[
www.legon.demon.co.uk]
Even the break in the northern entrance passage, which appears to give evidence for a settlement, was interpreted differently by Petrie. In his opinion, "a settlement of 11 inches (28 cm) in such solid masonry, not far from the ground, is impossible, the more so as it would need a uniform settlement of the whole of the lower part of the passage, which should quickly cease at one point, and soon after continue at an equal amount."[11] According to Petrie, the dislocation was caused by a sudden turning up of the lower part of the passage, not a sinking of the upper part;[12] and it appears that the slope was deliberately split into two sections as in the western passage, and in the sides of the Bent Pyramid itself. Even though the curvature on the west side of the pyramid is greater than on the north, and should have been caused by a major settlement passing across the line of the western passage according to Dorner's theory, there is no sign of a large dislocation in this passage.
Now according to Dorner, if the curving in the sides of the Bent Pyramid had been intended, it would be noticed regularly and also at the corners. This is not the case, however, since the builders may have wished to avoid an unsightly curving of the corner-edges, while obtaining the required slope along the sides. This is shown by a distortion in the casing which is most noticeable on the east side where according to Petrie, the north-east corner at the change of slope appears to stick out unduly by about 50 cm beyond the rest of the face at this level.[14] If this had been caused by subsidence, gaping fissures would have opened up in the brittle limestone casing where a part of the face had fallen inwards; when in fact, despite some fracturing of the masonry, the surface of the casing is smooth and the slight curve has clearly been cut into the casing-stones.
Petrie and Legon think you are wrong Anthony!
