6-4, 5
The distinction between the retaining wall of a mastaba, the facing of a core, and the casing requires some explanation. In cores of type II a the stepped wall of low courses is obviously a retaining wall which may or may not serve as a finished mastaba, as in the case of the c.b. mastaba from which it is derived. The cores of type II b provide an exact parallel to the c.b. mastabas built of solid brickwork.
On the analogy of the c.b. mastabas each of these two types may be considered as finished mastabas which could be provided with a casing but required no casing to finish them. Both were built without any recess in the retaining wall for either a false door or an interior chapel. In this regard the parallelism with the c.b. mastabas at Medum fails completely. The offering-niche in those Giza mastabas which were left uncased was a simple niche constructed in the west wall of the exterior c.b. chapel, and in this the slab-stela with its table scene, titles, and name and lists of offerings was set in an emplacement which was cut in the stepped retaining wall of the mastaba. In Cem. G 1200 seven mastabas were used (uncased) with exterior c.b. chapels, and five of these had slab-stelae. Three others had been increased by additional
core-work, leaving the slab-stela in the wall of the original core. In Cem. G 2100 two mastabas (G 2100 and G 2135) were thus used with c.b. chapel and slab-stela. G 2160, G 2170, used later than Cheops, appear also to have had c.b. chapels, but without slab-stelae. In Cem. G 4000 four of the five mastabas of type II b had stelae affixed in the retaining wall. One of these (G 4250) was completed with c.b. chapel, two (G 4160 and G 4260) with stone casing and exterior stone chapels, and the fourth (G 4150) with additional core-work and casing. Thus, of the twenty-six early mastabas of types II a and II b, eleven were finished with c.b. chapels and of these eight had slab-stelae. In view of these facts it is uncertain whether the cores of types II a and b were intended from the beginning to be cased or to be used as mastabas. The next type, III a, was built of massive masonry (like type IV i), but had been faced with stepped courses of exactly the same appearance as the retaining wall of core types II a and b. There are two examples in Cem. G 4000 that have the slab-stela in the stepped facing, not in the massive core. One of them was finished with a c.b. chapel and the other (G 4140) had an unfinished
stone chapel and casing. Thus it is clear that types II a, II b, and type III a all had the same outward appearance and were used without any casing as often as they were cased. This low-course stepped facing of small blocks persisted in use as an actual casing in mastabas of late Dyn. IV, but in these the material was a better grey nummulitic limestone. In one case, G 2150, a core of type II a was cased in this way in the reign of Shepseskaf or a little later. The other examples are on independent sites and usually have a core of mud-plastered rubble.
From these facts I conclude that when the low-course stepped cores of types II a, II b, and III a were constructed they were intended to be used as mastabas and that the casings added later were in alteration of the original plan.
The cores of type IV present a similar problem. They were also filled cores like II a with a retaining wall of massive stones set in high-stepped courses. After the facing of core G 4350 (type III a) A a 78 the following massive cores (type IV i) were left unfaced. The slab-stela was fixed in the massive stepped wall as in types II a and b in a shallow emplacement cut in one of the courses. In Cem. G 4000 four cores in rows 5 and 6 had slab-stelae which stood exposed in niches in the west walls of c.b. chapels (as type II), while two others had c.b. chapels but no slab-stelae. The parallel between G 1200 and the rows 4 and 6 of Cem. G 4000 is very close. It appears as if after the facing of G 4350, to bring it in line with the types II a and b, the massive core itself was treated as a finished mastaba needing only the addition of a c.b. chapel to finish it. Nevertheless, it is probable that the massive cores of type VI i were intended to be either faced or cased. The outward appearance of these cores was very rough, in no way comparable to the neat outward appearance of the mastabas of types II a and b and III a. The fact that two cores were actually cased with small-stepped masonry proves that the Egyptians of that time felt, as we do, the lack of finish in these cores. I believe that the original intention was to face them and that a number of them by force of circumstances had been used without facing. Later, a number of them in row 4 were cased with white limestone as an improvement on the facing. All the early mastabas, five in number, which received additional cores had this massive core cased in white limestone. For convenience I designate all these constructions of types II a, II b, III a, and IV i as cores. The alteration of cores of type IV i by breaking out a hole and reconstructing to form a recess for an interior chapel shows plainly a change of plan, and signifies that from this point at least a stone casing was intended. The construction of cores of type IV iii means that these cores were intended from the beginning to be cased and finished with interior stone chapels.

Classification of Casings
The casing used on the cores of the Western andEastern Fields is of fine white (Turah) limestone and presents two types :
Casing x: finely fitted and smoothly dressed to a sloping surface;
blocks of stone laid with the grain  horizontal ; see Fig. 84.
Casing y: similar appearance to x but with higher courses and with the blocks (or slabs) set with the grain slanting (parallel to the dressed face of the casing);
see Fig. 85.
(Casings of mixed masonry, x and y, also occur.)
Other types of casing occur, but were constructed after the reign of Cheops, as follows:
Casing z : grey nummulitic limestone : small blocks set in low-stepped courses ;
see Figs. 86, 87.
Casing w: grey nummulitic limestone;
great slabs set in high courses and roughly dressed to a sloping surface;
see Figs. 88, 89.
Casing u: grey nummulitic limestone: small blocks set in correspondingly low courses, to form a rough sloping surface ; see Figs. 90, 91.
Casing zu: late combination of z- and u-masonry: small blocks of nummulitic limestone :
slopingfaced courses: narrow steps;
see Fig. 92.
In addition to the chief features on which the classification of the shaft types of substructure were based, the burial-places presented certain minor features as follows :
(a) Canopic pits or recesses for containing the canopic packages.
(b) The ‘window’ between shaft and upper part of chamber.
(c) The recess in the north wall of the shaft.
(d) Coffin-pits.
(e) Masonry blocking and portcullis slabs.
(f) The filling of the shaft after burial.
Canopic Pits (технологические приямки) and Recesses for containing the Canopic Packages
The removal of the viscera and brain was an essential part of the process of true mummification.
The first dated evidence is that given by the canopic chest of Queen Hetep-heres I found in the secret tomb at Giza. The internal organs had been made into four packages wrapped in linen, and these packages had been placed each in one of the four compartments of the alabaster chest and covered with a solution of natron in water. The tightly fitting lid had been tied on with a thin cord which had been sealed with a lump of mud bearing impressions of the seal of the wabt (?) of Cheops. The chest was walled up in a rough recess in the western wall of the burial-chamber. The process of mummification in its more primitive form was probably introduced for royal persons early in Dyn. I, and soon spread to members of the royal family and other important people. The exact time when the removal of the internal organs was added to the simpler process is obscure. It may be assumed that it was introduced first for royal persons and spread downwards in the population. Unfortunately we have no definite evidence for royal persons before the canopic chest of Queen Hetep-heres I, but it is to be noted that the length of her coffin indicated a body half-extended on the side with the knees bent, or even fully extended on the back. I have concluded elsewhere that the half-extended and extended position of the body displaced the old contracted position as a result of the introduction of the improved process of mummification (removal of the internal organs, wrapping of the limbs separately in bandages). Therefore the use of burial receptacles adapted to the longer position of the body may be taken as evidence of mummification of the better sort. The burial-chamber of King Zoser under the Step Pyramid and the two alabaster coffins found in the subsidiary eastern passages prove, I think, that true mummification was employed by that king and his immediate family, probably not for the first time by royal persons.
It may be assumed that mummification was practised by all succeeding kings and their immediate relations and it is certain that such was the case from the beginning of Dyn. IV and onwards. The evidence is given not only by the length of the coffin, but more particularly by the canopic pit or recess made to take the canopic packages or, alternatively, a small wooden box containing those packages.
The canopic pit in the SE corner of the burial-chamber and the canopic recess in the south wall are seen definitely developed in the sloping-passage tombs of Medum (reign of Sneferuw): see Tomb Development, Ch. IX. It is to be assumed that both these types of canopic receptacle were closed with a limestone lid or slab as was the case at Giza. Earlier than this, in the stairway tombs of Dyn. 111, the occurrence has been noted of two niches (occasionally one) in the hall or anteroom opposite the burialchamber, and on the valley side. I have not taken these niches as canopic recesses because they occur in the tombs with contracted burials, they are in a wall which was never used later for canopic recesses,
and were not blocked or closed in any way. I interpret them as ka-doors giving exit from the substructure, a form of ka-door which can be definitely traced from Dyn. I (see Tomb Development, pp. 33, 184). It is further to be noted that canopic niches or pits do not occur in any of the burial-chambers of kings down to the end of the Old Kingdom. It is to be presumed that in the royal chambers of Dyns. III-VI the canopic packages were contained in stone boxes set on the floor of the chamber.
At Giza the canopic packages were disposed in several different ways :
(a) The most frequent container for the canopic packages was the ‘canopic pit’: placed in the SE corner of the burial-chamber; the orifice was closed with a rectangular limestone slab which was fitted in a rebate, or wedged in the orifice, but sometimes lay on the floor over the pit.
(b) Less frequent and later in date was the ‘canopic recess’: excavated in the southern rock wall of the chamber, near the SE or the SW corner, or in the south end of the east wall; closed by a rectangular slab which was fitted in a rebate in the orifice or wedged in the opening, perhaps sometimes set against the wall outside and bound with plaster.
(c) There are a few cases in which the canopic receptacle consisted of a stone chest built on the floor of the burial-chamber or of a recess, and closed like the canopic pit; these are called hereafter ‘built canopic chests’.
(d) The canopic chest, similar to that of Hetep-heres I, which is of frequent occurrence in Dyn. V, and later may also be presumed at least for the more important tombs without canopic pit or recess; it is also possible that wooden chests were placed in some of the canopic pits and recesses.
The canopic pits in the fifteen initial mastabas of the Western Field.
(1) G 1201: shaft type 1 al; pavement removed; rock-cut pit: 0.65 x 0.56 cm.; depth, 0.35 cm.
(2) G 1203: type 1 cl: 0.72 x 0.53 cm.; depth, 0.49 cm. ; reserve head.
(3) G 1205: type 1 cl: 0.65 x 0.55 m.; depth, 0.6 m.; no rebate.
(4) G 1223 : shaft type I brx ; pavement removed ; rock-cut pit: 54 x 38 cm. ; depth, 52 cm. in rock ; total depth, 77 cm.; rebate in rock on north and west.
(5) G 1225: shaft type 1 bl; pavement removed; rock-cut pit: 100 x 63 cm.; depth, 54 cm. in rock.
(6) G 2100: shaft type 1 cf: 60 x 60 cm.; depth, 50 cm.; no rebate.
(7) G 2120: shaft type 1 al: 65 x 50 cm.; depth, 0.35 cm.
(8) G 4000: north pit, shaft type 1 b(ell)x: 58 x 58 cm.; depth, 50 cm.; with rebate on all four sides.
(9) G 4150: shaft type 1 ar: 58 x 58 cm.; depth, 40 cm.; with rebate on all four sides.
(10) G 4160: shaft type 1 br: 58 x 57 cm.; depth, 54 cm.; lid set in rebate.
(11) G 4250: shaft type 1 ar: pavement removed; rock-cut pit: 67 x 64 cm. ; depth, 70 cm, ; rebate on north and west.
(12) G 4260: shaft type 1 ar; 65 x 63 cm.; depth, 57 cm.; rebate on all four sides.
Thus of the fifteen initial mastabas, twelve presented definite evidence of measurable canopic pits in the SE corner. The ordinary size appears to be about 50-60 x 50-60 cm. with a depth of 50-55 cm. but with variations. Where there is a wide rebate in the orifice of the rock-cut part, it is to be presumed that this was filled with white pavement stones, as was probably the case in G 1225…  см. p. 157.
