The Stellar Horizon of Khufu On Archaeoastronomy, Egyptology … and some Imaginary Scenaria* Amanda-Alice Maravelia I. Introduction: Astronomy and examine data and incidents of the past. For Archae- and Archaeology ology this is evident. Though one could ask how this comes in Astronomy? Let us remember that the velocity of light is considerably high but not infinite; thus when During the previous century, several articles concerning an astronomical observation is performed, the phenom- the combination of Archaeology and Astronomy ap- enon studied appears as it was in the past, when light pe a r ed. Since the time of Lockyer – father of me g a l i t h i c started to travel from it to reach the earth; hence what astronomy, a famous solar astronomer, who presented we see is a past aspect of this phenomenon, before a pe- some interesting ideas, as well as several misconceptions riod proportional to its distance from our planet. In this and naïve generalizations, both in the field of study of an- cient Egyptian astronomy and of megalithic monuments1 –, there wer e some efforts trying to associate the two sci- entific disciplines.2 Dinsmoor presented an erroneous th e o r y, concerning the dating of ancient Hellenic tem- pl e s , 3 but Pritchet answer ed with an austere critic.4 Th e case of Stonehenge has to be highlighted here. The efforts * The present article was first published in Maravelia 2000; this is of Haw k i n s 5 tow a r ds an arbitrary theory (or science-fic- its revised, enriched and final version. Special thanks are due to tion), using erroneous assumptions and biased interpret a - the Basler Ägyptologischer Nachwuchspreis Committee for the accommodation. Many warm thanks are also due to Prof. Dr tions of the archaeological rec o r ds, wer e deservedly and Hesham ’el-Asmar, Dr J.-A. Belmonte, Dr R. Krauss, and Prof. strictly criticized in full scepticism, independently by Dr A. Spalinger, for some useful comments and information. Atk i n s o n , 6 Haw k e s , 7 and Rug g l e s , 8 who proved that the 1 For the megalithic monuments, see Lockyer 1906, and Locky- “mo n u m e n t o l o g i s t s ” – just like the “py r a m i d o l o g i s t s ” – of er/Penrose 1902, 137–147. For the orientation of monuments all eras, project their own misconceptions (gathere d in ancient Egypt, see Lockyer 1964. For the pyramids in gener- al, see Fakhry 1961; Málek 1986; Edwards 1987; Hawass 1990; th r ough their proper education and psychology), as “ge - Lehner 1998. nius theories”, claiming to explain Antiquity.9 2 Lockyer 1909. In any case, we have to admit that the norm and the 3 Dinsmoor 1939, 95–173. right measure, so well evoked by ancient Hellenes and 4 Pritchet 1947, 235–243. 5 Hawkins 1964, 1258–1261. See also Hawkins 1965. 10 the Latins, is the best basis for this discussion. Ar- 6 Atkinson 1966, 212–216. Cf. also Atkinson 1975, 42–52. chaeoastronomy and its interaction with Archaeology 7 Hawkes 1967, 91–98, wherefrom comes the proverbial phrase and the Positive Sciences is best attained when both par- “every age has the Stonehenge it deserves or desires”. ties do not surpass their proper limits, as well as the 8 See for instance Ruggles 1999, 35–41. On Stonehenge, see also 11 the epitomizing article Ruggles 2002, 5–11. common sense. Ruggles, the first appointed Professor 9 Aveni 1997, chap. 3 and notes. of Archaeoastronomy worldwide, has presented the cor- 10 Cf. the proverbial statements “Mevtron a[riston” (from the rect interdisciplinary methods in order to work and pro- Delphi Oracle), and “Aurea mediocritas” (Horatius: Carmina duce results that have to be scientifically acceptable.12 2,10,5). 11 Henbest 2001, 81–85. Cf. also Hawkes 1967. There are also scientific journals, where interesting arti- 12 Ruggles 1999. cles on Archaeoastronomy are published, the contribu- 13 The most important is Archaeoastronomy 1–27 [Supplement to tion of which can be considered as very important to- Journal for the History of Astronomy (= JHA)], published an- wards this goal.13 In the ideal case, Archaeology becomes nually by Prof. Michael Hoskin at Cambridge. Regrettably the 14 publication of AA stopped recently due to technical reasons, but an inspiration for Astronomy and vice versa, while the quarterly issue of JHA is now appearing enlarged with more their convergence could lead towards a unique and fer- pages. See also Aveni 1989 and Aveni 1997, 207–209. tile synergy. It is to be noted that both disciplines study 14 Henbest 2001, 81–85. A.