Hi Mick

I assume you are interpreting a rise on run for the descending/ascending passageways, the diagonals, the altitudes, even if extended, merely being laid out as a consequence.

I haven't found it so simple.

The Petrie survey found for instance that the ascending passageway's altitude was some 1/2 to a 1/3 degree less than the descending and while it might be easy to interpret the descending as a rise on run it's not so easy to apply it to the ascending.

Like many I overlooked this for a number of years until I examined the trial site where exactly the same occurs, the ascending is approximately 1/2 to a 1/3 degree less. Was this duplication the result of AE building techniques where perhaps it might have been more difficult to build up than down, or were they attune to a different plan.

The same differences at both localities forces us to reconsider a horizontal length to vertical height, at least in the context of a rise on run with currently accepted measuring rod units.


Trial S desc ... 26°32, 26°50, 26°35.
Pyramid desc. 26°31
Trial S asce ... 26°15, 26°45, 26°10, 26°20 (26°45 has been taken at the Pass/Gallery junction)
Pyramid asce. 26°13 (pass and Gallery)