The canopic pit in the SE corner was used with three exceptions in all the fifteen initial mastabas of the Western Field, the cores of which certainly dated to the reign of Cheops. This form of canopic receptacle continued generally in use in all the remaining mastabas of the Western Field dated to the reign of Cheops, but five examples of the later twenty-three chambers certainly had no canopic receptacle. Perhaps these five had wooden chests set on the floor of the chamber in the SE corner. In the Eastern Field, beginning about the years 17-20 of Cheops, both types of receptacle, the pit and the recess, are found in use. During the period from Chephren onwards the use of a canopic pit or recess became less frequent, and in these chambers I would again assume the use of a wooden canopic chest as proved for later times. Of the three built stone receptacles, one is from the end of the reign of Cheops or soon after, one from the reign of Mycerinus, and the third from the early part of the reign of Shepseskaf.
This type was obviously suggested by the wooden or stone canopic chests set on the floor.
The occurrence of canopic receptacles in the burial-chambers of different types may be summarized as follow
Total: Shafts — 147, floor pits — 45, total receptacles — 59, without receptacles — 88.
Of the 38 chambers of types I and 2, which were lined or intended to be lined, 25 have canopic pits in the SE corner and 13 have no canopic receptacle. Of these 13 chambers without receptacles, 2 were in the initial 5 mastabas of Cem. G 2100, 3 were in the last 5 mastabas of Cem. G 1200, I was in the first 8 mastabas added to Cem. G 4000, 5 of type 2 were in the second addition of 9 to Cem. G 4000, and the other 2 were in the two great mastabas, G 2000 and G 7510, both with chambers of type 2.
Six of the chambers of type 2 were unfinished, in that, although the lining had been designed, it was never built.
Shaft type 3 (unlined) begins in the Eastern Field with 7 large chambers. In these were introduced two new types of canopic receptacle, the recess in the east end of the south wall and the built canopic chest. Two chambers had the canopic pit in the SE corner, 3 had a canopic recess in the east end of the south wall, I had a built canopic chest, and I, unfinished and unused, had no canopic receptacle.
Thereafter type 3 became the favourite type for large chambers made for the members of the royal family and was frequent down to Neferirkara of Dyn. V. In the four nucleus cemeteries, in the additions to them in the Cem. en Echelon and in G I S, we have recorded in the table above 42 shafts of type 3, of which 15 had canopic pits, 3 SE recesses, I SW recess, and I built chest, with a total of 20 canopic receptacles. The remaining chambers of type 3 (22 in number) had no receptacles. The proportion of canopic receptacles in chambers of type 3 had decreased considerably over the proportion in chambers of types I and 2.
Shaft type 4 is an obviously cheaper form of type 3. In one of the early chambers of this type, G 7130 B, the chamber with two rooms and a granite sarcophagus was obviously designed as type 3, but the roof was not cut to its designed height and the large chamber appears now as type 4. One other chamber of type 4 occurred in G 7310 B of the four northern twin-mastabas. Later in the reign of Chephren type 4 increased in use. In the mastabas mentioned under the preceding paragraph referring to type 3 we have 34 chambers of type 4. Of these, 5 had canopic pits, 4 had SE recesses, 3 had SW recesses, and 2 had built canopic chests, total of 14 canopic receptacles. Thus 20 had no receptacles. These chambers range well into Dyn. V, and show a further decrease in the use of canopic receptacles. In these same mastabas we have recorded IO of type 5 and 23 of type 6. Both these types present further degenerations of type 4 in form and size, and no chamber of these types in the mastabas under discussion had any canopic receptacle.
The total number of rock-cut chambers included above is 147 (100%), ranging in time from Cheops to Neferirkara. Of these, 59 (or 40.14%) had canopic receptacles. Of these 59 receptacles 45 (30.61%) had canopic pits in the SE corner, 11 (7.48%) had canopic recesses partly in the SE and partly in the SW corner, and 3 (2.04%) had a built canopic chest. The favoured form of receptacle is the rock-cut pit in the SE corner, used exclusively in the early chambers of types I and 2 and decreasing with the decreased use of canopic receptacles in the latter part of Dyn. IV and in the early Dyn. V. It is to be noted that many large chambers of important persons (including members of the royal family) have no receptacles. I suggest that some or most of these had wooden canopic chests placed on the floor of the chamber in the SE corner. It is also to be noted that some of the recesses were large enough to receive a wooden or stone canopic chest. The 147 chambers used here, it is to be remembered, do not include about 35 shafts partly in the Cem. en Echelon and partly in Cem. G I S, but it is improbable that the additions of these chambers would affect vitally the facts here outlined.
The canopic recess does not appear at Giza until late in the reign of Cheops. It is usually cut in the walls around the SE corner either in the east end of the south wall or in the south end of the east wall. In four, however, the recess is in the south wall near the SW corner.
The canopic recess in the south wall was recorded in the sloping-passage tombs of the reign of Sneferuw at Medum. Here at Giza the earliest examples were clearly those in the twin-mastabas of the Eastern Field, where it occurred as often as the canopic pit; but all the earlier mastabas had a canopic pit.

The ‘Window’ between Shaft and Chamber
It has been noticed that in some cases there was a passage cut through the rock wall above the entrance passage from the shaft to the north wall of the chamber.

(2) G 1235 A: the entrance passage from shaft to chamber was originally cut to a height of 178 cm., with the roof only a little below roof of chamber; during the construction of the lining, the entrance passage was constructed in the lower part of the original cutting by inserting roofing-slabs at a height 105 cm. above the floor of the passage; between these roofing-slabs and the roof of the original passage was a space (window) 50 cm. high, but this was blocked on the inside by the lining of the chamber; see Fig. 71.
(3) G 2210 A: ‘window’ similar to G 1233; 200 x 95-70 cm.; height, 85-65 cm.; was blocked outside by masonry, but not by the lining on the inside as this was unfinished; see Fig. 72.
(4) G 1 S 9 B: reported by Professor Junker, but without details; chamber unlined.
(5) G 7320 A: ‘window’ similar to G 1233 A, opening in chamber only half the width; passage not straight but inclined to the east; 75 cm. high and 90 cm. wide (with opening in chamber 50 cm. wide); unlined chamber; see Fig. 73.
It is obvious from the first three examples that those ‘windows’ were blocked with masonry on the inside by the lining of the tomb and on the outside by the rougher masonry, and had therefore some function connected with the excavation of the chamber. I have mentioned above the difficulty presented by the cutting of chambers with passage entering the chamber low down in the north wall. The three first examples noted above would have permitted the cutting of the chamber with downward strokes as in the case of the chambers with high drops between passage and floor. In the case of G 1235 it would appear as if the original intention had been to make a chamber of type 1 br with high drop and that this was converted later into a chamber of type 1 bl with low drop by cutting the passage and roofing it artificially. Whether the other cases also represented the beginning of an attempt to cut chambers of high-drop types or not is difficult to determine. It is equally possible that in the other cases the window was cut to facilitate the cutting of the chamber and the passage lower down to give convenient entry to the coffin. The examples at Giza constitute only about 3.4% of the total number of the recorded shafts (147) dealt with above. Thus the ‘window’ distributed in time from the reign of Cheops to that of Mycerinus does not represent a common practice and is, I believe, certainly to be interpreted as a device to facilitate the cutting of the chamber.
 The Turning Recess in the North Wall of the Shaft
In a number of more important tombs which contained large stone sarcophagi the north wall of the descending shaft contained a large recess used to facilitate the turning of the coffin at the bottom of the shaft in order to move it into the entrance passage and so into the burial-chamber.
Three other devices are also observable:
(I) the cutting away of the roof of a horizontal passage at the outer end to enlarge the height of the opening of the horizontal passage;
(2) the use of the sloping passage;
(3) the cutting of a very high horizontal passage.
In a few cases in which the coffin was small, the 2-m. shaft was large enough to permit the turning of the coffin and even its lowering in a horizontal position.
In general the coffin appears to have been lowered down with the open side of the box towards the south.
When it reached the bottom of the shaft, the lower end was swung inwards to the mouth of the passage and the upper end lowered northwards, until the box rested in a horizontal position when the passage was horizontal, and in a sloping position when the passage was sloping. The box was lowered empty and the lid lowered by a separate operation.
Each of the two parts of the coffin, handled separately, was lowered by means of ropes passed around great beams laid across the mouth of the shaft. In the tomb of Hetep-heres I these beams were set in shallow emplacements cut in the rock around the opening. The heavy ropes were passed around the box vertically and horizontally, forming a sort of bale, and probably the bearing surfaces of the rope against the coffin were padded (as we found advisable in lifting these same coffins to the surface). In the preliminary lowering, the ropes (2-4, knotted at the end of the box) probably bore on one edge of the pit-mouth until the coffin hung suspended in the pit with its bottom side against, or close to, the north wall of the shaft. If a medial beam was used, the shift from the bearing on the edge to the bearing on the beam was probably made at this point by taking two (?) of the ropes over to the south of the pit, and when these were firmly held, the other two were passed under the beam and brought back over it to the north. The ropes must have been very stout (probably 2 inches or more in diameter). The number of men required is difficult to calculate exactly, but certainly 100 men (25 to each of 4 ropes) could have lowered the heaviest of the coffins with no great exertion. The lowering of the lid, much less heavy than the box, would have been a comparatively easy operation.
The 13 shafts with turning recess were obviously intended for the use of stone sarcophagi, but a number of stone sarcophagi were found in shafts which had no turning recess. In all these cases the sarcophagus was either so small that it could be introduced through the 2-m. shaft into the passage without difficulty, or the passage from shaft to chamber was of such a form and size as to permit the turning operation without cutting a recess in the north wall of the shaft.
There are a number of large chambers in important mastabas which were found empty but might have been expected to contain stone coffins. They had shafts and passages of such size and form as would have admitted a large stone coffin without a turning recess. These chambers are of importance because of the known existence of several granite coffins excavated at Giza without any record of their exact provenience.
In a small proportion of the chambers of all types and periods a pit was sunk in the rock along one of the walls (usually the west wall) with its axis N-S. These pits present two clearly distinguished types, the open pit and the roofed pit. In Dyns. V and VI the roofed pit is seen fully developed as a ‘burial pit’, a substitute for a coffin. The open pit appears in the latter part of the reign of Cheops and continues in use during the remainder of the period covered by the Giza Necropolis. It is usually wider than the ‘burial pit’, and as examples have been found which actually contained coffins, the open pit has been designated a ‘coffin-pit’. The earliest coffin-pit appears to be that in G 7120 A, the burialplace of Prince Ka-wab. In this the great red granite sarcophagus was found firmly fixed and protruding only about 0.15 m. above the floor of the chamber. The object of the coffin-pit was to prevent the coffin being overturned on the floor of the chamber, an operation which would have removed the lid almost automatically.
In addition to these coffin-pits in mastabas, three other examples may be mentioned, one in the Second Pyramid containing the sarcophagus of Chephren, one in the Third Pyramid (empty), and the other in G 111-a (containing a granite sarcophagus).
The small number of tombs with coffin-pits proved that this device was only occasionally and arbitrarily used. The use extends from the end of the reign of Cheops to the end of Dyn. IV, and indeed occurs sporadically thereafter. There are two cases, G 7120 A and G 7430 A, in which the coffin pit had certainly contained a granite sarcophagus, but it is probable that most of the other pits had contained wooden coffins.
In connexion with the coffin-pit and the position of the coffin, it is to be remembered that a few early granite sarcophagi were set in a separate room (see, above, the two-room burial-chambers of type 3).
In addition to these ways of dealing with the sarcophagus, there were in the later mastabas a few examples in which the sarcophagus was set in a recess in the west wall of the chamber. The coffin-recess actually occurs in substructures of type IV of Dyns. II and III and at Medum in the beginning of Dyn. IV.
At Giza the earliest example is that in G 7130 B (Prince Khufuw-khaf) in a two-roomed chamber of type 4, and the recess (alcove) contained a smashed red granite coffin. Another early example is in G 4750 (Junker, tomb of Akhi). It is to be noted that the great chamber of the Third Pyramid was first designed with an alcove in the west end containing a coffin-pit. This alcove had a doorway with pilaster-jambs, drum, and architrave. It was abandoned unused, and a separate sarcophagus room was excavated and lined with granite. In the secondary mastabas of the Western Field isolated examples of coffin-recesses (alcoves) occur in Dyns. V and VI. The chamber of Senezem-ib-Yenti (G 2370 B) of type 9 is among the large chambers with a coffin-recess (alcove).

The Blocking of the Doorways of the Burial-chambers
After the burial, in all tombs, the entrance to the burial-chamber was closed as securely as the means of the owner permitted. The blocking of the chambers of type I was the most elaborate and presented the form from which all the cheaper and later types of blocking were developed. I take up, therefore, first the masonry and portcullis blocking (designated blocking type I) which was used in chambers of shaft type I and thereafter the other types of blocking developed from type I.
Masonry Blocking and Portcullis Slab:
Blocking Type I
In a certain number of the early shafts at Giza the blocking of the entrance to the chamber was distinguished by the use of a very large slab set against the doorway outside and called a ‘portcullis’ slab. It was let down from above as the last act in the blocking of the chamber previous to the filling of the shaft.

The eamples of blockings:
G 2100 A: grooves 55 cm. wide, depth 25 cm.; in masonry and rock; portcullis slab, 250 cm. wide,
60 cm. high, and 50 cm. thick; doorway, 123 cm. wide and 126 cm. high; see Fig. 75.
G 4440: portcullis slab; 140 cm. wide by 140 cm. high and 35 cm. thick; 2 rope-holes; see Fig. 76.
G 1233-annex: type 6 b (I); probably Chephren; see Fig. 77.
G1451 :thick interior blocking of masonry and plaster; used almost exclusively in shaft types 3 and 4 ; see Fig. 78.
G1413 :bound with mud plaster; see Fig. 79.
G1451: c.b. wall; rarely used ; see Fig. 80.
The entrance to all the burial-chambers of types 1 and 2 in the Western Field opened from 2-m. shafts. Whether they were horizontal or sloping, the whole length of this connecting passage was packed solid with small limestone blocks laid in plaster of Paris (sulphate of lime). In a few cases this packing consisted of a wall at the inner end of the passage and another at the other end (shaft side), while the space between had been filled with small stones and plaster or rubbish. This blocking of dressed stones is called b blocking, or b (filled). The blocking in all the shafts had been penetrated by plunderers and more or less destroyed. These broken blockings or traces of them were found in the great majority of cases, and such a blocking may be assumed for all the large chambers opening from 2-m. shafts in which evidence of portcullis slabs was observed.
The portcullis slab stood upright against the masonry blocking and covered the rock-surface beside and above it. A number were pierced through the upper part with two or three holes obviously for the attachment of the ropes used in lowering the slabs. In five tombs in Cem. G 2100 the shaft had a rectangular groove at the southern end of the eastern and western sides down which the portcullis slab was lowered.
The Filling of the Shaft after Burial
Every large shaft found by us in the Giza Necropolis had been penetrated by grave-robbers, and a large proportion of those with lined chambers by thieves, who stripped the chamber more or less conipletely of its fine white casing and pavement. In the Eastern Field many of the chambers had been reused in the Ptolemaic-Roman period, and some of them (G 7130 B, G 7230 B, and G 7330 B) had been considerably altered by the cutting of loculi and extra chambers. Many shafts in the Eastern Field, and some in the Western Field, had been cleared out in quite modern times by excavators, mostly working illicitly. As a result the filling of the shaft as found by us varied considerably, but no shaft was entirely intact. Nevertheless, in the bottom of the shaft a few cubic metres of the original filling were often found intact. This original filling was usually clean limestone debris apparently resulting from the cutting of the rock shaft and chamber, and was fairly hard packed by time and the superincumbent weight. The character of this original filling was clearly shown by the fan-like dump-heaps piled up by the thieves when they threw the excavated shaft filling over the side of the mastaba into the street opposite the pit. These dump-heaps consisted of the same clean limestone debris as the original filling found in place, but necessarily loosened by excavation and dumping. The least amount was found in shafts in which the portcullis slab had been leaned northwards to gain access to the masonry blocking. Above this original filling the debris varied considerably according to whether the thieves had attempted to refill the shaft or not. In some cases the shaft had been left open and refilled by drift sand, a process that took some time and left traces of weathering on the upper part of the shaft. In other cases they raked back the filling which they had piled on top of the mastaba, and in these cases a certain amount of disturbed thieves’ debris was found above the original filling. But it was seldom that they filled the shaft completely, and the upper part was filled with drift sand. When the shaft had been excavated in modern times the drift sand often contained pieces of newspaper and even tin cans. When the shafts had been cleared for re-use in Roman-Ptolemaic times they were kept open to permit the use of the chamber as a communal or family burial-place. All these re-used burying-places had been more or less plundered in modern times and were found filled with a very dirty, dusty sand mixed with shawwabtis, amulets, and fragments thereof.
These were the chief varieties of the filling of the shafts as found by us, but it must be remembered that no two shaft fillings were alike. At the top we usually expected to find sand, but it was impossible to tell what lay under the sand. In a great shaft behind the offering-stela of Khnumenti, G 2374, we came on typical original filling in the mouth of the shaft and cleared downwards through a packed mass of this filling for 7 m., when the shaft terminated abruptly without a chamber and unused. In the case of the sloping passages filled with plug-stones, the thieves had usually tunnelled an entry through or over the roof of the passage, leaving the plug-stones in position, and only one of this type of burial-place, G 2381 A, was found intact. A large number of small shafts of all periods were found untouched by thieves.
The packing of the shaft with stones was a very unusual practice, found only in the tomb of Hetepheres
1. In the shaft of Hetep-heres the bottom of the shaft to a metre or so above the doorway was filled with well-laid small blocks of stone packed in plaster. Above this came a space in which blocks of stone and tubs of plaster seem to have been thrown into the shaft in confusion, but the upper IO m. of the shaft were filled again with well-laid courses packed in plaster, as was the small stairway descending from the north into this part of the shaft. The mouth of the shaft was closed with irregular blocks of local limestone imitating in appearance the surrounding rock.
The mouth of the shafts does not seem to have been concealed except in the case of the Hetep-heres tomb, nor covered in any way except in G 5230 and perhaps the Mer-ib tomb (G moo-annex). In G 5230 the mastaba was roofed with heavy blocks of nummulitic limestone continuously, and these blocks seem to have been laid over the mouths of both the shafts (A and B). G 2100-annex was roofed in a similar manner, but it is uncertain whether the roofing covered the mouths of the shafts.
The chambers, when the thieves had left the shaft open, had been partly filled by drift sand which  filled the doorway and continued in a gravity slope through the passage and into the chamber, where it had spread out fan-like around the entrance. When the sand was removed, and in those chambers which were free of sand, the floor was found littered with the fragments of decayed wooden coffin, limestone coffin if any, pottery and fragments of pottery, and such other objects as the thieves had left (‘thieves’ debris’). When the white limestone of the floor and casing had been wholly or partially removed, this litter was badly trampled or entirely removed.