Authors: Robert Bauval
The Egypt Code (19 page)
First, as French Egyptologist Christiane Zivie-Coche protests, ‘there are no references to the Sphinx in texts from the Old Kingdom’, let alone any that remotely suggest that it or Horakhti was a symbol of Leo.
57
As Dr Zivie-Coche argues, the name of the Great Sphinx was Horemakhet, ‘Horus-in-the-Horizon’, and not Horakhti ‘Horus-of-the-Horizon’.
Vive la différence!
But in any case, as she points out, even the name Horemakhet cannot be that of the Sphinx, because it was not given to it by its original builders of the Fourth Dynasty, but a thousand years later by the Eighteenth Dynasty kings who restored it. Therefore this name, she concludes, cannot be taken as the true name of the Sphinx but must be considered as a sort of pharaonic pseudonym. Thus Zivie-Coche sternly warns everyone that it is totally unjustified to speak of Horemakhet when referring to the Old Kingdom. And that’s that. This, in a nutshell, is the basic argument put forward by most Egyptologists.
57
As Dr Zivie-Coche argues, the name of the Great Sphinx was Horemakhet, ‘Horus-in-the-Horizon’, and not Horakhti ‘Horus-of-the-Horizon’.
Vive la différence!
But in any case, as she points out, even the name Horemakhet cannot be that of the Sphinx, because it was not given to it by its original builders of the Fourth Dynasty, but a thousand years later by the Eighteenth Dynasty kings who restored it. Therefore this name, she concludes, cannot be taken as the true name of the Sphinx but must be considered as a sort of pharaonic pseudonym. Thus Zivie-Coche sternly warns everyone that it is totally unjustified to speak of Horemakhet when referring to the Old Kingdom. And that’s that. This, in a nutshell, is the basic argument put forward by most Egyptologists.
But Zivie-Coche’s bold assertion that ‘
there are no references to the Sphinx in texts from the Old Kingdom
’ is in dire need of rephrasing. What she really should have said was that there are no references to Horemakhet in the Old Kingdom, but only in the New Kingdom texts, which is, of course, a very different thing altogether. This is because there are, in fact, plenty of references to the Sphinx in Old Kingdom texts; plenty, that is, if you also accept that the Sphinx was called also Horakhti, as Hassan has shown, in the New Kingdom. Indeed, the Pyramid Texts are full of references to Horakhti, as we have seen. And at Giza, during archaeological digs, Hassan found many votive stelae near the Sphinx on which ‘side by side with the name Horemakhet, we find the Great Sphinx also called Horakhti’.
58
This view is echoed by fellow Egyptologist Ahmed Fakhry, who also concluded that ‘the stelae and votive figures of sphinxes, lions, and falcons found around the Sphinx reveals the names under which it was known and worshipped. Most commonly it was called Horemakhet, “Horus-in-the-Horizon”, or Horakhti, “Horus-of-the-Horizon” . . . both are appropriate names . . .’
59
Hassan also found a depiction from an Eighteenth Dynasty tomb at Giza that shows a man kneeling in adoration before the Sphinx, with an inscription that reads: ‘Adoration to Horakhti, the Great God, the Lord of Heaven . . .’
60
there are no references to the Sphinx in texts from the Old Kingdom
’ is in dire need of rephrasing. What she really should have said was that there are no references to Horemakhet in the Old Kingdom, but only in the New Kingdom texts, which is, of course, a very different thing altogether. This is because there are, in fact, plenty of references to the Sphinx in Old Kingdom texts; plenty, that is, if you also accept that the Sphinx was called also Horakhti, as Hassan has shown, in the New Kingdom. Indeed, the Pyramid Texts are full of references to Horakhti, as we have seen. And at Giza, during archaeological digs, Hassan found many votive stelae near the Sphinx on which ‘side by side with the name Horemakhet, we find the Great Sphinx also called Horakhti’.
