Stars and the Giza pyramids

In the late1980's, Robert Bauval proposed a theory that the ancient Egyptians represented the distinctive pattern of the three stars of Orion's 'belt' by building a group of three pyramids at Giza that matched the pattern of the three 'Belt stars' in the Orion constellation.  An observer north of Giza looking south, would see a similar arrangement on the ground as could be seen in the sky - two stars in line and one slightly offset corresponding to two pyramids in line and one slightly offset with similar relative distances between the three stars and between the three pyramids.

Since the three pyramids are accurately aligned to the cardinal points, it seems natural that if an attempt was made to represent the three 'belt stars', a 'match' should occur when the 'belt stars' crossed the meridian due south.  However, a 'match' did not occur on the meridian during the era when the Giza pyramids were designed and built, but only much further back in time c.11380 BC.  (A close match occurs when Alnitak and Saiph are in vertical alignment.)

fig. 1 the 'belt' crossing the meridian due south c.11380 BC when it closely matched the layout of the pyramids.

fig. 2  the 'belt' as it appeared crossing the meridian due south during the era when the pyramids were built.

fig. 3 the Giza site layout

Comparing the angle of the three Giza pyramids, with the angle of the three belt stars when they were on the meridian at the time the pyramids were built, it becomes apparent that the angles are quite different.  The angle between the first pyramid of Giza (G1) and the third pyramid of Giza (G3) is 52.2 degrees [1].  However, when we measure the angle of the corresponding stars Alnitak and Mintaka - the result is 16.2 degrees; a difference of 36 degrees.  Orion can either be 'precessed' back through time to get a better match, or the possibility that the Egyptians utilized other means to achieve the desired angle can be investigated.

Vertical Alignments

A vertical alignment of stars is a useful reference line that can be observed with the aid of a straight edge or plumb line, and the angles between other stars can be measured in relation to this line.  When Alnitak and Saiph were in vertical alignment, the angle between the 'belt' stars Alnitak and Alnilam was 46 degrees and the angle between Alnitak and Mintaka, 49.6 degrees.  On the Giza plateau, the angles between the centre points of the corresponding pyramids are 46.6 degrees and 52.2 degrees, or alternatively, the angles between the centres of the eastern baselines are 46 degrees and 49.4 degrees respectively.

A second vertical alignment between two stars in Orion would have occurred 15 minutes earlier with Bellatrix and Mintaka.  If the designers had wanted to represent the 'belt' stars by combining these two vertical alignments, the angle between Alnitak and Mintaka would then increase from 49.6 degrees to 51 degrees. 

fig. 4  Bellatrix and Mintaka in vertical alignment

A Straight Line Alignment

Alnitak and Saiph were in vertical alignment with the angle of the 'belt' stars closely matching the three pyramids at Giza, not on the meridian due south, but somewhere in the south eastern sky as Orion was rising.

c.2475 BC,  this vertical alignment  of Alnitak and Saiph in the south eastern sky was highlighted by a significant celestial marker and a straight line alignment of five pyramids / pyramid groups.

The plateau at Abu Rawash, where Djedefre built his pyramid, is the northernmost of all the Egyptian pyramids and was named: 'Djedfre's Starry Sky' (Verner) [2].  It is approximately eight kilometers from and 80 meters higher than the Giza plateau.  It would have been an ideal location for viewing the sky.  An observer standing at Djedefre's pyramid looking 52.2 degrees south of east over the Giza group would have seen Orion's belt in the sky  -  37 degrees above the Giza Plateau.  At this point, the angle of the 'belt' matched the layout of the three Giza Pyramids as they would appear to an observer viewing Giza from a position to the north.  Alnitak is below and to the left of Mintaka corresponding to G1 northeast of G3.

