Hello Anthony,

I wrote, ‘Neither Smyth nor Petrie measured the Passage width at the three "girdle stones".
Smyth took two measurements in the "girdled section" and recorded 55" and 60".’

You query this with, ‘Doesn't this sentence negate itself? "Smyth didn’t measure" and then "Smyth measured"? Is there a typo here? Or am I just misunderstanding what you mean?

We are dealing with two separate features of the Ascending Passage here, the three “Girdle Stones” and the “Girdled Section”.
Neither Smyth nor Petrie measured any of the three "Girdle Stones".
Apart from at the face of the uppermost block, Smyth measured two points in the "Girdled Section" and Petrie measured none.

The three "Girdle Stones" are spaced along the Passage from 54.7 feet to 95.2 feet from the start (lower end) of the Passage floor
The "Girdled Section" occupies the first 36.4 feet of the Passage.
Thus there is a gap of 18.3 feet between the “Girdled Section” and the north side of the first “Girdle Stone”

Smyth took measurements at the face of the uppermost block, then at 166.6”, 203.6”, 254.6”, 309.6”, 399.5” and 494.3” from it (these are all floor joints).
The north (lower) side of the first “Girdle Stone” is 642” from Smyth’s starting point – well clear of the upper end of the “Girdled Section” (note: there is a 1.2 foot approx. difference between Smyth and Petrie).

If the “Girdle Stones” retained or appeared to retain there original wall to wall (E-W) width, then you can guarantee that either or both Smyth and Petrie would have recorded their actual measurements, which they didn’t.


You continue, ‘And clearly 55" and 60" are way out of the ballpark.’

And there is a specific reason for this, as I shall mention shortly.


I wrote, ‘This considerable difference to the 41.6" at the uppermost block and 42.2" at the upper end of the Passage is, apparently, the result of extreme exfoliation.’

You reply, ‘I can't even imagine that being the case. What would the diagonal measure be of these passages?’

Here I refer you to my opening post in the thread AP plugs - food for thought II - A revision.
I also quote the following extract from a letter Morton Edgar wrote his brother, John:
“The whole of the passage from the fourth Girdle down [i.e. third “Girdle Stone” from the blocks. MJT] to the upper end of the Granite Plug is much dilapidated, extensive exfoliation having taken place on walls, roof and floor. Accurate measuring at this part is therefore almost impossible.”
(Great Pyramid Passages 2nd Edition. 1912 (?) )

Again, Petrie did not measure the width and full height of this Passage (proper) except at the face of the uppermost granite block and close to the doorway in the north wall of the Gallery.

As for the diagonal measure, are you interested in the actual or the probable intended dimension?
The actual, as will now be aware, are not known.


I wrote, ‘It is clear that the three "girdle stones" suffered the same fate as most of the rest of the Passage.’

You reply, ‘Are they all that close to the plugs? I'm looking at Petrie's diagram online (I'm not in my library at the moment) and it seems these girdles are spaced up through the body of the passage, and not all congregated at the bottom. They could not possibly be that damaged.’

Please see above.
I am puzzled by your “They could not possibly be that damaged”.
This damage is extensive and, for the most part, natural.
We need to keep in mind that it is completely separate from the human (Al Mamun) damage at and around the granite blocks).
Please see above.


I wrote, ‘The doorway at the top of the Ascending Passage is, IMO, the most reliable measurement.
I refer you to my sequel thread in which I deal with this.

You reply, ‘I disagree. The doorway could still have shifted.’

Please will you explain how the shifting of this doorway could have made its actual dimensions not as reliable as I suggest they are?

Smyth notes that the faces of the Gallery ramps are flush with the sides of the doorway (this allowing for damage – chipping? - to the edges).


You write, ‘The interior of a stone block, however, would not fluctuate in the least as a result of seismic activity. I think they will be the best indicators of intended dimension.’

Please see above.

MJ