58
This view is echoed by fellow Egyptologist Ahmed Fakhry, who also concluded that ‘the stelae and votive figures of sphinxes, lions, and falcons found around the Sphinx reveals the names under which it was known and worshipped. Most commonly it was called Horemakhet, “Horus-in-the-Horizon”, or Horakhti, “Horus-of-the-Horizon” . . . both are appropriate names . . .’
59
Hassan also found a depiction from an Eighteenth Dynasty tomb at Giza that shows a man kneeling in adoration before the Sphinx, with an inscription that reads: ‘Adoration to Horakhti, the Great God, the Lord of Heaven . . .’
60
With all this evidence, it can now be seen why it is perverse for Zivie-Coche and her colleagues to keep on insisting that ‘there are no references to the Sphinx in texts from the Old Kingdom’.
61
At the risk of repeating myself, the truth of the matter is that there are
plenty
of references to Horakhti in the Pyramid Texts which date from the Old Kingdom, and it was a name which, along with Horemakhet, was used for the Great Sphinx of Giza in the New Kingdom. Ah, but that’s in the New Kingdom and not the Old Kingdom, the critics are quick to reply. And why wouldn’t the Egyptians of the New Kingdom know the true name of the Great Sphinx of Giza as given to it in the Old Kingdom? Well, only because Egyptologists say so. This, however, is a circular argument. The Sphinx, like all else in the Pyramid Texts, is referred to in cosmic terms. It is, after all, as Lehner pointed out, the symbol of the pharaoh as guarantor of the cosmic order. The pharaoh, after death, became one with Horakhti. It is, therefore, a symbol of Horakhti, and the latter is, in spite of Zivie-Coche’s protestations, profusely mentioned in the Old Kingdom texts.
61
At the risk of repeating myself, the truth of the matter is that there are
plenty
of references to Horakhti in the Pyramid Texts which date from the Old Kingdom, and it was a name which, along with Horemakhet, was used for the Great Sphinx of Giza in the New Kingdom. Ah, but that’s in the New Kingdom and not the Old Kingdom, the critics are quick to reply. And why wouldn’t the Egyptians of the New Kingdom know the true name of the Great Sphinx of Giza as given to it in the Old Kingdom? Well, only because Egyptologists say so. This, however, is a circular argument. The Sphinx, like all else in the Pyramid Texts, is referred to in cosmic terms. It is, after all, as Lehner pointed out, the symbol of the pharaoh as guarantor of the cosmic order. The pharaoh, after death, became one with Horakhti. It is, therefore, a symbol of Horakhti, and the latter is, in spite of Zivie-Coche’s protestations, profusely mentioned in the Old Kingdom texts.
Heliopolis was the city most sacred to Ra-Horakhti, so much so that Dr Zahi Hawass, the head of antiquities in Egypt, calls it the ‘City of Ra-Horakhti’.
62
And for good reason: the high priest of Heliopolis was called ‘Chief Seer of Ra-Horakhti’,
63
and the object of the veneration was a conical or pyramidal stone called
benben
, which, according to Egyptologist Labib Habachi, ‘was sacred to Ra-Horakhti, the rising sun’.
64
There is, too, the obelisk at Heliopolis dedicated to Ra-Horakhti by Senusret I of the Twelfth Dynasty,
65
and the pharaoh Sethi I of the Nineteenth Dynasty designed a temple for Heliopolis which he described as a ‘monuments for my father Ra-Horakhti’. Interestingly, Sethi I also called Heliopolis ‘the Horizon of Heaven’, which is a perfect epithet for its god Ra-Horakhti, i.e. ‘Ra-Horus of the Horizon’.
66
On one of the pair of obelisks of the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Thothmoses III which once stood at Heliopolis is inscribed: ‘Thothmoses made as his monument for his father Ra-Horakhti, the erecting for him of two large obelisks with pyramidions of electrum on the third occasion of the Jubilee . . .’
