Welcome | Time
Rivers | Book
Nile Decoded | Etemenanki
The Nile & ‘First Time’
Copyright © 2003 Goro Adachi
All rights reserved.
Orion Mystery (1994) and The Message of the Sphinx(1996),
researcher Robert Bauval presented his groundbreaking 'Orion
Correlation Theory' (OCT). As
those who have read The
Nile Decoded or the book The
Time Rivers know, the OCT has much to do with my 'Time River Theory'
(TRT). Although the TRT is not necessarily dependent on Bauval's
findings, I have made it abundantly clear that the latter, the OCT, is
an integral component of the grand 'time map' design - history carved in stone, so to
speak - that I have uncovered.
At the heart of the this 'map' is the Nile River, which
turned out to be a literal
'river of time'. The Nile also plays a major role in the OCT.
Bauval has shown us that the alignment of the ancient river and its celestial counterpart,
the Milky Way, is a key component of the archaeoastronomical design
('as above, so below') marking the epoch of c. 10,500 BC, purportedly
the mythical 'First Time' of ancient Egyptian tradition.
Illustrated below is the OCT heaven-earth alignment
found encoded in the Giza
monuments, pinpointing the 'First Time' (c. 10,500 BC).
reached its lowest point at the meridian in its 26,000-year
precessional cycle. (Precession slowly shifts Orion and other
stars up and down the meridian, the imaginary north-south line
drawn in the sky where the stars achieve their highest daily
the vernal equinox, the Great Sphinx, directly facing east,
witnessed the rising of its two celestial counterparts – the
sun and Leo.
At the moment of equinoctial sunrise (c. 10,600 BC):
was positioned right at the meridian.
the southern sky, the Milky Way was seen roughly vertical and
positioned in such a way that it appeared to be an extension of the
Nile. Orion was situated just to the right of the celestial river
– closely mimicking the configuration of the Giza pyramids and the
the core of the Orion Correlation Theory is, of course, the idea
that the layout of the three great Giza pyramids closely mimic that
of the Orion Belt Stars, which subsequently gives rise to the above
In the Time
River Theory, the OCT 'First Time' date is assigned to the beginning
point of the Nile - or the 'beginning of time' - at the equator where the river
begins its long journey northward by flowing out of Lake Victoria.
Along with 2350 BC,
which is another 'anchor date' derived from the Giza design, assigned to the northern peak of the
Nile 'Great Bend' at latitude
archaeoastronomical scheme manages to turn the ancient river into a timeline.
Nile Decoded for more detail.)
This second 'anchor date' (2350 BC) is
produced by the celestial
alignments of the Great Pyramid's internal 'air shafts'. These shafts,
has pointed out (expanding on the theory of Alexander Badawy and
Virginia Trimble), are targeted at the meridian (i.e. due
south/north) and angled just right so that around 2400 BC they were
aligned with key stars crossing
the meridian ('transit') - namely Alnitak (of Orion), Sirius,
Beta Ursa Minor ('Kochab'),
and Alpha Draconis ('Thuban',
the ancient Pole Star).
Bauval himself comes up with the approximate date of c. 2450 BC from this, the
date should in reality be more like 2350 BC. All the
star-shaft alignments occurred at
the latter time except for Orion's alignment with the upper southern shaft (c. 2490 BC).
Actually, as Dr.
Thomas G. Brophy (The Origin Map) has pointed out, even this shaft did come into alignment with the
Galactic Center around the same date of 2350 BC.
any case, using these two anchor dates/points - 10,600 BC at the equator and 2350
BC at 19.5°N - I was then able to decode the 'Nile timeline'.
revealed that the Nile's various other key point would mark very significant dates:
Khartoum confluence at 15.60°N. corresponds precisely to 4000 BC.
Atbara-Nile confluence at 17.67°N. corresponds to 3124 BC.
at 30.00°N. corresponds to AD 2093.
The two ancient dates, 4000 BC and 3124 BC, happen to coincide
with the beginnings of the two earliest and most mysterious civilizations - Sumer (c. 4000 BC) and ancient Egypt (c.
3100 BC)! (The third date is presumably forecasting some momentous
This was the
TRT's first major breakthrough, in which the
OCT played a major role by interacting flawlessly with this Nile timeline scheme.
however, there has been a new development, a slight revision of the
OCT, having the implication
of shifting back the OCT 'First Time' date by 1000 years or so. And
I realized that this would directly affect the Nile timeline which
uses the original 'First Time'
date (10,600 BC) as the 'beginning of time'.
