In contrast to the near universal view that each pharaoh designed his own pyramid (for example Rossi in her book - Rossi, C. 2003. ‘Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, states '“When Khafra started his pyramid at Giza, his aim must have been to maintain the level of Khufu’s pyramid and, at the same time, to spare material and to improve the impulse towards the sky. He chose, therefore, a shorter side-length, 410 instead of 440 cubits, and increased the steepness of the slope by 1 finger, from 5 palms + 2 fingers to 5 palms + 1 finger.”) many scholars have now come to recognize that this is not true (Khafre base is 411 cubits). Even Lehner has now changed his mind and declares that Khufu's architects sited his pyramid to the north of the plateau to provide his successor with the prime real estate in the centre of the plateau (assuming that the two large pyramids were not in fact designed together). Also it is interesting to note that Khufu's architects were apparently unaware of the climate change that was heading their way and continued construction works to the southeast of the plateau, which were easily washed away - but were there perhaps deeper reasons for situating pyramids where they are?

It was Petrie who measured the exteriors of the Giza group, as well as the interior of Khufu, and modern scholars agree that his work was meticulous. The pioneering work of Legon in converting Petrie's inch measures to cubits showed that the pyramids were linked in plan. However, because the two large pyramids were set out on a modular basis while inclusion of the third pyramid required a geometric plan, scholars were disinclined to pursue the idea of an overall plan. They still do, preferring to focus on painstaking archaeological work, which will go on for decades. In fact scholars tend to shy away from any consideration of pyramid design, leaving the field to amateurs (of whom I am perhaps one). Unfortunately this has given rise to a large array of hypotheses which do not take account of archeological facts. These are usually bundled together as 'alternative' ideas. However, sometimes convincing ideas are 'thrown out with the bathwater' - as for example Butler's discovery of the correlation between pyramid spacing and chamber dimensions (which has been raised more than once). Or indeed my own discovery of the diagonal plan centered on Khafre.

But now the focus of attention has shifted to Sneferu's monuments, particularly the Bent pyramid. We know the names of his relatives, some account of his royal power, but nothing of his pyramids which still have not been properly surveyed. However preliminary results tend in the same direction - the 'bend' in the Bent pyramid was intentional and involved the manipulation of the roots of 2 and 3. Perhaps the simplest proposal is due to Paolo Di Pasquale. But he goes much further than this. In his paper -

[www.academia.edu]

- he shows that the Bent pyramid shape is a precursor to the Giza plan. And yet more than this he shows that the western cemetery is divided into two parts - that near the pyramid being oriented north/south, while that headed by the mastaba of Hemiunu is oriented 3.14 degrees west of north, and which mimics the shape of the Bent pyramid.

I urge you to have a look at his paper which seems to establish the long sought link between Dashur and Giza, and offers more food for thought than endless tirades against some selected looney.

the-horizon-of-khufu.com