JHA, xxxviii (2007)

ON THE ORIENTATION OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN TEMPLES: (3) KEY POINTS IN LOWER EGYPT AND SIWA OASIS, PART I MOSALAM SHALTOUT, Helwan Observatory, JUAN ANTONIO BELMONTE, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, and MAGDI FEKRI, Minufiya University In the first article arising out from our project (hereafter Paper 1)1 published a couple of years ago, we raised the question of whether the temples of the ancient Egyptian civilization were or were not astronomically orientated. Our preliminary results were not sufficient to demonstrate whether simply local topography, dominated by the Nile, or astronomy, in the form of lunisolar or stellar alignments, could offer a clear-cut solution. We now think that the answer to our question must be in the affirmative beyond reasonable doubt. There were important hints in that direction in the data presented in the second paper of this series (hereafter Paper 2),2 which was devoted to the oases of the Western Desert and in which we confronted the absence of the Nile as a reference mark for temple orientation. However, it is in the present paper where we hope to demonstrate definitively that certain families of events occurring in the celestial vault played a highly relevant, although not unique, role in the location, design and construction of ancient Egyptian sacred buildings. This paper presents the results from data obtained during three campaigns conducted within the framework of the Egyptian-Spanish Mission on Egyptian Archaeoastronomy, conducted under the auspices of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. These campaigns were carried out in August 2004 in Middle Egypt, in March 2005 in the Cairo region, and in June 2006 in this same area plus the Delta, the Mediterranean coast and the Oasis of Siwa; and they involved visits to the great majority of the relevant archaeological sites in those regions (Figures 1 and 2). More than 50% of our data belong to the important sacred precincts related to the pyramids of the Old and Middle Kingdoms (see Figure 3), and these have provided highly interesting results. So far as we know, this is the first systematic campaign in archaeoastronomy ever performed at a complete sample of pyramid complexes, in the Delta and at the Oasis of Siwa. However, we wish again to stress that we were not seeking for alignments of extreme precision. As in previous campaigns, our main task was to measure as many sacred buildings as we were able to, giving the same weight to those exceptionally well preserved (infrequent in the regions discussed) as to temples where only a few walls survive. Bearing this is mind, and in view of the large number of monuments to be studied, we obtained our measurements using a high precision compass (corrected for local magnetic declination3) and a clinometer, either as separate instruments or enclosed within a single tandem device. The instruments permit a theoretical ¼° precision for

0021-8286/07/3802-0141/$10.00 © 2007 Science History Publications Ltd

142

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

FIG. 1. A map of northern Egypt showing the location of places, from Siwa Oasis to the Delta and beyond, where the orientation data presented in this paper have been assembled.

FIG. 2. Space image of the Oasis of Siwa showing the location of places discussed in the text. A: Bilad ar-Rum, B: Khamisa, C: Oracle temple at Aghurmi, D: Umm Ubayda Temple, E: Djebel Takrur, F: Aïn Qurayshat, G: Abu Shuruf and H: Zeitun. Notice the contrast between the darker land of the oasis and the surrounding deserts. Adapted from an image courtesy of Google Earth.

both kinds of measurements. However, an error close to ½º in both azimuth and angular height is probably nearer to reality. This would signify a mean error of order ±¾º in the determination of the corresponding declination. As we have discussed elsewhere,4 for the latitudes of Egypt a precision of ½º is perhaps the best we can expect in solar, lunar or very bright star observations near the horizon and, in the case of fainter stars, the errors in estimating the azimuth can be as much as several degrees. We consider our altazimuth data to be of good enough quality to pursue our main quest, namely

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

143

to demonstrate the importance of certain families of astronomical alignments in ancient Egypt. Should any temple or pyramid complex deserve further study requiring greater precision in the corresponding alignments, theodolite measurements could be undertaken at some future date. 1. DISCUSSION Table 1 presents the data on temple orientation obtained in Lower Egypt, at a handful of places in Middle Egypt, and at the Oasis of Siwa. More than 90 monuments have been measured. The data for Lower Egypt include the practical totality of the temples associated with pyramid complexes5 (see Figure 3) and the vast majority, if not all, of the measurable monuments in the Delta. A few temples in the region near Minia, in Middle Egypt, are also included. As in previous papers in this series, the table lists azimuths, angular heights and the corresponding declinations. In a few cases, we have also proposed alternative possibilities, in either the opposite or the perpendicular direction. During our last campaign, in June 2006, we also visited in the Delta the archaeological sites of Samannud (ancient Sebennytos), Tell Athrib (ancient Athribis),

FIG. 3. The statue (or valley) temple of the Bent Pyramid of Sneferu at Dahshur (c. 2600 B.C.). Presumably, the first temple of its class ever built in Egypt, it had two accesses, one open to the east and another to the southwest across the causeway connecting with the pyramid. In this direction, the winter solstice sun would have been seen setting behind the Bent Pyramid. However, there is no apparent connection with the nearby Red Pyramid of Sneferu which can be seen on the foreground. Photograph by J. A. Belmonte.

144

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

Tell el Balamun (ancient Behedit), Tell el Dabha (ancient Avaris), Qantir (ancient Pi-Ramses), and Kom Ghaef (ancient Naucratis), places where any kind of serious measurement was completely impossible.6 The same problem occurred with some of the excavated temples related to pyramid complexes such as the valley temple of Menkaura at Giza or the Amenemhat II and III pyramid temples at Dahshur. Nevertheless, in the last rows of Table 1 we offer, for completeness, the few data that could be obtained from the plans published for some of these places,7 including the temple of Nectanebo at El Bahrein, near the Oasis of Siwa.8 However, these data will not be used in our analysis since our experience is that these plans often suffer from inaccuracies, confusion between magnetic and geographic north being the most frequent. The orientation diagram of the data is shown in Figure 4. As in a similar diagram of Paper 1, the data are apparently scattered in all directions of the horizon. A large concentration can be seen near due east and this is caused by the temples associated with the pyramid complexes, which are normally orientated with respect to the cardinal directions. However, the results become much more interesting when the declination histogram (Figure 5) is produced. This plot is obviously dominated by the near ‘equinoctial’ alignments9 of pyramid and valley temples of the funerary and cult complexes of the Old and Middle Kingdom pharaohs. No significant difference arises, whether or not the data of Siwa Oasis are included. The temples of Siwa are also distinguished in Figure 4 and it is interesting to notice that they follow a similar

FIG. 4. Orientation diagram of the main axis of 93 temples and chapels of Lower (and Middle) Egypt and the Oasis of Siwa. Notice the concentration of orientations near due east associated with the temples of Old and Middle Kingdom pyramids. The 11 temples at Siwa (dot-dashed line) concentrate within a solar and a meridian preference, similarly to the temples built at the rest of the oases (see Paper 2).