Let us then
examine here the new archaeoastronomical observation that, according to
Bauval, makes c. 11,500 BC (instead of 10,600 BC) correspond to the
'First Time'. Let's see if it's something that undermines the Time River Theory.
First, here is a
edited version of Bauval's article addressing
the issue, titled ANGLE
OF CONTENTION: Part IV:
[I]f we precess the sky back
to about 11,500 BC, Sirius would not have been visible from
Heliopolis. The reality of Precession and other factors such as
proper motion, atmospheric refraction and natural haze on the
horizon, show that Sirius was not visible there prior to c.11,500
BC. However, an observer at the same latitude but who had access
to a higher point observation point, like the Giza plateau for
example, would, in fact, have been able to see Sirius. This is
because the declination (d) of the due-south horizon would drop at
least 1° lower as one climbs up the plateau (about 60 m above sea
To the ancient Egyptians who
practiced a sky/star religion, this phenomenon may have had very
profound implications. [...] Egyptian
civilization had a beginning somewhere in the remote past. This is
a fact. But to use their own parlance, must call it the ‘First
Time’. ‘Time’ in ancient Egypt was monitored and calibrated
with the stars, and there is no question that Sirius was the most
prominent for this purpose. It would thus be a scientific
negligence - no matter what the bias may be against the idea of an
older origins for the Egyptian civilization - not to look more
closely at this idea of the ‘First Time’ in connection with
is located immediately on the ‘west’ side of the Milky Way and
somewhere below Orion. But if we go back in time to, say 70,000 BC,
we find that Sirius was on the ‘east’ side of the Milky Way.
Thus Sirius ‘crossed’ the ‘sky river’, to emerge finally on
the other ‘west’ bank. Calculations show that this last happened
near c.11,500 BC.
But then, from Heliopolis, it
began to disappear until eventually it was seen no more. It was as
if the star had simply ‘died’. The explanation of this strange
phenomenon is simple: while Sirius star was moving across the
sky-landscape with its proper motion, the sky-landscape was also
itself ‘moving’ because of the effect of precession. In c.
11,500 BC the declination of Sirius was -59° 49’, and thus just
skimmed the south horizon as seen from Heliopolis. [...]
But soon it must have been realized that all was not lost. For
someone looking south from the vantage point of the high Giza
Plateau, could, in fact, actually see Sirius just over the south
Could 11,500 BC be the origin of the ‘First Time’ i.e.
the ‘time of Horus’? And could the Great Sphinx, itself an
effigy of the Horus-king, be a marker to this cosmic event?
In our book Keeper
of Genesis [The Message of the Sphinx in US], we noted
that the ancient Egyptians spoke of the ‘First Time’, as being a
golden age variously known as ‘the time of Re’, ‘the time of
Osiris’, or ‘the time of Horus’.” Re was the sun and Osiris
was Orion. But Horus, in his cosmic form, was also Horus-Spd i.e.
Horus-Sirius. Horus was also one of the oldest deities. And although using the nadir Orion’s belt to determine
the ‘First Time’ was justified, we now can see that Sirius would
have been far more appropriate.
All that this means is that the date
has to be pushed back from c.10,500 BC to [c. 11,500 BC]. This does
not present a problem, for whether c.10,500 BC or c.11, 500 BC, the
OCT theory remains the same. But when we look carefully at the
actual sky-image in c.11,500 BC we shall see that something does
change... for the better...
© Robert Bauval
angle formed by the apexes of the First and Second Pyramid is... 43°
22’. Calculations show that in c. 11.500 BC, the angle formed at
the meridian by the line joining the first two stars (Zeta and
Epsilon) of Orion’s belt was near 45.5° +/- 1°. Thus the
variance [is], as
everyone agrees, a negligible amount. [So the Orion's angle was much closer
to the the pyramid angle than in 10,500 BC].
that is not all. Looking closely at the eastern sky when Orion’s
belt sits on the south meridian, we immediately can see that the
constellation of Leo is sitting due east –in the direct line of
sight of its earthly counterpart, the Great Sphinx.
© Robert Bauval
The sun disc at
this precise moment is some 14° below the horizon line, meaning
that it’s dark enough for nearly all the stars in Leo, and certainly
all the stars in Orion, to be still visible in the pre-dawn sky.
