CHAPTER XI.

THE AGE OF THE TEMPLE OF AMEN-RĀ AT KARNAK.

If it be accepted that the arguments already put forward justify us in regarding the temple of Amen-Rā as a solstitial solar temple, we are brought face to face with the fact that if it be of any great antiquity its orientation should be such that it will no longer receive the light of the setting sun at the summer solstice along its axis.

This results from the fact that there is a slow change in what is called the obliquity of the ecliptic--that is, the angle between the plane of the earth's equator and the plane of the ecliptic; this change is brought about by the attraction of the other planetary bodies affecting the plane of the ecliptic. If these planes approach each other, the obliquity will be reduced; the present obliquity is something like 23° 27′; we know that 5,000 B.C. it was 24° 22′, nearly a degree more. A difference of 1° means, then, a difference of time of about seven thousand years. It may go down to something below 21°. Since the obliquity has been decreasing for many thousand years, a temple directed to the rising or setting sun at the solstice some thousands of years ago had a greater amplitude than it requires now.

It will be readily understood that if the orientation of the temple and the height of the hills towards which it points be accurately known, knowing also the precise obliquity of the ecliptic at different epochs, we have an astronomical means of determining the date of the original foundation of the temple, supposing, of course, that it was founded to observe the solstice.

But before I go into these matters it is essential that the evidence of Egyptologists should be considered. Very fortunately for us in these inquiries the temple of Amen-Rā is one of those most carefully studied by Mariette, so that the _dernier mot_ of the archæologist is at our disposal.

Mariette, in his magnificent memoir on Karnak,[34] surpassed himself in the care and sagacity which he displayed in endeavouring to fix dates for the various structures in that wonderful temple-field, and among them the various parts of the temple of Amen-Rā.

In his maps, to which I now refer, each part of the temple is coloured according to the supposed date of its building. He points out first of all that the inscriptions on the walls must be disregarded, as they could have been put there at any date after the temples were built. On this point I quote Mariette's own words:--[35]

"Les couleurs marquées sur le plan servent à indiquer, au moyen de la légende explicative placée en marge, les époques diverses de la construction des temples et de leurs parties. Quelques mots d'explication sont ici nécessaires. Un mur porte les cartouches de Menephtah; mais il peut avoir été construit deux-cent-cinquante ans plus tôt par Thoutmès III. Les époques de la décoration ne sont ainsi pas toujours les époques de la construction. Pour avoir les époques de la décoration, il ne s'agit que de regarder les murs et les inscriptions dont ils sont couverts. Pour avoir les époques de la construction, tout un travail de confrontation, de comparaison, est nécessaire. Il faut s'assurer si les mêmes mains qui ont construit le mur l'ont décoré; dans le cas contraire, il faut faire intervenir l'archéologie dans toutes les branches de cette science qui touchent à l'observation des lieux, au mode de construction, à l'agencement des pierres, au choix et à l'appareillage des matériaux."

Taking the temple in its generality, he finds that, so far as his inquiries had carried him, parts were certainly built at a time an ancient as the twelfth dynasty--say 2400 or 3000 B.C., according to the authority in these matters that we may prefer.

Then again we have dates given and indications of kings through the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, and then again on to the times of the Ptolemies.

In such an inquiry we must have archæological dates on which we can rely. In the date assigned to the time of Mena by various Egyptologists we find a difference of nearly--in fact, rather more than--a thousand years in our authorities. In the twelfth dynasty we find a difference of five hundred years; but in the later dynasties, such as the eighteenth, the difference is reduced in some cases to ten years or so. So that in the later dynasties we know pretty well what time is in question. We are therefore on firm ground.

The first point to which I wish to call attention is that according to Mariette the building dates change along the open axis of the temple. From photographs I took when in Egypt I found reason to believe that the direction of the axis has been slightly changed at the west end.

If we refer to the plan of the temple, the point of importance to us in our present inquiry has relation to the circumstances connected with the buildings of the temple itself. We have in the outer court to the north-west certain pillars which were built by one of the Ethiopian kings. These I mark =1=, =1= (see page 118). There is the temple =M=, built by Rameses III, according to Mariette. There are walls with columns, marked =2=, =2=, built by the twenty-second dynasty, north and south of this outer court; and then there is the temple =L= in the outer court, supposed to have been built by Seti II. The western part of the temple, therefore, is of no high antiquity. To find this we have to go some 200 yards to the south-east. Near the central portion of the temple (marked =4=) there are traces of the twelfth or possibly the eleventh dynasty. What existed then might have been a shrine with nothing to the north-west or south-east of it.

This seems almost to have been its condition at the time of Thothmes III. even.

According to an inscription quoted by Brugsch,[36] "The king (Thothmes III.) found it in the form of a brick building, in a very dilapidated condition, being a work of his predecessors. The king with his own hand performed the solemn laying of the foundation stone for this monument."

From this point, indeed, the temple seems to have extended in both directions--that is, north-west and south-east--the sanctuary being thrown back to the eastward and pylons added to the westward.

It follows from the above very brief sketch that the original orientation of the original shrine is to be gathered from the walls towards the centre of the present ruins.

Let us agree to this. The Egyptologist already gives us eleventh-dynasty time, say 2500 B.C. for a part of the existing temple.

Let us now pass to the astronomical problem. Lepsius and others have measured the amplitude of this part of the temple. It is given as 20° or 20° 30′ N. of W.

When there I measured the height of the opposite hills (near the tombs of the kings) roughly at 2½°. If we, therefore, deal with the amplitude, considering the height of the hills as 2½°, we find that, as the horizon was above the sea horizon and the sun travels down an inclined path from south to north, it would meet the hill sooner than the sea horizon; the apparent amplitude would, therefore, be less than the true one, so that we get an amplitude of 25° instead of 26°, and if we correct that for refraction we get 25½°.

Let us take the lower amplitudes. We can construct the following table:--

With present obliquity 23° 30′ we have at Thebes, lat. 25° 40′ amplitude on horizon (sun's centre) 26° Corrected for refraction 26° 30′ The amplitude behind hill, 2½° high, will be 25° Making correction for refraction 25° 5′

So that, taking the lowest amplitude, the temple axis points almost 1° too much to the north.

I have already mentioned that the photographs I had taken of the temple axis towards, and from the outside of, the Ptolemaic pylon indicated a twist in the temple axis. This was a question that in the absence of accurate measurements could only be determined by an actual observation of the solstice.

This being so, I begged the intervention of Col. Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff, the Under Secretary of State of the Public Works Department in Egypt, to detail one of his officers to make observations of the summer solstice of 1891. He was good enough to accede to my request, and I proceed to give extracts from the report of the officer in question, Mr. P. J. G. Wakefield, to Mr. Allan Joseph, the Director of Works and Irrigation:--

"In accordance with instructions received, I made the following observations at Karnak on June 21st, 1891:--

"I found that the points which I have marked A, C, D on the photographic plan (being the centres of the Pylon of Rameses I., the Pylon of Thothmes I., and the shrine or sanctuary of Philip III. of Macedon (?) respectively) were all in a straight line. B is a point midway between the only two opposite pillars of which the bases are intact (one set up by Rameses I., and the other by Seti I.), and was very nearly in line; probably the true centre between the pillars (which is difficult to obtain) would be exactly so. The centre of the Great Pylon (Ptolemaic) is not in line at all with these points, there being 1° difference between D A prolonged and A E; I therefore accepted the line D C A as the true axis.

"From an inspection made on June 20th, it appeared to me that the setting sun would not be visible from any of the points indicated by Professor Norman Lockyer. I therefore placed the theodolite at A. I regret to say that my above supposition was correct, as even from A I was only able to see a portion of the setting sun, the remainder being hidden behind the south wall of the Great Pylon. I obtained, however, one reading, the right limb at, as nearly as I could judge, the moment of impact of the sun's diameter with the hill."

Of the measures given the most important are the angle between the axis of the temple looking south-east from A and the north point 116° 23′ 40″ (amplitude 26° 23′) and the angle between the top of the hills and the horizontal 2° 36′ 20″ .[37] These measures, therefore, entirely justified the result of the calculations I have before given, and prove that the interval of over 5000 years is sufficient to cause us to detect the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic by this method of observing the sunset at a solstice with an instrument built on so large a a scale.

Taking the orientation as 26°, and taking hills and refraction into consideration, we find that the true horizon sunset amplitude would be 27° 30′. This amplitude gives us for Thebes a declination of 24° 18′.

This was the obliquity of the ecliptic in the year 3700 B.C., and this is therefore the date of the _foundation_ of the shrine of Amen-Rā at Karnak, so far as we can determine it astronomically with the available data; but about these there is still an element of doubt, for, so far as I learn, the recent magnetic readings have not been checked by astronomical observations.