I think archeologists and historians misinterpret the purpose of pyramids.

>I'm assuming you mean Egyptian pyramids Mainly referring to those, but the pyramids in south america do also come to mind. >May I point out that timber is pretty scarce in the desert and so stone was really the only option. Fair point in regard to my arson comment. Though I believe mud/cob/thatched structures would have been the norm even in more wooded areas? >The high ground for archers is an interesting thought, but there's not really any area for them to amass and be defended from opposing projectiles. In theory the increased range would allow an archer to discourage any opposing archers from getting close enough to be a threat. I'll admit the lack of a foothold and space at the top does poke a hole in my theory. >Finally, I don't recall hearing of any archeological findings of weapons and armor near the base. If you're referring to the theoretical weapons dropped by attackers, I assume those would be quickly collected for use. Refined metals being valuable, I assume scavengers would make short work of any remains. It should also be mentioned that the vast majority of projectile weapons used during ancient egyptian times were wood/stone/bone, which would decompose somewhat quickly. >Which begs the question of why make more? I can only speculate, but I think a many generations of pharaohs one-upping each other could explain much of that. And they were of course eventually used as tombs, which carried a large degree of legal and religious stigma for those who violated them.