In the year 1844, some time after Champollion had led the way in deciphering the hieroglyphics, we became almost equally indebted to the Prussian Government, who also sent out a Commission to Egypt, under Lepsius, which equalled the French one in the importance of the results of the explorations; in the care with which the observations were made, and in the perfection with which they were recorded. In attempting to get information from ancient temples on the points to which I have referred, there is, therefore, a large amount of information available; and it is wise to study the region round and below Thebes where the information is so abundant and is ready to our hand.
First, then, with regard to the existence of solar temples. Dealing with the monumental evidence, the answer is absolutely overwhelming. The evidence I bring forward consists of that afforded by some of the very oldest temples that we know of in Egypt. Among the most ancient and sacred fanes was one at Annu, On, or Heliopolis, which, the tradition runs, was founded by the Shesu-Hor before the time of Mena; Mena, as we have seen, having reigned at a date certainly not less than 4000, and possibly 5000 years B.C.
PLAN OF THE MOUNDS AT ABYDOS.
(From Mariette.)
The Nile valley holds other solar temples besides that we have named at Heliopolis. Abydos was another of the holiest places in Egypt in the very earliest times.
Since the temples and temple mounds at Abydos can be better made out than those at Heliopolis, I will take them first. The orientations given by different authors are so conflicting that no certainty can be claimed, but it is possible that at Abydos one of the mounds is not far from the amplitude shown in the tables for the sun in the Nile valley at sunset at the summer solstice. If this were so, the Egyptians who were employed in building the temple must have known exactly what they were going to do.
At Heliopolis, as I have hinted, the matter is still less certain. Almost every trace of the temple has disappeared, but of remains of temenos walls in 1844, when the site was studied by Lepsius, there were plenty. At Karnak, where both temples and temenos walls remain, we can see how closely the walls reflect the orientation of the included temples, even when they seem most liable to the suggestion of symmetrophobia. I have before stated that the Egyptians have been accused of hating every regular figure, and the irregular figures at Karnak are very remarkable; in the boundary walls of the temple of Amen-Rā there are two obtuse angles; round the Mut temple we also have walls, and there again this hatred of similarity seems to come out, for we have one obtuse and one acute angle. But if we examine the thing a little carefully, we find that there is a good deal of method in this apparent irregularity. The wall of the temple of Amen-Rā is parallel to the face of the temple or at right angles to its length. One wall of Mut is perfectly parallel to the face of the temple or at right angles to the sphinxes. And the reason that we do not get right angles at one end of the wall is that the walls of the temple at Mut are parallel to the chief wall of the temple of Amen-Rā. Surely it must be that, before these walls were built, it was understood that there was a combined worship; that they stood or fell together. One thing was not attempted in one temple and another thing in another, but the worship of each was reflected in the other. If this be true, there was no hatred of symmetry, but a definite and admirable reason why these walls should be built as they were.
THE MOUNDS AND OBELISK AT ANNU.
With the knowledge we possess of both temenos walls and temples at Karnak, and of the, I may almost say, symbolism of the former, it is fair to conclude that when temples have gone we may yet get help from the walls. The walls at Heliopolis are the most extraordinary I have met with in Egypt, as may be gathered from the accompanying reduction of Lepsius' map.