In spite of these scholarly niceties, it is Lockyer and not Nissen who has been accredited in the annals of science with the epithet ‘Father of Archaeoastronomy’ - that relatively new branch of archaeology that makes use of astronomy to study ancient temples and sacred sites.
Joseph Norman Lockyer was born in 1836 to a middle-class family in Rugby. He was educated at private schools in England and various parts of Europe, and as a young man worked at the War Office in London. It was there that he took an interest in astronomy, building a small observatory at his house in the leafy and fashionable suburb of Hampstead. It was thus, in this modest and quaint way, that Lockyer began his distinguished career in astronomy. By 1862 he had been elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, and two years later, after purchasing his first spectroscope, he was to direct his sharp brain to the study of solar emissions. In 1868, while working at the College of Chemistry in London, Lockyer observed the bright emissions from the sun during a total eclipse and concluded that they were from an unknown element which he named ‘helium’-a quarter of a century before Sir William Ramsay would isolate this gas in his laboratory. In 1885 Lockyer became the world’s first professor of astronomical physics.17 There is another less known ‘first’ about Lockyer: in 1869 he collaborated with the publishers Macmillan & Company and founded the influential scientific journal Nature.18 For his discovery of helium and his other achievements in science, Lockyer received a knighthood in 1897. An observatory and planetarium which he established at Salcombe Hill in Devonshire in 1912 with his son James still bear their names: ‘The Norman Lockyer Observatory and James Lockyer Planetarium’.19
It was in the autumn of 1890, at the mature age of 53, that Norman Lockyer began to take a keen interest in the astronomical alignments of ancient Egyptian temples.20 He delved into the voluminous publications of Napoleon’s expedition of 1798 and the work of the Prussian expedition of 1844, but soon realised that neither had ‘paid any heed to the possible astronomical ideas of the temple builders’. Lockyer himself strongly suspected that ‘there was little doubt that astronomical consideration had a great deal to do with the direction towards which these temples faced’. So, in late November 1890, he decided to go to Egypt and see for himself. Upon his arrival in Cairo he reported to the antiquity authorities, which, at that time, were controlled by the German Egyptologist Emile Brugsch Bey.21 It so happened that his older brother, the eminent professor Heinrich Brugsch Bey, was the acclaimed authority on the astronomical inscriptions found on ancient temples and tombs, and thus was only too happy to help Lockyer in his investigations.22 It was from Brugsch’s inscriptions that Lockyer became aware of the ‘stretching of the cord’ ceremony, and he was quick to realise that it was a ritual describing the astronomical orientating of temples. Much encouraged by this, he travelled upriver to Luxor, a journey which in those days took nearly three weeks.
Winter is an excellent time of year to cruise on the Nile, and Lockyer, like all first-time travellers to Egypt, must have felt the mounting excitement as his little Nile steamer, the MS Mehetmet Ali, approached ancient Thebes and the great temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak. No modern adjective can do this temple justice. ‘Awesome’ and ‘mind-boggling’ do not even get close. To the ancient Egyptians it was ipet-sut, ‘the most splendid of places’. For me, after the Giza pyramids of course, it is the place that best evokes the splendour and magnificence that once was Egypt. The senses and the emotions run amok here as you walk amid the work of generations of architect-priests who developed Karnak into the greatest and most splendid religious centre of the ancient world. And although there has been much pillage and destruction over the millennia,23 this amazing temple still manages to dazzle and thrill the modern visitor.
The temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak, as it stands today, is in fact made up of four main sections attached one to the other. First there is the impressive avenue of ram-headed sphinxes that leads to the temple’s gates. Past the first pylon, originally 40 metres high, you enter into the vast open court. Beyond this is the great hypostyle hall and, finally, some 200 metres further down, the various inner sanctuaries. The whole temple runs from west to east over a staggering length of about 300 metres. The main entrance is in the west side, but there is also an eastern entrance leading to a smaller temple dedicated to Ra-Horakhti which was built back to back with the main temple of Amun-Ra, the inner sanctuaries of the temple sandwiched between them. There are also seven other minor entrances set in the sides of the huge enclosure that surrounds the whole complex, a sacred lake and several other temples dedicated to ‘guest deities’ within and also outside the enclosure, notably those of the gods Khonsu and Montu and the goddess Mut. Together all these structures form a huge ensemble that is sprawled over an area of 1,500 × 800 metres. It must be remembered, however, that this vast complex was developed, embellished, added to, modified, rebuilt, and restored several times over a period of nearly 1,300 years. Many things, therefore, are not original. What is certain, however, is that the main axis of the temple has remained unchanged since its origins.
When Lockyer visited the temple in 1891, it was not restored or cleared of debris as it is today. He had to clamber over rubble and fallen columns. Yet in spite of the ruined aspect of the temple, Lockyer was stupefied by what he saw. ‘This temple of Amen-Ra’, he was to write, ‘is beyond all question the most majestic ruin in the world . . . one of the most soul-stirring temples which have ever been conceived or built by man.’ What specifically captured Lockyer’s interest was the long east-west axis of the temple. He estimated that it ran ‘something like 500 yards in length’ and that the whole point was ‘that the axis should be absolutely open, straight and true’. According to Lockyer,The axis was direct towards the west hills on the west side of the Nile, in which are the tombs of the kings . . . there were really two temples - the westside one dedicated to Amen-Ra and the eastside one to Ra-Horakhti - in the same line back to back, the chief one facing sunset at the summer solstice, the other probably the sunrise at the winter solstice . . . it is easy to recognise that these arrangements bear out the idea of an astronomical use of the temple . . .24
Lockyer described the Karnak temples as ‘horizontal telescopes’ which, according to him, were designed to be permanently aligned at the eastern end with the rising of the winter solstice sun and at the western end with the setting of the summer solstice sun. Karnak, he thus concluded, was a ‘solar temple’ par excellence.
Summer Solstice Sunset or Winter Solstice Sunrise?
At Karnak’s latitude, which is 25° 48′ north, a simple calculation shows that the orientation of the winter solstice sunrise would have been 26° 54′ south-of-east when the temple was founded in around 2050 BC.25 This is exactly the orientation of the axis of the Karnak temple and, more especially, the eastern part at the rear of the complex that is dedicated to the ‘god of the rising sun’ Ra-Horakhti. In 1973 the modern astronomer Gerald Hawkins obtained 26° 54′ south-of-east from detailed survey maps from the Franco-Egyptian Research Centre at Karnak.26 More recently, in 1999, the Egyptologist Luc Gabolde of the French Mission of the CNRS at Karnak came up with a slightly lower value of 26° 44′ south-of-east, thus only a mere 10 minutes of arc off Hawkins’s value.27 This meant that an observer standing in 2050 BC along the axis of the Karnak temple with his back to the eastern entrance (and thus facing the eastern horizon) would have witnessed the sunrise at winter solstice taking place directly in front of him. Six months later, if that same observer turned a full 180° and faced the western horizon, he would witness the sunset at summer solstice taking place directly in front of him. Because the main entrance of the Karnak temple is facing the west, Lockyer concluded that the temple had been deliberately oriented to face the summer solstice sunset in order to have the sun’s rays shine into the temple and illuminate the holy of holies. There was, however, one major problem with Lockyer’s conclusion: the Theban Hills, directly in front of the Amun-Ra temple, cause the sun to disappear about five minutes
before it actually reaches the horizon and thus the level of the temple’s floor. Calculations show that in 2050 BC the sun at summer solstice would have set over the Theban Hills some 1° 25′ west of the spot on the western horizon towards which the temple was oriented. This meant that the sun’s rays could not shine into the temple and illuminate the holy of holies. So although Lockyer was not wrong in saying that the axis of the Karnak temple was oriented towards the summer solstice sunset, the Theban Hills made it impossible for the sun’s light to shine into the temple. We must remember that Lockyer was at Karnak in February of 1891 and thus did not witness the event in situ. Had he been there on 21 June, the day of the summer solstice, he would have realised that the sun disc did not reach the central alignment of the temple but disappeared behind the Theban Hills after it cleared the southern edge of the temple’s gate built in the second pylon.28
In 1973 the astronomer Gerald Hawkins solved this nagging problem by proposing that the axis of the Karnak temple had not been intended to be towards the sunset at summer solstice but rather towards the sunrise at winter solstice in the opposite direction, where there were no hills to obstruct the line of sight.29 According to Hawkins: Ipet sut was the name of the earliest temple at Karnak, built about 2000 BC. Ipet sut was east of the pylon, in the direction of the sunrise . . . Farther along was a temple dedicated to Ra-Horakhti. This composite god title is roughly transliterated as Sun-rising, Sun-Brilliant on the Horizon . . . the Ra-Horakhti temple was on the same long line of the main axis, a line which began at the Nile, ran along the centre of the avenue of the sphinxes, through the opening of the six pylons, and through the altar of the earliest temple, ipet sut . . . the statues of pharaohs and gods stood there gazing into the eastern distance with stony eyes. I was sure the line pointed to some sky object. The statues were poised for a celestial happening . . .30
The ‘celestial happening’ that Hawkins was referring to was, of course, the Birth of Ra-Horakhti on the New Year’s Day, which, in c. 2028 BC, took place at the winter solstice, thus (1506 ÷ 2) = 753 years after 2781 BC (when the New Year’s Day had fallen on the day of the summer solstice). This meant that the solar phoenix had come (or returned) south, a potent celestial sign that the sun-god now favoured the south and its new priesthood. New Year’s Day was I Akhet 1 (first month, first season, first day), and there are several ancient texts that attest that this day was regarded as the Birth of Ra-Horakhti. For example, according to the chronologist R. Weill, the Gardiner Papyrus (c. 1100 BC) states: ‘Ramses IX Year 13, Birth of Ra-Horakhti, first month, first day’,31 while in the so-called Calendar of Edfu (100 BC) it is also stated: ‘Birth of Ra-Horakhti, first month, first day’.32 There is, too, a text from the Cairo Calendar33 that describes the birth of Ra-Horakhti thus: ‘I Akhet 1: The Birth of Ra-Horakhti; ablution throughout the entire land in the water of the beginning of the High Nile which comes forth as fresh Nun.’34 According to the astronomer Marshall Clagett, ‘this latter statement may well reflect the very ancient view that the year was to begin with the sudden rising of the Nile’. The rise of the Nile began at the summer solstice, when the constellation of Leo was ‘born’, i.e. rose heliacally with the sun. Egyptologist Alan Gardiner also states that the New Year’s Day was considered an appropriate date for the coronation of kings, since these were closely identified with Ra-Horakhti.35 Because of the drift of the New Year’s Day from the true solar year, after 753 years, counting from 2781 BC, the Birth of Ra-Horakhti moved to the winter solstice. Since we know for certain that the Birth of Ra-Horakhti fell on the summer solstice in c. 2781 BC, the orientation of the Karnak temple of 26° 54′ south-of-east in c. 2028 BC reflects this astronomical fact. In 2003 the Spanish astronomer Juan Belmonte echoed this unarguable fact when he wrote thatThere is an early mention in a necropolis report from Deir el Medina of a feast under the name of mswt re-hr-ahty (Birth of Ra-Horakhti) celebrated in I Akhet 1 as early as the 20th dynasty . . . We are going to propose the hypothesis that this link can effectively be associated with a moment when I Akhet 1 was at the time of the winter solstice . . . To be precise, because of the wandering of the civil calendar across the seasons, there have been two occasions when I Akhet 1 has fallen at the moment of the winter solstice: . . . 2004 BC and 500 BC respectively. Considering the 19th dynasty (sic.) mention of the feast, we cannot consider 500 BC. This brings us to the year 2004 BC. This was a very interesting moment in Egyptian history. According to most accepted chronologies, Menthuhotep II from Thebes had just re-unified the country and new buildings, on a monumental scale, were constructed for the first time in the very south of the country.36
Menthuhotep II belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty, and his reign is dated from 2061 to 2010 BC, smack at the time when the Birth of Ra-Horakhti fell on the winter solstice in 2028 BC. More significantly, he was responsible for moving the capital from Memphis to Thebes and is also believed to have set the original axis of the temple at Karnak which, as we have seen, has its eastern part dedicated to Ra-Horakhti and its axis aligned to the winter solstice sunrise. In moving the capital to Thebes and establishing a new religious centre at Karnak, it was as if Heliopolis or the idea of Heliopolis was itself moved to the south. For the whole of Egypt was now bracketed by two immense religious centres, one in the extreme north founded in c. 2781 BC when the Birth