Multi-star target model for astronomical orientation of the old kingdom Egyptian pyramids

	Manetho (Afri- canus)	Manetho (Euse- bius)	Turin King List	Karnak King List	Abydos King List	Saqqara Tablet
9th Dyn.	Number of kings	19	4	-	-	-	-
	Duration	409	100	-	-	-	-
10th Dyn.	Number of kings	19	19	-	-	-	-
	Duration	185	185	-	-	-	-
Total number of kings	38	23	18	-	-	-
Total duration	594	285	(lost)	-	-	-

Table 4. Data on the number of kings and the duration of the 9^th - 10^th Dynas- ties according to ancient sources.

There are two models of the First Intermediate Period (FIP), re- flecting two different views of this period: a “short model” based on the arguments of the chronologists, and a “long model” followed Manetho's data. The conventional “short model” of the FIP - and, consequently, conventional dates of the Old Kingdom and all earlier periods - is based on the following three rationales:

1) J. Málek suggests that the division of a single line of the Herak- leopolitan kings into two separate dynasties could have oc- curred because of a misunderstanding when copying chrono- logical documents⁶². If this is the case, then Manetho's 9^th Dy- nasty turns out to be fictitious and should be ignored.

2) J. von Beckerath reduced Manetho's 185 years for the 10^th Dy- nasty to 100-150 years due to the small quantity of archaeo- logical finds datable to this period [Beckerath 1997, 144].

3) Evidence suggests that the kings of the 10^th and 11^th Dynasties ruled in parallel for some time over different parts of the coun- try. The length of the parallel reign is estimated from 87 to 114 years (100 years on average), hence, the duration of the Herakleopolitan Dynasty before the beginning of the Theban kingdom is reduced by an average of 100 years⁶³.

Of the three rationales, the third is convincing; the first seems dis- putable⁶⁴; and the second is clearly unreliable, as S. Seidlmayer [2006, 165] rightly pointed out, sparse material heritage, in itself, cannot be unequivocal proof of the short duration of the period. If we adjust Manetho's figures according to the first and third arguments, then the Herakleopolitans could have ruled up to a full century before

a) 4 king names in Col.7 correspond to 4 Eusebius's kings of the 9^th Dynasty;

b) a total of 18 king names in Col.7 and Col.8 correspond to 19 Eusebius's kings of the 10^th Dynasty. If so, the division of a single line of 18 kings into two dynasties is associated with a shift in the column and 4 kings in Col.7 are counted twice. As for Africanus's data, the number of the 9^th Dynasty kings duplicates the number of the 10^th Dynasty kings.

the beginning of the Theban Dynasty (as opposed to the conventional 30 years), and there is substantial evidence⁶⁵ to support this.

It should also be added that to eliminate uncertainty of a chronol- ogy under study, synchronisms with other chronologies and astro- nomical (lunar and stellar) synchronisms are used. The earliest cogent synchronism⁶⁶ in Egyptian history is dated back to the 18^th century BCE and thus took place after the period of interest to us. The earliest⁶⁷ more or less accurately dated astronomical event is the above-mentioned observation of the heliacal rise of Sirius, dated back to the reign of Senusret III of the 12^th Dynasty. All earlier pe- riods of Egyptian history have no synchronisms and, therefore, the dates for them are calculated solely by summing up the duration of the reigns from the incomplete and inconsistent ancient royal lists, corrected on the basis of the attested inscriptional dates of any partic- ular king. Thus, the Old Kingdom still remains chronologically unre- solved, with conventional chronology favoring the lower end of the possible date range.

Given the above, it can be concluded that there are no compel- ling arguments against a substantial increase of the length of the FIP, and its longer duration is confirmed by Manetho's data on the 10^th Dynasty and tangible evidence. But the difference of a little more than one century with the predictions of the proposed model remains, and at the moment it is difficult to explain it using material or textual evidence. However, the results of radiocarbon dating (see the next section) indicate that all discrepancies can be attributed to an underestimation of the duration of the FIP, so Manetho's figure for the total length of the Herakleopolitan rule may be of historical value.

A brief study of the results of radiocarbon dating

At the turn of the millennium, there was a large-scale study by Bonani et al. [2001, 1297-1320] that demonstrated an underestima- tion of the age of most Old Kingdom structures in the conventional chronology by about two centuries. An unprecedented number of 450 samples have been taken from sites dating from the Early Dynastic

and low chronologies respectively (see [Depuydt 2000, 172-184]). It is as- sumed that the dates of the moveable wAg feast were determined by the lunar calendar and took place on the 18^th lunar day, therefore, the authors assume the latest possible heliacal rise of Sirius at III A?t 10, which gives about 2495 BCE [arcus visionis 9-10°] for Neferefre's Year 1 in their minimum high chronology. But this implies the celebration of the moveable wAg in the first lunar month after the heliacal rising of Sirius, although data from the Illahun archive indicate that it was celebrated in the second month [Krauss 1985, 86-94; Luft 1994, 41]. If, by analogy with Illahun, it took place in the se- cond month, then the resulting chronology must be shifted into the past by 120 years or more, depending on the rule (unclear to us) for establishing the date of the moveable wAg during the OK.

Although this study mainly analyzed charcoal, for which the in- built age of wood (growth age plus storage age⁶⁸) must be taken into account, three important details deserve attention:

1) Mixed results for simultaneous (temple and pyramid of Userkaf; Fig. 13, monuments 19 and 20) or successive buildings (1^st Dy- nasty tombs; Fig. 13, monuments 1-5) with small associated

sample sets indicate the need to analyze larger sets to reduce the influence of hard-to-identify irrelevant material (e.g., buil- ding/restoration activity in short time after the original con- struction event; reuse of some wood; etc.).

2) The age of most monuments is so much older than expected (in many cases, the expected dates are far outside the calibrated ranges for the large sample sets), that discrepancies cannot be attributed to the inbuilt age of wood (see below).

