| Author | Message | ||
     Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 22 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.251.88 |
Dear Charlie, I've read your article about Bent pyramid. (Congratulations, very interested) May I have some questions: 1/ Tunnel: - It starts below ground level and ends above it (layout diagram), but you wrote it is excavated from core masonry. Does it means there are core blocks under ground level? - Can you estimate average height of core blocks? - Do you think it was excavated from the lower chamber? (If yes, it is similar to the Red pyramid tunnel between chamber 2 and 3) 2/ Chimney: - Are it's walls built or partially excavated from bedrock? 3/ Squared hole between Chimney and lower Chamber: - Some drawings show this hole wider than the passage. Is it true? Has it exact rectangular shape? Thanks in advance, Tibor | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 578 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 162.88.11.25 |
Tibor, Thanks for the comments. I am out of town and my pictures are at home. Here is what I recall. The tunnel is cut through core blocks. The whole lower structure of the Bent is similiar to the construction of the Great Pit at Zawiet el Aryan and Djedefre at Abu Rawash. A large pit with a sloping trench was excavated and than the chambers and passages were constructed in the pit. Same as Maidum, but Maidum was on a smaller scale. So there are blocks the full length of the descending passage, the lower chamber, chimmney, and connecting passage. From memory the core blocks were about 1 foot high - that is I don't recall them being passage height, or even half passage height. I would have to look at my pictures. An interesting part is that I measured the inclination of these blocks and found them to be laid horizontal. The passage leading to the Red's burial chambers was cut in two parts. The upper half was the original passage - straight, smooth-finished sides. The lower half was cut later - likely when the floor of the burial chamber was removed - and while it is also straight, it is cut cruder. The Bent's tunnel has bends (you can be inside without seeing either exit) and was not finely finished. However, it was not as crude as robber tunnels I have seen. To me it was likely an after-thought to the original construction, intended as access to the upper chamber after the upper passage was blocked. There was something about the way the tunnel connected to the upper passage that made me believe it did not start at the upper passage - however, I don't recall what and will have to look at my pictures. I believe the hole between the Chimney and the Lower Chamber was no wider than the chimney, I will have to check dimensions in M&R to tell if it is wider than the tunnel. The hole is corbelled shaped with I think 3 levels, not rectangular. I will have to check when I get home. Hope this helps. Charlie | ||
| Brent Benjamin Senior Member Username: brent Post Number: 42 Registered: 04-2000 Posted From: 12.4.169.51 |
Charlie, Regarding the Bent's tunnel is roughly evenly placed at the block level where the tunnel begins at the top of the lower main chamber. This suggests the starting point. Chisel marks can be seen and again leads me to conclude that the tunnel was from the bottom up. Finally, as your photos will show, the top exit/entrance is not flush with the upper East-West wall's top and bottom. Remember the step down, even accounting for Hussein's excavations? The core masonry was horizontal. We were particularly interested in this observation in view of some of the past writings about the Bent. As for the chimney, the entry width was the same as I recall. Remember that only one side was finely finished. The walls were block. If you can't locate your shots, let me know and I can pull mine. Take care. Brent | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 23 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.251.88 |
Thank you Charlie. Btw. your notes on Red passage is new for me. "Buriel chamber" was inaccessible before the lower end have been finished? Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 581 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 162.88.11.25 |
Brent, Yes, thanks. That's what made me think it was not started from the upper passage. I'm still in Wheeling if you get up this way. Charlie | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 582 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 162.88.11.25 |
Tibor, I may have not been clear in my description of the passage leading to the Red's burial chamber. There was originally a straight, finely finished passage, one course high leading from the second chamber to the burial chamber. Robbers made this passage higher by cutting away the floor to a depth of one course. The side walls of the lower, cut out portion are rougher. I will try and include a picture here of the passage taken from the passage entrance and looking towards the burial chamber. I have never been successful at putting pictures here so if I fail, I will send you a copy in a e-mail. I failed, see your e-mail. Charlie | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 195 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.168.177 |
I've put a photo of the passage in the Red Pyramid here: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/egypt_2003_238.jpg It's taken from the third chamber looking back towards the second. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 196 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.168.179 |
