It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Although it appears that in later times, the meaning of the word S3h (or the plural S3hu) was extended to refer to the constellation of Orion as a whole, yet the Egyptians never lost sight of the fact that only one star in this constellation embodied the spirit of Osiris. This is proven by the so-called 'decan lists' which were represented in the 'astronomical ceilings' of some tombs of the New Kingdom. Here, as shown by the classification of R.A. Parker and O. Neugebauer in their primary work, Egyptian Astronomical Texts [Vol III (London, 1969), 112-5], the ruling dieties of the various stars of Orion were identified. In the tombs of Senmut, Pedamenope and Montemhet, for example, we find that Osiris is associated with the star known as hr rmn s3hu, meaning the star 'under the arm of Orion', while other stars of Orion were known as Children-of Horus and Eye-of-Horus. In some other decan-lists, a star with the presiding deity of Osiris was still identified as the Toe-Star S3h specifically.
Upon reflection, the fact that only one star of Orion was thought to receive the soul or spirit of the great god Osiris is only to be expected, since the ancient Egyptians believed that the stars of the sky represented the bas of individual souls, and the essential being of a god could not very well be divided up between a number of stars. It therefore seems likely that in the Pyramid Texts, the frequent interplay between Isis-Spdt and Osiris-S3h took place in a balanced relationship between two stars - namely Sirius and Rigel, two of the brightest stars in the sky - and not between a star and a constellation.
Furthermore, in places like Deir el-Medina where the notable people had very small pyramids and paid VERY careful attention to the layouts of their mausoleums and graveyards, we don't see this "3 stars" or any other stellar configuration repeated.
Byrd: We should also see it in the complex around the pyramid of Pepi II at Saqqara... there's enough pyramids there to do a "crown of Sah" if that had been a master plan... but we don't see that:
Byrd: And the same can be said for other clusters of pyramids. The common elements are the wall, the temple, and the frequently seen cult pyramids -- similar to Imhotep's design for Djoser.
Byrd: And two of the pyramids on the Giza plateau seem to follow that same plan with the wall and the temple to the east (if there's a wall around Khufu's pyramid (I can't tell) then that would make all 3 of them follow this design that is seen elsewhere) :
.Byrd: ..and in all those, there's no paintings of Sah's constellation or mention of it.
Byrd: A counter for my argument, of course, would be if it could be shown that the burial areas of the other pharaohs followed this same design of "Sah's crown" and that the same was true of the nobles of the court who were often buried in a smaller version of the pharaoh's tomb.
Byrd: Can you show me other ones that reflect the "Giza plateau" design?
Drew23: I have read several Hancock books and Bauval. I found them an interesting read. But the heavens mirror theory stretches it a bit for me.
Drew: There are so may stars in the sky in this age alone that I'm sure we could find coincidental "matches" with monuments like the pyramids. But then if you have software to check back up to 10500BC, then there's bound to be correlations?? It doesnt have to be orion.
Drew: It annoyed me when they mapped out the larger area surrounding the giza plateau bauval and hancock matched up the belt plus 2 others matching pyramids below but totally ignored that there were other stars in that constellation that did NOT match.
Drew: I like what Hancock ,Bauval and others are saying about the entrenched view of history could be wrong. As they say, the winners of wars make the history of what happened, not the losers. But although they do some interesting research, it seems to be from a sensationalist point of view and even though they both get ridiculed by scientific communities, they dont help themselves the way they dont use proper scientific testing and peer reviewing.