactly half that of the parent pyramid, though he provides no dimensions. If we look at Lauer’s plate II on page 1, it can be seen that the entrance like the parent pyramid appears to exit in the foundation trench: unfortunately, Jéquier omits any detail of this trench, other than mentioning that part of the foundation stones were still in place on the south side, showing a straight line and the original position of 43 the casing stones (no casing stones were found and very little of the brick core survived)28 In the above image we see the entrance to the small pyramid; just visible in front of the entrance we appear to have two grooves, not unlike what we see at the parent pyramid. Jéquier would find no chapels or stele on the north or east sides of the pyramid. As previously mentioned, Jéquier has largely skimmed over this structure with nearly half of the A4 page of text given over to ideas that might explain why the sarcophagi were not used. One suggestion; “The two tombs could have been built for members of the royal family who, following a change of sovereign and one of those political upheavals so frequent at the end of the Middle Kingdom, will have been deprived of their rights and burials that they had created, but then the cause of the underground closure escapes us.”29 He also suggested a possible symbolic function, in that the structure was to commemorate the king’s role as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, but advised not to attach much importance to it. 28 29 Ibid, page 35 Ibid, page 37 44 The Shaft Tombs In the space between the enclosure walls on the north side where found three shafts; unfortunately, due to the nature of the ground only one could be excavated: the other two shafts remain to be excavated. The shaft closest to the subsidiary pyramid was some 10 m deep, with the upper part of the shaft lined with bricks due to the poor nature of the ground: at the bottom of this shaft a rough gallery heads towards the main pyramid, here were found two quartzite sarcophagi with their canopic boxes in the same material, aligned one after another. The gallery also extended slightly north of the shaft, and here was found a white stone sarcophagus with its broken canopic box. Jéquier states that all these sarcophagi were crudely made, being barely flattened on the inside, and without inscription: no trace of funerary equipment was found. Surrounding the shafts were wavy mud brick walls, a single brick thick. There was no evidence of any superstructure above these shafts, and Jéquier mentions a theory by Somers Clarke and Engelbach, that such wavy walls were temporary works, simple protections against the invasion of 45 sand during the works. Examples of these wavy walls extend to South Abydos, were remnants were found next to tomb S9, which was built to the north of Senwosret III’s tomb, and which displayed similar design elements to the Mazghuna site.30 The rationale behind these wavy walls is not well known; they appear a characteristic of the Middle Kingdom, and display several formats; some are large well built walls, some appear to have a more auxiliary function, and others that served no constructional function, other than appearing to be symbolic.31 It has been suggested that these substantive wavy enclosure walls, might symbolize the primordial waters of the god Nun: at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom Nun is described as the Father of the Gods; others see no symbolism in these walls. Old kingdom Tomb The site of Khendjer’s pyramid complex appears not to be a virgin site, for Jéquier reports the remains of an Old kingdom tomb approximately 18 m from the north east corner of the pyramid. This structure was razed to make way for the stone enclosure wall, such that the extrados of the vaults were flush with the ground. Jéquier thought it similar in style to those in the necropolis of Pepi II, located a kilometre to the north east. This tomb of Ari, had fairly well persevered decoration painted onto white plastered walls. Jéquier provides quite a lot of detail on these remains, in respect of the hieroglyphs and decoration; indeed more ink is set aside in reporting this structure than the better preserved subsidiary pyramid, but this is often the case were epigraphic study appears to take priority over architectural study. For those interested in the decoration of this tomb, more details can be found on pages 39 to 43 of Jéquier’s publication. Found in the archive are what appear to be two images of this structure, showing the surviving decoration, which can be viewed overleaf. 30 Borrowed legacy, Royal tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos, by Dawn McCormack On the meaning of the so-called sinusoidal walls in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, Studia Aegyptiaca XIV,pages 423-526 31 46 Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. 47 The Pyramid Temple A sizeable pyramid temple once occupied the east side of the pyramid, cutting through the inner stone enclosure wall and extending to the brick outer enclosure wall. Little remains of the temple as it had been largely razed to its foundations. Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. The archive image above gives a clear view of the destruction visited on the temple. In the right foreground a large pink granite block can be seen, with some inscription; Jéquier thought that it may have come from a monumental doorway. Destruction is so complete that Jéquier could not think of drawing any information from it; though architectural remnants such as sandstone papyriform capitals were found. Also found in the rubble were fragments of inscriptions, some bearing the cartouche of the king. 48 Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. In this view of the temple, the large granite block can be seen in the top right. Note the dovetail joints visible on the pavement in the foreground. The Causeway Jéquier would find some sections of the causeway under the sands; it would amount to two brick walls some 1.42m thick and 8.40m apart, and in between a pavement of brick one bed thick. Jéquier suggested that a stone covered alley would be built between these walls, providing a covered path 2 m wide; but that the death of the king would have suspended such work.32 He would make a comparison to the causeway of Senwosret III at Dahshur; there we have a triple lane type of causeway, were a stone centre lane is flanked by unroofed side lanes 32 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 6 49 enclosed by brick walls.33 It is possible that any such central stone passage if it existed at Khendjer’s complex could have been robbed. Jéquier was unable to investigate the end of the causeway, so it is unknown if a valley temple existed; though I should think that if one existed, it would probably have suffered the same fate as the pyramid temple. The North Chapel The image above shows the remains of the small north chapel, found in the middle of the pyramids north face. Like the pyramid temple it is in a ruinous state; the foundations appear to be the same depth and connected to the foundation trench which carried the pyramids casing. Two small staircases each of three steps, located against the stone enclosure wall, would give access to a low platform that spanned the distance between the enclosure wall and the pyramid. Whatever was built on this platform appeared to be well decorated; limestone fragments were found, thought to be ceiling fragments, flat and curved, showing yellow stars on a blue background: also found were parts of a multicoloured Kheker frieze that appeared to be surmounted by a yellow snake. The most numerous fragments came from a fine grained stele, of reddish yellow quartzite, apparently in the shape of a 33 The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur, Architectural studies. D.Arnold, 2002, page 92 50 false door (and if my translation is correct, it appears to not have the traditional offering table scene or drum roll, but instead is framed by a torus and surmounted by a high cornice). Amongst the debris of the chapel, the above fragment of granite statue was found; the base was missing, and no name was inscribed on it, but it is assumed to be that of Khendjer. Jéquier would report further statue fragments, which he believed were not connected to the statue above, and therefore there may have been at least three statues in this location.34 Also found in the ruins of the small chapel were many fragments of black granite; many of them being polished and displaying hieroglyphics. Jéquier was able to reconstruct these pieces to form a pyramidion similar to that found at Dahshur belonging to Amenemhat III; and it would appear that both pyramidions share the same angle or a seked of 5 palms.35 On the underside of the pyramidion a circular tenon was found, also found on the underside were red lines, which I have coloured in on his fig 16, overleaf. Jéquier would state; “At first glance, these lines give the impression of being lines of construction, but it cannot be so, since they were drawn once the tenon was clear of the mass and the surrounding surface 34 35 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 18- 19 Note on the Pyramidion found at Dahshur, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 85 (1999) pages 219-22 51 perfectly flattened; I do not see any satisfactory explanation for this little problem.”36 It is hard to come to a conclusion on these lines given the available data; the base of the triangle we are told is on the pyramidion’s north side, and it’s interesting to 36 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 19 52 note that this angle appears from the drawing to mirror the angle of the pyramid itself. Jéquier‟s reconstruction of Pyramidion37 It would seem fortuitous that the pyramidion fragments should end up in the small north chapel, if dislodged from the pyramids summit: another possibility might be that the pyramidion resided in the chapel, especially if the pyramid was not completed. In the unfinished Southern South Saqqara Pyramid we have two pyramidion’s left by its entrance. Jéquier’s interpretation of these scenes can be found on pages 21 to 26 of his work. According to Corinna Rossi; “Jéquier’s drawings of the pyramidion of Khendjer might be misleading, since he drew the plain faces, not their projection: the triangle in his drawing is, therefore, the form of the faces of the pyramid (four equilateral triangles with a slope of 60°), not of its vertical section (the seked of which is 5 palms, corresponding to 54°30´)”. From: ‘Note on the Pyramidion found at Dahshur, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 85 (1999) page 219. 