GEOMETRY AND PERSPECTIVE

IN THE LANDSCAPE OF THE SAQQARA PYRAMIDS

MAGLI Giulio, (I)

Abstract. A series of peculiar, visual alignments between the pyramids of the pharaohs of the
4th , the 5th and the 6th Egyptian dynasties exists. These alignments governed from the very
beginning the planning of the funerary monuments of successive kings and, in some cases, led
to establish building sites in quite inconvenient locations from the technical viewpoint.
Explaining the topography of these monuments means therefore also investigating on their
symbolic motivations: religion, power, dynastic lineage and social context, as well as getting
insights on the skills of the ancient architects in astronomy and geometry. In the present paper
we focus on the relationships between the Old Kingdom pyramids at Saqqara.

Key words. Ancient astronomy. Ancient and sacred geometry. Egyptian pyramids.

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 01A16, 51-03.

1 Introduction

It is known since the 19th century that an interesting feature exists in the layouts of the pyramids of
the 4th dynasty at Giza: the presence of a “main axis” connecting the south-east corners of the three
main monuments and directed to the area where the ancient temple of the sun of Heliopolis once
stood, on the opposite bank of the Nile [1,2,3]. This line is connected with a process of
“solarisation” of the pharaohs which started with Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid, and
lasted up Menkaure, the builder of the third Giza pyramid [4,5]. The kings of the 5th dynasty moved
- in spite of the presence of several favorable places to the immediate south of Giza - some 7 Kms
apart on the plateau of Abusir. Here, again, a “main axis” similar to the Giza one was inaugurated: a
straight line indeed connects the north-west corners of the pyramids of three successive kings [6]
(on the problems related to the topography at Abusir see [7] and references therein). Besides such
“diagonal” alignments, another type of visual relationship is also known to exist between pyramids
and sacred sites: meridian (i.e. north-south) alignments. A meridian line was, for instance,
suggested by Goyon [8] to connect Giza with the sacred center of Letopolis located due north. The
research presented here is part of a wider program aimed at a complete (topographical, historical
and astronomical) analysis of the whole set of alignments in the pyramid's fields of the Old
Kingdom [9].

633
 Fig. 1 Map of Saqqara (numbering of the monuments in chronological order).
1- Archaic Mastabas 2-Gisr el-Mudir 3- Djoser Step Pyramid 4-Pyramid of Sekhemkhet
5- Mastaba El Faraun 6-Pyramid of Userkaf, 7-Pyramid of Djedkare 8- Pyramid of Unas
9-Pyramid of Teti 10-Pyramid of Pepi 11-Pyramid of Merenre

The final aim of this project is to obtain a complete picture of these peculiar elements of the design
of the “sacred landscape” and to analyze its implications both from the historical and from the
technical point of view. In the present paper, we shall concentrate on the visual relationship existing
in the pyramid's fields at Saqqara.

2 Historical and architectural context

In what follows we will be interested in the funerary complexes constructed during the course of the
so-called Old Kingdom in the central area of Saqqara and in Saqqara south (Dashour). I will
therefore recall briefly the historical development of these sites; as a reliable working framework I
refer here to the chronology by Baines and Malek [10].
The “Age of the Pyramids” starts with the so-called Step Pyramid, built by the first 3th dynasty
pharaoh Djoser around 2630 BC [11]. Saqqara was already at that time a very important necropolis,
located on the desert plateau overlooking the area of the capital, the “White Wall” later called
Memphis (Fig. 1). Some of the pharaohs of the previous dynasties were buried in tombs located
south-west of the future Djoser building site. Further, since a few years ago most Egyptologists
were convinced that almost all the kings of the first two dynasties were buried in Saqqara, their
tombs being the mastabas (“bench-like” buildings) located on a line which flanks the ridge of the
plateau; today, these tombs are rather attributed to high state officials, and the tombs of the first
kings are identified with the burials – before considered symbolic cenotaphs - present at Abydos,
the city sacred to Osiris. This riddle is not definitively solved; in any case, the importance of
Saqqara is confirmed also by the presence of another monument, pretty similar to those existing in
Abydos. These monuments – usually called with the German name Talbezirke- are huge rectangular
enclosures which were ritually leveled at the death of the king. The unique which survives intact in
Abydos is the Shunet el-Zebib, a rectangular mud-brick building measuring 123 x 64 meters, built
by king Khasekhemwy at the beginning of the 27 century BC. The (leveled) one existing in Saqqara
is today called Gisr el-Mudir; it is roughly oriented to the points of the compass and it is located
west of Sekhemkhet's pyramid. Almost certainly, it belongs to a king of the second dynasty –

634
perhaps Khasekhemwy himself – and it was very large, with walls as wide as 15 meters and
dimensions around 650x350 meters.
Djoser's pyramid complex represents a clear breakthrough in the history of art and architecture. It is
comprised in a high-walled rectangular enclosure – reminiscent of the Talbezirke, but built in stone
– and consists of several buildings. The key of the complex is of course the Step Pyramid, the first
pyramid ever built in Egypt, about 60 meters tall. The enclosure is roughly oriented to the cardinal
points (as is the pyramid) and originally had only one entrance, located near the south-east corner,
and a huge surrounding dry moat [12].
After Djoser, other pyramids will be built by kings of the same dynasty. The first is Sekhemkhet’s,
a project very similar to Djoser's which was however left unfinished and – probably – filled with
earth and rubble already by its builders. Then followed the so-called Layer Pyramid at Zawiet el
Arian and another very far south, in Meidum, perhaps to be attributed to Snefru, the first king of
the 4th dynasty. In any case, it is with Snefru (around 2575 BC) that building of pyramids had the
final technical breakthrough, with the first “geometrical” pyramids built with huge stone blocks
and cased with Tura white limestone. These are the two magnificent pyramids located in Dashour
(South Saqqara) called today the Bent Pyramid and the Red Pyramid (due to a change in the slope
of the first and the color of the stones of the nucleus of the second).
With the son of Snefru, Khufu, we have the beginning of the time of the “solar kings”, i.e. those
who declared a direct descent from the Sun God. Khufu was the builder of the Great Pyramid in
Giza (and perhaps initiated also the project of the second one [3,13,14]). His son Djedefre moved to
Abu Roash, while Khafre and Menkaure built in Giza. The successor (probably the son) of
Menkaure, Shepsekaf, broke however the “solar” tradition. His name does not bring the “solar”
suffix -re; his funerary monument is not in view from Heliopolis and it is actually the unique royal
monument of the epoch which is not a pyramid. It is indeed a somewhat unique monument, called
today Mastaba El Faraun, which we shall describe in more details later (for a discussion of different
viewpoints about Shepsekaf see [6]) . Perhaps inspired by a total solar eclipse occurred on April 1,
2471 in the area of the Delta, the successor Userkaf (around 2465 BC) returns to the tradition. He
builds a pyramid in Saqqara, located as close as possible to the wall of the first pyramid ever
constructed, Djoser’s, and a huge monument devoted to the Sun God in Abu Gorab. After Userkaf,
we have a new series of “solarised” kings which will successively build their pyramids in Abusir:
Sahure, Neferirkare, Neferefre, Shepseskare (pyramid building site not certain) and Niuserre. After
Niuserre, the kings will definitively move to Saqqara for their pyramids: Menkahour (pyramid
building site not certain) and then Djedkare, who choose a prominent position directly at the ridge
of the plateau. After, Unas, whose project, developed in a very unfavorable position near Djoser's,
will be of particular interest for us as well as that of his follower Teti. The pyramid building site of
Teti’s immediate successor, Userkare, has never been individuated. The last three kings to build a
pyramid before the end of the Old Kingdom will be Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II, who all choose the
area half-way between Saqqara and Dashour.

3 Art and landscape at Saqqara

To describe the way in which geometrical alignments and artistic perspectives were established at
Saqqara we follow strictly the chronological order recalled in the previous section. Indeed, we must
take into account that the whole “sacred landscape” visible today is the result of successive
additions in the course of several centuries.

635
3.1 The Snefru project

The pyramids constructed by Snefru at Dashour stand, still today, among the most huge and
beautiful monuments ever built by humankind. The Bent Pyramid owes its name to a sudden
softening of its inclination, which was effected when the construction had reached 49 meters (the
initial inclination of 54°3' drops to 43°21', thus forming an angle in the pyramid’s profile). One of
the ten biggest and heaviest objects ever created throughout history, the pyramid has a 189 meter
wide base and is 105 meters tall. The north pyramid of Dashour or Red Pyramid owes its modern
name to the reddish hue of the limestone used to build it. The base measures 218.5 by 221.5
meters, is 104.4 meters tall, with a gradient virtually identical to that of the upper section of the
south pyramid. The two pyramids are relatively far apart (about 1,850 meters) and are not on the
same meridian (the distance between their meridians is about 300 meters). The Red Pyramid is so
far from the Nile floodplain that a two-kilometer-long causeway would have been needed to access
it from the river. These facts implied several logistical difficulties (for instance, for the transport of
construction materials from the Nile) and have never been satisfactorily explained. Further, at the
moment of construction the whole desert area between the Saqqara central field and Dashour was
almost completely free. It is therefore also unclear why Snefru choose to build his pyramids so far
from the capital. To gain insight into this problem, we must first mention the fact that most
Egyptologists believe that the two monuments do not belong to a unitary project. Generally, it is
believed that the Red Pyramid was the “real” tomb and was erected because the Bent Pyramid
became structurally unstable during its construction. Because the Bent Pyramid was in danger of
collapsing, its gradient was first softened, and then it was decided to build a new pyramid anyway.
However, not all scholars in the past agreed with this view, which is actually – at least in the
author's view – simply untenable for a long series of reasons (a complete discussion can be found in
[7]). Thus, it is much more likely to think that the Snefru project comprised two pyramids from the
very beginning, as will probably occur for the project of his son Khufu at Giza [7,13,14,15]. The
real explanation for the riddles of the Dashour complex are to be sought at a more symbolic level.
What particularly arouses suspicion is the “duality” apparent in the site – two enormous pyramids,
two (and not three) slopes, two funerary apartments in the south pyramid – prompting some
scholars in the past to suggest that the pairing represents, a tribute to the tradition of the Pharaoh as
the ruler of unified Upper and Lower Egypt. The “duality” in the sepulchre is actually easily traced
back in the funerary cult before Snefru, e.g. in the curious “south tomb” - a underground maze
similar to that beneath the Step pyramid and probably meant as a cenotaph for the king - present in
Djoser's complex. The change in the slope of the Bent pyramid remains something of a mystery,
however the pyramidion (the monolithic capstone which was put on the apex of the pyramids)
found in pieces near the Red pyramid has the same slope of the lower part of the Bent pyramid, and
was perhaps meant to introduce a further element of symmetry in the project. To this interpretation
of the Snefru pyramids as a unitary project I would also add that the Snefru monuments were meant
to represent an artificial horizon. Indeed, the ancient pathway leading from the capital to the
Saqqara plateau almost certainly raised up a wadi (dried river) located a few hundreds meters to the
north [11] and followed the line of the archaic mastabas up to the area were the Userkaf and Teti
pyramids would later been built. At Snefru times this path was free up to the entrance of the Djoser
complex on its right and a person ascending the plateau would have seen the two giant pyramids of
Dashour standing alone at the profile of the horizon (actually, this impressive experience is still
enjoyable today, especially in clear days). The (symbolic) horizon was, in ancient Egypt,
represented in hieroglyphs by a sign of two paired mountains . Perhaps the two artificial
mountains of Snefru actually represented the two (re-united) parts of the country themselves. As a
matter of fact, immediately thereafter, the first of the solar kings, Khufu, will design his funerary

636
project at Giza following the same pattern, but adding to the „paired mountains“ the sun setting in
between . This was achieved with a spectacular phenomenon, a hierophany, which can still be
experienced from the Sphinx area at the summer solstice, when the sun setting between the two
giant pyramids replicates one time a year in the sky the very same name of the Great Pyramid,
Akhet Khufu or „the horizon of Khufu“ [1,3,14].

Fig. 2 The southern horizon viewed from the the Saqqara central field, near the Teti pyramid.
In the foreground, the huge mole of the Mastaba el Faraun; in the background
the “Snefru project”: the Bent and the Red pyramid.

Further to such considerations, it is interesting to observe that the Snefru project was conceived
taking into account the position of the pre-existing monuments of the Saqqara central field. It was
indeed already noticed by Goyon [8] that the Red Pyramid lies on the same meridian of the Gisr el-
Mudir. Actually, the correspondence looks closer, since the the Red and the Bent pyramid of Snefru
appear to have been constructed in such a way that their west sides align with the two south corners
of the enclosure. Interestingly, the Snefru project seems to be ideally connected also with Djoser's,
in that the center of the valley temple of the Bent pyramid aligns with the apex of the Step Pyramid.

3.2 The Shepsekaf project

At the moment of construction of the funerary monument of Shepsekaf, the area between Saqqara
and Dashour was still as empty as it was in Snefru's times. The king choose however to build his
tomb in the very middle of this area, and therefore quite far from both the two pre-existing
necropolis. Again, this fact seems to await for an explanation. To try to get rid of this enigma, we
must first of all observe that the resemblance between Shepsekaf's tomb and a “true” Mastaba is
only apparent. The tomb is, indeed, gigantic in size (around 100x75 meters base and 19 meters tall)
and its lower courses were cased in granite, as were those of the pyramid of his father Menkaure;
further, the interior arrangement of it is that of a pyramid. Contrary to mastabas indeed – which
were usually composed by a sort of “apartment” of several rooms devoted to the funerary rites,
while the funerary chamber was located in deep shaft, the Mastaba el Faraun has a descending

637
corridor oriented to true north and lined in granite, and a subterranean antechamber/chamber
system. Also the shape of the “bench” is much more elaborate to that of a Mastaba, with a sort of
vault between vertical ends; it has been proposed that it recalls a giant sarcophagus or archaic
models such as the so-called Buto shrine [11]. Actually, at least in the author's view, the monument
also resembles the hieroglyph for “sky” . All in all, we can be certain that also the Mastaba el
Faraun was conceived – from the point of view of the art of the landscape – as a monument devoted
to occupy the horizon. Of course, the south horizon from Saqqara was already “occupied” by the
Snefru pyramids as Verner [6] has already put in evidence, suggesting that Shepsekaf's choices
might have been motivated by the will of the king to exploit his dynastic lineage up to Snefru. My
proposal is that it was indeed the complete project – choice of the building site, and design – to be
conceived in order of harmonize the monument with the pre-existing Snefru-built landscape, and
therefore stressing the return of the king to a “pre-solar”, “horizon” tradition. Indeed, if a line is
traced from half the distance between the two Snefru pyramids and the center of Shepsekaf, it is
seen that it crosses the Saqqara central field in the same “entrance” area located near the Teti
pyramid. As a consequence, anyone reaching the summit of the ridge would have seen (and still can
see, Fig. 2) the king's tomb forming a sort of regular baseline for the double-mountains symbol
“created” at the horizon by the two giant pyramids of Snefru; on the other end, it is easily seen that
the position of the monument is not dictated by the morphology of the territory: the huge building is
founded on an artificial terrace and is relatively far from the ridge of the Plateau.

