GEOMETRICAL AND ASTRONOMICAL REFERENCES

IN THE PROJECT OF THE TWO MAIN PYRAMID’S COMPLEXES

MAGLI Giulio, (IT)

Abstract. The architectural complexes composed by the two main pyramids of Giza together
with their temples show various geometrical features in their project. Such features are
intimately connected with the observation of the cycle of the sun during the year and with the
corresponding symbolic and religious thought of the ancient Egyptians, and strongly point to a
common project for both complexes. These issues are investigated here from an inter-
disciplinary point of view, taking into account the relationships of the monuments with the
visible landscape.

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

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 01A16, 51-03

1 Introduction

In studying the relationships between Mathematics and Art, which are present in many of the
magnificent architectural achievements of the ancient past, one is immediately faced with the need
of taking into account a wider context in which geodesy, geometry and astronomy play relevant
roles. This is especially true in the case of monuments whose symbolism is strictly connected with
the celestial cycles and the motion of celestial bodies, such as the pyramids of Egypt. In particular,
we shall be concerned here with the two most famous and big of such pyramids, those constructed
in a relatively short period of time (certainly located between 2600 and 2450 b.C.) by the pharaohs
of the 4th Egyptian Dynasty on the Giza Plateau, in today’s Cairo. These two monuments are, still
today, among the most remarkable achievements of the whole human history [1]. We shall call
these pyramids Giza 1 and Giza 2; with side lengths of 230.3 and 215 meters, and heights of 146.6
and 143.5 meters respectively, Giza 1 and Giza 2 are by far greater than the third famous pyramid
present on the same site, the tomb of the pharaoh Menkaure (this pyramid hardly reaches 65 meters
in height).
It is very well known that the Giza pyramids were constructed with an extremely high degree
of accuracy; as a consequence, they have stimulated in the course of the last two centuries a heap of
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics

foolish “theories” which have nothing to do with the exceptional ingenuity and the profound
thought of the ancient Egyptians builders. Unfortunately, thus, a noisy background tends to interfere
with the scientific approach to the structural, technical and anthropological problems posed by such
wonderful monuments. In particular, unfortunately, it is easy to find books and websites which
claim for the discovering of hidden “legacies” connecting Giza with complex geometries or with
elaborated as well as unrealistic astronomical configurations. On the other side, however, it is clear
- at least in the opinion of who writes - that a re-examination of these monuments from an inter-
disciplinary point of view is definitively worth. This paper reports briefly on an ongoing
investigation of this issues (see [2] for complete details). In particular, I will review the connections
of the Giza pyramids with Astronomy and sacred geometry, as they have been established in the
long history of scientific research on Giza by Egyptologists and Archaeoastronomers, and I will
briefly present my own proposal for a new, previously unnoticed hint to a global geometric and
astronomically related project.

2 Geometry and astronomy at Giza

Each pyramid of the IV dynasty was the core of a “standard” architectural complex
composed by three main elements (see Fig. 1): a “funerary” Temple, located near the pyramid, a
“valley” Temple located some hundreds of meters below, near the line of maximal flood of the Nile
or near an artificial lake connected to the river, and a straight causeway connecting the two temples,
conceived as a ceremonial road for the Pharaoh’s funerals.
The pyramid complex of Giza 2 is the best preserved. Both the temples are megalithic, with
exterior walls made out of enormous limestone blocks weighing up to 250 tons. The funerary
temple contained an open rectangular court, while the interior of the Valley Temple presents a
characteristic “T” shaped hall; internal halls and courts were pillared with huge granite blocks and
cased with huge granite slabs, which are still fully visible in the Valley Temple. The causeway, cut
into the rock of the plateau, slopes down straight from the Funerary Temple to a point, which we
shall indicate by O’, located at the north-west corner of the Temple and reachable from the inside of
the building through a spectacular megalithic corridor cased in granite. Over this point passes also
the ideal prolongation of the southern side of the pyramid. The Valley Temple is flanked, on its
north side, by another megalithic building called Temple of the Sphinx. The Sphinx itself lies just
north of the point O’, flanking the causeway. It is a huge statue with the body of a lion and human
(or divine) head. The head was carved in a small rocky hill, while the body was obtained excavating
a huge precinct from which the blocks for the temple were quarried. The Sphinx was probably built
to associate the king with the sun god and, as a consequence, the temple in front of it was a sun
temple. In any case, all the three monuments are very precisely oriented to due east.
Our knowledge of the layout of the Giza 1 complex is much incomplete. The funerary temple
was dismantled, or perhaps never finished, so that only the floor, paved with basalt, remains, with
huge sockets aimed to held the granite pillars. The causeway starts from these remains and slopes
down straight towards the edge of the Plateau, which marks also the boundary between the Giza
archaeological zone and the buildings of the modern village of Nazlet el-Saman. At the rocky edge,
huge blocks scattered on the escarpment show the point where a monumental ramp once stood,
leading the ceremonial road down towards the Valley Temple, which today is lost under the village.
For the aims of the present research, however, it is sufficient to know that the point (which we shall
denote by O) located at the intersection between the ideal prolongation of the northern side of the
pyramid and the causeway, and therefore “specular” to the point O’, played a special role in the

