The Djedi Project: The Next Generation in Robotic Archaeology
7
Mar

The Djedi Project: The Next Generation in Robotic Archaeology

   Posted by: Shemsu Sesen   

Categories: Pyramids, The Giza Plateau

The Djedi Project is not just the new mission to explore the pyramid shafts—it truly is the next generation in robotic archaeology.  Beginning with Waynman Dixon’s iron rods, researchers have been probing the Great Pyramid’s mysterious claustrophobic passageways for 140 years.  But now, using technology designed for uses as divergent as space exploration and terrestrial search and rescue, we are finally able to explore the chamber behind Gantenbrink’s Door.

Picking up where we left off with Pyramid Rover, this Em Hotep exclusive covers how the Djedi Team won the “Robot Olympics in the Desert”, the members who make up the team, the specifics of the robot’s design, and the results of Djedi’s maiden voyage up QCS and into the chamber behind the first blocking stone.  Through interviews and exchanges with the Djedi Project manager, Shaun Whitehead, as well as other team members, this article promises to be the resource for the published Djedi material to date.

 

Pyramid Rover Recap

Pyramid Rover was a successful reconnaissance mission into the southern shaft coming out of the Queen’s Chamber (QCS).  The mission had confirmed that the 20 x 20 cm blocking slab and the final section of U-block were made of a higher quality type of limestone than the rest of the shaft, most likely the fine limestone quarried at Tura rather than the rougher local yellow limestone.  The blocking slab and final U-block were also smoother and of higher craftsmanship than the rest of the shaft blocks.  The Rover mission also confirmed that the blocking slab was affixed with two copper pins that were bent downward at a 90-degree angle.

Regarding the white circular patches observable behind the pins, Pyramid Rover’s close-up analysis revealed that these were most likely mortar patches rather than royal seals, one of the possibilities offered up by the Upuaut Project.   Rover’s impact-echo probe had shown that the blocking slab was only 5-9 cm thick, which placed it within the capabilities of Rover’s drill and probe-mounted camera.

Rover successfully drilled a small hole in the slab, about 2 cm in diameter, while inflicting as little damage as possible.  The probe-mounted fiber optic camera was successfully deployed and gave us our first look behind Gantenbrink’s Door.  What the Pyramid Rover team discovered was a small chamber formed by the Tura limestone U-block, the basal stone, the blocking slab/door, and a rough block of the local limestone on the opposite side, about 19 cm away from the “door.”

But the probe camera had its limitations.  It was fixed inside a rigid tube and had no tilt or pan capabilities—all it could do was look straight ahead.  The LED array on the probe did not provide much ambient light, so Rover was unable to examine the walls and floor of the chamber, much less the back of the blocking slab.  Even the view of the opposite block was limited by the quality of the light.  With the center being overly reflective and the periphery fading into darkness, details were hard to make out.  What appeared to be cracks could just as easily be tool marks, mason’s lines, flaking, or just shadows.

Larger, more structural questions presented themselves as well.  Was the opposing block another blocking slab/door?  Did the shaft continue on the opposite side, or come to an abrupt end against the core masonry of the pyramid?  Was the block inserted into the shaft like a cork, or did it sit flush against the end of the shaft like a lid?

The Pyramid Rover had also made a remarkable discovery in the northern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber—another door, nearly identical to the one Gantenbrink discovered, and at about the same elevation.  The QCN door also had copper pins and also appeared to be made of the higher-quality limestone and exhibited superior workmanship.  Could there be another chamber in QCN?

To even begin assessing these questions would require another mission and another robot.  But this meant asking new questions. Who should design the next robot?  How could they improve on the previous missions?  What would be the scope of the project?  Zahi Hawass, the Secretary of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, had some decisions to make.

 

 Selecting a New Mission Team:  Robot Olympics in the Desert

Initial planning for the next mission into the Queen’s Chamber shafts began soon after the conclusion of the Pyramid Rover Project, and at one point it seemed that a team from Singapore University had been selected as early as August, 2004.  Speaking with Chinese reporters at that time, Dr. Hawass talked as if the Singaporean mission was a done deal.  “The manufacturing of the robot will start in October,” Hawass said, “with the university [of Singapore] footing the bill.  The exploration will likely start next year” (People’s Daily Online, New robot to uncover pyramid mysteries, August 12, 2004).

YouTube Preview Image

By mid October, 2005, the Singaporean project, called Tomb Trekker, appeared to be on schedule.  According to The Independent, Singapore University had been working on Tomb Trekker for two years and Dr. Hawass would be inspecting the robot within a week (The Independent, Robot to explore Great Pyramid’s secret chamber, by Anne Penketh, October 12, 2005).  But apparently he was not entirely convinced with what he saw and decided to open the project up to competition.  In 2006 and 2007 Tomb Trekker would have to face off with a competing team from Leeds University for the right to explore the pyramid shafts.

The next mission into the Queen’s Chamber shafts would have two primary objectives:

Send a robot crawler up QCS to explore the space behind the first blocking slab using the same opening Pyramid Rover had drilled, determine if the rough block at the opposite side was the end of the shaft or another blocking slab, and if the latter, drill a hole through it and see what is behind it.

Send a robot crawler up QCN to drill a hole through that blocking slab and see what is on the other side.

To accomplish these objectives, the mission would have to meet certain criteria as well.  The tube-mounted camera on Pyramid Rover was unable to look around the inside of the chamber and the light quality was not fully up to task.  The next robot would need to be able to look up and down and from side to side, as well as take a look at the back of the blocking slab.  One of the most curious features of the shafts is the copper pins in the two blocking slabs.  To have a better understanding of these pins the new robot would need to be able to examine the backs of these slabs.

Another consideration would be scale.  The impact-echo probe used by Pyramid Rover covered nearly half the surface area of the blocking slab.  Obviously, something of comparable size would not be able to fit through the hole in the first blocking slab, and minimizing damage meant the team could not drill a larger hole.  The next mission would have to employ a probe that could fit through the tiny hole already made by Rover.

Damage prevention was not just a consideration with the blocking slab, it had become one of the main criteria of the mission.  The tank-like treads used by Upuaut-2 and Pyramid Rover had left scuff marks on the shafts.  There is an old adage that cave explorers use—take only pictures, leave only footprints.  But the pyramid shafts are a different type of spelunking and the Supreme Council of Antiquities was determined that whoever they selected for the next mission would leave no footprints at all.

To select which team—Singapore or Leeds—was best able to fulfill the mission and meet all the criteria, Zahi Hawass arranged for the two sides to face off in a sort of robot Olympics in the desert.  The SCA had a group of Egyptologists and engineers from Cairo University design a limestone “competition tunnel” in the desert that mimicked the actual pyramid shafts as nearly as possible in terms of size, slope, and conditions.  The panel of judges was an impressive list of experts.  According to the Official Report of the mission findings:

The trials were supervised and witnessed by a team that included a group from the Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University; Dr. Ali Radwan, a professor of Egyptology at Cairo University; Dr. Sabri Abdel Aziz, Head of the Pharaonic Sector of the SCA; and Mr. Hisham El Leithy from the SCA.  (Hawass, Whitehead, et. al, p. 206)

The competition was exciting, but not without some anxiety for both sides.  For the Singapore team it meant defending a concession to do the work which they had thought had already been won back in 2004.  For the Leeds team it meant testing an entirely new crawler design against one that had held up fairly well with Upuaut and Rover.  Dr. TC Ng, one of the members of the Leeds team, describes the moment:

While our team’s rover was doing the test and we were sweating like Indiana Jones under the Egyptian sun, a dozen disciplined Singaporean engineers marched in like soldiers with identical T-shirts. They seemed good…Their robot was brilliant and exceptionally well made (South China Morning Post, Dentist digs deep to discover Giza secret, by Adrian Wan, September 28, 2010).

Both robots were equipped with the tools they would need to achieve the mission goals, but in the end one particular criterion set the Leeds robot above Trekker.  Tomb Trekker had relied on the same type of over-and-under tread system that had propelled Upuaut-2 and Pyramid Rover, which uses pressure against the floor and ceiling of the shaft to hold the robot in place.  But this is also the same design that had damaged the pyramid shafts.  At the end of the competition, under the guidance of the star panel he had assembled, Dr. Hawass pronounced the Leeds team the victors.

The Leeds robot had proved that innovation and evolution sometimes prevail over convention and tradition, these latter two often being the bread and butter of Egyptology.  But the emerging field of robot archaeology was about to make a quantum leap from crawlers that looked like something from a WWII battlefield to a sleek new design that would be at home on a space exploration mission.  And as we shall see, that was no coincidence.

Before we get into the details of Djedi’s design and the results of its maiden voyage, let’s take some time to get to know the Leeds team and how they came together.

 

The Djedi Team

On pronouncing the Leeds team the victors, Dr. Hawass dubbed the mission robot Djedi, after the magician Pharaoh Khufu attempted to trick into showing him the secrets of the Sanctuary of Thoth.  It was now the mission of the Djedi team to tease out the secrets of the shafts in Khufu’s pyramid, and in doing so maybe learn more about how the pyramid was built.  The team itself was composed of modern magi—scientists, engineers, and technicians from the top ranks of their respective fields.

The Djedi Team had its early genesis with the efforts of Dr. Ng “TC” Tze Chuen, who began dreaming of his own project to explore the Queen’s Chamber shafts when he saw the broadcast of Pyramid Rover’s first peek behind the blocking slab.  Dr. Ng worked as a dentist in Hong Kong, but he had made his real mark designing precision tools for space exploration.  TC Ng knew that a third mission into the Queen’s Chamber shafts was inevitable, and he believed that space exploration technology might offer the best solutions to many of the problems Pyramid Rover and Upuaut-2 had faced.

Dr. Ng tried to get the ball rolling by cold calling on the Supreme Council of Antiquities, attempting to convince Dr. Hawass to hear his proposal.  At first his cold calls got him the cold shoulder.  As he describes it:

Winning the operation rights for the third attempt took me more than a dozen trips knocking on the doors of SCA uninvited.  It was a bitter experience in the early stage.  I still remember being pushed out of the main gate of SCA for not having a valid appointment. (Hong Kong Dental Association Newsletter, Second Door? by Dr. Ng Tze Chuen, November/December 2010. Pp. 30-1).

But persistence paid off, and after hearing TC’s proposal Dr. Hawass gave him the go-ahead to begin assembling a team.  At first Dr. Ng attempted to work with the team he would eventually compete with—the University of Singapore.  But when that relationship failed to thrive, he turned to a friend he had made while working on a Mars lander project, Shaun Whitehead.

Shaun was a respected inventor and the founder of Scoutek UK, a company specializing in robotic technology for space and terrestrial exploration.  TC recalled Shaun’s drive and ability to generate enthusiasm for a project and knew that he was the ideal person for building the sort of interdisciplinary team that the Djedi Project would require.  Whitehead was immediately taken with the project.  “As soon as TC told me what he was trying to do,” he says, “I jumped at the opportunity.”

Shaun began looking for potential team members in the UK.  He knew that the team would require a balance of academic and technical expertise, and an understanding of the conditions in which Djedi would have to perform.  The robot would have to be small, but tough.  As with space exploration, where every ounce counts, the crawler would need to be light enough to navigate the shafts without damaging them, delicate enough to enter and work behind the small hole in the blocking slab, and durable enough that it wouldn’t break down where it would be impossible to repair or retrieve.

The challenges of the Djedi project are very similar to space exploration.  The rover has to be mass-optimized, to minimize damage to the shaft walls (higher weight = more brace force required for grip), and there also is very little opportunity for maintenance when the rover is deployed over sixty meters up into the shaft, just as we can’t repair space robots!  So everything needs to work right first time.  It’s a real “systems engineering” task, and consequently the robot is a lot more advanced than most people imagine. (Em Hotep interview with Shaun Whitehead, January 8, 2012)

He discovered that there was a small team at Manchester University that seemed to fit the bill.  Dr. Robert Richardson, the Lecturer in Robotics at the School for Computer Science, was involved in a project to develop robots for urban search and rescue situations following natural disasters.  The types of crawlers Dr. Richardson was working on were both rugged and dexterous.  “Everything that’s in the building falls over, and most buildings tend to partially collapse,” he explains. “If you can’t interact with debris, you drive up and get stuck” (New Scientist, Mechanical mole could seek out disaster survivors, by Kurt Kleiner, September 17, 2007).

YouTube Preview Image

Shaun approached Dr. Richardson, who understood the mobility requirements for the pyramid shafts, and was happy to put himself and his team behind the project.  Dr. Richardson had a highly skilled crew at Manchester who offered a wide range of experience and specialization.  One was Stephen Rhodes, a computer science analyst for the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, and a gifted technician.  Another was Andrew Pickering, who had been with the Manchester Robotics Group since 1994, and who had helped develop mobile robots that were designed to interact intelligently with their environment.

The team at Manchester was dedicated and they enjoyed working under Dr. Richardson, who Shaun describes as “very bright and very positive about the opportunity.”  Most importantly, they worked well together.  “I have great respect for the talent of those guys,” Whitehead continues.  “I have rarely known them to be stumped by any mechanical or electronic challenges.”  The team remained cohesive even after Dr Richardson moved to the University of Leeds, taking the project with him.  With the addition of Adrian Hildred, a researcher who develops and tests cars for Bentley, Shaun had his UK team.

