200 



NATURE 



[July 2, 1891 



tude of 70° or 71° N. of E. ; both these temples face 

 northerly, and nearly in the same direction. Near 

 the last temple we have the ruins of another one 

 at right angles to it, and this points to the westward 

 amplitude 19° N. of W. We may assume from the 

 plan of the ruins that the Naos is at the east end of the 

 temple, therefore the chief pylon would have been to 

 the west, and therefore the axis will be in that direction. 

 In the row of sphinxes, a double row connecting the 

 temples of Maut and Karnak, the line is absolutely com- 

 plete as far as their bases are concerned, with the excep- 

 tion of two where there is a gap, and that gap is exactly 

 in the axis of this temple prolonged. Here is another 

 instance of the rights of the line of sight of a temple 

 being strictly preserved. 



The Egyptians have been accused of hating every 

 regular figure, and even in the boundary walls of the 

 temple of Ammon there are two obtuse angles. Round 

 the Maut temple we also have walls, and there again this 

 hatred of similarity seems to come out, for we have one 

 obtuse and one acute angle. But if we examine the thing 

 a little carefully, we find that there is a good deal of 

 method in this apparent irregularity. The wall of the 

 temple of Ammon is parallel to the face of the temple 

 or at right angles to its length. One wall of Maut is 

 perfectly parallel to the face of the temple or at right 

 angles to the sphinxes. And the reason that we do not 

 get right angles at one end of the wall is that the walls of 

 the temple at Maut are parallel to the chief wall of the 

 temple of Ammon. Surely it must be that, before these 

 walls were built, it was understood that there was 

 a combined worship, that they stood or fell together. 

 One thing was not attempted in one temple and another 

 thing in another, but the worship of each was reflected 

 in the other. And if this be true you see that there was 

 no hatred of symmetry, but a definite reason why these 

 walls should be built as they were. 



We can depend, and no doubt depend very completely 

 indeed upon the labours of the Egyptologists, in the case 

 of the temples of Rameses and of Khons. No Egypt- 

 ologist so far, I believe, has ventured to tell us the date 

 of the foundation of Karnak, but what Egyptologists have 

 stated is that those two temples were built by the same 

 king ; their architecture is exactly similar, they are paral- 

 lel to each other, and they altogether bear leference to 

 apparently the same period of Egyptian history. Now 

 that king was Rameses III., and the year according to 

 Brugsch was 1200 B c. Here then we have a definite 

 basis of work. There is a temple with an amplitude 

 of 63° N. of E., built 1200 B.C. ; there is a temple with 

 an amplitude of 63° S. of W., built 1200 B.C. From 

 these amplitudes we determine as before the declinations ; 

 they come out 53° N. and 53"" S. 



Was there an important star with a declination of 53° 

 N., was there another with a declination of 53° S. in 

 the year 1200 B.C.? There were two important stars, 

 one with a declination of 53° N. and another of 53° S. 

 at that time. The north star was y Draconis, the south 

 star was Canopus. This strengthens the view that there 

 was really some astronomical object in the plan and 

 direction of these temples. 



Thus, at the time when these two temples were 

 stated to have been built, each might have been used 

 to observe one the rising, the other the setting, of an 

 important star. We have long ago seen that so far 

 the Egyptians, like the Babylonians at a later date, only 

 had an idea of observing a heavenly body and the posi- 

 tion of other bodies in relation to it, so long as it was 

 rising or setting, so that it was absolutely essential that 

 the body which they were to observe should rise and set. 

 You know perfectly well that in London there are many 

 stars which neither rise nor set. The latitude of London 

 being 51°, the elevation of the pole therefore is 51°, and 

 from the pole to the north point of the horizon being 51° : 



NO. 1 131, VOL. 44] 



of course any star which lies at that distance from the 

 pole cannot set, but sweeps round without touching the 

 horizon at all. The latitude of Thebes being 25". the 

 distance from the pole to the horizon is much smaller, and 

 so the number of stars which do not rise and set is much 

 smaller. The stars which did not rise or set were stars 

 which were moving very slowly and the stars which rose 

 most to the north and most to the south were those 

 bodies which were moving most slowly while they yet 

 rose or set. Can this slow rate of motion have had 

 anything to do with such stars being selected for observa- 

 tion, the brightest star to the north, most slowly moving, 

 the brightest star to the south most slowly moving? It is 

 possible that observations of these stars might have been 

 made in such a way that at the beginning of the evening 

 the particular position of 7 Draconis might have been 

 noted with regard to the pole star, if there were no other 

 reason ; and seeing that the Egyptians thoroughly knew 

 the length of the night and of the day in the different 

 portions of the year, they could at once the moment they 

 got the starting point of the rising of this star practically 

 use the circle of the stars round the north pole as the 

 dial of a sort of celestial clock. May not this really have 

 been the clock with which they have been credited? 

 However long or short the day, the star which was at first 

 above the pole star, after it had got round so that it was 

 on a level with it, would have gone through a quarter of 

 its revolution. 



So much then for the possible use of the temples built by 

 Rameses III. in the year 1200 B.C. It has already been 

 pointed out that although we have in one an amplitude 

 of 63° N. of E. we have other temples with amplitudes of 

 68° N. of E. and 71° N. of E. Everybody agrees that 

 the temple, with amplitude 63° N. of E., was built 1200 

 years B.C. I have shown that that temple could have 

 observed the most northerly star which did not set. May 

 it not have been that the 68° temple and the 71° temple 

 were temples built to observe the same star before this 

 one was built, because we know they could not have 

 observed the star after this one was built, since -y Draconis 

 was decreasing its declination, therefore in previous times 

 its declination would have been higher, and the amplitude 

 therefore of a temple to observe it would have been 

 greater. 



Looking back to the German tables and other calcula- 

 tions, we find that with an amplitude of 68*^ we get a 

 declination of 56°, and the same tables tell us that that 

 declination was the dechnation of the same star y 

 Draconis 2000 years B.C. It does look as if in all proba- 

 bility we are dealing with a series of temples not twisted 

 but built in different places. 



Can we consider that the temple with an ampHtude 

 of 71° might have been used to observe that same star 

 long before the temples were built with amplitudes of 

 68° and 63° ? The amplitude of 7 1° gives us a declination 

 of 58°, we then find the year in which that same star 

 y Draconis had that declination to have been about 3000 

 years B.C. So that it is not impossible that temple was 

 built first of all to observe 7 Draconis 3000 years B.C., that 

 after a time the star changed its declination so much that 

 another temple became necessary, and 1000 years after- 

 wards the change again became large, and still another 

 temple was built to observe it. The three temples may 

 form one series. 



The discussion is a Httle difficult because the orien- 

 tation is very far towards the south and north, and there- 

 fore a hill a few miles off would make a difi'erence of 2° 

 or 3° in the orientation of the temple, and as yet we have 

 no observations that throw light on this point. 



We have then at Thebes alone three converging lines 

 of evidence which all go to strengthen the view that these 

 temples were really — whatever else they might have been 

 — usable as solar and stellar observatories. The differ- 

 ence being of course that in the case of the solar temple 



