Orion Correlation Theory.


Registered Member
It is said that the Pyramids at giza may be older in their construction than is accedemically known.I did'nt believe this to be true until i read an artical stating that they could be, and dated back as far as 10500bc.
It is something to do with the position of the stars at the time they were built( the contilation of Orion to be exact).
If you look closely the three main pyramids at giza resemble the position of Orions belt as it is known. A few top egyptoligist have reseached this and correllated backwards in time (aparrently they can do this) and determined that when the pyramids were built the contilation of Orion was in the skies above egypt.(10500 yrs ago i might add)
Hense the ancient egyptians tried to emulate the stars at that time, which would make the pyramids 10500 yrs old.
On the flip side other egyptoligists say this is total rubbish, and with carbon dating i believe say it is an impossibility.
How facsinating! Has any one got any idea if this is the case??:(


Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
There could always be a flaw in the carbon-dating process, of course, but how can we really know if there's no proof that the Egyptians actually build the pyramids to match the stars on Orion's belt?


Registered Member
Indeed............but seems to be a massive coincdense that the pyramids are positioned in a way that coinsides with the position of Orins belt dont you think?


Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
That's actually exactly what I was trying to imply. Though, I'd love to know if the pyramids and other ancient structures actually correlated to anything at all.


Registered Member
Well i dont know really........have studied that time era a little bit and in "the grand design of things" as they say u'd have to say that the ancient egyptians were well ahead of their time in technology as it were.
So there must be some substance in the theory. possibly?


Registered Member
The OP is a little bit incorrect in that the theory is not that the three pyramids at Giza line up with the stars in Orions belt but that the pyramids at Giza, the pyramids at abu-Rawash, and the pyramids at Zawyiet el-Aryan line up with the three stars in Orions belt. Three seperate stars, three different pyramids at three distinct geographic locations.

That said...

Historically there's no evidence that the Egyptians entertained any belief in the zodiac prior to the last few centuries B.C.E.

That being the case, the three stars in Orion's belt (as we know it) would have held no signifigance to the ancient Egyptians.

That they would build their pyramids in a manner that held no signifigance to them is irrational.

Further, there are more than three stars in the constellation Orion. There are also many more than three pyramids in Egypt. But none of the other pyramids line up with any of the other stars in Orion. Why would the Egyptians, who built many pyramids, not duplicate the entire constellation on the ground? Why stop with only the belt?

Lastly, obscure astrological specuation aside, there is no evidence, anywhere in the world, that a society capable of building the Great Pyramid at Giza existed in 10500 B.C.E. At that point in our history the best humanity had been able to accomplish was a smattering of semi-permanent agricultural settlements here and there. The oldest know civilization is that of Sumer in Mesopotamia which arose about 4500-4000 B.C.E. And Sumer probably wouldn't be able to accomplish something as grand as the construction of the Great Pyramid even if they'd wanted to.

A great civilization would be necessary to accomplish anything approaching the enormity of the Great Pyramid which it is now believed employed 20000-25000 laborers and craftsmen every day of the year for nearly 20 years. In order to feed, defend, lead, organize, and employ such a vast number of men soley didicated to the consturctiuon of the Great Pyramid you're looking at a society expotentially larger.

We may yet find evidence that great civilizations existed that pre-date the one that first arose in Mesopotamia 6500 years ago. It's very, very unlikely though, as human social development has followed a pretty gradual curve which we've been able to map with reasonable success and certainty.

It's most likely that the Great Pyramid was built when we think it was built for the reasons we think it was built, by the pharo we think built. Not 100% carved in stone, but the chances that we're wrong are excedingly small.


For a Free Scotland
Correlation's sometimes aren't in fact relevant sometimes. The fact that three different monuments correspond to three stars in the sky isn't really a great case for their purpose; the odds of it simply being a coincidence is much high than say Stonehenge, which has numerous correlations to solstices and other dates of Pagan importance.

As soot said, why would they build them like this if they held no importance in the constellation?