67
It is also a fact that Heliopolis existed before the Giza Pyramids. It is a fact that it was an important centre for calendrical computations from at least the Third Dynasty. And it is a fact that the high priest of Heliopolis bore the title ‘Chief of the Astronomers’, which, according to I.E.S. Edwards, implies the observation not only of the sun but of the stars:
62
And for good reason: the high priest of Heliopolis was called ‘Chief Seer of Ra-Horakhti’,
63
and the object of the veneration was a conical or pyramidal stone called
benben
, which, according to Egyptologist Labib Habachi, ‘was sacred to Ra-Horakhti, the rising sun’.
64
There is, too, the obelisk at Heliopolis dedicated to Ra-Horakhti by Senusret I of the Twelfth Dynasty,
65
and the pharaoh Sethi I of the Nineteenth Dynasty designed a temple for Heliopolis which he described as a ‘monuments for my father Ra-Horakhti’. Interestingly, Sethi I also called Heliopolis ‘the Horizon of Heaven’, which is a perfect epithet for its god Ra-Horakhti, i.e. ‘Ra-Horus of the Horizon’.
66
On one of the pair of obelisks of the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Thothmoses III which once stood at Heliopolis is inscribed: ‘Thothmoses made as his monument for his father Ra-Horakhti, the erecting for him of two large obelisks with pyramidions of electrum on the third occasion of the Jubilee . . .’
67
It is also a fact that Heliopolis existed before the Giza Pyramids. It is a fact that it was an important centre for calendrical computations from at least the Third Dynasty. And it is a fact that the high priest of Heliopolis bore the title ‘Chief of the Astronomers’, which, according to I.E.S. Edwards, implies the observation not only of the sun but of the stars:
Imhotep’s title ‘Chief of the Observers’, which became the regular title of the High Priest of Heliopolis, may itself suggest an occupation connected with astral, rather than solar, observation . . . It is significant that the high priest of the centre of the sun-cult at Heliopolis bore the title ‘Chief of the Astronomers’ and was represented wearing a mantle adorned with stars.
68
Any avid stargazer worth his salt, especially one who made it his principal business to observe the rising of the stars at dawn, would have known that the sun journeyed through the year against the fixed background of stars and that during the summer solstice it rose at dawn against the background of a constellation that had the distinct shape of a recumbent lion. Making a giant statue that gazes eternally at the rising sun in the horizon and calling it Horakhti, then saying that the dead pharaoh joined Horakhti in the horizon at dawn when the Nile was in flood, and then dedicating the statue to the pharaoh should leave us with sufficient evidence, if not proof, that the statue was a solar-stellar hybrid of lion and man symbolising the merger of the sun-god, i.e. the sun disc, with Horakhti, i.e. Leo.
Since 1983 I have advocated a stellar symbolism for the Old Kingdom pyramids of the Fourth and Fifth dynasties, though it is evident now that they also belonged to a solar cult. This is because, as the astronomer and historian Alexander Gurshtein bluntly put it: ‘the astronomical observations of the sun coordinated its position on the starry background. This is why the elements of the sun-cult were mixed very tightly in the elements of the astral cult.’
69
In my book
The Orion Mystery
I have shown how the scattering of pyramids on the west side of the Nile was based on a master plan intended to represented the scattering of stars on the west side of the Milky Way. In this plan the three Giza pyramids were, according to my contention, representative of the three stars of Orion’s belt.
70
The conclusion, then, was that the ancient pyramid-builders wanted to replicate the starry Duat on their land or, in their parlance, build the ‘Duat of Memphis’. Paradoxically, Mark Lehner, who is an opponent of this theory, nonetheless confirms that, ‘the word for Netherworld was the Duat, often written with a star in a circle, a reference to Orion, the stellar expression of Osiris, in the Underworld. Osiris was the “Lord of the Duat”, which, like the celestial world - and the real Nile Valley - was both a water world and an earthly realm.’
