Fig. 1: Orientation of a building is correctly expressed as an angle relative to True North. The building shown above is oriented 10° East of True North. The walls closest to their cardinal directions are expressed as N’, E’, S’, and W’ while the True cardinals are expressed as N, E, S, and W. True North is the same as the spin axis of the Earth and not the magnetic pole. Expressing orientation of a building relative to the magnetic pole is incorrect because this pole wanders around the spin axis and is not stable enough for any calculations. | © Mario Buildreps.

Orientation is a broad concept. The word orientation is derived from Latin oriens or orientum, which means “the rising Sun” or “to the East”.

Orientation is dimensionless. It has no weight, no chemical composition, and no size. Objects regardless of their size or composition can be oriented in the same way. Orientation is expressed as a ratio number expressed in degrees (°) or in radians (π), and it is ultimately an angular value of a full circle. 

People can be oriented to certain aspects of life which is metaphorical, while objects and buildings can be oriented relative to a fixed point. Our method is solely about the orientation of buildings relative to the Cardinals, True North, or, as you will, to the rising Sun. However, the position where the Sun rises depends ultimately on the spin axis of the Earth. This what we call the geographic North or South Pole and is not a phenomenon that is fixed and immutable, as some people may think. Locations periodically change their orientation due to crustal shifts, and while the Earth turns around its axis, the Sun rises in a changing East position.


Cardinal Orientation

It is arbitrary to claim there is such a thing as a universal concept of building orientation. There is, however, a good practice known by all architects all over the world how orientation is defined. The orientation of a building is expressed as its position relative to the Cardinals or the compass rose, and the correct orientation is expressed relative to True North (or True South on the Southern hemisphere) and not to the magnetic North.

Although many architects feel a deep desire to orient their design to the Cardinals as accurately as possible, they are in most cases limited by the urban integration and layout, and ultimately by a budget. Only the wealthiest or most influential principals have the means to fund urban area buildings and locate them to the cardinal directions. Good examples of such a practice are the Vatican and the White House.


Defining Orientation Unambiguously 

Researchers of astroarcheological (or archeoastronomical) aspects of ancient monuments often express orientation in Azimuth. Azimuth starts at True North and then rotates 360° in a clockwise direction. It is not necessarily wrong to measure monuments this way but this method merely focuses on speculative aspects of a monument than on the orientation of the monument as a whole. This method of defining orientation is therefore quite unscientific.

For example, if we want to measure the orientation of a square building that has only one entrance on one side and the other three walls are equal, how would you express the orientation of this building? Would you focus on the doorway and measure that orientation in azimuth, or would you “just” measure the orientation of the structure as a whole?


Defining Orientation Unambiguously

Fig. 2: If we want to unambiguously define the orientation of square or rectangular monuments, there is only 44.99…° freedom clockwise and 44.99…° freedom counterclockwise – the total angle is then 89.99…°. Doors, stairs, or whatever other building features there may be, play no role during this process. There is a mathematical definition underpinning this method: 360 / 4 = 90. There are no assumptions in our way when we process monuments in large numbers that otherwise would pollute our research. | © Mario Buildreps.

Many researchers in the field of archeoastronomy express the orientation of the building in “azimuth”, with a door or stairway as their main focus. There is nothing really wrong with this practice but it reveals certain assumptions by the researchers regarding the “rigidness” of True North in relation to the assumed age of certain monuments.

Their assumption is that ancient monuments are generally considered very young, just a few thousand years old, in relation to the very stable and very slowly changing position of True North, measurable in only fractions of arc seconds per one thousand years. Therefore, they claim that the age of a building relative to True North plays no role whatsoever.

But that appears to be the biggest mistakes archeoastronomical researchers are constantly making. The Earth’s geographic pole has indeed periods of great stability but it also has periods of great instability, and these periods depend on the Earth’s eccentric orbit around the Sun. Ice ages come and go, following these rhythms.

One can now see why this is one of the main reasons why ancient mysteries have never been solved on a grand scale because all research is littered with assumptions without researchers even being aware of it. They lean on the research of others that also teems with assumptions of the same kind – that of a rigid Earth in relation to an ancient history of just a few thousand years.

We have proven unambiguously that the ancient history of humanity and the geographical changes of the Earth’s skin are deeply entangled. The only data we used was the orientation and location – and both are dimensionless features – of large amounts of ancient monuments spread around the world. It is probably no exaggeration to say that this may be one the greatest scientific discoveries in a long time.


Fig. 3: Orientation of ancient monuments is on both hemispheres completely different. The odds for coincidence of this pattern is ZERO. We have made one of the greatest discoveries of science over the last decades, maybe even centuries. | © Mario Buildreps.


Orientation of Mayan Structures

There are researchers who have attempted to find patterns in the orientation of Mayan, Incan, and Aztec structures. The reason some of them keep researching in this field of endeavor, with unremitting attention and dedication, is the strange clockwise orientation of more than 90% of the Latin-American structures. This phenomenon has already led to countless speculations, from solstice positions right up to the path of Venus, and other purely speculative ideas.

If the structures had been near each other, there could have been a local tradition or geographical reason for this typical orientation, but that is not the case. Some structures are many thousands of kilometers apart. The only reason to explain this extreme pattern is by an unknown reasoning that influences the ancient builders to adopt these typical orientation patterns.

If we go to the other side of the world, the Eastern hemisphere, we see exactly the opposite happening, over 75% of the ancient structures are counterclockwise oriented for the same unknown reason as we have seen on the western hemisphere with the Mayan, Incan, and Aztec structures. The structures on the Eastern hemisphere are also many thousands of kilometers apart.

From our research, we can say with 100% certainty that these orientation patterns are not the result of coincidence. There is an unknown phenomenon, a sort of “force”, that influences these very specific strange patterns. Serendipitously, we found an astonishing pattern that fully explains this “force” and it happens to correlate one on one with the occurrence of glaciation cycles. The odds are a whopping 1 to 750,000 that the relation is just coincidental – we have found a deeply hidden ancient secret that connects many dots.


© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.



Proofreading and editing: J.B.


Support our work and discover more:




One Responses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *