An Answer Written
in the Stars
That an astronomical method was used to orient the pyramids
received strong, if unexpected, support in the 1980s when
historians discovered that among most of the Giza pyramids,
the departure of a pyramid's eastern edge from a true
north–south line correlated strongly with the
accession date of the king for whom each was constructed.
Which is to say that the direction of north as determined by
the Egyptian method varied systematically as the centuries
went by. The ready explanation for this is once again
precession of the equinoxes: The early Egyptians must have
applied some method of using the stars to find the north
celestial pole without realizing that the pole is not fixed,
but rather drifts slowly through the heavens.
In
November 2000, Kate Spence, an Egyptologist at the University of
Cambridge, published a seminal paper in Nature in which
she suggested a method by which the pyramid builders
determined what they thought was north. She also showed that
the resulting orientation errors varied as a function of
time—just as predicted by precession. Moreover, by
fitting the time–linked precession errors to the
slight deviations of each pyramid, she revised their
building dates. Instead of 2554 B.C., her data suggest the
Great Pyramid was constructed between 2485 and 2475 B.C.
The method proposed by Spence involved two stars on
opposite sides of the celestial pole. She had to choose them
by trial and error, since the pole drifts into different
star fields as millennia pass. For the period of interest,
Spence found that the stars named Mizar (Zeta Ursa Majoris)
and Kochab (Beta Ursa Minoris) would have appeared to
revolve around the pole on almost (but not exactly) opposite
sides, so that a line joining them would always pass very
nearly through the pole. When these two were aligned vertically,
the pyramid builders might have hoisted a long plumb line
and fixed it at the moment when the two stars both lay on
the line. The point where the vertical line touched the
ground would indicate north.
One idiosyncrasy of this
method was that because these two stars were circumpolar
(they never set), they could be seen from Egypt
year–round. Thus, at some date during the year Kochab
would have appeared above Mizar at meridian transit (when
they would have been vertically aligned), but six months
later Mizar would have topped Kochab. Early in the pyramid
era, the pole was really slightly west (or east, depending
on which star was uppermost at the time) of the line.
Because of precession, the opposite was true late in the
era. Support for Spence's theory came from two pyramids whose
deviation from true north was of the expected magnitude but
opposite sign. The explanation was that all the pyramids
except these two had been set during the time of year when
Kochab was above Mizar—these two must have been set
six months later (or earlier), when Mizar surmounted
Kochab.
Like many groundbreaking papers, this one quickly
became the center of arguments and proposed improvements.
Spence accepted a small but significant correction by
extending the pole displacement to an azimuthal
displacement, but she seems not to have been enthused by
other proposals to use different stars in a different way. The
method still has some practical problems. For one, the plumb
line would have to be very long to reach high enough to be
seen against the upper star, especially because the observer
would need to be far away from the line to achieve
sufficient accuracy. And it would have been difficult to see
the line at all against a dark sky. Nevertheless, the
explanation for the two pyramids with errors of reversed
sign supports the basic idea. As centuries went by and the
errors grew, later builders may have realized the problem and
abandoned the method or used different stars. Thus, the failure
of Spence's scheme among later pyramids is not necessarily a
valid critique. My own inexpert view is that whether she is
proved right or wrong, Spence's basic idea marks a major
breakthrough in dating these pyramids.