71
Also, according to Egyptologist Natalie Beaux:
69
In my book
The Orion Mystery
I have shown how the scattering of pyramids on the west side of the Nile was based on a master plan intended to represented the scattering of stars on the west side of the Milky Way. In this plan the three Giza pyramids were, according to my contention, representative of the three stars of Orion’s belt.
70
The conclusion, then, was that the ancient pyramid-builders wanted to replicate the starry Duat on their land or, in their parlance, build the ‘Duat of Memphis’. Paradoxically, Mark Lehner, who is an opponent of this theory, nonetheless confirms that, ‘the word for Netherworld was the Duat, often written with a star in a circle, a reference to Orion, the stellar expression of Osiris, in the Underworld. Osiris was the “Lord of the Duat”, which, like the celestial world - and the real Nile Valley - was both a water world and an earthly realm.’
71
Also, according to Egyptologist Natalie Beaux:
The sign of a ‘five-pointed star in a circle’, or more simply just the sign of a ‘five-pointed star’, are those that most frequently are used to describe the Duat. It must be noted that the ‘five-pointed star in the circle’ found in the Pyramid Texts only refers to the Duat. One passage makes it quite clear what is being referred to:
‘Orion is “swallowed” by the Duat, while the Living One (the rising sun) is purified in the Horizon (Akhet); Spd-t (Canis Major) is “swallowed” by the Duat, while the Living One in purified in the Horizon; (Unas) is “swallowed” up by the Duat, while the Living One is purified in the Horizon . . .’
. . . The Duat is specifically the region in which the star prepares itself for its apparition - an apparition which is always seen as a ‘birth’.
72
We find that the same idea is discussed by the Egyptologist Selim Hassan, who wrote that
. . . as the sun rises and purifies himself in the Horizon, the stars Orion and Sothis (Sirius), with whom the King is identified, are enveloped by the Duat. This is a true observation of nature, and it really appears as though the stars are swallowed up each morning in the increasing glow of the dawn. Perhaps the determinative of the word Duat, the star within a circle, illustrates the idea of this enveloping of the star. When on his way to join the stars, the dead king must first pass by (or through) the Duat which will serve to guide him in the right direction. Thus we see in Utterance 610 [of the Pyramid Texts]: ‘The Duat guides your feet to the Dwelling-place of Orion . . . The Duat guides your hand to the Dwelling-place of Orion.’
73
As we have already seen in Chapter Two, we also have the statement from the Carlsberg Papyrus I (
c
. 1300-1150 BC) which proclaims that,
c
. 1300-1150 BC) which proclaims that,
Orion and Sirius, who are the first of the gods, that is to say they customarily spend 70 days in the Duat [and they rise] again . . . it is in the east that they celebrate their first feast . . . Their burial takes place like those of men . . . that is to say, they are the likeness of the burial-days which are for men today . . . 70 days which they pass in the embalming-house . . . its duration in the Duat indeed takes place. It is the taking place of its duration in the Duat . . . every one of the stars, that is to say 70 days . . . this is what is done by dying. This one which sets is the one which does this . . .’
74
Notwithstanding the staunch opposition to the Orion Correlation Theory by Egyptologists, to open-minded readers the question is obvious: could all this textual and architectural evidence mean that the vast region that contained the pyramids and temples of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties be a model, as it were, of the starry Duat?
The idea of developing a huge sacred landscape into an earthly model of the starry Duat is certainly mind-boggling, but it is precisely the kind of idea with which the ancient pyramid-builders of Egypt would have challenged themselves. Could the persistent Hermetic claim that ‘Egypt was made in the image of heaven’ be true after all?
