Hello Lee,

Guess who is kicking himself for not realising the implication of Edgar’s observation (which I have just re-read twice)…

The Edgar brothers carried out their measuring of this Pyramid 35+ years before Rutherford arrived on the scene.

Looking at the diagram posted by C. Wayne (many thanks for that, C. W) I’m now wondering if over this 30 to 40 year time gap naturally accumulating debris filled in much of the space between the floor levels, hardened, and Rutherford did as the Edgar brothers had initially done before him, i.e. mistook it for normal bedrock.

The courses at the Pyramid’s entrance gives us a Descending Passage height of 47.26” or 2.292 royal cubits, and measurements taken down the Passage suggest that the intended perpendicular height of the Descending Passage was 47” or 2.28 royal cubits - the same as the height of the King's Chamber doorway.

This means that the perpendicular height of the face of the south end of the Descending Passage at 48.9” is nearly 2” greater than expected.
But given the location and conditions, I can see why nobody has tried to read anything into this difference.

However, I feel that a difference of 9” to 10” would have raised a few quizzical eyebrows because it would have been reasonably unexpected.
Could we be dealing with a situation in which neither Petrie nor Rutherford (and possibly others) expected the end of the Descending Passage floor to be any lower down than it appeared to them to be?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the south end of the Passage floor is 3” or so above the north end.
I’m tempted to tie this in with Edgar’s observation about the wear at the start (north end) of the Passage, but feel that this wear would be seen at the other end of the floor, too.

Regards,

MJ

p.s. Does anybody here have a copy of M&R that they could check for me/us to see if they measured this junction?