The Evolution of a Tool of Power and Economy

---

Why did they suddenly cease the construction of the largest Egyptian monuments, since these were so important to the pharaohs and had consumed enormous resources and time? Traditional answers - "they ran out of resources" or "religion changed" - do not fully explain the full scope and consequences of this phenomenon. The present theory elaborates and strengthens the validity of an earlier concept - both proposed by Jacek Krzysztoń concerning the socio-economic function of the pyramids, showing that their eventual cessation was not due to failure or factors beyond the rulers` control, but rather to the success of achieving the intended goal.

The pyramids fulfilled their task: they integrated society, built the state, and jump-started its economy. Once that goal was achieved, the rulers did not rest on their laurels - they maintained the stability that had been attained and balanced the further development of the country by shifting to more flexible forms of public works projects, such as monumental temples. The author regards this change as a logical evolution of the tools of power and maintains the thesis that religion may have been a factor mobilising collective effort, rather than the primary reason for it. This reinterpretation shifts the emphasis from the afterlife to the here and now - and prompts a reconsideration of the role of the pyramids as a catalyst for the birth of the Egyptian state.

---

Table of Contents

• 1. The Evolution of the Tools of Power

• 2. Conclusion: From Nation Builders to Imperial Stewards

• 3. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

• 4. Publications (Book, Articles, and Film)

• 5. About the Author

↑ Back to top

1. The Evolution of the Tools of Power – From Rigid Pyramid to Flexible Temple and City

Introduction: The Primary Goal and the Problem of Continuity

To understand why the rulers of Egypt after the era of Cheops gradually reduced the size of the pyramids, only to eventually abandon them completely, we must return to the question: why were pyramids built in the first place?

As the main socio-economic theory and the PaC model posit—where the process itself was the key, not the finished object—the pyramids were not just tombs. They were, above all, an active state-building tool. In the turbulent period after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, the pharaohs of the 4th Dynasty faced a fundamental challenge: how to truly integrate two different peoples, create a central administration from scratch, and stimulate an economy based on the redistribution of goods (payments in food). There could have been many reasons: growing conflicts and instability in the young state, excessive territorial dispersion, the need for cultural exchange, the necessity to organize a system for redistributing food surpluses, and also the creation of a safety buffer against potential natural disasters. It is worth noting a paradox here: the largest projects are often born not in times of plenty, but from the pressure of crisis. Just as the Apollo program was born from the fear of failure in the Cold War, the Great Pyramid could have been a radical response to the fundamental "integration crisis" of a young state.

Regardless of the exact causes, the answer became the pyramid—a gigantic, multi-generational public works project. It was a goal that forced cooperation, central planning, and the constant circulation of resources. Thus, the success of the project—and of the pharaohs themselves—lay not in the rapid completion of the monument, but in the very process of its prolonged construction, which integrated the nation through shared work.

Once the construction system was set in motion, it became a driving force in itself, practically the "economic backbone of the state." It created an extensive "network of dependencies"—entire economic branches and specialized groups of artisans, suppliers, logisticians, stonemasons, and administrators, including a vast bureaucracy. Thousands of people worked on these projects for their entire lives, and many of them left the agricultural cycle for new, artisanal professions or other permanent state project jobs.

After the completion of one monument, this powerful socio-economic apparatus could not simply stop and "go home." This would risk mass unemployment for specialists and the collapse of the structures the state had so carefully built. Therefore, the continuity of construction is one of the fundamental assumptions of PaC (Process as the Goal). The state needed a "new goal to maintain the system`s cohesion" and to "utilize the acquired skills" and accumulated resources. This machine could not be stopped.

Here, however, a fundamental problem arose. The old tool—the great pyramid—no longer suited the new conditions. Conditions that, paradoxically, had changed precisely because of the pyramids` success.

---

Tool 1: Monolithic Construction (The "Stacking Blocks" Pyramid)

From an engineer`s perspective, a pyramid is a monolithic project, meaning it is a single, predefined solid. Its final shape, height, width, and angle of inclination are determined by the size of its base. This means the decision about the monument`s final size is made at the very beginning of the project and cannot be changed during construction. This is a fundamental difference compared to, for example, towers, whose height was often modified according to available funds or changing needs.

• Logistics and Challenges: The pyramid construction process involved laying over a million blocks, layer by layer. This required a constant, synchronized flow of resources and labor. It operated like a "gigantic conveyor belt": thousands of people had to work simultaneously and continuously, laying huge blocks at a dizzying pace—estimated at every few minutes. The material, in the form of dressed blocks, had to be prepared on time and delivered from distant quarries in perfect rhythm. Simultaneously, food had to systematically arrive for the workers, and tools that wore out required constant replacement or repair. The greatest challenge was the logistics of vertical transport—hauling multi-ton blocks to ever-increasing heights, regardless of the method used.
• Risk: Such a system was extremely risky for two reasons:
  1. Sensitivity to Disruption: Any stoppage—drought, food shortage, rebellion, accident, or a sudden military incident—threatened to paralyze the entire project. The conveyor belt had to run without interruption.
  2. Risk of Time and Failure: The pyramid was formally a tomb, and its construction was inextricably linked to the pharaoh`s life. The sudden death of the ruler during construction was a disaster. If the process were interrupted for any reason, the unfinished structure would become a "pyramid-spectre"—a monument to eternal failure and the state`s interrupted effort, visible from kilometers away.

For a young state that needed to demonstrate strength, this risky "integration shock" was worth undertaking. However, for a state that had already achieved stability, it became an unnecessary burden and an excessive risk.

The Transition: Success Breeds New Challenges

The PaC theory assumes that the pyramids achieved their intended goal and were a complete success. They fulfilled their mission. After decades of shared work, Egypt was integrated. The administration functioned efficiently, and society became wealthier and more stable.

This success fundamentally changed the social conditions. As the state matured, society became "richer and more civilized." The pressure to participate in gigantic physical labor decreased. Moreover, thousands of families gained permanent employment in the administration or other privileges, which reduced the availability (and desire) for mass physical labor. To put it bluntly: there began to be a shortage of hands for the heaviest work. Perhaps the spirit of the times also changed: the fascination with sheer mass and brutal size gave way to other, more refined forms of expressing majesty.

Pharaohs, as pragmatic managers, faced a new challenge: how to maintain work continuity for specialized cadres and uphold their authority, without having such a huge and massive workforce at their disposal, ready for another titanic effort?

Initially, they tried to adapt the old tool by building smaller pyramids (like those of Khafre and Menkaure). This was the first, intuitive attempt at adaptation and optimization. However, it proved insufficient because the tool was still rigid and risky. This forced rulers to seek radically new, truly flexible solutions.

---

Tool 2: Subtractive Construction (Carving into Rock)

The first evolution was a change in technology to subtractive work (removing material) instead of additive (adding material). A perfect example here is Abu Simbel.

• Logistics and Challenges: Such a temple is not *built* from blocks. It is carved into the solid rock cliff, like a gigantic sculpture. Work proceeded from the outer facade deep into the mountain. Instead of precisely laying millions of stone blocks, here they had to patiently remove thousands of tons of rock to "reveal" the desired shape of chambers, columns, and statues.
• Benefits:
  1. Elimination of Vertical Logistics: This technique almost completely eliminated the pyramid`s biggest problem: the complex and dangerous transport of millions of tons of stone to great heights. The excavated material (technically called rubble) fell naturally downward thanks to gravity. The "conveyor belt" problem—the need for continuous, synchronized delivery of perfectly fitted blocks from distant quarries—also disappeared.
  2. New Division of Labor and Workforce Flexibility: Here lies the key difference in managing people. Building a pyramid required precision at many stages—from dressing the block to its exact placement. When carving in rock, the division of tasks was much clearer:
     • Master Craftsmen: A small group of highly skilled artists-stonemasons handled the precise carving of facade details, statues, hieroglyphs, and smoothing the interior walls. Their work required immense knowledge and talent.
     • Rubble Workers: In contrast, a whole mass of less-skilled laborers was needed for one simple, though physically demanding, task: removing the rubble. Their job was to carry tons of chipped rock outside. This did not require specialized skills, only strength and organization.

