See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333759113

Mazghuna South A Layman"s guide

Presentation · June 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27247.28329

CITATIONS READS
0 69

1 author:

Keith Hamilton

37 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Bent Pyramid View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Keith Hamilton on 13 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mazghuna South
A Layman‟s guide
Keith Hamilton 13th June 2019

In the above plan and section1 we get a rough idea of the Mazghuna South
complex. Enclosed by a wavy mud-brick wall, we have a chamber system design
that is very similar to that of Khendjer‟s pyramid. The owner of this complex is not
known, but given its small size and quality of construction; along with its
similarity to Khendjer‟s pyramid, it is probable that it belongs to one of the royals
of the 13th dynasty. The superstructure has disappeared, and significant quantities

1
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, plate XXXIX

1
of stone has been robbed from the substructure; leaving merely a tract of ground
with a thin layer of limestone chips.

The primary source of information for Mazghuna south (and north) comes from
Ernest Mackay, who published his findings in „The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and
Mazghuneh‟ in 1912. Mackay was tasked with examining a tract of land some 5
miles long, starting about 1 km south of the Bent pyramid at Dahshur: at about 3
miles south of the Bent pyramid he came across an area of limestone chips which
would be called Mazghuna South; he says

“This contained what was obviously a large pit filled up with wind-blown sand, the
axis of which lay from north to south. Suspecting that I had here a tomb of unusual
importance, I attacked the place by a series of narrow trenches, leading inward
from far outside the south and west of the stone-strewn site to the pit in its
centre.”2

At about ¼ mile north a similar area of limestone chips would highlight the
Mazghuna North complex; the Mazghuna name coming from the nearby railway
station. These sites Mackay thought were 12th dynasty pyramid sites, he states,

“Unfortunately I was not able to recover the names of the persons for whom these
pyramids were built, but the similarity in the construction of their tombs to certain
parts in the tomb of the Hawara pyramid indicates that they were built for
Amenemhat IV and Queen Sebek-neferu. The northern pyramid, being the largest,
was probably intended for the former ruler, but it is practically certain that he
must have been buried elsewhere, for the tomb had never been used.”3

What was not known to Mackay at the time was later pyramid complex
discoveries, such as Khendjer‟s pyramid, published by Jequier in 1933, and the
pyramid of Ameny-Qemau, rediscovered in 1957: these two structures show a
greater resemblance to the Mazghuna sites than the Hawara site. Khendjer and
Ameny-Qemau were 13th dynasty rulers; this second intermediate period has a
somewhat confused chronology, with many different views amongst authors, but if
we take Wikipedia as a source, Ameny-Qemau would be the 5th king of the 13th
dynasty and Khendjer 21st. In the case of Mazghuna South, the burial chamber is
closely related to Khendjer‟s complex and Mazghuna North is more related to
Ameny-Qemau (The Southern South Saqqara Pyramid has no known attribution,

2
Ibid, page 41
3
Ibid, page 37

2
though it is thought to have been built in the 13th dynasty; this more complex
substructure displays design elements found in both Mazghuna North and South).

The Enclosure Wall

The first construction that Mackay came across at Mazghuna South was the wavy
mud-brick enclosure wall; such unusual walls are not unique to this site and can be
found elsewhere, such as the enclosure wall at the Southern South Saqqara
Pyramid, and small elements were found in Khendjer‟s complex, as shown below. 4

Examples of these wavy walls extend to South Abydos, were remnants were found
next to tomb S9, which was built to the north of Senwosret III‟s tomb, and which
displayed similar design elements to the Mazghuna site.5
4
Deux Pyramides Du Moren Empire, Gustave Jequier, 1933, Plate II
5
Borrowed legacy, Royal tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos, by Dawn McCormack

3
Mackay reports that the best preserved part of the wall stood over 60 inches high
(1.52m); the wall maintained a uniform thickness of 41.5 inches (1.05m). He says,

“The wall was beautifully built, each side being very even and the bays regular.
The average distance from head to head was 146 inches, and the depths of the bays
41 inches. Both faces of the wall had a thin plastering of mud, upon which was laid
a coat of white stucco. The dimensions of the sides are: N. 3060 inches, S. 3008
Inches, E. 3016 inches, W. 3017 inches (?).”6

The peaks of the wall seem to be 7 cubits apart, with the depths of the bays being 2
cubits, which would match the thickness of the wall.

Left, we see a portion of the southern wavy

wall7.

“Two sizes of bricks were used in the

Mazghuneh wall, averaging 12.0 inches x 6.2
inches x 3.7 inches and 12.7 inches x 6.7
inches x 4.2 inches. They were made without
the use of straw, of good firm mud mixed
with coarse sand. The majority of the bricks
were laid on their sides in regular courses of
stretchers, but in some parts of the northern
wall the bricks were laid on their edges,
headers being in no case employed”.8

The rationale behind these wavy walls is not

well known; they appear a characteristic of
the Middle Kingdom, and display several
formats; some are large well built walls, some appear to have a more auxiliary
function, and others that served no constructional function, other than appearing to
be symbolic.9 It has been suggested that these substantive wavy enclosure walls,
might symbolize the primordial waters of the god Nun: at the beginning of the
Middle Kingdom Nun is described as the Father of the Gods; others see no
symbolism in these walls.

