Stadelmann worked for various seasons over a period of ten years at Dahshur and uncovered far more of the base of the Red Pyramid than was available to Petrie.(Petrie comments: ...as my remaining time would not suffice to find the remains of the original base,...)

Stadelmann seems fairly confident with the 45° angle as he not only uses it in his MDIAK article but also marks the angle on a cross section drawing in his book as well as mentioning it more than once in the text.

What I find interesting though is that although he gives a base length for the Red Pyramid (220m) he doesn't quote a height in any of his works. I wonder if the heights being quoted by other authors are still the result of earlier surveys and are now outdated?

It might mean that the true amount of settling isn't as much as the quoted heights of between 104m & 105m might suggest.

In this case I think we have to take Stadellman's angle for the Red as being the best estimate we have. There does come a point when modern surveys done under much better conditions have to take precedence over those done in the 19th Century. I would have to have a very good reason to reject the latest work of a well respected archaeologist and I have no such reason.

Stadellman also wrote of the sides of the Red Pyramid being slightly hollowed (see Verner p.184) and of variations elsewhere and, given the current state of the Pyramid, I don't think very small variations between the angle of the sides can be claimed as significant.

Fakhry's angle for the satellite pyramid at the Bent was also produced during an actual excavation and his drawings are far more comprehensive than Petrie's. I don't think it's a coincidence that two pyramids built within a few years of each other should both have an angle of 45°.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2007 11:37AM by Jon_B.