Two lines of argument may be followed to strengthen this conclusion. The first has to do with the orientation of the temple of Mut at Thebes. There is no statement of its great antiquity, as in the case of the temple of Hathor at Denderah. Here we find again one of the great difficulties in our way, the impossibility of running back to the original foundation among the many restorations effected of the most important among the Egyptian temples. The temple of Mut is ascribed to Amen-hetep III., but I cannot hold this to be the original foundation, for the following reasons:-- 1. With its orientation in the time of Amen-hetep III. it pointed to no star in particular. 2. There is a series of four temples at Thebes turned to the same part of the horizon nearly, their amplitudes ranging from 62° to 72½° N. of E. Of these temples that of Mut has the highest amplitude; the one with the lowest but one is the temple lettered M by Lepsius. There is no question about the real founder of this temple, and there is not much question as to the date of the founder, Rameses III. Now in the time of this king a temple erected with the orientation given pointed precisely to γ Draconis. (_See_ Chapter XVIII.) The amplitude was 62° N. of E.; the time, 1200 B.C. If we take the simplest case in the orientation theory--that the amplitudes 62° N. of E. 63½° " 68½° " 72½° " were given to the various temples to enable observations to be made of the same star, which was being carried nearer the equator by the precessional movement, we can not only date the temple of Mut, but find an explanation of Plutarch's equation Hathor = Mut. In other words, we watch the Mut-Hathor worship provided for from 3000 B.C. to the times of the Ptolemies. So that here we have a very concrete case of the cult following the star, not only in the same place, but at different places, and we are driven to the conclusion that Hathor at Denderah and Mut at Thebes, exoterically different goddesses, were esoterically the same star, γ Draconis. We are not, however, limited to a comparison between Denderah and Thebes. We have Annu and Abydos, and other places, to appeal to, since there are temples remaining there also facing N.E. Those at Abydos, however, we must leave out of consideration here, as their exact orientation is not determined. With regard to Heliopolis, and dealing with the obelisk which tradition tells us was erected by Usertsen I., the orientation of its N.E. face, according to my own observations, taking the present variation at 4½° W., is 77° N. of E. This corresponds approximately to a declination of 57½° N., which was the declination of γ Draconis in 2500 B.C. The date given to Usertsen I. by Brugsch is 2433 B.C.