     This division allowed for more efficient use of the available workforce—engaging a smaller number of expensive specialists where they were essential, while using the majority of the workforce for simpler tasks. This completely changed the logic of personnel management.

  3. Lower Reputational Risk: Construction could be halted at any time, even for an extended period. From the outside, the progress of the work was less visible than in the case of a growing pyramid. Any interruption did not stand out so much and did not constitute such an obvious symbol of failure. This, according to the theory`s author, was one of the key advantages of this method.
• Limitations: It was still a project that required immense precision from the master craftsmen. It could not be easily modified (you couldn`t "add back" a missing piece) and was unforgiving of mistakes—once a fragment of rock was carved, it was gone forever.

---

Tool 3: Modular Construction (The "Add-on" Temple)

This was the brilliant and final solution that dominated later dynasties. Examples here are Karnak and Luxor—masterpieces of modular architecture.

• Logistics and Challenges: A temple like Karnak was not a single, monolithic project. It was, in essence, a collection of separate modules: courtyards, pylons (monumental gateways), hypostyle halls, and obelisks. They were built horizontally, not vertically.
• Benefits (Key to the Theory):
  1. Elimination of Time Risk: This was a revolutionary change. The project was not tied to the life of one pharaoh. Work could be interrupted and resumed at literally any moment. The death of a ruler did not mean failure. It simply meant that his "module" was finished, and his successor could begin building their own. The Karnak complex was expanded over hundreds of years by many different rulers.
  2. Flexibility of Resources and Errors: The pharaoh could adjust the pace and scale of work to the current economic situation, much more flexibly than with rock-carving. Moreover, construction errors, mistakes, or even accidents (like a delivered block cracking) were not catastrophic—a faulty element could simply be replaced with a new one. The ruler had complete freedom in managing the project.

---

Tool 4: The Planned City (The State Center)

The evolution of power tools did not end with temples. The next step in the development of the scale and complexity of state projects was the planned construction of entire cities. This was a logical transition from erecting a *single monument* to creating an *entire environment for life, work, and administration*.

• Consistency with PaC Logic: Building a city from scratch, like Akhetaten (Amarna), fits perfectly with the functions described by the PaC theory. It was a gigantic state project that:
  • Required mass mobilization of resources and labor.
  • Served as a powerful tool for the redistribution of goods.
  • Fulfilled ideological goals (new capital, cult center) and manifested the ruler`s power.
  • Required advanced planning and central administration.
• Historical Evidence (Akhetaten): Research on Akhetaten provides hard evidence to support this thesis. Historians describe the city as a "planned industrial-ideological hub." It is even suggested that its construction might have been a "hidden program of redistribution and social stabilization, using religion as a justification." This shows how even a religious revolution could serve the pragmatic goals of managing the state on a massive scale.

Confirmation of the Principle in Later Eras: Hard Evidence for the State-Building Role of Construction

The thesis that large construction projects served as tools for state development, redistribution, and social integration is not based solely on interpreting the logic of pyramid building. Although we lack direct, written declarations from the Old Kingdom rulers about their economic goals (which is understandable, as they used the language of religion), later eras provide us with indisputable evidence that confirms this principle.

Situations hundreds, even thousands of years after the time of Cheops show that the mechanism of using monumental investments for state purposes was a constant element of pharaonic strategy. Importantly, from these later periods, we have hard evidence, such as inscriptions on stelae, which directly or indirectly reveal these pragmatic motivations.

The most famous and telling example is the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun (New Kingdom, c. 1330 BCE). We all know this pharaoh thanks to the discovery of his intact tomb, but his actions after the religious revolution of Akhenaten shed fascinating light on the PaC logic.

• Context: After the death of Akhenaten and the collapse of his monotheistic reform, the young Tutankhamun ordered a return to traditional cults and the restoration of destroyed temples.
• The Evidence: As analyses by Egyptologists show, the Restoration Stela describing these actions is more than just a religious manifesto. The rebuilding of temples and the reinstatement of the priesthood were not merely acts of piety. They were actions serving economic and social goals, aimed at "rebuilding state structures." The transfer of state wealth (gold, silver, land, slaves) back to the reactivated religious institutions "stabilized the social order and strengthened statehood."
• Significance for PaC: Here, religion became a tool for the economic and administrative reconstruction of the state after a crisis. It shows in black and white that even seemingly purely religious actions had a deeply pragmatic, state-building dimension, consistent with the logic of using large projects (in this case, restoration) to manage the state.

Besides Tutankhamun, other examples also confirm this principle:

• Hatshepsut`s Building Program (New Kingdom, c. 1470 BCE): The monumental structures of Queen Hatshepsut, like the temple at Deir el-Bahari, also had a dimension beyond cult. As historians note, they served to "consolidate power and organize society through employment and infrastructure development."

These examples, though distant in time from the 4th Dynasty, show a striking continuity of the principle: monumental construction, regardless of its form (pyramid, temple, city), was a key tool in the hands of the pharaohs for achieving state goals. Religion provided the ideological legitimization, but the driving force was the pragmatic need to manage the economy, integrate society, and strengthen power.

Moreover, this principle seems timeless. Construction, whether in ancient Egypt or in the modern world, remains one of the main engines of the economy, generating employment, stimulating related industries, and serving as a tool of state policy. The evidence from later Egyptian eras only confirms that the pharaohs understood this relationship long before us.

The Overarching Benefit of New Tools: Social Function (Life After Completion)

Here we come to the fundamental difference that applies to all new forms of construction—rock-cut temples, modular temples, and planned cities.

In contrast to the sealed pyramids, which became dead, inaccessible monuments after completion, temples and cities "lived." They were centers of cult, administration, education, and social life, accessible to people daily or during festivals. Thus, they fulfilled a crucial social function even after construction was finished, continuously upholding the authority of the state and its structures.

The Constant Pillar: Religion as Universal Legitimation

It is important to emphasize that the evolution of tools did not mean a change in the method of their justification. Regardless of whether the pharaoh was erecting a pyramid, carving a temple in rock, adding a pylon at Karnak, or founding a new city, religion always remained the primary source of legitimization for these actions. It was the "safe approach."

The pharaoh, as a divine ruler, had the duty to maintain *Maat*—cosmic order. Building in honor of the gods (or for one`s own cult) was seen as fulfilling this duty. The pharaoh "had to" build to ensure the gods` favor, not just "wanted to." This narrative ensured social acceptance for the enormous effort and cost.

Religion was thus the unchanging "operating system" on which all pragmatic state programs ran. We can also use the "oxygen metaphor": although oxygen does not make up the majority of the atmosphere (it`s only about 21%), life is impossible without it. Similarly here—economics and politics may have been the main engine, but without the "oxygen" of religious legitimization, the entire project would never have gained social acceptance or the energy for its realization.

One can even notice that the further from the era of the great pyramids, the more unequivocally religious the *official* character of the monumental structures became. Temples were directly "homes of the gods," and cities were often centers of new cults. The separation of the monumental building`s function from the hidden tombs in the Valley of the Kings further reinforced the impression that the visible structures served the current needs of the state, sanctified by religion.

↑ Back to top

2. Conclusion: From Nation Builders to Imperial Stewards

The evolution from the monolithic pyramid, through rock-cut and modular temples, to planned cities, shows a logical progression in the development of the tools of power. It reveals the pharaohs not just as mystics focused on the afterlife, but above all as strategists, managers, and builders of statehood.

The key conclusion is therefore as follows: the cessation of building great pyramids was not a sign of crisis, but of strategic maturity. It happened not because the tool failed, but because its mission was completed.

The pharaohs of the 4th Dynasty were the "builders of the foundations of statehood." They used a rigid but powerful tool (the pyramid) to integrate the country. Their successors were already the "stewards and managers of a mature empire." They switched to flexible tools (temples and cities) that allowed them to flexibly manage resources, sustain the economy, and uphold their authority in a stable, wealthier society.

The tool of power evolved along with the society it had helped to build.

↑ Back to top

3. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Here are answers to some of the most common questions about this theory.

1. Why are smaller pyramids (like Menkaure`s) a sign of success, not crisis?

Answer: The smaller pyramids are not a sign of failure, but of optimization. The goal of the PaC model was not to build the biggest monument possible, but to keep the state-building "machine" (of labor and redistribution) running. After the massive "integration shock" of Cheops`s pyramid, his successors could achieve the same socio-economic effect (maintaining the system, employing cadres) with a smaller, less risky, and less resource-intensive project. It`s a sign of a state becoming more efficient, not weaker.

2. If the pyramids were so risky, why build them at all? Why not start with temples?

Answer: Because in the initial phase, the young state needed a radical, unifying "shock". A massive, singular, multi-generational goal (the Great Pyramid) was the perfect tool to force integration, build an administration from scratch, and unite Upper and Lower Egypt in a single effort. A smaller, flexible temple project might not have had the same powerful, nation-building gravity. The high-risk, high-reward pyramid was the right tool for that specific "start-up" phase of the state.

3. You say the pyramids` mission was "completed." What mission?

Answer: The primary mission of integration and stabilization. The PaC theory posits that the great pyramids were built to solve the "integration crisis" of a newly unified Egypt. After decades of this shared project, the state was no longer a fragile union; it was a stable, integrated empire with a functioning administration, a unified culture, and a wealthy, established society. The tool (the pyramid) had successfully solved the problem it was built for. Therefore, it could be retired and replaced by tools designed for a new problem: not *building* a state, but *maintaining* one.

4. (Example) But didn`t the state collapse from a lack of resources later?

Answer: Yes, but much later, at the end of the Old Kingdom (around 2200 BCE), due to a severe climate crisis (a global drought) that the system couldn`t handle. This doesn`t contradict the theory. It suggests the PaC system was highly successful for centuries *under normal conditions*, but even it couldn`t withstand a catastrophic environmental collapse that shut down its primary "fuel": agricultural surplus.

↑ Back to top

4. Publications

My theory and the evidence I have gathered have been published in the form of a book, articles, and a documentary film. Below is an interactive list of all works – click on a title you are interested in to see details, links, and even the full content.

Book (Amazon): Egyptian Pyramids: Big Tombs or Big Business? (2023)

A detailed elaboration of the socio-economic theory, enriched with examples and previously unpublished materials.

The book has received international acclaim and is available in four languages: English, Spanish, German, and French.

View or buy on Amazon

Popular science article (Ancient Origins Premium): Pyramids in Egypt: Tombs or Rather Tools of Power? (2025)

Following a rigorous editorial review, this article was published in the premium section of `Ancient Origins,` presenting the theory to a wide audience.

Read the article on Ancient Origins

Documentary Film (YouTube): The Pyramids - Tools of Power (2025)

A documentary film inspired by the theory, visualizing its key concepts.

Watch directly on YouTube

Academic Articles (ZENODO Repository):

Below are links to the open science repository ZENODO, where all key texts of the theory are archived.

---

1. The Main Theory (Why they were built):

The Great Pyramids of Egypt – Tombs or Primarily a Socio-Economic Development Project?

View publication in ZENODO

---

2. The Continuation of the Theory (Why they stopped):

Why Did Ancient Egypt Stop Building Great Pyramids – The Evolution of a Tool of Power and Economy

This is the core essay that this entire webpage is based on, explaining the evolution from pyramids to temples and cities.

View publication in ZENODO

---

3. Supporting Evidence:

30 Pieces of Evidence Supporting Jacek Krzysztoń`s Theory...

View publication in ZENODO

---

4. Resilience Test (Anticipating Criticism):

The Resilience of Jacek Krzysztoń`s Theory... An Answer to 10 Key Doubts

View publication in ZENODO

↑ Back to top

5. About the Author

↑ Back to top