Khafres Temples Giza Part III The Valley

Khafre‟s Temples, Giza: Part III
The Valley Temple : A Layman‘s Guide

Keith Hamilton 19th October 2021
Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth
In the above image, we are looking at the southeast corner of Khafre‟s valley
temple, with Khafre‟s pyramid in the background. Once clad in fine granite;
today, we only have an intact lower course attached to the temples eastern
facade. In the left foreground we can see the remains of a sizeable enclosure
wall which once flanked the temple. From the exterior viewpoint, the temple
appears an austere cube made of local limestone blocks, many of which are in
excess of 100 tonnes; these blocks, are the sandwich filling which was cased in
finer stone such as granite and alabaster. Though the outside of the temple lacks
a bit of kerb appeal, it is the relatively well preserved interior of the temple
which largely steals the show.
This part III of the guide will predominately focus on the structure above,
and it might be beneficial to read the previous parts I & II for more background
detail. As is too often the case, the available data on the valley temple is
incomplete. Discovered by Mariette in 1853 he provides scant detail on the
structure, and at the time he was only able to clear the sand and debris from the
1
temples interior, with the exterior walls of the temple holding back a sea of sand
which surrounded it.
Image HUMFA_A1065_NS courtesy of Giza Project, Harvard University
The above image was taken in 1913; a year after Uvo Hölscher published his
excavations on Khafre‟s temples. Hölscher was limited to only removing the
sand from the east facade of the temple, which exposed two entrances: the
remaining south, north and west sides remained covered in sand. The sphinx can
be clearly made out, with a fair amount of sand removed from its front. Various
old images of the sphinx survive, showing the sand at various levels; one of the
bigger excavations by G.Caviglia in 1816-1819 exposed the front of the sphinx
and made many important discoveries. The discovery of the valley temple itself
is connected to excavations of the sphinx; Mariette tells us that during work
undertaken for the Duke of Luynes in 1853, clearance work was undertaken
around the sphinx: it was during this clearance that it was noticed that two large
mud-brick walls were erected along the south and west walls of the sphinx
enclosure, and evidently to keep the sand out of the enclosure. He further tells
us that by following the southern brick wall, step by step, they came across the
2
foundations for the valley temple, which had been completely unknown until
that time.1
In the above image I have zoomed in on the previous image to better highlight
the features close to the valley temple. The faint outline of the causeway leading
to the valley temple can just about be made out. The mud-brick wall is part of
an enclosure wall, believed to have been built by Thutmose IV (see part II of
this guide) this wall was actually founded on the sphinx temple‟s western wall:
though the temple itself would not be discovered until 1925 by Baraize during
further clearance work on the sphinx enclosure.
1
Le Serapeum de Memphis 1882, Mariette, pages 96-97
3
In Hölscher‟s fig 21 above,2 we are looking at the temples north-east corner.
The depth of material which he had to remove in order to expose the east facade
can be judged by the debris on right of image, which buried the as yet unknown
sphinx temple. Hölscher‟s publication on the valley temple is the primary
resource on the structure; though prior to his work, the interior of the temple
was accessible to other explorer‟s after Mariette‟s excavations, such as Piazzi-
Smyth in 1865, and Flinder‟s Petrie in 1880-82. In more modern times Herbert
Ricke, along with the Italian scholars Maragioglio and Rinaldi (M&R) added
some further details in the 1960‟s; whilst Lehner and Hawass attempt to bring
things up to date in their 2017 publication ‗Giza and the Pyramids‘ where they
suggest that the temple was built in two distinct phases.
But generally, detailed data on the temple is somewhat lacking, with
many areas off limits to tourists. As a layman, the available data is not idea,
though some websites, such as www.airpano.com which provide some excellent
360 degree images, help in filling some of the blanks.
2
Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Chephren, Holscher, 1912, page 38
4
A.Mariette
Mariette unfortunately tells us little about his activities at the Valley temple;
Mark Lehner would state, ―Frustratingly, he published almost nothing about
what he found inside the temple.‖3 Initially the Duke of Luynes financed the
cost of excavations starting in September 1853; however, the task at hand soon
exhausted the first grant, and so a second and then a third grant was requested.
This third grant basically cleared four-fifths of the interior debris; however, a
fourth grant was unsuccessful and the clearing of the temple was suspended at
about 1m above the temple floor. His fortune would change some four years
later by order of Said Pasha, and work was resumed in the temple, and after a
few days, the floor of the temple was reached. Shortly after, the famous diorite
statue of Khafre was found in a pit cut into the temple floor. Mariette would
lament; ―A few hundred francs more, the statue of Khephren would today be at
the Louvre Museum.‖4
This was not the only statue which was found, as he reports fragments of
eight other statues, made of serpentine and diorite; five of which were inscribed
with Khafre‟s name. He states; ―In short, the temple of the Great Sphinx was
decorated with at least ten statues that can be attributed to the founder of the
second pyramid. All were found, either in the well or in its immediate
surroundings.‖5 (The valley temple was often referred to in the early days as the
Sphinx temple, due to its close proximity to the sphinx)
In 1865 Piazzi-Smyth would visit Giza and make some observations on the
temple, as well as provide some early images of the structure. But we would
have to wait until 1882 before we would see a plan drawing of the temple,
shown overleaf.6 A more detailed plan of the temple would shortly follow
courtesy of Petrie in 1883.7
3
The Complete Pyramids, 1997, page 55
4
Le Serapeum de Memphis 1882, Mariette, pages 92-93
5
Ibid, page 99
Histoire de L’Art Dans L’Antiquite, Volume I, pages 329, 335
6
7 nd
The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, plate VI (in his shorter 2 edition, it is plate III)
5
6
Above we have Petrie‟s scale drawing of the temples interior, the top of the
drawing is west, and the angled passage, top right, leads to the causeway. The
two eastern entrances were not opened in Petrie‟s time; these would only be
cleared by Hölscher in 1910. The angled/inclined passage from the causeway
leads to a „T‟ shaped pillared hall. Midway along the angled passage, we have
two doorways; one on the south gives access to a small chamber (sometimes
referred to as porters lodge), whilst the north doorway, gives access to a ramp
which led to the temple roof. At the southwest corner of the pillared hall, we
have a doorway which leads to three magazines; these magazines are two
storey, thus providing six long storage spaces. A doorway in the middle of the
east wall of the pillared hall leads to a sizeable vestibule, which had doorways
at its south and north ends that led to the two entrances present on the temples
facade. In Petrie‟s time, the southern entrance hall was filled with sand, whilst
the northern was partially clear. The forced entrance by the magazines will be
discussed in more detail later.
7
In the above early image taken at the beginning of Mariette‟s excavation, we get
a good idea of the task at hand, and the amount of debris, which had to be
shifted. In this view we are looking at the northwest corner of the temple; the
angled passage has been cleared, and we can see the north end of the pillared
hall. The angled passage and pillared hall would have originally been roofed
with granite beams. The dark figure standing on top of the passage wall (a
further figure sits on the wall behind him) is opposite the doorway which led
from the temple roof.
8
The above image by Piazzi-Smyth taken in 1865 highlights the immense sea of
sand and debris between the temple and Khafre‟s pyramid. At this stage the
interior of the temple had been largely cleared. In the left foreground, we can
just make out some of the fallen roofing beams, resting on the floor of the
pillared hall; whilst in the right foreground, one of the entrance halls is visible
(this was drawn by Petrie in the bottom right hand corner of his scale drawing
on page 7). The angled passage going through the temples west wall can be seen
more clearly. In Piazzi-Smyth‟s time he could gauge a considerable depth of the
outside of the west wall, as a deep pit had been dug in the sand to expose the
causeway door, and provide access to the temple.8
8
Life and Work at the Great Pyramid during the months of January, February, March, and April. 1965, Volume I
page 338
9
Piazzi-Smyth would state; ―Before us now is an immense excavation, showing,
at the depth of some twenty feet or so under the sand, an enormous palace-like
building, in cyclopean, almost Stonehengian, architecture, and near one
hundred and thirty feet square. In the interior are ranges of square pillars,
horizontal beams from pillar to pillar, and massive walls, all of polished red
granite; while rising above, and closing them in on every side, are limestone
walls, built of masses so huge, yet so well joined comparatively, and now so
much weathered in horizontal streaks, as to appear like portions of an ancient
cliff; or to give one the idea of the whole place having been built in an
excavated hole, like the Campbell‘s tomb affair, - only fifteen times larger.‖9
He reports, that the external pit which led down to the causeway entrance, was
rapidly filling again with drifted sand (some of this drifted sand can be seen in
his image). He managed to crawl into the small chamber, which branches south
of the inclined passage; here he noticed that it had a granite roof, but that its
walls excepting a small lower course of granite were built of alabaster, and that
one block measured 2.79m (110 inches) long, by 1.52m (60 inches) high. He
gives a brief description of the two storey magazines, where he states that the
walls of the upper storey were of alabaster, whilst the lower were of granite.
The forced entrance shown in Petrie‟s drawing, enters into the magazine
passage, via a removed granite wall block, though Piazzi-Smyth makes no
mention of this in his brief description: it may have existed in his time, we
simply don‟t know.
The famous statue of Khafre was found in a shaft cut in the floor of the
vestibule (it is not drawn in Petrie‟s plan, but is located at its northern end).
Piazzi-Smyth states that in his time the water surface at the bottom of the shaft
was some 105 inches deep (2.67m), with the water depth being some 70 inches
more (1.78m).10 Today this shaft is fenced off, and judging by the coin laying at
its bottom, its new role is as a wishing well.
9
Ibid, page 337
10
Ibid, page 344
10
In the above picture by Piazzi-Smyth we are looking at the north end of the
vestibule; the shaft which contained Khafre‟s statue can be clearly seen in the
foreground. This chamber is one of the few were he gives measures, and we can
compare some of these to Petrie‟s measures (P). West side 730.6 compared to
723.5 (P): south side 149.7 compared to 147.0 (P) inches. Piazzi-Smyth‟s
measures were given, all appear too long compared to Petrie‟s; however, the
footprint of the vestibule appears to be 35 by 7 cubits, meaning the width is one
fifth of its length. The difference in measures between the two authors could be
down to building tolerances; Petrie would comment on the workmanship:
―The walls are also far from vertical, or square with each other in plan. The
eastern hall (vestibule) is longer on the present top than at the bottom by 7.2 on
E. And 9.7 on W.side, the difference being nearly all due to a very perceptible
batter at the S. End.-------All the dimensions marked on the plan are as
measured at the base, except the Western part of the great hall (pillared Hall)
which is much buried in sand.‖11
11
The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, page 132
11
In the top image we have Piazzi-Smyth‟s image of the pillared hall looking
west; the vestibule is behind the viewer, and bottom, a modern day similar view.
12
The arrow points at a mark on the beam which is also visible in Piazzi-Smyth‟s
image. The fallen ceiling beams were sadly subjected to gunpowder and blasted
away by Mariette some four years after Piazzi-Smyth‟s visit in 1869.12 The floor
of the temple was paved with alabaster, in a sort of crazy paving style.
During Piazzi-Smyth‟s visit he tried to settle a dispute as to why the
inclined passage took such a strange route; as suggestions were being made that
it would lead directly to the sphinx. Using his photographs he would conclude
the direction of the inclined passage; he states, ―behold, it enters precisely the
central opening of the middle of the eastern side of that wondrous and often
discussed temple on the eastern front of the second Pyramid;‖13 As can be seen
from his image on page 9, any possible causeway was buried under the sea of
sand between the two temples. Petrie would describe the causeway in his work,
published in 1883, and mentioned that it was only discovered two or three years
ago.14
Looking up the inclined passage, we can see the two doorways midway along
12
13
Life and Work at the Great Pyramid during the months of January, February, March, and April. 1965, Volume
I, page 353
14
13
its length; the left door leads down into the small chamber, whilst directly
opposite it, the doorway gives access to the temple roof.
In Piazzi-Smyth‟s image above, we can judge the height of the sand at his time,
by comparing the top of the doors, with the previous image. The floor of this
passage like the rest of the temple is paved in alabaster; today, as the previous
image shows, wooden boards have been fitted to assist tourists. The alabaster
floor shows no indication of any foot holds to assist people walking up and
down. According to Hölscher the gradient of this passage is 1:6, or about 9.5
degrees: this is steeper than the causeway itself which he gives as 5º 17', or
about 1:11. To put this in context, Hölscher would give the vertical height
between the two temples thresholds as 45.80m:15 if we use 1:6 for the causeway
this vertical height would increase to 82.m. The vertical height to the floor of
the pillared hall is given as 49.60m, or a difference of 3.80m: a 1:6 on this gives
an inclined length of 23.12m for the passage or 22.80m horizontally. Using 1:11
extends the incline out to 42.00m and 41.84m horizontally. So whilst the
differing angles of the causeway and the passage appear slight, they have a
marked effect. In the image overleaf, we are looking down the inclined passage,
were we can see the condition of the floor, before the wooden boards were
fitted; the doorways midway down the passage are also clearer in this view.
15
14
Image courtesy of Meretseger Books
15
The following images will give a brief tour of the temples interior, starting from
the northern entrance on the eastern facade.
Image courtesy of Isida Project
In the above image we are looking into the northern entrance hall, with the
16
doorway on the left giving access to the vestibule; the doorway passage inclines
slightly to the higher floor of the vestibule. High up on the west wall is a
sizeable niche, which Hölscher gives as 5 cubits high and 3 cubits wide and
deep (2.62 x 1.57 x 1.57m); he also states that at the southern entrance which is
similar and symmetrical to the northern, he would find large fragments of a
monkey made of black granite.16 It is thought that large granite baboons
occupied these two niches, to greet the rising sun.17
In this view we have just entered the vestibule from the northern entrance, and
we are looking at an identical entrance in the south wall at the far end, which
leads to the southern entrance hall. In the foreground, we have the shaft in
which Khafre‟s statue was found. The large doorway midway on the west wall
gives access to the pillared hall, and according to Petrie‟s plan is some 5 cubits
wide (2.62m)
16
Ibid, page 42
17
Giza and the Pyramids, 2017, Lehner & Hawass, page 209
17
In the above view we are looking east from inside the pillared hall; the large
doorway in front gives access to the vestibule. The height of the vestibule
appears higher than the pillared hall; Petrie thought that the vestibule walls went
higher, as the present upper course is devoid of any ventilating slits, which are
to be seen on the top of the walls which make up the pillared hall.18 The
vestibule walls contain 5 courses of granite, whilst the pillared hall displays 4
courses.
18
Ibid, page 131
18
In this view we are looking into the southwest corner of the pillared hall, and in
the corner we can see the doorway that leads to the two storey magazines. The
long north-south orientated part of the hall contains a single colonnade of
granite pillars; whilst the east-west orientated part contains a double colonnade
of granite pillars. Temple measurements are hard to come by, and we are mostly
reliant on Hölscher‟s scale drawings, which is not ideal: however, Petries
detailed measures on his plan help in a small way. For the north-south part of
the hall we have 6 pillars, which average out at 2 cubits square, with the
distance between pillars and end walls averaging out at 5 cubits (103 inches).
This suggests an intended length of 47 cubits for this part of the hall. 19 The
width of this part is not so clear; Petrie gives 264.7 inches for north wall and
263.9 for the south wall. Given the tolerances given by Petrie earlier, this may
have been intended to be 13 cubits.
19
6 pillars x 2 cubits= 12 cubits, added to 7 spaces between pillars and end walls of 5 cubits = 35 cubits. So 12 +
35 = a total of 47 cubits
19
In this view we are looking west, and we can see the double colonnade of pillars
which occupy the east-west orientated part of the hall; here most of the
architraves are intact, whilst only 2 survive in the N-S part. This E-W part has 8
pillars, at 2 cubits square; however, the first two pillars at the junction of the
two parts are rectangular, on account that they have to support architraves from
two directions. The width of this part appears to be 19 cubits20, whilst its length
appears to be 32 cubits. The spacing of the pillars in this part is smaller, and
according to Petrie‟s measure, the first spacing between the rectangular pillars
and the 2 cubit square pillars is from 89 to 90 inches: the next three spacings
range from 85.7 to 86.6, and the final spacing to the west wall is given as 88.0
inches (5 cubits is 103 inches). Given the irregular tolerances shown by Petrie‟s
measures, the scheme for this part could be one rectangular pillar 3 cubits long,
followed by 4 pillars of 2 cubits. This leaves 5 spaces to take up the remaining
21 cubits of length, which is not easily divisible, so they may have elected to
make the first and last spacing at 30 palms, with the three in between at 29
palms.21 In the previous images you will notice sockets on the floor, these vary
20
3 spaces of 5 cubits= 15, plus two pillars = 4, for a total of 19
21
7 palms in 1 cubit. Therefore 32 cubits = 224 palms; minus total of pillars 11 x 7= 77 palms , leaves us with
147 palms for spacing. Two spacings of 30 palms = 60 palms, plus 3 of 29 palms = 87 palms: 60 + 87 = 147.
20
in size and depth and are believed to have held the statues of the king. These are
not shown or reported by Petrie as they were likely covered in sand in his time.
In this view we are looking north from inside the pillared hall, and the doorway
visible in this corner gives access to the inclined passage which leads to the
causeway. At first glance a visitor might assume that the „T‟ shaped pillared hall
was of uniform height, but it does in fact display two different heights, in that
the N-S part of the hall is higher than the E-W part. Hölscher would note that
the single colonnade pillars were 40cm higher than those of the double
colonnade; this being down to roof construction and lighting slits.22 Petrie
provides some further detail; he appears to not note the differing pillar heights,
but states that the pillars are 174.2 inches high (4.42m). It‟s not clear which
pillar he measured, but from Hölscher‟s scale drawings it would relate to the
single colonnade pillars, which by scale rule are about 4.4m high. Given that
Hölscher states that the double colonnade is 40cm less, these pillars must be
around 4m high. The architraves were noted by Petrie to have different
22
21
dimensions; the double colonnade, due to their shorter span, are like the pillars
they rest on, being 2 cubits square (41 inches or 1.04m). The architraves for the
single colonnade have been beefed up, due to the greater span, and whilst they
match the width of the pillars at 2 cubits, they are given as 47.8 to 48.4 inches
high (average 1.22m).23 Therefore the higher N-S ceiling would be about 5.62m
(4.4 + 1.22) above the pavement; whilst the E-W ceiling would be about 5.04m
(4 + 1.04) above the pavement; a difference in ceiling heights of about 58cm.
By scale rule the walls of the vestibule are some 6m high; M&R would
suggest 12 cubits. This shows that the chamber heights appear to gradually
diminish from east to west, possibly by an intended 1 cubit at each step; ideally
the whole structure is overdue a modern detailed survey in order to try and
recover the architects intents.
The above view is looking along the north wall of the double colonnade; Piazzi-
Smyth was somewhat surprised that none of these pillars was knocked over, and
whilst Petrie would give their height from the floor and calculate their weight;
both gentleman seem under the impression that they rested on the floor.
However, the good preservation of the alabaster pavement prevents us from
23
22
knowing exactly how they are seated. They likely are inserted like the pillars in
Khafre‟s pyramid temple.
In Hölscher‟s fig 41 left,24 we