of Ra-Horakhti was at the summer solstice (the northern limits of sunrise), and the other in the extreme south founded in c. 2028 BC when the Birth of Ra-Horakhti fell at the winter solstice (the southern limit of sunrise). It is not surprising, therefore, that the region of Thebes was known as the ‘Heliopolis of the South’. And according to the Egyptologist Cyril Aldred, the term ‘Heliopolis of the South’ may have referred specifically to Karnak, as attested in the royal title of Akhenaten as the ruler of Thebes.37 For this title reads: ‘Great of Kingship in Karnak; Horus of Gold; he with uplifted diadems in Southern Heliopolis; King of Upper and Lower Egypt.’38 According to Donald Redford, the city of Thebes was known as the ‘Southern City’ or the ‘Upper Egyptian Heliopolis’, which again confirms the idea of a northern and southern Heliopolis.39
Egypt, then, was bracketed by two centres sacred to the god of the eastern horizon and sunrise (Ra-Horakhti) which mimicked the north and south limits of the sunrise along the eastern horizon. What seems to clinch this hypothesis is the fact that these two centres were founded in c. 2781 BC and c. 2028 BC respectively, when the Birth of Ra-Horakhti fell on the summer solstice (2781 BC) and the winter solstice (2028 BC). According to this theory, however, Egypt should have witnessed another more dramatic event change when the ‘Birth of Ra-Horakhti’ moved again to the summer solstice 753 years later in 1275 BC. According to accepted chronology, this falls in the reign of Egypt’s most celebrated pharaoh, Rameses II (c. 1290-1224 BC). But to arrive at this date we have made our calculations using the Great Solar Cycle of 1,506 years. Had we used the Sothic cycle of 1,460 years,40 this would bring us to the year 1321 BC (2781-1,460 = 1321 BC). And 1321 BC, as all chronologists know, brings us tantalisingly close to the reign of Egypt’s most infamous pharaoh: Amenhotep IV, better known as Akhenaten (c. 1353-1335 BC).
Let us look at these coincidences more closely.
Waiting for the New Age
On the afternoon of 31 December 1999 in Cairo, millennium hysteria was peaking. As midnight approached, people from all walks of life began to gather by the thousands at the Giza pyramids to witness the opening of a new age. Several months earlier, Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) had announced that it was going to place a golden capstone on the top of the Great Pyramid to mark the occasion, claiming that this was Egypt’s seventh millennium. The world’s media prepared itself by sending hundreds of television crews and journalists, all falling over one another for the exclusive rights. Then, at the last minute, the whole thing went pear-shaped. The placing of the golden capstone was cancelled for fear of ‘damaging the pyramid’, and to make things worse, the smoke from the fireworks mingled with the heavy humidity causing
a thick mist that blotted the pyramids from sight. The new age began not with a bang but with a whimper. I happened to be at Giza during this night of madness. In vain I tried to explain to friends that 31 December 1999 of our Gregorian calendar would have meant absolutely nothing to the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians did not think in millennia but in Sothic cycles, which lasted 1,460 years. The last cycle had started in AD 159941 and the next was due in AD 3059. So, strictly speaking, we were 1,059 years early! All this, however, demonstrated to me the strange frenzy that could overcome the populace at the coming of a new astronomical age. One can only imagine the anticipation that must have gripped the Egyptians when the Sothic cycle of 1321 BC was in sight.
In 1995 the astronomer Alexander A. Gurshtein presented a paper to the Academy of Russian Science with the controversial title: ‘The Great Pyramids of Egypt as sanctuaries commemorating the origin of the zodiac: An Analysis of astronomical evidence’. In this paper Gurshtein discussed the Sothic cycle of 1,460 years and the foundation of the Egyptian civil calendar in 2781 BC. He then made these intriguing comments:1460 years after the introduction of the solar calendar in Egypt, its wandering starting point was empirically found to return to its initial position, which correlated with both the heliacal rising of Sirius and the inundation of the Nile. The return fell on 1321 BC. This date is associated with two events: (1) In 1366 BC the Pharaoh Akhenaten moved his capital to Akhet-Aten . . .42
The Egypt Code Page 18