Let me start then by stating that it is my belief that Sneferu and his descendants were merely pyramid restorers and that they only repaired and added to monuments that were already standing in Egypt long before they ruled. I say merely repaired, however this is not to belittle the Kings of the 4th Dynasty and I only use this term in comparism with the task of constructing the pyramids. This work would not have been easy and although I do not feel they constructed the pyramids themselves, the work they carried out was no mean feat and would itself have taken many years and many skilled hands. For one view on the scale of these repairs see the following article by Ralph Ellis.

So, if we are to put forward the challenging idea that Sneferu did not build the pyramids attributed to him, the one at Meidum and the Bent and Red Pyramids at Dashur, we will need to find something that proves this conclusively once and for all. If we could show evidence that these pyramids were in existence long before Sneferu's reign this would put the matter finally to rest. Quite simply if the Red and Bent Pyramids had been standing on the sands of Dashur long before the 4th Dynasty then Sneferu could not possibly have built them. Neither, for that matter, could anyone from the 4th Dynasty.

Such tangible proof could now be in our grasp at last.

The first hint that something was amiss came after I had walked down what remains of the Bent Pyramid's ruined causeway on a visit to Dashur in 1996. This causeway, although originally walled to an original height of approximately 2 metres was unroofed and open to the sky (1) and led down to a valley temple, in a similar way that the causeway adjoining the Second Pyramid at Giza runs down to the impressive valley temple of Khafre.

Why we suddenly have a problem here is because the vast majority of pyramid complexes, and especially those with valley temples, were constructed right on the edge of the desert, where it meets the cultivation zone of the Nile. We know that without the Nile Egypt would be an infertile, uninhabitable desert. No crops would grow and the great civilisation that flourished along the banks of the river would never have taken root. The Nile is a blessing and makes life possible from the inhospitable desert. Any visitor to Egypt will have seen places where within one pace you step from fertile soil to dry sand. Quite simply the gift of the Nile can only water so much soil. There comes a point, dramatically in places, where the desert regains it's stranglehold.

This sudden change in conditions marks the edge of the Nile's cultivation and it was here that the pyramid builders chose to construct their monuments.

A valley temple is simply as the name implies, a temple found in the valley. This was usually the only entrance to the pyramid complex. The pyramid itself would have a high enclosure wall constructed around it. The only entrance would have been gained through the valley temple. Built in the valley, boats would have moored against a quay or harbour and the temple would have been entered. The vistor would then have proceeded up the causeway until coming either to the pyramid itself or going first through a mortuary temple at the foot of the pyramid if the pyramid had such a temple.

Dr I E S Edwards, Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, describes the valley temple of the Bent Pyramid as follows;

"The excavation of what has been regarded as the valley building in the season 1951-2 by the Service des Antiquites, under the direction of Ahmed Fakhry, produced results which far surpassed expectations. In contrast with the extreme simplicity of the mortuary temple, this building was monumental in size and although it suffered systematic destruction at a time which cannot yet be determined, enough has been preserved of the decoration to show that it would have borne comparison with anything now known of it's kind dating from the Old Kingdom." (2)

Edwards is quite correct in his conclusions. Enough is left of the ground plan of the temple to compare it with other valley temples supposedly built in the same period, the 4th Dynasty according to conventional thinking. No two temples in Egypt are identical, however, they bear distinct similarities with temples from the same period in history. We can see from the remains of the Bent Pyramid's valley temple that elements exist which can be clearly seen in the valley temple of Khafre at Giza along with the valley temple of Menkaure. This temple, connected to the very long causeway which leads to the smaller Third Pyramid at Giza, was uncovered by Reisner earlier this century (then reburied) and shows a close correspondence with features at Dashur, such as the open court and niches. The tall vertical columns at Dashur display an affinity with the columns still standing inside Khafre's temple.

So we have a classic example of a 4th Dynasty pyramid complex with pyramid, mortuary temple (though small in scale), causeway and valley temple all in place.

I puzzled over this for some time before finding that I was not alone in my confusion. I found that I E S Edwards himself had problems with this temple's positioning that led him to make the following statement;

"Until further investigations have been conducted towards the east some doubt must be felt concerning the precise identification of this building. In later pyramids, as at Meidum, the valley buildings are located on the eastern fringe of the desert where it joins the cultivation. This building, however, lies in a depression at some distance from the cultivation and consequently was not accessible by canal from the river." (3)

Edwards then goes on to cite the work of H. Ricke who, in an attempt to answer this conundrum came up with a hypothesis that suggested there was another building which originally stood further eastwards on the edge of the valley, possibly on the site now occupied by the site of Sheikhs tomb.

Mark Lehner in his book The Complete Pyramids, is also forced to consider this as a possible explanation;

"The causeway reaches 210m to the "valley temple" of Sneferu's Bent Pyramid. In fact the temple is not down in the valley but far up a narrow wadi that might have been flooded during the season of inundation" (4)

He continues;

"This structure is in fact a combination of both mortuary and valley temple, with features that are developed later in both. It has the court pillars and architectural statues found in later mortuary temples, and it is situated about halfway down to the valley. A second causeway probably ran from this to a dock or landing stage. (5)

Mark Lehner obviously has problems with the whole situation and is trying to rid himself of this annoying discrepancy. First he suggests that the wadi which contains the valley temple may have been flooded in times of high inundation, then on the same page he suggests a second causeway would have been needed to reach the water.

Edwards, and Ricke too, were guilty of clutching at straws as well, in my opinion. Locked into a chronology they themselves have engendered, they need a way out of the problems the position of this temple presents them with.

To date there is no trace of a second building at the edge of the Nile which would have served as a docking stage or another valley building. Furthermore there is no sign of this second causeway which would have lead to such a construction. Both are fictitious elements, created in a desperate attempt to solve this riddle.

Furthermore, for Lehner to suggest that the open court and pillars of this valley temple at Dashur only bore resemblance to later mortuary temples does not stand up when we look at the valley temples of Menkaure and Khafre where we find corresponding features, as we have mentioned.

To my mind there is another solution which does not ask that we manufacture a second causeway that does not exist.

Could there have been a time when the Nile did in fact lap against the limestone of the Bent Pyramid's valley temple? Is it at all possible that the temple is in the correct position and it is just that our dates for it's construction need to be altered?

Today the cultivation still runs up almost to Amenemhet's Pyramid. Dashur lake stands not far away, on the fringe of the flood plain. This lake, supposedly one of the last remaining pyramid harbour lakes, stands right next to the Black Pyramid. These so called pyramid lakes are thought to have been widened and deepened so as to create a harbour to aid with the bringing of materials for the scores of workers employed in the pyramid's construction. Little is known about their true function but this much has been guessed at so far. The implication up to now is that Dashur lake was used in the construction of the 4th Dynasty pyramids at Giza. A quick glance at the layout at Dashur tells us that it is much more likely that this lake was used in the construction of Amenemhet's pyramid. Furthermore, if the Nile really was much further to the West at the time of the Bent Pyramid's construction, such a lake would have been unnecessary as the Nile would have brought boats and materials right up to the very edge of the pyramid complex.

So, Dashur lake lies still at the foot of the Black Pyramid along with the zone of cultivation. We have to remember that Amenemhet built his pyramid on this spot around the year 1,800 BC, nearly 3,800 years ago. The point I am highlighting here is that after all that time the cultivation zone of the Nile has hardly moved at all. Now we know from the evidence we have looked at already that this cultivation should have reached right up to the Bent Pyramid's valley temple at the time it was constructed. Everything we know about these complexes tells us that is what happened.

We know the course of the Nile has migrated steadily Eastwards over the countless millennia of Egpyt's past. The burning question is, how much time would it need for the course of the Nile to change and move a distance of at least 500 metres? If we can answer this question satisfactorily it will shed light on a history we know hardly anything about. If I had to put my finger on one single date I would estimate a construction date of at least 7500BC given the distance the course of the Nile has wandered.

It is entirely possible that an older date could be arrived at. The important thing to remember is that this new date of at least 7500BC rules out the role of Sneferu in the pyramid's construction. It raises a whole host of other awkward questions such as who exactly did build the Bent Pyramid at such a time in our distant past. A time when mankind was supposed to only be close to approaching any form of civilisation or social organisation. There was certainly no culture we know about at the present time that could have been responsible. To my mind that raises the possibility that we should be looking at an even older date. The simple fact that there is not a trace of this lost culture makes me think that it had to be long enough ago for time to have obliterated or buried all the evidence. A similar problem is raised by the new date for the Sphinx which has been proposed by John Anthony West and Robert Shoch.

For now we must be content enough to have put the pyramids beyond the reach of Sneferu and the 4th Dynasty as well as the whole of Dynastic Egypt as we know it.

If this is true and we find out that neither Meidum or the Bent and Red pyramids at Dashur were built by him it raises the question of where exactly is Sneferu's tomb. Although it is possible that he made the Red Pyramid his final resting place after restoring it I feel it is much more likely that, like the rest of his court he would have been buried nearby. There is much evidence to show that the pyramids currently attributed to the 4th Dynasty were never used as tombs (in fact there is not one single piece of hard evidence to show they were tombs). Instead we have scores of mathematical, geometrical and astronomical measurements inherent in their design. Whatever their true purpose it is likely that Sneferu would have at least recognised that they were never designed as tombs even if he failed to penetrate their mystery as we have. Furthermore, one fact confirms that these pyramids were not the final resting place of Sneferu. The so-called burial chambers of these constructions contain no inscriptions. In fact there is not one hieroglyph, inscription or depiction of any kind inside any of the 4th Dynasty pyramids.

This is very strange if they were supposed to be tombs, especially considering the nature of the inscriptions. The purpose of these writings was to aid the dead pharoah, to ease his journey to the Egyptian afterlife. They were a set of complex instructions. To be buried without these inscriptions the soul of the pharaoh was doomed to failure. The mastaba tombs at Dashur and Giza contemporary with Sneferu's court have inscriptions, so it would seem impossible that the tomb of Sneferu would not have them.

However, if we now assume that the pyramids were not built by Sneferu this problem vanishes. What we still haven't answered though is where is Sneferu's tomb?

Photo from The Complete Pyramids by Mark Lehner

Could it be that Sneferu was buried in such a fashion? If so his unrifled tomb could still be lying in the sands for us to find. If found it would surely be one of the marvels of Egypt. Even if he did not build the pyramids attributed to him he was still a very powerful pharaoh. Furthermore, the contents of his tomb would answer many questions we have about the 4th Dynasty as hardly any records have survived.

It seems that the ancient Egyptians knew the truth about the pyramids from this great age. We just have to find that knowledge again for ourselves. The only piece of evidence that Egyptologists have for linking Sneferu with the pyramid at Meidum is a piece of graffiti left on the wall of the small eastern chapel than adjoins the pyramid. It states that the visitor came to this "temple of Sneferu". Nothing was mentioned of the pyramid itself as it was more than likely known in those distant times that Sneferu did not build the pyramid. The small temple outside could well have been raised by the restorer and it is this that was remembered by the Egyptians that followed. It is only in these late times that we have missed all the clues and invented our own chronology.

Having looked at the Bent Pyramid we must now also look suspiciously at it's Dashur neighbour the Red Pyramid, also attributed to Sneferu and thought to be his tomb, and ask whether this pyramid too is guilty by association. It has many features found in the Bent Pyramid including the corbelled ceilings found in the interior chambers.

Interestingly enough, the upper portion of the Bent Pyramid was constructed at exactly the same angle of slope as the Red Pyramid, 43' 35" . Furthermore the height of both pyramids is identical. This means that the Bent Pyramid is a replica of the Red with the bottom section tapered off. (6) I am not saying that the Bent was a copy of the Red Pyramid because conversely the Red could be a copy of the Bent with the top angle continued all the way to the ground! Instead I am trying to point out that the two appear to be planned and built together with the same basic concept inherent in both pyramids. To my mind they are almost like twins and although they share a lot in common they have their own properties both internally and externally.

A big question hangs over the location of the Red Pyramid's valley temple. Scant remnants of a building were found about two kilometres east of the pyramid, however no excavation has ever been carried out and it is not at all clear that this ever was the valley temple. To add to the confusion hardly anything remains of a causeway, especially the further east you travel, so pinpointing where the valley temple would have been is almost impossible. If there was once a long causeway similar to the Bent Pyramid's (and the Red Pyramid is even further West so it would have to be longer still) then it could quite possibly have "bent" in a similar way that the Bent Pyramid's causeway veers off, meaning quite simply that any Valley Temple could literally be anywhere. Until this question is answered fully we will have to only guess at the temple's possible location.

If all we have discussed so far is true then it is unlikely that the Red Pyramid's valley temple is two kilometres east of the pyramid itself. I would expect it to be much more nearer to the pyramid, no further than 1 km East. This is because I believe the two pyramids were constructed at the same time and as we have seen, the Nile was a lot further West back then. Could it really be that the reason the valley temple of the Red Pyramid has never been located is simply because we are looking in totally the wrong place?

If you look at the Red Pyramid with a 4th Dynasty construction in mind then you would indeed look in the valley for such a building. If however, we view this problem from the perspective of our new dating then we have to look much nearer to the pyramid itself. I believe that armed with this new insight the temple could be located. As for the remains found down near the valley, we can only guess what these might be. A full excavation is needed obviously. With no evidence of a causeway this far from the pyramid they cannot be remains of a valley temple. They are extremely close to the remains of the pyramid of Amenemhet II as well as the Old Kingdom mastaba tombs, so from which of these periods they date is anyone's guess without a full investigation. Whatever their true origin, they do not seem to be the missing valley temple. Maybe in the fullness of time the location of the Red Pyramid's valley temple will be found. I for one remain convinced that when it is, the case for this new dating of what we choose to call 4th Dynasty pyramids at Dashur will be strengthened.

NOTES:

{1} IES Edwards - The Pyramids of Egypt p86
{2} Ibid p87
{3} Ibid p88
{4} M Lehner - The Complete Pyramids
{5} Ibid
{6} R Ellis - Thoth, Architect of the Universe

This page and all photographs are copyright of Mark James Foster except where stated. They can only be used with the prior consent of the author.