can see the devastation
wrought on the pillared hall of
Khafre‟s pyramid temple. The
pillars were inserted into these
deep sockets, which were
larger than the pillar: part of
the hole was slightly lower to
create a protruding edge to
help turn the pillar to the
vertical position. Once the
pillar was installed, a patch
stone was inserted to fill the socket. The pillar was then dressed to its intended
dimensions, leaving a wider base under the pavement.
Hölscher‟s fig 61 right,25 shows

the procedure for pillar insertion at
the pyramid temple, and its highly
likely that this is what we will find
in the valley temple. It would be
beneficial for some of the alabaster
paving to be carefully lifted at the
valley temple, to confirm if this is
the case, and determine the
direction of installation, as it could
indicate if any construction gaps
were left in the temple walls in order to bring in these sizeable items.
According to Hölscher we have 23 sockets which are arrayed around the base of
the walls, which make up the pillared hall; 17 in the E-W part and 6 in the N-W
part.
24
25
Ibid, page 73
23
In Hölscher‟s plate XVII above, we can see the location of the 23 sockets; they
do vary in size and depth. I am not aware if anyone has measured the base of
Khafre‟s statue and matched it to one of these sockets. Though Piazzi-Smyth
and Petrie did not observe these sockets, it appears neither did Mariette; for
when Hölscher cleared out the sand from the sockets he recovered 6 baskets full
of statue fragments, mostly of alabaster, and not just pieces of plinth, but also
limbs.26 No sockets were found on the east wall of the N-S hall, but we have 9
statutes facing east and 7 each facing north and south.
The base of the sockets according to Hölscher was raw limestone, and it
is likely that the statues and pillars were put in position, and then the alabaster
paving was built up to them.
26
Ibid, page 44
24
The above view shows some of the pillars and architraves of the double
colonnade; the architraves here are 2 cubits square, like most of the pillars: the
pillar furthest right is rectangular, in order to accommodate 3 architraves.
According to Hölscher these architraves

were connected to one another by
strong dovetailed shaped brackets, as
shown in his fig 26, left.27 M&R would
state; ―The architraves were joined
together by dove-tailed cramps at top
and bottom. The upper cramps were
normal in shape, while the lower ones
had at the bottom a cylindrical peg
which fitted into a hole made in the
head of the pillar so as to make the
whole firm and secure. One of the
causes of the destruction of the temple was, in fact, the search for these cramps,
which were made of copper and weighed 20-25 kgs. each.‖28
Unfortunately, I have been unable to source any clear images of the top of the
architraves or pillars.
27
Ibid, page 43
L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 82
28
25
Around the top of the walls which make up the pillared hall we find inclined
openings cut in the granite. These „sloping slits‟ as Petrie calls them, are usually
41 inches long (2 cubits).29 Petrie actually measured them and these can be seen
on his plan, along the double colonnade (see page 7). Here he shows five on
each wall, and between the pillars to maximize the light. In the single colonnade
part, we have four slits, all of which appear only on the west wall, none appear
to be seen on the east wall (Petrie does not show these in his drawing).
29
26
Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx project30
In the archive image above we can clearly make out the light slits on the double
colonnade, along with the four on top of the west wall of the single colonnade.
We can see how this west wall is higher than the double colonnade walls; it may
be possible that three further slits were incorporated in the masonry which
bridged the junction between the colonnades, for a total of seven this side.
There appears to be no evidence of any light slits on the eastern wall of the
single colonnade; this is likely because the walls of the vestibule east of it are
higher.
30
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, black and white Photo 00518.
opencontext.org/projects/101-arce-sphinx-project-1979-1983-archive
27
In numerous places in the temple we see granite blocks which appear to turn the
corner. M&R would state; ―Inspection of the walls and floors enabled us to
ascertain that the blocks of granite were placed in position only after the faces
which carne in contact with each other had been smoothed and, where
necessary, cut to fit together, while the face intended to be seen was left rough.
The smoothing of this face took place after the erection of the walls and the
thickness of granite removed was considerable. Many corner blocks thus
became L-shaped.‖31
This technique is not unique to the valley temple and can be found in
other sites in different periods of Egyptian history, an example would be in the
Middle Kingdom Temple at Qsar el-Sagha.32
L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 80 & 82

31
32
See my guide on this structure available on academia.edu, page 49
28
The above schematic view gives a rough idea of temple layout (pillars set at 2m
high). It is fairly symmetrical, with one doorway in the colonnade leading to the
two storey magazine, whilst the other to the inclined passage. The upper
magazines are mostly clad in alabaster, as is the small chamber midway along
the inclined passage; the ramp leading to the temple roof is likewise mostly clad
in alabaster. This use of alabaster for certain areas is also noticeable in the
pyramid temple (see part 1 of this guide). Parts of the temple may have been a
somewhat gloomy affair; light/ventilation slits are provided for the magazines
and the small chamber, and maybe the white alabaster was chosen to help
magnify what little illumination entered these spaces. The lower storey of the
magazines must have been fairly dark as little light would seem to leach in from
the single colonnade; whose light slits appear to only come from atop the west
wall: whilst the vestibule appears to have no assistance with lighting other than
through the doors at its north and south ends, and what might leach out of the
pillared hall.
Unfortunately, the magazines and small chamber are off limits to tourists,
so we have little photographic evidence of these areas. Overleaf we are looking
into the magazine area, from the entrance passage, whose ceiling obscures some
of the upper magazine.
29
30
In this view we are looking north at the end magazines, and we can see some of
the alabaster lining the upper magazine. The exact masonry makeup of these
areas is unknown from the available data.
31
From Hölscher‟s plate IX, I
have zoomed in on the
magazine area. The upper
drawing is an N-S section
through the single colonnade,
showing the entrance to the
magazines; also visible are
some of the pillars and two of
the light slights atop the west
wall. The lower drawing is a
section through the magazines
and the double colonnade, and
here we can see his
reconstruction of one of the
light slits atop the south wall of
the double colonnade.
Looking at the images and

Petrie‟s dimensions for the
magazines, the workmanship
like so much of the temple,
appears fine in the jointing
between blocks, though accuracy to the architects plans seems quite loose, and
certainly not of the exceptional standard displayed in Khufu‟s granite chamber.
Petrie gives the entrance door from the single colonnade as some 80.45 inches
high (2.04m, possibly intended as 4 cubits). Petrie‟s description of the
magazines.
―Out of the great hall a doorway, in the N.W. corner, leads to a set of six loculi;
these are formed in three deep recesses, each separated in two by a shelf of
granite. These recesses still have their roofs on, and are dark except for the
light from the doorway, and from a ventilator. The lower part of the walls of
each recess is formed of granite, resting on the rock floor; this is 61.6 to 61.7
high. Above this is the granite shelf, 28 thick, which extends the whole length of
the recess. In the southern recess this shelf is nearly all of one block 176 x over
72 x 28. Upon this shelf, over the lower recesses, are placed two walls of
alabaster, dividing the upper three loculi; both walls are irregularly a few
inches southward of the lower walls. The extraordinary length of these loculi—
over 19 feet—seems strange ; especially as the turn to the side loculi would
prevent any coffin larger than 30 x 76 inches being taken in unless it were
32
tipped about to get the benefit of the cubic diagonal. The doorway is only 80.45
high, so that nothing over 80 inches long could be taken in on end‖.33
The function of these magazines is an unknown; though some early
explorers suggested that they were used for storing coffins; but as Petrie points
out, we have a difficulty in introducing lengthy items into these spaces, which
taking one of Petrie‟s measures for the depth of the magazines, at 231.7
(5.89m), is quite considerable. Anything stored at the back of these magazines
was at some distance from the front, and one would have to carefully traverse
its length in a darkened space, hoping not to damage anything else stored on
route. Connections have been made between these magazines and those found
inside Menkaure‟s pyramid and Shepseskaf‟s mastaba, though even here, they
have an unknown function, and they may have had a completely different
function, unconnected to the other sites.
In the above view of Menkaure‟s pyramid substructure, we can see six loculi in
the niche chamber, though these are less than half the depth at some 101 inches
(2.57m).
33
Pyramids and Temples of Giza, 1883, page 130
33
In the above schematic cut away, we are looking into the magazines. The
magazines were roofed over in granite, and on top of that were laid slabs of
limestone, which were carefully patched and sealed to prevent rain from
penetrating into the chambers below; this double roof layer generally runs
throughout the temple. On top of the limestone roof we have three windows
above the east wall, which take the form of a double kink and enter at ceiling
level inside the magazines. These lighting/ventilation slits according to
Hölscher were clad in the inside with well-reflective alabaster;34 how effective
these slits are for illumination, is difficult to assess, as the area is closed to the
public; moreover, the single colonnade has lost its roof and today more light
would be admitted through the magazine doorway, than originally. Certainly a
lot of thought and masonry skill was put into creating these features, and they
are only to be found intact inside the magazines, and the small chamber of the
inclined passage; though they may have existed elsewhere, such as in the
vestibules, north and south walls.
Hölscher would state that three such slits were found inside the
magazines and one inside the previously mentioned small chamber.
34
34
The above figs from Hölscher‟s publication35 provide a bit more detail. In the
top image I have highlighted the location of the slits; two of which are intact.
The bottom of the openings was slightly raised off the roof to prevent rain from
entering.
The doorway to the magazines was secured by a double leafed door, M&R
would state; “Its various elements show that it was closed by a two-leaved door,
the upper and lower hinges of which were let into small blocks of very hard
35
Ibid, pages 46 & 49
35
stone (quartzose amphibolite, hardness 6 - 7) fìtted in the doorstep and lintel. It
can be clearly seen how the hard stones were inserted in these before the
erection of the jambs. The lower hinges turned in holes shaped like a truncated
cone made in the granite doorstep: the bottom of the holes was made of the
hard stone. The upper blocks, which were drilled for the insertion of the hinge,
were kept in position in the lintel by dovetailed joints.”36

36
36
The above image shows the upper pivot points for the double leaf door at the
bottom of the inclined passage. How the various components married together
to form the upper pivot is not clear from the available data; though it might be
similar to that displayed inside the pyramid of Senwosret III, shown below.37
37
See my guide on pyramid of Senwosret III
37
In Hölscher‟s fig 28, we can see the
hard stone lower pivot, at the bottom of
a cone shaped cutting in the floor. This
drawing is based on what he found at
the doorway leading to the magazines.
In his figs 29 & 30 we have examples

of two upper pivots. The upper
drawings A&B is what he found at the
doorway leading to the small chamber
of the inclined passage, which he
referred to as the porters room. The
lower drawing C&D is from the
magazine doorway. He states; ―The
upper journal bearings are
unfortunately nowhere intact; the
actual bearing for the pivot is missing
everywhere.‖ He mentions how the
hole in the porter‟s room was made by
a stone drill, whilst the magazine
doorway displayed a tube drill. He also
states how the dovetail hole prevented
the pivot stone from falling out. One
would need a closer examination of
these holes to recreate this jigsaw
puzzle.
Beyond the double leaf door, a short entrance passage leads to the magazines;
M&R state that the floor of the passage is raised by some 7 – 10 cms. They also
report that most of the alabaster floor from the lower part of the magazines was
missing. An area which has not received much attention is the breach shown on
Petrie‟s drawing overleaf (see also page 7, I have also placed this breach on the
schematic on page 34).
38
I have highlighted the breach in Petrie‟s
plan; it is a sizeable area and not well
recorded. In Petrie‟s and Hölscher‟s time,
the only access was via a breach in the
south wall of the entrance passage; here a
granite wall block from the upper part of
the wall had been removed at some time.
Hölscher who examined the hole, merely
states that he thought it originated from the
time of the temples destruction and offered
nothing of interest: though he reports that
some poor mummies are said to have been
found inside this hole.38 For this reason he
does not include this area in his drawings;
but does mention that Petrie includes the
area in his drawing.
Petrie would state;
―On the S. Side of the short passage leading to these loculi, a stone has been
removed from the wall, and by climbing in, a curious irregular chamber is
reached, evidently never intended to be seen. It is entirely in the rough, the N.
and part of the W. Side being merely the backs of the granite blocks of the hall
and passage; these are irregular, in and out, but nevertheless very well dressed,
flat and true in most parts. The rest of this chamber is of rough core masonry,
just like the core of the upper temple, and the floor is of rock, with a step down
across it (broken line in plan) about the middle of the chamber. The base of the
S.W. corner of the chamber is entirely in one block, the lower or sunken part of
the rock floor being levelled up by a base plane cut in the block, and the S. And
W. Sides being two vertical planes in the same block, so that it forms a hollow
corner all in one piece. On the S.E. the chamber is bounded by a rough wall of
stone scraps built in when it was recently opened. In the chamber were found, it
is said, several common mummies; perhaps of late date, like those I found in the
E.N.E. rock trench. The history of the opening of this secret chamber seems to
have been that in destroying the temple, for the sake of building stones, the
pillagers began at the S.E. and S.W. corners; here they pulled stones away until
they opened into this chamber, and then, finding a granite wall on one side of it,
they dragged out the smallest block, and so broke through into the passage. A
clearance of the outside of the temple is needed, however, to settle this as well
as other questions.‖39
This „secret chamber‟ as Petrie calls it, has been sadly forgotten, which is sad,
as such voids can offer clues on the construction process of the temple. The
38
Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Chephren, Holscher, 1912, page 45-46
39
Pyramids and Temples of Giza, 1883, pages 130-131
39
only images which I know to exist of this chamber are provided by the author
Robert Temple, who obtained permission to explore the temple, and published
some of his observations in his book „Egyptian Dawn‟ published in 2010. The
best colour images are to be found as supplementary plates to his book, found
on his website.40 As previously mentioned, Hölscher and Petrie could only enter
this chamber through the missing granite wall block, though Hölscher would
state; ―On the other side, the room had an exit to the open air, which was
blocked with stones and hidden from the outside under the sand.‖41
It‟s hard to interpret what he means here, but maybe he assumed an exit
through the south wall of the temple existed, which in his time was covered
with sand; as he would only clear the eastern front of the temple. Today thanks
to Temple, we now know that a vertical shaft gives access to the chamber. In
Petrie‟s plan this shaft is in the location marked „forced entrance now closed‟.
Temple provides an image looking up this shaft in supplementary plate 7-36.
Who cleared this shaft and when is not known. At the bottom of this shaft
Temple mentions a small passage heading east, about 2 feet high, which is
blocked by a granite stone plug.42 (He provides an image of this in
supplementary plate 7-65).
In connection with this shaft are two further shafts which Temple
mentions descending through the core masonry of the temples north wall.
Temple states; ―These vertical shafts within the walls of the Valley Temple are
not intruded shafts at a later date, but are original features of the edifice. They
are so deep that I had to be very careful not to fall down them. At a guess, I
would say they must be forty or forty-five feet deep.‖43 Temple would go on to
infer that other similar shafts might exist in the core masonry.
Temple was not equipped to closely examine these shafts and they still
await detailed investigation. In part I of this guide, I touched on the subject of
shafts found at the pyramid temple, and their possible function during the
construction process; might the shafts mentioned by Temple be related to those
found at the pyramid temple? But if the shafts mentioned by Temple in the
valley temple turn out to be original features, they would be extremely handy
for later intrusive burials. Until detailed exploration of these shafts is
undertaken, we are at a dead end, and likely to be so for some considerable
time, as it‟s hard to see Egyptology taking an interest in such features.
40
www.egyptiandawn.com/chapter7.html
41
42
Egyptian Dawn, 2011, page 336
43
Ibid, page 327
40
In Hölscher‟s fig 13 above, we are looking into the small chamber off the
inclined passage, with the doorway on left. M&R say of this chamber; ―In the
south wall of the corridor a doorway was made that was closed by a two -
leaved door similar in shape to that of the storerooms. A short passage sloping
down to the south, with a horizontal ceiling, leads to a small rectangular room
(a guardroom?) which originally must have been a little higher than 5 cubits.
The floor is almost totally missing and the limestone under-pavement may be
seen with the cuts made in it for fitting the alabaster slabs. The ceiling, which is
of granite, consists of a single enormous slab. The walls are composed of a
granite dado (one course) and two courses of alabaster blocks. The dado on the
south is lower than that on the north and the west wall has a sloping dado
which links the previous two. A ventilation window opens in the northern
wall.‖44
There are no steps leading down into this chamber, just a ramp which
Hölscher gives as a slope of around 7:2. Petrie‟s measures suggest that the
entrance passage was 2 cubits wide; whilst the chamber itself is around 95
inches wide (2.41m) and 210.5 inches long (5.35m). The singular ceiling slab is
an impressive size, and if we allow an extra 0.5m overlap on the above
dimensions to engage the top of the walls, and give the slab a thickness of 0.5m,
we are looking at nearly 11 cubic metres, or approximately 30 metric tonnes.
Immediately across the passage from the above chamber we have the doorway
which leads to the temple roof; M&R state, ―In the north wall of the corridor

44
41
there is another doorway complete with step, jambs and lintel of granite, but
which did not include a wooden door. From here access was had to the roof by
means of three ramps running successively south-north, west-east and north -
south with an inclination of about 16°. The walls were faced with alabaster and
the ceiling was of granite. The floor, too, was of alabaster, but now it is almost
completely missing. Parallel grooves were probably cut crosswise in it to
provide a grip for the feet. The door leading on to the upper terrace had step
and jambs of granite: the lintel is missing, but was certainly made of the same
stone.‖45
Here M&R state that this doorway did not include a wooden door; I am
unsure what they mean by this statement, as video footage I found of this
doorway, shows an upper pivot recess in the lintel, similar to that found on the
doorway to the small chamber. This area is also off limits to tourists so it‟s
difficult to assess its masonry makeup.
In the above image we are looking at the granite entrance from the temples roof,
and just below it, we can see the top of the granite walls belonging to the
inclined passage. In this area the core masonry is made of smaller blocks.
Judging from Petrie‟s measures, this ascending passage to the upper terrace also
appears to be 2 cubits wide.
45
Ibid, page 84
46
42
When it comes to the inclined passage which connects to the causeway, it has
doorways at its east and west ends, which reduce the width of the passage from
a maximum of about 1.79m to a minimum of 1.13m at the doors (from Petrie‟s
measures). M&R also state; ―The ceiling, which was composed of granite
beams, has, on the other hand, almost completely disappeared; only some
beams remain at the two ends. The height of this corridor is notable: from about
4.10m at its eastern end it gradually decreased to about 3.30 m. before the door
at its western end which gave onto the causeway. The door jambs reduced the
width on both sides and the doorstep was of granite. The door opened into a
short connecting passage which was narrower than the causeway. This area is
very much damaged and it is impossible to reconstruct it exactly as it was
originally.‖47
In the above image I have roughly recreated the lighting/ventilation slit for the
single colonnade; two such slits are to be found on both sides of the west wall
on this colonnade; no slits are to be found on the east wall.
47
Ibid, page 84
43
In the fine reconstruction above, found in Hölscher‟s publication, we are
looking west along the south wall of the double colonnade, with statues
occupying the floor sockets. According to Hölscher, these statues would be
some 10 to 20cm from the wall.
44
In the above image we have a similar view of the reconstruction shown on the
previous page.
45
In the above image we are looking south along the single colonnade, and here
we can see the various colours of granite, which make up the walls (the
doorway to the magazines is obscured by the pillar). At the bottom of the south
east corner a breach has been made; today it is bricked up and covered in red
plaster (shown below): its history and the extent of the breach into the wall is
not known.
46
This view looking north along the single colonnade (by magazine doorway) we
get a better view of some of the floor sockets.
There are many areas of fine masonry skill throughout the temple; too many to
list, but overleaf we see but one example at the doorway to the inclined passage,
which is in the northwest corner of the above image. The doorway is made of
two granite courses, and the highlighted area in both images is one single block
of granite; this singular block has been carved to create the doorway jambs, side
of passage, and extends beyond the doorway, to create part of the north wall of
the single colonnade, as well as creating some of the inclined passage wall. I
have no measures for the distance the block extends beyond either side of the
doorway; but Petrie gives 63.4 for the length of the narrow passage, and 28.2
inches for the door jamb, or 2.35m; and to this figure we have to add the
unknown distances, east and west of the doorway. The height of the doorway by
scale rule is about 2.75m, or about half the height of the hall.
47
48
In the above section drawing from Hölscher‟s Plate X, we have an east west
section of the temple, and here we can see how ceiling levels decrease towards
the west. The passage connecting the vestibule and the single colonnade, is over
4.8m high (by scale rule), though it is slightly lower at its west end by the single
colonnade, as the architrave is set lower in the wall here, to provide strong
support for the ceiling beams: no doors are evident for this passage. It has been
suggested that the vestibule may have been open to the skies, due to the lack of
light slits; however, at the top of both end walls we have a sizeable block
missing, which may have provided a lighting solution. I feel it is likely that the
vestibule was roofed, as no drainage solutions are provided for the alabaster
floor, which is at the same level as the pillared hall (the only drainage channels
being in connection with the temple roof).
49
50
On the upper image on the previous page, we can see the missing block from
the top of the vestibules south wall; a block similar in size is also missing from
the north wall. The passage to the pillared hall is also visible, and in this view
we can see two of the architraves. The lower image is looking up from inside
the passage, and here we can see the underneath of the two architraves. At the
top left of this image we can see the seating for the lower set architrave, which
is now missing. It appears that four beams of stone originally covered the
passage, which Petrie gives as some 161.5 inches long (4.04m). The data on the
temple roof is scant, but the lower set architrave might have been dressed
underneath to make the passage ceiling appear all on one level, as such
techniques were used elsewhere, for example at the Osireion.
The doorway above from the Osireion, shows how they have dressed the
underside of the architrave to align with the other ceiling beams. That said, if
Hölscher‟s scale drawings are correct, it would appear unlikely this is what
happened at the valley temple, as the seating is some 30cm deep, and this would
leave a dubious quantity of architrave left to support the beams from the pillared
hall.
51
In this image we are looking at the top of the vestibules north wall, were we see
a similar sized missing block, to that missing on top of the south wall. These
two gaps in the masonry may at one time have provided a lighting solution to
the vestibule. The doorways north and south of the vestibule are of similar size;
Petrie gives the width at the jambs as 56.4 (1.43m), whilst the passage beyond,
leading to the entrance hall is 44.6 wide (1.13m). The passage Petrie gives as
123.4 (3.13m: 6 cubits?), to this we have to add 37.7 (0.96m) for the depth of
the jambs; which gives a total distance from the south wall of the entrance hall
to the north wall of the vestibule of some 4.09m. Both north and south
doorways to the vestibule were closed with double leaf doors. The doors (by
scale rule) are just over 3m high.
52
Today metal gates secure the temple, but we can still see the original upper
pivot points on the vestibule doors.
The doors from the vestibule connect to the tallest rooms in the temple, the
entrance halls, which open on the eastern facade of the temple.
In Hölscher‟s fig 5 above, we can see his reconstruction of the temples eastern
facade. Marks found on the pavement in front of the temple have lead to the
suggestion that sphinx‟s once flanked each doorway: other markings suggested
a small pavilion was also built against the middle of the eastern facade.
53
Around both doorways epithets to the king were carved into the granite casing,
some of which survived and were found by Hölscher.
Figs 7 & 8 from Hölscher‟s work48 show the surviving inscriptions around the
two eastern entrances; fig 7 is a surviving remnant from the southern entrance,
whilst fig 8 is from the northern entrance. The southern entrance mentions
Hathor as part of its epithet; whilst the northern entrance mentions Bastet. The
two entrances appear assigned to upper and lower Egypt; the king always being
the king of two lands. Hathor‟s cult centre was in Upper/southern Egypt; whilst
Bastet‟s was in lower/northern Egypt. Hölscher would state; ―The individual
characters are on average 50cm in size, about 2 cm deep cut into the granite
and of the finest, cleanest execution.‖ He would also state that they are the only
inscriptions found in the temple.
Today these inscriptions are barely noticeable, and overleaf we have the
location of fig 8 by the better preserved northern entrance.
48
54
In the archive image above, we can just about make out Hölscher‟s fig 8, on the
large granite block by the north entrance, with a person stood next to it.
Hölscher would give this lower course of granite as some 2.1m high (4 cubits).
49
55
In Hölscher‟s fig 71 above50 we are looking at the southern entrance, and here
we can see the location of Hölscher‟s fig 7, on the granite block, at bottom of
picture, with a person stood next to it. Though Hölscher would state that no
further inscriptions were found on the temple, M&R report part of a royal crown
found on a cornice block, by the southeast corner of the temple: they thought it
might be the upper part of a hawk standing above the Horus name of Khafre.51
If you look at Hölscher‟s reconstruction (fig 5 on page 53) you will see
that he has adapted a rounded cornice to the top of the temple, similar to that
found at the pyramid temple; the reason being that his limited clearance of the
temples exterior failed to find any cornice blocks: he states ―One can only be in
doubt about the shape and material of the upper cornice‖.52
50
51
52
56
Later clearance works around the temple would uncover numerous cornice
stones as shown above, and a fine example of the Egyptian mason‟s skills.
Overleaf we have the image of the block mentioned by M&R showing part of a
royal crown; it may belong to the Red crown only, or a part of the double
crown, i.e. a mixture of both the Red crown and the White crown. This cornice
block differs in the ones shown above, as it also incorporates part of the upper
wall.
57
Above we can see part of the royal crown; so along with the epithets carved
around the entrances the temple walls may have had further decoration on
display.
58
Images courtesy of Valery Senmuth
The northern entrance (bottom) is better preserved than the southern entrance,
and its niche is largely intact.
59
The schematic above shows the northern entrance. The red line denotes the
threshold for the large temple door; the door was a large single leaf pivoting
against the north wall. The floor of the hallway is level, but as one travels along
the passage from the hallway to the vestibule, we travel up an incline to the
higher alabaster floor of the vestibule; the floor of the entrance hall, along with
the inclined ramp up to the vestibule was made of granite. The large singular
door in the hallway, Hölscher would suggest as some 2.80m wide and 6m high;
whilst he gives the intact western wall of the hallway as some 9.4m high: the
highest room in the temple.53
The bottom of the niche in the west wall (by scale rule) is about 5m
above the floor; so with the door open, only 1m of the niche would be visible
below the top of the door (the niche is given as 5 cubits high or 2.62m). From
the entrance door to the west wall is about 7m (by scale rule); so if a baboon
statue resided in these niches, they would not be greeting much in the way of
sun, being situated so high up on the west wall and largely obscured by the
temples eastern facade.
Ibid, page 18-16 (M&R’s scale drawings suggest that the west wall is 9.8m high): TAV16, fig 3)
53
60
In the entrance section from
Hölscher‟s plate X, I have
highlighted the top of the
entrance door. How he arrived
at the height of 6m for the door
is not made clear in his work.
Fig 3, shown right, is M&R‟s

reconstruction of the entrance,
from their TAV 16. Though in their
work they quote Hölscher‟s
dimensions for the door, this is not
reflected in their drawings. Here
they have made the top of the
doorway align with the top of the
niche, and significantly increasing
the height of the door. Like
Hölscher, they offer no explanation
as to how they arrived at this reconstruction; such as any clues left in the
masonry. M&R‟s door would be about 7.8m high (by scale rule). It would be
quite a height for a single leaf door, which would need a mighty strong hinge to
support it. This is but one inconsistency between the drawings of these authors,
which make constructing an accurate 3d model of the temple nigh on
impossible.
One can see the logic in M&R‟s reconstruction, as the door when open in
the early morning would illuminate the occupants of the niches. Other possible
solutions might exist; for example, the doorway may have been lower and a
small window or drilled holes, such as we see at Djoser‟s serdab, made through
the eastern facade. One might even leave part of the hall roof open to the skies,
as rain in this area would be prevented from entering into the vestibule, due to
the difference in floor levels. Many solutions can be devised but accurate data
on the temple is scarce, especially when it comes to roofing solutions.
61
In Hölscher‟s fig 24, we can see
one of the lower pivot points for
the huge entrance doors; in
effect, a larger version of what
we see for the smaller inner
doors of the temple: a cone
shaped cutting made in the
floor, which had a harder stone
bearing at its bottom to support
the weight of the massive door.
Hölscher reports that a rounded
groove „F‟ was visible on the
granite block; ―which was
obviously made because the
back of the door dragged when opening and closing.‖54
Fig 24 above is of the southern entrance door, and according to
Hölscher‟s plate XVII, both doors pivoted against the north wall of their halls.
To secure the doors on the opposing wall of the southern entrance, Hölscher
found a pair of bolt holes in the granite wall.
In Hölscher‟s fig 25, we can see the

bolt holes in the south wall of the
southern entrance hall. They are
reported as being 83cm vertically apart,
and he thought that the bolts for these
holes were connected by a cross piece
and likely made of copper. He provides
plate XI, shown overleaf, to highlight
the differences between the bolt holes
on both entrances. A hole about 6.5cm
in diameter and around 17cm deep was
drilled through the granite block from
the outside. This provided a stop for the
head of the bolt to prevent it being
removed from the block. After the bolt
was inserted into the hole, a patch stone
was fitted to limit the travel of the bolt
into the granite block. At both
entrances a hole marked „d‟ may have been for edge bolts.
54
Ibid, page 41
62
Hölscher‟s reconstruction of the door bolts
63
The above view of the southern entrance shows the location of the block in
Hölscher‟s fig 25, and here we can make out the uppermost hole.
The surviving granite cladding on the eastern facade allowed Hölscher to give a
very precise slope of 1:7 for the exterior wall; or 1 palm displacement for each
cubit of height. He would calculate the height of the temple as about 12.5 to
13m or 24 to 25 cubits.55

55
Ibid, page 40
64
Hölscher would give one of these large casing stones as some 5.45m long and
weighing about 42 metric tonnes. It would seem strange that this intact portion
of the casing has been left; the numerous cornice stones, along with the cuttings
visible on the core limestone suggest that the temple was successfully cased in
granite. How Thutmose IV found the temple is unknown, but it is likely stone
robbing was well advanced before he showed up on the scene.
As previously mentioned, Hölscher only managed to clear the sand from
the eastern facade, and in the course of this clearance he came across the
remains of later brick buildings built in front of the facade. To keep the guide to
a manageable length, I will not deal with these in detail, but the reader can find
more information in Hölscher‟s publication. But basically he found five
different layers built on top of each other. The first layer he gives as
significantly before layer II, with layer II being assigned to the 18 th dynasty;
layer III was uncertain, whilst layer IV was assigned to late Egyptian or
Hellenistic, and finally layer V assigned to the Roman period.
Layer I is described as being 1 to 2m of high-purity drifting sand, in
which were found granite blocks from the facade, along with a few fragments of
statues. Above this sand he found both entrances closed by brick walls. He
reports that no traces of older buildings were found in his excavation area; the
only thing of old interest was a fragment of diorite bowl, with the name of a 3rd
dynasty king Send.
According to Hölscher the destruction of the facade occurred before the
time of Layer I, and significantly before the time of the 18 th dynasty.56 Overleaf
we can see Hölscher‟s plate XV, showing the later brick buildings, and I have
highlighted the surviving granite course of the temple in one of the sections.
There was still plenty of granite to be had for stone robbers, especially inside
the temple, where the wall blocks would be ideal candidates; the numerous
cornice blocks may not have been particularly sought after due to their unusual
shape, and requiring further processing. But one gets the impression that some
hiatus occurred in the temples history, which prevented further destruction.
56
Ibid, see chapter V pages 80-85
65
Hölscher‟s plate XV showing some of the later brick buildings.
66
The limestone core blocks which make up the bulk of the temple, would be
invisible once the temple was clad with its granite casing. A lot of these blocks
are monsters of rock in excess of 100 tonnes, and their height in the wall did not
seem to be an issue for the builders. The image above is part of the temples
south wall, and here we can see cuttings made into the rock to accept the harder
granite casing blocks; it being easier to adjust soft limestone as opposed to hard
granite.
Herbert Ricke during his
exploration of the Sphinx
temple, noticed how the north
wall of the valley temple is
angled somewhat and connects
to the south wall of the sphinx
enclosure.57 Hölscher could not
observe this as the desert sand
covered this wall in his day;
though others such as Hassan
and M&R failed to notice this
feature. Ricke‟s focus was on
recording the Sphinx temple,
as it had been hitherto unrecorded, so his work does not dwell on the valley
temple too much. A further twist awaits the valley temple from the work of
Lehner and Hawass (L&H), in their 2017 publication „Giza and the Pyramids‟.
57
Der Harmachistempel des Chefren in Giseh. H. Ricke, 1970, page 9, fig 3
67
Here they state; ―Ricke was the first to recognize that the ground plan of the
valley temple is not square – the north wall is pushed outwards at its
northwestern corner. It is just here, inside this corner, that a corridor rises in a
1:11 slope to meet the causeway. What Ricke did not see is that Khafre‘s
builders created the massif of the valley temple in two phases, and altered the
enclosure around it in yet a third phase. Striking evidence of the first two
phases is a vertical seam that runs through the core work on both the north and
south walls about 20m (66ft) east of the back wall. The seam has the same slight
batter or lean towards the east as the finished outer faces of the temple. A
granite casing block embedded at the bottom of the seam in the northern wall
must remain from an earlier cladding of the back of the temple. The builders
expanded the temple to the west after they had already begun to add casing.
In the first stage, the causeway may have run further east to attach
to the northern end of the transverse ‗bar‘ of what became the valley temple‘s
T-shaped hall. In the second stage the builders extended the temple backwards
to the west, adding the ‗leg‘ of the T-shaped hall. At this point, they
incorporated the causeway into the interior of the temple as the rising corridor
mentioned above. By enveloping the causeway corridor within the temples core
masonry, they created the pronounced angle of the northern side of the temple,
turning its baseline into a trapezoid. The expansion of the temple westwards
thus explains both the deviation of the northern wall and the fact that bedrock is
left protruding to such a height in this wall. The builders left a bedrock slope
through the core of the temple to provide a continuous foundation for the
causeway and the internal corridor.‖58
However, having reviewed the available data, and as a layman, I have to

question if this temple was built in two phases as outlined by L&H above.
58
Giza and the Pyramids, 2017, page 207
68
In the above image I have pointed out the apparent seam on the south wall.
The above image shows the apparent seam on the north wall of the valley
temple; the granite block is bottom of picture, just right of the measuring stick,
and it appears to be sitting on an „L‟ shaped stone. The seam does not extend
through the uppermost block. As previously mentioned these rough core blocks
59
69
are sizeable items, weighing many tons, there is no real requirement for a
running bond, and often their laying appears haphazard.
In the panoramic view of the temples rear wall (west wall, people can be seen at
the causeway entrance) we can see what appears to be seams above the arrowed
granite block. This granite block is one of the roof drains; another would have
been placed in the hole further along the wall.
When it comes to constructing the temple, we have to consider its
building sequence. We know the higher elements of the construction are on the
eastern side of the temple, with each hall reducing in height as we head west,
with the lowest hall being the double colonnade. So how might they have
started this construction, at its highest elements first and worked backwards?
How would they manage to bring in the heavy granite beams and erect the
pillars? It would seem unlikely all this material was brought in over a 13m wall.
I would suggest that the temple was constructed from east to west, with
construction gaps left in the limestone walls in order to allow easy access for
building materials: once the western internals of the temple were completed, the
exterior limestone walls would be built to close any such construction gaps. So
instead of seeing two building phases, it might be the case that the temple is a
coherent single phase.
I have amended Ricke‟s fig 3
to show how a phase one may
have looked, according to
L&H. The red line is the
current north wall, and I have
extended the causeway. In a
phase such as this there would
appear to be no need to alter
the angle of the north wall; the
building could be kept square,
and yet looking at the masonry
70
of the north wall, I can see no evidence that this wall was square with the other
walls of the temple; indeed, its original condition appears to be angled from the
very beginning. The temple at this stage would also appear to have no room for
magazines, the porters lodge, or access to the temple roof. If this phase existed
and they had got to the stage of casing its external walls, it would suggest that
the temples interior was largely complete; pillars and beams installed, internal
walls clad etc; so to change plan at this stage would require major dismantling,
for example, just creating a doorway for the magazines could be fraught with
difficulty; how likely or lucky would it be, that the wall blocks in this location
in their original form, would lend themselves to be merely cut through to create
a doorway. More likely is that the wall would have to be deconstructed to create
strong architraves and passage leading to the new magazines, and likely as this
wall supported the ceiling beams, these too would have to be removed; in short,
a massive amount of work. Likewise, the large opening in the west wall, which
would have to be created from an already constructed first phase, for the
addition of the double colonnade.
Image courtesy of Colin Reader
In the image above we are looking west along the bottom of the north wall, the
granite block can be seen sitting on top of an „L‟ shaped block, and in front of
it, what appears to be a fine grained white limestone block.
71
In this view we are looking east along the north wall, with the south wall of the
sphinx temple on the left; the arrow highlights the location of the granite block,
hid from view (compare to image on previous page). The wall in the immediate
foreground is mostly natural rock; this rock portion can also be seen in the
previous image, with orange bands running through it. One can also make out a
shallow trench which runs along the bottom of the wall, which would be the
footing for the now missing granite casing. The angle of the north wall at about
4 degrees does not reflect the angle of the causeway, which is about 14 degrees.
The natural rock which makes up a portion of the northwest wall
according to M&R has a length of 18.25m, and at its highest point is given as
some 3.90m from the base of the wall.60 This is close to the seam which L&H
gives as about 20m.

60
72
The above fig 9 is from M&R‟s TAV 15, and shows the extent of the natural
rock present in the north wall. (M&R‟s measuring can be confusing at times,
but the 2.40 is added to the 15.85 to arrive at their figure of 18.25m: the 3.90
height is to the top of the sphinx‟s southern enclosure wall. The top of this wall
is visible on the image on page 71; with the people on top it).
73
In the above image I have highlighted the area of natural rock at the northwest
corner; this corresponds to the right hand side of M&R‟s drawing above, and
here we can see the niche cut into the rock here at a depth of 1.10m, and on top
of this we have two remnants of granite blocks, which are the two cuboids
shown on top of the niche in M&R‟s drawing.

In the above image which is the same as that shown on page 71, I have
highlighted the natural rock as best I can from the available images (M&R‟s
drawings are often more schematic than accurate, and given that they obviously
examined this wall, it is strange that they did not report this granite block). This
area is closed off to tourists, so it‟s not possible to better examine the area, but
given that the butt end of this granite block appears aligned with the natural
rock, it would appear a waste of valuable building material that would not be
seen. If this was an exterior wall of the first phase, we would have to add a
corner casing stone, which would display facing angles on its two outer sides;
the above stone could not be a corner stone as it has a flat butt joint. The corner
stone if it existed would normally be a sizeable affair, and thus bring this wall
out even further north.
74
In the above drawing I have created two red lines at right angles, with the
vertical line ending at the granite block, which is labelled on the above drawing
(the temple is not accurately aligned to the cardinal points; Hölscher would
report the azimuth of its axis as 94º east of magnetic north on 1st March 1910).
This exercise suggests that if a first temple phase had square walls, then our
current granite block should be a corner block; moreover, if we add a corner
block to the end of our current block, then this corner block would have to be
sited on the casing foundation, which L&H have assigned to the temples second
phase. This in turn would suggest that both phases had trapezoid bases.
61
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, 101-drawing-d-kvt-007.
75
Another concern is the route of the causeway, if a first phase existed might they
not be able to maintain the inclined angle of the causeway to the northwest
corner of the single colonnade? As previously discussed, Hölscher gives the rise
of the causeway from the pyramid temple to the current northwest entrance into
the valley temple as about 1:11 (see page 14). Now if we return to L&H‟s
statement on page 68, they say; ―It is just here, inside this corner, that a
corridor rises in a 1:11 slope to meet the causeway.‖ This is factually incorrect,
and if anyone has walked up the internal inclined passage of the temple to the
causeway entrance, one wouldn‟t fail to notice that this corridor is noticeably at
a different angle to that of the causeway: Hölscher would give a rise for this
corridor of 1:6.62 But for some reason L&H seem to think that the causeway and
internal corridor are seamless and at one angle of 1:11; and indeed, one might
assume so, as we might expect that if a first temple phase existed, that any
causeway leading to it was fairly seamless, as the construction method of the
causeway (see part II of this guide), does not seen suited for a noticeable bend
in its path.
This change of angle is apparent at the current northwest entrance into the
temple; why should it be here if a first temple phase existed? L&H would state
that on extending the temple westwards in phase 2; ―At this point, they
incorporated the causeway into the interior of the temple as the rising corridor
mentioned above.‖ The construction of the internal steeper corridor has no
similarity to the causeway construction (other than the width measurement of
the corridor); if originally a causeway extended to the first phase, and was
constructed in the same manner as the surviving causeway we see today, then
that portion has been deconstructed and removed, before being rebuilt.
There are other points in the temples construction that concern me as to
whether this temple was built in two phases; but on the available evidence
available to me as a layman, I think caution is required, and that the case for a
two phase temple is not proven and requires more research. The granite block
certainly has the characteristics of a casing block, but there could be a simple
explanation for its presence here; for example, it may have been accidently
damaged during construction elsewhere; the damaged block is replaced, but
then what happens to the damaged block? Such a block would be handy and
could be used in the masonry fill that make up the temple walls; the masons
would leave nothing to waste, and it‟s interesting to note what appears to be a
fine white limestone block in front of the granite block: if this is fine limestone,
why is it here? And let us not forget the granite block mentioned by Robert
Temple in the core wall of Petrie‟s „secret chamber‟.
62
76
From the previous image I have extended the sphinx‟s southern enclosure wall
(shown by the green lines) and we can see that they converge were M&R state
that the bed rock ceases in the north wall, at some 18.25m from the end of the
current enclosure wall. On the plan above it shows „bedrock to here‟ which
seems too short, as this suggests that the bedrock only extends some 14m. When
it came to creating the north wall of the temple, the area bounded in yellow
would have to be cut away from the southern enclosure wall; this would provide
space for a casing foundation, which would terminate against the end of the
current enclosure wall.
Utilising the natural rock into the north wall is a logical and common
practice in Egyptian architecture; this economy of rock cutting saves time and
material. In the image above we can see two areas marked Terrace I and Terrace
II; terrace II is the floor of the sphinx enclosure; this extends beyond the west
wall of the sphinx temple, and the builders here have utilised some of this
terrace to create some of the western wall. Terrace I is at a lower level and the
greater bulk of the two temples are constructed on this terrace.
77
In this view looking west along the north wall, we can see part of terrace II,
whose front face I have highlighted. This face like the end face of the southern
enclosure wall, are not as eroded as the north facing southern enclosure wall;
indeed, in the niche, chisel marks can still be seen in its lower parts.63 The
terrace II face does not look particularly high here, but the topography of the
site slopes somewhat, so its height varies, to as much as 2.50m in the west wall
of the sphinx temple. In this view we also notice steps have been built to travel
up to the upper terrace. The history of these steps is uncertain and I have not
found much information on them. M&R merely state ―At the western end of the
dividing corridor the bare rock appears cut in high steps: it was cased, but it is
impossible to say in what way and with what stone.‖64
See supplemental plate 6-42a available at Robert Temple’s website.

63

64
78
In this view we can see more clearly the limits of terrace II. The square granite
block in the foreground according to L&H is connected to an enclosure wall
which would surround the temple65 (this enclosure wall along with the area in
front of the temples will be dealt with in part IV, along with the sphinx temple).
This area appears somewhat narrower compared to the low trench along the
north wall for the granite casing, which M&R give as some 3 cubits wide
(1.57m). What casing solution was used for this area adjacent to the terrace II is
difficult to say on the available data. The steps we see above appear to be made
of small limestone blocks and I feel that these steps are likely to be a modern
construction, as they appear absent from the archive image overleaf.
65
Giza and the Pyramids, 2017, page 208
79
Image courtesy of Digital Giza project, Harvard University
HUMFA_D1067_NS
The above archive image from 1927 shows the north wall of the valley temple
cleared and we can see into the northwest corner; here the steps we see in the
modern images appear absent; instead we seem to have a series of stepped
cuttings in the ground, and this is probably what M&R are describing.
80
Image courtesy of Digital Giza project, Harvard University
HUMFA_D1060_NS
In the above archive image from 1927, we can better see the neat vertical face
of terrace II, along with the casing foundation which M&R give as some 3
cubits wide. It is interesting to compare the good condition of this face
compared to the heavily eroded walls of the sphinx enclosure.
81
The economy of rock

excavation continues across
the two temples. The sphinx
temple had a second phase of
construction, which involved
the extension of the temple
north and south. This operation
on the north side of the sphinx
temple required the cutting
back of the sphinx‟s northern
enclosure wall, and again it is
remarkable to see the good
condition of this wall
compared to the reminder of the northern enclosure, which is quite eroded in
comparison. In the image above we are looking west along the enclosure wall,
with the sphinx temples north wall, visible on left. This passage ends in a rock
wall, which is the face of terrace II (location pointed out on Rickes fig 3); the
modern material above is in connection with the later temple of Amenhotep II.
The ruinous state of the sphinx temple allows us to see how the builders
used the terrace II rock in the construction of the western elements of the
temple; however, the good condition of the valley temple makes it difficult to
determine how much of the natural rock was used in its construction.
82
M&R report that no natural rock was visible in the temples south wall;66 though
in the west wall above, we appear to have some natural rock left in the base of
this wall.
The above image suggests that the natural rock runs down to the southwest
corner; unfortunately a lot of lose limestone blocks obscures the area.

66
83
M&R suggested that there may have been a door on the southern side of the
causeway which gave access to a paved roadway along the rear facade.67
This view looking north along the eastern facade of the sphinx temple, we can
see how the northern enclosure wall extends further east (this being a
continuation of the wall we see on page 82). This gives a rough idea of how
much terrace I had to be cut down, and it‟s likely that blocks released in this
operation may have been recycled into building the temples.
The last item to look at is the temple roof; this area is very problematic, as the
data is quite scant, and mostly images. As might be expected there are differing
reconstructions between Hölscher and M&R on the roof. I have omitted trying
to create a reconstruction on the roof due to the lack of data. There would be
various levels of roof, with the highest on the eastern facade, with each
successive roof diminishing in height as we travel west. Each roof would
discharge its water onto its adjacent lower roof, and the collective waters would
discharge through two granite channels in the temples rear wall. As previously
mentioned all roofs appear to be constructed of two layers; the first being of
granite and above this a limestone roof well sealed to prevent water seepage: the
best preserved part of the roof being over the magazines.
67
Ibid, page 80
84
In Hölscher‟s plate XII above, the red lines denote how he sees the arrangement
of the roof. Steps are shown to assist in traversing to higher roof levels; these
largely consisted of a wide middle slope to allow water to flow from the
adjacent higher roof level, whilst either side of the slope narrow steps were left.
Only one of these steps was found in good condition, that being the one above
the magazines (see image on page 35), and Hölscher reports the footprint of
another: he would also state; ―It is striking that there is a circular hole in the
pavement next to these rain ramps. Apparently it relates to the ramp without our
being able to explain its purpose.‖68 I have been unable to find any further
detail on these holes.
68
85
Fig 2 above form M&R‟s TAV15, is their solution to the roofing arrangement,
with the main difference being above the inclined corridor from the causeway.
M&R show the temple to have a square base in their drawings, as they did not
notice the angle displayed by the temples north wall. Their work is quite brief
on the temple, and it‟s often difficult to know how much exploration they did,
as opposed to relying on Hölscher‟s observations for their comments.
86
Looking west, we can see some of the light slits for the pillared hall; something
similar may have been done on the south wall of the inclined passage, as we
appear to have a slit on a granite stone next to the architrave by the causeway
entrance (a good view of this stone can be found on Robert Temple‟s website,
in supplemental plate 7-27. This slit does not appear in Hölscher‟s or M&R‟s
work). Some other stones are missing from the top of this wall, so other slits
may have existed to help illuminate this passage; if such slits existed along this
passage then they have to be taken into account for any roof solution.
The light/ventilation opening for the porter‟s lodge can just be made out
as a rectangular depression on the roof; approximately in the middle of the
image above, and beyond that at the same level, the drainage pipe through the
west wall, is under the small block seen in this wall.
69
Image can be found at ARCE Sphinx project archive, 101-black-and-white-photo-00506.
87
In this view looking southeast, we can see two of the light/ventilation openings
in good condition for the magazines, behind the step remains; the third opening
has been quarried away leaving an opening in the roof. Some of the limestone
roofing slabs are sizeable items; the one in the foreground by the steps is around
3m square (these slabs are marked out on Hölscher‟s plate XII on page 85). This
limestone slab is laid over the granite slabs below, and according to Hölscher‟s
the combined thickness here of the two slabs is some 4 feet.71 He would also
report that on the roof a shallow gutter ran from east to west, ending in a
discharge pipe through the west wall, which had been torn out, though likely of
the same surviving type found further north. Also in this image we can see
surviving limestone casing blocks at the base of the core limestone wall, these
are said to display the same batter as the external granite casing blocks.
70
71
Ibid, page 47
88
In this image we are looking down on the southwest corner of the roof which
covers the magazine area; I have highlighted this area in yellow in part of
Hölscher‟s plate XII overleaf. The limestone slabs are finely jointed as are the
patches to prevent rainwater seepage. Slabs have been removed and the granite
drainage block which should have been in this location appears to have been
torn out.
72
89
We can also see a hole in the limestone slab; I don‟t know if this hole is the
same as those that Hölscher reports by the stairs, which I have also highlighted
in red above; the size of these holes and how deep they go is not recorded.
90
In the above image we can see the intact drainage channel; Hölscher would give
the channel cross section as some 18 x 11cm and thought that two of these
channels were a bit tight in dealing with the rain discharge from the roof.73 The
channels are often referred to as being of granite, and indeed a red granite block
was found in front of the temple, which Hölscher thought should come from the
southern half of the roof; this block is his fig 34 below.
Though in describing the surviving drain visible on the lower image on page 90,
he states; ―It is there in red-brown sandstone from the Gebel Achmar, as it was
preferred use for drainage.‖74 It would be worth checking out the makeup of
this drainage channel, as the drainage block from the images appears to be of
granite; though above this block we have a larger, fine grained block, which
appears red-brown; could this be the sandstone that he mentions? The temple‟s
exterior rear wall was not uncovered during his excavations and indeed he
mentions that he did not try to expose the outside of this channel; so it appears
he could only observe the start of this channel from the roof.
Concluding Remarks
It is once again very sad to see such a fine structure where our knowledge of it
is very incomplete. The major problem with the valley temple is the distinct
lack of data; Hölscher‟s work, published in 1912 is our primary resource, and
we must be grateful that the task fell to him, as he was well ahead of his time
compared to other excavators of this era. But his work is only 118 pages and
incorporates the valley temple, the larger pyramid temple, causeway, later brick
73
Ibid, page 47
74
Ibid, page 47
91
buildings, finds etc, so detail is a bit thin. Ideally the temple requires a detailed
modern survey, every block examined for construction clues, the shafts
mentioned by temple explored, etc. Much work remains to be done to carry
forward the good work started by Hölscher; though I am not confident that such
work will be done. As I have stated many times in previous guides, architectural
study has been largely vacated by Egyptology, and yet access to these sites is
tightly controlled, meaning the only discipline that can update and do modern
exploration is Egyptology. An outside amateur layman such as me cannot obtain
access, so we are wholly reliant on Egyptology to provide data that only they
can provide; but if said discipline shows no interest in the subject, we are
trapped in a dead end and doomed to rely on reports often over a century old.
Without more modern data on the temple it is very difficult to come to a
conclusion on so many aspects of its construction; but based on the available
data I do feel that the temple was constructed in a single coherent phase and not
the two phases as suggested by Lehner and Hawass. Hopefully, sometime in the
future, the temple will receive the attention it deserves; it is a rare survivor from
a distant time that deserves more attention.
92
In Memory of Alfie, 2011-2021, much missed.
93
94

Khafres Temples Giza Part III The Valley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Khafres Temples Giza Part III The Valley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Khafre‟s Temples, Giza: Part III

The Valley Temple : A Layman‘s Guide

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image HUMFA_A1065_NS courtesy of Giza Project, Harvard University

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image courtesy of Isida Project

Image courtesy of Isida Project

Image courtesy of Isida Project

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

In Hölscher‟s fig 41 left,24 we

Hölscher‟s fig 61 right,25 shows

According to Hölscher these architraves

L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 80 & 82

Looking at the images and

Image courtesy of Isida Project

L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 82

In his figs 29 & 30 we have examples

L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 84

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx project46

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image courtesy of Isida Project

Image courtesy of Isida Project

Fig 3, shown right, is M&R‟s

In Hölscher‟s fig 25, we can see the

Image courtesy of Isida Project

However, having reviewed the available data, and as a layman, I have to

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image courtesy of ARCE Sphinx project59

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image courtesy of Colin Reader

L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 78

Image courtesy of Colin Reader

Image courtesy of Colin Reader

See supplemental plate 6-42a available at Robert Temple’s website.

L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 78

The economy of rock

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite, Parte V. Page 80

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

Image courtesy of Valery Senmuth

You might also like