> When the king's body was finally laid to
> rest in the King's Chamber, the portcullis slabs would be
> lowered, one by one, sealing the burial chamber forevermore. Of
> course, simple common sense would have told the builders that
> anyone who could bypass the three massive granite plugs at the
> bottom of the Ascending Passage would find this final obstacle
> to the King's Chamber a relatively minor inconvenience.
Lying on the floor of the Descending Passage (DP) a short distance below the opening to the Ascending Passage (AP) is or was a block of limestone that clearly from its shape and size fitted perfectly into this opening in the DP roof.
According to Arab legend, this block concealed the start of the AP until the tunnelling into the Pyramid’s north face by Al Mamun’s workers about 24 feet/7.3m west of the DP caused the block to come loose and fall into the DP.
As far as is known, until this happened in 820 A. D., nobody knew of the existence of the AP and the 3 granite plugs sealing it.
This suggests that the Pyramid’s builders never thought that anybody would find the start of the AP and then go on to tunnel their way up past the granite plugs (Note how Al Mamun tunnelled past these large blocks of granite by first tackling them side on [an issue that says a lot about what really happened with ‘Al Mamun’s Hole’, but more on that some other when]).
Consequently, it is not really necessary to link the three granite plugs with the three missing portcullis blocks as you have done.
> There is a fourth granite slab, the so-called
> 'granite-leaf' which also slides in grooves but, unlike the
> three portcullis slabs, does not slide to the floor, …
You have overlooked the fact that the Leaf is cemented in place and completely unmovable.
> As Egyptologist, J.P. Lepre
> … For while the semi-hollows supposed to
> have received the wooden rollers are indeed present at the top
> of the west wainscot, they are missing on the east wainscot.
> For how could rollers be used when one side of
> those rollers would have had no semi-hollows within which to be
> set and they would furthermore be tilted to such a degree as to
> make the manipulation of the portcullis slabs a quite
> impossible task?
This is probably incorrect.
The top of the east wainscot is roughly at the same level as the bottom edges of the semi-circular hollows in the west wainscot.
I suggest that what happened here is that originally both wainscots had semi-circular hollows cut out of their tops, but the plan was changed and the order went out to level off both wainscots at the lower edges of the hollows, though only one of them (the east) got to be altered – the entire Antechamber is rough and appears to have been constructed in a hurry.
> when looking at the problem the other way around, taking the
> view that the mechanics of the Ante-Chamber was designed to
> RAISE the portcullis slabs, the convoluted mechanics of this
> enigmatic chamber suddenly make sense.
But previously you wrote, ‘Of course, simple common sense would have told the builders that anyone who could bypass the three massive granite plugs at the bottom of the Ascending Passage would find this final obstacle to the King's Chamber a relatively minor inconvenience.’
If this is so, then why did the builders bother with portcullises anyway?
By your reasoning either they wouldn’t have been necessary, or one portcullis block would have sufficed.
> In short,
> putting in place a system that allows for the easy access to
> the so-called burial chamber places a serious question mark
> over the theory that the King's Chamber was intended for the
> mummified remains of the king which, if orthodoxy is to be
> believed, would require these portcullis slabs to protect the
> king. This is not achievable with a system that allows their
> easy removal.
You need to deal with the issues of the concealed AP and granite plugs, the Leaf being cemented in place, and the question of why portcullises were deemed necessary.
Then there is the boss on the north face of the Leaf to be dealt with.
The north face of the Leaf is cut back about 1” between the faces of the wainscots, and the boss (which is just one of many in that area of the Pyramid) is only 0.94” to 1.1” deep (face to back).
The Leaf’s west groove is about 1 wider than its east counterpart.
The biggest flaw with your idea is the shape of the top of the Leaf, which is a natural surface and is rough and irregular.
East-west the top of the Leaf drops 7.8”.
Your idea looks fairly plausible when presented in the form of small drawings with cosmetic alterations, but the actual condition and dimensions of the chamber and its Granite Leaf show your idea to be unworkable.
Your hypothesis does not disprove the Tomb Theory.
However, it should be noted that the points I raise also work against the mainstream view that the Antechamber was a portcullis system designed to close off access to the King's Chamber.
So few answers - and not one of them mine.