Welcome to History for Granite.
Join me to explore ancient Egypt.
Together we’ll uncover secrets that only stones from antiquity can reveal.
Please subscribe to the channel to show your support for this line of inquiry.
That drives me to make more of this content for you.
The mighty pyramid of Khafre, second only in size to the Great Pyramid, is a somewhat
overlooked monument.
As with so many things in life, coming in second place means always being in the shadow
of that which is great.
Compounding this disadvantage is the fact that Khafre’s pyramid has a fairly simple
corridor design, almost all of which is entirely dug into the bedrock.
This makes it a difficult subject to study, because, not nearly as much information can
be gleaned from a rock-cut corridor as one built out of masonry.
Since Khafre’s valley temple is so well preserved for an Old Kingdom structure, and
it sits a stone’s throw away from the Great Sphinx, most of the archaeological attention
for Khafre is directed in this area.
But the second largest pyramid ever built still has its share of ingenuity and mystery,
despite being given a small fraction of the attention it deserves.
In this video we’re going to explore the anomalies surrounding a centerpiece of the
pyramid - the sarcophagus built for Khafre.
A common term for the squared, outer-most stone barrier that could protect a body is
the word ‘coffer’.
It’s also much easier to pronounce, and so that’s the word I will use.
Let me also take this moment to address a few points for the viewers who are skeptical
that the pyramids were made to be tombs.
I must state that I believe the evidence that pyramids from the 4th dynasty onward were
designed to hold the body of a pharaoh is quite strong.
The pattern of pyramid corridors leading to coffers becomes increasingly standardized
as you move forward in time.
And if that’s not enough, by the end of the 5th dynasty you get pyramid texts that
express it literally.
However, I am sympathetic to the notion that Old Kingdom pyramids were built with more
complexity and precision than necessary for a pile of rocks protecting a mummy.
The word ‘tomb’ is inadequate to describe these pyramids.
Some analogies might be that you don’t call a capitol building a tomb just because a leader
is laid to rest there, nor would you call a cathedral a tomb just because deceased are
buried underneath it in catacombs.
In that spirit, I believe we can find common ground in that the story of a pyramid isn’t
limited to the burial of a pharaoh.
Turning our attention to the coffer presumably built for Khafre, there are some very interesting
questions that arise.
The most common observation about this coffer is how much more substantial and impressive
it is compared to the one that lies in the Great Pyramid.
Even mainstream Egyptology often uses the comparison to suggest that something went
wrong with Khufu’s coffer or even that it wasn’t where he was ultimately laid to rest.
The builders of these magnificent megaliths were quite clever and clearly had a strong
attention to detail in their construction.
A useful exercise is to imagine a context in which the evidence does make logical sense,
even if it goes against modern-day sensibilities.
When thinking about hard-stone coffers, it’s important to note that other wealthy individuals
of the era were buried in them as well.
For anyone of importance who wasn’t a pharaoh and was laid to rest under a mastaba, a granite
coffer might have been the only high-security method for protecting their remains.
The coffers of Khafre and Khufu appear quite plain, but the exceptions are the design features
which make them securely lockable so that nobody could ever desecrate what lay inside.
In the context of security for mummies, perhaps an enormous hard-stone coffer was considered
to be a necessary nuisance rather than the crown jewel of a burial complex.
Perhaps this is why after Khafre, pharaohs began decorating their coffers and chamber
walls with the so-called ‘palace façade’ design.
This design incorporates a repeating pattern of ‘false doors’ that the Egyptians believed
aided the deceased in moving about the afterlife.
I’m not usually inclined to rely on religious practices for explanations, but the false
door design concept is one of the most prolific features in the Old Kingdom.
From this point of view, an oversized coffer was a burdensome obstacle for the pharaoh
to overcome every time he began and ended his day in the underworld.
Thus, the intricately carved palace façade would lessen this burden.
But before granite coffers were carved with this design, perhaps a pharaoh had to balance
the need for security in the world of the living with the convenience of transportation
in the world of the dead.
This is obviously speculation, but it means that the vastly more secure Great Pyramid
wouldn’t need an oversized coffer, whereas it was considered much more necessary for
security purposes in the second pyramid of Giza.
Khafre’s pyramid had two potential entrances, each with only a single portcullis stone.
The lower portcullis block was only about 60% of the weight and depth that each of Khufu’s
portcullis blocks possessed.
And the upper portcullis was 15 centimeters thinner and probably no heavier than a single
block of Khufu’s as well.
Some notable characteristics of Khafre’s coffer include that it was cemented to other
granite blocks from below and to the sides, these stones also being cemented to the bedrock
floor.
The floor was originally paved with granite and limestone, making it level at the top
of the coffer with only the lid protruding above it.
Despite every part of the coffer except the lid being hidden beneath the floor, its sides
were finely cut and polished perfectly smooth.
Only the exterior bottom face of the coffer was left somewhat imperfect.
The lid has a dovetail protrusion that would give two centimeters of overlap between it
and the coffer on three sides.
The side without the dovetail is the direction from which the lid could have been slid into
place.
There are tube drill holes about 2.5 centimeters in diameter in the coffer with matching holes
in the lid.
The lid holes could have copper pins inserted in them which would then partially drop into
the coffer holes once the lid was shut.
These pins would then prevent the lid from being slid open ever again.
In 1837 Howard Vyse found traces of resin within the holes which Flinders Petrie later
interpreted as another layer of defense.
The pins could have been heated so they would melt into the resin and become stuck, so that
even if someone managed to dislodge the coffer and turn it upside down, the pins wouldn’t
fall into the lid and thus still prevent it from being opened.
With all of these ingenious defense mechanisms analyzed, the mystery of Khafre’s coffer
becomes apparent.
How on earth was this coffer forced open without it being damaged in any substantial way?
When observing other coffers in various states of preservation, the method of intrusion is
always quite obvious.
The angle of attack is substantially broken away and a combination of chiseling and levering
is employed to force it open.
Khafre’s coffer and lid shows no signs of substantial damage, and in fact almost all
of the dovetail protrusion is well preserved.
Only one small section of the inner coffer wall is damaged enough to even be considered
a potential point of attack.
But since the dovetail wraps around three sides of the coffer, you would need to at
least remove an entire side of the overlap in order to start prying the lid loose, and
probably even more.
These pictures are of 6th dynasty pharaoh Teti’s coffer where you can see how much
damage was required to pry loose the dovetail.
His lid was also conspicuously broken in half.
Looking at the dovetail portion on Khafre’s lid we see almost no damage at all, except
for small sections on the delicate corners which is common for every sharp angle of stone
that encounters the curiosity of later explorers.
Modern Egyptology seems to have ignored this mystery, and hasn’t even checked basic facts
about the coffer itself.
For example, in the 2017 book ‘Giza and the Pyramids, a definitive history’ authors
Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner state that someone came,
quote “…breaking the lid into two pieces as
Belzoni found it”
End quote.
But the lid is intact, and Hawass and Lehner are simply repeating someone’s mistake from
long ago, never having taken a close look for themselves.
In 1881 Flinders Petrie more accurately recorded the lid lying unbroken on the chamber floor.
Author Charles Rigano attempting to settle the matter, carefully examined it for his
2014 book “Pyramids of the Giza Plateau”.
He writes that the lid is, quote,
“completely intact except for some chips”
End quote.
Architect and acclaimed researcher Gilles Dormion was so confounded by the preserved
condition of the coffer that in his 2018 book, he proposed the coffer was never used in the
first place.
Comparing corresponding sections of the lid and the coffer is quite difficult because
as it is displayed today, the lid is actually turned backwards in relation to the coffer.
Even so, you can still make out the lid dovetail not displaying any significant damage.
Struggling to come up with a potential solution, I reached out to researcher Keith Hamilton
who writes wonderfully illustrated guides to the pyramids that area available for free
at Academia.edu.
I’ll put a link in the description.
His idea was that a battering ram could create enough force to eventually shear the pins
in half and thus allow the lid to freely slide open once again.
Seems plausible, but this still leaves us with a serious question.
Why are other nearby coffers with similar defenses always smashed if looters knew such
an efficient means of opening them?
Even enormous coffers without dovetail grooves and metal pin locks get violently opened,
such as that of Khufu’s son Kawab.
Khafre’s coffer is thicker and more secure than Khufu’s in every way, except for one
detail.
Khufu’s coffer has three separate pin holes where as Khafre’s contains only two.
With so much of Khafre’s coffer defense designed to protect the pins, decreasing the
number of pins to protect is a red flag.
The alignment of this singular weakness in Khafre’s coffer with a probable method of
intrusion is highly conspicuous.
I can’t help but speculate numerous scenarios that involve a conspiracy to keep the coffer
accessible to those with access.
How easy would it have been for a pair of priests to pretend to slip in the pins from
below the lid but never actually do so?
The resin in the holes would prevent the pins from making a sound as they dropped, and the
only way to check if the lid was secure would be by trying to force it open.
After Khafre, two pins instead of three seems to have become the standard.
Other nearby pyramids such as Menkaure and his minor pyramids for queens used coffers
with two pin holes, yet still had their lids quite smashed.
With a proper forensic investigation of Khafre’s coffer, I think this mystery could be solved.
The entire dovetail section could be carefully scanned to determine if it was physically
possible to pry it open without breaking it.
Also, if the lid was sheared off with enough force to break the pins – there would probably
be microscopic traces of this force on the corresponding sides of each pin hole.
What a wonderful documentary this would make.
It falls right in line with the most popular genre of Egyptology mysteries in which the
possible murder or conspiracy against Tutankhamun was investigated countless times.
And if it can be determined that Khafre’s coffer was never properly locked in the first
place – well that tells a story that everyone interested in history would sit up and pay
attention to.
Thanks to everyone who watched this video to the end.
Please subscribe to the channel to see more of this content.
Give a like or comment as you see fit, and above all, remember to ask your friends if
they take their History for Granite.