> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > One you passed over - however, brought to light -
> > is found in the thievery. The deliberate
> > employment of hidden passages in and of themselves
> > make a grand statement: Why was
> > there a requirement to hide rooms and/or passages?
> > The answer tips the tomb scale in a positive
> > manner. It is: Because they knew whatever was
> > interred in the monument had to be protected from
> > intrusion; they were already aware of thievery
> > and/or the unsettling of the sanctity of who was
> > interred. They didn't want it disturbed.
> The assumption that the passages were meant to
> hide a burial is based on the presumption that the
> pyramids were tombs. Circular logic. . . .
. . . under a false construction.
The point (I take it) is that the arrangement of rooms and passages served to hide and protect something and no better candidate than tomb has been offered.
Perhaps you’d like to offer one?
Knowing that you find it hard to follow links, I append some thematically related material (again from 20 years ago):
This from William Kingsland, who actually disputed the ‘tomb theory’.Quote
. . . When Professor Smyth went to the Pyramid in 1865 he was astonished to find that there is actually a ledge or groove cut into the sides at the top, into which to slide a lid, and also dowel-holes into which pins could be slipped in order to fix it—all after the manner of many of the Egyptian sarcophagi. The so-called “Coffer” is in fact a Sarcophagus, whether actually intended to contain the body of a King or otherwise. It is very similar in construction to the Sarcophagus in the Second Pyramid, more particularly in the matter of the groove and dowel-holes for the lid.
It’s certainly worth quoting Petrie’s detailed comments on the sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre:
Regarding Khafre’s sarcophagus:Quote
The coffer in the King’s Chamber is of the usual form of the earliest Egyptian sarcophagi, a approximately flat-sided box of red granite. It has the usual under-cut groove to hold the edge of a lid along the inside of the N., E., and S. sides; the W. side being cut away as low as the groove for the lid to slide over it; and having three pin-holes cut in it for the pins to fall into out of similar holes in the lid, when the lid was put on. It is not finely wrought, and cannot in this respect rival the coffer in the Second Pyramid. . . . [The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), p. 29]
The coffer cannot have been put into the Pyramid after the King’s Chamber was finished, as it is nearly an inch wider than the beginning of the ascending passage. [The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), p. 88]
Both sarcophagi were both built into their respective pyramids; evidently the builders considered them essential to the function of each pyramid.Quote
The coffer is well polished, not only inside but all over the outside; even though it was nearly all bedded into the floor, with blocks plastered against it. The bottom is left rough, and shows that it was sawn and afterwards dressed down to the intended height; but in sawing it the saw was run too deep and then backed out; it was, therefore, not dressed down all over the bottom, the worst part of the sawing being cut .20 [inches] deeper than the dressed part. This is the only error of workmanship in the whole of it; it is polished all over the sides in and out, and is not left with the saw lines visible on it like the Great Pyramid coffer. The finish is about the same as on the walls of the King’s Chamber, and the horizontal polishing lines can be seen inside the N. end.
The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber, unbroken; it was slid on to the coffer, and held by a projection on its base, which fitted into the undercut grooves. When finally slid into place, two pins (probably of bronze) dropped down out of holes in the lid, into corresponding holes in the W. side of the coffer.
The designers were evidently afraid, however, of the coffer being turned over, so as to let the pins drop back into the lid; they therefore sunk the coffer into the floor. To make it still safer they put resin in the pin-holes, where it may still be seen; then the pins, being ready heated, were put into the holes in the lid, which was quickly closed; thus the pins sank 1/2 inch to 1 inch, melting their way into the resin, and probably forcing it up their sides. This process made sure that there could be no way of getting the lid off without breaking it, and the design answered perfectly; the lid never was drawn off. On one side of the groove in the coffer may be seen a little scrap of cement. This shows that the lid was cemented on in grooves and that it was never slid back, or it must have rubbed of such a fragile scrap. The cementing on of the lid was also of use to prevent any shake; so that the labour of wrenching it off, and bruising the undercutting to pieces by wriggling and jogging it up and down, must have been enormous. This seems, however, to have been the way of forcing it, as the undercutting is much broken, and the cement in the groove, and the melted-in pins, make it impossible to suppose any other mode of removing the lid. . . .
The coffer being 42.0 inches wide, can never have been taken through the passages, as the upper passage is only 41.3 wide, and the lower is 41.2 and 41.6. Hence it must have been put into the chamber before the roofing was laid over it, and so before the Pyramid was built upon that. [The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1885 (1990 reprint), pp. 35-36]
They both have what could be called a one-shot, one-way locking mechanism: close once and never open again. Perhaps something other than a sarcophagus would have such a lock, but I can’t think what, and you certainly haven’t offered an alternative suggestion.
The way Khafre’s sarcophagus is let into the floor is another indication that it wasn’t intended to be opened again. It’s far from unique in this respect: a similar arrangement is found in other tombs, including one of the satellite pyramids of Menkaure’s pyramid.
Khafre’s tomb chamber also has a small pit in the floor, resembling the canopic pit or chest found in other pyramids and tombs. Belzoni included it in his drawing of the chamber, long before its function was recognised. The resemblance is striking when the floor plans of Khafre’s tomb chamber and later pyramid tomb chambers are set side by side—a comparision presented in Aidan Dodson’s book on royal canopics.
The Khufu and Khafre sarcophagi are the right SIZE for sarchophagi; the surviving sarcophagi in the satellite pyramids, attributed to the Queens of the Pharaohs, are slightly smaller, consistent with greater male stature.
The sarcophagi are uninscribed, but this is hardly indicative: Egyptian sarcophagi underwent a definite stylistic development, from plain, uninscribed boxes to the elaborate, inscribed, anthropoid sarcophagi of later times. Even Unas, the first Pharaoh to have the Pyramid Texts inscribed on the walls of his tomb chamber, had an uninscribed sarcophagus, similar in design to Khufu’s.
The sarcophagi are in pyramids in the middle of Old Kingdom cemeteries. Stylistically, they’re Old Kingdom sarcophagi; built into their respective pyramids, they anchor them firmly to that context.
The design, material and placement of the sarcophagi suggest that they were the last line of defence for some important content, consistent with the other security arrangements found in these pyramids. I wonder what that content might have been?