View source for Astronomy:Orion correlation theory

{{Short description|Fringe hypothesis in alternative Egyptology}}
[[File:Orion Correlation 10,500 BC.png|thumb|Representation of the central tenet of the Orion correlation theory: the outline of the Giza pyramids superimposed over a photograph of the stars in Orion's Belt.]]
[[File:Orion_belt_vs_giza_pyramid_complex.jpg|thumb|upright=1.25|Orion's Belt superimposed on the Giza pyramid complex, illustrating the Orion Correlation Theory. From left to right:
<ul>
<li> [[Astronomy:Alnitak|Alnitak]] on the Great Pyramid of Giza
<li> [[Astronomy:Alnilam|Alnilam]] on the pyramid of Khafre
<li> [[Astronomy:Mintaka|Mintaka]] on the pyramid of Menkaure
</ul>]]
The '''Orion correlation theory''' is a [[Philosophy:Fringe theory|fringe theory]] in Egyptology attempting to explain the arrangement of the Giza pyramid complex.

It posits that there is a correlation between the location of the three largest pyramids of the Giza pyramid complex and [[Astronomy:Orion's Belt|Orion's Belt]] of the [[Astronomy:Orion (constellation)|constellation Orion]], and that this correlation was intended as such by the original builders of the Giza pyramid complex. The stars of Orion were associated with [[Biology:Osiris|Osiris]], the god of rebirth and afterlife by the ancient Egyptians.<ref name="The Oxford Guide p302-307">The Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, Edited by Donald B. Redford, p302-307, Berkley, 2003, {{ISBN|0-425-19096-X}}</ref><ref name="Mackenzie 1907 167–168">{{cite book |last= Mackenzie |first= Donald A. |title= Egyptian Myth and Legend |publisher= Gresham Pub. Co. |date= 1907 |isbn= 978-0-517-25912-2 |chapter=Triumph of the Sun God | chapter-url=http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml15.htm | pages=167–168}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Orion.html |title=Orion |publisher=Constellationsofwords.com |access-date=2012-12-07}}</ref>  Depending on the version of the idea, additional pyramids can be included to complete the picture of the Orion constellation, and the Nile river can be included to match with the [[Astronomy:Milky Way|Milky Way]]. 

The idea was first published in 1989 in ''Discussions in Egyptology'', volume 13. It was the subject of the book ''The Orion Mystery'', in 1994,<ref>Robert Bauval, Adrian Gilbert, ''The Orion Mystery: Unlocking The Secrets of the Pyramids'' (London: Heinemann, 1994). {{ISBN|0-434-00074-4}}</ref> as well as a BBC documentary, ''The Great Pyramid: Gateway to the Stars'' (February 1994), and appears in some [[Philosophy:New Age|New Age]] books.<ref>{{cite book | title = Signs in the sky: the astrological & archaeological evidence for the birth of a new age | author = Adrian Gilbert | publisher = Three Rivers Press | date = 2001 | isbn = 978-0-609-80793-4 | pages = 61–66 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4HpWAAAAYAAJ&q=%22the+Orion+Correlation+Theory%22 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | title = The Canopus Revelation: The Stargate of the Gods and the Ark of Osiris | author = Philip Coppens |  publisher = Adventures Unlimited Press | date = 2004 | isbn = 978-1-931882-26-2 | page = 30 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=nlIQUsY0LXoC&pg=PA30 }}</ref>

==History==
The Orion correlation theory was put forward by [[Biography:Robert Bauval|Robert Bauval]], and mentioned that [[Astronomy:Mintaka|Mintaka]], the dimmest and most westerly of the stars making up Orion's belt, was offset slightly from the others. Bauval then made a connection between the layout of the three main stars in Orion's belt and the layout of the three main pyramids in the Giza pyramid complex. He published this idea in 1989 in the journal ''Discussions in Egyptology'', volume 13. The idea has been further expounded by Bauval in collaboration with pseudoscientific authors Adrian Gilbert (''The Orion Mystery'', 1994) and [[Biography:Graham Hancock|Graham Hancock]] (''Keeper of Genesis'', 1996), as well as in their separate publications. The basis of this idea concerns the proposition that the relative positions of three main Ancient Egyptian pyramids on the Giza plateau was by design correlated with the relative positions of the three stars in the [[Astronomy:Constellation|constellation]] of Orion which make up Orion's Belt, as these stars appeared in 10,000 BC.

Their initial ideas regarding the alignment of the Giza pyramids with Orion: "...the three pyramids were a terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion's belt"<ref>''[[Unsolved:Fingerprints of the Gods|Fingerprints of the Gods]]'', Hancock,   1995, p.&nbsp;375</ref> are later joined with speculation about the age of the [[Unsolved:Great Sphinx of Giza|Great Sphinx]].<ref>''Keeper of Genesis'', 
Hancock and Bauval, 1996, 1997, in the US published as ''The Message of the Sphinx''.</ref> According to these works, the Great Sphinx was constructed c. 10,500 BC ([[Earth:Upper Paleolithic|Upper Paleolithic]]), and its [[Biology:Lion|lion]]-shape is maintained to be a definitive reference to the [[Astronomy:Constellation|constellation]] of [[Astronomy:Leo (constellation)|Leo]]. Furthermore, the orientation and dispositions of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramids and the Nile River relative to one another on the ground is put forward as an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, [[Astronomy:Orion's Belt|Orion's Belt]]) and the [[Astronomy:Milky Way|Milky Way]] respectively. As Hancock puts it in 1998's ''The Mars Mystery''<ref name ="Hancock">{{cite book |last1=Hancock |first1=Graham |last2=Bauval |first2=Robert |last3=Grigsby |first3=John |title=The Mars Mystery: A Warning from History that Could Save Life on Earth |publisher=Penguin |isbn=9780140271751 |page=189|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pq7LAAAACAAJ |access-date=27 July 2016 |language=en |year=1998}}</ref> (co-authored with Bauval):

{{quote | ...we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is "frozen" on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical "Age of Leo" (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was "housed" by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the [[Gregorian calendar]] dates of 10,970 and [[History:9th millennium BC|8810 BC]].<ref name ="Hancock"/> }}

The allusions to dates circa 12,500 years ago are significant to Hancock since this is the era he seeks to assign to the advanced progenitor civilization, now vanished, but which he contends through most of his works had existed and whose advanced technology influenced and shaped the development of the world's known civilizations of antiquity. Egyptology and [[Earth:Archaeology|archaeological science]] maintain that available evidence indicates that the Giza pyramids were constructed during the Fourth dynasty period (3rd millennium BC<ref name="wonder">(January 21, 2004) (2006) The Seven Wonders. [http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/pyramid.html The Great Pyramid of Giza] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070824094451/http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/pyramid.html |date=2007-08-24 }}.</ref>), while the exact date of the Great Sphinx is still unclear.

==Critique==

Arguments made by Hancock, Bauval, Anthony West and others concerning the significance of the proposed correlations have been described as a form of [[Unsolved:Pseudoarchaeology|pseudoarchaeology]].<ref name="Fagan">{{cite book |last1=Fagan |first1=Garrett G. |editor1-last=Fagan |editor1-first=Garrett G. |title=Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public |date=2006 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-0-415-30592-1 |pages=38–39 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sIYpx9mzd4gC&dq=Orion+Correlation+Theory+++pseudoscience&pg=PP1 |access-date=7 February 2020 |language=en |chapter=Diagnosing pseudoarchaeology}}</ref>

Among these are critiques from two [[Astronomy:Astronomer|astronomer]]s, [[Biography:Ed Krupp|Ed Krupp]] of Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles and Tony Fairall of the  University of Cape Town, South Africa. Using [[Astronomy:Planetarium|planetarium]] equipment, Krupp and Fairall independently investigated the angle between the alignment of Orion's Belt and north during the era cited by Hancock, Bauval, et al. (which differs from the angle seen today or in the third millennium BC, because of the precession of the equinoxes).  They found that the angle was somewhat different from the "perfect match" thought to exist by Bauval and Hancock in the Orion correlation theory.  They estimate 47–50 degrees per the planetarium measurements, compared to the 38-degree angle formed by the pyramids.<ref name=Fairall>{{cite journal|last1=Fairall|first1=A.|title=Precession and the layout of the ancient Egyptian pyramids|journal=Astronomy & Geophysics|date=1 June 1999|volume=40|issue=3|pages=3.4|doi=10.1093/astrog/40.3.3.4|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Krupp pointed out that the slightly bent line formed by the three pyramids was deviated towards the north, whereas the slight "kink" in the line of Orion's Belt was deformed to the south, and to match them up one or the other of them had to be turned upside-down.<ref name=Krupp1>{{cite journal|last1=Krupp|first1=E.C.|title=Pyramid marketing schemes|journal=Sky & Telescope|date=February 1997|volume=93|issue=2|page=64}}</ref> Indeed, this is what was done in the original book by Bauval and Gilbert (The Orion Mystery),<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bauval|first1=Robert|last2=Gilbert|first2=Adrian Geoffrey|title=The Orion mystery: unlocking the secrets of the Pyramids|date=Aug 16, 1994|publisher=Crown|isbn=9780517599037|url=https://archive.org/details/orionmysteryunlo00bauv|url-access=registration|access-date=27 July 2016|language=en}}</ref> which compares images of the pyramids and Orion without revealing that the pyramids' map had been inverted.<ref name="Krupp2">{{cite web |author=Krupp, Ed |title=Astronomical Integrity at Giza |date=2002 |url=http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_refutes_Bauval_and_Roy.html |publisher=The Antiquity of Man |access-date=2006-08-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180602213038/http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_refutes_Bauval_and_Roy.html |archive-date=2018-06-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Krupp and Fairall found other problems with their arguments, including noting that if the Sphinx is meant to represent the constellation of [[Astronomy:Leo (constellation)|Leo]], then it should be on the opposite side of the Nile (the "Milky Way") from the pyramids ("Orion"),<ref name="Fairall"/><ref name="Krupp1"/> that the vernal equinox c. 10,500 BC was in [[Astronomy:Virgo (constellation)|Virgo]] and not Leo,<ref name="Fairall"/> and that in any case the constellations of the [[Astronomy:Zodiac|Zodiac]] originate from Mesopotamia and were completely unknown in Egypt until the much later Graeco-Roman era.<ref name="Krupp2"/> Ed Krupp repeated this "upside down" statement in the BBC documentary ''Atlantis Reborn'' (1999).

==BBC documentary==
On 4 November 1999, the BBC broadcast a documentary entitled ''Atlantis Reborn'' which tested the ideas of Robert Bauval and his colleague, Graham Hancock.  Bauval and Hancock afterwards complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) that they had been treated unfairly.  

A hearing followed and in November 2000 the BSC ruled in favour of the documentary makers on all but one of the ten principal complaints brought by Hancock and Bauval. The one complaint upheld regarded the omission of their rebuttal of a specific argument against the Orion Correlation Theory. In regard of the nine remaining principal complaints, the BSC ruled against Hancock and Bauval, concluding that they had not been treated unfairly in the criticism of their theories concerning carbon-dating, the Great Sphinx of Egypt, Cambodia's Angkor temples, Japan's [[Unsolved:Yonaguni Monument|Yonaguni formation]] and the mythical land of [[Philosophy:Atlantis|Atlantis]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisreborn_bsc_synopsis.shtml|title=BBC – Science & Nature – Horizon – Atlantis Reborn Again|first=British Broadcasting|last=Corporation}}</ref>

The BBC offered to broadcast a revised version of the documentary, which was welcomed by Hancock and Bauval. It was broadcast as ''Atlantis Reborn Again'' on 14 December 2000.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisrebornagain.shtml|title=BBC – Science & Nature – Horizon – Atlantis Reborn Again|first=British Broadcasting|last=Corporation}}</ref> The revised documentary continued to present serious doubts about Bauval and Hancock's ideas, as held by astronomer Anthony Fairall, Ed Krupp of the Griffith Observatory, Egyptologist Kate Spence of Cambridge University and Eleanor Mannikka of the University of Michigan.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisrebornagain_transcript.shtml|title=BBC – Science & Nature – Horizon – Atlantis Reborn Again|last=Corporation|first=British Broadcasting}}</ref>

==Leo and the Sphinx==
[[File:Egypt.Giza.Sphinx.01.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Great Sphinx of Giza]]
The [[Unsolved:Great Sphinx of Giza|Great Sphinx of Giza]] is commonly accepted by Egyptologists to represent the likeness of King Khafre<ref>Zahi Hawass, ''The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present'', page 24 (Columbia University Press, 1999). {{ISBN|977-424-492-3}}</ref> who is often credited as the builder as well. This would place the time of construction somewhere between 2520 BC and 2494 BC. Because the limited evidence giving provenance to Khafre is ambiguous, the idea of who built the Sphinx, and when, continues to be the subject of debate. 

An argument put forward by Bauval and Hancock to support the Orion Correlation Theory is that the construction of the Great Sphinx was begun in [[Earth:Upper Paleolithic|10,500 BC]]; that the Sphinx's [[Biology:Lion|lion]]-shape is a definitive reference to the [[Astronomy:Constellation|constellation]] of [[Astronomy:Leo (constellation)|Leo]]; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River are an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, [[Astronomy:Orion (constellation)|Orion]] (specifically, Orion's Belt) and the [[Astronomy:Milky Way|Milky Way]], respectively.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisrebornagain.shtml|title=BBC – Science & Nature – Horizon – Atlantis Reborn Again|author=British Broadcasting Corporation|access-date=27 February 2015}}</ref>

A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the [[Physics:Astrological age|astrological age]] was [[Unsolved:Leo (astrology)|Leo]] and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three [[Astronomy:Star|star]]s of Orion's Belt and the horizon were an "exact match" to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. These propositions and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor [[Social:Civilization|civilization]].

The supposition that the Sphinx is far older has received very limited support from [[Geologist|geologist]]s. [[Biography:Robert M. Schoch|Robert M. Schoch]] has argued that the effects of water [[Earth:Erosion|erosion]] on the Sphinx and its surrounding enclosure mean that parts of the monument must originally have been carved at the latest between 7000–5000 BC.<ref name="Date of the Great">{{ cite conference | title=The Date of the Great Sphinx of Giza | first=Robert | last=Schoch | date=1999 | url=http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_conference.html | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090828075715/http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_conference.html | archive-date=August 28, 2009 | access-date=February 27, 2015}}</ref> Colin Reader has suggested a date only several hundred years prior to the commonly accepted date for construction. These views have been almost universally rejected by mainstream Egyptologists who, together with a number of geologists including James Harrell, Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai, and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,<ref>K. Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai, and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay, "Geologic Weathering and Its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx". Geoarchaeology, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 1995), pp. 119–133</ref><ref>James A. Harrell, "The Sphinx Controversy: Another Look at the Geological Evidence," KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Summer 1994), pp. 70–74.</ref> stand by the conventional dating for the monument. Their analyses attribute the apparently accelerated wear on the Sphinx variously to modern industrial pollution, qualitative differences between the layers of limestone in the monument itself, scouring by wind-borne sand, or temperature changes causing the stone to crack.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Commons|Pseudoegyptology (Giza)|Orion Correlation Theory}}
* [http://robertbauval.co.uk/articles/articles/gizaorion.html "The Giza Pyramids as a Stellar Representation of Orion's Belt"] by [[Biography:Robert Bauval|Robert Bauval]]
* [http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/de_33.htm "The Orion Correlation and Air-Shaft Theories"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120712091056/http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/de_33.htm |date=2012-07-12 }} by John A.R. Legon
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190427131414/http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_pyramid_marketing_schemes.html "Pyramid Marketing Schemes"] by E. C. Krupp
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110713000346/http://www.ianlawton.com/oc8.htm "The Fundamental Flaws in the Orion-Giza Correlation Theory"] by Ian Lawton

[[Category:Orion (constellation)]]
[[Category:Archaeological controversies]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Fringe theories]]

{{Sourceattribution|Orion correlation theory}}