Another photo of the Red Pyramid passage looking the other way from the Second Chamber: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/red_pyramid_passage.jpg Why would tomb robbers cut such a neat hole? Their excavation of the bottom part of the passage is cut fairly neatly right down to the floor, why bother? Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Brent Benjamin Senior Member Username: brent Post Number: 43 Registered: 04-2000 Posted From: 12.4.169.51 |
Charlie, Am currently in Columbus. I will be in Wheeling quite a bit in the upcoming months. In addition to the law and the archaeological photography, I'm running for the Supreme Court in WVa. Wheeling's a great place. If you move, you can vote!  I have some excellent shots of the chimney, the lower entrance to the connecting tunnel, and the upper chambers if you can't find your shots. It might take a while to post them as I don't get to get on this site as much as in the past. Tibor, if you look at the engaged western portcullis in the upper passage, you'll notice that the east side was sealed. Since the west side was also sealed prior to the plugging of the western entrance, the only way the workers/priests or sealed the east side could have gotten out was by way of the connecting tunnel. There does not appear to be any sign of sealing or hiding the lower entrance to the connecting tunnel. I'll let you suggest the appropriate conclusions for what that means. Have a good weekend. Brent | ||
| Rick Baudé Senior Member Username: rjb Post Number: 182 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 204.210.9.245 |
Hi Brent I can't think of anybody I'd rather have on the W.Va. supreme court than you. I think Justice Benjamin has a nice ring to it. Could you send me a half a dozen ballots and then I'll mail my votes in? That's legal isn't it? Rick | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 24 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.251.90 |
Dear All, thank you for your kind help. It is strange for me, that the "Tunnel" in Bent and the passage to the "buriel chamber" in Red start high at the second chamber. I don't understand the purpose of the two portcullises in Bent western passage, since it was blocked on whole length (may be plugs were lowered later, western portcullis was break out first, then fixed using mortar?). Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 25 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.251.90 |
Dear Jon, Thanks for the photos. Ceiling blocks are also interesting, I see joints there in the middle. Am I right? Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Mel Coldwell Junior Member Username: melco Post Number: 53 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 136.8.159.10 |
IMHO this passage doesn't look like the lower part was cut out. It looks more like the lower part was narrower so as to form a ledge on either side and this has been broken away. The lower sides look very flat and smooth. It is possible this was filled with blocks but I would have expected the AE to secure them better. A more interesting inference is that ledges either side becomes similar to the concept of the GG in the Great pyramid and the lower passage in Menkaures. | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 197 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.168.179 |
Hi Tibor Yes, some of the blocks join in the middle while others span the width of the passage. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 584 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 162.88.11.25 |
Mel, The passage to the Red /\ burial chamber is not very wide and ledges would have made it difficult to pass through. If the blocks which were cut away rested on what we see as the present floor, when the robbers cut the blocks away to the current floor, the blocks being cut would have just fallen away and the current floor not cut. While what you suggest is possible and there is no real evidence to refute it, I think the cutting away of a whole set of floor blocks the more likely event. It just occurred to me. I don't have a picture with me that shows where the passage floor enters the burial chamber - at the floor or one block up. If anyone has such a picture it will lend evidence to the shape of the entrance passage. Charlie | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 585 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 162.88.11.25 |
Brent, I don't have your e-mail address. Call me when you plan on coming to Wheeling or send me an e-mail at charles.rigano@ngc.com. Pardon me all for what is essentially a personal message. Charlie | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 26 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.251.42 |
I'm trying to find similarities between pyramids of III and IV dinasty. Are there detailed drawings available on the net showing wall joints of Bent and Red pyramids? Any help would be highly appreciated. Tibor | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 587 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 69.133.116.254 |
To answer my own question. In looking at my pictures of the Red Burial Chamber, it appears as though the chamber floor was at the level of the current passage middle. In other words the floor of the passage was excavated to be two blocks high. Charlie | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 148 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.220.181  |
Back to the Bent, (after a darn long time, that is), I was looking for current theories on the rectangular and 'D' shaped holes carved in the Bent's walls and passageways. The lower, main chamber of the bent has several corresponding pairs of rectangular holes in it's corbelled walls. I believe they were put there after the pyramid was completed. Why take all of the time to build such a beautiful and pristine vault, polish it's walls with such care, and yet leave holes there with no appearent purpose? Some of the other holes within the pyramid were covered over with plaster. Why not these? There are a number of holes chiseled out of the walls in the Western horizontal passage leading to the Upper main chamber as well. At Meidum, the wooden posts jut accross the burial chamber without any real pattern to speak of. The 'D' shaped holes are generally found in the sloped passageways and lead me, and others, to believe their purspose was to help lower blocks into the pyramid. Maragioglio and Rinaldi offered an appendix in the 3rd volume of their great work, but it seems to leave a person with more questions than answers. Any thoughts? | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Senior Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 835 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.74 |
Dear Blake, the photo on the following (russian) website shows a sequence of regular positioned holes in the wall of the right and left side. looks, as if they were originally made to insert strong posts, serving to move and lift stoneblocks via a pulley-technique ?? here at: http://piramyd.express.ru/lah/fotoarh/megalit/afrika/egipet/dashur/dbentin11.jpg -- regards: Bernie | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 149 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.220.181 |
Thanks for the photo, Bernie! It seems that there are several here- it definately leads one to believe that these here were meant to lower things into this pit, but the pit doesn't seem deep enough to warrant having that many holes in the wall- especially when those holes are in such close proximity of each other. The passage is at ground level and the pit is merely a trench which was lined with stone. I'm not sure to what depth that pit has ever been excavated- Hassan Mustapha and Ahmed Fahkry seem to be the first to document this pit at all. Perring doesn't mention it, and he was the first person to probe the pyramid in modern times in the 1830's. It seems an odd omission for Perring, for he took such care to draw and measure the rest of this entire corridor and its ingenious lateral portcullis system. You can clearly see the ledges protruding out over the pit and the corridor. I believe the flooring stones have been removed which leads me to believe as well that the pit was covered over at some point to conceal something of importance. Assuming the floor stones did reach the height of that ledge, the holes would only be about a foot off the ground- a good point of leverage for moving something heavy. But again- why so many so close to each other? And why were they not covered over with plaster after they had served their purpose? | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 150 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.220.181 |
Bernie- here is another picture Andrew took of the same pit which was posted here on this site. See how shallow it is? But it's filled with debris- you can't tell how deep it truly is. http://guardians.net/egypt/cyberjourney/dahshur/bentpyramid/images/bentport1a.jp g | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Senior Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 836 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.75 |
Dear Blake, not much time, so only a short reply for today: these holes not filled with plaster ?? may be, because it was not necessary or possible: covered by massive stoneblocks, after been transported/moved or lifted ( pulley-technique) into their final blocking position. the wooden post removed step by step due to this transport mechanism ? the upper region of this passage also been filled or blocked with stone and debris ! sorry: actually not suffcient detailed material on these Bent-internal structure available. the pictures are most of a very bad quality ). the blocks later again removed by tomb-robbers or other people, who cracked (seldomly removed) these door/passage-blocking stones ! or: the Bent-pyramid was not really finished in all its internal structures ? -- ok, so far ! now i wish you a fine weekend ! regards: Bernie | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 151 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.220.181 |
I believe the Bent was suitable for burial- in fact- I think it was used for burial. I also believe that there were additions to the pyramid after someone had been interred there. What about the holes that are in the walls of the lower main chamber? Any thoughts on those? I'll have to try and find a picture of those for you... | ||
| B.A.Hokom New member Username: bahokom Post Number: 39 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.107.44.75 |
Let me ask... How many Old Kingdom Royal mummies have been recovered?...How many early dynastic?...How many pre-dynastic? The point is that other than the PT pyramids, fifth-sixth it is not clear if pyramids were used for burial, we do know they (pyramids) were used as instruments for the kings to ascend to heaven, a place for Osiris' body to be re-united, joined, but we assume this was a ritual that occurred every day, not just once. Regards, BA | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 152 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.220.181 |