For its own part, the University of Leeds has tremendously benefitted from its involvement in the Djedi Project, which has been a training ground for several generations of engineering students.  The enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment of these students have been vital to the project’s success, and Shaun particularly singled out the participation of Jason Liu and William Mayfield as “a particularly keen and hard-working pair who will stick with the project right to the end.”

From across the Atlantic, the team was joined by Ron Grieve, founder of the Canadian consultancy company Tekron and a trailblazer in the field of impact-echo testing.  Ron had developed technology for assessing the conditions of buildings and other structures, and specialized in creating miniature sensors to monitor stress, movement, humidity, temperature and corrosion.   His innovations included micro-transducers capable of taking measurements from the smallest and roughest surfaces, which made him the best choice for helping solve the problem of how to analyze the rough surface of the second block behind the chamber door.

Mr. Grieve passed away in late December, 2010, but his contribution to the team was immeasurable.

He was the “non-destructive testing” expert in the team, responsible for assessing the condition of the blocking stones.  We developed the miniature “Sonic Surveyor” together.  This device uses an acoustic wave to measure stone thickness where there is access to just one side.  Ron was a very experienced member of the team, and was often called in to investigate things like bridge and power station failures. Most importantly, he was a very positive team-player and a very good friend. We miss him. (Interview with Shaun Whitehead)

The team was rounded out with the addition of Mehdi Tayoubi, Richard Breitner, and Ben Willcocks from the French company Dassault Systèmes.  Like Whitehead and Ng, Breitner had a background in aerospace technology, but readers may be most familiar with Mehdi and Richard from their work with Jean-Pierre Houdin on Project Khufu and Khufu Reborn Interactive.  Using Dassault Systèmes’ scientific 3D/Virtual Reality software, CATIA, Project Khufu produced   the most complete survey of the Great Pyramid in history, modeling the pyramid in an immersive 3D/VR environment that allowed Jean-Pierre’s work to be effectively communicated to experts and laypersons alike.

To help model and fit-check the robot, Dassault Systèmes provided the powerful SolidWorks 3D software and the expert guidance of Ben Willcocks.  The intuitive nature of SolidWorks 3D allowed students and team members to master the software quickly, to share models with each other around the globe, and to directly “print” parts of the robot using the software’s rapid prototyping capabilities.  The modeling elements of the software also helped determine the best composition of materials to provide the maximum weight-to-strength ratio to allow Djedi to make the tortuous climb up the irregular geometry of the pyramid shafts.

Mehdi and Richard’s experience with modeling the Great Pyramid would also come in handy when it came time to model, analyze, and present the data culled by the robot crawler.  Dassault Systèmes was able to help financially support the project through its Passion for Innovation program, which is specifically set up to help assist projects like Khufu and Djedi by providing funding, software, and technical assistance free of charge.

Through the dedication of the team members, the support of organizations like Leeds and Dassault Systèmes, and the commitment of Dr. Hawass and the Supreme Council of Antiquities, the third mission into the Queen’s Chamber shafts became a reality.  As it turns out, the actual robot itself was not prohibitively expensive, thanks to these efforts.

A popular misconception is that the Djedi robots cost a lot of money to produce, this is not true, mainly thanks to the generous contribution of manpower by individuals and organizations. Most funding was spent on travel and accommodation for the various tests and demonstrations.  (Interview with Shaun Whitehead)

Now that we know how the team came together, we will take a look at the Djedi robot itself before diving into the mission and its findings.

 

Djedi—Creationeering the Next Generation in Robotic Archaeology

The Djedi robot won the competition with Tomb Trekker for a number of reasons, but ultimately the Leeds team was selected because Djedi represented the next generation of robotics while Trekker was stuck spinning its treads the old way.  If you peel the labels off, you might have a hard time distinguishing Trekker from Upuaut-2 and Pyramid Rover.  But Djedi is a whole new design, from the tools it carries to the way it carries them.  “Djedi has been custom-built from scratch to do this specific job,” explained Shaun Whitehead, “and to do it as well as possible while protecting the pyramid.”

This is not to say that the Djedi team did not learn from the previous missions.  Both Upuaut-2 and Pyramid Rover had provided useful reconnaissance from QCN and QCS and gave the engineers from Leeds an idea of the challenges they were facing.  But part of the lesson came from learning what they did not want to reproduce in the robot.  Shaun Whitehead continues:

I always like to look at previous design solutions to challenges and see what we can learn from them.  In this case, there wasn’t much to be learned apart from the fact that I did not want to use a tracked robot.  However, we did use the findings of both robots to find out what challenges we might face in terms of inclinations, bends, steps, block thicknesses, etc., and have used those to drive the specification of our robot.  (Interview with Shaun Whitehead)

One of several improvements was the camera and lighting array.  For Djedi, the team used a miniature “micro snake” camera that was designed by Scoutek.  This camera uses a wide-angle lens surrounded by six high-intensity LEDs for optimum light.  Mounted on a snake-like appendage that uses miniature servos to operate its mechanical muscles and tendons, Djedi’s camera is capable of a full 360 degrees of motion (+/- 180 degrees pitch and yaw).  With a diameter of less than 8 mm, the snake-cam easily fits through the existing hole in the blocking slab.

Another improvement was in the size and technology of the impact-echo probe used to measure the thickness of the blocks in the shaft.  As we have noted, the probe used by Rover required a surface area nearly equal to half that of the blocking slab.  Rover also benefitted from the fact that the first blocking slab has a smooth, finished surface.  But the second blocking stone in QCS has a rough surface and lies 18 cm away, on the other side of a 2 cm hole.

The sonic surveyor designed for Djedi was a collaborative effort and an example of what Shaun calls creationeering—the fusion of creativity and engineering.  Ron Grieve and Shaun Whitehead both had expertise in micro-technology—Ron with creating micro-transducers capable of measuring stone up to 15 meters thick, and Shaun with fashioning beetle microbots that carry sensors into very tight spaces.  The Leeds team was adept at creating mobile robotic platforms to carry these tools past a multitude of obstacles, and Dassault Systèmes had the powerful software and 3D technology to analyze the data and model it in virtual reality.

The Djedi Project was a perfect alchemy of talented individuals presented with difficult but enjoyable challenges, and all the right tools and resources to innovate.  One of the most observable ways that Djedi was an evolutionary leap beyond Upuaut-2, Pyramid Rover, and Tomb Trekker, however, was in its mobility system.  All three previous crawlers had employed rubber tread belts that looped over two or more motorized drive wheels.  The belts provided the traction while the wheels provided the force that moved them.  This type of propulsion is called continuous track, or caterpillar mobility.

Caterpillar mobility is designed to maximize traction by distributing the weight of the vehicle over its entire length, and usually the vehicle’s weight helps increase traction.  But in the pyramid shafts, gravity is not your friend.  QCS has an average ascent of 39.6 degrees, while QCN averages around 36.7 degrees.  In this environment the weight of the vehicle does not provide sufficient traction to grip the floors—the crawlers have to be wedged into the shafts or they slide back down.  Upuaut-2, Rover, and Trekker all addressed this problem with over-and-under-mounted treads and chassis that could expand upward.

The upward-expanding chassis wedged the robots between the floor and ceiling of the shaft, allowing the top and bottom treads to crawl along both surfaces.  This mitigated the downward pull of the slope, but created problems of its own.  The pressure created by the expanded chassis could result in the metal drive wheels exerting force directly onto the limestone surfaces.  In fact, the serrated wheels of Upuaut-2 appear specifically designed to bite into the shafts for traction.

Djedi’s designers understood that minimizing the weight of the crawler would reduce the amount of force needed for traction and propulsion, and less force meant that the robot was not as likely to damage the shafts.  Rather than something that looks like a bulky WWII tank, the Djedi team came up with a new model that benefitted from their collective experience in aerospace and terrestrial robotic navigation, but which also somewhat resembled a relic of Waynman Dixon’s era—the adjustable roller skate.

Antique roller skates had a design that allowed their length and width to be adjusted.  They were made up of two carriages, each mounted over a pair of wheels, connected by an adjustable central rod that controlled the length of the skate.  The width was controlled by two sliding braces that extended from the sides of the front carriage.

Like the skate, Djedi’s chassis is also comprised of two carriages, each mounted over a pair of wheels, connect by a pair of sliding rods that control the length of the crawler.  Analogous to the side braces on the front of the skate, Djedi has extendable rods on the sides of both carriages, with a fifth rod that extends from the top of the front carriage.  Called bracing actuators, these rods control the width of the chassis, but whereas the side braces on the skate apply inward pressure for a snug fit around a foot, Djedi’s bracing actuators apply outward pressure to hold the crawler in place in the pyramid shafts.

Djedi’s mode of mobility is similar to that of an inchworm.  When an inchworm is stretched out to its full length, it moves by grasping with its front legs and contracting its body to pull its hind legs forward.  Once it reaches its shortest length, it grabs with its hind legs and pushes the front part of its body forward by stretching out.  Once again at full length, the inchworm grabs with its front legs, turns loose with its hind legs, and contracts again.  By repeating this series of motions it “inches” its way toward its destination.

Djedi inches along in a similar way.  When the crawler’s chassis is stretched out to its full length, the front carriage grabs the surfaces of the shaft by extending its bracing actuators.  The tips of the actuators have thick pads that protect the shaft surfaces from damage while providing the necessary traction to pull the back of the crawler forward.  The actuators in the rear carriage are in the retracted position, which leaves the back of the crawler free to move.  Djedi contracts its chassis by pulling the central connecting rods forward, moving the rear carriage up the shaft.

Once Djedi is in its contracted (shortest) position, it extends the bracing actuators in the rear carriage which then locks the back of the crawler in place, just like the inchworm grasping with its hind legs.  Djedi then withdraws the actuators in the front carriage, leaving the front end of the crawler free to move.  Now traction has been transferred from the front carriage to the back carriage.  The robot then expands its chassis by pushing the central connecting rods forward, moving the front carriage further up the shaft.  Once at full length, the front carriage extends its actuators, transferring the traction back to the front of the crawler, and the process begins again, thus “inching” Djedi up the shaft.

With this type of mobility, Djedi protects the shaft surfaces by containing the force almost entirely to the central connecting rods, rather than to a set of metal drive wheels that might accidentally—or by design—transfer both force and traction directly to the limestone surfaces.  Unlike the drive wheels in the caterpillar systems, Djedi’s wheels are not motorized, they are light weight and free rolling.  The protective padding on the actuator feet can be thicker than a tread belt because the belt has to be thin enough to move with the drive wheels.  As Dr. Richardson explains:

[The] Djedi robot climbs the shaft walls using soft pads on its ‘feet’ that grip but leave no trace. This is in complete contrast to other climbing robots that rely on tracks to move upwards on sloping surfaces, leaving scuff marks in their wake.”

For any crawler to move within the pyramid shafts, they have to apply both traction and force to the surfaces.  But using a motorized set of telescoping connector rods to provide movement rather than multiple motorized drive wheels keeps weight to a minimum and applies force in the direction of least resistance.  Whereas a track system can be left spinning and biting into the surfaces to surmount a step, Djedi’s fixed-point actuators keep traction at a constant, allowing the carriages to be pulled or pushed over steps with ease.

YouTube Preview Image

Now that we know how the Djedi robot crawler is designed we are ready to see how it performed on its first trip up QCS, through the hole, and behind Door Number One.

 

General construction of the Chamber

The floors of the shafts are made of flat limestone blocks, the thicknesses of which are unknown.  The walls and ceilings are formed by sections of inverted u-blocks that resemble upside down gutters.  Although it is uncertain what the blocks above and below the shafts look like, the shafts run at a sloping angle through the horizontal layers of the pyramid, so it is believed that the u-blocks and basal blocks rest under and on blocks that are wedge-shaped.

The first blocking slab in QCS (i.e., “Gantenbrink’s Door”) is located 63.6 meters from the shaft’s entrance in the Queen’s Chamber, plus or minus .4 meters.  Its position was determined by a combination of Djedi’s odometers—sensors that estimate the distance the crawler moves over time—and the length of the crawler’s umbilical cable.  Djedi confirmed Pyramid Rover’s measurement of the thickness of the first blocking slab as about 60 mm.

As discovered by Upuaut-2, and now confirmed by both Pyramid Rover and Djedi, the final section of u-block leading up to the blocking slab is made of a higher quality limestone than the rest of the shaft blocks, most likely the fine white Tura limestone originally used to provide the external surface of the pyramid with a smooth face.  The blocking slab also appears to be made of the Tura limestone, and both the final u-block and the blocking slab have finished surfaces, unlike the rest of the shaft.  The basal (floor) stone of the final section of the shaft is not made of the Tura limestone and has not been polished.

Although we learned from Pyramid Rover’s look behind the blocking slab that there was a small chamber behind the “door”, it was not known whether the walls and ceiling of the chamber were a continuation of the same u-block as the shaft leading up to it, or the beginning of a new section.  Thanks to Djedi’s ability to look upward and back toward the door, this question was answered.  In the shaft ceiling leading up to the door there are two crisscrossing cracks or veins which continue on the other side of the door, which confirms that the u-block continues on the other side of the slab.

The width of the shaft in front of the blocking slab was measured by the side bracing actuators in Djedi’s front carriage.  After correcting for the padding on the tips of the actuators, the shaft was determined to be 230 mm wide, plus or minus 10 mm.  Since the chamber is formed by the same u-block as the final section of shaft, it stands to reason that the chamber has the same width as the shaft.  This was confirmed when Djedi was able to look at the back of the blocking stone and observe that the gaps between the edges of the slab and the chamber walls were the same on both sides, front and back.

There is a small triangular chip in the lower right hand side of the blocking slab that allows us to see a narrow 2-3 mm lip, or ledge, against which the blocking stone rests.  The blocking slab is about 3 mm wider than the u-block, which has been cut slightly wider at this point to accommodate the “door”, thus forming the ledge.   The tool marks where this widening of the u-block took place are still visible on the right hand chamber wall behind the blocking slab.  Although less visible, the team believes there is a corresponding ledge on the left hand side, but none at the top or bottom.  There is no sign of mortar holding the slab in place, it simply rests on these narrow ledges jutting out from the side.

The back wall of the chamber is formed by the second blocking stone.  Unlike the u-block and the first blocking stone, the second blocking stone has a rough unfinished surface and appears to be made of the lower-quality local yellow limestone.  The height of the chamber was determined by scaling the height of the second blocking stone.  After adjusting for perspective, the Djedi team estimated the height of the second blocking stone to be about 230 mm—more or less equal to the width of the chamber.  Thus, both the width and height of the chamber is about 23 cm.

To judge the length, or depth, of the chamber, the team put marks on the tube probe on which the snake camera is mounted.  By comparing the snake camera’s field of view with its depth of field, they were able to determine when its tip was about 50 mm from the second blocking stone.  Using the chassis-mounted camera, the team could see from the tube probe that the tip of the snake cam was 200 mm from the front of the blocking slab, meaning that the back wall of the chamber is about 250 mm from the front surface of the “door”.  Given that that blocking slab is about 60 mm thick, the chamber was determined to be about 19 cm long (+/- 15 mm).

So by a variety of measurements, the Djedi team was able to determine that the interior of the chamber is about 190 mm by 230 mm by 230 mm (LWH).

 

The First Blocking Slab and the Metal Pins

Among the most interesting features of the Queen’s Chamber shafts are the copper pins affixed to the blocking slabs of both QCN and QCS.  Since we are specifically discussing the aspects of the Djedi Project which have been published so far, we will limit our observations to the pins in QCS.  The pins are judged to be copper, or mostly copper, due to their greenish coloration.  Before the installation of the ventilation system during Project Upuaut, the atmosphere inside the Great Pyramid was extremely hot and humid, conditions that are very corrosive to copper, causing it to turn green.

Both pins protrude through the front (outer) surface of the blocking stone and have been hammered downward into a 90 degree position against the blocking slab.  The bending of the pins appears to be deliberate, as they have been flattened where they were hammered.  The original ends of both pins have been broken off at points which coincide with mortar patches.  The left hand pin was broken off prior to the Upuaut Project, and the right hand pin was broken off by Pyramid Rover.  Both of the broken off ends, estimated to be about 12 mm long, were observed by Djedi and will be collected by the crawler in a future mission.

The pins are surrounded by a black material where they pass through the blocking stone.  The material seems to anchor them in place within the holes, and is itself apparently held in by mortar.  It is unclear whether this is a different substance than the pins, constitutes a separate part through which the pins were inserted, or is a wider section of the pins themselves.  It will take additional analysis to answer these questions.

Djedi allowed us to observe the back of the blocking slab for the first time.  Like the front, the back of the first blocking stone has been polished to a smooth surface, and the pins protrude from this side as well.  The back of the left hand pin appears nearly pristine, seems to exit the block and is then bent downward into a neat loop, with the bottom end of the pin flush to the block, and no mortar visible. The back of the right hand pin appears more fragile and or corroded, seems to be held in place with mortar at both the top and bottom of the loop, with the bottom inserted back into the mortar.

There is no explanation as of yet for the more corroded appearance of the right hand loop, and what practical function they may have served, if any, remains a mystery.  As noted by the official report:

The loops are very small and would only permit an approximately 3 mm diameter object to pass through them.  They do not appear to be very well positioned for functional purposes, as they are high up on the block.  (Hawass, Whitehead, et at, p. 210)

Shaun Whitehead continues:

We also realize that there are lots of theories about what the shafts are for, ranging from practical explanations such as ventilation, to the more esoteric, such as part of a giant electricity generating power plant or a hidden hall of records.  However, it’s not our part to speculate, we just want to gather as much information, and the best quality information as possible…We now know that these pins end in small, beautifully made loops, indicating that they were more likely ornamental rather than electrical connections or structural features.  (Correspondence with the writer)

Djedi also showed that on the floor immediately behind the blocking slab there was a concentration of debris on the right hand side (as viewed from behind).  The debris appears to be a combination of material from the construction of the shaft and dust produced by Pyramid Rover drilling through the door.  The location and concentration of floor debris in the chamber is helping the Djedi team precisely determine the orientation and roll of the shaft, and additional details of these findings will be published in the future.

 

The Chamber Floor and Its Markings

Just as the same u-block forms the walls and ceiling for both the chamber and the final (known) section of the southern shaft, the same basal block constitutes the floor in both the chamber and the section of QCS leading up to the blocking slab.  In addition to the floor debris along the bottom of the blocking slab (mentioned above), there is a dark chip on the floor that appears to correspond to a cavity located on the left hand wall, which will be detailed further below.

One of the most exciting discoveries by the Djedi Project so far has been the markings found on the floor of the chamber.  One of the marks is a straight red line that runs parallel to the right hand wall, extending from just behind the first blocking stone all the way to the base of the second blocking stone.  The line has the same appearance as other red ochre mason’s lines that appear elsewhere in the shafts.  There is an additional black mark on the floor where the red line meets the second blocking stone.  These lines usually mark where blocks were to be cut, and why this particular line was not used is one of the unanswered questions about the chamber.

The source of no small amount of speculation is a series of three red glyphs drawn at about 45 degrees to the red line, between the line and the wall.  Two other less distinct red marks occur on this side of the line, closer to the back of the chamber.  The three glyphs appear to be mason’s marks written in hieratic, a form of shorthand hieroglyphs.  The official report suggests that central and left hand glyphs appear similar to the hieratic figures for 20 and 1, respectively, or 21 when read together (p. 211).  The right hand glyph is inconclusive and is left uninterpreted by the official report.

One theory that has been put forth by Luca Miatello, an independent researcher in Egyptian mathematics, who is unassociated with the Djedi project, is that the right hand figure is the hieratic figure for 100.  Referring to the three glyphs, in an interview with Discovery News Miatello stated:

The markings are hieratic numerical signs. They read from right to left, meaning 100, 20, 1. The builders simply recorded the total length of the shaft: 121 cubits.  (Discovery NewsPyramid hieroglyphs likely engineering numbers, by Rosella Lorenzi, June 7, 2011)

While this is one possible interpretation of the glyphs, it is far from conclusive.  The central and left hand glyphs do appear to be hieratic for 20 and 1, but in this writer’s lay opinion, the right hand glyph is not clear enough for interpretation, and in any case, looks more similar to the hieratic figure for 200 than 100.  The hieratic glyph for 200 has a mark in the crook of its “elbow”, the glyph for 100 does not.  The right hand glyph on the floor appears to me to have a mark in its crook.  Miatello’s theory is a good one, and may ultimately be vindicated with further analysis, but at this point I do not feel the evidence allows for a conclusive interpretation.

Regarding the glyphs, Dr. Richardson has gone on record already, stating “We believe that if these hieroglyphs could be deciphered they could help Egyptologists work out why these mysterious shafts were built” (Response to media enquiries, p. 1).  Shaun Whitehead would only add “Experts have had the opportunity to comment on the marks, and it is still generally agreed that they are hieratic characters.  It would be very exciting to find similar characters behind the first blocking stone in QCN” (Interview with Shaun Whitehead).

 

The Chamber Walls and Ceiling

The walls and ceiling of the chamber are formed by the final section of u-block, partitioned off from the shaft by the first blocking stone, and terminated by the second blocking stone.  When talking about the walls and ceiling of the chamber, therefore, it must be kept in mind that they are not separate pieces, but are all parts of the same block.  For purposes of orientation, it is assumed that we are looking across (actually, upward) to the second blocking stone.  Thus, the right wall is the one on your right hand side as you face the second blocking stone, with your back to the “door”.

As stated above, there is a cavity on the left hand wall of the chamber that appears to correspond to a chip located on the floor nearby.  The Djedi team proposes that the damage was caused by a spall “where an underlying pressure point has been created, probably from a chemical reaction” (Hawass, Whitehead, et. al, p. 212).  There is also a patch of flaking limestone close to the second blocking stone.  There are two red mason’s marks on the very edge of the left hand wall where it abuts the second blocking stone.

The right hand wall is interesting only in that it is slightly rougher near the first blocking stone.  Whereas the rest of the inside of the final u-block is finely polished and shows no obvious tool marks, there is a section on the right hand side behind the “door” where there are some diagonal tool marks visible.  The section is still smooth, but for some reason the workers were unable to sand out the tool marks in this area.  There are no corresponding tool marks on the left hand wall.

The Djedi team proposes that this is the result of the block being cut to form the ledge that the “door” rests on, visible on the outside of the blocking stone via the triangular chip in the lower right corner.  Because of the way the right hand wall angles slightly inward to form the ledge, it was thus difficult to reach this spot for polishing.  This shaved area may also have been necessary to allow the blocking slab to be angled into place, as the slab is otherwise wider than the u-block, as indicated by the ledge it nestles against.

[Note: as will be mentioned when we discuss the second blocking stone below, Shaun Whitehead indicated in the Em Hotep interview that there are some red ochre marks on the back of the right wall, near the second blocking stone, which may correspond to those on the left wall.]

The ceiling is unremarkable, other than the cracks which emerge from the other side of the blocking stone, confirming that it is the same section of u-block that comprises the final part of the shaft.  Regarding these cracks, Shaun Whitehead says “It is most likely that they occurred after the U-block was finished and positioned, as the rest of the construction is so careful in this region.” There is another large crack that angles inward from the back left corner, where the ceiling meets the second blocking stone.

 

The Second Blocking Stone

The second blocking stone, which forms the back wall of the chamber, has a rough unfinished surface and appears to be made of the same lower quality yellow limestone that is used in most of the shaft.  Other than the same tool marks seen on other similarly rough blocks, and a green “trickle line”, the block has no distinguishing marks.

The “trickle line” is of indeterminate nature.  It emerges from the top of the stone, just left of the center, and runs slightly diagonally to the left, stopping 3-4 cm above the floor.  It is greenish in tint, and the official report suggests that it could be either accidental, such as copper oxide leaching from a nearby copper object, or purposely painted onto the block using the “Egyptian blue” pigment created by calcium copper silicate (p. 213).  Both causes would result in the sort of green seen in the trickle line.

However, the official report also states that in order to produce a streak of copper oxide as prominent as the “trickle line” there would have to be a “significant presence of water” (p. 213), any source of which would be pure speculation unsupported by the existing data.  Regarding the possibility that the line could be the result of minerals within the limestone itself, Shaun observes “So far I have not seen any similar marks anywhere else in the shafts, decreasing the possibility that it was a mark that naturally occurred at the quarry” (Interview with Shaun Whitehead).

Djedi also noted that there is vertical cracking one third of the way from the right hand side which is odd (but not unique) in that it does not seem to emanate from one edge or the other:

It stops and starts suddenly and ‘feathers’ midway. These features are normally more associated with drying shrinkage rather than structural loading, although similar cracking has been observed elsewhere in the shafts. (Hawass, Whitehead, et al, p. 213)

The big question regarding the second blocking stone is whether it is the end of the shaft, and if not, what is on the other side?  Does another section of shaft resume on the other side?  Could it open into another chamber, possibly another burial chamber, or a section of internal ramp?  Or is it the terminus of the shaft, plain and simple?  A couple of factors within the scope of the Djedi Project and the robot’s capabilities could help answer these questions.

First, how does the final blocking stone fit against the end of the shaft?  Does the block lay flat against the end of the final section of u-block, like a lid, or is it plugged into the shaft like a cork?  If the former, that would suggest that the u-block terminates against the second blocking stone.  If the latter, then the u-block may continue past the second blocking stone, depending on whether the second block has a sort of T-shape, with the thinner section inserted into the shaft, or whether it is small enough to be fully inserted into the u-block like the first blocking stone, which means the shaft could potentially continue beyond it.

This first question could possibly be answered by further analysis of the edges of the back end of the u-block.  As mentioned above, there are mason’s marks on the edges of the u-block, where it meets the second blocking stone.  These marks could simply be lines the workers made when cutting out sections of u-block.  But they could also have marked a section where the u-block was shaped to form a ledge, like the one against which the first blocking stone rests.  As the official report notes, this could mean that the second blocking stone is inserted into the shaft like a cork, rather than lying across it like a lid (p. 214).

Shaun Whitehead expanded on this question in the Em Hotep interview:

At a first glance, the second blocking stone just seems to be a large, relatively rough-hewn block sitting on the end of the U-block. However, the intriguing thing is that there appear to be red ochre mason’s marks on both walls at the far end where they meet the second blocking stone. This may suggest that this U-block has been cut back at this point, to form ledges on both sides. It’s possible to follow this reasoning to several logical conclusions, all currently speculation.

The other question which lies within the scope of Djedi’s capabilities is:  how thick is the second blocking stone?  If it is, like the first “door”, more of a slab than a block, and if it is either inserted into the shaft or rests on a ledge, then this could be a pretty good indicator that there is something on the other side than the core material of the pyramid.  Again, Shaun explained the difficulties involved in taking this measurement in the Em Hotep interview:

The intention is to try to determine the thickness of the second blocking stone with the miniature “Sonic Surveyor” that I mentioned earlier. This uses a similar device to that used by Pyramid Rover, however it’s much, much more difficult to build.  Pyramid Rover’s device was so large that it covered about half the area of the blocking stone.  Ours has to fit through the existing hole in the first blocking stone, so can be no larger in diameter than a pen.  This includes the actuator for “tapping” the stone, the sensor for listening to the response and the electronics to process the signal.  We also have a much rougher stone to try to evaluate. It’s really tough to get it just right. The development was somewhat hindered by the sad death of Ron Grieve.

The Djedi team remains confident that these difficulties will be breached, and that when work in the Queen’s Chamber resumes, modifications currently being made to the robot crawler will allow them to get a good read of the thickness of the second blocking stone.  Until then the questions remain—if the shafts ends with the chamber, and the first blocking stone was simply the dressed facing stone for the end of the shaft, why was it inserted 190 mm down into the shaft rather than flush against the end of the final u-block, and, if the chamber is not the end of the shaft, why is the second blocking stone made of the rougher, unfinished limestone, rather than the dressed Tura limestone?

These questions will only be answered, if ever, with further analysis of the shaft and the chamber.

 

Other Marks Inside QCS

When the Djedi team was able to analyze the video footage from the southern shaft they made another interesting discovery.  On the lower right hand wall of the shaft, about 3.5 meters before the first blocking stone, there are some additional marks similar to the hieratic glyphs discovered inside the chamber.  Like the other glyphs, these marks appear to be made in red ochre and black paint.  According to the official report, the marks are about 3-4 cm tall, but “as the marks were found serendipitously, it was not possible to examine them closely” (p. 214).

 

The Future of the Djedi Project

Like all Egyptological fieldwork, the Djedi Project has been affected by the political environment in Egypt following the January 2011 revolution.  However, there is plenty of reason to be optimistic.  The team has resubmitted their formal application to resume work in the Great Pyramid, and Shaun reports that their application has been reviewed and they are awaiting approval by the various committees that have been established by the new government to help Egyptologists get back to work.  The Djedi team hopes to finish their work in one final season and then publish all the results as soon as possible.

The effects of the January 2011 Revolution continue to reverberate as Egypt forges a new destiny (Photo Tahrir Square, Friday 8 April 2011, by James X)

Meanwhile, there is still plenty to be done—and that is being done—to analyze the data gathered so far and to prepare for the resumption of fieldwork.  Specialists are working to complete the 3D reconstruction based on the various types of data collected from QCS and the chamber, and to integrate this into the larger picture.  As mentioned before, Dassault Systèmes has already worked with Jean-Pierre Houdin to create an incredibly accurate and detailed 3D virtual reconstruction of the Great Pyramid, and the mutually beneficial connections between Project Khufu and Djedi—having experts involved in both projects working together—are readily apparent.

Djedi is also being refitted in preparation for returning to QCS and for its voyage into the more difficult Queen’s Chamber northern shaft.  QCN had to negotiate around other internal structures, such as the Grand Gallery, and presents a greater challenge for the agile little robot.  As Shaun explained to Em Hotep:

We have completely redesigned and rebuilt the brace actuators (that grip the walls), improving the climbing algorithms and techniques of the robot, [we are] designing tools to help the robot cope with the complex bends in the Northern shaft, extending the reach and agility of the snake camera, fitting a high definition camera, perfecting the Sonic Surveyor, working on 3D video reconstruction, multispectral imaging of the shafts inside and outside the pyramid if possible…

Djedi’s remaining work may be summarized as follows:

Determine the thickness of the second blocking stone in QCS, and if feasible, drill through it and see what lies beyond.

Determine the thickness of the blocking stone in QCN, and if feasible drill through it and see if there is a chamber in QCN like the one in QCS.

If there is another chamber in QCN, with a matching second blocking stone, analyze that block as well and hopefully drill through it and see what lies on the other side.

The next obvious question is: if there is another space behind the second blocking stone in QCS, and presumably, QCN, what then?  Eventually the shafts have to end, either in a final chamber or passageway, against the core of the pyramid, or out the other side of the pyramid’s surface.  And if there is something on the other side of the second blocking stone[s], Djedi will inevitably reach the end of its capabilities.  It is obviously too large to fit into the drill holes, and while a snake camera can feasibly be extended to an indefinite length, tube drill cannot—once it reaches a certain length the weight of the tube becomes too heavy.

But necessity is the mother of invention, and Scoutek is no stranger to creating smaller and smaller robots.  The Great Pyramid of Khufu may necessitate a leap into the next, next generation of robotic archaeology.

 

 

Works Cited

  • Zahi Hawass, Shaun Whitehead, TC Ng, Robert Richardson, Andrew Pickering, Stephen Rhodes, Ron Grieve, Adrian Hildred, Mehdi Tayoubi and Richard Breitner.  “First report: video survey of the southern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid.”  Annales du Service des AntiquitÉs de l’Égypte.  Tome 84, 2010.  Pp. 203-16.

 

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2012.  All rights reserved.

All photographs and images watermarked “Courtesy of the Djedi Team” are copyrighted by the Djedi Project Team, all rights reserved, and are used with the permission of the copyright holders.  All photographs and images watermarked “Courtesy Dassault Systèmes/Djedi Team” are copyrighted by Dassault Systèmes and the Djedi Project Team, all rights reserved.  The photo Tahrir Square, Friday 8 April 2011, by James X, is used in accordance with the Creative Commons 2.0 license.  All images watermarked “National Geographic” are copyrighted by National Geographic, all rights reserved.  All other copyrighted images are watermarked by the copyright holders, all rights reserved by said entities.  Copyright law allows limited use of copyrighted material under the fair use doctrine, to wit, “[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism.”  The copyrighted material reproduced in this article is used for the sole purpose of discussing and documenting the history of these various projects and does not seek to compete with the originals, prejudice their sale, or diminish their profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.  The positions of the originals are, as much as possible, represented fairly and accurately with no speculation attributed, implicitly or explicitly, to the creators of the originals, nor is it suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that the creators of the originals have endorsed this article or its contents.  Having said such, if you are the owner of the copyright to any of the material reproduced within this article it is not the intent of Em Hotep or any of its agents to violate your rights as the owner, and if you feel your rights have been violated and request that said material be modified or removed, it is the policy of Em Hotep, where it is reasonable to do so, to comply with said requests.  All other images are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright law.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 7th, 2012 at 2:57 am and is filed under Pyramids, The Giza Plateau. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

75 comments so far

Ricardo Rocha
avatar
 1 

Fantastic research and compilation, and impeccable presentation.

Thank you, from a deskbound adventurer!

Rico

March 8th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
avatar
 2 

You are very welcome, Rico! Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment. I am glad you enjoyed it :-)

–K

March 8th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Jean-Pierre Houdin
avatar
 3 

Hi Keith,

Once again an impressive article and amazingly documented…

Well done, Sir

Jean-Pierre

March 8th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
avatar
 4 

Hi Jean-Pierre,

Merci, my friend! It was demanding but well worth the effort. I wanted to have a central place where people who wanted to know about the work, without the high speculation, drama, or conspiracy theories could come and get the full story.

As always, I also want to present the human side of the story, as I think that is a big part of the adventure. What would the story be without the imagery of the tenacious Dr. Ng rapping on the door of the SCA time after time, Rob Richardson and his team at Manchester and Leeds turning the technology of search and rescue to the task of archaeology, or Shaun Whitehead and Ron Grieve with magnifying goggles and soldering irons assembling robotic sensors that could climb into a matchbox!

Not to mention the hours of midnight oil I know was burned in Paris…

But more than anything, I want young people to look at this and say “I want to be an Egyptologist.” My generation had Indiana Jones. This generation needs to see that archaeology is something they can do with the technology that captures their imaginations the way leather jackets and fedoras did mine.

–K

March 8th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Johnny
avatar
 5 

Hi Keith,

Thank you for explaining it all so clearly. It’s really thrilling to think that one of the most recognizable structures in the world still holds such fascinating secrets.

One question, and apologies if you’ve covered this somewhere else; how did they build these shafts? Were they built as the pyramid grew from the base up?

Johnny

March 9th, 2012 at 6:44 am
avatar
 6 

Hi Johnny,

Thank you for commenting, and thank you for your question!

The shafts would have been built as the pyramid was being constructed. Keep in mind that the pyramid was built layer by layer, and you had three basic kinds of blocks—the smooth, white Tura limestone blocks that were used to face the pyramid (nearly all of these have been stripped away now, but you can see some of them at the top of Khafre’s Pyramid), the very well-cut support blocks quarried from the local yellow limestone (these are the big cube-like blocks you see exposed in the pyramid’s surface now), and the less well-cut filler blocks, also quarried locally of the yellow limestone.

So each layer of the pyramid has, or at least had, an outer layer of Tura limestone, an inner layer of the large limestone blocks we can see now (this layer would have formed a belt about 30 meters thick behind the facing stones on each layer), and then the rougher filler stones that made up the rest of the pyramid. These filler stones would have still been block-like for the most part, but they did not need to fit together with the same precision as the well-calibrated support layer or the facing stones. They could be placed in and then the spaces between them filled in with smaller limestone rocks, limestone chips, and gypsum mortar.

Now, in the core of the pyramid (the rough filler blocks) you also had internal structures that required the well-cut support blocks as well. So while things like the King’s Chamber and the Grand Gallery might be buried within the rough filler blocks of the core, they would have need a support layer of the well-cut blocks to form their foundation, so you have structures within structures inside the pyramid core. The pyramid shafts would have been part of those structures. So while they run through the filler material of the core, they are encased within well-shaped support blocks, just as the other structures like the King’s Chamber is resting on a support layer of well-shaped blocks.

So each section of shafts is made of four parts, two visible and two that are concealed. The slabs that form the floor, and the u-blocks that look like upside-down gutters, that make the walls and the ceiling. The u-blocks rest on the floor blocks, making a sort of tunnel. Those are the visible parts. The concealed parts are the over and under supporting blocks that sheath the shafts from the core.

Shaft blocks in profile

In the above you can see that you have the u-block (A), the floor block (B), and the wedge-shaped over and under support blocks (C). The D blocks are just C blocks that push a little further downward and upward every few sections to keep the A and B blocks from sliding.

Now, most of the shaft blocks, A-D, are well-shaped local limestone, just like the support layers that are behind the facing stones and that support the other internal structures—like the King’s Chamber. But at the END of the shaft (not shown above) The A block is made of the finer Tura limestone, like the pyramid facing stones. But that is getting a little beyond the scope of your question!

So to return to your question, the shafts had to be built as the pyramid was going up. The wedge shaped C and D blocks that are on the bottom would have been laid first, to give better support than the rough filler of the core, then the floor slabs—the B blocks—would have been situated on the sloping surface of the lower support blocks. Then the gutter-shaped A blocks would have been placed on top of the floor blocks to make the walls and ceiling of the shaft, then finally the top C and D blocks would have been placed over the shaft to protect it from the filler blocks above. The shafts would have been built section by section—bottom C (or D) block first, B (floor) block next, then the A (upside-down gutter) block; and finally the top C (or D) block—all of which is rising level by level as the core was rising.

Every couple of meters in vertical height a set of D blocks would have been used instead of C blocks, to give the sections of shaft a ledge to rest on so they did not all come sliding down!

I hope this explains things a little better, rather than make them worse! But if you are confused or still have questions, please ask them. If I don’t know the answer, I will find someone who does.

–K

March 9th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Jean-Pierre Houdin
avatar
 7 

Hi Keith,

One more evidence of your amazingly growing knowledge regarding the construction of this huge pyramid. I wouldn’t have detailed this explanation of the construction of the shafts better than you.
That sounds evident when I read you… ;-)

Congratulations

Jean-Pierre

March 10th, 2012 at 8:22 am
avatar
 8 

Thank you Jean-Pierre!

That is just an advantage of having the best experts on these subjects for teachers. I think the next logical place to go with the Pyramid of Khufu is to resume with your work. I believe we left off with the counterweight system and the construction of the King’s Chamber?

I think I will also need to either write a large addendum or even do some re-writes of the “Phase I” chapters, dealing with the external ramp. Some of the technical details of the theory have changed as the evidence has developed, and I think we need to talk about the evidence as it relates to the Royal Causeway to Khafre’s Pyramid, and the evidence for a counterweight trench inside that pyramid for pulling the blocks up the first section of the external ramp.

Hopefully this note will be a good teaser to get readers wanting to know more about that! As regard Djedi, Shaun has said he will keep me informed of the project as things develop with it, and this article brings readers up-to-date with the status of the Djedi Project, so time to move on to other things for now. As you know, I have something exciting in the oven regarding Queen Tausret, which will revive the God’s Wives series, and a new addition to the mummies series, all of which is going on while we get the series on Project Khufu going again. I also hear there may be some developments in the Giza 3D Project on the horizon… Who knows? Maybe I can get an inside line on that as well?

So the coming months will bring some new chapters to Em Hotep, as well as reacquaint us with some old friends. I am very, very excited as I peruse my to-do list…

–K

March 10th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
david hay
avatar
 9 

Excellent article Keith,nice to get so much fascinating background as to how this project was brought together rather than just the bald facts. Also nice to get the human interest story re the project team.

March 12th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
piperjedi
avatar
 10 

Maybe I missed, but do they have a projected date when they resume exploration? Any chance this will be a live TV event like the previous one was?

March 12th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
avatar
 11 

Hi David,

Thank you for your reading, and thank you for your comment :-)

The human story is as important as the rest of the story. There are a lot of interesting people in the story, with incredibly diverse backgrounds. I think this interdisciplinary approach is an important development within Egyptology. Of course, it has always been there, but as we see it increase, we see an increase in the payoff. Having people trained in criminal forensics getting involved in mummy studies, and architects and engineers trained in structural lifecycle management involved in studying pyramids is expanding our knowledge base exponentially.

For teachers, it shows the value in using Egyptology as a teaching tool. Young people (of all ages!) have a natural affinity for Egyptology. It is visually rich in art and architecture, practically endless in its histories and mythology, and mummies are always a winner. I can’t think of a field or discipline that Egyptology cannot provide a segue into for teachers and students.

–K

March 14th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
avatar
 12 

Hi Piper,

Good questions, both! I wish I had an answer! Well, a better answer, anyway, but here goes… ;-)

There is not yet a projected date for when work can resume. There are several reasons for this, all of them related to the ongoing process in Egypt to sort out its new government following the January 2011 Revolution.

On the one hand, civil unrest continues to manifest, which makes work dangerous. Some accounts seem to overstate this unrest, other accounts seem to understate it, and everyone has their own agenda for how they present the news. As tends to be the case, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But having a research team endangered is in nobody’s best interest. No university wants to be responsible for sending students and faculty into harm’s way, and having researchers harmed or even threatened would be a public relations disaster for the new government.

On the other hand, Egypt is still sorting out who is responsible for what in the new government. Dr. Mohamed Ismail is in charge of foreign missions, and several people have told me they have had very positive interactions with him so far. One thing which will be different in the new Department of Foreign Missions is that rather than having sweeping decisions made by one person, decisions will now go through committees.

This is good, in that personal agendas will be diluted somewhat by the more democratic process. They will still be there, but there will be less opportunity for a single domineering personality to exercise favoritism or discrimination with authoritative finality. Of course, the downside is that a decision moving through committee takes more time. Despotism is fast and good for the few, democracy is slow and is good for the many.

Now, having said that, Shaun has said that the Djedi Team’s application to resume work has been reviewed and is making its way through the committee process. This will require patience on everybody’s part, but the team is very optimistic, and the project is not entirely in a holding pattern—work is being done on the robot in preparation for exploring the northern shaft and analysis of the data from the southern shaft is on-going.

As regards a live televised event, there is nothing planned that I know of, and if I had to guess, I would say probably not. The live televised Robot Crawler mission was the result of several factors. There was the stated purpose of fighting disinformation and conspiracy theories by broadcasting the event live. But that kind of approach never really works. If conspiracy theorists don’t see what they expect of want to see, or are otherwise let down, they can just claim that the event was staged. Conspiracy theories are funny like that.

The other factors that led to the live televised event had more to do with individual and corporate personalities. Zahi Hawass has always had a liking for TV cameras and drew very little distinction between personal promotion and promoting Egyptology to as wide an audience as possible. This led to mutually beneficial relationships within the media, such as his connection with the National Geographic Channel, who were largely behind the Pyramid Rover mission. When you have a TV channel paying for and doing the work, there is a very good chance they are going to want to televise it!

There were, of course, upsides to the mission’s promotion by Hawass and NatGeo. International attention for Egyptology is always a good thing, as long as it is represented fairly and accurately. I have used Pyramid Rover to build an interest in everything from Egyptology to engineering to space exploration with young people, and having an exciting video to show is extremely useful and important. But all of these benefits can be achieved without a live broadcast, which is a one-shot deal. Once the moment has passed, the video special is no more unique than any other documentary. Its value as a record of a live event is really only of importance to conspiracy theorists, who for the most part do not trust it in the first place!

The double-edged sword of a live broadcast of something like the Djedi mission would probably be a net loss. These robot crawlers are extremely slow, the process of drilling is extremely tedious, and the only moment of interest to most (not all, but you have to admit most) people who want to see a live broadcast is that magic moment when Djedi takes its first look at something or somewhere. But timing that exact moment is very difficult. There is just too much that could wrong, and a lot more that could go right, but just not on a TV channel’s schedule, and very rarely with the sort of sensationalism that a TV channel wants.

And that last part is a big part of why I think a live broadcast is a net loss for the researchers themselves. The TV people want something that is exciting, and with a live broadcast, they want it to happen (three… two… one…) NOW! To get the bang for their buck—and make no mistake, for the TV guys, it is all about the Benjamins—there is a vested interest in sensationalizing the event. This is ok if the event is sensational. If only Howard Carter had had CNN and the BBC there, with cameras rolling. But a lot of discoveries (the very vast majority) are either serendipitous, or come after months, or even years, of analysis. In my opinion, press conferences at the end of this process make for better TV than hyped-up “Geraldo and Al Capone’s Tomb” types of things.

Now, having said all of that, would I tune it for a live broadcast from the Queen’s Chamber? You bet I would! But I think the learning moment for both Egyptologists and TV producers comes in comparing the unstated but obvious let-down that occurred when Rover found the second blocking stone in QCS, as compared to the sustained excitement over the initial release of Djedi’s findings. The team had time to analyze the findings get everybody on the same page, to put together a fantastic video presentation that the media people could salivate over, and the glyphs in QCS and the chamber gave the conspiracy theorists something to chew on.

Everybody wins.

–K

March 14th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Jean-Pierre Houdin
avatar
 13 

Hi Keith,

Brillant answer regarding the situation in Egypt, at the SCA and about “Live” TV shows.

In Egypt, surveys and diggings must not be reduced to “Egyptoland” business … as someone in the recent past tried to make people believe. On the other hand, we know what we lost, we still don’t know what we will get. Time will tell.

One thing is sure: the Sun will always rise from East and one day the Sun will bring a good news for Egyptology.

Jean-Pierre

March 16th, 2012 at 11:18 am
dave hay
avatar
 14 

Hi Keith, i see what you mean, ancient Egypt and its millenia old civilisation and distinctive funerary practises and structures is the perfect platform for the advancement and teaching of the type of scientific and engineering techniques that you describe in your response. Lets hope the new minister continues to embrace this type of approach.

March 17th, 2012 at 7:55 am
Philip Femano, Ph.D.
avatar
 15 

Can someone please advise how to get a copy of the citation that is quoted on this page? Thanks so much! -Phil

Zahi Hawass, Shaun Whitehead, TC Ng, Robert Richardson, Andrew Pickering, Stephen Rhodes, Ron Grieve, Adrian Hildred, Mehdi Tayoubi and Richard Breitner. “First report: video survey of the southern shaft of the Queen’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid.” Annales du Service des AntiquitÉs de l’Égypte. Tome 84, 2010. Pp. 203-16.

March 18th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
avatar
 16 

Hi Jean-Pierre,

Thank you :-) Yes, the urge to turn Egypt into a Disneyland has to be resisted, and with atrocious television shows like “Digger” and “Naked Archaeologist” we have to fight back against the commercial attempt to caricaturize the entire field of archaeology in general and Egyptology in particular.

As regards what we lost, good riddance, even if we do not yet know what will replace him/them. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But you are certainly right, the Sun will rise, and the Third Act always follows the Second.

–K

March 19th, 2012 at 1:37 am
avatar
 17 

Hi David,

I think it is safe to say that all here share in your hope. I think there are some very good things in Egypt’s future, but they will have to work out the details of that themselves, with courage, wisdom, and compassion. All three of these things are required in equal measure. Without out any one of them, the table topples.

–K

March 19th, 2012 at 1:41 am
avatar
 18 

Hi Dr. Femano,

Are you asking if anyone can supply you with a copy of the article from “Annales du Service des AntiquitÉs de l’Égypte” itself? If an English copy would suit your needs, please email me direct, I think I can help you out. Click on the “Send me an email” under “Contact Shemsu” in the right hand sidebar above. (I would just list the email address here, but that just makes it easier for spambots!)

–K

March 19th, 2012 at 1:46 am
Susan Leogrande
avatar
 19 

I have searched the internet over trying to find valid and accurate information on the very topics you write of. Not only is your work detailed and documented, it is logical and insightful. I began to study these and other pyramids when I was young. I’ve read all the conspiracy, neo-alien, semi-scientific literature out there. I tried to gain access to the peer reviewed and published University material. However, the first research went into the garbage pile. It did let me know what these monuments are not about. And the second is very difficult to find.

In reading through Mr. Houdin’s work, something stuck me as honest common sense. These builders had to communicate while building. My father built homes and I grew up on construction sites. Yelling works for a certain sized site, “Hey Joe, bring me more bricks!” But what about the larger ones?

Today, we have radios, cell phones and computers. What did they use? I tried to imagine being on one crew and having to wait for someone to run to the others, interupt whatever they were doing to ask a question and then run back and forth for more details. This would be completely ludicrous in terms of efficiency and time-management. And we know they were very time conscious at each stage of the building process.

In looking over your other writings, including those about his theories of an internal ramp, it makes sense that a tube or shaft to use for communication would be beneficial. In addition, we know that in other temples and such the priests had talking tubes for use to create an effect on the audience. So, to me, these shafts would make perfect sense in that nature.

Has there been, to your knowledge, any dynamic experiments done to see if sound would indeed flow well with these shafts as carriers?

And the ‘copper’ pins. How thick would a piece of rope have to be to effectively hold these blocks in place and assist in lowering them down the shafts to ‘plug’ them – if indeed they were placed in that cork method? Would that sized rope fit in the spaces provided by the loops?

As for the green lines that have no visible source, is it possible to take a sample of these to see what they are composed of?

Thank you for such an effort in your work. You shine in the land of sand!

March 22nd, 2012 at 2:43 am
Ricardo Rocha
avatar
 20 

Keith,

This is commendable, of course:

“…the Supreme Council of Antiquities was determined that whoever they selected for the next mission would leave no footprints at all”

However, wasn’t under their watch and around the same time when the loose granite block just disappeared from the KC?
Has it ever been located? (Or its rubble, since I understand it couldn’t have been taken off whole)

Rico

April 24th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Lou
avatar
 21 

Keith,
This website is great! Thank you for taking the time to share all of this wonder information. I look forward to more updates once this project can proceed.
Thank you again!
Lou

April 26th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Jean-Pierre Houdin
avatar
 22 

Hi Ricardo

The loose granite block didn’t disapeared by chance…It was missing in the chamber after the restoration work made by the SCA and Dr Hawass in the late 90′s.

My little idea about its fate: as it was very hard to move out this block from the KC, this block must have been sunk in the hole dug by ancient robbers next to the sarcphagus…It must still be inside, but below the granite floor.

Just my feeling…but, knowing a little the place, I’m quite confident that this block must have ended like that.
Don’t never think that what was imposed to foreign missions was also enforceable to the former “Boss” of the SCA…because he was the “rule”…

Best

Jean-Pierre

May 3rd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Tony Randell
avatar
 23 

Thanks for a vey informative site. I’m curious to know if anyone can help with a query I have, as follows. Is it possible that Khufu’s pyramid could have been originally constructed with an angle of incline the same as the Red Pyramid?

The reason I ask is that, at the reduced angle of 43 degrees, the two Queens Chamber shafts then appear to exit the outermost layers of the construction. I just happened to overlay plans of the two pyramids one on top of the other and noticed this coincidence.

Hope this makes sense and would appreciate any thoughts……….

Tony Randell

May 7th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Sagredo
avatar
 24 

After reading for the first time such a detailed description of the inner structures of the pyramid, I thought a bit about the possible meaning of the “door” and its pins.
Couldn’t it be “simply” that
- the metal pins were fixed to the “door” just to give the possibility to move the door step by step thanks to a couple of ropes fixed to the back rings
- when the pyramid was still not complete, and the current “second stone” was still not in place, the builders placed the door at the entrance of the QCS and then pulled it as they were placing the shaft walls
- this way they were sure that the shaft was continuous and followed a straight line
- once the “ventilation shaft” was completed the second “door” was placed over it, and the whole structure was left as it was discovered in the recent past

Maybe the real history was different, but my idea is that the “door” was in fact a mobile structure, built to be pulled from the rear part and moved upwards from the queen chamber (maybe the shaft was used to determine some star alignments, then once it was confirmed to be precise enough it was closed, as the rest of the pyramid could be built without any such indicators).

Sorry for my poor english, hope it was clear enough….

May 23rd, 2012 at 10:40 am
Philip Femano, Ph.D.
avatar
 25 

Shemsu, thank you so much, again, for directing me to the ASAE article by Hawass, Whitehead, et al. (requested, above). It includes many very intriguing statements including this one by Hawass on pg. 204: “The shafts in the King’s chamber extend to the exterior of the pyramid, but it seems that the original limestone casing on the pyramid had covered their exits.” This is news to me. Since when has it been the position of Egyptologists that the KC’s shafts never opened to the outside? Do you know of any evidence to support that ‘it seems’ contention of Hawass? Is it fair to assume that it is still current thinking among Egyptologists that the shafts opened into the lumen of the KC as part of their original design?

May 27th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Philip Femano, Ph.D.
avatar
 26 

Regarding the scratches in the QC shaft from previous robot explorations, Gantenbrink referred to the surface of the limestone as having a “patina” coating. Considering how light the robots are and how relatively hard it is to scratch limestone (at least to the extent shown in the photos), what could cause such a softening of the surface of the limestone so that it could be scratched so easily? There is clear evidence that one of the copper “handles” shows more corrosion than the other, and corrosion of limestone is often associated with acid. Is it possible that the atmosphere within the trapped shaft over the centuries contains an acidic vapor that caused a surface corrosion of the limestone?

May 30th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Ray Dawe
avatar
 27 

What a facinating page of information. I’ve been interested in this for years and found this the most informative site yet.
I really can’t wait for work to start again.
I wish you all the best as the World waits for your next instalment !

June 3rd, 2012 at 6:34 pm
robsimpson
avatar
 28 

Good morning

fascinating read and I am catching up a bit here so please forgive me if i have some basic questions.

Just for info 10 years ago i visited Abu Sir, Saqqara, Dashur, Abu Roash and of course Giza…. I am an ex wood patternmaking rolls royce engineer that like many was trying to find the answers!!

After only just now reading Jean Pierre/Bob Brier book and seeing the 3D explanations the great pyramid world is suddenly very exciting again.

My burning random questions:
Why hasn’t Khafre got a grand gallery…or haven’t we found it yet?…does this pyramid have an internal ramp too?
Why aren’t you experts more interested and excited about the Khafre pyramid to prove your exciting and robust theories?
Where are all the benben stones…were they just pushed off the top of the pyramids? (15 ton etc..etc..) Were they definitely ever there in the first place?
I will certainly now read up more about Hemienu…thanks to this site for getting me rekinderling my interest in the Giza Plateau again

Best wishes
Rob Simpson

June 10th, 2012 at 4:35 am
brunobliss
avatar
 29 

Great article! I’m doing a small fan documentary on the queen’s chamber shafts and was wondering if you could shed some light on a piece that doesn’t add up. In 93 when Rudolf was exploring the northern shaft he couldn’t make the westward turn to go further with the exploration, however, the camera was able to sneak peak at the continuing tunnel, my question is, Rudolf’s pictures showed a rectangular structure or object ending at the tip of the wooden rod and possibly blocking a quarter of the tunnel’s dimensions, what was it exactly? This wasn’t shown in djedi’s exploration (as far as i could find).

Image copyright Rudolf Gantenbrink 1999
http://www.cheops.org/startpage/thefindings/thelowernorthshaft/unknown.JPG

Cheers!
Bruno

June 18th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Paul
avatar
 30 

Fantastic read, what if something is found behind the second slab… could it be extracted and would it be allowed to effectively break down the slabs to bring artifacts back?

June 22nd, 2012 at 12:23 pm
avatar
 31 

Hi Paul,

Thank you for reading and thank you for the compliment! Man, you ask the million dollar question—what if there is something behind the second slab? Do we leave it in situ or remove the slab to extract the artifact? The Djedi Team won the concession in the first place because of the non-invasive and non-destructive methodology they demonstrated during the “Robot Olympics,” so removing one of the slabs (actually, it would be two slabs!) was never really under consideration, at least as far as has been revealed.

My personal opinion is that, given current circumstances in Egypt, and the need to put forward as bright an image as possible, the temptation to reveal a new artifact, from the Great Pyramid, no less, would be overwhelming. If they find scraps or even a mason’s tool I would guess it stays, but if they find statuary or possible a stelae of some sort, they will extract it.

This is just my opinion, and is not based on any discussions I have had with Djedi Team members, but it seems logical that they would remove any valuable artifacts that might shed light on life in the Old Kingdom.

–K

August 12th, 2012 at 11:10 am
avatar
 32 

Hi Susan,

Thank you for reading and for taking the time to write! Confession time… I too have been farther down the “alternative history” conspiracy-laden road than I like to admit. But for some of us, that is the hook. Even Mark Lehner, who is about as mainstream as you can get, originally had Rosicrucian ideas about what the pyramids were about. What matters is what we do with the truth when we find it. Do we continue to indulge in fantasy, or do we realize that the truth is actually far more interesting and inspiring? I rather like the idea that we humans are bright enough to solve our own problems, without the intercession of Atlanteans and Space Brothers.

Jean-Pierre was a breath of fresh air in a field that had become stagnant with old unworkable theories that were either accepted by rote or by grudge by those who knew better. But I have to admit, the one area of his theory that I held back on was his idea that the shafts were used for communication. I just didn’t see how sound could carry from one shaft back out the other. But Jean-Pierre and other have told me that the acoustics in the Queen’s Chamber would have amplified the sound enough that a person listening at the opposite shaft would be able to hear what was being said.

To my knowledge no tests have been conducted yet on the intercom hypothesis, but the more I learn about the shafts, their location and the construction phase during which they would have been open and in operation, the more I agree with JPH—at least QCN and QCS would have functioned as intercoms. KCN and KCS may have served strictly for the circulation of air, made possible by the thermals created by one side of the pyramid being cooler than the other, but I don’t see how the Queen’s Chamber shafts could have served the same function.

Maybe Jean-Pierre will see this and clarify? Stranger things have happened here on Em Hotep… ;-)

As for the copper pins, the loops would be too narrow for anything other than a thin twine, but that may have been enough. The slab is really pretty small. Another possibility is that rather than threaded with twine, the loops were simply hooked by a tool of some sort to allow it to be opened and closed. Either way, I think you are on the right track—the pins were possibly involved with the opening and closing of the shaft slab.

Regarding the green lines, I would say that taking a sample of that would be on the agenda for the next trip up QCS, although I have not been told this for certain.

Thank you again for your wonderful post and please always feel free to join in opr start a conversation of your own!

–K

August 12th, 2012 at 11:58 am
avatar
 33 

Hi Tony,

Thank you for writing and for your kind words!

That is a very interesting question… I have not heard any theories to that effect, that Khufu was originally planned on the same angle as the Red Pyramid. Unfortunately I do not have some insight on your question myself, but I suspect that some of the folks reading this might, so I will put it out there for discussion.

–K

August 12th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
avatar
 34 

Hi Bruno,

Thanks for joining in the discussion! You are right, the piece that you refer to was not discussed in any of the Djedi material that I know of. I believe there is some speculation that the hooked object that was discovered with the dolerite pounder might have fastened onto the rectangular piece at the end of the rod. In fact, I think Gantenbrink even shows that the rivet holes on both pieces match!

Might this have been a tool used to open and close the first blocking slabs in QCS and QCN? That will depend on how well the hooked object matches the copper pins, I think. It will be interesting to learn more about this, and I will also pass this question along to the Djedi Team. I don’t know if the object has been recovered or is in situ, if the latter, then Shaun will probably be loathe to speculate. I’ll let you know what I can find out, or alternately, someone with some info will see this and reply.

Keep me posted on your work so I can pass it along!

–K

August 12th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
vaibhav
avatar
 35 

it was great great explanation

August 17th, 2012 at 11:18 am
ROBERT
avatar
 36 

Exciting and intriguing! Thank you. To me, one of the most important questions to be asked is are the copper fittings or the so-called mason lines or the black paint-like drips of organic origin and therefore cabable of carbon dating?
If they can be dated it would end once and for all the spectacular speculations about the Pyramid’s date and origin. NO ONE could have gotten into these shafts and faked these markings as could have been done with the so-called workers glyphs relating to Kufu that were located in the upper reliefs of the Kings Chamber. Dr. Hawass points to those glyphs as proof that the Pyramid is Kufus’. Is the team allowed to talk freely about their findings or is all information under lawful censor?

August 26th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Lucas
avatar
 37 

Hi Keith,

Regarding your answer to Bruno, I think you two may actually be talking about different objects. The small rectangular piece with two holes you’re mentioning is located before the 45° turn that prevented Uphaut2 to explore further the shaft and find the door.

The object Bruno is talking about lies a few meters after the 45° turn and -on the picture on Gantenbrink’s web site he’s providing a link to- looks to me like a rectangular stone, maybe topped by a smaller object. One of Dixon’s rods seems to lean against it and in fact may have stopped the probing at this place.

Like Bruno I’m very interested in the northern shaft and –strangely- I feel we are provided much less information about it than about the southern one. This despite the fact it’s the only shaft where artifacts have been found.

For example, what happened to the small rectangular piece you mention, was it retrieved, and if yes was it tested in relation to the hook from the British Museum ? Also Gantenbrink photographed what he describes as a “square wooden rod”, stuck in the same 45° turn mentioned before. It looks different from the iron rods Dixon left in the shaft and may be much older. I couldn’t find any photographs of it taken during the Djedi explorations.

To me the northern shaft has always looked the most interesting and promising one and any new information and/or picture of it would be welcome.

Best regards

September 10th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Michael
avatar
 38 

I am very grateful for the information you are providing!

September 26th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Michael
avatar
 39 

I have always been fascinated by the careful choice of materials, the precision with which they were crafted, the engineering skill and immense physical effort it took to create all the passages and chambers. Now we see that this is true of even the seemingly insignificant hidden chamber at the end of the QCS passage! What ever the purpose, this pyramid was obviously very important and was constructed by very intelligent people. I am very interested to know what types of forces would cause the cracks in the walls and ceiling of the passage. Does it seem that the ‘chipped’ corner at the bottom of the first blocking stone was a deliberate part of it’s design? What is the most ancient Egyptian term for pyramid structures? Thank you for your time.

September 26th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
avatar
 40 

Hi Michael,

Thank you for reading and taking the time to post a comment and ask some questions :-)

As regards the chip, without taking a closer look all we can really do is make some informed speculation, and I have not heard from the Djedi Team any further details regarding the next trip into the shaft. The political situation in Egypt remains very touch and go, and while work is certainly continuing at dig sites all throughout Egypt, high-profile work such as the Djedi Project seems to be a sort of political football. But as soon as I hear anything there will be a follow-up article to be sure!

Having said that, the impression I get is that the chip was intentional. It looks manufactured, and goes all the way through (i.e., it opens on the other side of the blocking slab), so it seems to have been by design. Whether it had a spiritual or practical function (or both!), I do not know. That detail will have to await future work.

As for the ancient word for pyramid, it was “MR”, probably pronounced as “mer” according to Mark Lehner, and looked like:

I hope this helps!

–K

September 27th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 41 

When I think of these “shafts”, I cannot help but consider their use and for certain, there would have been a use. We’ve discussed the potential uses (Ventilation … Talking Tubes … and so on). BUT what about another addition to the mix? Since they could carry sound and air, why not solids as well? Things like scrolls could have – I’m guessing – been passed along these tubes and hauled back up with new input on the papyrus.

So say the designed said, while inside the chambers from the KC to those not yes “seen” that Jean-Pierre brings to the front, “I need a modification to this plan.” Would he send a “runner” through the pyramid, with all the others working therein? Would he then sit inside the chamber and wait for a return of the runner and the scroll? I doubt it.

On modern job sites, they share plans. They have their master plan and various other plans with which they consult as they are building. Why would they not do the same building these huge and complex things? I’m sure they did.

Has anyone discovered any writings from these scribes? Any plans? And at all? When a civilization writes things about which neighbor is sleeping with who’s wife, why would we accept that they wrote nothing about the building – or left any written plans at all? Deir el Medina has a great deal of records left over. Why would these huge monuments not as well?

And in those documents, plans, if any have been found, are there corrections? The heiroglyphs show signs of editing and corrections and I’d assume a set of plans may be similar.

Beyond all that, these tubes, or shafts were used for a reason – simple or complex. With technology and allowing scientists from many branches of science to research and do testing, like what is the chemical fingerprint of the copper in the pins? – we will eventually have a really good idea. After all, we take pots that are thousands of years old and re-discover the ancient beer recipe.

As for the other pyramids … this is the next step in my opinion – to compare what Jean Pierre has come up with thus far, to the evidence in the older pyramids.

These were built by master stone masons and as such, you can bet that if you were alive when one of these was being built, and were a stone mason, you were there. If you were lucky enough to be around while more than one was being built, then you took what you learned from one to the other and so forth.

So, in a progression of development, we can “see” more evidence or lack of it, to support and bolster Jean-Pierre’s theories if we trace the evolution of these buildings chronically.

For example, and this source is sketchy, but provides some interesting things to ponder, Wikipedia states, “The Great Trench

Outside the enclosure wall Djoser’s complex is completely surrounded by a trench dug in the underlying rock. The trench measures 750 m long and 40 m wide and is a rectangle on a North-South axis. The walls of the trench were originally decorated with niches and its function seems to have been to make entry into the complex more difficult.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser#The_Great_Trench

I don’t know – haven’t checked yet, but is this close the the size of the Grand Gallery?

As the first pyramids grew, the plans for the others would reflect these changes. Thus, things like the “shafts” could have been an “invention” of a new worker in charge of finding a way to communicate that was faster than the previous methods.

Unlike the European architechs of later years, the rivalries would not be tolerated between builders because these things took complete committment to create. They did not “change” things mid-way through without very very good reason. They began with a complete plan.

Another question and I’ll stop here – were there no models found? The Egyptians made models of everything – even baking bread. Why in the world would there not be “toy” or model pyramids made that one could take apart and “see” inside?

Within the textile motiffs in tomb paintings, we can see “transparent” cloth represented with a unique painting style. Is there an equivolent in drawings of the pyramid showing any of their interiors?