37 53 Also found in the rubble were some pieces of sandstone papyriform capitals similar to those found in the pyramid temple. Though the Middle Kingdom pyramids tended to have their entrances away from the traditional north face that we see in the Old Kingdom pyramids, some of them appear to have retained the northern chapel that appears prevalent in some 5th and 6th dynasty pyramids. The Enclosure Walls Khendjer’s complex contains two enclosure walls; for the larger outer wall, the only information we have is that it was a brick wall, some 2.60m thick (5 cubits?), and measuring some 122.65m by 125.90m. A series of surveys allowed Jéquier to trace its path; the foundations were almost zero, with the surrounding terrain being simply levelled.38 At the south east the ground had to be built up to support the wall; Jéquier suggested an unforeseen change of plan during the construction, as these earthworks would not be necessary had the pyramid been located 10 to 20m further back.39 The inner enclosure wall was a different character altogether, here we find a decorated stone wall, about 8m from the base of the pyramid. The wall was largely robbed of its fine stone, with only a few decorated blocks found: from these and Petrie’s findings at lahun, he made the reconstruction below. The two decorated blocks that he found had three decorated sides suggesting that the recesses were some 0,5m deep; though he appears to find the reconstruction difficult to reconcile with the thickness of the wall, which he gives as 3m and with the straight lines that he found on the wall foundations.40 The destruction of the wall is near total, so its form may never be known; though further site clearance might offer more clues. He appears to have traced the foundations to the NW corner from the pyramid temple; 38 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 6-7 Ibid, page 9 40 Ibid, page 7 39 54 he also dug two trenches in the middle of the west and south faces and found the wall foundations which he gives as 1m deep. On the west side by the pyramid entrance he found the foundations of the stone wall resting on an older wavy brick wall; though on the south side he mentions no trace of the wavy wall, neither is its presence noted in his clearance on the north side. In the above image we can see the foundations of the stone wall encroaching on the wavy mud brick wall (note the dovetails between the stone blocks). It is often quoted in many publications that this stone enclosure wall replaced an earlier wavy mud brick wall, for example Lehner states; “The inner enclosure wall was of limestone, patterned with niches and panels. This replaced an earlier wavy wall of mudbrick, which has prompted Stadelmann to suggest that the wave-form wall may be an abbreviated form of the niche wall, built as a provisional substitute under time constraints.”41 Jéquier, would provide no further detail on this wavy wall, other than to say that it was similar to the wavy wall found at the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid. 41 The Complete Pyramids, Mark Lehner, page 186 55 He would suggest; “So there is perhaps reason to believe that these bizarre walls were only temporary works that were replaced, if time and resources were not lacking, with more luxurious and resistant constructions.”42 However, I would place a note of caution on suggesting that a prior wavy wall encircled the Khendjer pyramid; for unless I have missed something in translation, it would appear its existence is only to be found opposite the entrance to the pyramid, Jéquier does not mention any traces of it in the other areas that he cleared. So I feel that it cannot be excluded that this wavy wall discovered by the entrance is perhaps limited to this area only, in a similar way that the smaller wavy walls encircled the shaft tombs. Further clearance of the site should show further traces of this wavy wall if it encircled the pyramid: if such traces cannot be found then its existence needs to be questioned. Jéquier provides more information on the wavy wall that surrounds the neighbouring pyramid, which he describes as the best preserved example of its type. 43 Here, he tells us that the brick wall did not rest directly on the ground, but rarely for a brick wall, in a ditch 1m deep. The bricks that made up the wall were different to those employed in the pyramid, being smaller in size: said bricks were assembled with a clay mortar, and he states that a coating of fine clay, without any trace of colour, covered the visible faces of the wall. The wall itself maintained a uniform thickness of 0.65m, with no appreciable reduction, with the best preserved part being over 2m high above ground level, though it could have been higher. He thought perhaps that the wall top may have had a curved top, but states; ”However, the existence of a brick staircase, running along the south wall very close to the south-east angle and having no other purpose than to reach the top of the wall precisely on this angle reinforced for this purpose, seems rather to indicate that one could circulate on top of the wall despite its thinness.” I feel more research is needed on these wavy walls, to ascertain if they were temporary works; they look quite impressive in their own right and care taken in their construction; indeed more permanent looking than temporary, Jéquier states; 42 43 Deux Pyramides Du Moyen Empire, 1933, page 7 Ibid, pages 55 to 58 describe this wall. 56 “The remains of an identical wall under the stone surrounding wall of the pyramid of Khendjer show that it is a construction which did not have a definitive character and which could be replaced by another, more solid and more luxurious, if time and means allowed; if the circumstances were not favourable, the sinusoidal wall could nevertheless be preserved and had a monumental enough character not to look too bad as a wall of the royal monument.” Again, the only evidence of this wavy wall at khendjer’s complex is by the entrance, and it might be that Jéquier has made an assumption that it continued the whole way around the pyramid. Certainly, if a king had completed his complex and still felt in rude health, he may have elected to upgrade certain features of his complex, such as an ornate stone enclosure wall; but that does not mean that the previous wall was only a temporary construct. Image below of the Southern South Saqqara Pyramid enclosure wall. Image courtesy of State Archives of Neuchátel, Fonds Jéquier (1852-1946), Pyramide d‟Ouserkara-Khenzer; Aramaic epigraphy, 1 Jéquier-16. 