CHAPTER XVIII.

THE STAR-TEMPLES AT KARNAK.

When I began my studies of the Egyptian temples the building inscriptions referred to in the preceding chapter lay forgotten in the Egyptologist's archives. I purpose now to give some account of my work at Thebes, where I made a special study of the temples, because there is a very great number there, and many are in a fair state of preservation. These investigations convinced me that temples were oriented to stars before the inscriptions in question were known to me, although the whole temple field is so crowded with temples, each apparently blocking up the fair-way of the other, that it seems well-nigh impossible that any such process as that described in the last chapter could have been applied.

This difficulty will be gathered from the accompanying folding plate giving a reproduction of Lepsius's general maps of the temple region of Karnak, showing his reference letters and also the _true_ north and the orientation of the chief temples. We have already dealt with the solar temple of Amen-Rā.

We find, beginning at the south, a large temple with a long line of sphinxes, the temple of Mut (X) facing the large temple of Amen-Rā (K). To the north of the latter is another temple system (A and B and C), also with an avenue of sphinxes. On the east side of K another temple (O) is only slightly indicated.

To the south of the large temple K is another one--that of Khons (T), also with its sphinxes. Connected with K are two other temples, L, nearly, and M, exactly, at right angles to it. There is also such a rectangular temple (Y) added to the temple of Mut. I also call attention to the temples V and W, chiefly to point out that when I went over the ground with M. Bouriant it seemed to us as if the temple V faced S.E. and not N.W. as indicated by Lepsius. Very few traces of the temple are left.

Since the labours of the French and Prussian Governments gave full records of Karnak a memoir on the temples has been published by Mariette, which gives us not only plans, but precious information relating to the periods at which, and the kings by whom, the various parts of the temples were constructed or modified. No doubt those which are still traceable form only a very small portion of those which once existed; but however that may be, I have now only to call attention to some among them.

I have previously shown that the magnificent work of Mariette has supplied us with building dates for the solar temple to which reference has been made; so that we have, with more or less accuracy, the sequence of the various parts of the completed building.

If we consider the plan without any reference to the building dates at all, the idea that the smaller temples were built for observations of stars seems to be entirely discountenanced. The temple L, for instance, instead of having a clear horizon, is blocked by the very solid wall (2) and its accompanying columns; the temple M, instead of having a clear horizon, is absolutely blocked by two of the line of pillars (1) very carefully built in front of it. But if we consult Mariette, _we find in both cases that the wall was built long after one temple, and the pillars were built long after the other_.

This result is satisfactory, inasmuch as it indicates that a natural objection to the orientation hypothesis is invalid. But can we strengthen it by supporting Mariette's statement as to the dates?

Mariette states that the temple M was built by Rameses III., a king of the twentieth dynasty. With this datum, we consider the orientation of the temple. The problem is one of this kind:--Taking the Egyptologist's date for Rameses III. at 1200 B.C., and taking the amplitude of the temple as 63½° N. of E., was there, when that temple was built, any star opposite to it, any star to which it accurately pointed? We can translate the amplitude of that temple into the declination of a star, making a slight correction for the stated conditions of observation in Egypt, which would make the apparent amplitude less than the true one, because the star would appear to rise more to the south. In the absence of precise information, we are justified in taking the mean of the values referred to by Biot--that is, an apparent amplitude due to a stratum of haze 1½° high, especially as the temple looked away from the Nile.

Searching the astronomical tables, we find that there was a star visible along the temple axis. The star was γ Draconis.

So much for the temple M. We now proceed to the other one lettered L, the temple of Seti II.

The amplitude of temple L is 63° S. of W., and the date, according to Mariette, 1300 B.C. We find the declination, proceeding as before, and assuming hills 1½° high, to be 53½° S., and about that date the bright star Canopus set on the alignment of the temple.

It will hence be gathered that just as truly as the temple M seems to have been pointed to the northern star γ Draconis rising, the temple L was pointed to the southern star Canopus, setting.

But this is not all. There is another temple to which I have already directed attention--the temple of Khons (T of Lepsius), founded by Rameses III., though as it comes to us it is a Ptolemaic structure, it having been enlarged and restored by the Ptolemies. It is very nearly, but not quite, parallel to the temple of Seti II.

My measures and those of Lepsius give, approximately, amplitudes as under--

Temple of Seti (T) 63° S. of W. Temple of Khons (L) 62° "

Continuing, therefore, the same line of inquiry, and assuming that Mariette was right, and that the temple was really finally completed (and no doubt its axis revised) by the Ptolemies, and that they flourished about 200 B.C., we have the same problem. Was there a star towards which that temple could have been directed, and which could have been seen in that temple with its actual orientation?

Calculation shows that the change of amplitude of Canopus due to the precessional movement between 1300 B.C. and 200 B.C. is almost exactly 1°, the difference in the amplitude of the temples. We seem, then, to have in the temples L and T two temples directed to the same star at different times.

These statements must be taken as provisional only. To render them absolute, careful measurements must be made, on the spot, of the heights of the hills towards which the temples point.

Leaving this for the moment on one side, we get in this manner astronomical dates of the reigns of Seti II. and Rameses III. within a very few years of those given by the Egyptologists.

More than this, the application of this method entirely justifies Mariette's view with regard to these more modern temples at Thebes, and shows that when they were built the outlook was clear, so that the building ceremonials referred to in the last chapter might have been performed.

I am next anxious to point out that not only is this so, but, accepting it, we can explain exactly why the walls and temples and columns were erected in the sequence which Mariette indicates. We not only know when they were built, but we can presently understand _why they were built_.

The first point to which I draw attention in this matter is the following:--Referring to the plan, we find that before the time of Rameses III. the temple of Seti II. was right out in the open. It thus represented just one of those external rectangular temples which have been found at Denderah and at very many other places in Egypt. It was one of the Egyptian ideas to have two temples at right angles to each other. That temple, then, stood alone. The next change seems to have been this: The star Canopus, the setting of which it was built to watch, was, through the processional movement to which I have referred, no longer conveniently observed in that temple. To obviate this the temple T was built by Rameses III. with a change of amplitude equivalent to the actual precessional change of the star's declination, to carry on the observations.

Further, at the same time another temple (M) was built to observe γ Draconis. It is now easy to understand what the 21st--a Theban--dynasty