Portcullis stones: a very preliminary analysis
January 11, 2010
by Anthony Sakovich
ABSTRACT
A cursory examination of a fragment of a surviving portcullis stone found outside Khufu's pyramid, and the walls of the Antechamber, suggest a functional link between the artifacts.
During a discussion of the Canal Shaft theory on an Egyptology message board, I remembered seeing photographs of what is thought to be a surviving portcullis stone fragment, near the pyramid of Khufu at Giza. In the discussion, I recalled these stones may have had holes drilled through somewhere in them. Where is the position of that hole? It could be very important to our understanding of the pragmatics of mortuary practices.
Here's Petrie's description of a block he found in one of the passages of the pyramid:
"It was a slab 20.6 thick, worked on both faces, and one end, but rough broken around the other three sides; and as it lay flat on the floor, it left us 27 inches of height to pass down the passage over it. Where it came from is a complete puzzle; no granite is known in the Pyramid, except the King's Chamber, the Antechamber, and the plug blocks in the ascending passage. Of these sites the Antechamber seems to be the only place whence it could have come; and Maillet mentions having seen a large block (6 feet by 4) lying in the Antechamber, which is not to be found there now. This slab is 32 inches wide to the broken sides, 45 long to a broken end, and 20.6 thick; and, strangely, on one side edge is part of a drill hole, which ran through the 20.6 thickness, and the side of which is 27.3 from the worked end. This might be said to be a modern hole, made for smashing it up, wherever it was in situ; but it is such a hole as none but an ancient Egyptian would have made, drilled out with a jewelled tubular drill in the regular style of the 4th dynasty; and to attribute it to any mere smashers and looters of any period is inadmissible."
I know I've seen pictures of this stone, as taken by Jon Bodsworth as well. Here is a picture he took:
This is clearly not the same block. It has at least two holes, and indications of a third. If indeed these holes are of the same "4th Dynasty" quality as the one Petrie described, then they could have been along the top edge of the block giving us STILL an undetermined height, since we can only know its maximum.
Since the chamber is about 150 inches tall, and we needed to lift the portcullis stones up at least to the height of the passage entrance to the KC, about 50 inches, we have now determined a maximum height for the blocks of 100". Interestingly, we have Maillet claiming a slab of "6 foot by 4 foot" having been found, and the width of the Antechamber is 4 feet. That suggests the actual height of these portcullis stones was 6 feet.
The important part for our consideration here is the holes, as described by Petrie and shown in Mr. Bodsworth's photograph. I had not thought about these quite so far through before, but notice the similarity between the holes... and the slots along the back (southern) wall of the antechamber:
There is definitely a pattern here. To make it more obvious, I'll overlay the pictures.
I think we have a match. The distance from the end of the block to the edge of the wall seems to be just right when we align the holes with the slots. The perspective of the two blocks is clearly distorting the comparison, but if these do line up, what does it mean?I know it has been suggested that the slots were to give room for the ropes that were used to lower the blocks, but I think something more solid may have been used.
If these are the same scale in reality, with matching dimensions, then we've just come up with something significant here. I can imagine that if each of these blocks had these holes, it may have been to hold a series of rods, probably made of wood, that shot through all three portcullis stones and into the slots on the south wall.
Why rods? Because the rods, be they copper or wood, were able to hold the stones straight as they were dropped into position after the last of the burial party left the sepulchral chamber. They could serve as guides keeping the blocks perfectly aligned as they were dropped, thus they wouldn't become jammed in place. This circumstance would have been particularly troublesome if one of the three stones became stuck. How could a stuck stone have been released if the other stones were in place? Very difficult indeed, and potentially disastrous from a revivification standpoint for Khufu's Ba, Ka and Akh. These blocks had to fall perfectly in their tracks.
Clearly, it was considered of primary importance to the builders.
Naturally, all of this is tentative, based upon at least three factors:
- The holes must be of the same quality as the Dynasty IV holes Petrie noted in 1880.
- The actual measurements of the chamber slots as well as the holes in the stone must exactly match.
- The space between the last hole and the edge of the finished block must exactly match the space between the last slot and the eastern or western walls of the Antechamber.
If all of these factors are met, then we have a virtually indisputable "fit" for the block. We are then open to seriously consider the function of the slots and holes, beyond the brief analysis put forth here.
Once again, this has resulted from a perspective of the pyramids as filtered through the practical aspects of designing a massive real-world structure that served a specific and awesome spiritual purpose.
(NOTE: This hypothesis may well have been offered up by other individuals over the years. If anyone has information to that effect, please feel free to contact me at my "contact" address.)
