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.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE TEMPLES AT KARNAK (FROM LEPSIUS), FOLLOWING
THEIR ORIENTATIONS.
_To face p._ 183.]
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
did. Seti's temple (L) had been superseded; the temple M was a second
rectangular temple outside the great temple of Karnak (K). They said
to themselves: "We will make Karnak more beautiful, and we will extend
it. We can now build walls in continuation of the old walls, and we can
build still another pylon, because Seti's temple is no longer being
used, the worship having been transferred to the temple of Rameses
III. (Khons). By building the northern wall we prevent the use of
temple M, sacred to our enemy Sutech."
I should add that the opening in the wall, in prolongation of the axis
of temple M, is _not_ directly opposite the temple M, but a little to
the east; it was probably made later, possibly by the twenty-second
dynasty, who were Set worshippers. Again, coming to the time of
Taharqa, returning at the end of the exile of the priests of Amen in
Nubia, the temple, M was again thrown out of use. Pillars were built in
front of it, right in the fair-way, affording an instance that when a
temple was thrown out of use, not by the precessional movement of the
star to which it had been directed, but by the partisans of another
creed, the fact of its being no longer in operation was insured by
something being built in front of it, to prevent observation of the
stellar divinity no longer in vogue.
It may be added that long after the temple of Seti II. fell out of
astronomical use, and was on that account blocked by the walls of the
twenty-first dynasty, the Ptolemies built a new temple of Osiris,
which, if built before, would have been in the fair-way of the temple
of Seti. Thus, there is a reason for all the changes made at all the
dates referred to by Mariette.
I think we find in this result of the inquiry a valuable corroboration
of Mariette's conclusions, and another reason why we should not cease
to admire his magnificent works.
So far I have only referred to the relatively modern parts of Karnak. I
now pass to the more ancient ones, in which we ought to note the same
laws holding good, if there be any value in the view we are discussing.
We find that some of the most important temples given by Lepsius and
Mariette (B, X, and W) are just as effectively blocked by the mass of
the temple of Amen-Rā as those we have already considered were by the
walls of the twenty-first dynasty and Taharqa's columns; and, looking
at the plan, it seems at first perfectly absurd to continue to hold for
one moment the idea that these temples were built for observations of
stars on the horizon.
The temple X (Mut) is blocked by the pylon marked 3, the temple B by
the eastern end of the great temple, the temple W by the temple O.
Mariette here again comes to our rescue to a certain extent. He shows,
as I have stated in Chapter XI., that in the beginning of things,
certainly in the twelfth dynasty, possibly in the eleventh dynasty,
and possibly even before that, only the central part, marked 4, of the
solar temple existed, less as a temple than as a shrine, with nothing
to the west of it and nothing to the east of it.
That being so, the temple B gets its fair-way to the south, and the
temple of Mut (X) and the smaller temple (W) to the north.
Mariette in his two plates shows the growth of the temple of Amen-Rā in
a most admirable way, from the central portion of the temple to which I
have referred--that, is, the small central court, which, he is careful
to note, existed before Thothmes I.; how much before, he does not say.
Afterwards, the pylons are added; then they are elaborated; then the
sanctuary is thrown back to the eastward, and the temple O built, and B
thereby blocked, and then thrown forward to the westward, thus blocking
X and Z.
If there is anything in these considerations at all, it is suggested
that all the temples to which 1 have referred were founded before these
easterly and westerly extensions, of which Mariette gives us such ample
evidence.
In a subsequent chapter it is suggested that this great lengthening
of the original shrine of Amen-Rā was undertaken for the purpose of
blocking temples X, Z, and W, all dedicated to Set. Thothmes III. and
Taharqa had precisely the same objects in view, apparently.
Here, however, we meet a real difficulty. Mariette states that, so
far as he has been able to find, the temple B, a temple of which the
worship is Amen, and the temple X, in which the worship is Mut, were
built by Amen-hetep III. If that were so, they would have been built
blocked; none of the usual ceremonials could have been employed at
their foundation. They could not have been used at all for astronomical
purposes, because their horizons were blocked by these extensions of
the temple of Amen-Rā.
Here I must refer specially to temple B. Its amplitude is, according to
Lepsius, 63½° S. of W. I have already shown that the amplitudes of
temples L (Khons) and T (Seti II.) are 62° and 63° S. of W., and that
in the times of the Ptolemies and Seti II., each faced the star Canopus
in turn. Hence the probability that we have three temples of nearly
equal orientation sacred to the same divinity.
Temple. Orientation. Declination. Date.
Khons 62 52½° 300 B.C.
Seti II. 63 53½° 1350 B.C.
B 63½ 54 1800 B.C.
The statement is that the part of the temple of Amen-Rā, the building
of which blocked B, was commenced by Thothmes III., whose date,
according to Brugsch, is 1600 B.C., and continued by Amen-hetep
III. (1500 B.C.). Unless, then, some other provision was made, the
observations of Canopus were not continued until another shrine was
built. We know that another shrine was built, that of Seti II., and
that its orientation gives a date of 1350 B.C. It might have been
commenced by Seti I. after the Khu-en-Aten troubles, and finished by
Seti II.
One is therefore tempted to ask whether we have not here one of those
crucial cases which Mariette himself contemplated, in which the true
foundation is so far anterior to the last restoration or the last
decoration, from which, for the most part, the archæologist gets his
information, that one is absolutely misled by the restorations or
decorations as to the true date of the original foundation of the
shrine.[49]
If the archæologists are right in attributing the granite temple
of Osiris (?), near the sphinx, to a date anterior to, or even
contemporaneous with, the second pyramid, we have evidence that in
the early dynasties the temple building in stone, and even in granite
brought from Aswân, was as perfect in the matter of workmanship as
in the eighteenth dynasty; and that it was not then the fashion to
inscribe walls, but only statues and stelas. May it possibly be that
the fashion in question came in, or reached its greatest development,
during the eighteenth dynasty, and that on this account so many temples
are ascribed to that period, whereas they were actually in existence
before?
If the prior dynasties built no temples, why did they not do so?
and if they did, where are they, if some of those _inscribed_ by the
eighteenth dynasty be not they?
In the absence of final archæological evidence--that is, admitting
Mariette's own doubt as to the mere existence of inscriptions--are
there any astronomical considerations which may possibly help us?
Assuming that the temples were astronomically oriented, we have _one_
registering for us the time elapsed since the original direction of
the axis was laid down, in terms of the change in the obliquity of the
ecliptic.
We have others registering time in like manner in terms of the change
due to precession, if we can get any light as to the stars towards
which the temples were oriented.
I have already dealt with the temple of Amen-Rā in Chapter XI., and we
found a foundation date of 3700 B.C. for the original shrine, so far as
the rough observations already available can be trusted. Assuming the
accuracy of this determination, it is clear that we must look for stars
with appropriate amplitudes between that date and say 2500 B.C.
Let us take the temple of Mut (X of Lepsius); its amplitude is 72½
N. of E. This was the amplitude of γ Draconis about 3500 B.C. This
temple, then, bore the same relation to M as T did to L! We have two
cases of two temples erected at different dates to the same star.
Although it has been convenient to begin with Thebes for the reasons
given, the records concerning any one temple there are far more
restricted than those which relate to some temples elsewhere; while the
cult can only be determined in few instances. I propose, therefore, for
the present to content myself with the above general considerations
showing the first application of the method of investigation adopted,
and to pass on to Denderah, where we are sure of the cult and where
many particulars are given.