3) Both 12^th Dynasty pyramids (Senusret II, Amenemhet III; Fig. 13, monuments 29 and 30) produce similar results that are in good agreement with the expected dates, that is, after the problematic 9^th - 10^th Dynasties (see previous section), the re- sults coincide well with expectations. A securely dated Sothic “anchor” for the Middle Kingdom exists, and for the pyramids of this period the results agree with expectations, while lacking any anchors for earlier monuments, for which the results and expectations do not match.

In 2009 Dee et al. re-analyzed Bonani's et al. data and modelled the end boundaries (completion date of construction) to estimate the age of the 4^th Dynasty, the most problematic in the original publica- tion. This approach, which was designed to take into account the in- built age of wood and the own age of the monuments, shifted the results to the expected dates. According to the authors' logic, the average inbuilt age of wood is equal to the difference between the average age of the sample set and the date of completion of the cor- responding building. Having modelled 4^th Dynasty dates close to those expected, the authors did not report the average inbuilt age of wood for their model output. Here, they are listed:

Pyramid of the 4th Dynasty	Avg. age of samples69, 14C BP	Number of samples	End boundary estimate70, cal BCE (1ó)	End boundary estimate, 14C BP	Avg. inbuilt age of wood, 14C years
Meidum	4110 ± 23	7	2609-2533	4065 ± 23	45
Bent	4133 ± 41	2	2618-2530	4050 ± 41	83
Khufu	4157 ± 10	44	2559-2518	4045 ± 10	112



Djedefre	4229 ± 22	11	2550-2497	4025 ± 22	204
Khafre	4173 ± 13	24	2527-2463	3975 ± 13	198
Menkaure	4127 ± 11	30	2456-2370	3940 ± 11	187

Table 5. The average inbuilt age of wood for Dee's et al. [2009] model out- put. The ¹⁴C age of each end boundary has been estimated in Calib 8.1.0 by using corresponding calibrated date range.

The average inbuilt age of wood for the largest sample sets (pyra- mids of Giza) reaches values from 100 to 200 ¹⁴C years. It is difficult to accept that materials of such significant average inbuilt age could be used for all these monuments (although the ¹⁴C years do not corre- spond exactly to the calendar years, this would nevertheless suggest the construction of the pyramids of Giza mostly using centuries-old trees). The underestimation of the age of the 4^th Dynasty buildings in the study becomes clear. Thus, the end boundary approach disguised, rather than solved, the “old wood” problem by moving the excess of the age of the samples into the inbuilt age of wood.

There is also a study by Bronk Ramsey et al. [2010], which is based on short-lived plant remains such as seeds, plant-based textiles, plant stems, etc. taken from museum collections⁷¹. Although the chro- nology modelled by the team is consistent with the conventional chronology, the dating of the Old Kingdom due to the significant shortage⁷² of samples from this period is of limited value. The authors did not include Bonani's et al. data on short-lived materials (37 OK samples in total), and used only their own small dataset with most of the dates belonging to Djoser[/Khasekhemwy]. They also introduced information on reign lengths (except for the FIP) and created a com- bined model for the Old and Middle Kingdoms (see the OxCal code in their Table S5) due to uncertainty in the length of the FIP.

When analyzing this study, attention should be paid to the fact that most of the Old Kingdom dates (11 out of 13, outliers excluded) be- long to Djoser[/Khasekhemwy] (9 dates) and Sneferu (2 dates), for which the discrepancies between the results and expectations are minimal (see Fig. 13). At the same time, the most problematic period, including the reigns of Khufu, Djedefre, Khafre, Menkaure, whose monuments have the largest deviations according to Bonani et al., is not represented in the Oxford model. Thus, this chronological model of the Old Kingdom, based on an incomplete dataset does not rest on a firm foundation.

Comparison of Bonani's et al. and Bronk Ramsey's et al. data on short-lived samples, show that the data are variable and therefore two opposite models can be created on their basis. The Oxford model, which supports the conventional Old Kingdom dates and the “short model” of the FIP, is created on several radiocarbon dates matching expectations. In contrast to the Oxford model, the “older model”, which supports Manetho's “long model” of the FIP, and older dates of the Old Kingdom, can be built on data of the short-lived materials by Bonani et al. (Sekhemkhet - 2 dates, Djedefre - 7 dates, Shep- seskaf - 3 dates, Teti - 6 dates; see Table 6). While the Oxford model largely ignores odd, post-Sneferu dates (single dates for Djedkare and Pepi I are not sufficient), Djoser's dates in the framework of the “ol- der model” can be explained by the peculiarities of the collection⁷³ and analysis⁷⁴ of the samples.

Since then, there have been no large-scale studies on radiocarbon dating of the Old Kingdom. The review of the main studies reveals that the collection of Old Kingdom radiocarbon data consists mainly of Bonani's et al. charcoal dates (189), the majority of which are so much older than expected that they cannot be explained by the inbuilt age of wood. Modern radiocarbonists tend to dismiss Bonani's et al. data and have focused on a few dates (17 [4 outliers]) from the Ox-

ford model, now considered standard. These dates are less than a third of the dataset of short-lived samples from the 3^rd - 8^th Dynasties (only Bonani et al. and Bronk Ramsey et al. give a total of 54 dates), but they are favored because of their consistency with the generally ac- cepted age estimates for this period.

Below (Table 6) is a comparison of the proposed model for the pyramids of the 3^rd - 6^th Dynasties with their calibrated date ranges derived from Bonani's et al. short-lived samples.

Pyramid	Average age, 14C BP	Number of short- lived samples75	Calibrated date range, BCE	Start of con- struction date by multi-star target model, BCE
			1ó (68%)	2ó (95%)
			from	to	from	to
Djoser	4120 ± 25	5	2850	2625	2866	2578	2899 ± 5
Sekhem- khet	4217 ± 58	2	2902	2696	2918	2587	2880 ± 5
Djedefre	4169 ± 26	7	2875	2697	2881	2633	2787 ± 5
Shepseskaf	4209 ± 35	3	2890	2703	2901	2670	2724 ± 5
Teti	4111 ± 21	6	2846	2583	2859	2577	2566 ± 5

Table 6. Comparison of the calibrated ranges (Calib 8.1.0) with the expecta- tions of the proposed model.

The proposed model predicts ranges that fall within the 1-sigma calibrated date ranges in three out of five cases. The data reveal mi- nor internal inconsistencies, and expectations for the monuments of Djoser and Teti are slightly outside the ranges (higher and lower, respectively), likely due to an insufficient number of associated samples. The following graphs summarize astronomical, radiocar- bon (1ó ranges), and historical estimates for the sites corresponding to the two largest sets in Table 6, Djedefre (Fig. 14a) and Teti (Fig. 14b).

The graphs show that in both cases, the historical estimates are far from the calibrated date ranges, while the predictions of the pro- posed multi-star target model fit them much better. The date matches indicate that the data on the radiocarbon age of the Old Kingdom monuments are compatible⁷⁶ with the predictions of the proposed hy- pothesis, and that the chronological discrepancies for this period can be attributed to an underestimation of the duration of the FIP.

To summarize the last two sections, then, there is an uncertainty about the age of the Old Kingdom by circa 70 years (up to 170 years if the 9^th Dynasty is real) due to different estimates of the duration of the FIP; and the historical expectations and results of radiocarbon dating for the buildings of this period differ mainly by 100-300 years, with both chronologists and radiocarbonists preferring the lower end of the possible date range. Both arguments support each other with respect to the past, and, more or less, by value. At the same time, they are supported by our findings, which suggest that the Old Kingdom must be shifted back in time by about two centuries (2810 ± 5 BCE, if Khufu's pyramid was oriented toward Thuban vs. Shaw's estimate of 2588 BCE).

The puzzle of Khafre

As seen in the high-resolution azimuth graph (Fig. 4), the data of the pyramid of Khafre do not fit the trend line for the 4^th Dynasty py- ramids. K. Spence demonstrated that Khafre's azimuth fit the main trend line after changing its sign. To justify the sign reversal, she sug- gested that the orientation ritual for this pyramid was conducted in the season opposite to the conventional one. As previously discussed, the “balanced” position of Meskhetiu was apparently sacred. No de- viation from it must be assumed in the orientation rituals for pyra- mids. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the builders made room for[Grimal 1992, 389]).

such a deviation from the orientation norm ritually established by switching to the lower culmination of the asterism. The orientation of Khafre's pyramid thus remains unexplained.

W. M. F. Petrie, reported⁷⁷ the following about Khufu's pyramid: the core has an average azimuth of -05? 16?? ± 20??; the casing has an average azimuth of -03? 43?? ± 12??; the descending passage has an azimuth of -03? 44?? ± 10?? for its entire length and an azimuth of

-05? 49?? ± 7?? for the part built inside the masonry. If these figures are accurate, then given similar azimuths, the construction of the pyramid can be divided into two stages: 1) construction of the core (-05? 16??) and the descending passage (-05? 49??) inside the masonry;

2) construction of the casing (-03? 43??) and the adjustment of the re- sulting azimuth of the descending passage (-03? 44??) by cutting its rock part.

Pyramid	Azimuth (E side), arcmin.	Azimuth (W side), arcmin.	Azimuth (passage), arcmin.
Khufu (1st stage)	-5.4	-5.7	-5.8
Khufu (2nd stage)	-4.0 (-3.4)	-3.9 (-3.7)	-3.7
Khafre	-6.2 (-4.0)	-4.4 (-4.2)	-5.6

Table 7. Data on the azimuths of the sides and descending passages of the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre according to Petrie⁷⁸; data in parentheses ac- cording to Nell and Ruggles⁷⁹.

It can be seen that not only are the casing sides of these two pyra- mids oriented identically, but their descending passages also have a strikingly identical alignment. The proposed model does not explain why the data for these two pyramids coincide. However, previously proposed hypotheses may help in this regard. They are summarized here followed by a brief commentary:

1) Hypothesis of copying of the alignment. The author D. Rawlins [2003, 3] formulates it as follows: “[…] there was no need to celestially orient Khafre's pyramid independently, since its east side (casing) is (deliberately?) almost exactly twice as near the west side of Khufu's Great Pyramid as the Khufu pyramid's W&E sides are to each other. [fn.3] So, for an ancient Egyptian surveyor, orienting the Khafre pyramid by simple geometry (i.e., non-celestially) from the N-S line of the Khufu pyramid's west side was no harder than internally orienting a side of either pyramid from its own opposite […]” Copying the align- ment of Khufu's west side would have been a serious violation of the prescribed acts of the foundation ceremony, one of which, the “stretching of the cord” rite, involved stellar orien- tation. If copying were admissible, one would expect Menkaure to copy Khafre's alignment, but this is not the case.

2) Hypothesis of the change of Khufu pyramid's position. The au- thor O. Kruglyakov [2016, 2] formulates it as follows: “During the reign of Khufu and for his burial, stellar orientation and marking of the construction site on a hill was carried out. But after marking the square, maybe even after laying the founda- tion, the builders changed their minds for some reason, stopped work there, abandoned this site and built a pyramid for Khufu to the north-east, where we see it today. And only after the death of Djedefre, with the reign of Khafre, a pyramid was erected for him on that long-abandoned foundation.” Azimuth data testify in favor of the marking up of both pyramids very close in time (Thuban's -5? epoch), so the change of plans should have occurred at the earliest stages of work. Within the proposed hypothesis, two key questions need to be answered:

a) what significant reason could have forced Khufu to move from the gentle part of the hill to a new site perilously close to the steep northeast terrace? b) why Khafre's architects could use the old Khufu's markup although it has already lost its re- levance⁸⁰?

