Jean Cocteau's Giza-Orion Concordance (GOC)

Hello ATS,

Robert Bauval has long claimed to be the originator of what has become known as the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT). The central premise of this theory is that the ancient Egyptians intentionally represented the Orion Belt stars upon the ground at Giza in the form of the three main Giza Pyramids. This simple association is the nub, the kernal, the very essence of the OCT. Without this connection of stars and pyramids, there would have been no OCT.

Bauval presented this idea to the world in a paper published in Discussions in Egyptology (Vol.13), 1987. Later, in 1994, he would publish his book (with Adrian Gilbert) 'The Orion Mystery'.

But was Bauval the first person to make an association between the main Giza Pyramids and the Orion Belt stars--the essential element of the OCT? I suggest he was not.

In 1949, the Grench poet, film maker, writer and philiospher, Jean Cocteau, wrote the following (highlighted in blue):



(Jean Cocteau, Maalesh, 1949, p.65-66)

Translation: "In the sky lies the unharnessed Wain, shafts pointing upwards. Strange stopping place! The Three Wise Men have struck their tents of stone, stretched from base to point, one side in the shadow and the other three smoothed by the moon. They sleep while their dog lies awake. Their watch dog is the Sphinx".

'The Three Wise' men is one of the aliases for 'Orion's Belt' as is 'The Three Kings' ('Les Trois Rois'). Bauval in his paper here disputes this interpretation, saying:

"It is almost certain that Cocteau was thinking of the Nativity Kings of the Matthew Gospel. Cocteau was surely aware that in some early European folklore the “Three Kings” were sometimes identified to Orion’s Belt. Today this stellar asterism, however, is better known in France as Le Baudrier d’Orion. On the other hand Cocteau may have just been thinking of the murals of Gospel scenes he had painted in various chapels in France and England viz. The Lady of France’ chapel in London. Also less likely but not impossible is that Cocteau may simply have wanted to compare the “Three Kings”with the three pharaohs/kings who built the three Giza pyramids." - Robert Bauval, May 2015.

If, as Bauval states, "Cocteau was surely aware that in some early European folklore the 'Thre Kings' were sometimes identified to Orion's Belt", then there is clearly the possibility that this is indeed what Cocteau was referring to in his passage. Bauval then states that "Today this stellar asterism, however, is better known in France as Le Baudrier d’Orion". Well, that is the case in most western countries "today". Few people today on this very board refer to these three stars as 'The Three Kings' or 'Three Wise Men'. We all know them and refer to them "today" as 'Orion's Belt'.

Bauval them attempts to infer that Cocteau may have been referring to the 'Three Wise Men' of the Nativity. This is highly doubtful. The context of Cocteau's piece clearly commences "In the sky..." and then goes on to mention a common name or alias for the star asterism "the... Wain"; a star asterism we know as 'The Big Dipper' or the Plough (in the constellation Ursa Major). Cocteau's piece commences "In the sky..." describing stars in the northern sky using a common alias for those particular stars. The piece then immediately jumps to 'The Three Kings" a common alias for the Orion's Belt star asterism in the southern sky. Note that Cocteau capitalises 'The Three Kings' i.e. it is a proper noun, the name of something. If it were the Three Kings of the Nativity, Cocteau had in mind, then he would most likely have written 'Les Rois Mages' (The Magi).

Bauval then offers another possible explanation for Cocteau's 'Les Trois Rois', suggesting (though less likely) that the three kings who built the Giza pyramids may have been what Cocteau was referring to. Alas, these three pharaohs were never known as 'The Three Kings' (capitalised). Indeed, Cocteau, had he been refering to these kings would probably have written "les trois pharons" (the three pharaohs, uncapitalised as they are not a proper noun).

Cocteau, as Bauval suggests in his paper, may have been referring to the Three Kings of the Nativity. But that is an assumption and entirely ignores the starry, heavenly realm that Cocteau's piece is invoking with his opening stream of thought. Bauval would have us believe that Cocteau starts in the skies, describing one group of stars and then his thought process, rather than logically and seamlessly moving to describe another group of stars (i.e. 'The Three Kings' of Orion), makes a mental leap to an entirely different thought process that invokes the Three Kings of the Nativity. What is the more likely?

Cocteau starts in the northern sky describing one group of stars and, keeping that stellar thought process, then introduces a second group of stars ('The Three Kings' - Orions Belt) from the southern sky. This is a more consistent, logical and natural flow of thought and is why it remains my opinion that Cocteau is clearly connecting Orion's Belt with the Giza Pyramids.

But to remove any doubt that Cocteau was indeed connecting the Giza pyramids to Orion's Belt, let us now consider Cocteau's prose as interpreted by Mary C. Hoek (highlighted in yellow):



(Margaret Crosland, 'Cocteau's World', (1972), p.250)

The key point in the above page from 'Cocteau's World' is the footnote which reads:

*Translator's note: In English we refer to these three stars as 'Orion's Belt' but that would spoil the whole word-picture."

So, here we have in 1972--some 17 years before Bauval published his own paper--a clear connection being made between the Giza Pyramids and Orion's Belt. Whether we credit Cocteau's original 1949 text or the 1972 translation the point is surely that the connection was clearly established before 1989, before Bauval published. Had Bauval read this passage (the original or Hoek's English translation) in the desert in 1983 as he puzzled over the offset and smaller size of G3, the answer may well have come to him, he may well have decided to investigate the properties of the Orion's Belt asterism and discovered further evidence to corroborate what Cocteau had written.

Of course, as Bauval rightly points out, Cocteau's simple concordance between stars and pyramids is not the OCT. With this basic realisation (independently) by Bauval, however, the OCT was born. This simple connection causes us to ask the question, 'why'. Assuming the concordance is deliberate, why would the ancient Egyptians have done this? That question then triggers an investigation which may then uncover further supporting evidence to support the central premise. But it is 'supporting' evidence to the central premise and that central premise was first observed and recorded by Jean Cocteau in 1949 (clarified in 1972). This is to say that the the OCT hinges on this central premise, this simple observation. The Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) is built around Cocteau's Giza-Orion Concordance (GOC) and is done so regardless of whether Bauval himself knew of Cocteau's earlier work. Prority here must surely rest with Cocteau.

SC

Interesting thread. Thanks for sharing old bean.

This research is very interesting. What is suggested above can act as base and solvent to wilder speculations surrounding more alternative streams of theory.

If I may deviate and entertain the kaleidoscopic. Under this narrative, the Trios Rios = the pyramids of Giza = Orion's belt = a specific celestial alignment during the Immaculate conception. Ancient Alien theory lends to and remedies the builder's intimate knowledge of cosmology via potential non-terrestrial influence (Akhenaten/Nefretiti/Egyptian Pantheon/etc). Indulging this stream of logic, both Jesus of Nazareth and Akhenaten share lineage to monotheisic proclivities and Christ-like status, or in metaphysical terms, "ascended beings". Which can lead to, possibly similar genetic disposition? A fanciful thought, I admit. Although, concede to the correlation of Egyptian architecture and cosmology, compels surrender to more contemporary and auspicious rendering of historical record.

Now the junction rises. If reference to the pyramids and Orion's belt hold weight on the birth of Jesus, one would assume astrological collaboration. So, in turn, what can be extrapolated from the juxtaposition of with September 13th (birth of Jesus/start of the Messianic Civil Year), and Orion's constellation? Or do the Trios Rios simply point to Jesus's lofty origins beyond? In addition, if the Three Kings are poetic abstraction, what translation does their associated "gifts", lean on?

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I agree that the footnote you've presented, assuming it was published when you say it was (and I have no reason to doubt that), shows without a doubt, that Bauval was not the first to make a correlation between the pyramids at Giza and the stars of Orion's belt.

With that out of the way, my next question is: What does it matter? Unless I've missed something, there isn't any actual evidence to suggest that the Egyptians intended the layout of the Giza pyramids (built over many generations, I might add) to correspond with the stars of Orion's belt. In order to even make the alignments match, one has to use the stars not as they currently appear, but as they appeared over 12,000 years ago.

I'll admit that we can't say with 100% certainty precisely when the pyramids were constructed, but there is quite a large body of evidence to suggest that they were constructed around 4,500 years ago (my own rough approximation), and literally no evidence to suggest that they were built roughly 12,000 years ago.

So, based on the evidence that we do have, the Egyptians would have had to decide to build pyramids to match the stars of Orion, laid out the plans, and then sat on them for roughly 8,000 years (by which point the alignment was significantly off), if we are to believe that any correlation actually exists. I suppose it's possible, but it most certainly isn't probable, so......What does it matter who came up with the idea first?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The alignment between the pyramids and the constellation, without doubt, will be inconsistent due to variables in plate and pole shifts, and galactic position of Earth during the construction of the megaliths. That's been proven. The point being though, those looming factors are of little consequence to the measure of the triangulation of the structures, and the coefficient applied to the belt, for the continuity of claim. The further evidence drawn from analog cultures, like Mezo-America's kinship to cosmology, are lintel to such speculations. Again, if you draw conclusions from a staunch materialist view, these queues offer little satisfaction. But where would the pursuit of academic science be, if divorce of "wild speculation"?😉

I'm a French speaker and I disagree with the idea that it would feel more natural if, after talking about Ursa major (the wain), Cocteau would present another constellation instead of simply talking about the biblical wise men of the nativity.

Cocteau was a man of scenic arts. What he is doing is setting the scenery. Describing the night sky (the wain upside down). Then he says what a strange halt. Then he describes what they are seeing around them ("the Three Kings have set up their stone tents"), the pyramids, and how they are lit by the moon, and how the sphinx watches over it all. He's not painting an astronomical picture.

There is literally no reason to assume Cocteau was describing Orion's belt here. This conclusion is far-fetched and not supported by the text itself.

Ask a panel of French what "les Trois Rois" means and 100% will tell you "the three wise men of the nativity". Cocteau wasn't trying to hide secret knowledge here, he was using poetry to describe the sight of the pyramids.


It's possible he might have been aware of the symbolic closeness of the 3 stars of the belt of orion with the 3 aligned pyramids, like anyone can make the same observation that 3 points in line evoke 3 other points in line, but in no way his texts indicates he is aware they almost match perfectly.

More of a coincidence to me than a proof Cocteau came up with a theory saying the pyramids are perfectly aligned with orion's belt.

a reply to: JUhrman

Hello JUhrman,

I hear what you say. It is certainly possible, as Bauval suggests, that Cocteau may have been refering to the Three Kings of the Nativity. (BTW, I just spoke with a native French speaker who tells me that the three kings of the nativity are better known by the term 'Les Rois Mages').

So, yes, it is of course possible that Cocteau was refering to the Magi. But equally, he may well have been refering to the Three Kings of Orion--Orion's Belt. We will never know with absolute certainty what was in Cocteau's mind because he is no longer with us.

But all of this misses the point.

The interpretor of the piece inteprets Les Trois Rois as Orion's Belt (in the footnote) and attributes this understanding to Cocteau. ( I believe Cocteau's Maalesh was first translated into English around 1956. Cocteau died in 1963 so it is quite likely that the translator would have been in communication with Cocteau to determine exactly what he meant). The point is that we have an interpretation, rightly or wrongly, that connects the Giza Pyramids to the Belt stars. It doesn't actually matter if the interpretation itself is right or wrong, if this is what Cocteau had actually intended or not. We have a page published in 1972, 17 years before Bauval published, that clearly connects the Belt Stars to the Giza Pyramids--and this connection is the very essence of Bauval's OCT.

This is to say that had Bauval picked up this 1972 book whilst in the desert in 1983 trying to solve the puzzle of the Giza pyramids, this translated page would have presented him with the answer to his puzzle. As stated, it is actually immaterial if this was Cocteau's intention--the connection was made between pyramids and Belt stars and is clearly stated in the 1972 translation and attributed to Cocteau.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I agree with all you post here but to me it doesn't indicate Cocteau meant that the pyramids are perfectly aligned with the orion belt.

It's a pretty normal poetic association to compare three pyramids in lines, three wise men crossing the desert and three stars of Orion's belt.

The thought association stops there most likely and I don't see why it should mean Cocteau had anything mote in mind

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: Scott Creighton
The thought association stops there most likely and I don't see why it should mean Cocteau had anything mote in mind

SC: My point is that it doesn't actually matter if Cocteau had this association in mind or not (although my view is that he did - but we'll agree to disagree on that).

Imagine this single translated page was fluttering across the desert. It is entirely out of its context. We do not know which book it is from, who wrote it or even if it is a translation. Imagine just finding that single page. Imagine Bauval found it in the desert as he was seeking an answer to the pyramid puzzle he was contemplating at that time. Bauval then reads this passage that connects the pyramids to Orion's Belt (in the footnote). Bauval then thinks "Orion's Belt?" He looks up to the night sky, to Orion's Belt and sees a similar pattern to the Giza Pyramids. He would then, surely, see the answer to what was puzzling him in 1983 (i.e. why there were two larger pyramids and why the smallest pyramid was slightly offset from the other two).

This page, had Bauval found it fluttering over the sand dunes in his 1983 desert trip, would have given him the answer to his puzzle and would have done so regardless of who wrote the page or whether what was written on the page was intended or not, correct or not. The page, regardless of who wrote it, connects the Giza pyramdis with Orion's Belt--the central premise of Bauval's OCT. And had this occurred, Bauval, inspired by the content of this page, would then have to find which book it came from and to whom should be credited with writing the piece.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

If it is what happened, yes. Cocteau should be credited.

But history taught us that often people which never met or read from each other have similar insights. In the case here I think it's correct to claim that the first person who came up with the Orion Correlation Theory was Bauval, because he specifically calculated the alignment and showed it was more than a simple similarity in form.

Whether he read Cocteau beforehand, well we should ask him directly

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: Scott Creighton

If it is what happened, yes. Cocteau should be credited.

Hello JUhrman,

Agreed.

JUhrman: But history taught us that often people which never met or read have similar insights.

SC: Indeed. This has happened with myself in the past.

JUhrman: In the case here I think it's correct to claim that the first person who came up with the Orion Correlation Theory was Bauval, because he specifically calculated the alignment and showed it was more than a simple similarity in form.

SC: I have to disagree with this. We know Cocteau is credited with writing of an association between the Belt Stars and the Giza pyramids decades before Bauval. This simple association between stars and pyramids is the kernal, the essence, the nub, the heart of Bauval's OCT. Without this key connection there would be no OCT. This is what started it all for Bauval. Over and above which, we do not know why Cocteau wrote what he did. We do not know if he had made the same detailed observations as Bauval. The point I am making is that Bauval's subsequent discoveries/observations merely support the central premise. But it is a central premsie that should rightly (imo) be credited to Cocteau.

JUhrman: Whether he read Cocteau beforehand, well we should ask him directly

SC: I have asked Bauval to credit Cocteau. He has, thus far, declined to do so.

Regards,

SC