Continuing on the same sight line from Abu Rawash to Giza, 52.2 degs south of east, is a  4th dyn pyramid named 'Neferka-is-a-Star', and a third dynasty pyramid, both located at  Zawyet el-Aryan  [3].  The line continues to the pyramid group at Abusir and finally reaches the vast necropolis at Saqqara.

fig. 5  52.2 degs south of east straight line alignment

The Giza pyramids seen from Abu Rawash (photo, Jon Bodsworth)

A Celestial Marker

At the time the pyramids were being built, the vernal equinox was positioned between the Hyades and the Pleiades. If we view the sky when Orion's belt was 52.2 degrees south of east, this equinoctial marker was due south on the meridian. This is an important reference point in the sky where the celestial equator crosses the ecliptic. This point could be noted when day and night were the same length and the sun rose due east in the spring.

  fig. 6  Orion's 'belt' 52.2 degrees south of east - vernal equinox due south

A series of 3rd and 4th Dynasty pyramid groups connected on the same sight line that highlighted the angle of Orion's 'belt' when it matched the angle of the Giza Pyramids - and when significantly, the vernal equinox was due
south - meant that both astral and solar aspects of the Ancient Egyptian belief system were present.  At the vernal equinox, the sun rose due east casting it's rays across the Nile river, over the Sphinx that was directly facing it, and finally illuminating the royal cult complex and the eastern faces of the pyramids (all the other faces would have been in shadow).

Viewing Orion from Abu Rawash

Viewing the sky from Djedefre's pyramid on the plateau at Abu Rawash, the south west / north east orientation of the three Giza Pyramids closely matched the angle of the belt stars as they crossed the meridian due south.

fig. 7  the Giza site, showing the 52.2 deg alignment mirrored in the layout

fig. 8  The layout of the three pyramids of the Giza group as seen from along a sight line linking Djedfre's pyramid at Abu Rawash to the north west of Giza showing the three 'belt' stars overlaid on the layout as they would have appeared crossing the meridian due south.

The Giza pyramids 8 km in the distance, as viewed from Abu Rawash, 80 m (260 ft) above the Giza plateau.

So, there are two significant 'matches' between sky and ground when viewed from Abu Rawash.  First, when the small area of the sky that marked the vernal equinox was due south - the belt stars matched the layout of the three Giza Pyramids as they would appear to an observer standing due north of Giza.  Then, two hours later, when the belt stars were crossing the meridian, the angle of the stars matched the angle of the pyramids as they would appear to an observer looking along the 'sight line' that links Djedefre's pyramid to the Giza pyramid group, Zawyet el-Aryan, Abusir and Saqqara.

If the straight line alignment along the escarpment overlooking the river valley was intentional, this could explain why successive kings did not build at Giza.  One king built to the north at Abu Rawash and another to the south at Zawyet el-Aryan, perhaps in order to provide a straight line connection between these major pyramids in order to highlight Orion's belt in the south eastern sky when it 'matched' the site layout at Giza, and also to link with the extensive necropolis at Saqqara.

It has been argued that the resemblance to the three stars of Orion's 'belt' is only apparent when viewed from above the Giza site.   The ancient Egyptians had no way of seeing the site layout from above the site, so if they had attempted to represent the 'belt' stars there was no way they could have appreciated it.

A site plan or plan of a building is drawn as if looking straight down from above.  Ancient architectural drawings have been found and they include plan views.  So at the crucial design stage it was natural to view the site or building as if seen from straight above.  This would make it very easy to envisage the overall concept, especially if the ancient Egyptians had intended to represent the three 'belt' stars as three pyramids.  Once the project was complete, it would of course be difficult to appreciate the design concept that was so explicit at the planning stage, but this would not detract in any way from the potency of the design.  These pyramid complexes were essentially immense funerary sites for the dead.  People did not live there, they were buried there.  Any 'magical' potency inherent in the design was for the benefit of the dead and the dead kings were looking down from their transformed glorified states in the celestial world.

They needed to create links with the celestial world, and primarily these were ritual based, but ancient sacred architecture could also incorporate subtle links into the design.

An enigmatic shaft

The association with Orion's 'belt' c. 2475 BCE is also strengthened by enigmatic architectural features built within the superstructure of G1. Four long shafts, (or model passageways according to some Egyptologists), that could also have temporarily functioned to ventilate the interior spaces for the masons as they worked - may have been designed to 'target' specific stars in the northern and southern skies. Furthermore, these stars were part of stellar groups that had a significant part to play in the Ancient Egyptian belief system. Alnitak, the star that corresponds to G1 in the OCT, was at 45 degrees altitude as it reached its highest point in the sky due south. This matches the upper southern shaft's angle of incline for the final long 45.35 m (148.8 ft) ascent to the exterior face of the pyramid. This means that the shaft was pointed at an area of the sky where Alnitak crossed each day.

Immediately after a series of niches (these may have once held some kind of 'door'), 8.1m down the shaft from the original exterior face of the pyramid, the shaft has a square cross section of 22.5 x 22.5cm (3 x 3 AE palms).  The small square area of the sky 'seen' from these niches is about 1.6 arc degs square.  This means that Alnitak would have crossed the 'field of view' of the shaft for approx. seven minutes each day, or if 'viewed' from 45.35m down the shaft where the long straight section begins, for one and a half minutes each day.  These shafts were not designed as observation shafts however.

The idea that two upper shafts were 'targeting' specific stars in the northern and southern skies, was first proposed in 1964 by the Egyptologist Dr. Alexander Badawy together with the astronomer Virgina Trimble.  In a recent interview with Earthfiles, the Egyptologist Mark Lehner has stated that:

"Now, the southern ones (shafts) point up at the southern sky and it's a very reasonable guess that the destination there in terms of the stars was the constellation Orion ­ or what we know as the constellation Orion ­ with the three stars in the belt. Orion was the symbol of Osiris, the Lord of the Dead. Or, the star Sirius which was a very important star for the ancient Egyptians because it was associated with the God of Isis. We know that because we have a tradition in later hieroglphyic text, religious text, that tells us about the King's soul, or Ka, ascending to the circumpolar stars on the north and to Orion or Sirius in the south."  

Professor Tony Fairall (astronomer and critic of the OCT) also agrees in his article 'Precession and the layout of the Ancient Egyptian pyramids' (June 1999, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society)

"Khufu's pyramid also contains four 'star shafts', aimed towards the meridian in the sky. When the pyramid was built (c. 2500 BC), these shafts aimed at the transitpoints of Thuban (Alpha Draconis - then pole star), Orion's Belt, Sirius and Kochab (Beta Ursa Minoris), clearly intentionally and not coincidentally. The shafts apparently served to direct the ka, or spirit, of the dead pharaoh towards these key stars. Thuban and Kochab were circumpolar "Imperishable ones" (stars that never die), Orion represented the deity Osiris, and Sirius his consort, Isis. Precession has since changed the transit points, so the shafts no longer function in this manner."

Is the Giza site layout an upside down representation of Orion's 'Belt'?

It has been argued that technically Mintaka is slightly to the north of Alnitak when Orion's 'belt' was due south.  Therefore, to correctly represent this with the corresponding pyramids on the ground, G3 should be to the northwest of G1 (not to the southwest where it was built) creating a mirror image of the 'belt' stars in the sky - as if the three stars were reflected in water.  However, a 'mirror' image might seem unnatural to an observer comparing the Giza group to Orion's 'belt' in the sky, similar to the way stars look on a celestial globe that has all the constellations disconcertingly the 'wrong' way round as if looking from the outside in.  It is more natural to represent the three stars just as the three pyramids have been laid out.

When the three stars of Orion's 'belt' rose about 18.4 degrees south of east, Alnitak the lowest star is slightly to the left or to the north of Mintaka the highest star.

fig. 9  The three stars of Orion's 'belt' rising 18.4 degrees south of east.  Alnitak the lowest star is slightly to the left or to the north of Mintaka the highest star

fig. 10  The upper chamber of G1 with a direction line to the rising of Orion's 'belt' 18.4 degrees south of east, from the intersection of the E/W centre line of the chamber and the N/S centre line of the pyramid (the centre of the sarcophagus), to the south eastern corner of the chamber.

