Great Pyramid Star or Air Shafts Correspondence

Dear Ian

Further to my last e-mail I now provide another observation that may be of assistance. This will deal with your comments in G:TT in respect of the deviation of the northern shafts from the KC & QC.

You state on page 339, referring to the the N.shaft of the KC, "It is clear from the scale diagram that it does not need to do this in order to avoid the antechamber or the southern tip of the Grand Gallery, .." you also go on to say that their is no obvious need for the change of direction for the N.shaft of the QC. But the fact remains that both north shafts deviate, for which there must be a reason.

I offer the following explanation. The N.shaft of the KC exits the N.wall 4 cubits west of the passage system axis which has been placed 14 cubits east of the pyramids N-S axis, such that if the KC shaft continued its course without deviating it would be 2 cubits west of the lower wall of the GG, these bocks that make up the GG are possibly quite wide especially as they are corbelled, such that the shaft could well interfere with them. We see from the AP how the girdle stones restrain the sliding forces of the masonry, (girdle stones not being required in the DP as the sliding forces are contained by the bedrock of the plateau) in the GG the north wall according to M&R is made up of large blocks and they suggest this is so to restrain the sliding masonry of the GG. I would suggest also that the unknown masonry behind the east & west walls maybe specially laid and keyed into the GG walls to dissipate forces (we see such an idea at work in the masonry that makes up the shafts and noted by Gantenbrink).

So what evidence do we have of masonry that hides behind the finished walls of the GP? We have a clue in the tunnel that was excavated deep behind the niche of the QC of which M&R say "Upon a close examination of this tunnel we found that for about 6-7 metres, starting from the niche end wall, the masonry is composed of large well squared and dressed limestone blocks. Beyond these, there is the usual inner nucleus masonry made up of great blocks which are roughly dressed.." We see here that the QC appears to be surrounded by a sizeable depth of good quality masonry and therefore it is possible that other chambers are similar. I would suggest that this is indeed so behind the GG walls and that the shafts had to deviate around this to such a distance that satisfied the designer, such that the different masonry required for the construction of the shafts in no way interfered with the masonry and structural integrity of the GG. Further this may explain the question posed above as to why the shaft swings gradually eastward from the N-S axis, as once clear of the GG masonry they had more scope for direction. This brings us to the QC N-shaft, this would have to deviate sharply to the west as coming up to the base of the GG we should expect the maximum thickness of fine masonry to support the GG. I suspect that if ever this shaft is explored it to will follow closely under the KC shaft.

I hope the above may provide some answers, let me know what you think.

Regards, Keith

[In my view this is a highly plausible suggestion. If we refer to my "from above" diagram of the shafts, very roughly it would seem that the QC north shaft starts to bend away when it is something less than a third of the way along the GG. Although the classic "side-view" of the GP shows this shaft only intersects with the base of the GG about half way along it, this extra allowance is to be expected if there was considerable supportive masonry underneath the GG floor. And, of course, we can immediately see that the KC north shaft deviation is consistent with an allowance for some 6-7 metres of supportive masonry behind the west wall of the GG. COH has pointed out that it would be useful to attempt to verify this general approach by establishing whether or not high quality supportive core masonry is in place behind the KC north wall, and indeed behind the west wall of the horizontal KC passage and antechamber, by examining it via the intrusive tunnel dug by Caviglia, that starts just before the antechamber and then follows the northern shaft for some distance. At least the first part of this tunnel lies within a 6-7 metre distance of the KC north wall, and of course of the horizontal passage. COH has also pointed out that the possible existence of sand-filled cavities behind the west wall of the QC passage tends to be at odds with the idea of supportive masonry for all passages and chambers - IL]