There have been many Old Kingdom mummies found- though few have been found in pyramids. Most of those found in pyramids were later interments. Some of the Pharaohs were found in completely different parts of the country from their intended burial sites. In the Red Pyramid of Dahshur, the remains of a mummy were found and according to Ahmed Batrawi, the remains were from the 4th Dynasty and could very well have been Sneferu himself. Batrawi, Ahmed. "The Skeletal Remains from the Northern Pyramid of Sneferu." Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte. Vol. LI, p. 435-40. I therefore believe that most pyramids were used as both ritual spaces and as burials. | ||
| B.A.Hokom New member Username: bahokom Post Number: 40 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.107.44.75 |
Blake, *Some of the Pharaohs were found in completely different parts of the country from their intended burial sites. I would love to know which Pharaohs? regards, B.A.Hokom | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 153 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 168.103.68.221 |
BA- I need to look again at JP Lepre's appendix. If you have a copy, give it a scan through. If I recall, Lepre states that the mummy of Huni was found in a tomb far to the south away from any major pyramid field, (which he went on to say could be related to the 'South Tomb' cult which was common to 3rd Dynasty pyramid complexes). Please let me see if I can get the book from my storage area, or from a library around here. That not withstanding, there have been a handfull of cache tombs opened that contained a number of mummies store-housed together. Some of the most famous of Egyptian mummies came from the cache tomb near Deir el-Bari. | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 154 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.228.113 |
BA- sorry to take so long- the book is buried in my storage area. It says that the Koelbel library near me has a copy on the shelf and I may have time in the next few days to pick it up and copy a few pages. | ||
| B.A.Hokom New member Username: bahokom Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.107.44.75 |
Blake, I can't find any reference to Huni's mummy being found...Perhaps there is only one place in the west for all kings up to the end of the old kingdom, pyramids were merely the horizon they hoped to use to join Re... in spirit, later after the first intermediate period this concept was lost with other secrets of afterlife, hence the 12th dynasty re-established old practices and language with a deficiency of knowledge. regards, B.A.Hokom | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 155 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 65.101.228.113 |
Here is what JP Lepre says in his book- (pg. 268 of the 1991 version)- "The Third Dynasty Pharaoh Huni built a sizable pyramid at Maidum, but it did not contain a sarcophagus. Yet a quite large mastaba located 275 miles to the south at Bet Khallaf did in fact contain a granite sarcophagus, within which were the total skeletal ramains of a large man. This mastaba contained the royal name of Huni." The pyramid at Meidum has since been attributed to Sneferu of course, and I recall in Petrie's books that he had found some wooden pieces from what he thought was a sarchophagus at the end of the corridor below the shaft that led up to the corbelled burial chamber. I was curious if this wood was ever compared to the wood which made up the 'door' fragments that were found embedded in the slot which runs around the lower end of the descending corridor, (there is a groove towards the bottom of the entrance passage which is etched a couple of inches deep in the walls, ceiling, and floor of the passage in which small splinters of wood were found still embedded by Maragioglio & Rinaldi. Their hypothosis was that it may have served to house a kind of makeshift door). -WMF Petrie. Meydum and Memphis (III). London. 1910 -WMF Petrie. Medum. David Nutt, London. 1892. -Maragioglio, Vito, and Celeste Ambrogio Rinaldi. L'architettura delle Piramidi Menfite. Vol. III (text) & Vol. III (plates). Turin and Rapallo. 1963-77. Lepre goes on to mention that Djoser too had a mastaba bearing his name, though no remains were found in it. On pgs. 288-9 he give a detailed list of "Pyramid Pharaohs' Mummy Remains." It is unclear to me, though- as I understand, a few pyramid sites have yeilded mummies from the Saite period as well. Lepre does not differentiate much. | ||
| B.A.Hokom New member Username: bahokom Post Number: 42 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.107.44.75 |
Blake, Lepre's evidence is not conclusive, this name found was not on the sarcophagus, nor with the remains, the mastaba may have been a royal gift to an official of Huni's,which in turn was usurped by someone later, tests would prove the age of the mummy, have they been done? if so why is it not on display as the oldest royal mummy discovered? it seems unlikely that Huni would choose such a far away location for his burial, never the less if it were him then why is he not in a pyramid? Regards, B.A.Hokom | ||
| Blake Wankel Member Username: blake Post Number: 156 Registered: 01-2001 Posted From: 70.59.58.153 |
B.A.- I agree with you- I was hoping for something more concrete myself. I have no idea about where this body would be now. In fact, I'm not sure even where else to look; I am more curious though! |
