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° "