6
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 47
7
Ibid, plate XLIV
8
Ibid, page 47
9
On the meaning of the so-called sinusoidal walls in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, Studia Aegyptiaca
XIV,pages 423-526

4
 At the S.E. corner, the remnants of a mud-
brick structure were found, and Mackay
notes that it was built with two sizes of bricks
that did not agree with the ones used to build
the wavy wall. Mackay thought that the true
entrance into the pyramid enclosure was
through the entrance „T‟ and the doorway
„U‟. The flat wall by „T‟ was 24 inches thick
and connected to the wavy wall; Mackay
found that the entrance „T‟ was blocked up
with brick work. The best preserved part of
this structure was the west wall, which was
some three feet high. On the blocking of the entrance, Mackay would suggest,

“When the pyramid was abandoned the entrances were then blocked up with brick,
or it is possible that this might have been done in a later period when the pyramid
was being destroyed in order to prevent unauthorized people taking away stone or
brick.”10

In connection with this area he would also state; “The whole of the ground round
about this spot was covered with a thick layer of limestone chips suggesting that it
was from here that the pyramid casing was brought out for transport. Just outside
the wavy wall we succeeded in recovering four pieces of limestone, with Middle
Kingdom inscriptions upon them.”

What Mackay describes as „The Pyramid Chapel‟ was

found in the middle of the east wall, with only the lower
parts of the structure surviving in good condition. There
were no signs of bonding between the wavy wall and
the chapel walls. Entrance into the large chamber „W‟
was through the east wall, and the floor of this chamber
was found to be 38 inches lower that the bottom of the
wavy wall. Mackay noted that the chapel was
constructed of mud-bricks displaying four different
sizes. Chamber „X‟ was found to have a vaulted roof,
but unfortunately it collapsed before it could be
recorded. It was also found to be different in that the
bricks in its construction were of a larger size and

10
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 47

5
unlike the rest of the chapel, were made of straw; Mackay thought that it was built
to receive a statue. In front of the chamber „X‟ entrance was found a rectangular
brick barrier, shown below in Mackay‟s plate XLI & XLV, about three courses
high.

6
Mackay reports that the southern chamber „Y‟ was intended to be a single
chamber, but was divided by a narrow brick wall some 12 inches thick; he also
states that the entrance to the chamber, was found closed by a brick filling.
Chamber „Z‟ was entered through the north wall and was divided into two
compartments by a brick wall, whose entrance was 41.5 inches wide (2 cubits?).
All the pavements of the chambers were found to be on the same level, though
strangely the eastern apartments of „Z‟ and „Y‟ had pavements some 6 inches
lower.

The large chamber ‟W‟ was 332.5 x 245 inches (16 x 12 cubits?), the widths of „X‟
& „Y‟ are given as 86 & 83 inches (4 cubits?). The paving of „W‟ was one layer of
brick, placed on the gebel, and plastered with mud. The best preserved walls of „Y‟
showed that they were coated with a thick layer of whitened mud.

The Foundation Trench

Mackay‟s description of the foundation trench (see highlighted trench on pg 1)

“The base of the pyramid was laid out by cutting a trench in the hard sandy soil
202 inches wide and 39 inches deep. This trench enclosed a practically square
piece of desert, in the middle of which lay the tomb pit. The two opposite sides of
this trench were lined with a coating of one thickness of brick, set at a slight batter,
the face of which was plastered with mud and then whitewashed. This batter was
produced by setting each course slightly behind the one beneath it. Owing to the
friable nature of the sides of the cutting, such a coating of brick was necessary, in
order to preserve a clean outline for the work.”11

He reports various large foundation blocks, found in the bottom of the trench
(these are shown on the plan on page 1). These foundation blocks displayed
“traces of attempts to break them up by means of deep grooves cut in their sides”.
The blocks were bedded on a thin coating of clean sand, and it was found that three
corners of the trench were well preserved; only the S.E corner could not be traced.

“I was thus able to measure the northern and western sides of the trench, which
are 182 feet, 8 inches, and 181 feet 9 inches respectively, the difference being a
practically negligible quantity of 11 inches. Taking the average, therefore, of these
two measurements, and allowing a little for the footing of the pyramid, it is

11
Ibid, page 41

7
possible that 100 cubits was the original base of the pyramid, with a paving about
three cubits wide around it.”

In the above plate,12 we can make out a section of the foundation trench, and in the
foreground can be seen one of the surviving foundation blocks; also visible is some
of the mud-brick still adhering to the walls of the trench. Note also how denuded
the site is, Mackay would report,

“The square tract of ground enclosed by the trench was covered in many places by
one to two courses of mud bricks, laid upon their sides in loose gravel. This was all
that was left of the filling of the pyramid, with the exception of a small mass of
brick lying on some masonry in the northern part of the tomb pit, and also some
brickwork at the south of the pit.”

A similar foundation trench was found at Senwosret III‟s pyramid complex at

Dahshur13. It is possible that the foundation trench at Mazgunah, consisted of two
courses of foundation blocks with some blocks of the upper course thinner, such
that the pyramid casing stone would abut against the 3 cubit paving stone and

12
Ibid, plate XLII
13
See Vyse, 1837, Gizeh, page 63; and Arnold, The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur, page 27

8
prevent splaying of the casing (at the Lahun Pyramid they cut a rock socket around
the pyramid base to help retain the casing.)

Above I have created a very rough idea of how the trench may have looked like
with the casing fitted. However, there are various reconstructions that could be
employed; the scant remains prevent us with knowing with any certainty what
method was employed. The ruinous state of the site, with not a single remnant of
casing stone left, prevents us from even knowing the angle or height of the
structure.

Mackay would report that, “The space enclosed by the wavy wall was subsequently
occupied by a very small xviiith-dynasty cemetery of the date of Thothmes
III…….The favourite places for the graves were either just inside, or outside the
wavy wall, or they were dug at the bottom of the trench that was cut to take the
bottom courses of the pyramid casing. Two burials were found at the southern end
of the tomb cutting and a few graves occur just round its edge. These prove that the

9
core of the pyramid as well as its casing stones had been destroyed to the ground
before the time of Thothmes III.”14

Mackay‟s idea that the base of the structure was probably 100 cubits, is probably
the best that can be hoped for. The image below shows the stone remains of the
Bent Pyramids subsidiary pyramid; this also had a base of about 100 cubits and is
largely robbed of its casing, leaving mainly the poor quality core stone. Mazghuna
was a mud-brick structure cased with fine limestone and as both materials were
recyclable, little of these small middle kingdom pyramids remain.

The Bents small subsidiary pyramid above, gives a rough idea of the size of the
Mazghuna pyramid, the era of the giant pyramids had long past. The looting of
building material can only be described as, by persons unknown: with the
timeframe from the beginning of the 13th dynasty to the end of Tuthmosis III reign
being some 332 years.15 Some authors have stated that the superstructure at
Mazghuna south was not completed; it is not possible to know with certainty if this
was the case, though the existence of the enclosure wall might suggest that the

14
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 49
15
Chronicle of the Pharaohs, P. Clayton, page 90 & 104, 1782 to 1450

10
superstructure was completed, as such a wall in close proximity to the pyramid
would appear a barrier to the construction of the superstructure. Mackay would add

“We searched the ground over a large area inside and outside of the wavy wall in
the hopes of finding royal catacombs such as are present near the southern brick
pyramid of Dahshur. The desert was also carefully examined on the east as far as
the cultivation in view of a pyramid temple or a causeway, but all with negative
results. It is certainly strange to find this pyramid so isolated, for no trace even of
a xiith-dynasty cemetery was found in the vicinity, despite the special efforts made
in search of one.”16

Another point to note is that we only have evidence of one enclosure wall, where
often pyramids of this era would display two enclosure walls. At Khendjer‟s
complex, we have evidence of what appears to be an earlier inner enclosure wall
opposite the entrance; being a wavy mud-brick structure that appears to have been
replaced by a stone enclosure wall (see plan on page 3 and image below)17

16
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 50
17
Deux Pyramides du Moyen Empire, G.Jequier 1933, page 7 and plate IVa

11
 The Substructure

The large pit that contained the substructure was entirely cleared in the course of
three weeks work; Mackay‟s description of the pit,

“The upper portion of the pit was cut through a bed of hard fine sand about 55
inches deep. Immediately below this there was a stratum mainly consisting of small
flint pebbles tightly packed together in concreted sand. This stratum lay on a soft
clayey rock, in which were built the sarcophagus and chambers of the tomb. The
builders, when excavating the pit, effectually disposed of the upper and softer
debris, but the hardest and lowest stratum was thrown out to the south and west of
the pit, just outside a trench cut for the wavy wall.”18

The substructure is largely denuded, with large areas robbed of its stone, making it
difficult for Mackay to formulate accurate drawings. His drawings are sometimes
difficult to decipher; an example is in his drawing of the entrance passage, in plan
view below, we see that the two sections with steps that make up the entrance
passage, appear to be offset.

In Mackay‟s drawing, the 2nd

more northern section of the
entrance passage „G‟ is placed
further west than the more
southern section „B‟. This is
contradicted by his sectional
drawings of the passages and
the portcullises on the same
plate XXXIX.

18
Ibid, page 42

12
In Mackay‟s sections and plans above, they suggest that the entrance passage
sections are in alignment and not offset. There is nothing in his report to clarify
which is correct. However, in the Khendjer pyramid, the entrance passage sections
were found to be in alignment.

There is insufficient data in Mackay‟s report to determine the exact location of the
burial chamber, and its relationship with the pyramid axes and what may have been
intended by the architect. The entrance passage axis is not given but his plan
suggests that it is offset to the east of the pyramids N-S axis. Likewise, levels are
not given that might help determine the location of the entrance at trench level.

In Mackay‟s side section above, we see the remnants of the entrance passage „B‟,
if we extend this line to the surface it would exit south of the foundation trench,

13
which would appear unlikely, as we might expect it to align with the base of the
pyramid, whose casing should be resting on the foundation trench. Note also in this
section that Mackay has passage „G‟ exiting the first portcullis at the same level as
the end of passage „B‟, when in reality passage „G‟ starts at a higher level than the
end of „B‟ (see sections in previous page). The limitations of the data and drawings
in Mackay‟s report prevent any reconstruction of the entrance at base level.
However, the better preserved Khendjer pyramid may offer a clue on how the
entrance may have looked.

Above we have the plan and section of the very similar designed Khendjer
pyramid19. The first section of passage starts from a horizontal level that has
shallow grooves either side of it: Jequier would suggest that these grooves
contained wood to facilitate the maneuvering of a closing stone over the entrance;
something similar may have been present at Mazghuna South.

19
Deux Pyramides du Moyen Empire, G.Jequier 1933, plate VIII

14
Above,20 we have a better view of the entrance opening at Khendjer‟s pyramid, this
was on the east face of the pyramid; at Mazghuna South the entrance was on the
south face. In Mackay‟s section on page 10, a dark shaded area is visible below the
foundation trench that coincides with an extended passage „B‟: this shaded area is
also visible by the entrance on his plan on pages 1 & 12. It is not clear in his report
what this shaded area is, though other shaded areas in the foundation trench are
described as remnants of foundation blocks. Maybe the entrance was closed in this
area, covered by a foundation block, with the casing covering the foundation block.
Security wise, using a casing stone to close the entrance, runs the risk of stone
robbers inadvertently finding the entrance; a lesser quality foundation block adds
another level of security, which hopefully will not attract the eyes of the looters.

20
Ibid, Plate VIIb

15
 The Entrance Passage
The first section of the entrance passage is largely destroyed; some 225 inches of
its length could be traced, with 192 inches of it displaying shallow steps. The steps
were cut in the paving stone, and either side of the steps a smooth area was left, 10
inches on the west and 10.9 on the east. The passage width is given as 35.5 inches
wide; therefore steps were 14.6 wide with a depth of 4.2 inches. The passage may
have been intended to have a width of 1 cubit and 5 palms, with the smooth areas
being ½ a cubit wide, and the steps 5 palms. The passage angle was recorded as
22°30´. Not much remained of the passage walls, Mackay states,

“The eastern side was demolished for nearly its entire length, and only the marks
on the paving of where it once stood gave me the proper width of the entrance.”21

The western side of the passage showed one course of walling still standing, some
23.5 inches high; if the second course displayed the same height we may have had
a passage height of some 47 inches. At the end of the steps, the passage continued
level for 33 inches, were it then entered a small chamber, 55 long (N-S) by 45
inches wide. This is called the portcullis chamber, though the upper part was
destroyed, like so much of the substructure; what remains is mainly the large red
granite portcullis that was found laying across the chamber, that was only some 14
inches from being fully home in the closed position (see southern plug block
section on page 13). Mackay says,

“The two ends of the block were resting on a limestone bed that Inclined from east
to west. Its northern edge lay on a portion of a granite slab, the southern top edge
of which was cut away at an angle 4º 15' to agree with the slope of the limestone
bed of the portcullis, and thus form a slide”

This granite slab was effectively also the north wall of the portcullis chamber; it
was some 29 inches thick and 100 long, height unknown (in the second portcullis
chamber, which appears a mirror image of the first, the granite slab was 95 long by
28.5 thick, and Mackay states that, “The base of this block is set considerably
below the level of the pavement”: the height of this chamber he gives as 30.5). The
angled ledge cut into the top of the granite slab was 5 inches wide. The portcullis
block that slid along this ledge was some 103.5 long, 58.5 wide and 57 deep, and
would weigh some 15 metric tons: this portcullis in the closed position prevents

21
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 42

16
access to the second section of the entrance passage, which begins at a higher level
and whose floor from the start would incorporate some of the 29 inch thick granite
slab. Given the small dimensions of the chamber, it is still a good feat to lower this
portcullis; help may have come from the following observation by Mackay,

“The limestone bed on which the eastern end of the portcullis rested was provided
with a wide and shallow groove running down its axis in order to minimise friction
when moving the block. This groove was but irregularly made, and had been cut
after the bed was built.”22

In Khendjer‟s pyramid, Jequier reports that the portcullis bed had grooves lined
with wooden slats, which he suggested were intended to facilitate slippage of the
block.

The image above gives a rough idea of the entrance passage and portcullises.

22
Ibid, page 42

17
The southern portcullis has been admitted for clarity. The northern portcullis is
basically a mirror image of the southern one, though the slide is at 6°15´ and the
width of the ledge on the granite slab is slightly more at 7.5 inches wide: the
portcullis is also marginally larger than the southern one. These portcullises would
be stored in a chamber, not unlike what we see in Khendjer‟s pyramid (see section
on page 14).

As the entrance passage enters the area under the portcullis, it widens from 35.5 to
45 inches; this allows the forward angled face of the stored portcullis from
obstructing the new entrance which starts at a higher level and whose floor
coincides with the top of the granite slabs. The granite slabs are a clever extra level
of security to slow the advance of looters; if this was made of limestone the looters
would simply dig through this wall and break into stairs „G‟. The granite slab at
some 29 inches thick is a serious barrier; further, if one tries to circumvent this
barrier, by digging into the east and west walls, they run the risk of bringing some
15 metric tons of granite down on them: by making these granite slabs some 100
inches long, they would force any looters to undermine these walls some distance
to bypass the granite slab.

After the first portcullis, the entrance passage continues, starting at a higher level,
it descends some 110 inches at an angle of 18° and consists of 8 steps averaging
4.4 inches in depth; the width of the steps and ramps either side agree closely with
stairs „B‟ (these ramps allow sledges to transport items down the passages). At the
bottom of stairs „G‟ the floor levels for 33 inches, before widening to 45 by 55
inches, exactly as we see at the end of stairs „B‟; only the floor is mirrored as the
northern portcullis slides in from west to east. Mackay also found this passage
robbed of its roofing stones and upper wall stones; again the height of this passage
is unknown, though in his section drawings (page 13) the dotted line for the higher
entrance suggests around 42 inches (2 cubits?).

The next passage after the second portcullis starts again at a higher level, with a
portion of this granite slab, forming part of the floor of this short horizontal
passage: this passage opens out into chamber „L‟. Unfortunately this short passage
and chamber „L‟ was found entirely wrecked; Mackay states, “There were slight
indications, however, that it was short and that it entered a chamber now entirely
destroyed, which is shown in broken lines…”23 (See plan on page 12)

23
Ibid, page 43

18
In this view looking south, I have replaced the southern portcullis, in the position
that Mackay found it; here he states that 14 inches remained before the portcullis
was fully home on the ledge provided for it on the west wall: the northern
portcullis was found open.

From Mackay‟s drawings it would appear that the destroyed chamber „L‟ is of
similar width and height to what he would call his „Great Northern Chamber‟,
labeled „N‟ on his drawings, shown overleaf. In Mackay‟s plate XL I have colour
coded the chambers and passages to help with identification.

19
20
The above images from Mackay‟s report give a good impression of the destruction
wrought to the substructure.

21
At the east end of the destroyed chamber „L‟ there is a drop of 40.9 inches, here we
jump down or use the steps provided into the „Long Eastern Passage‟, marked „M‟
on the drawings. The first step, some 4 inches deep is cut in the floor of chamber
„L‟; the second step consisted of a block of stone which filled the width of the
passage, it was 19.8 high and 8 inches wide. Surrounding the entrance into „M‟
was what Mackay terms benches on the east and south walls, which were on the
same level as the floor of chamber „L‟. The width of the east bench was 8.7 to 9.0
inches; while the south was 6.0 to 6.3.

Passage „M‟ was some 405 long by 42.6 inches wide (This might be 20 by 2
cubits; the better preserved chamber „N‟ appears to be 4 cubits wide, if we allow
the same for the destroyed chamber „L‟, then the roofed connecting passage would
be 12 cubits). Six roofing blocks survived the stone robbers, Mackay states,

“The roofing blocks numbered six in all, the joints being very closely fitted. These
were not all at the same level on the under side, for there was an unusual feature
in the roof: a recess, a heightening of the passage, 162.6 inches long in the middle.
The height of this recess was 5.4 inches at the north, and 7.4 inches at the south,
the width being the same as that of the passage.”24 (See section IV, page 20)

This unusual feature appears related to the masonry construction of the pent roof
that protected the burial chamber, as Mackay‟s best estimate of the length of the
burial chamber which is aligned with the raised ceiling of corridor „M‟ and shares
a similar length of 161 inches (or 8 cubits, leaving 2 cubit thick walls for
chamber‟s „L‟ & „N‟ (These pent beams have disappeared, though marks are
visible on the wall of „N‟; these can be seen on the top two images on the previous
page). The passage „M‟ walls consisted of three courses of blocks, with the highest
part being 65.2 inches, Mackay states,

“The floor of the passage was but roughly dressed, the stones run in under the side
walls. On the whole, the workmanship of the passage was fairly good, the walls
and roofing blocks being smooth, and the joints of the stones closely set. Though so
much was wanting when the test of the measuring rod was applied, yet to the
casual eye the impression was good.”

24
Ibid, page 43

22
The above impression gives a rough idea of the start of passage „M‟ in the floor of
chamber „L‟. There is no counterpart of chamber „L‟ in Khendjer‟s pyramid; but it
may have been a ruse for tomb robbers, who having circumvented the portcullises
would have arrived at this chamber, thinking that this was the burial chamber. The
chamber after the burial of the king, may have been paved over, using the benches
for support, and possibly the void underneath filled with masonry, thus concealing
passage „M‟ which led to the real burial chamber. The raised ceiling of passage
„M‟ appears to start after the wall masonry of „L‟, which could be 2 cubits thick,
the south wall of „L‟ might match this and provide support for the ceiling beams
that would span this chamber.

23
The next feature of passage „M‟ is a well sunk in the floor, some 157.5 inches from
its north end, which projects 22 inches into the passage: around this opening is an
irregularly cut recess some 1.75 inches deep, which probably held a thin slab to
conceal the entrance. This well gave access to what Mackay would call his First
False Passage; and as the image above shows, this is the first of three false
passages that he labels in his drawing (see page 20). The label „False Passage‟
comes from Petrie, who discovered similar passages found inside the Hawara
Pyramid25. Due to the water level in the Hawara pyramid, Petrie could not fully
explore those passages and therefore determine their function. It would not be until
Jequier‟s report on Khendjer‟s pyramid in 1933, that we would learn the function
of the first and third false passages. These passages led to a sandbox that held
raised quartzite blocks that supported the northern portion of the sarcophagus lid.

25
See my Hawara guide, Petrie published his findings on Hawara in 1890

24
In the above drawing by Mackay, from his plate XLI, we see how Mackay found
the sarcophagus. The sarcophagus, made from a single piece of quartzite, was
covered by a two piece lid. The southern piece was found cemented in position,
with the damaged northern portion, extending beyond the inner face of the
sarcophagus by 9 inches. It was Mackay‟s belief that this portion was slid on; he
states,

“This block was constructed so as to slide along on the top of the sarcophagus
until it met its fellow at the south. There was plenty of room to allow the sealers of
the tomb to effect this, as a gang could be engaged inside passage P to push the
block, whilst additional help could be rendered inside the sarcophagus chamber.
The workmen engaged in the latter task could easily escape when the sarcophagus
was closed by an aperture in the south wall of the great northern chamber, just
above the movable block. This aperture, as well as the space left at the end of the
passage, would then have been sealed with masonry, so as to conceal all trace of

25
the roofing slab and present a blank wall to a possible plunderer.”26 (Passage „P‟
is the Second False Passage: the space, „be rendered inside the sarcophagus
chamber‟ is what Petrie would term the Super chamber in Hawara; this in effect
being a void left above the lid, for when the lid was in the raised position and
supported by the quartzite blocks in the sandboxes.

Above we have a section of the burial chamber found at Hawara, this was spanned
by three ceiling blocks, one was stored in the super chamber and lowered to seal
the tomb by two sandboxes. Access to the tomb to introduce the body and funeral
items was via a trench in the floor, similar to Mackay‟s Second False Passage „P‟

26
Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh, 1912, page 49-50

26
The rough impression above, gives an idea of how the sarcophagus and pent
roofing beams may have looked like. The west wall of passage „M‟ is made of
three courses, with the upper one about 22.3 inches high; this may have been
designed like this to abut against the bottom of the pent beams to counter any
lateral thrust of the pent beams, and may explain why we have a higher roof
section in passage „M‟. This section along with the sarcophagus, and pent roofing
beams, probably were designed to be the same length of about 164 inches or 8
cubits; this assembly would be sandwiched between the north wall of chamber „L‟
and south wall of the Great Northern Chamber, which Mackay gives as 41.5 (2
cubits) thick (this thickness may have been reflected on the north wall of chamber
„L‟. The great northern chamber at 84 inches wide (4 cubits), if reflected in
chamber „L‟ would give a total distance from south wall of chamber „L‟ to north
wall of great northern chamber of 20 cubits.

27
Returning now to the first false passage, Mackay states that it is some 135.5 long
by 29 wide and 36 inches high. At the end of this passage he found the quartzite
slab which measured 35 long, 13.5 wide and 37.5 inches deep; he further adds,

“The base of the quartzite slab was not resting on the same level as the floor of the
passage, for a recess was cut in the paving 14 inches long and 4.3 inches deep,
east of the end of the passage, to take it.”27

This recess may have held another stone, not unlike the quartzite prop, but with a
lifting boss left on its exterior face; a lever acting on this, could raise this slide and
allow the controlled removal of sand from the sandbox, and the lowering of the
sarcophagus lid. The lower section of the third false passage has similar
dimensions to its opposite counterpart, being 30.5 wide by 37.5 high; with its
quartzite slab, being 35 x 13.5 x 41.5 inches high. This is some 4 inches higher
than its opposing slab; though this appears to have been accounted for in its recess
which is deeper, at 6.7 inches.

27
Ibid, page 44

28
If one looks at Mackay‟s plan on page 20, you will note that the sandboxes are not
exactly aligned with each other; but slightly staggered, with the west box slightly
south of the east box. It‟s not known if this was intentional, the offset being only
about 8 inches; the lid being 79 inches long, and with the props being 35 long,
slightly staggering the quartzite props may have been seen as a beneficial thing to
the stability of the lid.

The Great Northern Chamber

At the north end of passage „M‟ we arrive at a flight of steps that take us up to the
pavement of the Great Northern Chamber; this pavement is 35 inches above the
pavement of passage „M‟ (chamber „L‟ was 40.9 inches). Mackay states that east
of the steps is a shelf, some 9.7 inches wide and 68.8 inches above the passage
floor.28 This would appear to be an error, as the following image from plate XLIV
shows.

In my impression on page 28
I have placed the shelf at
68.8, and as you can see it
would place the shelf above
the doorway. The image
shows clearly that the shelf is
below the doorway. The top
of this doorway Mackay
gives as 60 inches, and from
the sides of the doorway one
can see that the chamber pavement is at a lower level than the shelf. It might be
that the 68.8 is a confused measure that he took from the ceiling and not the floor;
the ceiling at 113 high, minus the 68.8 gives 44.2 inches, which agrees more with
his scale drawings. If you look at the drawings on page 20 you will notice that the
ceiling height above the steps is higher than the Great North Chamber itself, which
has a height of 64.8 inches (113 is from passage floor, therefore pavement level of
chamber, at 35 needs to be subtracted, which gives 78 inches, or 13.2 higher than
chamber ceiling). The extra ceiling height at this location is probably to help in the
introduction of larger items into the chamber.

Mackay gives the dimensions of the chamber as 354.5 long, 84 wide, and 64.8
inches high (this does not include the east end that incorporates the passage that is

28
Ibid, page 43

29
43.1 wide at top and 42.6 at base; therefore giving a total of about 397.5 inches.
This could be 19 cubits, allow 2 cubits for passage width, we may have an intended
chamber of 17 by 4 cubits. It is hard to determine intended dimensions due to the
variability in dimensions and tolerances that the builders allowed themselves;
Mackay would state on the passage, “Though so much was wanting when the test
of the measuring rod was applied, yet to the casual eye the impression was good”)

Mackay‟s description of the walls of the chamber;

“The side walls of the chamber were very carefully finished, the joints of the stones
being under 1/20 inch in thickness. The dressing was completed with the aid of a
pointed tool, the strokes always running from left to right. This left a groove in the
surface of the stone .1 inch wide, and averaging .9 inch deep. After the walls had
been finally finished a thin coating of plaster was applied to the stone.”29

He reports nine roofing stones spanning the chamber, their widths varying from
19.5 to 47.5 wide, with their length and heights being constant at 176 long by 66
high. Taking the widest block, it would weigh around 24 metric tons.

In the middle of the chamber floor we have Mackay‟s second false passage, this
was provided with steps, two cut out of the pavement floor either side of the
passage, and on average 12.6 x 13.4 x 5.2 inches deep. A further step that took the
width of the passage was 12.9 wide by 11.9 deep.

From plate XLIV, we can see

the steps connected with the
passage; the large block in the
foreground is the lid of the
sarcophagus. The passage floor
is 33.6 below chamber floor; it
is 82.3 long by 41.7 wide (4 x
2 cubits). At its end it meets
the lid of the sarcophagus,
which sits 5 inches lower and
the passage floor appears to
continue at this level, which
coincides with the top surface
of the sarcophagus. It appears therefore that the passage floor is lowered under the

29
Ibid, page 44

30
south wall of the chamber by 5 inches, giving an increased passage height of 38.6
inches from this point; no doubt to help with the insertion of the kings wooden
sarcophagus. Violator‟s probably prised the sarcophagus lid back through the
destroyed south wall of the chamber until it stopped against this drop in the
passage floor. This passage is the only way that the king‟s body and canopic chest
could be introduced into the quartzite sarcophagus.

The entrance to the third false passage is found in the south west corner of the
chamber, the mouth of this entrance is around 34 inches square, and is 36 inches
deep, and unlike the entrance to the first false passage, it does not display a recess
for a covering slab.

In the image left, we see the recess cut

around the entrance to the first false
passage. As previously mentioned,
Mackay did not understand the
function of these false passages, he
states;

“Neither is it easy to realize the

meaning of the two false passages east
and west of the sarcophagus. These
were certainly filled with masonry in
order to hamper investigation, but the
presence of quartzite at their ends was
bound to give a clue as to the whereabouts of the burial place.”30

Mackay would also report masonry found in the Great Northern Chamber, he says,

“There were indications that the chamber had been filled with small blocks of
loose masonry, for many of these were found in the course of clearing. These were
regularly shaped, and were far too small to have been abstracted from any part of
the tomb.”31

Unfortunately, Mackay provides no further detail on the masonry found, other than
in the two quotes above. In the Hawara pyramid, a similar trench in the floor of its
chamber, was filled with masonry; might what Mackay describes be masonry

30
Ibid, page 50
31
Ibid, page 44

31
pulled out of this trench?32 Given the security features displayed elsewhere, we
should expect the trench leading to the sarcophagus to be filled with masonry after
burial. It is possible that the small masonry used to fill the trench, would in turn be
required to be concealed; might the higher shelf visible on the east wall (see image
on page 29) indicate a paved floor level? Having back filled the false passages, did
the builders lay down a pavement over the chamber floor, to further disguise the
passage openings? The builders on exiting the paved chamber, would finally close
a slab or two over the north end of passage „M‟ that rested on the higher shelf, and
possibly filled the void underneath by the steps with further masonry, to present a
flat wall to anyone who broke into passage „M‟.

Introducing all this masonry, would take considerable time after the burial and
provide more barriers to future robbers, who more likely than not, knew the layout
and security features well.

As well as providing access to the sarcophagus, the Great North Chamber probably
held significant funeral items, as the sarcophagus only has room for the canopic
chest and coffin.

Finds were few, what is described as a vessel

in the form of a trussed duck, was found at
the bottom of the opening to the third false
passage, along with three limestone vessels,
which Petrie thought may have been
employed as lamps.

32
In the Hawara well chamber, which equates to the great northern chamber, Petrie reports that it was mostly
filled with masonry, though the similar chamber of khendjer appears absent of masonry.

32
 The Sarcophagus

The red quartzite sarcophagus,

consists of three parts, two lids
and a hollowed out box. The
southern lid had a recess cut in
its underside to allow fitment
of the canopic chest, when the
lid was cemented to the box.
The canopic recess was a
square hole of 28.5 inches: the
recess cut in the lid was 17
high (same as the initial recess
in the box, which is also 17
deep) and the width the same
as the upper part of the box at
45.5 inches.

Therefore combined space

above the 28.5 deep canopic
recess was 34 inches when the
lid was fitted, and sufficient to
introduce a canopic chest. The coffin recess which starts at the same level as the
canopic recess (17 below top of box) is given as 94.5 long, 35.5 wide and 41.5
deep: the outside length and depth of the box are unknown due to the masonry
surrounding it.

Mackay found the sarcophagus “filled with rough mud mixed with sand, the result
of some of the pyramid bricks being washed in by storms. Nothing was found inside
except a fragment of a small alabaster kohl pot, and a piece of glazed steatite
inlay, half an inch square.”33

As to the quality of the work, Mackay states;

“The accuracy and finish of the burial place were very poor in comparison with
the fine work of the Hawara pyramid, the errors in cutting amounting in some
instances to more than half an inch. The surface in every part was but roughly
ground down, the corners being rounded off.”

33
Ibid, page 46

33
The form of the coffin that would be fitted inside the coffin recess is not known.
Anthropoid coffins appear in the 12th dynasty and could be nested like a Russian
doll, with the whole assemble fitted inside a rectangular box. It is interesting to
note that the coffin recess at 35.5 wide, closely matches the width of the entrance
passage, which is given as 35.5 wide. The recess at 94.5 long (2.40m), is a
substantial length and together with the width, suggests a possible nested
configuration.34

A problem occurs when one tries to introduce a rectangular box that is the
dimensions of the coffin recess; namely, there is insufficient maneuvering space to
introduce it. The green box above for example is 35 wide, 94 long and 33 high
(this 33 allows it to fit the trench and clear the sarcophagus lid, which would
probably be at a similar height, as some of the quartzite props would have to be
34
Compare to khufu’s sarcophagus, were a plain wooden coffin is believe to have fitted into a space of 78.6 x 26.8
x 34.4 high

34
engaged in the sandboxes). This reduced sized box, compared to the dimensions in
the coffin recess, will not pass the junction of passage „M‟ and the great northern
chamber (recall that the height of the chamber is but 64.8 high, and even the raised
ceiling at the north end of passage „M‟ is only 113 high from the passage floor).
This suggests that it may have already been introduced into the sarcophagus before
the roofing of the burial chamber; the same problem may exist for any large
anthropoid coffin. There would be sufficient clearance for the royal body in a small
anthropoid coffin to traverse the passages; and it is quite likely that we had a raised
ceiling at the southern end of passage „M‟ next to the destroyed chamber „L‟.

Above, from plate XLII, we see some of the surviving roofing blocks belonging to
the great northern chamber and surviving mud-brick.

35
Above, looking south, we see the south lid of the sarcophagus still in place, with its
recess cut in its underside. The northern lid is in the foreground, badly damaged on
top (see section on page 25). This damage was probably caused by robbers
attempting to break into the sarcophagus from the void left by the pent beams
above. They may have broken through the south wall of the great northern
chamber to gain access to the void: having difficulty breaking through the quartzite
lid, they may have elected to remove some of the south wall, sufficient enough to
use levers on top of the damaged lid and lever the lid north into the chamber. If
only the designer of the sarcophagus had thought of providing tenons, projecting
from the box or lid into the opposing part, they could have made the robbers work
a lot more for their spoils.

The sarcophagus was enclosed with masonry, some of which would have
supported the pent beams; either side of the sarcophagus above, we can see blocks
42.5 high above the top surface of the box; on these the pent beams would rest and
create the void for the raised lid. The apex height for the beams from the top
surface of the box Mackay gives as 163.5 inches (possible 8 cubits), and from his
drawings the angle is around 65 degrees. The axis of the sarcophagus also appears
to be aligned with the axis of the pyramids entrance passage.

36
 Concluding Remarks

Ideally it would be nice for sites such as Mazghuna South to be revisited and a
more modern in depth examination conducted. Though in a ruinous state, I feel that
more meat is to be found on its carcass. There are so many sites, were the only data
we have on them is over a century old, and depending on the author the detail can
be very scant (though Mackay is one of the better authors). That said, the expense
in uncovering these sites again is probably exorbitant and unlikely.

Nothing much can be said about Mazghuna South with certainty, other than it is a
ruinous site that has been practically robbed of its last penny. Its history and owner
are lost to us; though some chance turn of the spade, may yet in the future, shed
some light. The similar design to Khendjer‟s pyramid suggests a similar timeline;
though which structure came first is difficult to ascertain from the available data.
In some ways, Khendjer‟s structure appears a simplified version of Mazghuna
South, and if pushed to make a choice, my instincts favour that Mazghuna was
built first.

Though a small structure in the scheme of things, a lot of thought appears to have
been put into its design and the security of the occupant for which it was built, and
yet another fine example of the ancient Egyptian‟s skill.

37

View publication stats