122
   volume 1 (2008), number 2
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics 

layout of the complex [3,4], being the site of the Valley Temple or anyway marking an important
building.

Fig. 1. A schematic map of the Giza Necropolis: (1-2-3) Main pyramids, (4-7-12) Funerary temples,
(5-8-13) Causeways, (6) Modern Village (9-10-11) Giza 2 Valley Temple, Sphinx, Sphinx temple
(14) Giza 3 Valley Temple.

The way in which astronomy and geometry are deeply and inescapably present at Giza began
to be known in 1883 when F. Petrie [5] discovered the incredible accuracy obtained by the ancient

volume 1 (2008), number 2  123
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics

builders in orienting the pyramids to the cardinal points (more or less in the same period, the
“theories” of the so called “piramidologists” started to proliferate as well).
The pyramids of the fourth dynasty were oriented following standards which would satisfy
by far any rigorous modern requirement; in particular, Giza 1 deviates from true north by as little
as 3.4' west and Giza 2 by 6.0' west. It is certain that such an high accuracy could only be obtained
with a careful observation of the motion of bright stars, probably circumpolar. However, only
recently a sound explanation of the method which was probably used has been provided [6,7].
The fact that the pyramids are “perfect” squares oriented to cardinal points introduces a first
issue of “astronomical-geometrical order” on the Giza Plateau. The second point to be noticed is
instead of topographical nature. It is indeed known at least since a 1852 mapping by J. Hekekyan
that the disposition of the Giza pyramids on the ground is characterized by what is customary called
the “Giza diagonal”. It is an ideal line which connects the south-east corners of the three pyramids
with good accuracy; if this line is ideally prolonged in its northernmost direction (the azimuth of the
line is around 43° east of north) it points in the direction of the city of Heliopolis, north-east of
Giza. Heliopolis was one of the major cities of ancient Egypt, as well as an extremely important
religious center; it was called Iunu, pillar, and was a sort of “umbilicus mundi” of the country. The
city was sacred to the sun and housed a temple of this god (today, the old city is completely covered
by suburbs of Cairo and we know very little about its original extension and structure).
Recently, a comprehensive study of the inter-visibility between Heliopolis and the pyramids
has been carried out by D. Jeffreys [8]. He has discovered that actually all the sites of the 4th-5th
dynasty pyramids whose owners first “declared an affinity” with the sun cult through their
monuments and/or their names where chosen in such a way to be visible from Heliopolis (Abu
Rawash, Giza, Zawyet El Aryan and the sun temples of Abu Ghurab). We will come back on the
possible implications of such “topographical” alignments later on, while we shall now proceed in
analyzing the astronomical alignments present in the Giza pyramid complexes taken as a whole
(Fig. 2).
A first group of alignments is already very well known and documented. It regards the
position of the Giza 2 valley temple (more precisely, the azimuths measured from point O’ in Fig.2)
with respect to the pyramids, and it is related to the cycle of the sun from the spring equinox to the
autumn equinox:

1) The line O’A’ is directed due west. It passes nearby the south side of Giza 2, and therefore
the sun at the equinoxes was (and is) seen setting in alignment with the south-east corner of the
pyramid in these days.
2) The line O’B’ is the alignment defined by the causeway, and it is oriented 14° north of
west. The azimuth of the setting sun at the summer solstice at the latitude of Giza is ~28° north of
west and therefore this alignment coincides with half-way of the path of the setting sun at the
horizon between equinoxes and midsummer.
3) The line O’C’ is directed towards the midpoint of the segment which separates the south-
west corner of Giza 1 and the north-east corner of Giza 2. The azimuth of this line is ~28° north of
west, and therefore coincides with that of the sun at the summer solstice. Thus, the midsummer sun
is seen setting in between the two pyramids.

The alignments 1) and 3) were discovered for the first time by the Egyptologist Mark Lehner
during his fieldwork at the Plateau [9,10]. He noticed that, when the midsummer sun sets, an
observer from point O’ (or, more generally, from an area in front of the Sphinx) actually witnesses
the formation of a spectacular replica of the hieroglyph Akhet . This is an example of a

124
   volume 1 (2008), number 2
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics 

hierophany, a manifestation of divinity which happens every year in dependence of a celestial

Fig. 2. A Google-earth satellite image of the Giza Plateau with the astronomical alignments
discussed in the text outlined.

The solar alignment of the causeway of Giza 2 is reflected in a specular alignment of the
causeway of the Giza 1 complex, which points 14° south of west [11]. Recently [2], I have
proposed that this specular arrangement of the alignments actually holds for a more general set of
astronomical references which are visible from the point O, as a complete mirror “counterpart” of
the observation point O’. Actually, drawing from O the lines specular to that already drawn from
O’, we see that these lines are related to the cycle of the sun from the autumn equinox to the spring
equinox:

1) The line OA is directed due west. It passes nearby the north side of Giza 1, and therefore
the sun at the equinoxes was (and is) seen setting in alignment with the corner of the pyramid in
these days

volume 1 (2008), number 2  125
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics

2) As noticed above, the line OB, the alignment defined by the causeway, is oriented 14°
south of west. Therefore this alignment coincides with half-way of the path of the setting sun at the
horizon between equinoxes and midwinter.
3) The line OC is directed towards the Giza 2 complex and passes near the center of the Giza
2 funerary temple, in front of the pyramid. The azimuth of this line is ~28° south of west, and
therefore coincides with that of the sun at the winter solstice. Thus, the midwinter sun is seen
setting beyond the Giza 2 pyramid from the point O.

3 Hints at a global project

Up to now, I avoided to call the Giza 1 and Giza 2 pyramids with the names of the pharaohs which
are commonly associated with them. As is well known, Giza 1 and Giza 2 are indeed identified with
the tombs of the pharaohs Khufu and of his son Khafra (Cheops and Chephren); due to this
attribution, Khafra should be the deified person represented in the face of the Sphinx. It should be
observed, however, that the name of the builder is written only in the Giza 1 pyramid (rough
workmen’s drawings reporting the name of Khufu have indeed been found in the chambers located
over the main burial chamber) while the second pyramid is completely anonymous. Of course,
Egyptology has documented without any possible doubt the burial of Khafra in this pyramid, since
several diorite statues of this pharaoh have been found in the Valley Temple, and the king is
mentioned, associated with the pyramid, in inscriptions of the worker’s quarters and in some tombs
of the Plateau. However, we cannot be certain that the builder of the pyramid was really Khafra, as
he could have claimed for himself a pre-existing - perhaps only planned, or partially completed -
complex. According to this proposal, it was Khufu to plan the construction of two pyramids
(exactly as his father Snefru did in the site of Dahshur) and later Khafra claimed for himself the one
which is slightly smaller.
Hints in this direction first came from technical observations connected with the way in which
the pyramid were oriented (see [12,13] for further details). This hypothesis is further supported by
the evidences presented in the previous section, both those which were already known pertaining to
the Giza 2 complex and the Giza 1 causeway, as well as the new ones which I am proposing for
Giza 1. All in all, these evidences show that the two complexes have specular alignments with
respect to the sides of the pyramids and the causeways, and that each one is embodied with a
hierophany at a different solstice, a hierophany which however occurs only due to the presence of
the other complex. Further, each pyramid had is own name, and we know these names from
inscriptions carved in tombs some tens of years later of the construction of the pyramids
themselves. The name of Giza 1 actually was Akhet Khufu, the horizon of Khufu (Giza 2 was called
“Khafra is great”). Thus, according to these sources the name of Giza 1 was a precise description of
the main hierophany at the site; this hierophany, however, occurs only if Giza 2 exists as well.
Therefore, it is reasonable to think that, originally, it was the whole complex to bring the name
Akhet Khufu: the horizon belonging to Khufu, the king who had “joined the sun-god” as the slightly
later (but probably already existing) Pyramid Texts will say [14].
This hypothesis is further sustained by many clues, including the fact that the “best place” for
building a pyramid on the Plateau looks rather that of Giza 2, which lies in the higher part of the
horizon profile and, at the same time, enjoys of a gentle slope on the east side, which allowed the
construction of the causeway without the needs of the huge ramps built for the Giza 1 complex.
Further, a geo-morphologic analysis of the Plateau seems to show that the Giza 2 causeway was
already existing when the blocks for Giza 1 were quarried [15], a fact which of course can be re-

126
   volume 1 (2008), number 2
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics 

interpreted as saying that the quarries were stopped in correspondence of the planned position
project of this causeway. Finally, not all Egyptologists agree on the interpretation of the Sphinx as
an image of Khafra: some, like R. Stadelman, have suggested an attribution to Khufu, others to his
son Djedefre.
All in all, it might well be that the planners of this gigantic project conceived it also as a sort
of calendrical device for the sun cycle, with the Giza 1 complex related to the “southern” part of the
yearly movement of the sun, and the Giza 2 complex related to the “northern” one. Interestingly,
however, the motion of the setting sun at the horizon does not occur with constant velocity (it is
slower near the solstices and faster near the equinoxes) and therefore the azimuths of the causeways
do not correspond to the intermediate dates between equinoxes and solstices, but indicate four dates
which occur more closely to the equinoxes (19 October/21 February and 20 April/19 August
respectively). Thus, once again, we see that the planners were more interested in geometry rather
than pure astronomy. In any case, if it is true that the whole complexes where built according to a
common plan, it arises the problem, why should Khufu have conceived such an ambitious project.
The (admittedly speculative) interpretation which I propose is strongly based on a very simple
fact which however, as far as I know, was never noticed before. Since the meaning of the Akhet
symbolism was that the king soul was scheduled to live in eternity joined with the sun, any person
looking at the horizon at any time would have been recalled that the horizon in itself belonged to
Khufu, because exactly this was written as a gigantic hieroglyph, visible from tens of Kilometers
away (actually, also nowadays everybody traveling in the Nile valley near Cairo can witness that
the horizon, although partially obfuscated by pollution, still belongs to the king who built the
unique remaining of the seven wonders of the world). The related hierophany occurred (and still
occurs after 4500 years, although not so precise as it was at that time, due to the slow variation of
the ecliptic plane) at the summer solstice because this solstice took place roughly in concomitance
with the beginning of the Nile flood, essential for the renewal of harvesting cultures in the arid
country of Egypt. However, obviously, also such a gigantic complex could not escape the rules of
prospective: there had to exist, necessarily, a line of sight along which only one pyramid could be
seen. Khufu choose this line to be that pointing to - and coming from - Heliopolis, in sign of respect
for the sun god. At least in the opinion of who writes, this interpretation is much more reliable than
the unique other possibility, namely that it was Khafra to build voluntarily his pyramid in such a
way to realize the Akhet hierophany - whose intentional planning appears indubitable - in honor of
his father and, further, to make his pyramid invisible from Heliopolis.

References

[1.] LEHNER, M. (1999) The complete pyramids, Thames and Hudson, London.
[2.] MAGLI, G. Akhet Khufu: archaeoastronomical hints at a common project of the two main
pyramids of Giza, Egypt. Preprint.
[3.] GOYON, G. (1985) La chaussée monumentale et le temple de la vallée de la pyramide de
Khéops BIFAO 67, p. 49-69
[4.] MESSIHA, H. (1983) The valley temple of Khufu ASAE 65, p. 9-14.
[5.] PETRIE, F. (1883) The pyramids and temples of Gizeh, Field & Tuer, London (available at
members.optushome.com.au/fmetrol/petrie/ );
[6.] SPENCE, K. (2000) Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical orientation of
pyramids, Nature 408, 320.

volume 1 (2008), number 2  127
 Aplimat – Journal of Applied Mathematics

[7.] BELMONTE, J.A. (2001) On the orientation of old kingdom Egyptian pyramids,
Archeoastronomy 26, S1.
[8.] JEFFREYS, D. (1998) The topography of Heliopolis and Memphis: some cognitive aspects,
in Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet (Mainz) 63-71.
[9.] LEHNER, M. (1985a) The development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project,
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 41
[10.] LEHNER, M., (1985b) A contextual approach to the Giza pyramids, Archiv fur
Orientforschung, 31, 136-158

[11.] BAUVAL, R., (1989) A master plan for the three pyramids of Giza based on the three stars
of the belt of Orion in Disc. Egypt. 13, p. 7-18;
[12.] MAGLI, G. (2005) Misteri e Scoperte dell’Archeoastronomia Newton & Compton eds.,
Roma (English edition at press by Praxis Publishing LTD, London).
[13.] 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. To appear in the
November issue of J.H.A.

[14.] [14] FAULKNER, R. (1998) The ancient Egyptian pyramid texts, Oxford University press,
Oxford

[15.] [15] READER, C. (2001) A geomorphical study of the Giza necropolis with implications for
the development of the site, Archeometry 43, 149.

Current address

Giulio Magli
Dipartimento di Matematica del Politecnico di Milano
P.le Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy.
e-mail Giulio.Magli@polimi.it

128
   volume 1 (2008), number 2