The dawn of astronomy: A study of the temple-worship and mythology of the ancient EgyptiansLockyer, Norman, Sir
Religion
The dawn of astronomy: A study of the temple-worship and mythology of the ancient Egyptians
Lockyer, Norman, Sir
Astronomy, Egyptian; Sun -- Mythology; Sun worship; Temples -- Egypt
Taking the orientation as 26°, and taking hills and refraction into
consideration, we find that the true horizon sunset amplitude would be
27° 30′. This amplitude gives us for Thebes a declination of 24° 18′.
This was the obliquity of the ecliptic in the year 3700 B.C., and this
is therefore the date of the _foundation_ of the shrine of Amen-Rā at
Karnak, so far as we can determine it astronomically with the available
data; but about these there is still an element of doubt, for, so far
as I learn, the recent magnetic readings have not been checked by
astronomical observations.
CHAPTER XII.
THE STARS--THEIR RISINGS AND SETTINGS.
From what has been stated it is not too much to assume that the
Egyptians observed, and taught people to observe, the sun on the
horizon.
This being so, the chances are that at first they would observe the
stars on the horizon too, both stars rising and stars setting; this
indeed is rendered more probable by the very careful way in which early
astronomers defined the various conditions under which a star can rise
or set, always, be it well remembered, in relation to the sun.
It must not be forgotten that the ancients had no telescopes, and had
to use their horizon as the only scientific instrument which they
possessed. They spoke of a star as rising or setting cosmically,
achronically, or heliacally.
The cosmic rising meant that the star rose, and the cosmic setting
meant that the star set, at the same moment as the sun--that is, that
along the eastern horizon we should see the star rising at the moment
of sunrise, or along the western horizon a star setting at the moment
of the sun setting; but unless certain very obvious precautions were
taken it is clear that neither the rising nor the setting star would be
seen, in consequence of the presence of daylight. The achronical rising
or setting is different from the cosmic in this respect--that we have
the star rising when the sun is setting, or setting when the sun is
rising. Finally we have the heliacal rising and setting; that is taken
to be that the star appeared in the morning a little in advance of the
sunrise, or set at twilight a little later than the sun.
It is quite clear that if we observe a star rising in the dawn, it will
get more and more difficult to observe the nearer the time of sunrise
is approached. Therefore, what the ancients did was to determine a
time before sunrise in the early dawn at which the star could be very
obviously and clearly seen to rise. The term "heliacal rising" was
coined to represent a star rising visibly in the dawn, therefore,
before the sun. Generally throughout Egypt the sun was supposed to be
something like 10° below the horizon when a star was stated to rise
_heliacally_.
The following table from Biot should make matters quite clear:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account