The first time of Sirio
The Giza/Orion correlation
Research on the Giza enigma has finally seen a decisive turning point with the fundamental intuition of Robert Bauval, according to whom the three pyramids of Giza represent the three stars of Orion's Belt. In my opinion this idea is fundamentally valid; indeed, it constitutes the starting point of my research, although I later realized that some aspects of Bauval and Hancock's theory were wrong, while others deserved revisions and further study.
The hypothesis of the Giza/Orion correlation is essentially based on two rather solid elements, well detailed and after all, despite the fierce aversion shown by the academic world, also perfectly consistent with Egyptian culture.
The first element consists of the arrangement of the three pyramids with respect to the course of the Nile, which would seem to reflect that of the three stars of the Orion Belt with respect to the Milky Way in a very specific age: 10,450 BC.
The second element is also of an astronomical nature, and concerns the question of the alignment of the so-called "ventilation ducts" of the King's and Queen's chambers with respect to some very specific stars.
Let us consider the first point in detail. The idea underlying Bauval and Hancock's theory can be summarized as follows.
We turn our backs to the north on a clear night and observe the constellation of Orion culminating at the meridian, with the three stars of the Belt in the foreground and Sirius not far away to the left; a little further on, even further to the left, we will be able to see the light of the Milky Way flowing like a celestial river, from the northern regions behind us to the horizon. Keeping this scene in our minds, let's now imagine flying over the territory of Lower Egypt, from the current city of Cairo, heading south: very soon we will be able to see the site of Giza with the three pyramids and the Sphinx, while the Nile river, not far away, on the left, flows towards the sea in the opposite direction to ours. Could we deny that the two images powerfully refer to each other? Comparing the two graphic representations of the Giza/Nile terrestrial area and the Orion/Milky Way celestial region, the analogy appears evident (figs. 1 and 2).
Let us now consider the second aspect, that of the ventilation ducts. As the term used to refer to them indicates, the prevailing opinion was that these ducts were designed to ventilate the interior of the pyramid, which in truth is very unlikely if one considers that not only do the two ducts in the Queen's Chamber not open outside (unlike the other two), but originally they did not even emerge from the Chamber, since they were isolated by thin stone diaphragms that the discoverer caused to split. The fact is that the four conduits, beyond any disquisition regarding possible practical functions, show that they are correctly aligned with various important stars, as they must have appeared approximately 4,450 years ago (fig. 3), i.e. when it is assumed that the complex consisting of the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx was completed.
In detail, the southern conduit of the Queen's Chamber was pointed towards Sirius (Alfa Canis Maioris), the southern conduit of the King's Chamber was pointed towards Alnitak (Zeta Orionis), the north conduit of the King's Chamber was pointed towards Thuban (Alfa Draconis, which in the age of the pyramids was the star closest to the north celestial pole and therefore played the role of the current Polar Star).
Finally, the north conduit of the Queen's Chamber was pointed towards Kochab (Beta Ursae Minoris).
The First Time of Orion
Although the ventilation ducts clearly indicate an age corresponding to the Fourth Dynasty (i.e. precisely when the Giza complex would have been built), Bauval and Hancock believe that the key age must be another, namely 10,450 BC. Why ? Essentially for two reasons.
First of all, around that date Orion's Belt, by virtue of the precessional cycle, would have been at the minimum height above the horizon, and therefore at its "first precessional time".
Secondly, this date falls right at the beginning of the precessional era of Leo, so how can one ignore the presence, in the Giza complex, of a gigantic monument with lion-like features (the Sphinx obviously), with its gaze turned towards the point where the sun rises on the vernal equinox? Furthermore, again around the date of 10,450 BC, at dawn of the spring equinox, it happened not only that the Great Sphinx faced the rising sun in the constellation of Leo, but also that Orion's Belt culminated at the meridian (fig. 4): it is difficult to believe that this set of correlations could be random, if we think that the constellation of Leo and Orion's Belt must have represented, for the ancient Egyptians, the celestial counterparts of the Sphinx and the three pyramids respectively.
This celestial configuration seemed so powerful to Bauval and Hancock that it led them to believe that the mythical First Time (Zep Tepi) governed by the gods of the Egyptian religion should be placed right around that date; furthermore in this age the orientation of the constellation of Orion and the Milky Way in the sky was such that the celestial representation seemed to be reflected in the terrestrial one (Giza and Nile) in the most precise way, something that would not have occurred on other dates. This according to the two authors.
The exact correspondence between earth and sky
In truth, it is precisely on this last aspect that Bauval and Hancock fall into error. The perfect correspondence between heaven and earth was achieved not in 12,450 BC. (equivalent to 10,450 BC), but about 1,600 years earlier, around 14,040 BC.
To verify this data, two maps must be prepared: a map of the celestial sphere (centered on the Orion region) and a terrestrial map (limited to the region surrounding Giza , i.e. the Memphite necropolis); we must also resize the astronomical map to ensure that Orion's Belt and the trio of Giza pyramids, which are our two terms of reference, appear of the same order of magnitude.
The next operation consists in superimposing the two maps, making Alnitak coincide with the pyramid of Khufu and aligning the celestial north with the geographic south. Now, a superposition of this type produces different results depending on the age to which the astronomical map refers, and this is because the precessional movement of the earth's axis changes the position of the celestial poles over time, and therefore changes the orientation of the meridian passing through a specific point of the celestial sphere (fig. 5).
This means that if we first use an astronomical map from 4,450 BC, then one from 12,450 BC and finally one from 14,040 BC and we compare the three overlapping maps that derive from it, we observe how the firmament appears to rotate around Alnitak in an anti-clockwise direction as it goes back in time.
If in the first case (during the 4th dynasty) the Orion Belt appears noticeably off-axis with respect to the pyramids (fig. 6), in the second case (the age indicated by Bauval and Hancock as First Time) the deviation appears much smaller (fig. 7); however, only the astronomical map of 14,040 BC allows for a perfect coincidence between the axis of the Belt and that of the trio of pyramids (fig. 8).
It is important to point out that the age in which the perfect correspondence between the celestial and terrestrial maps occurs depends solely on one aspect, namely the location of the trio of pyramids of Khufu/Khafre/Menkaure with respect to the geographic north: for example, if the dislocation had been that indicated in fig. 9 (leaving the mutual distances between the three pyramids unchanged), the resulting date for the perfect correspondence would have been 4,450 BC (the age of the Fourth Dynasty, also indicated by the conduits of the Great Pyramid).
Therefore, it was well within the power of the builders to indicate any date simply by the general arrangement of the three pyramids.
The role of Sirius
It is simply unthinkable that Sirius, the main star for Egyptian culture, has no part in the scheme, if the hypothesis of the Giza/Orion correlation is considered valid; but on this aspect the theory of Bauval and Hancock is very lacking, since Sirius plays no role. So the problem at this point is to determine how Sirius becomes part of the game.
To this end, we focus our attention on the celestial region of Orion and Sirius and retrace the procedure for superimposing the terrestrial and celestial maps. Let's imagine taking the trio of Khufu/Khafre/Menkaure pyramids and placing them on Orion's Belt, making the Khufu pyramid coincide with Alnitak (the southernmost star of the Belt); we then rotate and resize the trio of pyramids as if it were a rigid body, until we achieve the best possible approximate superposition (a perfect superposition cannot be obtained because the arrangement of the three pyramids determines a triangle slightly different from the one defined by the three stars). The best approximate superposition is the one that equally distributes the position error between the corresponding pairs Khafre/Alnilam and Menkaure/Mintaka.
In summary, we have the pyramid of Khufu exactly coinciding with Alnitak (by construction), while the pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure deviate from their celestial counterparts by approximately 3' of arc (equivalent to approximately 18 meters if the deviation is measured on a map terrestrial) (fig. 10).
In this way, a map was built showing Sirius, the constellation of Orion and the three pyramids of Giza superimposed on the three stars of the Belt.
For convenience, we orient this map so that the south sides of the pyramids are facing upwards.
Let us now imagine tracing the north-east/southwest diagonal axis passing through the center of the base of the Khufu pyramid (and therefore passing through Alnitak). It is immediate to observe that by extending the imaginary axis of Orion's Belt you arrive right near Sirius; we could also define this axis as the "conventional axis of the Orion Belt".
Agreed, the axis of the Belt does not center Sirius exactly, or rather it does not center it today; but in the past? Let us remember that the proper motion of Sirius is considerable (indeed, it is among the greatest detectable star in the entire firmament) and that its direction is approximately towards the celestial south (at the apparent speed of over one degree every 3000 years).
This means that as we move backwards in time, Sirius tends to get closer to the axis of the Belt, which makes it particularly interesting to verify the exact position of Sirius in 14,040 BC, when the perfect superimposition of heaven and earth occurred: only on that date did the north celestial turned towards the top of our map and therefore coincided with the geographic south (assumed by construction as a fixed reference).
In 14,040 a.p. Sirius was located exactly on the axis of the Belt, with such precision as to categorically exclude the possibility of a mere coincidence (fig. 11).
The First Time of Sirius
Another element that suggests the intentional nature of the scheme is that the fundamental date indicated is very close to the "First Time of Sirius".
As we know, Bauval and Hancock place the mythical First Time of the gods around 10,450 BC, since in this age the stars of Orion's Belt descended to the minimum height with respect to the horizon (after which they began to rise again in the sky: they will touch the maximum height in approximately 450 years, i.e. 12,900 years – half a precessional cycle – after the "First Time"). Hence the definition of "First Time of Orion", i.e. the beginning of the cycle that would lead Orion's Belt to rise back into the sky after having descended to its lowest point.
It is quite natural then to ask when the "First Time of Sirius" occurred: well, Sirius fell to its lowest height (about one degree above the horizon of Giza) around the date of 13,800 BC, just a couple of centuries after the date of 14,040 BC. The proper motion of the star combined with the precessional movement produced the effect of a long stationing of Sirius around its minimum point, so that, in fact, we can affirm that in 14,040 BC Sirius practically stopped at the minimum height above the horizon, and therefore was in its Prime Time.
The position occupied by Sirius in this age is also completely peculiar for another reason: not only was the star exactly on the (conventional) axis of the Belt and at the minimum height above the horizon, but it also lay close to another alignment, the one defined by Rigel and Saiph, the southernmost of the seven main stars that make up the constellation of Orion.
But that is not all.
At dawn on the spring equinox, Sirius culminated at the meridian at a height above the horizon of approximately 1.15°; at that moment Rigel and Saiph were to the right of Sirius at the same height on the horizon, such that the Sirius-Rigel-Saiph alignment was perfectly parallel to the horizon. This means that the constellation of Orion, in which the divine figure of Osiris was identified, appeared perfectly straight, almost as if Osiris was walking on the horizon, and this just as his consort Isis (identified as we know with Sirius) culminated at the meridian (fig. 12).
Such a celestial configuration is certainly no less full of symbolic meanings, nor less powerful and suggestive than the one that attracted the attention of Bauval and Hancock to the date of 12,450 BC; but it is also possible that one does not exclude the other, and that both dates are intentionally represented in the Giza/Orion correlation scheme. Indeed, what I am about to explain would seem to demonstrate that not only the two dates mentioned, but also the age of the Fourth Dynasty was somehow predicted and indicated by this incredible geometric-astronomical construction.
How?
To understand this we need to follow the path of Sirius on the celestial vault.
The path of Sirius
By "path of Sirius" I mean the direction of the movement and not the arc actually traversed in the sky by the star; this means, in geometric terms, that the path of Sirius is defined as the great circle resulting from the intersection of the celestial sphere with the plane of motion of the celestial body itself. Let us now consider the two circles described on the celestial sphere by the Earth's polar axis as a result of the precessional movement; each of these circles, which we could also call "paths of the celestial poles", is intersected by the path of Sirius in two points (fig. 13).
The meaning of these two intersections is soon clarified: when the celestial pole is in those positions, the direction of Sirius' motion appears exactly oriented in a north-south direction (towards the celestial south when advancing in time, towards the celestial north when regressing).
In other words, in these particular moments the path of Sirius appears exactly perpendicular to the horizon when the star culminates at the meridian (fig. 14).
This circumstance naturally occurs twice during each precessional cycle, but the last time it occurred was around 4,420 BC and even earlier around 12,280 BC.
Pay attention: the first of the two dates corresponds to the age of the 4th dynasty and is very close to 4,450 BC. indicated by the ventilation ducts of the Khufu pyramid; while the second of the two dates is very close to the age indicated by Bauval and Hancock for the mythical Zep Tepi, which would coincide astronomically with the first Time of Orion and with the beginning of the precessional era of Leo, testified by silent presence of the Great Sphinx.
There's enough to make your head spin. The scheme we have outlined shows at least a double level of reading, neither of which excludes the other: on a primary and fundamental level, the date of 14,040 BC is indicated with the utmost precision, through the simple location of the pyramids on the ground of Giza, and this date is also confirmed by the position of Sirius with respect to the axis of the Belt; but at a secondary reading level the scheme also provides the dates of 4,450 BC. and 12,450 BC which were already familiar to us following the studies of Bauval and Hancock. The layering of meanings, each of which integrates the others, constitutes further proof of the incredible complexity hidden in the monumental site of Giza.
Conclusion
The intentionality of the geometric-astronomical construction appears irrefutable, by virtue of the numerous and evident correlations that can be derived from the scheme itself. In summary, the circumstances that occur around the fundamental date of 14,040 BC are the following:
- the pyramids of Giza, superimposed on Orion's Belt, are exactly aligned with the celestial meridian;
- Sirius is located exactly on the axis of the Belt;
- Sirius is in its Prime Time;
- Sirius is aligned with Rigel and Saiph;
- at dawn on the spring equinox, while Sirius culminates at the meridian, Orion is "standing" next to Sirius and at the same height on the horizon.
Furthermore, still linked to this scheme although independently of the fundamental date of 14,040 BC, it was also discovered that the motion of Sirius was perpendicular to the horizon (at the moment of the star's culmination) around the age of the Fourth Dynasty (4,500-4,400 BC) and around the First Time of Orion (12,450 BC, coinciding with the beginning of the precessional era of Leo).
The correlation of a couple of elements could also be attributed to pure coincidence, but can we honestly consider four or five correlations closely linked to each other to be random? In my opinion, the Giza/Orion correlation can reasonably be considered proven, and at this point the following data can be drawn: the ancient builders prepared the Giza project to ensure that future researchers were able to construct the map of the Giza/Orion overlap by regulating it on the date of 14,040 BC; furthermore, they made sure to draw our attention to the path of Sirius and the chronological implications that arise from it.
At this time the first goal of the ancient builders has been achieved: we have understood the key and built the overlay map. But what should we do with such a map? Because it is clear that the game cannot end like this: do we want to believe that the ancient builders simply attempted a vain tour de force of mathematical and constructive virtuosity? It is more likely that they wanted to communicate something to us, and something extremely important, too, if they engaged in an effort of such proportions.
The Giza/Orion correlation was nothing more than the tool with which to define the language of this communication and establish in which direction to continue. In my opinion the suggestion is clear: develop the idea of superimposing the celestial and terrestrial maps on each other, extending the operation to the terrestrial surface and the celestial vault in their entirety. It is a different operation from that already attempted by Bauval, who believed he had identified the terrestrial counterpart of the constellation of Orion and the Hyades in the Memphite necropolis (of which Giza is the centre); it can easily be demonstrated that this correspondence does not pass the scrutiny of a stringent and detailed verification, and turns out to be far more approximate than the correlation scheme I identified.
As for the question of who actually were the ancient builders who set up this astonishing construction, I leave it to you to decide whether it is likely to identify them with the civilization of Ancient Egypt as it is historically assumed.