3) Hypothesis of Khufu's double project. The authors M. Shal- tout, J. Belmonte and M. Fekri [2007b, 417-419] formulate it as follows: “[…] the Sphinx and the two large pyramids, the associated temples and the large necropolis for the other mem- bers of the royal family may have formed part of a single mas- ter plan to reproduce on Earth the name of the funerary complex of Queops, Akhet Khufu, the Horizon of Khufu [the authors mean the implementation in the monumental architec- ture of the N27 sign - the sun disk between two mountains (= pyramids)]. Presumably Khufu was unable to finish such a huge project during his reign of some 23 years, and the unfi- nished, or perhaps even merely outlined, second pyramid of the group might have been “usurped” and finished by his son Khafre a few years later […]” Further study by G. Magli [2016] presented a list of clues supporting this hypothesis, while Shaltout's et al. basic idea was never valid⁸¹. Magli raised some interesting questions, but a detailed review of them is beyond the scope of the current study. This option seems to have an advantage over the others, but the issue needs to be reassessed.



Conclusions

A comparison of the azimuth data of the pyramids and data on the precessional drift of circumpolar stars in the sacred “balanced” posi- tion of the Meskhetiu (Big Dipper) asterism led to the discovery of a comprehensive pattern that explains the orientation of twelve Old Kingdom pyramids from Djoser to Unas. The discovery of trends with similar gradients in the pyramids' azimuth data indicates that the monuments were oriented toward different stars in the same position of the sky. This find demonstrates that the “imperishable stars” were the goals themselves, thereby refuting the commonly held belief about the orientation of the 4^th Dynasty pyramids to the cardinal points, which arose due to the proximity of the direction to true north and the direction to one of the stars (the pole star) chosen by the Egyptians to orient the pyramids.

The persuasive regularity discovered permits the conclusion that the age of the Old Kingdom in the conventional Egyptian chronology has been underestimated by more than two centuries, or, more accu- rately stated, 222 ± 5 years older than Shaw's estimates. An analysis of the results of radiocarbon dating, and a comparison of reconstruc- tions of the Egyptian chronology shows that older dates of the Old Kingdom are more consistent with the ancient chronological sources, and with radiocarbon-determined ages of the monuments from this period. It is important to note that radiocarbon data indicate the con- struction of the two big pyramids of Giza during a unique astronomi- cal event - the closest approach to the celestial Pole of the Old Kingdom pole star, Thuban (á Dra). The proposed orientation meth- od is straight-forward, and comports well with what is known about the astronomical knowledge and abilities of the Egyptians at that time. Thus, it is not necessary to invoke a sophisticated, as yet un- discovered method to orient the foundation of Khufu's pyramid relative to the cardinal points, since its remarkably accurate orien- tation is only a consequence of the special properties of the chosen reference star, in this case the pole star.

The hypothesis about the orientation of the Old Kingdom pyra- mids toward selected circumpolar stars in the sacred position of Meskhetiu still needs to be verified by more azimuth data, and there- fore only future, accurate examinations of pyramids' orientations will confirm or refute the conclusions drawn. The “puzzle of Khafre”, lacking an explanation from within the framework of the proposed model, requires further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Manu Seyfzadeh for improving the text of this paper; Irina V. Tupikova for drawing my attention to the problem of the accuracy of astronomical software; Timofei T. Shamakov and Maxim V. Panov for bettering the transliteration and translation of the inscriptions. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who contributed significantly to the improvement of the manuscript with their valuable comments.

January 2021 - February 2022, Dnipro, Ukraine November 2022 (revision of the sections on chronology and radio-carbon dating)

ABBREVIATIONS

BdÉBibliothèque d'Étude, Institut français d'archéologie orientale. Le Caire.

BIFAO Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale. Cairo.

GMGöttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion.

Göttingen.

JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. Boston,

Princeton, New York, and Cairo.

JEAJournal of Egyptian Archaeology. London.

JHAJournal for the History of Astronomy.

JNESJournal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago.

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Mainz, Cairo, Berlin, and Wiesbaden.

MMAF Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique

française au Caire. Paris.

ZÄSZeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Berlin and

Leipzig.



REFERENCES

1. Arnold D. (1991), Building in Egypt. Pharaonic Stone Masonry, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

2. Arquier B. (2020), “La Grande Ourse et les Constellations du Nord: Une Typologie”, Journal of the Hellenic Institute of Egyptolo- gy, 3, pp. 1-10.

3. Bauval R. (1993), “Cheop's Pyramid: A New Dating Using the Latest Astronomical Data”, Discussions in Egyptology, 26, pp. 5-6.

4. Beckerath J. von (1962), “The Date of the End of the Old King- dom of Egypt”, JNES, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 140-7.

5. Beckerath J. von (1966), “Die Dynastie der Herakleopoliten

6. (9./10. Dynastie)”, ZÄS, Bd. 94, pp. 13-20.

7. Beckerath J. von (1997), Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten, von Zabern, Mainz.

8. Belmonte J. (2001), “On the Orientation of Old Kingdom

9. Egyptian Pyramids”, Archaeoastronomy, Vol. 32 (26), pp. S1-20.

10. Belmonte J. and Shaltout M. (eds) (2009), In Search of Cosmic Order: Selected Essays on Egyptian Archaeoastronomy, American University in Cairo Press, Cairo.

11. Bomhard, A. -S. von (2012), “Ciels d'Égypte. Le `ciel du sud' et le `ciel du nord' ”, Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne, T. 5, pp. 73-102.

12. Bonani G., Haas H., Hawass Z., Lehner M., Nakhla S., Nolan J., Wenke R. and Wölfli W. (2001), “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt”, Radiocarbon, Vol. 43 (3), pp. 1297-320.

13. Borchardt L. (1899), “Ein altägyptisches astronomisches Instru- ment”, ZÄS, Bd. 37, pp. 10-7.

14. Borchardt L. (1900), “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen bei Abusir im Winter 1899/1900. I. Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-woser-re”, ZÄS, Bd. 38, pp. 94-100.

15. Borchardt L. (1937), Längen und Richtungen der vier Grundkan- ten der grossen Pyramide bei Gise, J. Springer, Berlin.