Ground and sky indeed now make a ‘perfect match’ in that special
epoch of 11,500 BC...
of Contention' article]
So Bauval's new
position is that the 'First Time' should be c. 11,500 BC rather than c. 10,500 BC
(or more accurately 10,600 BC) that he originally used.
While I concur
that there is indeed special archaeoastronomical significance
attached to c. 11,500 BC, in my view Bauval is
prematurely discarding the original c. 10,600 BC date. There is
still just too much
coherence produced by the latter. For example, the Orion
Belt Stars' lowest meridian transit in the southern sky did pinpoint c. 10,600 BC; and
this transit coincided with the sunrise of the vernal equinox due
My position is
that what we have
here is not an either/or situation. Indeed, indications are that both
dates are valid. And I'm not going to fault Bauval for trying to come up
with just one date - because he doesn't have the bigger context that
I have, i.e. the Time River system. If he was familiar with the TRT,
he would have quickly found out that the Nile timeline acknowledges both 10,600 BC and c. 11,500 BC.
As illustrated below, extending the Nile timeline southward
creates a situation where Lake Victoria's southern border marks the
epoch covering 11,500 BC through 11,900 BC. What's more, it turns
out that the Giza pyramid angle and the
Orion's Belt (meridian transit) angle matched more exactly around 11,800
BC, which corresponds to latitude 2.838°S. (Dr. Thomas Brophy gives the date
11,772 BC.) This latitude, as shown below, happens to be indeed one
of the key positions marking the southern edge
of Lake Victoria!
But why are there
two narrow arms of the lake extended southward marking two slightly different
dates/latitudes? Why the need to mark 3.09°S/11,907 BC in addition to
An answer to this question may
be the following.
The Time River
system, as discussed in my book, uses 33.0°E longitude as its
'anchor/center meridian'. For example, it is the longitude
pinpointed by one of
the timeline-anchor points assigned to the 'Great Bend' apex
(19.5°N/2350 BC). As the above illustration shows, this 'anchor
meridian' (33°E) is 'touched' by the longer arm extending from the
lake at about 2.86°S latitude, corresponding to 11,810 BC on the
timeline - i.e. practically the same date pinpointed by the
shorter/western arm (2.838°S/11,800 BC). Obviously, this has the
function of putting extra emphasis on that Giza-Orion 'perfect match' date.
Now, it is true
eastern arm extends further southward. But there is a very sensible
reason for this. (Though I'm not saying this is the only
reason.) Its southernmost extremity happens to mark 3°S latitude
(more precisely 3.09°S). This is important because it makes
the length of the Nile - from Giza (30°N) to 3°S - exactly 33
degrees in latitude. Hence it corroborates the importance attached to the 33°E
meridian and the date it has pinpointed, i.e. c. 11,800 BC.
Yes, the numbering of longitude is a man-made and quite modern
system which happens to be anchored at Greenwich (0°). This seems
to make the numerical significance of the 33°E meridian rather
superficial. But actually I can use the above findings to strengthen
the idea that it is in fact no coincidence that the Nile anchor
meridian happens to bear the precise number
'33'. That the 'anchor meridian' is today's 33°E is not at all
on the number itself, so it has no bearing on the significance of
the 11,810 BC (2.86°S/33.0°E)
And yet the southernmost
point of the same arm involved extending from Lake Victoria happens
to pinpoint latitude 3°S to produce the number '33' (i.e. 33
degrees away from the northern 'edge' of the Nile at Giza/30°N)
as if to tell us it is by design that the number 33 is
assigned to the 'anchor meridian' of the Nile.]
Instead of collapsing,
therefore, we have witnessed that the
timeline system of the Nile was readily anticipating the
additional 'First Time' date! When this kind of unexpected confirmation
takes place, you know
you have something powerful. This is exactly what a valid theory does.
Indeed, at this
point I feel confident enough to state that the Orion Correlation Theory
probably will not
progress forward in a very meaningful way until the theory is viewed
the context of the Time River scheme. Giza's archaeoastronomical design propounded by
the OCT is meant to lead naturally to the
grander design of the Egyptian river,
the Nile, the chief 'Time River' flowing on this planet. Hopefully
this will be something recognized more widely in the near future.
Back to TRT Main
© 2003 Goro Adachi
Email Goro: firstname.lastname@example.org
All rights reserved.
This material may not be reproduced
without the permission of the author.
| Time Rivers
| Book |
Nile Decoded | Etemenanki