57 Between Khendjer’s enclosure wall and the foundation trench of the pyramid the ground was simply levelled to form a hardened terrace, without paving.44 At the Khendjer complex we also find a brick staircase in the south east corner; this would descend from the inner enclosure wall, towards the east and losing itself in the embankment mass, below the outer brick enclosure wall. The above image from Jéquier’s plate IV shows the steps; he describes the steps as almost like new with traces of white plaster covering the central parts of the steps like a carpet. He would say; “It is obvious that the staircase was never used for the needs of the construction, that it was built for a special occasion before the whole of the funerary monument was finished and that it was backfilled immediately after. I hardly see any other explanation to suggest for this staircase, which has no analogue in any royal tomb, than to suppose a work done with a view to a visit of the king to his pyramid during the construction, following which the decision 44 Ibid, page 9 58 would have been taken to raise a second enclosure wall and to widen for this purpose the platform by filling the slope to the South-East, precisely at the place where we had just built the temporary staircase which had served as an access route to the king and his complex. This solution cannot, however, be considered other than as a hypothesis.”45 In later times the site appears to have become a poor cemetery for the 18 th dynasty, Jéquier found poor burials almost everywhere around the pyramid, but mostly in the northern and eastern parts of the enclosure. Scarabs found, suggested that a group of burials located in the south east near the brick staircase belonged to the era of Tuthmosis III, while those burials found in the north are thought to be earlier.46 There appear to be no burials from the Ramesside period, but later burials possibly from the era of the Ptolemies were found intertwined with those of the 18th dynasty.47 Concluding Remarks Ultimately, it is very difficult to come to a definitive conclusion on Khendjer’s complex; like so many Egyptian monuments, our only primary source of information comes from the early excavators. Unfortunately, these reports are all too brief in detail, and only leave more questions than answers. In order to answer these questions a more modern excavation is required, to give us a clearer view of the portcullises, sand boxes, wavy walls etc; a detailed architectural survey can also help in establishing the chronology of these Middle Kingdom pyramids. So what are we to make of Khendjer’s complex? As a layman and pending a modern excavation of the site; I feel that the available information might be more supportive of Kim Ryholt’s suggestion that Khendjer’s successor usurped the throne. So was Khendjer buried in his pyramid? I have my doubts; firstly, the small breach into the sarcophagus that could only admit a child: we recall Jéquier ; “They removed the entire contents of the sarcophagus, without leaving even the smallest piece of wood, bone or pottery in it, to the point that one might wonder if 45 Ibid, page 10 Ibid, page 44 47 Ibid, page 49 46 59 the tomb was ever occupied; the fact that the cover has been carefully placed makes it possible to rule out any hypothesis of this kind.” Jéquier’s ‘wonder’ may have been the correct conclusion. Secondly, in the similar substructures at Hawara and Mazghuna South, both Petrie and Mackay report on the presence of small masonry blocks found in their respective long chambers, as well as the floor trenches and sand passages48. However, in Jéquier’s report, there is no mention of any small masonry blocks; if we assume a royal burial had taken place, with trenches filled in with small masonry, should we not expect to see traces as found in the previously mentioned sites. It might be the case that such blocks exist in Khendjer’s, but that Jéquier thought it not important to mention in his report; but if no such traces of this small masonry exists, it might call into question as to whether a burial had taken place, as its hard to imagine robbers removing all this masonry fill out of the pyramid, but more likely that it was dumped in chamber B. If we accept usurpation as a possibility, what would happen to Khendjer’s pyramid? Usurpation could come in many formats, for example, a member of the royal family could have engineered the early demise of the king; but in such a scenario he would have probably buried Khendjer to mask his deeds and legitimise his position on the throne. Another possibility is a violent takeover from someone outside the royal family; what would happen to the pyramid then? It would seem unlikely that this usurper would bury Khendjer in his pyramid as that would tend to legitimise the deposed king. The new king would then have the problem of what to do with Khendjer’s pyramid; he may have had concerns of some sort of counter attack, by those still loyal to Khendjer, and ordered the pyramid to be sealed. The lowering of the lid on the empty sarcophagus would surely be the end of any future use; the portcullises may have been closed, likewise, the portcullises in the subsidiary pyramid. Later, violators may have removed locking pins in the portcullises and levered them back into their housings, and made their way to chamber B; here, they may have noticed the unfilled trench of the chamber floor and made their way to the sarcophagus and make the small child size breach, only to find the sarcophagus empty. Of course the above can only be a highly tentative suggestion, but it could explain what we currently see at the complex. 48 For Mazghuna see, ‘ Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh,’ 1912, see pages 44 & 50 For Hawara see, ‘Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, Petrie, 1890, see pages 7-9 60 61