Crossing the meridian due south, the three 'belt' stars were 45 degs above the horizon, Alnitak to the left and slightly lower than Mintaka.

fig. 11  Orion's 'belt' due south - altitude 45 degrees

In the context of representing the 'belt' stars on the ground, the idea that 'up' is north is inconsistent with the compass directions for east and west.  If 'up' is north, and 'down' is south, then right is to the east and west is to the left according to modern compass convention. However, when looking at the 'belt' due south, to the right is west not east - east and west are reversed if 'up' is north.  It is far more natural to describe the scene as particular stars being simply above or below other stars.  Verner mentions that south was the important direction for the ancient Egyptians. (The AE seemed to equate west with right and east with left, and this is only correct if looking south.)  They would have represented the 'belt' according to their design conventions, as it seemed most clear and natural.

The dilemma of the shafts

The shafts found in the superstructure of G1, mentioned above, are directed to the north and south of the upper chambers they exit from. According to the 'north is up' argument, this creates a dilemma. If we imagine the pyramid G1 up in the sky, in the place of Alnitak its corresponding star, the southern shaft would be technically pointing 'up', or north.   Either the Giza site layout is designed as an 'unnatural' mirror image, but the direction of the shafts will 'technically' be right, or the site layout is designed to be a natural representation, but then the shafts will be pointing in the 'wrong' direction. The dilemma is solved by taking each individual element and representing it as clearly and natural as possible as in the following example:

In a painting of a pond from a tomb in Thebes, the pond is depicted as if it were seen from above, but the fish, geese and trees are painted as seen from the side. Does this mean that the AE thought that fish swam on their sides or that trees grew horizontally along the ground. Of course not. It could be said that they "can't have it both ways", either they needed to change the view of the pond to conform with the rest of the scene, or the fish, geese and trees needed to be changed to conform to the overhead view of the pond.  Each individual element in the scene is depicted as it appeared most natural, regardless of the obvious contradictions. This example gives some insights as to how the mind of the AE designers worked.

fig. 12  Painting of a Pond.  From a tomb in Thebes - c.1400 BC

A three dimensional relief portrait of Hesire, carved into the wooden door of his tomb (c.2700 BC) also gives valuable insights into how the mind of an AE designer/artist worked - the design/stylistic conventions/rules they were using. Everything had to be represented from it’s most characteristic angle. The head was most easily seen in profile so they drew it sideways. But if we think of the human eye we think of it as seen from the front. Accordingly, a full-face eye was planted into the side view of the face. The top half of the body, the shoulders and chest, are best seen from the front, for then we see how the arms are hinged to the body. But arms and feet in movement are much more clearly seen sideways. That is the reason why Egyptians in these pictures look flat and contorted. Moreover the Egyptian artists found it hard to visualize either foot seen from the outside. They preferred the clear outline from the big toe upwards. So both feet are seen from the inside, and Hesire on the relief looks as if he had two left feet.

fig. 13  portrait of Hesire

(Both of these examples are from 'The Story of Art', E.H.Gombrich)

An architect today would be faced with the same set of seemingly irreconcilable problems if given the task of representing the 'belt' stars on the ground complete with shafts and there would be arguments about the 'right' way to do it.  If the ancient Egyptians were attempting to represent the 'belt' stars and provide some kind of stellar link using shafts or 'model' passageways, then the way they did it was 'right' and natural according to their way of looking at things.

Notes:

[1]  0 = due west, angle measured anticlockwise.

[2] Abu Rawash is about 8 km north of Giza; Djedefre's pyramid was built between the reigns of Khufu and Khafre.

[3] One is a 3rd Dynasty 'Layer Pyramid' attributed to Kha'ba.  The other is the 'Unfinished Pyramid'.   There is general agreement amongst Egyptologists that this pyramid was built during the 4th Dynasty, but it is uncertain if it was built between the reigns of Khufu and Khafre, or between Khafre and Menkaure.

A link to a rebuttal of E. Krupp's 'Astronomical Integrity at Giza'.  The article is by Barbara Bajus and presents a clear and forceful case refuting E. Krupp's arguments.

My thanks to Barbara for her invaluable help in proof reading and research.

chris tedder,  2002    updated  18.03.2002

pyramid orientation

CONTACT: