THE GREAT PYRAMID: Did it really represent Orion?

Did the Great Pyramid really represent Orion? There are several real elements that make Robert Bauval's idea interesting, even without claiming a proven correlation. The key point is to separate two different claims: that Giza had strong astronomical significance is virtually certain; that the three pyramids were an intentional copy of the three stars in Orion's Belt is, however, a controversial hypothesis.

Three pyramids, three stars

The starting point is very simple and visual. At Giza, we have three great pyramids: Cheops, Khafre, and Menkaure. In Orion's Belt, we have three particularly prominent stars: Alnitak, Alnilam, and Mintaka. The three stars do not form a perfectly straight line: one of the three is slightly offset from the other two. The three pyramids are also not perfectly aligned: Menkaure is clearly off-axis with respect to Cheops and Khafre. It is this geometric similarity that led Robert Bauval to formulate what would become the Orion Correlation Theory. And this already raises an interesting question: if one simply wanted to build three pyramids next to each other, why not align them?

The smallest pyramid corresponds to the least bright star

The coincidence increases when looking at the dimensions. The pyramids of Cheops and Khafre are enormous. The pyramid of Menkaure is much smaller. The Great Pyramid originally stood about 146.6 meters tall, Khafre about 143.5 meters, while Menkaure stands just 65 meters. In Orion's Belt, two stars also appear more dominant, while Mintaka is dimmer.

In Bauval's interpretation: Cheops corresponds to Alnitak, Khafre corresponds to Alnilam, Menkaure corresponds to Mintaka. So we would not only have three objects against three objects, but also a possible correspondence in the visual hierarchy. It's not a perfect mathematical correspondence. The alignments, in fact, are not precise. But it is certainly one of the elements that makes the hypothesis intuitively appealing.

Orion was not just any constellation for the Egyptians

This is perhaps the most important fact. If Bauval had arbitrarily chosen three stars in the sky that resemble the arrangement of the pyramids, the hypothesis would be very weak. But Orion actually had fundamental religious importance in ancient Egypt. The Egyptians identified a celestial figure called Sah, generally associated with Orion, and in the Pharaonic era, Sah became closely associated with Osiris, the god of death, rebirth, and the afterlife. Egyptian funerary religion also linked the fate of the deceased pharaoh to the stars. Therefore, a monumental royal necropolis associated with Orion would not be an idea at all foreign to the Egyptian mentality.

And this is what completely changes the weight of the simple geometric similarity. If the three pyramids coincidentally resembled the three stars of a constellation insignificant to the Egyptians, it would be a curiosity. But they do resemble a group of stars belonging to the region of the sky associated with Osiris.

The pyramids were religious machines intended for the transformation of the pharaoh

Today, we're accustomed to thinking of a pyramid essentially as a gigantic tomb. But there's no evidence that they were tombs. This is just our interpretation. Furthermore, for the Egyptians, the death of a pharaoh was much more complex than the death of a modern king or president. The death of a pharaoh wasn't simply the end of his life. The ruler had to transform, ascend to heaven, and continue to exist in the divine realm.

In the Pyramid Texts, written a few centuries after the construction of the great pyramids of Giza but based on older religious traditions, the pharaoh is repeatedly associated with the stars and celestial ascension. The pyramid, therefore, according to Egyptian texts, was the site of the pharaoh's transformation into a celestial being, not his burial place. Thus, the idea that a pyramid was also designed with the heavens in mind is not born of modern fantasy: astronomy was truly part of the Egyptian royal funerary universe.

The question then becomes: if the pharaoh had to transform himself to reach Osiris-Orion, what would the pyramid actually have been? Were the Egyptians expecting only a symbolic transformation, or a real one?

Inside the Great Pyramid there are shafts oriented towards the sky

Narrow shafts lead from the inner chambers of the Great Pyramid. For a long time, they were simply called "ventilation shafts," but this explanation presents difficulties, especially since some did not originally lead to the outside. Their inclination and orientation have therefore also led to the suggestion of a symbolic or astronomical function. One of the central elements of Bauval's theory concerns the southern shaft of the King's Chamber, which would have pointed toward the Orion region in the sky during the Fourth Dynasty. Even modern analyses that reject the overall "Orion map" theory consider this astronomical relationship much more serious than the geometric correlation of the three pyramids.

This is a very important element. It means that Orion doesn't just appear when observing the position of the pyramids from above. He could also appear in the internal architecture of the Great Pyramid. Therefore, the idea that the pharaoh had to "start" from inside the pyramid to reach Orion has a much more solid foundation than previously thought.

The pyramids are oriented towards the cardinal points with extraordinary precision.

This fact is indisputable and, in my opinion, one of the most important. The Great Pyramid is oriented almost perfectly toward true north. The error is on the order of a few arc minutes. For a structure built more than 4,500 years ago, this is an extraordinary precision. Serious archaeoastronomical studies consider the pyramids' cardinal orientation one of the most astronomically interesting aspects of the entire Giza complex.

This means that whoever designed Giza: carefully observed the sky; knew very precise methods for determining north; and deliberately incorporated astronomical information into the architecture. It doesn't prove Orion. But it eliminates a possible objection: we're not talking about builders indifferent to the arrangement of the stars. On the contrary, we know they observed the sky with extreme precision.

The Nile may recall the position of the Milky Way relative to Orion

Bauval took the idea even further. If the three pyramids represent Orion's Belt, the Nile could represent the great bright band of the Milky Way on Earth. In the sky, Orion is located near the Milky Way. On Earth, Giza is located next to the Nile. The theory thus becomes no longer "three pyramids correspond to three stars," but rather a terrestrial landscape constructed to reflect a celestial landscape. This is one of the most spectacular aspects of the hypothesis, although it is obviously much more difficult to rigorously demonstrate.

The project seems to have an overall logic

Modern studies of the Giza plateau show that we cannot consider each pyramid in complete isolation from the others. There are geometric relationships, orientations, and axes between the monuments. Even scholars who reject the Orion correlation recognize that the overall layout of the complex exhibits common planning elements.

If the three pyramids were built to a single design, then it is highly unlikely that they were built by the pharaohs. Indeed, the three pharaohs traditionally credited with building the pyramids lived at different times. It is much more likely that the pharaohs repaired, or partially rebuilt, buildings on a pre-existing foundation. In this sense, the pyramids would predate even the Egyptians. In fact, the latest findings tell us that the granite at the base of the "Little Pyramid" may have been in place around 6,400 years ago (3450 ± 950 BC). At that time, the reign of the pharaohs had not yet begun. (Ioannis Liritzis & Asimina Vafiadou, “Surface luminescence dating of some Egyptian monuments”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 16, no. 2, 2015, pp. 134–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2014.05.007)

Precession allows us to move Orion's position back

Bauval also introduced a much more sophisticated astronomical element: the precession of the equinoxes. The Earth's axis does not maintain the same orientation forever. It slowly rotates like a spinning top, completing a cycle in about 26,000 years. For this reason, the apparent position of the stars relative to the horizon slowly changes over the millennia. It is therefore possible to calculate approximately how Orion appeared: in 2500 BC; in 5000 BC; in 10,000 BC; etc. Bauval observed that Orion's position varies with precession and proposed that the Giza project could preserve the memory of a much older celestial configuration. This is the origin of the famous reference to approximately 10,500 BC.

Here, however, we must be very precise: this part of the theory is much more problematic than the simple Giza-Orion association. Astronomical tests by Anthony Fairall and others do not find a perfect geometric correspondence at that date.

What is left for us?

In the end, what remains of this reasoning? According to the latest studies, it seems that the pyramids predate the Egyptians we know. Certainly predate the pharaohs. Furthermore, everything about the interior suggests that the builders expected a "transformation" of the man placed in the sarcophagus. It wasn't a burial, but a "transformation chamber." Whether this transformation was real or symbolic is unknown. Furthermore, the transformation pointed toward "Orion," as the final destination for the human being inside the Great Pyramid. Read this way, the Great Pyramid seems much more like the teleportation site in the movie "Contact" than a tomb. Was it all symbolic, or was there something real as well?

You can find more material on the mystery of the pyramids by clicking on the photo below.

Currently available only in Italian.

Available in English