145

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

TABLE 1. Orientation of Egyptian temples and chapels of Lower and Middle Egypt and the Oasis of Siwa. For each temple is shown the location, the identification of the temple (either the most common name, owner deity or builder), the epoch of construction (i.e. dynasty), the latitude and longitude (Φ and λ), its azimuth (a) from inside looking out, and the angular height of the horizon (h) in that direction (B and b stand for “blocked” view by a modern or ancient building, respectively), and the corresponding declination (δ). The last column contains additional comments. Some additional data (*) obtained from plans published in literature are included at the end for completeness. See text for further discussions. ZUR stands for Zawiyet Umm el Rakhmam; PT, VT, ST and CT stand for Pyramid, Valley, South and Sun Temple, respectively. Place LOWER EGYPT

Temple

Dynasty

Φ(º/′)

λ(º/′)

a(º)

h(º)

ZUR

Ramses II Ptah & Sekhmet West Chapels South Building Main gate Uadjet Iseum Naos of Shu Osiris Amon Khonsu Horus of Sile Horus of Mesen Mut & Astarte Amenemopet Ka of Pepi I Bastet Mihos Ra-horakhty Atum Ramses II PT Djedefre PT Khufu PT Khafre VT Khafre Sphinx PT Menkaure Horemakhet CT Userkaf VT Userkaf CT Niuserre Niuserre’s Altar VT Niuserre PT Sahure VT Sahure PT Neferirkare PT Khentkaus PT Neferefra PT Niuserre VT Niuserre Ptahshepses Djoser Gate North House

19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 30th 26th Ptolemaic 21st–22nd 30th 22nd 30th 19th 22nd 6th 22nd 22nd 12th 12th 19th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 18th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 3rd 3rd

31/24

27/01

31/12 31/02 30/58 30/57 30/50

30/45 31/17 31/31 29/31 31/52

30/35

31/31

30/07

31/18

30/02 29/59

31/04 31/08

29/55

31/11

29/54

31/12

133 134¾ 127½ 42¼ 44 248½ 298¼ 22 75¼ 251¾ 342 161¾ 251¼ 341¾ 90¾ 119 118½ 28½ 104¾ 284¾ 101¼ 90¾ 90 89¾ 90½ 90½ 90¼ 224 90 52 91¼ 90¾ 49½ 91½ 91 90¼ 90¼ 92¼ 90¾ 95 90¼ 92¾ 183½

1 1 0½ 0½b 0½ 0B 0B 0 0 0 0 0b 0b 0 0 0b 0 0 ?B 0B ?B 0 0 0 0 0 0 14½ 0 0½B 0 0 0½B 0 0½B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b

Buto Behebit Mendes Taposiris Tanis

Bubastis Heliopolis Abu Roash Giza

A. Ghurob

Abusir

Saqqara N

29/53

31/13

δ(º) Comments

–35¼ –36¼ –31¼ 39¼ 34 –18½ 23¾ 52¼ 12¼ –16 54¼ –55¼ –16¼ 54 –1 –25 –24½ 48½ –13 12½ –10 –1 – 0¼ 0 – 0¾ – 0¾ – 0½ –28½ – 0¼ 35¾ – 1¼ –1 33¾ – 1½ – 0¾ – 0½ – 0½ – 2¼ –1 – 4½ – 0½ – 2¾ –60½

Of the fort Op. –24¼. Error ~2º Banebdjed Temple Error › ½º

Opposite possible Mostly ruined Senuseret obelisk ⊥ also possible ⊥ to N also possible

2 King Mother

High official Djoser complex Djoser complex

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

146 Table 1 cont’d] Place

Saqqara S

Memphis

Dahshur

El Lisht Meidum

Temple

Dynasty

South House North T Djoser Serdab Left Serdab Right PT Userkaf ST Userkaf PT Unas VT Unas PT Teti Serapeum Horemheb Isis-Nectanebo II PT Shepseskaf PT Djedkare PT Pepi I Chapel of Pepi I PT Inti PT Ankhsenpepi PT Pepi II VT Pepi II PT Iput II PT Ibi Ptah Ptah Sethy I Hathor PT Sneferu S Statue T Sneferu Statue T Sneferu PT Sneferu N ST Senuseret III PT Amenemhat I PT Senuseret I PT Sneferu

3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 5th 5th 5th 5th 6th 18th 18th 30th 4th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 18th–19th 19th 19th 19th 4th 4th 4th 4th 12th 12th 12th 4th

MIDDLE EGYPT Hermopolis Thot Ramses II – Nero Sethy II Tuna Gebel Khemenu-pa-mek Ibis Petosiris Chapel T. Amarna Aton (large) Aton (small)

18th–30th 19th 19th Ptolemaic Ptolemaic Ptolemaic 18th 18th

SIWA OASIS Bilad Rum Doric Khamisa Aghurmi Oracle of Amon Umm Ubayda New temple D. Takrur Tin ‘Ashur Tin al Fifan Qurayshat Amon

Roman Uncertain 26th 30th Uncertain Roman Roman Ptolemaic

Φ(º/′)

29/51

λ(º/′)

31/13

29/51

31/15

29/48

31/13

29/24

31/09

27/47

30/48

27/45

30/42

27/40

30/54

29/14

25/24

29/12

25/32

29/11

25/34

29/12

25/43

δ(º) Comments

a(º)

h(º)

183½ 4 3½ 3½ 90¼ 90¼ 90¼ 93 80¾ 94 74½ 289½ 90½ 89¾ 90¼ 0¼ 91 91¼ 90 85½ 88¾ 77 111 291 101½ 7½ 89¾ 92½ 239 90 91 91¾ 90¾ 94

0b 0 11½ 19¾ 0½B 0½B 0½ 0½ 0½ 8½ 0b 0½ 0 0¼ 0¼ 0 0¼b 0¼b 0 0½ 0 0½ 0 0½ 0 0B 0 1 5½ 0 0 0 0 0

–60½ 59¼ 71¼ 79¼ – 0¼ – 0¼ – 0¼ – 2¼ 8 0¾ 13 17 – 0¾ 0 – 0¼ 59½ –1 – 1¼ – 0¼ 4 0¾ 11¼ –18½ 20 –10¼ 58¾ 0 – 1½ –23½ – 0¼ –1 – 1¼ –1 – 3¾

171¼ 359¾ 82¼ 3¾ 94¼ 8¼ 282¾ 283¼

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

–61½ 61¾ 6¾ 61½ –4 60½ 11 11½

213¾ 203¼ 162½ 341 68 345¾ 18¼ 292¼

0¾ 1½ 1 2¾ 0 0 2¾ 0¼

–46¼ –52¼ –56 57¾ 13¾ 57 58 19¼

Djoser complex Djoser complex Djoser complex Djoser complex

Akhet at 8½º Million Year T. Opposite (–16¾º)

Wife of Pepi I Wife of Pepi I Wife of Pepi II Eastern dromos Western hall

Main gate Causeway gate

Pyramid 359¾

Catacombs Akhet at – 11º

Iskander´s

⊥ also possible

147

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples Table 1 cont’d] Place

Temple

Dynasty

Imperial Cult Abu Shuruf Zeitun Stone temple

Roman Ptolemaic Ptolemaic

EXTRA TEMPLES T. Balamun A B C Ezbet Rushdi Avaris I II III (Set-Baal?) V (Astarte?) Dahshur PT Amenemhat III Bahrein Amon of Siwa

18th? 30th 26th 12th 16th 16th 16th 16th 12th 30th

Φ(º/′)

λ(º/′)

a(º)

29/10 29/09

25/45 25/47

116¼ 29 23¾

0 –23 0B 49¼ 0B 52½

31/15

31/34

30/44

32/02

29/48 28/04

31/13 26/30

44* 311* 26* 0* 318* 319* 330* 239* 88* 232½*

0 37½ 0 33¼ 0 49¾ 0 58¾ 0 39¼ 0 40¼ 0b 47¾ 0b –26½ 0 1¼ ?B –32¾

h(º)

δ(º) Comments

From Spencer ref. 7 Ibid. Ibid. From Booth ref. 7 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. From Arnold ref. 7 Data from ref. 8

FIG. 5. Declination histogram of temples discussed in this paper. The thick line stands for the complete series of temples. The thin line does not include the temples of Siwa. Some relevant solar (solstices and equinox) and stellar (Sirius and Canopus for 3000 B.C. and 300 A.D.) declinations are included. The differences between the two series are not substantial. Notice the huge peak near the ‘equinox’ declination due to the different kind of temples related to the pyramids. See the text and Fig. 6 for further discussion.

pattern to that yielded by the temples of oases of the Western Desert closer to the Nile, as discussed in Paper 2. The Siwa data will be further discussed in Part II of this paper as the last of the study cases. A preliminary inspection of Figure 5 also shows several lesser peaks at various values of the declination, but they are overshadowed by the central peak. For this reason, we decided to repeat the analysis but eliminating from the series the data of

148

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

FIG. 6. Declination histogram of the temples discussed in this paper, not including the 22 pyramid temples (PT). Orientation customs apart from the ‘equinoctial’ (1) are clearly present in numbers above the average (which is shown by the dotted line). These could be interpreted as the accumulation points (2 and 2′), a ‘solar’ one (3), a Sirius (Sopdet) one (4, and maybe 4′), a winter solstice one (5), two ‘mid-cardinal points’ (6 and 6′ — this last below the average), and a Canopus one (7). See the text for further discussion.

the pyramid temples.10 The result of the experiment is the histogram of declination presented in Figure 6. Although the ‘equinoctial’ peak is still dominant, several other significant peaks are clear above the average normalized relative frequency value of 1. It is important to stress that all these peaks represent real data and not ‘noise’. Consequently, they can be expected to have a reasoned explanation. The second most important peak is that located at a declination of 59¼º ± ¾º (peak 2). A peak symmetrical to this is to be found at –60¼º ± ¾º (2′). These are what we normally call the peaks of accumulation. Most of our data come from places with a latitude close to 30º. Hence, greater than 60º or smaller than –60º are the limiting declinations for circumpolar or invisible celestial objects at these latitudes, respectively. When a temple is to be orientated on or near the meridian line (i.e. N–S or the opposite), whichever method is used to obtain such a result, it will give a declination close to 60º if it is orientated to the north or –60º if it is orientated to the south, provided the horizon is nearly flat. Consequently, as in the case of the most prominent peak, peaks 2 and 2′ do show a preference for cardinal directions. The following peak (3) belongs to a declination of ~13º, probably related to certain solar alignments, and will be discussed later. Most interesting is the fourth peak at –18¼º ± ¾º. This is the declination of Sirius, or ancient Egyptian Sopdet, the brightest, and most important, individual star in the ancient Egyptian skies during the Middle and the New Kingdoms, when most of the earlier references to Sopdet have been identified.11 The next peak (5) at –23½º ± ¾º is well known to us, being present already in our results of Papers 1 and 2. It is no doubt associated with the winter solstice

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

149

sun. We will now jump to the near-limit peak 7, at –54º ± ¾º. Surprisingly, this is the interval of declination of the second brightest star in the sky, Canopus, for almost the same period discussed for Sopdet.12 Peak 6 deserves a fuller analysis. This corresponds to a declination ~34º (there is a symmetrical one near to –35º). In a discussion that took place when Paper 1 was prepared, Rolf Krauss suggested, with some reservations, that the orientation of a particular group of temples with an average declination ~–39¼º might have started out with an astronomically orientated north–south axis line where two corners of the temple were established; i.e., the original line near the meridian would finally be one of the diagonals of the building. A squared or rectangular plan would then have been worked out which, in most cases, would have shown a main axis azimuth close to NE (45º) or SE (135º). Now, with a handful of orientation data at our disposal, we believe this hypothesis to be plausible. A good example is the group of temples and chapels at the frontier fort of Zawiyet Umm el-Rakhman (hereafter ZUR) from the reign of Ramses II (c. 1270 B.C.).13 The excavation at this outpost of the Egyptian kingdom14 revealed the well preserved foundations of a stone temple (see Figure 7), another minor temple, a few chapels and a monumental gate. The measurements at ZUR (see Table 1) show that most of

FIG. 7. The temple of Ramses II at the border fortress of Zawiyet Umm el-Rakhmam (c. 1270 B.C.). Orientated to an azimuth of 133º, this could be a good example of those temples where a near-meridian line was first established by astronomical procedures and afterwards the axis of the temple or of the complex in which it is inserted (the main gate of the fortress has an azimuth of 44º) was rotated through 45º either clockwise or anticlockwise. Photograph by J. A. Belmonte.

150

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

the buildings have an azimuth near 45º or 135º. We believe that during the probable foundation ceremony of the fort, a N–S line was first sought, then it was tilted 45º and the almost square plan of the fort built following this new axis (that of the main gate). Afterwards, as in Roman cities,15 the temples would simply have repeated this square plan. More specifically, we suggest that the majority of the buildings with a near NE–SW or SE–NW axis, including several in the Nile Valley,16 may have been erected following such a procedure. As the second author has explained elsewhere,17 the ground plan of a temple, including the orientation of its main axes, was normally established in a ceremony known as the ‘stretching of the cord’, records of which exist from as early as the 1st Dynasty. In that work, and also in Paper 1, it was suggested that certain stars of the asterism of the Plough, the ancient Egyptian Meskhetyu or Bull’s Foreleg “imperishable” constellation, might have been the primary target of those aligning ceremonies in order to establish the meridian line. Later, the temple could have been orientated with the gate opening to any of the four cardinal points or, as we suggest, to the NE, SE, SW or NW. The orientation to Meskhetyu, except for a few cases that will be discussed afterwards, did not necessarily imply a perfect N–S alignment (i.e. 0º azimuth). Hence, a complete family of alignments could be found with azimuths close to any of these eight directions.18 The previous discussion has offered reasonable astronomical solutions for most of the data discussed in this paper so far. However, by doing this, we have apparently left little room for topographic explanations. In Paper 1, the relevance of the Nile as the most important reference for temple orientation was clearly stressed. The 115 temples analysed on that occasion offer an average difference of only 5′ ± 7′ of arc between their orientation and the direction either perpendicular or parallel to the river. However, in Paper 2, which was devoted to the oases of the Western Desert, where the river is absent, we emphasized the importance of astronomical orientations. What can we infer from the data presented in this paper? On the one hand, the data of Middle Egypt seem to follow the pattern for Upper Egypt (see the discussion about Tell al Amarna in what follows). On the other hand, we have the data of the valley, pyramid and sun temples of the area surrounding the ancient capital of Memphis. The vast majority have azimuths close to 90º or due east.19 Despite the fact that the river has frequently changed its route in that area, it is widely accepted that it always had a more or less south–north course. Obviously, this means that this entire group of temples was at the same time perpendicular to the Nile. However, the requirement to have an orientation perpendicular to the river cannot explain the precision of this group of alignments to due east.20 Consequently, as in other cases discussed in previous work (notably the case of Karnak, as emphasized in Paper 1), we believe that the importance in this particular case of the cardinal directions, in the area of Memphis, could be partially explained by the particular course of the river, but that fundamentally they were derived from celestial mythology and obtained by astronomical procedures. For the Delta, the situation is a little more complicated. In this region today the

151

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

TABLE 2. Orientation of Egyptian temples in the Delta in relation to the nearer branch of the Nile. For each temple, the corresponding azimuth and the difference of orientation (∆) are presented. An average of the difference between parallelism (0º or 180º) or perpendicularity (90º or 270º) and ∆ has yielded a value of [–5º ± 1º]. See the text for further discussion. Place Behebit el Haggara Mendes Tanis

Avaris

Bubastis Heliopolis

Temple Iseum Naos of Shu Amon Khonsu Horus (Sile) Horus (Mesen) Mut & Astarte Amenemopet I II III (Set-Baal?) V (Astarte?) Ka of Pepi I Bastet Mihos Ra-horakhty Atum Ramses II

Dynasty 30th 26th 21st– 22nd 30th 22nd 30th 19th 22nd 16th 16th 16th 16th 6th 22nd 22nd 12th 12th 19th

River Branch Pseudo-Sebennytikos Mendesios Tanitikos

Pelousiakos

Tanitikos Heliopolites

a(º) 298¼ 22 251¾ 342 161¾ 251¼ 341¾ 90¾ 318* 319* 330* 239* 119 118½ 28½ 104¾ 284¾ 101¼

∆(º) 276 284 179 269 89 178 269 342 75 76 87 166 79 78 10 262 82 258

Nile is divided into two major branches, those of Damietta and Rosetta. However, in ancient times, the river had as many as seven main branches and innumerable secondary ones. The branches continuously changed their course, forcing the abandonment of important cities, such as Pi-Ramses, and the foundation of new ones, such as Tanis. Although it is difficult to know the exact courses of these ancient river branches, approximate reconstructions can be attempted. Using one such plausible map,21 we performed a comparison of our data with the hypothetical course of the different Nile branches, at different archaeological sites known to have been close to the river. The results, including the data of Avaris, are presented in Table 2. The 18 temples analysed have revealed an average difference of –5º ± 1º between their orientation and the direction either perpendicular or parallel to the corresponding Nile branch. This result is far from the extremely accurate results obtained in the Nile Valley (see above) but is still close to 0º. Hence, we may conclude that even in the Delta, orientation of the temples according to the river was a common practice. The case of Tanis is especially interesting and will be further discussed in one of the study cases in Part II. In Papers 1 and 2, we showed that the most relevant direction in the orientation of the temples was normally from the inside looking out but that on several occasions the opposite sense was perhaps more reasonable.22 Figure 8 shows an image of the temple of Isis at Behebit el Haggara. When completed, this must have been an imposing building but today it is nothing more than a huge pile of ruins. The determination of its axis was not an easy task and we took several measurements

152

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

FIG. 8. One of the beautifully carved red granite blocks of the Iseum at Behebit el Haggara. This important temple of Isis is today nothing more than an impressive pile of ruins. However, a general orientation is still discernable, the axis being the solstice line connecting winter solstice sunrise with summer solstice sunset, with the main gate most probable opening to the latter. This would be the same orientation as that of the main temple of Amon at Karnak. Hence, we ought to consider both senses (east or west) as possible solutions. See the text for further discussion. Photograph by J. A. Belmonte.

in various positions of the temple; these we later averaged (with a standard deviation of ~2º) to get a value of 298¼º.23 The scant remains of the dromos suggest that the temple opened to the west. However, it is striking that it has almost the same orientation as the temple of Amon at Karnak, and perhaps the Iseum was orientated to sunrise at the winter solstice. Taking all these facts into consideration, we performed a further experiment with the data, consisting of obtaining the declination histogram, but considering only absolute values of the declination. This takes into account the possibility that the axis of a certain temple was established in a certain direction (or sense) either by astronomical observation or topographical adjustments, but that the gate could

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

153

afterwards have been opened in the opposite sense. The results of the experiment are presented in Figure 9 and are very suggestive. Seven peaks are significant in the plot and we believe that they may correspond to seven different families of astronomical alignments of Egyptian temples. These could be classified as follows (using the same Roman numbers as in Figure 9): I. The ‘equinoctial’ (or eastern) family. The peak corresponds to a declination of –¼º±¾º. As previously discussed, this suggests an orientation to the equinoctial sun when the disk has completely risen above the horizon.24 This might imply that the ancient Egyptians were able to determine the day of the equinoxes with reasonable precision.25 However, another solution is possible. This family could be the result of an orientation in the meridian line (probably to due north), and later the gate of the temple would have been opened by establishing the perpendicular through standard topographic techniques. The pyramid complexes could be the paradigmatic example of such a procedure, where the N–S axis of the pyramid would have been the first element of the construction obtained in the foundation ceremonies. We shall discuss in Part II arguments in favour of each alternative. One important fact is that we have not found strong evidence of this orientating custom in our previous work (see Papers 1 and 2). II. The solstitial family. With a peak at 24º±¾º, this group is dominated by a series of temples orientated to sunrise at the winter solstice, although other solstitial

FIG. 9. Absolute declination histogram of the temples of Lower Egypt and Siwa Oasis. The figure is similar to Figs 5 and 6 but represents absolute values of the declination and relates to the possibility that the axis of a particular temple under discussion could have been established either in the sense, inside looking out, or the opposite. Roman numbers stand for the ‘seven families’ of astronomical orientations in ancient Egypt as proposed in this article. See the text for further discussion.

154

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

orientations have also been documented. This was the dominating astronomical custom in the temples of Upper Egypt (see Paper 1) and was also found at the oases of the Western Desert (see Paper 2). Hence, we would catalogue it as universal within ancient Egyptian culture. There has been discussion linking the significance of the winter solstice to the idea widespread in the Mediterranean, that the Birth of the Sun happened exactly at this solar time-mark. On the other hand, the summer solstice could have been important in ancient Egypt as a date close to the average arrival of the Inundation; indeed, it has been argued that this time-marker could be closely related to the origin of the 365-day civil calendar.26 III. The seasonal sun family. This group of temples corresponds to an average declination of ~11¾º and would include temples orientated to a peculiar interval of positive and negative declinations between ±11º and ±13º, respectively. We speculate on the idea that this family also had a solar origin. One of the most interesting cases in this family is that of the temples of Aton at Tell el Amarna. As shown in Figure 10, one of these temples is clearly orientated to a distinctive notch on the eastern horizon similar to an akhet sign. Actually, it has been suggested that this geographical accident gave its name to the city, Akhetaten, the Horizon of Aton.27 Since the main gate of the temple is, at the same time, perpendicular to the Nile, the orientation and location of the temple of Aton could have simply been dictated by topographic features. However, there is a striking additional possibility. Sunrise at the akhet would

FIG. 10. The axis of the small temple of the sun-disc god Aton at Tell el Amarna. It is orientated to a singular notch at the horizon (actually the valley where the royal tomb was excavated), perhaps representing the ancient name of the city, Akhetaton, the Horizon of Aton. Photograph by J. A. Belmonte.

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

155

have occurred on dates close to 22 October and 20 February. Surprisingly, or not, these dates are similar to those when the sun-illuminating phenomenon occurs at Abu Simbel (see Paper 1). For Abu Simbel, we proposed a relation to the beginning of two of the seasons of the Egyptian calendar, Peret and Shemu, “Going Forth” and “Drought”, respectively. In the reign of Akhenaten (c. 1352–1336 B.C.), the seasons of the calendar did not exactly correspond to the climate seasons (although this happened for Ramses II). However, these dates still divide the year in two periods, one of 120 days (exactly four Egyptian months of 30 days, or one calendar season) and another of 245 days, and they might have acted as harbingers of the actual sowing and harvest seasons, respectively.28 Another temple complex of this family would be the sanctuary of the sun-god Re at Heliopolis and it would be logical to expect a solar-related orientation for it.29 Hence, we finally propose the hypothesis that this group of temples actually integrated a so-called seasonal sun family of orientations,30 with possible members all around Egypt.31 In fact, the “solstitial family” could be interpreted as a more specialized subgroup of this. IV. The Sopdet family. We have already analysed, when discussing Figure 6, the apparent importance of the orientations to Sirius. Here, this is simply reinforced by the fact that a temple could have been orientated to Sopdet but the gate could have opened in the opposite direction as, for example, in the temple of Isis32 at Saqqara north. The main peak would correspond to a declination of –19º ± ¾º, again covering most of the period of the Middle and New Kingdoms. However, the peak apparently extends to a declination of –16¼º, covering Sirius’s declination to the end of ancient Egypt historical period.33 This family would also have representatives all over Egypt.34 V. The Canopus family. This is far more complicated because we cannot prove the importance of Canopus for the ancient Egyptians, notwithstanding the fact that it was their second brightest star in the sky.35 Canopus changed its declination from –56¼º to –52½º during the course of Egyptian history (–54½º, –54º, and –53º for the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, the New Kingdom, and the Late Period, respectively). Two peaks could be associated with this family, one at 53º and another at 54¾º. The former and more significant could suggest a major interest in Canopus in the Late Period, but in our present state of knowledge we do not know how to justify this from the religious, economical or social point of view, in contrast to the case of Sopdet, which played a major role in that epoch as the harbinger of the Flooding. VI. The meridian (or northern) family. With a major peak located at an absolute value of declination of 61º±¾º, this ‘peak of accumulation’ clearly testifies, as already remarked, to the great importance of near-meridian (not to say precisely N–S) orientations in ancient Egypt. In fact, Families I and VI are the two sides of the same coin. Both are representative of the predominance of cardinal orientations according to the manner in which the ancient Egyptians organized the cosmos. Indeed,

156

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

we continue to support the idea that this northern custom was effectively achieved through orientations to certain configurations of stars near the celestial pole.36 The circumpolar constellation of Meskhetyu, but also other stars associated with the diverse “Mooring Post” constellations of the Egyptian skies,37 would be the most appropriate targets for this purpose. VII. The quarter cardinal directions family. This would be related to the peak at ~35º in Figure 9 but would be much better manifested by the peak at ~–39¼º in Figure 5 of Paper 1. We have discussed this case at length when analysing peak 6 of Figure 6, and we will not repeat the arguments again but simply confirm that this family is defined by those orientations concentrated in the directions NE–SW and SE–NW, and it would indeed be a subgroup of what we could term the cardinal super-family, formed of Families I, VI and VII. The existence of this family will be further tested in Upper Egypt in the near future. In summary, by defining these seven families, we hope to have demonstrated the importance of astronomical orientations in ancient Egypt. Two of them, II and III, are obviously solar,38 while another two, IV and V, are apparently associated with the brightest stars in the ancient Egyptian skies. The other three (I, VI and VII) would form a singular super-family of cardinal orientations and it is not clear yet whether we should include them in the solar or in the stellar groups. Families VI and VII are most probably stellar and we will find further support for this hypothesis in the study cases in Part II. However, Family I, the ‘equinoctial’, is more complicated and perhaps it ought to be thought of as a mixture of stellar (northern) and pure solar (eastern) orientations, as we shall see in Part II. Before concluding this section, we wish to stress once more that astronomical orientations, related to the celestial ‘landscape’ of the ancient Egyptians, cannot be understood in isolation from the terrestrial landscape where the temples and sacred precincts were located. This is especially dramatic when the Nile valley above Cairo, or its different branches in the Delta, are taken into account. In Paper 1 we showed that, in some quite important cases, a combination of both factors, astronomy and landscape, may well have combined to emphasize the sacred character of certain territories. Further examples of these will also be offered in Part II of this paper. REFERENCES 1. M. Shaltout and J. A. Belmonte, “On the orientation of ancient Egyptian temples: (1) Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvi (2005), 273–98. Hereafter Paper 1. 2. J. A. Belmonte and M. Shaltout, “On the orientation of ancient Egyptian temples: (2) New experiments at the oases of the Western Desert”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvii (2006), 173–92. Hereafter Paper 2. 3. Magnetic alterations are not expected in Egypt, where most of the terrain is limestone and sandstone. In any case, the temples were mostly measured along their main axes, from inside the sanctuary to the outermost gate and, on several occasions, in the opposite direction (checking for possible alterations of the measurement).

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

157

4. J. A. Belmonte, “Astronomy on the horizon and dating, a tool for ancient Egyptian chronology?”, in Ancient Egyptian chronology, ed. by E. Hornung, R. Krauss and D. A. Warburton (Handbuch der Orientalistik, lxxxiii; Berlin, 2006), 380–5. 5. Several pyramid temples of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom queens were in such a state of ruin (if not simply unexcavated) that any useful measurement of their orientation was impossible. The same can be said for most of the tiny chapels constructed in the late Old Kingdom at the northern entrances of the pyramids. Only the foundations of the chapel of Pepi I at Saqqara were clearly identifiable. 6. In Qantir and Tell el Dabha, the trenches of excavation are reburied after each archaeological campaign and the land is handed back to the local fellahin for planting. As a result it is impossible to get any data unless one happens to be on site at the time of the excavations. Actually, the only ‘visible’ remains of the once-imposing capital of Ramses II at Pi-Ramses are a couple of fragments of a colossus of the king. Further to the north, the site of Tell el Balamun has not been excavated in depth. The sites of Naucratis and Athribis are in so bad a state of preservation that they might completely disappear in a few years, being covered by debris or uncontrolled city expansion. 7. For Tell el Balamun, see the plans in A. J. Spencer, Excavation at Tell el Balamoun 1991–1994 (London, 1996). For Avaris, see C. Booth, The Hicsos period in Egypt (Princes Risborough, 2005), 26; see also M. Bietak, Avaris: The capital of the Hicsos (London, 1996). For Dahshur, see D. Arnold, Der Pyramiden bezirk des Königs Amenemhat III in Dahschur (Mainz, 1987), lam. 36. 8. A. A. Aldumairy, Siwa past and present (Alexandria, 2005), 83–85. 9. Throughout the paper, we will use the term ‘equinoctial’ for any alignment with declination near 0º and ‘equinox’ for the corresponding time point, associated with orientations close to due east. However, this does not imply that we are attributing knowledge of the astronomical equinox (i.e. the moment when the sun crosses the celestial equator) to the ancient Egyptians, but rather that we believe that such an orientation would be a proof of a certain interest in the four cardinal directions. How this interest converted into actual construction planning is discussed later at several points in this paper. 10. Actually, it could always be debated whether the orientation of these buildings is that of their main axes or, on the contrary, whether it is dictated by the previous orientation of the adjacent pyramid to the north. A northern orientation of the pyramids is accepted by most scholars. For the use of stars in the north, see, for example, I. E. S. Edwards, The pyramids of Egypt, 3rd edn (Harmondsworth, 1993); K. Spence, “Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical orientation of pyramids”, Nature, cdviii (2000), 320–4; and J. A. Belmonte, “On the orientation of the Old Kingdom pyramids”, Archaeoastronomy, no. 26 (2001), S1–20. Even M. Isler, “An ancient method of finding and extending direction”, Journal of the Archaeological Research Centre of Egypt, no. 26 (1989), 191–206, defends a meridian orientation although using the sun instead of the stars. See also Z. Zaba, Orientation astronomique dans l’ancienne Egypte, et la precession de l’axe du monde (Prague, 1953). This topic will be further analysed in the study cases in Part II. 11. The first clear mentions of Sopdet, within a mythological context, are in the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom. See, for example, R. Krauss, Astronomische Konzepte und Jenseitsvorstellungen in den Pyramidentexten (Ägyptologische Abhandlung, lix; Wiesbaben, 1997), and R. O. Faulkner, “The king and the star-religion in the pyramid texts”, Journal of Near Eastern studies, xxv (1966), 153–61. For the Pyramid Texts themselves, see R. O. Faulkner, The ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford, 1969). The first mention of the observation of an astronomical event related to Sopdet comes from the Middle Kingdom. See, for example, J. A. Belmonte, “Some open questions on the Egyptian calendar: An astronomer’s view”, Trabajos de Egiptología (Papers on ancient Egypt), no. 2 (2003), 7–56. 12. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear whether the ancient Egyptians recognized this individual star or not. In our opinion, probably they did but we have been unable to identify its name, astronomical correlations or possible religious connections, except for the very late reference by Martianus Capella who called it Ptolemaeus in honour of King Ptolemy Lagos, as reported by R. H. Allen, Star names: Their lore and meaning (New York, 1963), 70. This is also true for the most recent

158

13.

14. 15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

mapping of the Egyptian skies, as presented in J. Lull and J. A. Belmonte, “A firmament above Thebes: Uncovering the constellations of ancient Egyptians”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvii (2006), 373–92. However, an interesting possibility could be the identification of Canopus with the Great Star (sbA aA) mentioned in the Pyramid Texts (utterance 882), traversing the sky with Sah; Faulkner, op. cit. (ref. 11). This possibility ought to be studied in depth in the future. All dates in this paper, unless expressly argued, are approximate. The chronology of ancient Egypt is still a controversial matter under continued discussion and evolution. One of the most recent approaches to the problem can be found in Hornung et al. (eds), op. cit. (ref. 4). Most specialists agree on dates of the New Kingdom onwards, locating the reign of Thutmose III between 1479 and 1425/4 B.C. However, there are serious disagreements for the Old and Middle Kingdom. For example, two recent books, I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford history of ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000) and A. Dodson and D. Hilton, The complete royal families of ancient Egypt (London, 2004), display substantial disagreements. Some examples (in dates B.C.): Djoser (2667–2648) v. (2584–2565) for the 3rd Dynasty; Khufu (2589–2566) v. (2470–2447) for the 4th Dynasty; Niuserre (2445–2421) v. (2359–2348) for the 5th Dynasty; Teti (2345–2323) v. (2282–2270) for the 6th Dynasty; Mentuhotep II (2055–2004) v. (2066–2014) for the 11th Dynasty; and Senuseret I (1956–1911) v. (1974–1929) for the 12th Dynasty, for Shaw or Dodson and Hilton, respectively. This implies a difference of more than 80 years for the dates of the Old Kingdom. A middle chronology for that period can be found in the classic J. Malek and J. Baines, Atlas of ancient Egypt (Oxford, 1981). Also widely accepted is J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten (Mainz, 1997). S. Snape, “The excavations of the Liverpool University mission to Zawiyet Umm el-Rakhmam 1994–2001”, Annales du Service des Antiquités de L’Égypte, lxxviii (2004), 149–60. See, for example, C. Esteban, J. A. Belmonte, M. A. Perera Betancort, R. Marrero and J. J. Jiménez González, “Orientation of pre-Islamic temples of northwest Africa”, Archaeoastronomy, no. 26 (2001), S65–84. For example, to the SE for several of the Temples of Million Years in Thebes and to the NE for a number of temples and sanctuaries at the sacred city of Abydos. We plan to test this hypothesis in a future campaign in Upper Egypt. Belmonte, op. cit. (ref. 10). In a very recent work, N. Miranda, J. A. Belmonte and M. A. Molinero Polo, “Seshat en las escenas de fundación de los templos y del cómputo de los años reales”, in Proceedings of the III Congreso Ibérico de Egiptología, Trabajos de Egiptología (Papers in ancient Egypt), special volume (2007, in press), these researchers have discussed the possibility that the sign of Seshat, carried by the goddess upon her head in all representations, might perhaps have been a schematic representation of a transit instrument similar to the Roman groma, but with eight radii instead of four. This device could have been used at the ‘stretching of the cord’ ceremonies from the dawn of Egyptian history and would have directly offered the eight directions under discussion from a single astronomical or topographical observation. One remarkable exception to this rule is offered by the valley temples associated with the sun temples of the 5th Dynasty at Abu Ghurob (see Table 1). For these temples, R. A. Wells, “The 5th Dynasty sun temples at Abu Ghorab as Old Kingdom star clocks: Examples of applied ancient Egyptian astronomy”, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, iv (1990), 95–105, and “Origin of the hour and the Gates of the Duat”, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, xx (1993), 305–26, has proposed a somehow complicated theory for the alignments of the corresponding causeways to certain “star-clocks”, headed by Deneb and Vega in the cases of Userkaf and Niuserre sun temples, respectively. We agree with J. Lull, La astronomía del antiguo Egipto (Valencia, 2004), 323, that the only advantage of this theory is its predictive character. It would be striking if a new solar temple of the 5th Dynasty were found and Wells’s theory could be falsified. A statistical approach to the data of 24 pyramid and south royal temples offers an average azimuth of 90¼º ± ¼º with a standard deviation (σ) of 4º. This suggests an almost perfect orientation, on average, of the pyramid complexes either to the north, with the temple gate opening later at 90º

On the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples

21. 22. 23.

24. 25.

26.

27. 28.

29.

30.

31.

159

(perhaps because of the Nile), or to the ‘equinoctial’ sun (declination 0º for the centre of the disc) when it is completely above the horizon (the sun has an apparent diameter of 36′). In our present state of knowledge we do not feel able to favour either of the two possibilities. In Part II of this paper, we discuss options in favour of one or the other alternative. As presented in R. J. A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world (Princeton, 2000), 174. The cases of the temple of Horus at Edfu and of the large complex of Amon at Karnak are paradigmatic. See Paper 1. At the Iseum, we once again experienced how important it is for our project to take the orientation data in person. The most recent detailed plan of the temple, as presented in C. Favard-Meeks, “The temple of Behbeit el Hagara”, in The temples of ancient Egypt, ed. by S. Quirke (London, 1997), 102–11, shows an erroneous E–W orientation. See ref. 20. Also, to offer reasonable results near 0º, the values of the declination between –2º and 0º were not considered in absolute value. There are several astronomical procedures, some of them very simple, to establish the date of the equinox with a precision of a couple of days. For example, in an equatorial sundial, both faces of the clock (the winter and the summer one) are simultaneously illuminated at noon because the light of the disk of the sun does not come from a point source. However, we do not have any documentary proof that the ancient Egyptians ever used such a procedure. In Belmonte, op. cit. (ref. 11), 34–38 and 18–26, and references therein, the importance of the winter and summer solstices is accordingly emphasized, respectively. Also relevant is J. A. Belmonte and M. P. Zedda, “Light and shadows on the pyramids”, in Light and shadows in cultural astronomy, ed. by M. P. Zedda and J. A. Belmonte (Cagliari, 2007), in press. See, for example, R. H. Wilkinson, Symbol and magic in ancient Egypt (London, 1994), Figures 121–3. A striking parallelism might be established for the “17º family” of orientations in ancient Mesoamerica. See I. Šprajc, Orientaciones astronómicas en la arquitectura prehispánica de México (Mexico, 2001), and I. Šprajc, “More on Mesoamerican cosmology and city plans”, Latin American antiquity, xvi (2005), 209–16. Many monuments of this family were orientated in such a way that they were facing sunrise or sunset on 29 April and 13 August. These dates divide the year into two periods of 105 and 260 days, respectively. The latter was related to the sacred ritual calendar of 260 days (Maya Tzolkin) and the seasonal cycles. Certainly, if we are right, this is a conspicuous phenomenon of convergence between Egypt and Mesoamerica similar to the 365-day calendar. Unfortunately, all the temples at the Heliopolis complex are so damaged that an accurate reconstruction of their orientation is highly problematic. Actually, the orientation we give for the double temple of Re-horahkty and Atum is that provided by the obelisk of Senuseret I, which could be a few degrees off the original axis. Besides, these scarce remains are completely surrounded by the huge Cairo suburb of Aïn Shams and the reconstruction of the original horizon is an impossible task. Interestingly, the causeway leading from Khafre pyramid to his valley temple has a similar orientation and could have worked accordingly. However, another temple in this family, the one of Osiris at Taposiris Magna, could offer an alternative solution. The main axis of the building, but not the gate, could have been orientated to the setting of Rigel in Ptolemaic times. Rigel was probably the Star of Sah (sbA n sAH) of the ancient Egyptians, as suggested in Lull and Belmonte, op. cit. (ref. 12). Sah was the stellar hypostasis of the god Osiris, patron of the temple that was considered as one of the tombs of the god (hence the name). Indeed, Abu Simbel would be the paradigm of the family, erected at a moment when the civil and the actual (climatic) seasons were again in coincidence after fifteen millennia of wandering of the civil calendar. Similarly, some information and a few old photographs suggest that sunrise occurred at a notch of the eastern horizon in the form of an akhet sign, before the rescue of the temple from the waters of Lake Nasser; see J. K. van der Haagen, “Au grand temple d’Abou Simbel: Le secret des petres et des astronomes”, Courier de l’Unesco, October 1962. We tried to confirm this

160

M. Shaltout, J. A. Belmonte and M. Fekri

information with local people in an attempt to identify the notch but without success. 32. Sopdet was a stellar hypostasis of Isis. This is first suggested in the Pyramid Texts, see Faulkner, op. cit. (ref. 11, 1969). The assimilation is complete in the New Kingdom as can be read in the astronomical ceiling of the Ramesseum or of the tomb of Sethy I in the Valley of the Kings. 33. One curious fact is that Sirius and Rigel, sbA n spdt and sbA n sAH, the stars of Isis and Osiris, respectively, had exactly the same declination c. 1450 B.C., during the reign of Thutmose III. However, to show that this was somehow reflected in the temple design or orientation will be hard to prove, unless new textual evidence supporting stellar alignments is uncovered. 34. See, for example, Papers 1 and 2 of S. Cauville, E. Aubourg, P. Deleuze and A. Lecler, “Le temple d’Isis à Dendera”, Bulletin de la Société Français d’Egyptologie, no. 123 (1992), 31–48. However, other Sirius alignments, for example, G. Vörös, “The ancient nest of Horus above Thebes: Hungarian excavations on Thoth Hill at the temple of King Sankhkare Montuhotep III (1995–1998)”, in Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century, i: Archaeology, ed. by Z. Hawass (Cairo, 2002), 547–56, were challenged in Paper 1. 35. Was it perhaps the “Great Star” of the Pyramids Text? See ref. 12. 36. As discussed in Belmonte, op. cit. (ref. 10) and Paper 2, these configurations could have been: the simultaneous transit of two stars across the celestial meridian, the maximum east or west polar distance (maximum disgression), upper culmination or lower culmination of a relevant star, or, for Upper Egypt, the rising or setting of certain stars (notably Alkaid). Actually, any sight of a conspicuous star near due north could have been also relevant. Any of these particular configurations would establish a near-north, but not necessary true north, reference line. A perfect N–S orientation could be obtained only by a number of these procedures, notably, for example, that involving a simultaneous meridian transit. 37. There were three Mooring Posts in the ancient Egyptian firmament. Two of them form a double set in the hands of Reret and possibly occupy the region of the tail of Draco and part of Ursa Minor. The Pole Star of the Old Kingdom, Thuban (α Draconis), would have been the pivot star of one of them, while Kochab (β Ursae Minoris) would be the brightest star in the group. The other Mooring Post, known as Menit in the Ramesside star clocks, would have had Arcturus as its brightest and most significant star. For a recent discussion on these asterisms, see Lull and Belmonte, op. cit. (ref. 12), and references therein. 38. We have found no clear evidence of either lunar or planetary alignments. The moon has a well defined behaviour at the horizon, with an obvious preference for certain positions with characteristic values of the declination (about 28½º and –29¼º, or 19º and –18½º, including parallax, for the major or minor, north and south, lunastices, respectively, for 1500 B.C. and the latitudes of Egypt). The major lunastices, by far the more important, are practically absent from the data except for a few isolated cases (e.g. Hor-em-akhet temple at Giza, and in this case the temple undoubtedly faces the Sphinx). The minor lunastices have declinations close to the Sopdet family of orientations and could be confused with them. However, for historical reasons and, in several cases, because of the temple dedication, we believe that the Sirius hypothesis is far more probable. Regarding the planets, they normally have declinations close to the solar values because they move close to the ecliptic. Consequently, hypothetical planetary orientations would be almost indistinguishable from solar ones. Only Venus as Evening Star might offer a peculiar position (Venustices at declination ~±25º) and might explain some isolated cases (e.g. the Ka of Pepi temple at Bubastis, if it were open to the west; see also, for example, the discussion on the “Nest of Horus” in Paper 1); but applying Ockham’s Razor, again extreme solar inaccurate orientations offer a reasonable and easier solution.