3.3 The Unas project

As mentioned in the previous section, the pyramid building sites of the solarized kings (Abu Roash,
Giza and Abusir) exhibit the “dynastic lineage” of the kings from the Sun God by means of
topographical alignments with Heliopolis [2]. In particular, the south-east corners of the three
pyramids in Giza and the north-west corners of three pyramids in Abusir align in the direction of
the sacred city. Interestingly enough, the idea of “dynastic” alignments (representing lineage, or
closeness of religious ideas, or more simply hints to past traditions) remained up to the end of the
Pyramids age and is clearly visible also at Saqqara. There is, in fact, no other feasible way to
explain the most “crazy” pyramid complex ever built, that of king Unas, the last king of the 5th
dynasty. The pyramid is constructed near the south-west corner of the precinct of Djoser, thus very
far in the desert. Consequently, the builders had to construct also a very long (more than 700
meters) causeway connecting the complex with the valley temple. Even worse, they had to “clear”
the zone near Djoser’s south wall which was already overcrowded by many pre-existing mastabas
and even by some royal tombs of the first dynasties. Some tombs were thus filled with earth, and
some mastabas were even completely dismantled (one has been reconstructed in the 70' of last
century from blocks found beneath the causeway). Clearly, Unas must have had an important reason
for choosing such an unfavorable building site, if only one considers that the pyramid could have
been built in front of the area south of the Step pyramid (admitting that the king wanted to stay
close to it anyway). Actually, already in 1985 Lehner [1] noticed the existence of a “Saqqara
diagonal”, without however attempting to discuss its meaning. It is a line oriented roughly SW-NE
(it is difficult to ascertain the azimuth precisely, but it can be estimated as being ~39° east of north)
which connects the south-east corner of Userkaf pyramid with the south-east corner of Djoser’s
pyramid and then crosses over Unas' north-east/south-west base diagonal. There can be no possible
doubt, at least in the present author's view, that it was precisely the will of realizing this alignment
which governed the choices made by Unas' architects. Actually indeed, the Unas pyramid has also
another “strange” peculiarity. Although its side base (57.7 m) is the smallest among all the royal
pyramids – implying a relevant economy in its construction - the monument is also the one with the

638
steepest slope (the slope was of course chosen with the help of rational fractions, and Unas' is 3/2
[16]). This implies that the pyramid rose at the respectable height of 43 meters. The likely reason
for this choice is that another problem in realizing the project was that it was to be recognizable to
anyone approaching the plateau, while the height of the wall of the Step pyramid complex would
have obstructed the view of the pyramid (on the issue of visibility see also the discussion). To
increase visibility further, the alignment was designed along the diagonal of the pyramid, not along
the south-east corner, again a unique case among the various “diagonals”. The final result of the
Unas project is that the placement of the three pyramids of the Saqqara central field resembles that
of the three pyramids of Giza, to the point that the resemblance can hardly be considered casual. A
similarity was already noticed some years ago by Goedicke [17], who observed that an
unobstructed line of sight connects the Userkaf pyramid with Khufu's.

Fig. 3 A picture from south of Unas pyramid (foreground). The “Saqqara diagonal” connecting Unas'
diagonal with the south-east corners of the Step (middle) and Userkaf (background) pyramids can be
perceived .

Actually, if connecting lines are traced between the summits of Djoser’s and Unas’ pyramids and
the apexes of Khafre’s and Menkaure´s monuments respectively, it becomes clear that the
placement of Unas pyramid was actually conceived to realize a sort of (rough) copy of the
arrangement of the Giza pyramid field. These lines are in fact about 14.5 Kms long (and therefore
allow a direct visibility) and, although they are not parallel, their relative deviation stays within 2°.

3.4 The Teti project

Lehner [1] noticed that the Saqqara diagonal also touches (roughly) the north-west corner of
Sekhemkhet’s unfinished pyramid to the south-west, and Teti's north-west corner to the north-west.
Perhaps, however, the alignment with Sekhemkhet’s pyramid occurs by chance, since the pyramid
itself might have been already buried at Unas' time [9]. Teti instead was Unas’ successor, and it is
therefore conceivable that he may have wanted to align his pyramid along the “Saqqara diagonal”.

639
The architect of the king was faced, however, with a difficult problem, since it was nearly
impossible to build the pyramid in a position very far in the desert, along the diagonal to the south-
west of the Unas one, while the outcrop of the Saqqara ridge in front of Userkaf pyramid was
completely free. So, Teti complex was located in this area. Interestingly enough, in the course of the
project it was decided to try to respect the “dynastic” perspective of the pre-existing diagonal, and
probably for this reason it is the north-west corner of the Teti pyramid to lie on the pre-existing line.
Another “mystery” of the Teti project is the fact that the pyramid complex is badly aligned with
respect to the cardinal points (it deviates about 9 degrees west of north). Recently however, it has
been shown that is probably due to a solar (as opposed to stellar) orientation of the complex [18].

3.5 The pyramids of the 6th dynasty

The pyramid building site of Teti’s immediate successor, Userkare, has never been individuated.
His reign was very short, and perhaps his project remained unfinished; in what follows we shall,
however, make a guess on the place where its remains could perhaps been found. The successive
kings of the 6th dynasty, Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II, choose indeed the area between the Saqqara
main field and Shepsekaf's monument, where only Djedkare monument was pre-existing.

Fig. 4 Meridian alignments between the Saqqara central group and the 6th dynasty pyramids. A- Userkaf A'-
Pepi I; B- Unas B' -Merenre; C denotes the Step Pyramid, C' the hypothetical position of a further royal
project, perhaps Userkare's. The diagonal Pepi I-Merenre is also shown.

In particular, Pepi I built his pyramid near the ridge of the plateau. A meridian alignment connects
the apex of his pyramid with that of Userkaf in the central Saqqara field. This may be considered as
a chance. However, if we look at the position of his successor Merenre we see that he moved
south-west in such a way to align the diagonal to that of Pepi I and the center of the pyramid with
the apex of Unas (this line also touches the west side of Shepsekhaf's Mastaba to the south).
Therefore, there is a symmetrical connection between the Pepi I/Merenre complexes and the
complexes placed at the two ends of the Unas diagonal, namely Unas and Userkaf. This connection
can hardly be considered as casual, since it seems – once again – that Pepi I and Merenre wanted to
replicate a pre-existing “diagonal”, in this case the Saqqara diagonal. If this is accepted, then it is

640
immediately seen that the position at the center of the diagonal, which corresponds to a meridian
alignment with the Step pyramid, is left free. One may at this point seriously suspect that the –
perhaps unfinished – complex of Userkare may have been the first to be located in this area and
might therefore be located approximately in the middle of the line connecting Pepi I and Merenre's
diagonals. Interestingly, recent excavations in the nearby Tabbet al-Guesh area gave many hints at
the possibility that a pyramid has still to be discovered there [19]. The area is actually criss-crossed
by yet another possibly non-casual connecting line, since the northwest-southeast diagonal of Pepi I
aligns with the south-east corner of the Gisr el-Mudir. Regarding Pepi II, successor of Merenre, we
shall never know if he would have liked to add his monument to the south-west of Merenre's
because that area is occupied by a dried river and is unsuitable for building. Perhaps as a
consequence, he choose a position immediately to the south, near Shepsekhaf’s monument.

4 Discussion and conclusion

The placement of pyramidal complexes had to take into account a series of practical factors such
as presence of nearby stone outcrops to be transformed into quarries and accessibility of materials.
Perhaps also the presence of the - still active - building site of the pyramid of the preceding pharaoh
may have influenced the choice [20]. However, there can be no doubt on the fact that, in many
cases, the pyramids were not constructed were reasonableness would have wanted. Following the
historian of religion Mircea Eliade, according to whom [21] the symbolism contained in the sacred
space is so “old and familiar” that it may be difficult to recognize it, we have thus pursued a
systematic search of the possible geometrical and perceptive connections between the pyramids of
the Old Kingdom. What turns out is, that it was the way in which the pyramidal complex
harmonized with the pre-existing landscape to be the main motivation for many of the
topographical choices. Here, „landscape“ must be understood in a very broad sense: it was the
natural landscape, the sky, and also what could be called „dynastic“ landscape, namely the will of
putting the funerary monument in direct relationship with pre-existing ones, built by pharaohs
which were related by direct lineage (e.g. as occurs in Giza and Abusir) and/or by closeness of
religious/political ideas. From this point of view, the results of the present research have still to be
developed, and may lead to historical information about poorly known pharaohs such as Shepsekaf.
A point which emerges clearly is, that it was not enough that the planners or perhaps the priests
were aware of the existence of a symbolic link of the newly built pyramid complex with the pre-
existing ones. These links were by no means a sort of „esoteric“ (or worse „initiatic“) knowledge:
they had to be made visible - I would say familiar - to any pious person approaching the royal
Necropolis, the places were the cults of the dead pharaohs was carried out. Actually, the ideal lines
which visually connect such sacred places are still clearly perceptible, after 4500 years, to anyone
visiting the pyramids fields today.
The existence of these lines raises also a series of technical issues about ancient survey techniques
and astronomy. Indeed, from one side, alignments with pre-existing, elevated points put in evidence
with sun-reflecting (golden) signals might have been useful to establish references during the
planning and the construction of the pyramids; therefore, alignments - especially meridian - may
have had also a technical motivation. In any case, how were they obtained? To answer this question
it is necessary to assess the precision attained in them. The validity of the meridian alignments
mentioned here has been controlled on topographic maps and, whenever possible, by direct survey
with a precision magnetic compass, with a nominal precision of 0.5°. However, when the same
alignments are re-run using the Google-earth program, they are not only fully confirmed, but most
of them turn out to be valid with an astonishing precision, comparable to that reached by the ancient

641
Egyptians in orienting the pyramids (of the order of 20' or even less). This would lead to new
possibilities in checking ideas about orientation of monuments on the Old Kingdom, like e.g. the
so-called simultaneous transit theory (a complete discussion of these theories can be found in [7]).
The satellite images used by the program can produce distorsional effects however, and an error is
always to be expected in centering the monuments. It would, therefore, be very interesting to carry
out complete survey of these alignments using a high-precision transit instrument, to check if this
computer-based estimate is truly valid.
Finally, an interesting issue is connected with the ubiquitous (Giza, Niuserre at Abu Sir, Unas at
Saqqara, Saqqara south) existence of survey lines oriented (more or less precisely) quarter-
cardinally. A similar family of orientations has been shown to exist for the Egyptian temples [14].
These orientations are difficult to explain, and it has been proposed that it was achieved by
determining the meridian and turning its direction by 45º; the origin of such a custom should be the
will of accomplishing two religious precepts: orientation to the celestial realm (the circumpolar
stars) and orientation perpendicular to the Nile [18]. However, the idea of “averaging“ between
these two conflicting needs looks unconvincing. For instance, it certainly cannot be applied to
Mesopotamia, where similar customs of „quarter cardinal“ orientations entered in use already in the
4th millennium BC (e.g. at Eridu) [22]. Further, it can hardly be applied to alignments of pyramids,
since all such monuments took already care of both needs in having entrances aligned to true north
and valley temples facing the Nile. Actually, the first of inter-cardinal diagonals, that connecting
Giza with Heliopolis, corresponds with impressive precision to the setting of the brightest part of
the Milky Way. At the times of the construction of the Great Pyramid (say 2550 BC) an observer
looking from Heliopolis would have seen the stars of the Southern Cross-Centaurus "flow" together
with the celestial river – probably the „Winding Waterway“ cited in the Pyramid Texts - and
disappear from view behind the apex of Khufu's monument. Due to the extension of our galaxy as a
sky-band, this interpretation (with the corresponding one at rising) remains - in spite of precession
effects – a valid alternative for inter-cardinal orientations during the Old Kingdom; due to the
similar latitudes, the same explanation might be hypothesized for Mesopotamian temples as well.

References

[1] LEHNER, M., (1985) A contextual approach to the Giza pyramids, Arc.Orient. 31, 136-158
[2] JEFFREYS, D. (1998) The topography of Heliopolis and Memphis: some cognitive aspects,
in Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet (Mainz) 63-71.
[3] MAGLI, G. (2009) Akhet Khufu: Archaeo-astronomical Hints at a Common Project of the
Two Main Pyramids of Giza, Egypt. NNJ- Architecture and Mathematics 11, 35-50.
[4] HAWASS, Z. (1993) The Great Sphinx at Giza: Date and Function In Sesto Congresso
Internazionale di Egittologia. Ed. G.M. Zaccone and T. Ricardi di Netro, pp. 177–195.Turin.
[5] STADELMANN, R. (1991) Die agyptischen Pyramiden. Von Zabern, Berlin.
[6] VERNER, M. (2002) The Pyramids. Grove Press
[7] MAGLI, G. (2009) Mysteries and Discoveries of Archaeoastronomy, Springer-Verlag, NY
[8] GOYON, J.L. (1977) The secrets of the pyramids’ builders, Pygmalion, Paris, 1977.
[9] MAGLI, G. (2009) Topography, astronomy and dynastic history in the alignments of the
pyramid fields of the Old Kingdom. http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1416
[10] BAINES J. and MALEK, J. (1984) The Cultural Atlas of the World: Ancient Egypt, Oxford.
[11] LEHNER, M. (1999) The complete pyramids, Thames and Hudson, London.

642
[12] SWELIM, N. (1983) Some Problems on the History of the Third Dynasty. Arc. Soc.,
Alexandria
[13] MAGLI, G. (2003) On the astronomical orientation of the IV dynasty Egyptian pyramids and
the dating of the second Giza pyramid. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0307100
[14] SHALTOUT, M. , BELMONTE, J.A., and FEKRI, M. (2007) On the Orientation of Ancient
Egyptian Temples: (3) Key Points in Lower Egypt and Siwa Oasis. Part II. J.H.A. 38; 413-
442
[15] MAGLI, G. (2008) Geometrical and astronomical references in the project of the two main
pyramid’s complexes of Giza, Egypt In Aplimat Conference Proceedings, Bratislava. p.121-
128
[16] ROSSI, C. (2003) Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt Cambridge Un. P., London
[17] GOEDICKE H. (2001) Abusir - Saqqara - Giza in Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000 ed.
M. Barta and J. Krejci, AVCR, Prague.
[18] BELMONTE, J.A., SHALTOUT, M., and FEKRI, M. (2008) On the Orientation of Ancient
Egyptian Temples: (4) Epilogue in Serabit el Khadim and Overview J.H.A. 39; 181-212
[19] DOBREV, V. (2008) Old Kingdom Tombs at Tabbet al-Guesh (South Saqqara), in Abusir
and Saqqara in the Year 2005 M. Barta, F. Coppens and J. Krejci eds. AVCR, Prague
[20] BARTA, M. (2005) Location of Old Kingdom pyramids in Egypt, Cambridge Arch. J. 15 177-
191.
[21] ELIADE, M. (1978) Occultism, Witchcraft, and Cultural Fashions: Essays in Comparative
Religion University of Chicago Press
[22] MATTHEWS, R. (2003) The Archaeology of Mesopotamia Routledge, NY

Current address

Giulio Magli,
Dipartimento di Matematica del Politecnico di Milano, P.le Leonardo da Vinci 32,
20133 Milano, Italy.
e-mail [email protected]

643
644