The pyramid-builders were not just interested in Orion per se, but more particularly the 70 days that it spent in the underworld Duat, i.e. from its last setting in the west at dusk (heliacal setting) to its first rising in the east at dawn (heliacal rising). With modern astronomical computers it is a relatively easy matter to demonstrate that in the Pyramid Age those 70 days were bracketed between 21 March and 1 June (Gregorian). During this period Orion was ‘invisible’ in the Duat, but the sun was not. For the latter was seen travelling through this mysterious region in daytime from a point just below the Pleiades (Right Ascension 24h 00′) to a point in front of Leo (Right Ascension 4h 30′). A further three weeks saw the heliacal rising of the star Sirius as it, too, now emerged from the tenebrous region of the underworld Duat. This takes us to 21 June, the summer solstice. The sun had now travelled to a point between the paws of Leo (Right Ascension 6h 00′). The entrance to the Duat can thus be said to be just under the Pleiades, and its exit in the paws of Leo. Let us for the moment accept that the sun temple of Ra-Horakhti at Heliopolis represents the constellation of Leo, the ‘house’ of the sun at the summer solstice. Let us also hold the thought that the three Giza pyramids may, indeed, be a representation of the three stars of Orion’s belt on the ground. Comparing sky and ground maps, we can easily see on the sky map that the sun’s position as it enters the region of the Duat is at a point just below the small cluster of stars called the Pleiades, and projecting this on to the ground map shows that it roughly corresponds to the position of the sun temples of Abu Ghorab, just ‘below’ the small cluster of Fifth Dynasty pyramids at Abusir.
75
If this is correct, then the line of sight between the sun temples of Abu Ghorab and the sun temple of Heliopolis must, by necessity, represent the ecliptic path along which the sun disc has to travel in the Duat from entrance to exit, i.e. from 21 March to 21 June, during that period when both Orion and Sirius reside in the underworld Duat - and in Pyramid Texts parlance, when Isis performs the magical rituals on Osiris (the dead king) to bring him back to life.
75
If this is correct, then the line of sight between the sun temples of Abu Ghorab and the sun temple of Heliopolis must, by necessity, represent the ecliptic path along which the sun disc has to travel in the Duat from entrance to exit, i.e. from 21 March to 21 June, during that period when both Orion and Sirius reside in the underworld Duat - and in Pyramid Texts parlance, when Isis performs the magical rituals on Osiris (the dead king) to bring him back to life.
Let us now test this hypothesis with facts and figures.
The site of Abu Ghorab is in the desert fringing the west side of the Nile Valley and some ten kilometres south-east of Giza. You can drive to a spot adjacent to it on a road that runs along an old canal, then carry on on foot through a farm that leads into the desert. Alternatively you can walk to it from the nearby pyramids of Abusir. The site has been closed due to restoration, but since there are no fences it is not too difficult to visit the sun temples off the record, so to speak. Of the two temples that remain, only one, that of Niussera, is really worth seeing. The other is in a pitiful state of ruin, looking more like a builder’s dump than a temple. The sun temple of Niussera is basically a large, squat rectangular structure on which once stood a massive obelisk or tower estimated to have been 36 metres high and probably crowned with a polished metal disc to reflect the sunlight. From this slightly elevated vantage point, when there was none of the pollution that plagues the horizon these days, visibility must have been possible to the northern tip of the Muqattam Hills and all the way to Heliopolis beyond. On the eastern side of the rectangular base is a massive alabaster altar whose four sides face the cardinal directions and whose main axis runs east-west. Strewn all around are weird large stone tubs which were probably used to collect the blood of sacrificed animals.
76
76
Other books
The Spiral Path by Mary Jo Putney
Osprey Island by Thisbe Nissen
Twenty-Past Three by Sarah Gibbons
Caza de conejos by Mario Levrero
An Inconvenient Desire by Alexia Adams
In My Hood by Endy
Hating Olivia: A Love Story by Mark Safranko
Never Trust a Dead Man by Vivian Vande Velde
The Waters of Kronos by Conrad Richter
The Poetry of Sex by Sophie Hannah