2.28) The 'Antechamber' and 'Portcullis' System. The theory that the antechamber once housed a 'portcullis' system is generally accepted, although a model of the system that explain all the features of the antechamber is still forthcoming. The best research in this area came originally from Lepre, who studied the question in depth. While his findings are far from conclusive, they are reasonable and remain the only conclusion of any merit. First, an extract from Petrie: 'The rubbish that had accumulated from out of Mamun's Hole was carried out of the Pyramid by a chain of five or six men in the passage. In all the work I left the men to use their familiar tools, baskets and hoes, as much as they liked, merely providing a couple of shovels, of picks, and of crow-bars for any who liked to use them. I much doubt whether more work could be done for the same expense and time, by trying to force them into using Western tools without a good training. Crowbars were general favourites, the chisel ends wedging up and loosening the compact rubbish very easily; but a shovel and pickaxe need a much wider hole to work them in than a basket and hoe require; hence the picks were fitted with short handles, and the shovels were only used for loose sand. In the passage we soon came down on the big granite stone which stopped Prof. Smyth when he was trying to clear the passage, and also sundry blocks of limestone appeared. The limestone was easily smashed then and there, and carried out piecemeal; and as it had no worked surfaces it was of no consequence. But the granite was not only tough, but interesting, and I would not let the skilful hammer-man cleave it up slice by slice as he longed to do; it was therefore blocked up in its place, with a stout board across the passage, to prevent it being started into a downward rush. It was a slab 20.6 thick, worked on both faces, and one end, but rough broken around the other three sides; and as it lay flat on the floor, it left us 27 inches of height to pass down the passage over it. Where it came from is a complete puzzle; no granite is known in the Pyramid, except the King's Chamber, the Antechamber, and the plug blocks in the ascending passage. Of these sites the Antechamber seems to be the only place whence it could have come; and Maillet mentions having seen a large block (6 feet by 4) lying in the Antechamber, which is not to be found there now. This slab is 32 inches wide to the broken sides, 45 long to a broken end, and 20.6 thick; and, strangely, on one side edge is part of a drill hole, which ran through the 20.6 thickness, and the side of which is 27.3 from the worked end . This might be said to be a modern hole, made for smashing it up, wherever it was in situ; but it is such a hole as none but an ancient Egyptian would have made, drilled out with a jewelled tubular drill in the regular style of the 4th dynasty; and to attribute it to any mere smashers and looters of any period is inadmissible. What if it came out. of the grooves in the Antechamber, and was placed like the granite leaf across that chamber? The grooves are an inch wider, it is true; but then the groove of the leaf is an inch wider than the leaf. If it was then in this least unlikely place, what could be the use of a 4-inch hole right through the slab? It shows that something has been destroyed, of which we have, at present, no idea'. These 'anomalous' granite stones were concluded by Lepre to be parts of the original portcullis system. Extract from 'Giza the Truth' - 'It is often suggested that no fragment of the three missing portcullis' has ever been found, and from this many alternative researchersï¿½and even some Egyptologistsï¿½deduce that they were never even fitted. In the first instance, the continued presence of the counterweightsï¿½which are above the level of the passage and therefore would not obstruct the progress of an intruderï¿½suggests to us that the portcullis' were originally in place but were broken up by the early robbers. Again we would suggest that, as with the "Bridge Slab", the debris from this operation would have been cleaned up by restorers. However, in addition to this evidence, Lepre produces a real coup de grace on the matter: he has matched the four blocks of fractured granite found in and around the edifice to the dimensions of the portcullis'. Extract from Petrie - In brief, each of the main slabs would have been a minimum of 4 feet high by 4 feet wideï¿½probably more depending on the degree of overlap into the slotsï¿½and most significantly about 21 inches thick (to allow a tolerance of ï¿½ inch in the slots). He examined the four blocksï¿½one lies near the pit in the Subterranean Chamber, another in the niche in the west wall just before the entrance to this chamber, another in the Grotto in the Well Shaft, and another outside the original entranceï¿½and established that whilst they were all less than 4 feet in height and width, they were all 21 inches thick! (Note that there is a loose block of granite in the King's Chamber, but this is known to come from the floor thereof and was therefore omitted from the analysis.) As if this were not sufficient evidence, he found that three of the four blocks have 3ï¿½ inch holes drilled in themï¿½in fact the one in the pit has two, and the one near the entrance three. Furthermore, the holes in the latter are spaced 6ï¿½ inches apart. So he established that not only do the holes have the same diameter as the channels for the ropes in the south wall of the Antechamber, but they are also spaced the same distance apart. Although Lepre is unable to provide a foolproof explanation as to how these four fragments ended up in their present locationsï¿½he suggests a variety of high jinks by early visitors to the monumentï¿½nevertheless this strikes us as pretty convincing evidence that these are indeed fragments of the original portcullis'. This is of course, a hugely important finding. Should the other stones indeed be a part of an original 'portcullis' system, what did it look like and why was it there? Why is there a piece in the 'Grotto'? Can we track the movement of these pieces with the historical accounts? There do not seem to be enough pieces, but the size of them suggests that they may be remnants. Extract from the Edgar Brothers: Vol I; (In reference to the granite block in the descending passage) - 'We also instructed our men to shift the position of the large limestone block which then lay diagonally across the passage floor a little distance above the granite block'. (14) We can assume for now that it is the same stone that now sits in the 'pit'. (see photo below). In Vol I (14) , Plates LVIII and LIX show the block in the recess before the subterranean chamber. Four granite slabs from inside the Great pyramid - Are these remnants of the portcullis system? From left to right - Bottom right of the descending passage (found by Petrie half way down the descending passage), outside the main entrance and one on a ledge in the subterranean pit. A fourth granite block lies in the Grotto. Question - How are these stones to be explained in the context of the 'tomb' theory? The remaining slabs were never intended to fall and it appears possible to bypass the system regardless. Is this system evidence that the structure may have had a function before it was sealed? Extract from Edgar Brothers: Vol I - (In reference to the Portcullis system) 'Some writers have suggested that the three opposite pairs of broad vertical grooves originally contained sliding portcullises of granite, which at one time cut off all entrance to the Kings Chamberï¿½this suggestion was supported by Col. Howard Vyseï¿½His idea was that, during the lifetime of the King, the now missing portcullises were suspended above the floor of the Ante-chamber on a level with the top of the low passages, just as the Granite leaf is now suspended; but that after the death and internment of the King, they were one by one lowered gradually by chiseling away the supporting granite immediately below them on the side walls, until, sinking down by their own weight, they finally rested on the floor'. (14) The Edgar's noticed however, that: '...when, however, we begin to investigate the subject more closelyï¿½ we find that there are distinctive peculiarities about the "granite leaf", which make it certain that it, at all events, had not been intended by the architect to serve as a portcullis'. (14) So what was the remaining stone for. It is of interest that the 'Boss' is well recorded in Egypt. It was believed to have been left on the stones in order to manoeuvre them more easily, although in this particular case it is worth noting the following observation: 'The granite leaf appears to be an inch narrower than its corresponding grooves in the wainscotsï¿½Close examination shows that this difference is made up by narrow one-inch projections or rebates on the north face of the leaf, which make it fit tightly into its grooves. With the exception of these rebates (which are evidence of special design), the whole of the north face of the leaf has been dressed or planed down one inch, in order that one little part in the middle might appear in relief'. (14) The 'Boss' as seen from underneath. The fact that it was left in-situ suggests that it had as symbolic function. Pochan emphasizes that the whole system must have been closed off at some time. He says: 'Contrary to the claims made by certain authorsï¿½the three portcullises were actually set in place and lowered. The south wall, in fact, shows clear, significant traces of damage, which would be totally inexplicable had the passage to the king's chamber been open. It is obvious that the damage done to the Antechamber's south wall was effected from the space located above the lowered portcullises. The first despoilers, having experienced great difficulty in trying to raise the granite block closing off the entrance to the antechamber, were unable to force the portcullises and had to settle for making a man-sized hole in the upper part of the corridors wall, opening onto the chamber of the sarcophagus'. However, this raises the question: Why was the antechamber then subsequently cleared of blocks? In a final note, it is worth quoting Petrie over the granite portcullis stones of the Khafre's pyramid when he says: 'The skill required to turn over and lift such a block, in such a confined space, is far more striking than the moving of much larger masses in the open air, where any number of men could work on them. By measuring the bulk, it appears that this portcullis was nearly two tons in weight, and would require 40 to 60 men to lift it; the space, however, would not allow of more than a tenth of that number working at it; and this proves that some very efficient method was used for wielding such masses'. (14)