-A. Maravelia, The Stellar Horizon of Khufu, AH 17, 2003, 55–74 55 way, the former can offer to the latter unique data and that ancient Egyptians were aware of the precession of results, which would be impossible to obtain differently, equinoxes were remarkable.18 It is to be noted that these pertaining to: (i) rare incidents (supernovae, comets, me- opinions are not correct. His interpretation on pl. IV of teorites, solar and lunar eclipses, planetary conjunctions, the lance held by the falcon-headed Dwn-ünwy as the and the resulting means for dating); and (ii) slow inci- Meridian seems arbitrary, as well as his erroneous iden- dents (periodical celestial phenomena like the precession tification of this ancient asterism to Cygnus constella- of the terrestrial axis, nutation, the reduction of the tion. Zˇába was the scholar who not only presented crit- timespan of the day, etc.). The study of orientation of ically the previous relevant theories, but in addition he ancient monuments, which present an evident astro- has shown that the theory already proposed by Lexa19 nomical correlation, could be added, so far as the crite- should be the most competent and plausible.20 Thus, his ria and interdisciplinary methods of analysis are based work is very important, and it is a pity that Neugebauer on common sense and on the scientifically accepted and Parker did not comment on it in their famous rules, which of course are different than imaginary claims st u d y .21 Th e r e are though some important errors in Zˇáb a ’s and arbitrary assumptions. Thus, the science of Archaeo- article, which we shall endeavor to present and discuss. astronomy (aka Astroarchaeology) constitutes a modern In a critical presentation of Zˇá b a’s monograph, and developing interdi s c i p l i n a r y scholarly domain, whose Perˇina had proposed a method that has never been ap- goal is the study of possible astronomical influences on the studied archaeological sites and/or monuments, and vice versa.15 The feedback between Egyptology and Archaeoas- tronomy certainly has to be placed on the same grounds and principles. The present article is first of all a critic of the recent interesting theory presented by Dr Kate 16 15 Ibid. We would like to thank Dr Nigel Henbest for sending his Spence, concerning the possible method used by an- article prior to publication, as well as for some useful discus- cient Egyptian priests-astronomers, in order to deter- sions. mine the exact direction North-South, to orientate their 16 Spence 2000, 320–324. pyramids during the OK. Some older relative opinions 17 Prof. Gingerich, sceptical in the beginning, presented the theo- ˇ ry of Dr Spence in the same issue of Nature: see Gingerich 2000, of Zába (et al.), concerning this thorny issue are also dis- 297f. Mr Kurt Locher informed us that during the congress Un- cussed. The important contribution of the former schol- der One Sky (25–27 June, 2001 in the British Museum, Lon- ar, as well as some of his errors are presented and ana- don) there was a critic against Spence’s theory. During the same lyzed. Follows a critic of the PC-generated method of congress she presented her theory to the public. We are not aware of the content of the articles presented in London. Dr Spence, which examines the pre c o n c e i ved erro n e o u s Belmonte offered an interesting and prudent approach on the points of her fictitious scenario, comparing it to those of orientation of the OK pyramids (see Belmonte 2001a). In his other scholars. The practicality and applicability of this article, he discusses Spence’s theory, using her principal idea theory, its criteria for selecting the data, its circular ar- (which, as we point out here, is not a new one), proposing orig- guments and arbitrary opinions, are examined briefly inal ideas, which have to be examined seriously; Dr Belmonte discusses only two weak points of Dr Spence’s theory. Dr Bel- 17 but in scrutiny and questions as to its validity are asked. monte, to whom we would like to address sincere thanks for We present twelve arguments, in the form of questions, having permitted this quotation from his article, notes in his in order to prove the inapplicability of this theory. At n. 1: “Spe n c e ’s work has proved highly controversial, with serious the same time, we propose for counter comparison an debates between scholars, and her proposals have been severely questioned. See for example H. Thurston: ‘Aligning Giza: As- alternative pair of stars (h-Dra and b-UMa), which give tronomical Orientation of the Great Pyramid’, Griffith Observ- a better chronology for the reign of Khufu (2558 BCE); er, September 2001, in press; Amanda-Alice Maravelia: ‘L’hori- our date is found in better agreement with the currently zon astral de Khéops: Archéoastronomie, Egyptologie … et accepted chronology.We also review and discuss recent quelques scénarios de science-fiction’, Tôzai 5, 2000 [2002], 11 f f .; and C.