I’m sure children were watching these things go up. And as parents do, to answer the questions is sometimes easier to use models – or miniatures so the child can hold it, move it around in the 3-D format that Jean-Pierre does in his work.

Looking forward to some answers or being pointed in the right direction to research this myself. Greatest place in the Universe because you DON”T allow all that messy advirtising and you DO edit the posts.

September 27th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
avatar
 42 

Hi Susan! :-)

Thank you for your post and your questions, and thank you for reading Em Hotep!

I will have to be brief because I am working to get a quick article up before the next in the “From Pits to Palaces” series. I had the chance to attend Derbycon 2.0 this weekend where I was introduced to some great technology with implications for artifact restoration and replication, and I want to get the article up while it is all fresh in my brain!

But two quick answers. I think Jean-Pierre Houdin’s theory about the QC shafts being used to communicate verbally is the closest to your idea. If a tube of some sort was used to transmit messages you have to consider the level spaces and twists and turns in the shafts. This could be mitigated by having the tube tethered—it could be dragged up and down through the shafts, but you still have the ledges that jut out some places that could snag the message tube.

As for written documents about the pyramid’s construction, that is one of the great enigmas. Yes, they kept track of how much grain farmer McHotep send to this temple and that temple, but no, they did not write down how to build pyramids or make mummies! Strange, huh? Bob Brier suggests that in the case of mummies this might be due to trade secrets—you did not want just anybody to be able to do the very profitable job you wished to hand down to your sons. Pyramid building might have been the same way. There may also have been a ritual destruction of the plans, as some other funerary structures have been buried, burned, or otherwise “passed on” to the hereafter with their tomb owners. At this point all we can do is speculate.

I hope you are getting ready for Halloween! That is the favorite time of year for us Chiller Theater alumni…

Spooky regards,

–K

October 1st, 2012 at 2:29 pm
avatar
 43 

Hi again, Susan…

Regarding your question about a model of the pyramid, that reminded me of something that might actually be an example of the plan for a pyramid.

Check out the chpater entitiled “Hemienu’s Solution” in the book by Jean-Pierre Houdin and Bob Brier– “The Secret of the Great Pyramid.” There they discuss a model Hemienu may have cut into the bedrock of the Plateau itself which seems to mimic the passageways in the Great Pyramid.

Gotta run now!

–K

October 1st, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Mohammed
avatar
 44 

Hi,

Firstly i would like to thank you and commend for the all the hardwork and for the time invested and also i am enamored that you take the time to reply to each and every post,i have the following questions or to be simple i am very inquisitive to the following.

1.If a similar replica was to be built what would the duration be?

2.Is it true that the pyramid is of 8 sides compared to the 4 when viewed on the day of equinox.

Thank for your time and patience,

Best Wishes,
Mohammed

!

October 2nd, 2012 at 2:01 am
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 45 

I fully believe that Hemienu’s Solution is indeed worthy of study. In addition, I wonder what other similar “items” are still in existance with the other pyramids?

It will be interesting to see when and if they are able to get into these pyramid shafts and more interesting to see how they bend around the “hidden rooms” that I would love to have in my lifetime – found.

Do you know if Jean-Pierre will be or has already taken a serious study of the pyramids before the “great” pyramid to look for similar construction techniques? I would think that they would be there – just for the “looking” because these things were planned from the moment the first block went down.

Considering the Egyptian love of models, I’m sure there were models of the pyramid – why would a builder not be so proud that he wanted to “show” what he was doing and models are the best way possible.

Perhaps someday we will uncover a tomb of a builder with a model of one of the pyramids in their tomb.

Thanks for the work you do – it’s the best sight on here to find really insightful information. I have one suggestion – archaeologica.org – get on her list of places to pass along. She’s a no-nonsense interested party as well and can help promote your work for others to enjoy and learn from.

Happy almost Samhain and wonderfully cool air. If you are ever in Charleston, West Virginia, look me up. You have a friend here.

October 2nd, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Philip A. Femano, Ph.D.
avatar
 46 

Very fascinating questions, indeed, Susan…

You are spot on about why we see so many models and figurines of plants, food, animals, and people, even humorous graffiti about trivial things like “Ahmed is a jerk”, but very little representation of any buildings at all, while virtually zero representation of the pyramids.

While some alternate theories have been framed with varying degrees of credibility up to and including lunatic fringe, nevertheless as scientists we often must consider all the possibilities regardless of how improbable — and unplausible — they may seem, based on the data currently in our possession, as well as the notable ABSENCE of data we might expect to exist based on those same theories…

Regarding the QC shafts, it is difficult to imagine how those shafts could serve as a kind of pneumatic tube transport, e.g., for messages. It’s not that I think that a transport sled might get caught in cracks or joints. After all, the AEs clearly knew how to make “seamless” joints. I also believe those stones originally fit together to form an air tight seal that could hold a vacuum quite well. However, my skepticism is based more on whether it would be necessary and too energy-intense to use forced air or vacuum to transport anything up those shafts. The additional consideration of the enormous effort required to make those shafts angled rather than vertical tends to vaporize any plausibility even farther.

Instead, to use the shafts to convey messages, I would imagine it’s possible to fathom a mechanism that once incorporated the metal components in the upper terminus block, e.g., that might employ a ‘tow rope’ system that could trolley a sled up and down that shaft (I’m not saying I think that’s what it was used for; I’m merely saying it’s possible). While Djedi did not report significant slide marks on the floor of the shaft (since there is no evidence of the use of wheels at that time), Djedi did note mysterious scratches on the shaft walls that are not attributed to Gantenbrink’s robot and are consistent with a mechanical transport within the shaft.

Your larger point about there being no historic trace of the origin of the Great Pyramid in terms of drawings, models, or glyph texts hits at the heart of the enigma. One possibility is that huge, inanimate, manmade objects were simply not subject to public discourse in that culture, perhaps analogous to the way, in the USA, politician’s families normally are simply considered immune from press coverage. Such a cultural filter is plausible since there are relatively few models of any buildings at all from that time (although there is virtually ZERO ancient representation of the Great Pyramid in any models or drawings).

Another possibility, again culturally based, is that the Great Pyramid (as well as other pyramids) are so enormous and mostly irrelevant to every day life that they escaped any reporting by the populous. Perhaps the population didn’t view it as “manmade” in the sense we think of such things today, but rather “godmade” (ie, “pharaoh-made”) as many might consider Mt. Everest or the Grand Canyon today.

Still another possibility, perhaps more sensational but nevertheless somewhat plausible, is that the Great Pyramid was actually constructed far earlier than the Dynastic period, by a pre-dynastic culture, and that the AEs became established later and had no concept of how such structures originally came to be. Rather, those structures could have been considered to be “part of the landscape” and the dynastic culture set out to develop its own belief system based on such pre-existing monuments which were ancient even in their own time.

Not sure if this is an “answer” or if it points you “in the right direction”; it’s simply an attempt to account for the “absence” of evidence that you might expect to exist based on traditional theory (significant controversies such as Vyse’s discovery, notwithstanding).

October 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Ben
avatar
 47 

i know want to be an archaelogist!!!!! :)

thoroughly enjoyed reading through your article.

respect to you and all the team involved with this mission.

good luck for the future!!!! cant wait to see whats behind the second slab!! :o

Ben C

October 3rd, 2012 at 10:00 am
Michael
avatar
 48 

Chiller Theater – my favorite movie was the Tingler!!!
I understand that you are busy and will not be offended if I don’t receive a reply, but just in case you or someone else has time I will ask: 1) Where the QCS and QCN passages enter the QC are they directly across from each other (same height and distance from E and W walls)? 2) The same question for the KC. 3) The openings for the QCS and QCN were originally behind blocks, were those blocks added after the QC was finished or were they the big blocks of the general construction? In other words were they ever intended to be open to the QC? In any event it seems incredible that they were ever discovered! 4) Is it true that no other pyramid has small shafts like these? The small chambers with the polished walls and copper pins seem to exclude that they simply served a utilitarian function such as intercom. I assume that they must have represented a feature of the netherworld. Thanks again and I hope I am not wearing out my welcome.

October 3rd, 2012 at 10:32 am
Garry Miller
avatar
 49 

Hi Keith,

Just wanted to say WOW what a site!! I am so interested in the construction theories of the pyramids and what I’ve read so far is well presented and very informative. I think Jean-Pierre’s theory of the internal ramp is spot on and hope he gets the opportunity to prove this at some point in the future. Let’s hope Djedi gets the go ahead to resume work soon too. Anyway, just wanted to say keep up the good work and I’m sure I’ll have plenty of questions to pose in the future.

Garry

October 5th, 2012 at 9:02 am
avatar
 50 

Thank you, Mohammed :-)

I don’t always reply in a timely manner, but I do attempt to reply to everyone. If there is anybody I have missed, sorry, my “to do” pile is quite high!

As for building a model pyramid, I am not sure. It would depend on so many factors, such as the scale of the pyramid, size of workforce, how true you wanted to remain to the original building process, etc. My guess is that given Hemienu’s genius and the technical capabilities of the ancient Egyptians with the technology they had on hand, I doubt we could do it any faster.

If you are interested in a project to actually build a pyramid, for a good cause, check out the Earth Pyramid Project at the below link, it has been endorsed by a couple of friends of mine..

http://www.earthpyramid.org/

As for the eight sides, I have heard that there is some concavity to the pyramid faces, maybe that could produce the result you are asking about?

Thank you for writing, and please keep visiting!

–K

October 13th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
avatar
 51 

Hi Garry,

Thank you so much for reading, and for taking the time to comment :-)

It will be good to see work on the Great Pyramid resume, especially as I have so many friends with stalled work there. Archaeological work has resumed elsewhere in the country, but when you go messing with the pyramids, the Great Sphinx, Nefertiti’s bust, or Tutankhamun’s stuff, you are in “National Symbol” territory and the politics become magnified.

Time will tell.

–K

October 13th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
avatar
 52 

Hi Michael,

The Tingler was great! One of my favorites too, one that invokes fear of the “Hidden Other”..

As for your questions, the Queen’s Chamber shafts are directly opposite one another, at the same height. As for the King’s Chamber, I think the northern shaft (KCN) is located higher than the southern shaft (KCS), but I could be wrong, maybe someone will have more to say? As for the blocks that sealed the QC shafts, they were part of the facing stone of the inside of the QC, and seem to have been sealed up at some point after construction of the chamber was finished. As for other pyramids not having these shafts, that is true to my understanding, but keep in mind that until someone went poking around for them, we did not know the QC shafts existed either, so they may be there, we just haven’t found them yet.

One way to think of the pyramids is to consider that most of what went into making one was based on tradition, so there is little variance. But as the pyramids become larger there are other physical and structural considerations, so there will be some technical variance from pyramid to pyramid. Then also consider that as “styles” changed, some pyramids would carry over aspects of their more immediate predecessors.

So it is not at all unusual that we should find some pyramids that are identical in many of their technical and symbolic aspects, but which may vary in some significant way. It would not surprise me to find that these shafts are unique to Khufu’s Pyramid, as they may have been an innovation of Hemienu’s which for whatever reason were immediately discontinued. Nor would it surprise me to find that they also exist in the other large pyramids at Giza and further south. That is part of the mystery!

You are certainly not wearing out your welcome here, Michael!

–K

October 13th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
avatar
 53 

Hi Ben,

I share your enthusiasm!! :-)

I also want to know what lies behind the second slab in both QC shafts. Hopefully the situation in Egypt will cool off and people working on the Great Pyramid, both the Djedi Project and Jean-Pierre Houdin’s work, will be allowed to continue soon.

Keep reading!

–K

October 13th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
avatar
 54 

Hi Dr. Femano,

Thank you for your lengthy and erudite response to Susan. Normally I do not include responses that give any credence to “Lost Kingdom” explanations of anything in Egyptology, but as you included it as a possibility in a rather scholarly letter, I am passing it through.

It is not that I am totally closed-minded to genuine mysteries, such as what were the shafts for, or why is there no discussion of pyramid construction among the ancient Egyptians. I am even open to the possibility of ancient civilizations we have not yet turned up, but I am highly skeptical as a default setting, and don’t think such an explanation is necessary in explaining any of Egypt’s heritage. The more we learn about ancient Egypt, the easier it is to see how they did some of what they did, although it is no less amazing.

The reason I do not normally allow discussion of alternative theories on Em Hotep is because there are so many other sites out there already dedicated to the more speculative areas of research, and my trademark is to try and present the “mainstream” work as just as exciting as the speculative stuff. Because in my book, the work being done at Hierakonpolis for example, where they are learning that the roots of Egyptian royalty predate Narmer by quite some time, is just as exciting as the possibility that there may be a great lost civilization waiting to be discovered. Egypt is a great ancient civilization about which we are constantly making new discoveries.

Very thoughtful response, Dr. Femano! Thank you!

–K

October 13th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
avatar
 55 

Hi Susan! :-D

As always, thanks for dropping by. Jean-Pierre is doing some work along the lines you are asking, and will have more to say soon ;-)

I might be in the Charleston area around the holidays. If it isn’t too crazy while I am there, maybe we can break off some time for coffee somewhere?

–K

October 13th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 56 

I would love coffee! I live in the downtown area.

