TEMPLES DIRECTED TO THE STARS.
I have now to pass from the circumpolar stars to those which both rise
and set. The difference between the two groups--those that do not rise
and set and those which do--was fully recognised by the Egyptians, and
many references are made to the fact in the inscriptions.
In a previous chapter I have given reasons to show that some of the
earliest solar temples in Egypt were not oriented to the solstice.
The temple of Amen-Rā at Karnak, however, and others elsewhere were
built in such a manner that at sunset at the summer solstice--that is,
on the longest day in the year--the sunlight entered the temple and
penetrated along the axis to the sanctuary. I also pointed out that a
temple oriented in this manner truly to a solstice was a scientific
instrument of very high precision, as by it the length of the year
could be determined with the greatest possible accuracy, provided only
that the observations were continued through a sufficient period of
time.
All the temples in Egypt, however, are not oriented in such a way that
the sunlight can enter them at this or any other time of the year. They
are not therefore solar temples, and they cannot have had this use.
The critical amplitude for a temple built at Thebes so that sunlight
can enter it at sunrise or sunset is about 26° north and south of east
and west, so that any temples facing more northerly or southerly are
precluded from having the sunlight enter them at any time in the year.
It is imperative to be perfectly definite and clear on the question
of the amplitudes above 26° at Thebes. I repeat, therefore, that any
amplitude within 26° means that up to that point the sun at sunrise
or sunset could be observed some day or days of the year--once only
in the year if the amplitude is exactly at the maximum, twice if the
maximum is not reached. But in the case of these temples with greater
amplitudes than 26°, it is quite clear that they can have had nothing
to do with the sun.
This being so, we have the problem presented to us whether or not
temples were built so that starlight might fall along their axes in
exactly the same way that the sunlight could fall along the axes of the
solar temples when the sun was rising in the morning or setting in the
evening.
It is abundantly clear that temples with a greater amplitude than 26°
were oriented to stars if they were oriented at all by astronomical
considerations. How can this question be studied? What means of
investigation are at our disposal?
Suppose that the movements of the stars are absolutely regular; that
there is no change from year to year, from century to century, from
æon to æon; then, of course, the question as to whether or not these
temples were pointed to a star, at rising or setting, would be easily
and sufficiently settled by going to see; because if the stars did
not change their apparent places in the heavens--accurately speaking,
their declinations--and, therefore, the amplitudes at which they appear
to rise and set, then, of course, a temple consecrated to Sirius ten
thousand years ago would view the rising or setting of Sirius now as it
did then.
But, as a matter of fact, astronomy tells us, as we have seen, that the
apparent positions of the stars are liable to change. The change is
much greater in the case of the stars than it is in the case of the
sun, referred to in Chapters VI. and XI.; but still we have seen that
the latter is one which has to be reckoned with the moment it becomes a
question of inquiry into any time far removed from the present.
Hence, although in the case of the sun, there is, of course, no
processional movement, and although a temple once oriented to the sun
would remain so for a long time; still, after some thousands of years,
the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic would produce a small
change in the amplitude at which a solstice is observed.
But while, in the case of the sun, we have to deal with a change of
something like 1° in seven thousand years; we have to face in the case
of the stars a maximum change of something like 47° in a period of
thirteen thousand years. The change of declination must be accompanied
by a change of amplitude, and therefore by a change in the direction of
the temples.
[Illustration: GROUND PLAN OF EDFÛ.]
Hence, when we get a temple of known date, with an amplitude which
has been accurately measured, we can determine from that amplitude
the exact declination of the body the temple was intended to
observe, supposing, of course, that the temple was oriented upon any
astronomical considerations at all. If the declination of the body
turns out to be 23° 30′ or less, the temple may have been, in all
probability was, a solar one; if the declination is greater it cannot
have had anything to do with the sun directly.
[Illustration: GROUND PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF HATHOR AT DENDERAH.]
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF SETI AT ABYDOS.]
This being so, it will be understood why in an inquiry of this kind it
is obviously desirable to begin with a region in which the number of
temples is considerable. Such a condition we have in the region near
Thebes; and the directions of the axes of the different temples--that
is, the orientation of each of them, or, in other words, the amplitude
of the direction in which each temple points--have all been tabulated.
Chief among these we have the large temple of Karnak, showing that the
amplitude of its orientation is 26° north of west, and the temple of
Mut, showing that its orientation is 72½° north of east. There is a
temple at right angles to the temple at Karnak, and again another with
an amplitude of 63° south of west, and so on.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF RAMSES II. IN THE MEMNONIA AT
THEBES (FROM LEPSIUS) SHOWING THE PYLON AT THE OPEN END AND THE
SANCTUARY AT THE CLOSED ONE.]
It may be stated generally that at Karnak itself, not to go farther
afield, there are two well-marked series of temples which cannot,
for the reason given, be solar, since one series faces a few degrees
from the north, and the other a few degrees from the south. There are
similar temples scattered all along the Nile valley.
When we come to examine these non-solar temples, the first question
is, Do they resemble the solar ones in construction? Are the
horizontal telescope conditions retained? The evidence on this point
is overwhelming. Take the Temple of Hathor at Denderah. It points very
far away from the sun; the sun's light could never have enfiladed it;
in many others pointing well to the north or south the axis extends
from the exterior pylon to the Sanctuary or Naos, which is found always
at the closed end of the temple; we have the same number of pylons,
gradually getting narrower and narrower as we get to the Naos, and in
some there is a gradual rise from the first exterior pylon to the part
which represents the section of the Naos, so that a beam of horizontal
light coming through the central door might enter it over the heads
of the people flocking into the outer courts of the temple, and pass
uninterruptedly into the Sanctuary.
In this way the Egyptians had, if they chose to use it, a most
admirable arrangement for observing, with considerable accuracy, either
the rising or the setting of any celestial body, whether it were sun or
star, and especially the possibility of observing a _cosmical_ rising,
as the eye was shielded from the sunrise light, and the place of rising
was completely indicated.
In these, as at Karnak, we have a collimating axis. We have the other
end of the temple blocked; we have these various diaphragms or pylons,
so that, practically, there is absolutely no question of principle of
construction involved in this temple that was not involved in the great
solar temple of Amen-Rā itself.
We made out that in the case of the temples devoted to sun-worship and
to the determination of the length of the year, there was very good
reason why all these attempts should be made to cut off the light, by
diaphragms and stone ceilings, because, among other things, one wanted
to find the precise point occupied by the sunbeam on the two or three
days near the winter or summer solstice in order to determine the exact
moment of the solstice.
But if a temple is not intended to observe the sun, why these
diaphragms? Why keep the astronomer, or the priest, so much in the
dark? There is a very good reason indeed.
From the account given by Herodotus[42] of the ceremonials and
mysteries connected with the temple of Tyre, it is suggested that
the priests used starlight at night for some of their operations,
very much in the same way as they might have used sunlight during the
day. According to Herodotus, in the temple in question there were two
pillars--the one of pure gold, and the other of an emerald stone of
such size as to shine by night.[42] Now, there can be little doubt that
in the darkened sanctuary of an Egyptian temple the light of α Lyræ,
one of the brightest stars in the northern heavens, rising in the clear
air of Egypt, would be quite strong enough to throw into an apparent
glow such highly-reflecting surfaces as those to which Herodotus
refers.
Supposing such a ceremonial as this, the less the worshippers--who,
reasoning from the analogy of the ceremonial termed the manifestation
of Rā,[43] would stand facing the sanctuary, with their backs to the
chief door of the temple--knew about the question of a bright star
which might probably produce the mystery, the better.
Again, the truer the orientation of the temple to the star, and the
greater the darkness the priest was kept in, the sooner would he catch
the star quivering in the light of either early or late dawn.
In the first place, the diaphragms would indicate the true line that
he had to watch; he would not have to _search_ for the star which he
expected; and obviously the more he was kept in the dark the sooner
could he see the star.
Is there any additional line of evidence beyond the structural
conditions of the temples that the Egyptians used these temples to
observe the stars? Here a very interesting question comes in: a temple
built at one period to observe a star could not go on for ever serving
its purpose, for the reason that the declination of the star must
change, as we have seen, by precession. Therefore a temple built with a
particular amplitude to observe a particular star at one period would
be useless later on.
We have here possibly a means of testing whether or not any of these
temples were used to observe the stars. In those very early days,
3000 or 4000 years B.C., we must assume that the people who observed
the stars had not the slightest idea of these possible precessional
changes; they imagined that they were just as safe in directing a
temple to a star as they were in directing a temple to the sun. But
with a star changing its declination in an average way, the _same_
temple could not be used to observe the _same_ star for more than 200
or 300 years; so that at the end of that time, if they still wished to
observe that particular star, they must either change the axis of the
old temple, or build a new one. I have mentioned an average time as the
change of the star's declination is involved.
Now this change of direction is one of the most striking things which
have been observed for years past in Egyptian temples.
As a matter of fact, we find that the axes of the temples have been
changed, and have been freely changed; that there has been a great deal
of work done on many of the temples which are not oriented to the sun,
in order to give them a twist.
Once a solar temple, a solar temple for thousands of years; once a star
temple, only _that_ star temple for something like 300 years, so that
the conditions were entirely changed.
We get cases in which the axis of a temple has had its direction
changed, and others in which, where it has been difficult or impossible
to make the change in a temple, the change of amplitude has been met
by putting up a new temple altogether. We are justified in considering
such temples as a series in which, instead of changing the orientation
of a pre-existing temple, a new temple has been built to meet the
new condition of things. That, I think, is a suggestion which we are
justified in making to Egyptologists on astronomical grounds.
For an instance, I may refer to the well-known temple at Medînet-Habû.
We have there two temples side by side--a large temple, which was
built later, with its systems of pylons and sanctuaries; a smaller
temple, with outside courts, and, again, a sanctuary built much
earlier. The direction of these two temples is very different; there
is a difference of several degrees. It is very difficult indeed to
understand why these two structures should have been built in that way
if there were not some good reason for it. The best hitherto found is
the supposed symmetrophobia of the Egyptians.
[Illustration: PLAN OF TWO TEMPLES AT MEDÎNET-HABÛ.]
We find the same thing in Greece. There is the old Parthenon, a
building which may have been standing at the time of the Trojan war,
and the new Parthenon, with an outer court very like the Egyptian
temples, but with its sanctuary more nearly in the centre of the
building. It was by the difference of direction of these two temples at
Athens that my attention was called to the subject.
[Illustration: THE BENT AXIS OF THE TEMPLE OF LUXOR, LOOKING TOWARD THE
SANCTUARY.]
If we study the orientation of these, we find that, like those
at Medînet-Habû, they are not parallel; there is a difference of
orientation. This method of coping with the changes of amplitude of
the star apparently represents that adopted where there has been ample
space to build another temple by the side of the old one when the star
could no longer be seen from end to end of the old one. But another
way was found where the space was more circumscribed, and that is well
represented by the temple at Luxor, in which the addition is made _end
on_. The suggestion is that, after the temple at Luxor had been built
a certain number of years, the amplitude of the star had got a little
out of the initial line, and the direction was changed at the time when
it was determined to make the temple more beautiful and to amplify it
by adding an outer court. There is another outer court and another very
considerable change. There are four well-marked deviations.