It is traditionally thought that the layout of the three pyramids at Giza, are arranged the way they are because they follow the natural south west / north east slope of the plateau and are laid out in a staggered formation to allow clear unobstructed ‘views’ to the cardinal points.

It is argued by some that these factors alone account for the layout of the site without any need for an overall site plan. However an overall site plan can be realized, and still take into account the contours of the site and meet the requirements for unobstructed views.  It’s a question of scale and of finding a suitable site.

Jaromir Malik states in his article ‘Orion and the Giza pyramids’, Discussions in Egyptology 30, 1994, pp 101-114:

Miroslav Verner has shown how the south east corners of the three Giza pyramids and the north west corners of Sahure, Neferirkare, and the unfinished pyramid at Abusir are aligned with Heliopolis.  He suggests that these alignments intersected at the temple of the sun god Re, at the tip of the obelisk, which may have represented a fixed point in the world of the ancient Egyptians in that period.  (Verner, The Pyramids, 2001, p.302)

Mark Lehner also suggests that perhaps the Giza diagonal pointed north east to Heliopolis, the home of the ben-ben. (Lehner, TCP, 1997, p.106)

If these alignments were intentional, it would imply that either the ancient Egyptians had drawn up an overall plan for these two pyramid groups, or they were following a set of design rules to ensure that when pyramids were added to the sites, important alignments and links with Heliopolis were created.

It should be noted however that according to Petrie's survey, the three SE corners of the Giza pyramids are not in a straight line.  A line connecting the SE corner of G1 with the SE corner of G2 and extended southwest, will miss the SE corner of G3 by 24 m (78 ft).  A line connecting the SE corners of G1 and G3 will miss the SE corner of G2 by 12.5 m (41 ft). 

Simple geometry is used to position the three pyramids in a way that creates a formal plan.  No advanced mathematics is needed, or any need of measuring angles.  Sighting poles together with measuring cords are used to lay out the site.

1. The archeological evidence has been interpreted by some to mean that there were radical changes of plans during the construction phase of G2 and G3

2.  Successive kings did not build at Giza

3.  No evidence of pre determined ‘multi or pan generational’ projects in AE.

These three objections mainly affect the idea of a pre determined overall site plan but not necessarily a site that developed according to a set of design rules.

John Legon has addressed the problem of radical changes of plan:

"....In making his claims about changes of plan, however, Lawton relies heavily on the authority of Dr. I.E.S. Edwards, apparently without realizing that Edwards' theories have been substantially refuted not only by Mark Lehner, but also by Prof. Rainer Stadelmann - the leading German authority on the Egyptian pyramids - in his standard text Die ägyptischen Pyramiden (1997).  In addition, the Italian specialists Maragioglio and Rinaldi often disagreed with Edwards' interpretations.

Stadelmann points out the lower chamber in Khaefre's pyramid can never have been planned as the original burial chamber, but was merely a ‘Vorkammer’ or antechamber. It is indeed obvious from the arrangement of the connecting passages and the positioning of the ‘turning recess’ - which is incorrectly shown in Ian Lawton's diagram - that the lower chamber was nothing more than an adjunct to the actual burial chamber situated close to the centre of the pyramid. Since Lehner also describes the lower chamber as a storeroom or subsidiary chamber, it is evident that these two leading experts agree that Edwards was mistaken. There is, in reality, no reason whatsoever to suppose that the lower chamber was ever intended to function as a burial chamber, and the argument that it should have been located beneath the centre of the pyramid in an earlier plan, with the implication that the pyramid-base must have been shifted southwards in a change of plan, thus falls to the ground.

Similarly, for sound technical reasons, Stadelmann rejects Edwards' theory that changes of plan took place in Menkaure's pyramid, and he maintains that the upper entrance passage was a working passage which was used during the construction of the granite chamber.  He also concludes that the dimensions of the pyramid's base are those which were originally laid out.

Far from there being incontrovertible proof that the Khaefre and Menkaure pyramids were subject to changes of plan, therefore, there is no concrete evidence to show that any significant changes were made to the internal arrangements in either pyramid. Even if we allow that some changes might have been made, the contention that this had an effect on the external dimensions and positions of these pyramids is mere speculation.

I entirely agree with Robert Bauval when he says: "the relationships, mathematically and geometrically, between the various monuments play a huge part in the layout", and that "a unified plan must have been the exercise at the outset"......" (Extract from a letter to TDG dated 05.01.2001 )

2. A possible solution to the problem of successive kings building elsewhere.

3. The multi / pan generational problem, in the context of an overall plan for the Giza group.

Evidence that sacred buildings were extended and altered over many generations can be found at the temple complex at Karnak, and these changes may have had to conform to a strict set of design rules. In R.H. Wilkinson's book 'The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt' for example, he writes: "...the ratio of growth found in Karnak Temple approximates that of the Fibonacci mathematical sequence...."  This need not imply a pre determined plan however.

The first true smooth faced pyramids were unique. Nothing like it had been seen before in ancient Egypt. The idea had ‘evolved’ out of an earlier ‘step pyramid’ design, but this new form was a sensational new development.

It began during the reign of Sneferu and continued on a unprecedented massive scale for only a comparatively short time and was limited to Sneferu’s family - father, sons and grandsons.

Later when the pyramid itself was drastically reduced in scale, an increasing emphasis was placed on other parts of the pyramid complex. A more economic way of building the internal structure was developed, and at the end of the V dynasty, in the smallest known king's pyramid of the Old Kingdom, (Unas, at Saqqara) the first instance of the 'Pyramid Texts' appeared on the walls of the subterranean chambers.

So in some respects the major IV dynasty pyramids of Dahshur, Giza, Abu Rawash and Zawiyet el-Aryan are unique, and apart from the monumental size and the undecorated interior spaces, other aspects of the designs may be found that are unique to this era. For example the Dahshur and Giza groups with possible celestial links incorporated into the architectural design.

The strong centralized authority of the royal court together with the priesthood, had the power, authority and resources to implement a project spanning more than one generation during this era.

The number of generations required to carry out a project that involved pyramids built in close proximity to each other, will depend on when the plan was implemented:

- At the very latest, before G3 was designed (hinted at by Jaromir Malek in his article ‘Orion and the Giza Pyramids’  Discussions in Egyptology 30, 1994), in which case it needed only one generation.

- Before G2 was designed - Father / son project

- Before G1 was designed - Father / son / grandson project

Multi / pan generational yes, but realized during a unique era in ancient Egypt and limited to one family.

chris tedder  2002

CONTACT