16. Breasted J. (1906-1907), Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, colle- cted, edited, and translated, with Commentary, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

17. Bronk Ramsey C., Dee M., Rowland J., Higham T., Harris S., Brock F., Quiles A., Wild E., Marcus E. and Shortland A. (2010), “Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt”, Science, No. 328(5985), pp. 1554-7.

18. Brovarski E. (1989), “The Inscribed Material of the First Interme- diate Period from Naga-ed-Dêr”, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89 (4), pp. 581-4.

19. Brugsch H. (1880a), Hieroglyphisch-demotisches Wörterbuch, Bd. 5, Leipzig.

20. Brugsch,H. (1880b), Hieroglyphisch-demotisches Wörterbuch, Bd. 6, Leipzig.

21. Bruins H. and Plicht J. (2001), “Radiocarbon Challenges Archaeo- Historical Time Frameworks in the Near East: the Early Bronze Age of Jericho in Relation to Egypt”, Radiocarbon, Vol. 43 (3), pp. 1321-32.

22. Cauville S. (2007), “Dendara”, T. XII (I), Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire.

23. Chassinat E. (1918), “Le temple d'Edfou”, T. II, MMAF, 11, Insti- tut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire.

24. Chassinat E. (1928), “Le temple d'Edfou”, T. III, MMAF, 20, In- stitut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire.

25. Chassinat E. (1932), “Le temple d'Edfou”, T. VII, MMAF, 24, In- stitut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire.

26. Chassinat E. (1934), “Le temple d'Edfou”, T XII, MMAF, 29, In- stitut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire.

27. Clagett M. (1995), Ancient Egyptian Science, Volume II: Calendars, Clocks and Astronomy, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Clayton P. (1994), Chronicle of the pharaohs, Thames and Hud-

28. son, London.

29. Dash G. (2013), “How the pyramid builders may have found their true north”, AERAGRAM, No. 14, pp. 8-14.

30. Dash G. (2015), “Simultaneous Transit and Pyramid Alignments: Were the Egyptians' Errors in Their Stars or in Themselves?”, availa- ble at: http://glendash.com/downloads/archaeology/working-papers/ Simultaneous_Transit.pdf (accessed 28 December 2019).

31. Dash G. (2017), “Occam's Egyptian razor: the equinox and the alignment of the pyramids”, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architec- ture, No. 2, pp. 1-8.

32. De Lorenzis A. and Orofino V. (2018), “Comparison of astronomi- cal software programs for archaeoastronomical applications”, Astro- nomy and Computing, No. 25, pp. 118-32.

33. Dee M., Ramsey Ñ., Shortland A., Higham T. and Rowland J. (2009), “Reanalysis of the Chronological Discrepancies Obtained by the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments Project”, Radiocarbon, Vol. 51 (3), pp. 1061-70.

34. Dee M., Wengrow D., Shortland A., Stevenson A., Brock F., Gird- land Flink L. and Bronk Ramsey C. (2013), “An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling”, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. 469 (2159).

35. Depuydt L. (1998), “Ancient Egyptian Star Clocks and Their Theory”, Bibliotheca Orientalis, T. 55, pp. 5-44.

36. Depuydt L. (2000), “Sothic Chronology and the Old Kingdom”,

37. JARCE, Vol. 37, pp. 167-86.

38. Dorner J. (1981), Die Absteckung und astronomische Orientierung ägyptischer Pyramiden, PhD Thesis, Innsbruck.

39. Dorner J. (1986), “Form und Ausmaße der Knickpyramide. Neue Beobachtungen und Messungen”, MDAIK, Bd. 42, pp. 43-58.

40. Dorner J. (1998), Neue Messungen an der Roten Pyramide. In: Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens: Rainer Stadel- mann gewidmet, von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

41. Dümichen J. (1877), Baugeschichte des Denderatempels und Bes- chreibung der einelen Theile des Bauwerkes, Trübner, Strassburg.

42. Edwards I. E. S. (1947), The Pyramids of Egypt, Penguin Books, London.

43. Engelbach R. (1934), “A Foundation Scene of the Second Dynas- ty”, JEA, Vol. 20 (3/4), pp. 183-4.

44. Erman A. and Grapow H. (eds) (1926), Wörterbuch der aegyp- tischen Sprache, Bd. 1, Leipzig.

45. Erman A. and Grapow H. (eds) (1929), Wörterbuch der aegyp- tischen Sprache, Bd. 3, Leipzig.

46. Erman A. and Grapow H. (eds) (1930), Wörterbuch der aegyp- tischen Sprache, Bd. 4, Leipzig.

47. Fakhry A. (1961), The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur. The val- ley temple. Part I: The temple reliefs, General Organisation for Go- vernment Printing Office, Cairo.

48. Faulkner R. (1966), “The King and the Star-Religion in the Pyra- mid Texts”, JNES, Vol. 25(3), pp. 153-61.

49. Faulkner R. (1991), A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian,

50. Griffith Institute, Oxford.

51. Gadre K. (1998), La Signification Astronomique des Pyramides D'Egypte. L'ordre celeste recree, Maison de Vie, Paris.

52. Gallo C. (1998), L'astronomia egizia. Dalle scoperte archeolo- giche alla misurazione del tempo, Padua.

53. Gardiner A. (1957), Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. 3^rd Ed., Griffith Institute, Oxford.

54. Gautschy R. (2011a), “Monddaten aus dem Archiv von Illahun: Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches”, ZÄS, Bd. 138 (1), pp. 1-19.

55. Gautschy R. (2011b), “Der Stern Sirius im Alten Ägypten”, ZÄS, Bd. 138 (2), pp. 116-31.

56. Gautschy R., Habicht M., Galassi F., Rutica D., Rühli F. and Han- nig R. (2017), “A new astronomically based chronological model for the Egyptian Old Kingdom”, Journal of Egyptian History, Vol. 10 (2), pp. 69-108.

57. Gensler F. (1872), Die Thebanischen Tafeln stündlicher Sternauf- gänge. Aus den Gräbern der Könige Ramses VI. und Ramses IX. für die 24 halbmonatlichen Epochen des Jahres 1262/61 v. Chr., nach in- ductiver Methode erklärt von Dr. Friedrich W. C. Gensler, Leipzig.

58. Goyon G. (1974), “Kerkasôre et l'ancien observatoire d'Eudoxe”,

59. BIFAO, T. 74, pp. 135-47.

60. Goyon G. (1976), “Le grand cercle d'or du temple d'Osyman- dyas”, BIFAO, T. 76, pp. 297-300.

61. Greschel J. (1857), Outlines of astronomy, London.

62. Grigoriev S. (2015), “Inclinations of Egyptian Pyramids and Fin- ding of the Divine Essence”, Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Tech- nologies, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 1-27.

63. Grimal N. (1992), A history of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell Publi- shing.

64. Gundacker R. (2006), “Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Herr- schaft Snofrus”. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 22, Wien.

65. Haack S. (1984), “The astronomical orientation of the Egyptian pyramids”, Archaeoastronomy, Vol. 7, pp. 119-25.

66. Haas H., Divine J., Wenke R., Lehner, M., Wolfli W. and Bo- nani G. (1987), “Radiocarbon chronology and the historical calendar in Egypt”, in: Aurenehe O., Evin J. and Hours F. (eds.) Chronologies in the Near East. Relative chronologies and absolute chronology 16,000-4,000 B.P., BAR, Oxford, pp. 585-606.

67. Habicht M., Gautschy R., Siegmann R., Rutica D. and Hannig R. (2015), “A New Sothis Rise on a Small Cylindrical Jar from the Old Kingdom”, GM, Hft. 247, pp. 41-50.

68. Hannig, R. (2009), Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), Mainz, P. von Zabern.

69. Hornung E., Krauss R. and Warburton D. (eds) (2006), Ancient

70. Egyptian Chronology, Brill, Leiden.

71. Isler M. (1989), “An Ancient Method of Finding and Extending Direction”, JARCE, Vol. 26, pp. 191-206.

72. Isler M. (1991a), “The Merkhet”, Varia Aegyptiaca, Vol. 7(1), pp. 53-67.

73. Isler M. (1991b), “The Gnomon in Egyptian Antiquity”, JARCE, Vol. 28, pp. 155-85.

74. Isler M. (2001), Sticks, Stones and Shadows: Building the Egyp- tian Pyramids, University of Oklahoma.

75. Jüngling J. and Höflmayer F. (2023), “Early Dynastic/Old King- dom Egypt and the Early Bronze Age Levant: The History of the 3^rd

76. and 4^th Dynasties and New Radiocarbon Dates in Dialogue”, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, Vol. 37, pp. 191-222.

77. Karkowski J. (2016), “`A Temple Comes to Being'. A Few Com- ments on the Temple Foundation Ritual”, Études et Travaux de Insti- tut des Cultures Méditerranéennes et Orientales de l'Académie Po- lonaise des Sciences, T. 29, pp. 111-23.

78. Keenan D. (2002), “Why early-historical radiocarbon dates down- wind from the Mediterranean are too early”, Radiocarbon, Vol. 44 (1), pp. 225-37.

79. Kitchen K. (1969), Ramesside inscriptions: historical and bio- graphical, Vol. II, Blackwell, Oxford.

80. Kozloff A. (1994), “Star-Gazing in Ancient Egypt”, in: Berger C. et al. (eds), Hommages à Jean Leclant, T. IV, BdÉ, 1061-4, Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire, Le Caire, pp. 169-76.

81. Krauss R. (1985), Sothis- und Monddaten, Studien zur astronomis- chen und technischen Chronologie Altägyptens, Gerstenberg, Hil- desheim.

82. Krauss R. (1996), “The Length of Sneferu's Reign and How Long It Took to Build the `Red Pyramid' ”, JEA, Vol. 82, pp. 43-50.

83. Krauss R. (1998), “Wenn und aber: Das Wag-Fest und die Chro- nologie des Alten Reiches”, GM, Hft. 162, pp. 53-64.

84. Krauss R. (2006a), “¿Las ilusiones perdidas? Recientes intentos en Arqueoastronomia en Egipto”, Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología, T. 16, pp. 101-12.

85. Krauss, R. (2006b), “Egyptian Sirius/Sothic Dates, and the Ques- tion of the Sirius-based Lunar Calendar”, in: Hornung E., Krauss R. and Warburton D. (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Brill, Leiden, pp. 439-57.

86. Krauss R. and Warburton D. (2009), “The basis for the Egyptian dates”, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Vol. 10, pp. 125-44.

87. Kruglyakov O. (2016), “A Khafra vypal...”, available at: https:// cloud.mail.ru/public/uBqK/yYUwnNHyb (accessed 10 November 2019). (In Russian).

88. Krupp E. (1983), Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations, Harper & Row, New York.

89. Lauer J. (1960a), Observations sur les Pyramides, Institut français d'archéologie orientale, Le Caire.

90. Lauer J. (1960b), “Recension. Zbynìk Žába: L'orientation astro- nomique dans l'ancienne Égypte, et la précession de l'axe du mon- de”, BIFAO, T. 60, pp. 171-83.

91. Lauer J. (1962), Histoire monumentale des pyramides d'Égypte. I, Les pyramides à degrés, Institut français d'archéologie orientale, Le Caire.

92. Lehner M. (1996), “Z500 and the Layer Pyramid of Zawiyet el- Aryan”, in: Manuelian P. (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, pp. 506-22.

93. Lehner M. (1997), The Complete Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, London.

94. Lehner M., Nakhla S., Hawass Z., Bonani G., Wolfli W., Haas H., Wenke R., Nolan J., and Wetterstrom W. (1999), “Dating the Pyra- mids”, Archaeology, Vol. 52 (5), pp. 26-33.

95. Leitz C. (1989), Studien zur ägyptischen Astronomie, Ägyptolo- gische Abhandlungen, 49, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

96. Leitz C. (1995), Altägyptische Sternuhren, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 62, Peeters, Leuven.

97. Lexa F. (1950), “Deux notes sur l'astronomie des anciens Égyp- tiens”, Archiv orientální 18 (3), pp. 442-50.

98. Lightbody D. (2020), “Moving heaven and earth for Khufu: Were the Trial Passages at Giza components of a rudimentary stellar observatory?”, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture, No. 4, pp. 29-53.

99. Locher K. (1985), “Probable Identification of the Ancient Egyp- tian Circumpolar Constellations”, Archaeoastronomy 9 (JHA, Vol. 16), pp. S152-3.

100. Luft U. (1994), “The Date of the Wagy Feast: Considerations on the Chronology of the Old Kingdom”, in: Spalinger A. (ed.), Revolu- tions in Time: Studies in Ancient Egyptian Calendars, Van Siclen Books, San Antonio, pp. 39-43.

101. Luft U. (2006), Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynas- tie: Briefe aus Illahun, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.

102. Lull J. (2008), “Meschetiu in der Mythologie und der Orientierung der ägyptischen Tempel”, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, T. 40, pp. 85-92.

103. Magdolen D. (2005), “The Development of the Sign of the An- cient Egyptian Goddess Seshat down to the End of the Old Kingdom: Analysis and Interpretation. Part Two”, Asian and African Studies, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 196-227.

104. Magli G. (2008), “Akhet Khufu: Archaeo-astronomical Hints at a Common Project of the Two Main Pyramids of Giza, Egypt”, Nexus Network Journal: Architecture and Mathematics, Vol. 11, pp. 35-50.

105. Magli G. (2013), Architecture, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape

106. in Ancient Egypt, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

107. Magli G. (2016), “The Giza `written' landscape and the double project of King Khufu”, Time and Mind, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 57-74.

108. Málek J. (1982), “The Original Version of the Royal Canon of Tu- rin”, JEA, Vol. 68, pp. 93-106.

109. Manning S. (2006), “Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronolo- gy”, in: Hornung E., Krauss R., and Warburton D. (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Brill, Leiden, pp. 327-55.

110. Maragioglio V. and Rinaldi C. (1963), L'Architettura delle pirami-

111. di Menfite. Parte II - Addena, Rapallo, Tipografia Artale, Torino.

112. Maravelia A.-A. (2003), “The Stellar Horizon of Khufu: Archaeo- astronomy, Egyptology … and some Imaginary Scenaria”, in: Bi- ckel S. and Loprieno A. (eds), Basel Egyptology Prize 1: Junior Re- search in Egyptian History, Archaeology, and Philology, Aegyptiaca Helvetica, 17, Schwabe, Basel, pp. 55-74.

113. Maravelia A. (2017), “The function and importance of some spe- cial categories of stars in the Ancient Egyptian funerary texts, 1: A?A?- and iAd-stars”, in: Rosati G. and Guidotti M.-C. (eds), Procee- dings of the 11^th International Congress of Egyptologists (Florence, 23-30 August 2015), Archaeopress Egyptology, 19, Archaeopress,

114. Oxford, pp. 368-76.

115. Mathieu B. (2001), “Travaux de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale en 2000-2001”, BIFAO, T. 101, pp. 449-610.

116. McFadgen B. (1982), “Dating New Zealand archaeology by radio- carbon”, New Zealand Journal of Science, Vol. 25, pp. 379-92.

117. McFadgen B., Knox F. and Cole T. (1994), “Radiocarbon calibra- tion curve variations and their implications for the interpretation of New Zealand prehistory”, Radiocarbon, 36, pp. 221-36.

118. Miranda N., Belmonte J. and Molinero M. (2008), “Uncovering Seshat: new insights at the stretching of the cord ceremony”, Ar- chaeologia Baltica, T. 10, pp. 57-61.

119. Monnier F. (2018), “The satellite pyramid of Meidum and the problem of the pyramids attributed to Snefru”, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture, No. 3, pp. 1-23.

120. Montet P. (1964), “Le rituel de fondation des temples égyptien- nes”, Kêmi, No. 17, pp. 74-100.

121. Nell E. and Ruggles C. (2014), “The Orientations of the Giza Py- ramids and Associated Structures”, JHA, Vol. 45 (3), pp. 304-60.

122. Nemes G. (2020), “The mythological importance of the constella- tion Ms?tjw in mortuary representations until the end of the New Kingdom”, Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne, T. 13, pp. 1-61.

123. Neugebauer O. (1980), “On the Orientation of Pyramids”, Cen- taurus, No. 24, pp. 1-3.

124. Neugebauer O. and Parker R. (1960), Egyptian Astronomical Texts I: The Early Decans, Brown University Press, London.

125. Neugebauer O. and Parker R. (1964), Egyptian Astronomical Texts II: The Ramesside Star Clocks, Brown University Press, Lon- don.

126. Neugebauer O. and Parker R. (1969), Egyptian Astronomical Texts III: Decans, Planets, Constellations and Zodiacs, Brown Uni- versity Press, London.

127. Parker R. (1974), “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 276 (1257), pp. 51-65.

128. Parker R. (1977), “The Sothic dating of the Twelfth and Eigh- teenth Dynasties”, in: Studies in honor of George R. Hughes, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 177-89.

129. Parkinson R. (2005), The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith

130. Institute, Oxford.

131. Petrie W. M. F. (1883), The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, Field & Tuer, London.

132. Petrie W. M. F. (1888), A season in Egypt 1887, Field & Tuer, London.

133. Petrie W. M. F. (1892), Medum, Nutt, London.

134. Pogo A. (1930), “The Astronomical Ceiling-Decoration in the Tomb of Senmut (XVIII^th Dynasty)”, Isis, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 301-25.

135. Pogo A. (1931), “Zum Problem der Identifikation der nördlichen

136. Sternbilder der alten Aegypter”, Isis, Vol. 16 (1), pp. 102-14.

137. Pogo A. (1932), “Calendars on Coffin Lids from Asyut (Second

138. Half of the Third Millennium)”, Isis, Vol. 17 (1), pp. 6-24.

139. Polák B. (1952), “Astronomická orientace egyptských chrámù a py- ramid”, Øíše hvìzd 1952(7-10), pp. 150-5, pp. 177-80, pp. 209-23.

140. Puchkov A. (2019), “ `Stretching of the cord' ceremony for astro- nomical orientation of the Old Kingdom pyramids”, available at: https://www.academia.edu/41240818/_Stretching_of_the_cord_ ceremony_for_astronomical_orientation_of_the_Old_Kingdom_ pyramids (accessed 23 February 2022).

141. Rawlins D. (2003), “Giza Monumental Considerations”, DIO -

142. The International Journal of Scientific History, 13 (1), p. 3.

143. Rawlins D. (2019), “Great Pyramid Alignment”, Griffith Obser- ver, Vol. 83 (5), pp. 2-11.

144. Rawlins D. and Pickering K. (2001), “Astronomical orientation of the pyramids”, Nature, 412, p. 699.

145. Relke J. and Ernest A. (2003), “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy: Ursa Major - Symbol of Rejuvenation”, Archaeoastronomy, XVII, pp. 64-80.

146. Renouf Le Page P. (1874), “Calendar of Astronomical Observa- tions found in Royal Tombs of the XXth Dynasty”, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. III, pp. 400-21.

147. Romer J. (2007), The Great Pyramid: Ancient Egypt Revisited, Ruggles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

148. Romieu A. (1902), “Ñalcul de l'heure chez les anciens Egyptiens”, Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptien- nes et assyriennes: pour servir de bullletin à la Mission Française du Caire, 24, pp. 135-42.

149. Rose L. (1994), “The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt to the Early Second Millen- nium: A Reassessment”, JNES, Vol. 53 (4), pp. 237-61.

150. Rossi C. (2007), Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

151. Ryholt K. (2004), “The Turin King-List”, Egypt and the Levant, 14, pp. 135-55.

152. Schaefer B. (2000), “The heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyp- tian chronology”, JHA, Vol. 31(2), pp. 149-55.

153. Seidlmayer S. (1997), “Zwei Anmerkungen zur Dynastie der He- rakleopoliten”, GM, Hft. 157, pp. 81-90.

154. Seidlmayer, S. (2006), “First Intermediate Period”, in: Hornung E., Krauss R. and Warburton D. (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Brill, Leiden, pp. 159-67.

155. Shaltout M. and Belmonte J. (2005), “On the Orientation of An- cient Egyptian Temples (1): Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia”, JHA, Vol. 36 (3), pp. 273-98.

156. Shaltout M., Belmonte J. and Fekri M. (2007a), “On the Orienta- tion of Ancient Egyptian Temples (3): Key Points in Lower Egypt and Siwa Oasis, Part I”, JHA, Vol. 38 (2), pp. 141-60.

157. Shaltout M., Belmonte J. and Fekri M. (2007b), “On the Orienta- tion of Ancient Egyptian Temples (3): Key Points in Lower Egypt and Siwa Oasis, Part II”, JHA, Vol. 38 (4), pp. 413-42.

158. Shaw I. (ed.) (2000), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

159. Smith W. (1965), Interconnections in the ancient Near-East: a study of the relationships between the arts of Egypt, the Aegean, and western Asia, Yale University Press, New Haven.

160. Smyth C. Piazzi (1874), Our inheritance in the Great Pyramid, London.

161. Sowada K. (2009), Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective, Orbis Biblicus et Ori- entalis, 237, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and Academic Press, Fribourg and Göttingen.

162. Spanel D. (1984), “The date of Ankhtifi of Mo'alla”, GM, Hft. 78, pp. 87-94.

163. Spence K. (1997), Orientation in ancient Egyptian royal architec-

164. ture, PhD Thesis, Cambridge.

165. Spence K. (2000), “Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astro- nomical orientation of pyramids”, Nature, No. 408, pp. 320-4.

166. Spence K. (2010), “Establishing direction in early Egyptian buri- als and monumental architecture: Measurement and the spatial link with the `other'”, in: Morley I. and Renfrew C. (eds), The archaeolo- gy of measurement: comprehending Heaven, Earth and time in an- cient societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 170-9.

167. Stadelmann R. (1986), “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alten Rei- ches. Die Länge der Regierung des Snofru”, MDAIK, Bd. 43, pp. 229-40.

168. Tedder C. (2007), “Khufu's Akhet”, available at: https://sites. google.com/site/okadct/khufu'sakhet (accessed 12 January 2022).

169. Thuault S. (2020), “L'herminette et la cuisse, histoire d'un taureau parmi les étoiles”, BIFAO, 120, pp. 411-48.

170. Thurston H. (2003), “On the Orientation of Early Egyptian Pyra- mids”, DIO - The International Journal of Scientific History, 13 (1), pp. 4-11.

171. Verner M. (2006), “Contemporaneous evidence for the relative chronology of Dyns. 4 and 5”, in: Hornung E., Krauss R., and War- burton D. (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Brill, Leiden, pp. 124-43.

172. Ward W. (1971), Egypt and the East Mediterranean World, 2200- 1900 B.C.: Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations During the First Intermediate Period, American University of Beirut, Beirut.

173. Waterbolk H. (1971), “Working with Radiocarbon Dates”, Pro- ceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 37 (2), pp. 15-33.

174. Weinstein J. (1973), Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

175. Wilkinson R. (1991), “New Kingdom Astronomical Paintings and Methods of Finding and Extending Direction”, JARCE, Vol. 28, pp. 149-54.

176. Wilkinson T. (2000), Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt. The Palermo Stone and its associated fragments, Kegan Paul International, London and New York.

177. Zinner E. (1931), Die Geschichte der Sternkunde von den ersten

178. Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Springer, Berlin.

179. Žába Z. (1953), L'orientation astronomique dans l'ancienne Égypte et la précession de l'axe du monde, Editions de l'académie Tchécoslovaque des Sciences, Prague.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru

...