Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors

December 11, 2019, 9:17 pm UTC    
June 26, 2019 10:03AM
The ‘Chimney’ – with Reference to Dr Dave’s New Book

I have read most of the book now and have a number of comments.
Although the title is The Great Pyramid by Franck Monnier and David Lightbody I would like to comment first about his hypothesis concerning the so called chimney in the Bent Pyramid.

On page 43 concerning the Bent Pyramid and its‘chimney’ he wrote :
“Overall it seems from the closed-off shaft and the two unused closing blocks that the architects modified their plans early in the project , and the chimney never connected to a burial chamber that had originally been planned but never built. This hypothesis is supported by the existence of a long tunnel dug through the top of the south wall of the corbelled chamber 12.6m above the floor, which bypasses the top of the closed-off chimney and connects this lower chamber system with the upper system.”

His illustration is here. (The chimney is behind the lower chamber)



Some questions arise from this hypothesis:

Why was the chimney shaft not extended to reach the upper chamber if the builders wanted to connect the chambers.

The chimney was below ground and was carved out of the rock and then lined. The corbelling system was designed into it at the very early stage, narrowing to a point at the top, suggesting that it was NOT a passage.

Re the suggested early revised plan, if the shaft was not needed before ground level was even reached why was it not just filled in, rather than going to the trouble of elaborate corbelling ?

The two closing blocks were limestone 3x3 cubits approx and 1.5c deep. They were either stood on end or laid flat across the chimney. They were not in any way a deterrent to reaching any chamber, but more like floors or ceilings in the chimney.

This diagram shows them stood up in yellow and laid down in green.





A window, or entrance even, was built into the chamber just ABOVE the lower block. When lowered the block formed a continued floor for the window. Thus the block did NOT seal the shaft at all !

The ‘window’ follows the SAME corbels as the chamber for the lower block and so was clearly designed and built at the same time.




The positions of the blocks and the corbelling suggests a deliberate pattern. Not something that comes from the abandonment and closing off of a shaft. Just check the numbers :

Using Keith Hamilton’s researched data on the shaft, that was posted on Hall of Maat under the name Waggy -

The total height of the chimney from the floor to the top of the corbelling was 29 cubits.

With the top closing stone laid down (to form a ceiling) the height was now 20c.

The floor to the lintel was 7.5c and the lintel was 1.5c high. So from the floor to the base of the window/door was 9c and the space above the window floor base was 11c.

With the top stone open and the bottom stone down making a floor for the window, the distance to the upper stone is 11c and the space above the top stone is 9c.

So the two blocks divide the 29 cubit chimney into three areas of 9, 11 and 9 if one block is up and one block down.

This mirrors the above ground division of the pyramid height at the bend, given by Petrie, of 90 and 110 cubits. The chimney was built right in the centre beneath the apex.

So I would say that his abandoned shaft hypothesis is NOT supported. The chimney clearly served a deliberate symbolic purpose from the outset.

Let M&R confirm this, from Keith’s paper :

This assumption (that the chimney was abandoned), however, does not explain the reason why the builders preferred to build the whole western
descending corridor with its two portcullises. Instead they could have joined
the crypt (even though shifted with respect to the original plan) with the
chimney by means of a passage properly built for this purpose or cut out in
the already existing masonry.
The builders at first had no intention whatsoever to connect the two
apartments. In fact when they were obliged to connect them a passage was
cut in an entirely different part and not through the chimney, even if it ran
nearby. The two apartments were planned as separate entities and therefore
the chimney did not enter into the plans as a connecting passage. All
considered, it has been impossible for us to support this hypothesis with
what is noticeable today”.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2019 10:09AM by GChase.
Subject Author Posted

The ‘Chimney’ – with Reference to Dr Dave’s New Book

GChase June 26, 2019 10:03AM

Re: The ‘Chimney’ – with Reference to Dr Dave’s New Book

Hermione June 26, 2019 01:46PM

Re: The ‘Chimney’ – with Reference to Dr Dave’s New Book

GChase June 26, 2019 02:17PM

Re: The ‘Chimney’ – with Reference to Dr Dave’s New Book

Hermione June 26, 2019 04:29PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login