Before introducing my opinion about the Orion
Correlation Theory, I feel the duty to say
that Robert Bauval, is one of the most important
researchers ever.
Without his studies, probably, we were still
discussing about pyramids as the last abode
of the fourth dynasty Pharaohs.
Metaphorically without his studies, I’m
sure, all discussions about the mysteries
of the past, would have had an encephalogram
fairly plat.
I believe he has earned the great merit in
opening a new way to study the mysteries of
Giza, proposing – for the first time in
the history - a multidisciplinary scientific
model of analysis that gave us the opportunity
to study the Giza Paradigm from a new point
of view.
I consider him as a Master, and I believe
that, at the end of the storm, humankind should
hold him in great respect.
But, as for all main theories, in the time,
they could be changed because of new discoveries,
and The Orion Correlation Theory is subject
to the same rules.
Robert Bauval studied the Egyptians’ ancient
myths and religion.
And, especially during the Old Kingdom, he
noted that their religion was characterized
by a deep correlation with the stars.
That’s why he argues that during the old
kingdom, the Egyptians had a “Stellar Religion”,
and not a solar religion originated during
the Middle Kingdom.
It could mean that Ancient Egyptians, during
the Old Kingdom, still lived the old memories,
joining the Gods to the Stars of the Sky.
He also noticed that they continuously refer,
in their painting for example, to the Orion
Constellation.Particularly he observed some
paintings reproducing three stars having the
same stars alignment forming the Orion’s
Belt.
So he had the doubt there was an obscure connection
among them.
In this case, I believe two main previous
works influenced his investigation:
1) in the middle of 60’, the astronomer
Virginia Trimble and the archaeologist Alexander
Badawy, in the effort to unveil the Great
Pyramid mystery, had the idea of shifting
the sky back in the time, to observe a possible
correlation between the shafts, inside the
queen and the king’s chambers, with the
stars above Giza.
They observed there was a correlation between
the shafts orientation and the star Sirius,
the Orion Constellation, the North Star and
Ursae Minor Constellation.
2) In 1969, Herta von Deschend and Giorgio
de Santillana published the book “Hamlet’s
mill”.
I think it is a masterpiece in the analysis
of ancient myth connected to astronomical
knowledge of ancient civilizations.
The book highlighted the possible knowledge,
in the ancient time, of an astronomical phenomenon
known as “precessional cycle”.
So, in my opinion, Bauval made his theory
on those two basic topics.
Anyway, before to introduce the core of his
theory, I think it is important to give some
short information, concerning the meaning
of “Precessional Cycle”
(SLIDE 1) We know that Earth moves around
its axis, having an inclination of 23° roughly.
Because of its rotation and inclination, Earth
has a kind of spinning top effect, and its
axis describes an imaginary circle in the
sky along which all constellations move, in
connection with the ecliptic and Sun.
The imaginary circle gets completed in 26.000
years roughly.
As a result of this, every 2.160 years, at
the vernal equinox, the sun arise in a different
constellation.
That phenomenon is also called “apparent
motion of the stars”, because the stars
seem to move due the “precessional effect”,
but they are fixed in the sky.
Obviously, that phenomenon could be studied
by using precise devices for astronomical
observation, and it is not visible to the
naked eye.
So,I believe it is a gamble to claim that
the dynastic Egyptians were able to observe
the astronomical effect of precession, because
it requires an astronomical observation lengthier
in time.Do not forget that it is a very slow
astronomical phenomenon.
Duration of Precession: 26.000 years.
Duration of Egyptian Civilization: almost
3.000 years.
So the first questions are: how did the Egyptians
observe that phenomenon, having no one device
for the job?
What abilities they had to include that phenomenon
in the Giza monuments disposition?
According to all this and much more, in 1993
Robert Bauval published his theory, proposing
the possible existence of a lost civilization
that started to build the monumental complex.
1) He claims there is a correlation between
the three major pyramids of Giza and the stars
forming the Orion’s Belt.
The correlation is explained due their similar
disposition, in the sky and on earth, according
to the hermetic concept “as above so below”.
2) He suggests that the Sphinx has a correlation
with Lion Constellation, and according to
him, the Sphinx has a precise function that
is as equinoctial indicator.
3) The Sphinx, having a lion shape, is very
important to fix the time when the monuments
were built, that is when the Sun arose in
the Lion Constellation.
That’s why he shifts the sky back in the
time, until the Age of the Lion, that is to
say when the Sun arose in the Lion Constellation,
and he fixes the Age of the Gods to 10.500
BC.
The nearest Lion astronomical time, according
to his study.
Now let’s take a look to the astronomical
map at that time (SLIDE 2) At the dawn of
the vernal equinox, the Lion Constellation
is right on the ecliptic, just in front of
the Sphinx, while the Orion Constellation
is positioned on the Meridian.
Now, let’s watch the astronomical position
of the Orion’s Belt.
Be careful, because it is a key point.
The Orion’s Belt is on the celestial meridian,
but something does not work.
Observing the disposition of the stars, we
can see that on the meridian lies the smaller
star of the Belt, and not the greatest, as
I expected.
It means that the correlation is between The
Great Pyramid (the greatest monument of Giza)
and Mintaka, (the smaller star of the Belt).
Is it possible?
We know, from the studies of many researchers
that the pyramids builders are famous for
their precision, for the technical details
research.
How is it possible that they did such a mistake?
In fact, we can see the position of Mintaka
on the Meridian, while Alnitak has moved toward
south-east.
In my opinion, this is not the correct astronomical
configuration, because I expect to find Alnitak
on the Meridian and not the star connected
to the pyramid of Mycerinus, the smaller pyramid
of Giza.
We all know, the Great Pyramid is the greatest
monument of Giza, and according to many researchers,
it is considered the center of emerging land
and the meridian zero on Earth.
So, I think it is the first technical limit
of Bauval’s theory.
The second limit is connected to mythologycal
interpretation and particularly, to the concept
and history of Zep Tepi.
After Osiris’ death, killed by his brother
Seth, according to ancient texts and particularly,
to some chapters of the Egyptian Book of Dead
(for example, the story told in the XV or
XVII or XVIII chapters) we learned that Egypt
was safe thanks to Isis and Toth, and then
to Horus.
However, it was Isis, who led Egypt out of
crisis, and she had a great role in the pitch,
finding the body of Osiris and giving birth
to Horus, the next Ruler of Egypt, the demi-god
who began the succession of “Shemsu-Hor”,
cited in the King’s list.
So, if the Giza Plateau remind to the Zep
Tepi, and the monuments and the sky perfect
aligned are witness of that period, we must
argue that on the Giza plateau, somewhere,
there is a monument inspired to the Goddess
worshipped by the Egyptians.
A monument very probably aligned with the
star Sirius, associated by the Egyptians priests
to Isis.
But, if we observe the astronomical map at
10.500 BC proposed by Bauval, Sirius is below
the horizon line (the white line highlighted
by the red arrows) and then it was not visible
from Giza.
Last, the third limit.
Until now, all researchers focused their study
on the Great Pyramid, or on the Sphinx, sometimes
on the second pyramid (or Chefren Pyramid),
never on the third pyramid (or Mycerinus Pyramid).
The Giza Plateau has never studied as a whole,
considering the possible existence of other
monuments that were built together with pyramids
and Sphinx.
Researchers have always rejected the assumption.
But, as we’ll see, that new point of view
is the key to understand one of the mysteries
of the past, and it opens the way to my theory
of the Primary Planning of Giza.