I do have another question about the potential about the “new rooms.” When Jean-Pierre was shown the oddity or perhaps anomoly by the Japanese I believe it was, were there any further indications of the spaces these additional rooms would create? The ones perhaps to be found as Jean-Pierre suggests, to be found in the wall with the obvious now that it has been pointed out to me (lol), stone that has no real weight upon it that is placed with the piston theory Jean-Pierre also suggests … I realize those scans were utilizing older technology, but could those results be fed through new tech filters for a better reading of not just the inner ramp structure, but to locate or look for signs of these additional rooms Jean-Pierre suggest exist? Could the data be reinterpreted through digitalization of the original data and processing in our modern tech systems?

And one last bit of a question, if I may. Nasa can “see” into many layers of the ground with their tech. Can any of this be utilized to “see” into the edges of the pyramid where the inner ramp is most likely located and illustrated so perfectly in Jean-Pierre’s work? After all, he predicts and there is evidence to support his work, that the ramp was not very deep into the pyramid being just behind the casing stone/backing stones and before the rubble core. So would this mean that there is hope it is not buried to deeply within the stone to “see” it with the tech that allows them to “see” into the ground and “see” foundations – at a similar depth from the surface of the ground? And, is there not a way to utilize a mico-bot to investigate into the “nook” that Bob Briar and Jean-Pierre discovered or at least, brought back to light and attention?

You can email me about coffee! I look eagerly forward to chatting with you in Charleston!

October 13th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 57 

A question about these shafts and the use of this or similar robots … in the pyramid of the ruler right before ancient egypt experienced severe drought, Pepi … I saw a picture that lookoed a great deal like a slice of the entire pyramid had been exposed right down to the center. This was on the show, “Why Ancient Egypt Fell,” and it hit me … is there evidence of an internal ramp here? Or, are there signs of shafts similar to the ones we are discussing and if so, could this or a similar robot be used to check their progress through what is left of this pyramid?

October 14th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
avatar
 58 

Hi Susan,

I am not sure, I would have to take a look at the documentary to see the image you are talking about to be able to judge. But I am guessing that if there was evidence of the internal ramp there, Jean-Pierre would be all over it. I am always mentioning things to him which I think are new, only to find that he has already seen it! He does this full time now, pyramids are his mission in life. But I will try to find the documentary and check it out, thank you!

By the way, would you mind sending me an email with a good email address for you? A fellow reader has asked about corresponding with you on subjects of mutual interest, and I want to send you his contact information in case you want to write back. I have corresponded with him on a number of occasions myself and he is on the level. You have here as well. Sorry too be so cryptic, just trying to protect everyone’s privacy! :-)

Cheers,
–Keith

October 28th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
dennis
avatar
 59 

hello folks, the last comment i see was back in October 28th so im not sure if your still tracking this or not.
but i had a idea after reading all this, and it may sound a little crazy, instead of the need to actually drill holes and such, wouldn’t it be so much more easy to just use radar to see whats behind these blocks.
i know for a fact that ground penetrating radar has been used in many of Egypt’s wonders, but wouldn’t it be great to just take some ground imaging from the kings chamber, or even in the queens chamber.
plus you could come up with a smaller version for one of these small robots, even if you have to have the bulk of it connected via wire, you could still put the “gun” part on a robot and get a pretty good view of at least 10 to 30 feet behind the first block.
with that data we would know for sure if there is in fact a chamber after the second block, without speculation or damage to the structure its self.
any thoughts on using something along the lines of radar imaging in the great pyramid or others for that matter?

December 12th, 2012 at 5:19 am
paul roberts
avatar
 60 

hi Keith,
Thank you for a very informative site, we know Zahi Hawass thinks Khufu could have a secret room behind one of the shafts he also states a challenge that the king soul must face before his travel into the afterlife. It is written in the Pyramid texts that the king will face bolts before he travels, perhaps this is a reference to the door’s copper handles.
Lastly i love a theory i read that these shaft were designed for a future more advanced civilization like the Djedi project as a window into the past
cheers and thanks,
Paul

December 16th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
paul
avatar
 61 

Hi Keith,
Thank you for taking the time to share and great website exciting stuff, we know Zahi Hawass believes the possibility that these doors are evidence that Khufu’s burial chamber might still be hidden somewhere inside his pyramid, He also states these doors are a challenge that the king must face before he can travel into the afterlife. It is written in the Pyramid Texts that the king will face bolted doors before beginning his journey – perhaps this reference explains the doors copper handles.
The last possibility for the shafts i came across was that the architect or priests of the pyramid constructed these shafts for a future more advanced civilization like the Djedi project as a window into the past.
Thank for the exciting update
Best Wishes, Paul

December 17th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 62 

Hello Dennis! I think the real hold up on testing these theories is NOT the technology limits or people willing to use said technoloy – but instead is political in nature. I’m sure Jean Pierre could find many examples and hard scientific facts to back this theory and convert it from theory into “the REAL plan of building the pyramids” – were he allowed to look freely. Yet, as upset as certain people became at this theory – and moreover, what it implies (the breaking of a traditional unsolved mystery that makes LOTS of money just in handing out permits to walk in the places necessary to look for facts and evidence, let alone bring in equipment and professionals and get real and solid answers) – being able or allowed to do these tests is nearly impossible. If you read all that’s on this site – you’ll see that Jean Pierre has a very simple piece of the proof puzzle but is NOT ALLOWED to do it – and it only involved taking the temperature of the stones over time! When something that simple is forbidden, sticking ANY device into the pyramid would then be totally impossible. He’s had a better change getting an experiment on the next mission to Mars than to get things done in Egypt right now.

I’ve wanted to start a “protest” of the refusal to allow Jean-Pierre his experiments, but alas, there is more in that country to protest than ancient monument construction. YET – there is hope. Perhaps someone will NOT CARE about the fame or money involved and just get proof positive. See, Jean-Pierre is certainly a scholar, but NOT a political figure (THANK THE GODS!). As such, it’ll take a great deal of time to get this “in the bucket” and make the final conclusions. I’m sure he’s working on ways to fluff his research out.

Do you have suggestions as to how to get this device or any other device into or around the pyramids to uncover what they could detect?

December 26th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
brunobliss
avatar
 63 

Hi Susan,

If what you say is true, if this pyramid\shafts mystery is a money making machine, then any attempts to find the truth render useless … It then becomes, as you said, not a problem of available technology or means to use it, but it is as though, you have your own stone slab blocking the climb.

Sad but understandable i guess… It’s only a shame that the truth about mankinds biggest legacy may be at the reach of our hands and is being denied by money and politics.

Now that i’m here again, i’m going to take the time to try to figure out something that’s bugging me for a while and that i asked previously: During the first robotic exploration of the northern shaft, Rudolph’s robot wasn’t able to make the westward turn to circunvent the grand gallery, leaving us only with a sneak peak of what lies ahead, and that seems to be some sort of rectangular object blocking part of the way.

see picture:
Image copyright Rudolf Gantenbrink 1999
http://www.cheops.org/startpage/thefindings/thelowernorthshaft/unknown.JPG

And what about the wooden rod broken off by Dixon? Could it be retrieved and carbon dated?

Also, in this video i made, there appears to be a stone or something blocking the way on the northern shaft’s westward turn:

Minute 4:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2XxOPo0Gcc

Sorry for the publicity, but i would really appreciate knowing more about these. That being said,

keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Bruno

December 28th, 2012 at 6:05 am
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 64 

I believe that like modern walls – and builders – we may never see all that is “behind” them. YET, I am more interested in Jean Pierre’s “hidden rooms” that these shafts bend around, over and such, than I am in the shafts themselves. Even the Egyptians themselves would not be able to “see” into these shafts once everything was in place around and over them and, it seems, they were not much on leaving things inside these great pyramids, the big ones, for them or anyone to see. Yet, the two rooms that are “missing” from what we now know as the sacred route, are probably more likely to “see” into than these shafts.

It is a sad day indeed when the people who want to know and are willing to figure out experiments that are totally not destructive in nature, are not allowed to perform their experiments.

I have a strong feeling that as a reaction to all the violence and mayhem, we may see scholars step up and make these things happen … look behind the doors in the shafts and look behind the stones in the King’s Chamber as well as sample the “smudges” on the walls in the Grand Gallery to show that there IS residue there from the rollers and such Jean Pierre so carefully detailed.

Look at what happened when they wanted to just locate a “lost” Leonardo painting … they drilled several holes through another masterpiece to scrape a tiny bit of stuff from the wall behind. Sure, people screamed – but it happened and somewhere, the scientists now have some sort of answers.

Jean Pierre’s idea will come into it’s own once people realise that Egypt is losing MORE money than ever to all this violence INSTEAD of losing ANY money to science experiments.

Sad to say it, but for a LONG LONG time, it’s been the monuments and tourism that has supported Egypt. Make it so hard that new discoveries can’t happen and all that money goes away.

However, allow men like Jean Pierre to do their experiments and open up a new dialog will ensure future monies and more.

As it is, the South American pyramids are offering more in the way of safe archaeology than Egypt. Even battles with drug lords are easier to handle than the entire country of Egypt up in arms. But, those are more comglomerate in nature – not seemingly set out from the beginning of construction to be made “en mass”.

I wondered why the turns and could not figure this out on these shafts. I did not see or read of other shafts being made in tombs to allow the spirit out – but I did always think of these tubes being multi-use. Jean Pierre’s theory takes all that into account and I, for one, look forward to reading ON THIS SITE that he is finally getting a break and progress is happening.

I suspect that other pyramids will have some vestiages of these internal ramps and perhaps, by finding one of those could lead to the Great Pyramid being more accessible! I’d like to see what is behind those stones Bob B. climbed into in the notch as well.

December 29th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Arnaud SERWY
avatar
 65 

Dears, I have been really delighted to read all your posts and reflexion around these exiting subjects. This small post to ask you if anything has moven forward in actual political situation, that would allow science to go further? I would really pleased to hear some “New” News?

April 4th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
avatar
 66 

Hello Arnaud,

Thank you for reading Em Hotep :-) I am sorry to say that there is no new news stemming from the political situation in Egypt. When I hear something, I will certainly report it. Thank you for asking, though!

Cheers,
–Keith

April 5th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Rene Sabillon
avatar
 67 

This is just exactly what I was looking for . I’m an archaeology lover and someday I’m hoping to become a great archaeologist , this is the best report I’ve read about the queens chamber second door, it really answered some questions i had. Wish there were more like this about other archaeological places or expeditions. Thank you for taking your time to make this, it really makes people like us happy :)

May 22nd, 2013 at 7:29 pm
dennis
avatar
 68 

normally i don’t post links to theory’s and such, but this one would take a while to explain. but in this video they show pictures from a “room” or space you can climb up to from the outside. Id like to see that robot check out what appears to be a hole in the wall. At the very least it would be cool to see if there is a shaft there. If you are in contact with the team that is investigating the shafts in the pyramids, they might be just the people to check out that spot. If they did and found tunnels they would have found a major room that last i looked hadn’t been officially discovered or investigated.

June 7th, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Dan Bartusek
avatar
 69 

I really wonder if the second door are still not opened od drilled. Or if they still can´t inform us about its thickness, about some next echo-measuring or so. There is no scientists and journalists interest which I can find in public websites. For me it is unbeliveable – first time the shaft was discovered in 1993 and after 10 years we were able to drill only one hole to the first door? With our hi-tech technology .. Simply I can´t believe it, probably there is an interest to hide next research from public. Are people allowed to know or to see what is there? So credibility of researchers is getting low. Open the door finally!

July 17th, 2013 at 7:46 am
Dan Bartusek
avatar
 70 

sorry, 20 years :-)

July 17th, 2013 at 7:48 am
Susan Leogrande Alt
avatar
 71 

I like the idea of putting this device into the “notch” that JP is sure is one of the notches for his internal ramp theory. Seems it would be the most logical and easiest thing to do!

July 24th, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Ben Russell
avatar
 72 

Hello, thanks for sharing all your work. I hope your able to go back someday. How much room is potentially left behind the second block? Why is mortar used in for the copper ring? Does the copper go straight through the block and bent over both sides? Is the horizontal distance in the shaft before the incline determined by the angle needed to point to a star? Thanks again, I predict a third block, 2 does not seem in keeping with the general trigonometry, if you got 2, why not 3?

October 31st, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Arnaud SERWY
avatar
 73 

Hi. It might not be the best theory but what do you think about the communication corridor (to scream through pyramid) or sliding ramp for sending messages during construction between work force and constructions coordinators? Do you know according to the actual political situation of Egypt when will this research happen again?

December 20th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
John Nichols
avatar
 74 

Are there plans to recover samples of the paint for carbon dating. This seems like the perfect opportunity to put the dating question to rest.
Thank you

February 5th, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Philip A. Femano, Ph.D.
avatar
 75 

John, I doubt the paint in the shaft can be dated. Just as the two Germans who recently scraped the paint off Khufu’s cartouche probably already have found out, ancient paint is very often comprised of mineral, and not organic, pigments. The paint discovered in the Relieving Chambers by Vyse in 1736 is inorganic red ochre, mainly iron-based. Lucky for Vyse, eh?

April 14th, 2014 at 2:45 pm

One Trackback/Ping

  1. Pyramidonautics: Robotic Archeology in Egypt | The Dream Forge    Nov 08 2013 / 12am:

    […] Continuing the subject of the Great Pyramid (which played a prominent role in yesterday’s book review): contemporary archeologists are busy developing robot technology for exploring the pyramid’s narrow shafts and tunnels — link >>> […]

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment