mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== * Original Historical Documents* Entire Outline <#outl> Part BB Part CC To obtain a full copy of my thesis, "The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar", you can apply to the Document Delivery section of the University of Sydney (Australia's') Fisher Library: Thesis . Upon request, the document would be supplied by the Library on microfiche, at a minimum cost of $70.00 (Australian). SOTHIC DATING EXAMINED * THE SOTHIC STAR THEORY OF THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR Sirius or Venus? (A Critical Evaluation)* By DAMIEN F. MACKEY (MA. B PHIL.) October, 1995 Sydney, Australia. This book provides the reader with an abridged version of an MA thesis under the same title that I successfully completed with the University of Sydney in 1993, under the supervision of Dr. Noel Weeks of the Department of History. The examiners passed the thesis on both its historical and its scientific (mainly astronomical) aspects. Examiners' Comments: Examiner 1: "... The Candidate selected a rather difficult topic with very limited contemporary material. As a result, the thesis was directed towards the examination of various suggested explanations of Sothic Theory, contrasting and criticising these various explanations. Such an approach is an integral part in scholarly analytical technique; it is important to show the weaknesses or errors in our understanding of a theory in order to leave our minds free to think of a more acceptable alternative. Mr. Mackey has certainly succeeded in achieving this end, and for this I have no hesitation in recommending the degree of Master of Arts ...". Examiner 2: "... The candidate ... has acquainted himself in a remarkably short time with difficult but crucial works such as the "Egyptian Astronomical Texts" by O. Neugebauer & R. Parker .... The candidate now stands on firmer ground to maintain his former criticisms of traditional opinions but his critical analysis is no longer one sided when examining the opposite view-points. Indeed most get a thrashing ...". Examiner 3: "I understand from the second examiner of the thesis, Dr. R. Grognard, that the scientific, astronomical, aspects of the thesis, which he is best able to judge, are satisfactory. With regards to the Egyptological, historical aspect of the thesis the candidate has also done an acceptable job of presenting the views expounded in the literature which he has consulted ...". OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK PART ONE: INTRODUCTORY SECTION Introduction Chapter One <#c1>: The Foundations of Egyptian Chronology Chapter Two <#c2>: The Development, and Related Astronomy, of the Egyptian Civil Calendar PART TWO: THE SOTHIC THEORY Chapter Three <#c3>: The Sothic Star Theory of Meyer and His Colleagues Chapter Four <#c4>: Some Basic Implications of Meyer's Theory PART THREE (A): PRE-MENOPHRES ERA CITATIONS (i.e. Pre-1320 BC) Chapter Five : The Illahun Papyrus Chapter Six : The Ebers Papyrus Chapter Seven : The Elephantine Stele PART THREE (B): POST-MENOPHRES ERA CITATIONS (i.e. Post-1320 BC) Chapter Eight : The 'Era of Menophres' Chapter Nine : The Decree of Canopus Chapter Ten : The Statement of Censorinus PART FOUR: A CRITIQUE OF MEYER'S SOTHIC THEORY Chapter Eleven : Assessment of Meyer's Theory in General Chapter Twelve : Some Conclusions About Meyer's Theory ADDENDA Appendix A : A Further Explanation of Astronomical Terms Appendix B : Correctly Identifying the Sothic Star Appendix C : The Illahun Lunar Documents BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PART ONE: INTRODUCTORY SECTION INTRODUCTION The dates from the second millennium BC onwards for Egypt, by contrast with those of the other ancient nations, are now widely regarded as being fixed. This is especially true of the period beginning at c.1580 BC; the supposed commencement of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Current historiography tends to divide the world's past conveniently into two great epochs, separated one from another by 1580 BC. It is generally believed that, especially for the period after this date, all the histories of the various ancient peoples are firmly aligned together alongside the history of Egypt. Of particular interest for us throughout this thesis will be to discover how this much vaunted mathematical certainty that now characterises Egyptian chronology first came to be determined. As we intend to discuss more systematically in Chapter One, on the foundations of Egyptian chronology, one of the primary means by which Egypt's fixed dates became established is the Sothic star theory with its long-range cycles of 1460 years. Chronologists have mathematically calculated beginnings and endings of assumed Sothic periods to provide historians with a chronological outline of absolute dates for Egyptian history. After that, historians have been able to slot into place any relative dates using data from the monuments and king lists. By employing this method, the Sothic chronologists have been able to establish the major date of c.1320 BC for what they believe to be, not only the commencement of a new Sothic cycle, but also the date for the inauguration of the famous Nineteenth Dynasty. This linch-pin date of 1320 BC, which is undoubtedly the most important of all in the Sothic scheme of things, will also be the pivotal date throughout this present book. It is thanks mainly to the Sothic theory that commentators now generally agree that Egyptian chronology is so well devised, century by century, decade by decade, and often year by year, that no new evidence could dismantle this elaborate structure. Amongst the supporters of the Sothic star theory there is little variation from one to another as far as major dates are concerned. Much of this assurance seems to stem from the time of Professor Breasted, himself an enthusiastic promoter of the Sothic theory, who, in his classic text A History of Egypt (2nd ed., London, 1924), included an annex, "Chronological Tables of Kings", in which he boldly asserted that all the Egyptian dates marked with an asterisk "are astronomically fixed"; fixed that is apparently by reference to calculations of the rising of Sothis. But prior to 1904, when Eduard Meyer in his Aegyptische Chronologie (28ff.) "sothically" estimated the difference between the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and the rise of the Eighteenth Dynasty (i.e. the interim period, commonly called the Second Intermediate Period) at 210 years - thereby fixing the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty's rule at 1580 BC - there was no such clear-cut uniformity of opinion amongst scholars in regard to the Egyptian dates. It is interesting to compare the estimates of some of the early Egyptologists for the duration of Egypt's Second Intermediate Period. In the following Table I (taken largely from R. Weill's Bases, Methodes et Resultats de la Chronologie Egyptienne, 3-4) the reader will be able to see to what extent the chronological assessments of fourteen well-known Egyptologists during the sixty-five years (i.e. 1893-1904) prior to the publication of Meyer's book differed in both their estimated date for the beginning of the Eighteenth (XVIIIth) Dynasty and the total interval for the interim period, during which the "Hyksos" invaders are known to have dominated, mainly lower, Egypt. In some instances these estimates vary by more than a millennium. TABLE I Assessments by Leading Egyptologists of the Duration of the Second Intermediate Period Name of Egyptologist Year of Publication Total Interval between XII & XVIII Dynasty Date for the beginnning of the XVIIIth Dynasty Champollion-Figaec Wilkinson Boeck Bunsen Lepsius Brugsch Unger Lieblein Mariette Brugsch Lauth Wiedemann Maspero v.Bissing Example from today's literature 1839 1842 1845 1845 1858 1859 1867 1873 1876 1877 1879 1884 1897 1904 ca. 2000 1595 years 1595 years 1589 years 1009 years 676 years 893 years 1359 years 618 years 695 years 533 years 600 years 1500 years 1306 years 1299 years 212 years 1822 BC 1575 BC 1655 BC 1625 BC 1591 BC 1706 BC 1796 BC 1490 BC 1703 BC 1700 BC 1585 BC 1750 BC ? BC ? BC 1570 BC Edouard Meyer 1904 210 years In the face of such a variety of opinion it is not hard for us to appreciate why so astute a chronologist as Eduard Meyer of the Berlin School of Egyptology must have felt the need to bring a far greater degree of uniformity and mathematical precision to Egyptian dating. In his classic, Aegyptische Chronologie, Meyer was able to present the fruits of his chronological research: a new chronological scheme based upon the heliacal rising of Sirius/Sothis. It is this new chronological scheme that will come under close scrutiny in this book. To be fair, it should be noted that whilst Meyer rightly deserves the credit for the enunciation and development of the Sothic theory, it was actually Lepsius (1810-1884) who had been the first to envisage the concept of using the vast Sothic period of 1460 years as a basis for dating historical events. Meyer however, with support from Mahler, Borchardt and Weill, was primarily responsible for systematically developing the theory that Egyptian reckoning was based on a Sothic calendar. And he fixed Egyptian chronology accordingly. Since Meyer, the greater majority of Egyptologists have retained his estimate of 210 years approximately for the interval between the Middle and New Kingdoms of Egypt. Some Early Dissension From the Sothic Theory There were some Egyptologists even in those early days, however, who were unable to accept Meyer's system of astronomical computation as being a legitimate means of calculating realistic dates. Maspero, von Bissing and Jequier, for example, were generally unwilling to embrace the Sothic theory. They argued that it created more problems than it solved. Brugsch, for his part, could accept neither the interpretation placed upon the crucial Illahun Papyrus of the Twelfth Dynasty by the exponents of the Sothic theory, nor the manifold assumptions upon which he believed the theory to be based. He, and other authorities, did not hesitate to reject the theory since they simply could not find in it any solid basis for providing a system of dating, and more specifically for dating as far back as the Twelfth Dynasty. Perhaps we may collectively sum up the views of these non-sothically inclined Egyptologists by quoting from the following pages of Jequier's Histoire de la civilisation egyptienne ... (1913, 26-27. My translation): "The Sothic periods, far from simplifying the chronological calculations for us, have no other effect than to introduce a new element of uncertainty and perhaps a new opportunity for error". Nonetheless, despite the early dissension and strong warnings of those who believed that there were serious inadequacies in the whole Sothic concept, it was the Sothic scheme that prevailed. And so we find that it is this particular system of dating (with relatively minor modifications) that is the one universally taught today in colleges, academies and universities, and to be found in all standard text books. With the present consensus of opinion now so strongly in favour of Meyer's basic scheme of chronology, having been built up over many years, the huge edifice of Egyptian history appears to be firmly set in place, unlikely to be dislodged. Thus, with their elabo-structure standing, like the great pyramids at Gizeh, so apparently rock-solid and firm as to be able to withstand the wear and tear of time, might not the Egyptologists justifiably believe themselves able to rest securely in the knowledge that no significant alterations will occur in the future? That certainly is the distinct impression that one gains from reading the conventional texts. But to what extent is this sense of security really justified? In recent decades there has arisen a new breed of dissenters from the Sothic star theory. New voices of protest have been heard from those who claim that the conventional scheme of Egyptian chronology is seriously flawed; that the very foundations upon which this monolithic system has been raised are so inherently weak as to undermine the entire structure. Its eventual collapse, they believe, is inevitable, no matter how far in the future it may occur. Like those early Egyptologists who had felt compelled to reject Meyer's method as invalid, this new school as well claims that his product is an unrealistic and unworkable chronology of antiquity. The Aim of This Book Since we have undertaken here to make "a critical evaluation" of Meyer's theory, we must take into account any reasonable, dissenting voices from this theory. This book in fact provides us with a golden opportunity to re-assess Egyptian chronology right down to its very foundations! It is appropriate for us then to scrutinise any significant challenges to Meyer's theory, be they old or new, even if only as a means for gauging the sturdiness of what is already standing. A renewed evaluation of the whole Sothic edifice at this point in time, as at any time, can only be healthy for Egyptian studies in general. Such is the /raison d'etre/ of this book. By subjecting the foundations of conventional Egyptian history to a critical evaluation, we hope to determine whether these foundations are really sound, and ought to be left in place; or are perhaps in need of some repair and renovation (like the Sphinx at present); or may actually be so unfirm and dangerous as to warrant being demolished, in order that reconstruction can be undertaken in the future according to an entirely different blueprint. As we are going to discuss in the following chapter, the entire edifice of the standard chronology of Egypt depends greatly for its support upon three bases (sometimes referred to as "pillars"), namely: 1. Manetho's Dynasties; 2. The Sothic Calendar Theory; 3. The Era of Menophres (1320 BC). There is such a close relationship amongst the three that they will all figure prominently throughout this book. Manetho's Dynasties (No.1) really provide the 'framework' for Egyptian chronology. However since, thanks to Meyer, this framework has become subject to the rule of mathematical certainty, it is The Sothic Calendar Theory (No.2) that must be the primary focus of this book. The Era of Menophres (No.3) is to a large extent a product of No.2. The following Table II provides the reader with a standard outline of Egyptian history, as based upon Sothic calculations: TABLE II An Outline of Egyptian Chronology (All Dates are BC and are most approximate) Unification of Egypt 3100 BC Early Dynastic Period 3100-2686 Old Kingdom (Dyn's. III-IV) 2686-2180 Great Pyramids 2600-2500 First Intermediate Period 2180-2080 Middle Kingdom (Dyn's. XI-XII) 2080-1640 XIth Dyn. (Thebes) 2080-2040 XIIth Dyn. 2040-1785 Second Intermediate Period 1785-1580 Hyksos Era 1690-1580 New Kingdom (Dyn's. XVIII-XX) 1580-1075 El Amarna Period 1400-1350 Third Intermediate Period 1075-650 Assyrian Conquest -671 Saite Kingdom (Dyn. XXVI) 663-525 Persian Conquest -525 Alexander's Conquest -323 Ptolemaic Egypt 306-30 Roman Annexation of Egypt -30 (Table II compiled from a combination of data found in the following: J. Breasted's A History of Egypt (1924); C. Roebuck's The World of Ancient Times (1966); and G. Roux's Ancient Iraq (1966). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our aim, as already said, will be to examine the Sothic theory in order to determine (a) whether or not it is intrinsically sound and is supported by the evidence; but also (b) whether it has yielded a workable chronology of the ancient world, for example in relation to the Mesopotamian data. The value of any one nation's absolute chronology must ultimately depend on its ability to integrate with all known data from other regions as well. It would be useless to establish a complete system of chronology that can exist only in isolation, but that cannot stand up to scrutiny by comparison with other systems. For the Sothic scheme to be valid - just as for Mesopotamian, Palestinian, Greek or Anatolian chronologies to be valid - it is necessary for each period of Egyptian history to be capable of perfect alignment with any relevant period of history of one or another ancient nation. This is most especially true in the case of Egyptian history because, as we are going to learn in Chapter One, the historians of other nations tend to look to Egyptian chronology as the rule according to which they estimate and adjust their own chronologies. Solid syncretisms need to be available right across the board, from one nation to the next. If they are not, then one or other of the chronological schemes must be partly, or completely, at fault. From the point of view of Mesopotamian history, as we shall find, even some conventional historians realise that not all of their data can be absorbed satisfactorily into the Sothic scheme. It has become a major bone of contention amongst the recent critics of Meyer's scheme that the Sothic framework, as they argue, fails to provide any solid synchronisms during the early period of history between Egypt and the other nations. Therefore, in regard to both (a) and (b) above (i.e. whether the Sothic theory is sound and is supported by the evidence, on the one hand, and whether it has provided a workable chronology, on the other), such critics would answer with a resounding "no"! The Use of Astronomical Data Another significant subject that we shall need to take into account throughout this book is that of astronomy as it pertains to ancient studies - "archaeoastronomy" as it is sometimes called. Since, to a large extent, the current system of Egyptian chronology has been built up with the assistance of astronomical data, a great deal of precision is required when defining astronomical terms. Considering the enormous advances made in the science of astronomy since the early days of Egyptological studies, when those initial astronomical calculations were made to determine the outline of the Sothic scheme, there is a pressing need for a modern re-assessment of this whole area as well. Today, of course, there is far less excuse for scientific sloppiness and imprecision as there would have been, say, in the era of Meyer and his colleagues. In this we have sought to bring right up to date the "archaeoastronomy" involved in the Sothic theory, on questions pertaining to Sirius and the Egyptian calendar. For this to have been effectively achieved, some painstaking recourse to research by professional scientists was needed, as well as advice on important issues. One can only wonder to what extent the early Egyptologists felt the need to attend to this crucial aspect of their study. Can the Sothic theory really be said to be based on accurate astronomy? Or is it largely the work of historians who were deficient in this area? The matter is too important to be brushed aside. Ideally, the Sothic theory needs to be assessed in the light of modern discoveries, by qualified historians working in close co-operation with professional astronomers and mathematicians (since it is unlikely that there would be many who are genuine specialists in both Egyptology and astronomy). Happily, in the authors of the Egyptian Astronomical Texts (EAT), we do find that rare combination. The EAT volumes represent the result of years of exacting research by R. Parker, an eminent Egyptologist, and O. Neugebauer; a truly unique combination of first-rate mathematician, highly skilled historian and expert in ancient languages. Not surprisingly, then, this present study will depend on information supplied by the Egyptian Astronomical Texts to decide some crucial issues arising in this book. The writer has also been rather fortunate to have had the benefit at postgraduate level of expert advice in Egyptian and Mesopotamian history and language, as well as in science and astronomy. Basic Outline of the Book In this introductory section (Part One), to assist the reader, there is included a chapter (namely, Chapter Two) on the development of the Egyptian calendar. This chapter is intended to provide the reader with such astronomical detail of a non-technical nature as will be needed for an overall grasp of the book. It should be noted, however, that the treatment of any technical points of astronomy, those that may require further elaboration, will be reserved for Appendix A in the Addenda section. In Part Two, Meyer's Sothic theory will be presented in a general fashion, though in some detail (Chapter Three), after which some basic implications for chronology will be drawn from this theory. (Chapter Four). In Part Three (A and B) we shall pass from the general, to a more particular, assessment of the Sothic theory. Following Long (in his "A Re-examination of the Sothic Chronology of Egypt", Orientalia 43, 1974, 263), we shall examine, chapter by chapter, each of the six major Sothic citations from Egyptian and Classical documents as gleaned from Meyer and used by other historians to support the Sothic theory. These six citations, which will be separated chronologically by that all-important date of 1320 BC, into pre-Menophres and post-Menophres eras, will be thus arranged in Part Three: A: PRE-MENOPHRES (i.e. before 1320 BC) Chapter Five: The Illahun Papyrus (commonly attributed to the Twelfth Dynasty); Chapter Six: The Ebers Papyrus (Early Eighteenth Dynasty); Chapter Seven: The Elephantine Stele (mid-Eighteenth Dynasty). B: POST-MENOPHRES (i.e. after 1320 BC) Chapter Eight: The Era of Menophres (beginning of Nineteenth Dynasty); Chapter Nine: Decree of Canopus (Ptolemaic Period); Chapter Ten: Statement of Censorinus (Roman Empire Period). In each of these six chapters the reader will be provided with information regarding the relevance for Egyptian chronology of the particular citation under consideration. The reader will also be alerted to whatever special problems might arise from this citation. Each chapter will also contain a brief assessment of the value of the document as a chronological tool. As will become abundantly evident, the relevance of these six citations is dependent upon the assumption that the Egyptians never altered or reformed their civil calendar during the many centuries of its use. PART FOUR will commence with a critique of Meyer's theory in general (Chapter Eleven), and then (in Chapter Twelve) the entire book will be concluded with a critical summary in which all six citations will be finally assessed. In the ADDENDA section at the end of this book, the reader will find three appendices: namely, Appendix A, dealing with technical points of astronomy; Appendix B, on the question of identifying the star, Sothis; and Appendix C, in which the Illahun lunar documents will be evaluated. Regarding Appendix B, whilst I do not intend to become bogged down with alternative views relating to the identification of this star, apart from Sirius, I believe that the matter has been raised sufficiently often now to warrant a brief consideration of it; such a re-assessment being consonant with our aim of examining anew the whole basis of the Sothic star theory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER ONE: THE FOUNDATIONS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. Introduction The traditional structure of Egyptian chronology has sometimes been likened to a gigantic scaffold, supporting parts and pieces of the history of the various past kingdoms and civilisations. A student who embarks upon the study of early Near Eastern history, particularly that pertaining to the second millennium BC, is usually taught to relate the chronology of the entire ancient East to Egyptian reckoning. This fact is attested by Crawford (1), when he explains that: "A system of relative chronology can be established by excavation in any country that has long been inhabited, but it is left hanging in the air until linked up with Egypt, whether directly or indirectly through a third region". It is Egyptian chronology that provides the standard or rule according to which the kings and dynasties, with their law-giving and building programs, wars and peace treaties, are to be allocated to their respective centuries. Thus, when there is unearthed a document that records the relations of a particular, non-Egyptian, ruler with a pharaoh of a certain dynasty, the era of that ruler becomes fixed immediately because the date of the pharaoh is presumed already to be known. And while, of course, the succession of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings - with the dates of their reigns - is studied with constant reference to the Mesopotamian king-lists, it must needs be adjusted regularly to comply with the Egyptian dates wherever a synchronism is assumed. A classic example of this procedure is to be found in relation to the famous Mesopotamian king, Hammurabi, of the First Babylonian Dynasty. The question regarding to which era this long-reigning monarch ought to be assigned has ranked amongst those most extensively debated topics of ancient history. The dates in the twenty-third century BC - attributed to Hammurabi by the earlier historians - have had to be periodically adjusted as a result of new archaeological finds; first to c.2100 BC, and more lately to c.1700 BC, with differences of opinion still amounting to nearly a century. Not inappropriately, therefore, has Dr. Courville described Hammurabi as "floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea" (2). The reason for the most recent major shift of Hammurabi, to the eighteenth century BC, was in order for historians to synchronise the First Babylonian Dynasty with the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, on the basis of material from both places having been found in a common deposit on the island of Crete. For it should be noted that the pasts of the western kingdoms too - such as the Minoan culture on Crete and that of Mycenae on the Grecian mainland - have likewise been divided and apportioned among the centuries with Egypt playing the defining role. As already noted in this book's Introduction, the dates for Egypt especially from 1580 BC are now regarded as being fixed. The date of 1580 BC has become so pivotal that historiography tends to divide the world's past into two great epochs: the period before 1580 BC, for which chronological hypotheses generally are not disallowed, and the period from the New Kingdom onwards, for which historians have no significant changes to propose - no greater than a few years for one or another event. By and large, all the histories of the various nations are thought to be firmly aligned together alongside the history of Egypt from 1580 BC down. How Such Precision was Achieved From whence arose this mathematical certainty about the later Egyptian chronology? In this chapter we intend to analyse three of the major bases by which the Egyptian chronology first became established. These are, as already mentioned: Manetho's Dynasties; The Sothic Calendar; and The Era of Menophres. Of these three, by far the most significant from the point of view of rigorously determining the chronology of Egypt, has been the Sothic Calendar theory, which is the central subject of our book. The Era of Menophres is, as we shall learn, intrinsically connected with this theory. Manetho's sequence of dynasties, for their part, constitute the very backbone of Egyptian chronology, and the whole framework for the Sothic theory. In the following section, we provide for the reader a brief run-down on each of these bases in turn, whilst at the same time noting some of their deficiencies as pointed out by the Egyptologists: 1. Manetho's Dynasties. The Aegyptica, written in Greek by the Egyptian priest Manetho during the Ptolemaic period (third century BC), has been preserved for us by Julius Africanus and by several other ancient historians. This important document, the only systematic history of Egypt that we have, has always been a primary source for the study of the pharaohs. Still true today therefore is Weill's early observation about Manetho's king-list, that (3): "It is no exaggeration to say that we continue to arrange the history of Egypt and to place the facts of this history in the very same order that is the legacy of Julius Africanus who wrote in the third Christian century". Manetho's classification of the dynasties still largely provides the Egyptologists with their basic framework. His is the only chronicle source for the regnal year data of the kings over long periods, such as the Archaic era and that of the New Kingdom; and he is considered to be useful for the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties. On the other hand, the Aegyptica does in fact record a far greater number of kings in almost every era than can presently be accounted for archaeologically. Its dynastic totals, too, are incredibly high: 518 years for the relatively obscure Sixteenth Dynasty, for example, and 453 years for the Thirteenth. Not surprisingly, then, Egyptologists have experienced a kind of ambivalence towards Manetho and his dynastic arrangement. On the one hand, his figures tend to be rejected because of the seeming unreliability of his totals - and in some areas research students are allowed a degree of latitude for making alterations to Manetho's regnal years. Yet, generally speaking, his lists are still accorded the utmost respect. This ambivalence is typified by Meyer himself, for example, who - while daring to break away from the high figures accepted by the older generation Egyptologists, and thereby largely rejecting the Manethonic data - nonetheless virtually retained intact the sequence of dynasties of Manetho as a framework for his shortened Egyptian history. Egyptologists, despite their dependence on Manetho, have often been highly critical, not only of his figures, but even of his reliability in general. Breasted, for example, unflatteringly described the figures of Manetho as being "absurdly high throughout", and Manetho's writings in general as "a compilation of puerile folktales", which are "hardly worthy of the name history" (4). In another place Breasted wrote that (5): "... the chronology of Manetho [is] a late, careless and uncritical compilation, which can be proven wrong from the contemporary monuments in the vast majority of cases, where such documents have survived". This view was strongly supported by Hall, who claimed that Manetho's list of rulers is "so terribly mangled by copyists that it would be unsafe to trust its data" unless it were confirmed by other evidence (6); and later by Sir Alan Gardiner, who wrote that what we now have of Manetho is "only a garbled abridgement in the works of the Christian chronographers [i.e. Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus] ..." (7). Most recently O'Mara, in his controversial analysis of the Palermo Stone, has vigorously criticised Manetho and his lists of dynasties, saying - among other things - that Manetho (8): "... woodenly wove patent duplications together, considered the slightest variation in spelling or regnal years to be proof of distinct reigns. Where the pure Old Kingdom list [gives] ... 28 names ... [Manetho] ... managed to increase the number to 43". Despite all of this, and faced with the dearth of useful chronological material provided by excavations in Egypt, the Egyptologists have felt compelled to submit to Manetho's scheme. However, for those who understand the implications of this, like Gardiner, the effect created is one of resigned pessimism. Thus Gardiner could write of the Manethonic system that (9): "In spite of all defects this division into dynasties has taken so firm a root ... that there is but little chance of its ever being abandoned". Although Gardiner, able scholar that he was, had clearly identified such serious defects in Manetho's scheme as, in his own words, "inaccuracies of the most glaring kind ... royal names [being] incredibly distorted", and lengths of reigns showing "wide departures from the definitely ascertained figures", he appeared not to offer any way out of the difficulty. Instead, he concluded resignedly that: "None the less, his [Manetho's] book still dominates our studies" (10). Meyer and his colleagues, realising that the figures of Manetho were impossibly high, had to their credit been bold enough to seek a way out of this unfortunate situation. They had been courageous enough to challenge a system that according to their opinion showed obvious defects. Meyer in particular, through his efforts to arrive at greater mathematical precision in the construction of Egyptian chronology, had discovered what he believed to be astronomical evidence in certain Egyptian and classical texts for determining the numerical values for the basic plan of a revised chronology. Thus was conceived his new scheme pertaining to the Egyptian civil calendar: namely: 2. The Sothic Calendar Theory. Many of the earlier Egyptologists had perceived what Gardiner would later enunciate so emphatically; namely that a comparison of Manetho's dynastic sequence with the contemporary monuments, showed up clear "defects" throughout the Aegyptica. Thus the Egyptologists, confronted by the frustrating lack of reliable data for chronology building on the one hand, and yearning for that kind of mathematical precision that so satisfies the modern mind on the other, were forced to look for some other 'modus operandi'. It was almost certainly out of sheer necessity, then, that the idea of basing Egyptian chronology on astronomical data began to emerge. Unfortunately, in the case of Egypt, little help was to be gained from the usual eclipse data. No clear and unequivocal references to solar or lunar eclipses were thought to have been found in Egypt; leading historians to conclude that the Egyptians, unlike the Babylonians, did not keep regular records of such astronomical phenonema. Something else of an astronomical nature had to be looked for in the pursuit of mathematical precisions for arriving at an exact chronology. And so it happened that the Berlin School of Egyptology discovered the Sothic theory of calendrical computation, based on the heliacal rising or the star Sothis (or Sirius). This scheme has since become the alpha and omega for the numerical fixing of Egyptian chronology, with Manetho's dynasties still providing its framework. Ever since Eduard Meyer first elaborated the Sothic theory in his famous Aegyptische Chronologie of 1904, proponents of this theory have presumed that the Egyptians used a civil calendar of 365 days, without interruption, throughout nearly all of their long history - going back at least as far as the Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom period. It was further presumed that the Egyptians used for historical computation a long-range calendar of 1460 years; that period of time being the duration of a Great Sothic Year. This period of 1460 years could be estimated by a basic comparison of the 365-day civil year of the Egyptians with the 365 1/4-day Julian year. The vague Egyptian year would, so to speak, catch up again with the Julian year only after there had elapsed a period of 1460 Julian years (i.e. 365x4). According to Meyer's theory the Egyptians had determined, by observations noting the time required for Sirius to rise heliacally (see Appendix A) on New Year's Day after its similar appearance 1460 years previously, the length of the Sothic period. And they had actually used this 1460-year time-span as a kind of long-range calendar. In his Aegyptische Chronologie Meyer drew upon many ancient sources, Egyptian and classical, including Ptolemy's Almagest. But a veritable linch-pin of his Sothic theory was the combined classical evidence of Theon of Alexandria (fourth century AD), and the Roman author, Censorinus (3rd century AD). Meyer believed that the development of a significant relationship between the heliacal rising of Sirius, and the historical dates, had become possible due to a statement made by Censorinus (in AD 238) that New Year's Day for the Egyptians in c.139 AD had fallen on the 21st of July. It was on that day that the bright star Sothis was supposed to have made its annual appearance. This important data led Meyer to the calculation of what has become one of the most pivotal dates of ancient history: namely, 1320 BC. For Meyer, presuming that Censorinus had recorded here precisely when a Sothic period of 1460 years had ended, had no difficulty after that of arriving at 1320 BC by simply subtracting 1460 Julian years from this terminal point of 139 AD. Thus he concluded, what still is maintained today, that a Sothic period commenced in 1320 BC (11). From that starting point, Meyer was then able to calculate an entire sequence of presumed Sothic cycle commencements, using multiples of 1460: namely, 139 AD; 1320 BC; 2780 BC; 4240 BC. Meyer called the latter date of 4240 BC the "erste sichere Datum", or 'earliest fixed date' of ancient history. He regarded that date as the one representing the very year in which the civil calendar was introduced into Egypt. Once Meyer had drawn up the basic outline of the Sothic theory, it became possible within that scheme to date any historical event whose position in the Sothic cycle might be given in one or another ancient text. Historians after Meyer, who have followed his comprehensive examination of such likely texts, believed that they had discovered a number of such astronomical references. After Meyer's original enunciation of the Sothic theory, its chief promoter appears to have been Professor Breasted. The latter took the theoretically possible dates within the Sothic scheme and set them down as astronomically certain. And, despite the fact that certain notable historians of that era - e.g. Maspero, von Bissing, Sir Flinders Petrie and Neugebauer - did not really go along with Meyer's theory (Neugebauer, in fact, absolutely rejected it), Breasted's History of Egypt, which incorporated Meyer's figure of 4240 BC, subsequently became the standard work for a whole generation of Egyptologists (12). Breasted indeed used asterisks in his chronological table to denote those dates that he considered to be astronomically fixed. He even specified the precise day of each of two events that occurred during Thutmose III's first Asiatic campaign: namely, his crossing of the Egyptian frontier "about the 19th of April, 1479 BC", and his going "into camp on the plain of Megiddo on the 14th of May" of that same year (13). 3. The Era of Menophres. Not only had Theon collaborated Censorinus's Sothic information - so Meyer believed - but he also provided some extra, crucial data that seemed to reinforce the date of 1320 BC. "Since Menophres and till the end of the era of Augustus, or the beginning of the era of Diocletian", wrote Theon in his manuscript, "there were 1605 years" (14). Now since it was well established that the last year of the era of Augustus fell in 283/284 AD, Meyer - by deducting Theon's figure of "1605 years" from that same era - arrived at 1320 BC; coincidentally the very same year as that which had been calculated from the Censorinus data as constituting the beginning of a Sothic period. From the above we can begin to understand why this date of 1320 BC has become such an important one within the context of Meyer's Sothic theory. Having been calculated from the independent data of two classical scholars, this date is now recognised by historians as being a fixed point of reference, not only for Egyptian chronology, but indeed for that of the history of the world. Unfortunately, however, Theon did not provide any further details about this "Menophres"; hence depriving historians of the opportunity to arrive at an unequivocal identification of this name. "Menophres" is generally presumed to have been an Egyptian pharaoh; especially of the early Nineteenth Dynasty. Most, in fact, have elected to identify Theon's "Menophres" with Ramses I (Menpehtire), whose (approximately) one-year reign was believed to have occurred during c.1321/20 BC. And most conveniently, since Ramses I is generally considered to have been the first ruler of the famous Nineteenth Dynasty, this date is also regarded as marking the inauguration of a new era. Theon's lack of information about "Menophres" has led to considerable debate as to what this name was meant to signify. Egyptologists examined the various names of pharaohs in Manetho and in the various Egyptian king-lists to determine which of these best matched Theon's "Menophres". Some of them actually transliterated more exactly into Egyptian from "Menophres" than did Menpehtire; for instance, Mennofirre of the Hyksos era and Merneptah of the Nineteenth Dynasty. The latter was in fact most seriously considered and seemed for a while to be the likeliest candidate of all. But, on a consideration that some regard as a 'petitio principii', it was ruled by Meyer and his colleagues from the Berlin School that it would be impossible to place Merneptah in the year 1320 BC, because - in Meyer's words - "the earliest date when Ramses II [i.e. Merneptah's father] could come to the throne is about 1300 BC" (15). Still, nowhere does Theon state that this "Menophres" was a king. This, therefore, represents only one of the various possible choices for identification. Opinion has in fact been divided as to who, or what, Menophres was, with some considering this "Menophres" to be a person (usually a king - though some have suggested a sage or an astronomer who, for instance, computed a Sothic period), and others, a city, especially Memphis (i.e. Men-Nofre). (See Chapter 8). Need for a Re-assessment From the above brief description of these three bases of Egyptian chronology the reader can perhaps begin to appreciate that the elabo-structure may not be so soundly based as it may first have appeared, and that the whole subject may need to be considered from a fresh perspective. Thus, since Egyptian chronology is, by and large, the measuring rod for the histories of the other ancient nations, there may well be good reason for re-assessing its capacity to align with the other nations (Mesopotamia, for instance). Can it truthfully be claimed that compelling synchronisms occur between Egypt and Mesopotamia, for instance, all the way down through the centuries? Surely its capacity to integrate with genuine historical data must be the litmus test for the value of any absolute chronology. According to the testimony of the Egyptologists themselves, the Egyptian monumental evidence has in many ways proved to be rather disappointing. From the point of view of constructing a chronology this evidence has apparently not yielded sufficient data by itself for achieving such a purpose. Breasted conceded as much when he remarked that the monumental sources, "even when full and complete are at best insufficient records affording data for the meagrest outlines of great achievements and important epochs" (16). And Gardiner, noting the paucity of historical inscriptions, wrote: "What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters" (17). In the light of such forthright statements by highly respected Egyptologists, and considering the defining role accorded to the Egyptian data, it is of the utmost importance that Egyptologists operate from a broad data base, taking fully into account what is being learned in the other major fields of archaeological research. By working in close collaboration with the Assyriologist, for example - by conjoint effort rather than in splendid isolation, if such be the case - the Egyptologist will go a long way towards achieving a truly workable scheme of ancient history. With all of the data properly integrated, he will be able to yield an abundance of positive synchronisms. NOTES: (1) Crawford, O., Man and His Past (London 1921), 72. (2) Courville D., The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol.2 (Calif., 1971), 289. (3) Weill, R., Bases, Methodes et Resultats de la Chronologie Egyptienne (Paris, 1926), 1. (4) Breasted, J., A History of Egypt, 2nd ed. (London, 1924), 23. (5) Ibid. (6) Hall, H., "Egyptian Chronology", CAH, Vol.I, 2nd ed., 167. (7) Gardiner, A. Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford 1961), 46. (8) O'Mara, P., The Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons (La Canada, l980), 9. (9) Gardiner, op. cit., ibid. (10) Ibid., 47. (11) Meyer, E., Aegyptische Chronologie, Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1904). 26, 28. (12) For confirmation of this statement, see E. Danelius's "The Identification of the Biblical 'Queen of Sheba'", Kronos, I (N.J., 1975), 4. (13) Breasted, op. cit. 285, 287. (14) Theon of Alexandria, as cited in I. Velikovsky's Peoples of the Sea (Abacus, 1977), 229. (15) Meyer, op. cit., 29-30. Meyer wrote: "... Aber es ist ganzlich unmoglich, diesen ins Jahr 1321 zu setzen, da Ramses II. fruhestens erst gegen 1300 auf den Thron gekommen sein kann". (16) Breasted, op. cit., 21. (17) Gardiner, op. cit., 53. Top <#top> Outline <#outl> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER TWO: THE DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED ASTRONOMY, OF THE EGYPTIAN CIVIL CALENDAR. Introduction The purpose of this chapter will be to trace the development of the Egyptian calendar from its earliest form, regarded by the most reliable scholars as being luni-stellar, into the known, civil calendar, which was in use from its inception (considered to have taken place at some point during Old Kingdom history) until the advent of Christianity in Egypt. An attempt will be made to include in this present chapter whatever basic astronomical information may be deemed necessary for assisting the reader in understanding this thesis. However, the reader is also referred to Appendix A for a more detailed explanation of astronomical calculations and of the meaning of technical terms (such as 'heliacal rising' of a star, 'arcus visionis', 'precession of the equinoxes', and so on). Nature of the Original, Pre-Civil Calendar How did the Egyptians of the earliest historical times define the year, and how was it linked to the original calendar? For many Egyptologists of the nineteenth century, such as - for example - Lepsius, Martin and Brugsch (1), the original Egyptian year was defined by the annual rising of 'Sothis' (this being the Greek version of 'Spdt', the star that virtually all identify with the bright Sirius, and that the Egyptians themselves equated with their goddess Sopde) (2). For these early Egyptologists, belief in the existence in Egypt of a lunar calendar before the advent of the civil calendar was, to use Parker's description (3): "... based almost exclusively on analogy with other primitive peoples and on passages, frequently obscure, in classical writings". They universally spoke of a fixed Sothic year being in use in those early days. But this concept is now generally discredited. More recent views (4), reflecting a greater familiarity with early calendrical systems world-wide, coupled with a more intensive study of the actual workings of the schematic Egyptian calendar, have substituted a luni-stellar calendar: a natural lunar year of twelve fluctuating months, oriented around the star Sirius, whose annual rising announced a New Year and determined the occasional intercalation of a thirteenth month. Parker for instance, from his intensive examination of the calendars of ancient Egypt, could assert that whatever calendar may have been used in pre-dynastic times (5): " ... the first Egyptian calendar on record was lunar, and it was based upon the heliacal rising of the star Sothis". For Parker, a further proof of the antiquity of the luni-stellar calendar (i.e. one whose beginning is determined by a star) was the fact that such a calendar was "by no means unique among primitive peoples'' (6). Parker cited the example of the Loango people on the west coast of Africa, whose lunar calendar was likewise based on Sirius, and whom he suggested must have come under the influence of the ancient Egyptians (7). It does not really surprise us to learn that so basic a process as the moon's cyclical motion had played a significant role in the most ancient calendars. For apart from the obvious solar divisions between day and night, and the solstices, the earliest type of astronomical observations made by the ancients would undoubtedly have been those pertaining to the lunar cycles (or lunations). The fact that the moon returns to a particular phase with a periodicity of approximately 29 1/2 days would soon become apparent to the careful observer. It would also become apparent that, in the course of a complete solar year during which the sun returns to the horizon 365 times, the lunar year of approximately (29x12=) 354/355 days was lacking some ten days to keep pace with the solar year. To compensate for this deficiency it was customary for the ancients to add, every three years approximately, a thirteenth month to the twelve regular months - a practice known as intercalation (8). The Moon's Relation to the Egyptian Seasons Winlock proposed that, once the Egyptians had become accustomed to counting the phases of the moon, they would have been able to relate these to both the seasons and the fluctuations of the Nile (9). Regarding the seasons, Egypt was unique amongst the nations of antiquity. Whereas the other nations were generally inclined to adopt the four annual seasons, each of three months duration, the Egyptians counted three seasons of four months duration. This unusual seasonal arrangement was practically forced upon them by the effects of the Nile upon the land. Again, it would not have taken the Egyptian people long to realise that, once the Nile was rising, four moons must pass before the farmers could sow the seed corn on the emerging mud; and how at least another four moons were required for the grain to ripen; and how a third four moons would pass before the flood reappeared. It was believed that in Old Kingdom times the rising of the Nile (or season of "Inundation") commenced about mid-July, and lasted during Egypt's summer-autumn (10). When the Nile subsided in the winter season (the second of the four moon periods described above), it left a fertilising silt upon the soil, which was ideal for being sown. Lastly, during the third of the four moon periods, there arrived the season of low water after the harvest and before the next inundation. However, two points should be noted in regard to all of this. Firstly, each one of the three seasons described above lasted only approximately, not precisely, for four lunar months. Secondly, the first rise of the Nile for instance was, and still is, quite a variable phenomenon. Parker has recorded that, between 1873-1904 for example, "the smallest number of days from one beginning to the next was 336 days and the greatest was 415 days" (11). He concluded from this fact that a lunar year controlled by the rise of the river might therefore have "as few as eleven or as many as fourteen lunar months" (12). Obviously, then, there was need of a much firmer anchor than this for the Egyptian calendar. The Importance of Sirius/Sothis It was Sirius, one of the brightest stars in the ancient sky - the Dog Star of the southern constellation Canis Major (alpha CMa) - that provided the Egyptian astronomers with a fixed point of reference. The Sothic theorists claim that during early Egyptian history, at the parallel of Memphis, the rising of Sothis occurred on the 19th of July (Julian); coinciding with the flooding of the land by the Nile (13). Presumably, then, Sirius was regarded by the Egyptians as announcing the season of Inundation; a situation that may be reflected in the following inscription from the ceiling of the Ramesseum (14): "The divine Sothis, the Great, the queen of the commencement of the year, who makes the Nile swell in its seasons". But whilst the Nile's variable time of flooding meant that its coincidence with the heliacal rising of Sirius would be only approximate, it seems to be quite a different matter with the concurrence between the rising of Sirius and the duration of the Julian year. Throughout most of pharaonic history, apparently, the rising of Sirius coincided almost exactly with the Julian year of 365 1/4 days (15). So closely did Sirius keep in step with this form of year that it, and not the tropical year, was held by the Egyptians to be the normal one (16). The early Egyptian, with the lunar month as his unit of time, would eventually come to the realisation that while the interval between successive Nilotic floods was highly variable, the interval between the successive risings of Sothis was practically constant. The rising of Sothis, therefore, could be used as a fixed point of reference for a calendar of lunar months with three seasons; a calendar completely agricultural, and based on the fluctuations of the Nile, which were heralded by this star. From then on, trial and error would be sufficient for the Egyptian astronomers to work out the simple rule of intercalation, so that the occurrence of New Year's Day could be properly maintained in the calendar year. According to the compilers of the Egyptian Astronomical Texts (17), the heliacal rising of Sirius, or 'prt Spdt' was for the Egyptians "undoubtedly an important feast, well celebrated". And, whilst every decanal star at its heliacal rising was apparently "honoured with a feast", Sirius-Sothis "gives the pattern for all the other decanal stars" (18). The Moon and Sothis in Egyptian Texts While Parker claims to have found various textual references to the moon, or to Sothis, "mainly from the late period", which connect either, or both, to a form of the year (19), O'Mara goes even further, attempting to show what he believes to be "the cyclical relationship existing between the moon and the star Sirius during the Archaic period" (20). And O'Mara's conclusion, reminiscent of Parker's, is that the evidence of ancient canons such as the Palermo Stone and the Turin Papyrus tends to "reanimate old-fashioned theories concerning lunar-stellar origins [and also attests] to the overwhelming significance of the Sothic cycle in the chronology of Egypt" (21). Note, however, that a distinction must be made here between "the Sothic cycle" to which O'Mara claims the Egyptians attributed such "overwhelming significance", and the modern Sothic theory, which O'Mara's thesis does not fully support. As is clear from the following quotation, O'Mara is pointing to what he says was a simultaneous occurrence of lunar conjunction and the heliacal rising of Sirius every nineteen years (22): "Quite simply stated, 19 Julian years (the period of Sirius in archaic times) mark a cycle in which lunar New Moon (or Old Moon) coincided almost exactly with a regular heliacal rising of the star Sirius. Today Sirius lies far from the latitude where this is possible, but the phenomenon still occurs regularly with obscure stars lying now where Sirius lay then". Thus O'Mara claims that something akin to the well-known Metonic cycle (enunciated by the Greek astronomer Meton, 432 BC) (23), was operative in Egypt's Old Kingdom times as a 19-year cycle based upon Sirius. This cycle perfectly reflected the Julian year then (such a cycle being known also to the Babylonians) (24). In the following paragraphs, the reader will find an approximate summary of the hypothetical sequence of events that, according to O'Mara's speculation, had unfolded for the Egyptians in regard to the introduction of the new, civil calendar, at the end of a regular, 19-year cycle, and under the conditions of an original luni-stellar calendar (25): Ideally, as he writes, since Sirius was the harbinger of the New Year, its brief appearance just before dawn was followed that night by a New Crescent signalling the commencement of the new Year. (The Egyptian day began at sunrise). Now, due to the highly technical irregularities in the moon's schedule, this sequence did not always occur, but it probably occurred two out of three times, he says. New Crescent was either a day late or a day early. In the first case, Sirius still heralded the arrival of the New Year, and we would still have the closest approach of moon and star over the 19-year period. Only in the second case, occurring perhaps once a century, would there be a temporary interruption in a predictable sequence of events. The discrepancy of an hour and a half over a period of 19 years, as O'Mara goes on to explain, will have increased to six hours at the end of the full cycle of (4x19=) 76 years, and to half a day after one and a half centuries. From this time on the system would tend to deteriorate rapidly. More and more frequently, New Moon would be rising before Sirius. By shifting the definition of New Moon to the much broader zone of invisibility, the phenomenon can be saved for a while. "Eventually nothing can save the system". It is at this hypothetical point that O'Mara thought it most likely that the Egyptians would be ready for the schematic 365-day calendar. The 365-Day Civil Calendar of Egypt Although consensus amongst historians as to the true date for the inauguration of the famous civil calendar may not be absolutely unanimous, it is generally believed that at some stage during the Old Kingdom the Egyptians acquired a 365-day mobile calendar. This calendar comprised three seasons each of four months' duration, or twelve months of thirty days with five epagomenal days at the beginning of the year (26). Being a quarter of a day short every year in relation to the conventional Julian year of 365 1/4 days, and an entire day short of it every four years, the calendar corrected itself in accordance with the seasons only once in approximately 1460 revolutions of the Julian year (the equivalent of 1461 Egyptian civil calendar years) (27). Neugebauer regarded what he called "the 'Egyptian year' of a fixed length of 365 days" as being the "most important contribution of Egypt to astronomy"; the reason being that, as he went on to explain (28): "In antiquity this is the only larger time scale which satisfies the basic requirement of any reasonable unit of measurement, namely constancy of length. All other calendric systems entangled time-reckoning with religious and political considerations, or with requirements of unforeseeable astronomical complexity (as the luni-solar calendars), or with both". Table III below shows the correlation of the Egyptian months with their respective seasons, according to the conventional identification of these latter: TABLE III A Schema of the Egyptian Months and Seasons Akhet Proyet Shomu epagomena (Inundation) (Sowing) (Low Water) I II III IV Thoth Phaophi Athyr Choiak V VI VII VIII Tybi Mechir Phamenoth Pharmuthi IX X XI XII Pachons Payni Epiphi Mesore 5 days only The discrepancy between the civil and Julian years meant that, if one dated the heliacal rising of Sirius for instance as the first day of Thoth in the Egyptian calendar - which is what is generally done - it would take another 1460 Julian years to elapse before Sirius would rise heliacally again on the first of Thoth. This span of time comprises what modern scholars have labelled the "Sothic period". O'Neil supplies the following information regarding the intervals between the successive heliacal risings of a star, and of Sirius in particular (29): "The intervals between successive heliacal risings of a star on the Ecliptic will on average be the same as the sidereal year, namely 365.25636 days. As the interval on particular occasions must be expressed in whole days, most intervals will be 365 with about one in four being 366 days. As Sothis, Sirius lies 40 degrees south in celestial latitude from the Ecliptic, the intervals between its heliacal risings are affected by: (i) the precession of the equinoxes; and (ii) the terrestrial latitude of the observer". (The reader is invited to consult Appendix A for further information on (i) and (ii) above). It should be remembered too that though the heliacal rising of Sirius would rotate through the mobile, civil year, it would have remained, during the Old and Middle Kingdom eras of Egyptian history (30), fixed in the seasonal year; since this latter is linked to the passage of the sun through the constellations (31). This means, furthermore, that the first of Thoth (New Year's Day) and indeed all the days of the year, must move through the various seasons during the so-called "Sothic period". Sirius rose heliacally each summer in ancient Egypt, but on the first of Thoth the Dog Star would rise only once (for four consecutive years) during the 1460-year span (32). Even so, modern scholars assume that the Egyptians continued to celebrate the first of Thoth annually as the day of the (symbolic) rising of Sirius; i.e. the day of the "opening of the Year". Scholars are generally of the opinion that the Egyptians had, like other ancient peoples, multiple calendars, as well as several commencements of the year. Parker, for one, refers to the multiplicity of calendars used in Egypt of the Old Kingdom and beyond, when claiming that (33): "From [2500 BC] the Egyptians had three calendar years, all of which continued in use to the very end of pagan Egypt". Egypt's principal commencement of the year, when the luni-stellar system was in use, may well have been - as in the case of other nations, such as the Hebrews - at the new moon of spring. The second, for the Egyptians only, was at the rising of Sothis. A third, according to Weigall (34), took place on the 20th of October. But eventually, it seems, the first of Thoth, commemorating the rising of Sothis, began to take precedence over other commencements in the Egyptian calendrical system, and it came to be regarded by the Egyptians as the true New Year's Day (35). The Introduction of the Civil Calendar Whilst O'Mara was not alone in his opinion that the commencement of the new civil calendar would have coincided with a heliacal rising of Sirius, there were others who rejected this view. Both Parker and Crombette for instance, following Neugebauer, were adamant that the 365-day calendar was definitely not tied to Sothis in any way at the time of its institution (36). True, Parker had strongly rejected Neugebauer's notion of a so-called "Nile calendar" of 365 days, because obviously - as he said - "there would be no point to averaging the intervals between inundations in order to arrive at a Nile year, when all the time", as he noted with reference to the luni-stellar calendar, "there was present and in use a lunar Nile year" (37). But Parker nevertheless held fast emphatically to the following point that he said "Neugebauer had so forcefully demonstrated" (38): "The civil calendar of 365 days was not tied to Sothis at its introduction but was tied to some yearly occurrence which was variable, so that the gradual shift forward of the civil calendar would not be immediately apparent". Crombette, for his part, believed it to be mere supposition without any documented proof that the inauguration of the mobile Egyptian year had coincided with a heliacal rising of Sothis (39). Before the invention of the 365-day civil year, and even still after its institution, what would count above all for the Egyptians (as it did for the other peoples of antiquity), he said, was the new moon of spring, which showed up around 120 days before the rising of Sothis (40). Crombette was of the opinion that such a new moon's occurrence at the end of a lunar year, would have been an appropriate time for the introduction of a new calendar. The Institution of the Civil Calendar According to the Greek Versions In accordance with the pattern of calendrical development from luni-stellar to 365-day civil year, as given in this chapter, we find that the Greeks also considered the lunar calendar to be the original one used by the Egyptians prior to the establishment of the new civil year. The ancient testimony of Diodorus of Sicily (41) for instance, that in very ancient times the year was counted not by the movement of the sun, but by that of the moon, appears to run directly counter to Neugebauer's assertion that the year of 365 days undoubtedly represented for Egypt the oldest form of the year (42). Again Plutarch (43), in keeping with the Greek tradition, declared the Egyptian year to have been a lunar one at first, but added that some time later this "lunar year" was adjusted according to the seasons of the sun. The Roman Pliny also attested to the Egyptian use of a lunar year when - referring to the belief that some men have lived for thousands of years - he noted that certain peoples, including the Egyptians, adjusted their year according to the lunar revolutions (44). There was a tradition, well know to the Greeks, that it was the Egyptian Thoth - usually equated with the Greek Hermes - who had instituted the 365-day civil calendar at some archaic moment in Egyptian history. According to Plutarch's account of it in his Isis and Osiris, it was Thoth who had noticed, as regards the (original) lunar calendar of 360 days, that it lacked approximately five days to make up the complete 365-day total. Plutarch summarised the subsequent correction, or calendrical reform enacted by Thoth, in the following tale (45): "[Hermes] ... playing at draughts with the moon, won from her the seventieth part of each of her periods of illumination, and from all the winnings he composed five days, and intercalated them as an addition to the 360 days". This explains why Thoth, according to Greek tradition, was regarded as having gained five days from the moon in a game of draughts (or a throw of the dice). Since, as we have already noted, a complete lunation has a period of about 29 1/2 days (in more exact terms, 29.58 days), we find that Plutarch's "seventieth part" is mathematically correct. Because 1/70th of 29.58 days is 0.42 days, the lunar cycle thus lacked 0.42 of a day for it to make up the full thirty days. Twelve lunar months each of 29.58 days realise a total of approximately five days. The year thought by Plutarch and other ancients to have been instituted by Thoth-Hermes was therefore not one of 365 1/4 days, but of 365 days. It was what is known as a "vague" year (i.e. from Latin 'vagus', meaning "wandering"). Thoth's supposed solution to the problem regarding the deficiency of the Egyptian calendar was to introduce what is known as the "little month", or five epagomenal days, added - as the name suggests - at the head of the regular twelve months, thereby forming the new civil year. Both Meyer and Weigall supported this view in relation to the position of the five intercalary days; Meyer saying that, under the Old Kingdom, the epagomenals could be regarded as having been added before the year (46), and Weigall noting (with reference to Breasted) that the beginning of the ancient Egyptian civil year was preceded by five such days, and that (47): "The fifth epagomenal day was New Year's Eve, as is stated in the Hepthefi contracts [Breasted, Records, 1 #552]". Having set out the basic astronomy and development of the Egyptian calendar, we are now in a position to examine in detail Eduard Meyer's Sothic theory. NOTES: (1) See R. Parker's ''The Calendars of Ancient Egypt", Studs. in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No.26 (Uni. of Chicago, 1950), 30, #'s144-146. (2) See e.g. R. Long's "A Re-examination of the Sothic Chronology of Egypt", Orientalia 43 (1974), 262. (3) Parker, op. cit., 30. (4) E.g. Parker, op. cit; q.v. F. Crombette, Chronologie de l'Egypte Antique (Tournai, Belgium); q.v. P. O'Mara, The Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons (La Canada, 1980). (5) Parker, op. cit., 31 #151. (6) Ibid. (7) Ibid., 153. (8) See Parker, ibid., 26, #123: "The Rule Governing Intercalation and the Position of the Intercalary Month". (9) Winlock H., "The Origin of the Ancient Egyptian Calendar", Proc. of APS, 83 (1940), 454. (10) See E. Meyer's Aegyptische Chronologie. Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1904), 24ff. (11) Parker, op. cit., 32, #156. (12) Ibid. (13) E.g. cf. Parker, ibid., #'s 156-157 & Meyer op. cit., ibid. (14) Mahler, E., Etudes sur le calendrier egyptien, 53. My translation. (15) O'Mara, op. cit., 19. (16) See G. van Oosterhout's "Tables for the Heliacal and Acronychal Rising of Sirius at Heliopolis and Thebes", Studs. in Astronomical Chronology, No.2 (Oostsingel, Delft, 1989), 2; for the coincidence between Egyptian and Julian dates. (17) Neugebauer, O. & Parker, R., Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Vol.I (Lund Humphries, London, 1960), 74, #'s 5-7. (18) Ibid., #44. (19) See Parker, op. cit., 32-33, #'s 158-163, where he refers to e.g. Pyramid Text 965; Hymn to Amon-Re in the temple of Hibeh (Darius I); Mariette's Denderah I, 19g = Brugsch, Thesaurus, 100; Temple of Khnum at Esna. (20) O'Mara, op. cit., 38. (21) Ibid., 40. N.B. that "Sothic cycle" here does not refer to the 1460-year span, but to the shorter term astronomical cycles of 36, 76 and 144 years. (22) Ibid., 19. (23) Cf. O. Neugebauer's A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, Part Two (NY, 1975), 622 & W. O'Neil's Time and the Calendars (Sydney U.P., 1975), 90-92. (24) O'Mara, op. cit., 21. (25) Ibid., 21-22. Here summarised. (26) See e.g. Long, op. cit., ibid. (27) Roy, A., "The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology", SISR VI (1-3), (Glasgow, 1978), 55. (28) Neugebauer, History, 559. (29) O'Neil, op. cit., 68. (30) O'Mara, op. cit., 55. (31) Roy, op. cit., ibid. (32) Thus the rising of Sirius would always occur in summer, since the seasons are governed by the sun's passage along the ecliptic. The Dog Days (from the Dog Star, Sirius) in ancient Egypt comprised the end of July and the greater part of August, i.e. the hottest part of the year. (33) Parker, op. cit., 56, #281. (34) Weigall, A., A History of the Pharaohs, Vol.I, 29. (35) Thus Crombette, op. cit., 8. (36) See Parker, op. cit., 51, #260, where he makes reference to O. Neugebauer's "Die Bedeutungslosigkeit der 'Sothis-periode' fuer die alteste aegyptische Chronologie", Orientalia, XVII (1938), 169-195. See also Crombette, op. cit., 40-41. (37) Parker, ibid., 52, #260. (38) Ibid. His emphasis. (39) Crombette, op. cit., 41. His French also reads 'pure supposition'. (40) Ibid., 41. (41) Diod. of Sicily; as referred to by Antoniadi, in L'astronomie egyptienne (Paris, 1934), 102. (42) Neugebauer, O., "Die Bedeutungslosigkeit des segenannten altesten Datums der Weltgeschichte und einige sich daraus eigebende folgerungen fuer die Aegyptische Geschichte und Archaeologie," Acta Orientalia 28 (1939). (43) See Plutarch's Isis and Osiris, trans. F. Babbit. (44) Pliny, as referred to by Crombette, op. cit., 104. (45) Plutarch, op. cit. (46) Meyer, E., Chronologie egyptienne, 8. My translation. (47) Weigall, op. cit., 21. Top <#top> Outline <#outl> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PART TWO: THE SOTHIC THEORY CHAPTER THREE: THE SOTHIC STAR THEORY OF MEYER AND HIS COLLEAGUES Meyer's Explanation of the Egyptian Civil Calendar Eduard Meyer, one of the foremost chronologists of his time, recognised the fact that the civil year of the Egyptians was an entirely artificial one ('ein absolut kunstliches Gebilde'), since - as he said - neither month, nor season, nor even year, corresponded to any natural period (1). Like many others he believed that the Egyptians had, before the introduction of this year, used lunar months and some sort of lunar year. But he could offer no theory of such a lunar year (2). Meyer referred to the vague, 365-day year as 'Wandeljahr' in relation to the Sothic (Julian) year of 365 1/4 days (3); and he rightly noted that this vague year was late by a day every four years with regard to the Julian year, and by about three-quarters of an hour less with regard to the Gregorian year (4). Since Meyer showed great respect for what he deemed to be the profound ability of the Egyptians in matters of astronomy (5), it is intriguing that he failed to offer any explanation as to: - Why the Egyptians should have persevered for so long with a defective calendar; and : - Why he and his Berlin School of Egyptologists had begun to call "Sothic" a civil year of 365 days that was not tied to Sothis, and that differed quite appreciably from the astronomical year of Sothis. Meyer certainly believed that the Egyptians were capable of making a perfect calculation of the displacement of their vague year in relation to, for example, the solar year and the position of the seasons; and that also their vague year would coincide again with the Sothic year (i.e. our Julian year) after 1461 such civil years had elapsed. Despite this, however, he did not seem to regard the fact of the Egyptians having for so long persevered with such a year as being a matter worthy of much explanation. And so he wrote (6): "Most certainly ... [the Egyptians] noticed, in the course of the centuries, the retard of the ecliptic, solstices and equinoxes, and that of the commencement of the Inundation, in relation to the year of Sirius, but no one regarded it as being a matter of any consequence". In many of his views, Meyer was a true disciple of Lepsius - the first person to suggest that Sothic calculations might be useful for the purposes of chronological estimations. Lepsius had been convinced, for example, that the Egyptians, from of old, knew of both the "ordinary" and "solar" years, and that they could actually estimate the "Sothic period". Thus he had written with reference to the Old Kingdom era (7): "The simple notion of an ordinary year and of a solar year, the one beside the other, in the solemnities of the 4th and 5th Dynasties prepares me to justify the hypothesis that the knowledge of the Sothic period of 1461 years is as ancient as these monuments". And Mahler concurred with Lepsius in his belief that the Egyptians were aware of the Sothic cycle at that early period of history (8). It was in fact during the fifth and fourth millennia BC when, according to Meyer's estimate, the Egyptians first introduced the civil calendar into Egypt (9), that the heliacal rising of Sirius (or "Sopdet", as Meyer called it [10]) occurred on the 19th of July Julian, thereby coinciding with the commencement of the Inundation season (11). "That is why Sothis", he said, "was considered as announcing the Inundation" (12). New Year's Day of the civil year was, he believed, quite different from the commencement of the true solar year, and coincided rather with this heliacal rising of Sirius ('Helligkeit ... Frühaufgang des Sirius') (13). Classical Influences Now, according to Meyer's interpretation of the data provided by Censorinus (see Chapter Ten), a coincidence between the rising of Sothis and New Year's Day had occurred in the 100th year before Censorinus wrote his book, De Die Natali Liber: thus in 139/140 AD (14). Based on this particular interpretation by the Roman scholar, Meyer calculated the following sequence of years for the respective beginnings of Sothic periods (15): 19th July, 140/41 AD - 143/44 AD; " " 1321/20 BC - 1318/17 BC; " " 2781/80 BC - 2778/77 BC; " " 4241/40 BC - 4238/37 BC. Since, as Meyer presumed, the Egyptian civil calendar of 365 days could only have been invented on one of those occasions of coincidence between the civil and Julian years, and, as he further presumed, the second period of 2781 BC fell in the Fourth Dynasty when the civil calendar was known already to have been in use (16), Meyer concluded that the calendar must have been introduced at the earlier Sothic period beginning of 4241 BC (17). This latter date had for him also the further advantage over 2781 BC of being able - according to his own estimation of the span of Egyptian history - to accommodate the whole range of Egyptian dynasties. Meyer therefore regarded the date of 4241 BC as being a "total certainty" ('volliger Sicherheit') for Egypt's first mathematically fixed date (18). It was a statement made by the Greek scientist, Claudius Ptolemy, that apparently assisted Meyer in coming to this firm conclusion that the institution of the civil calendar must have been made on the occasion of a coincidence between New Year's Day and the heliacal rising of Sirius, because - as he had interpreted it - this had been the case in the era of 140-143 AD. Ptolemy had written in his Almagest that, in the era of 132-135 AD, the first of Thoth fell on the 21st of July (19). Hence Meyer, taking his cue from this information, was able to deduce from astronomical tables of progressive changes of the heliacal rising of Sirius (20) that New Year's Day must thus have fallen on the 19th of July during the era of 140-143 AD. Weill, then a colleague of Meyer, also examined the data of Censorinus in the light of further evidence from Ptolemy, but came up with a slightly different figure (21). A third (and later) author of great importance for the development of Meyer's Sothic theory was Theon of Alexandria. Theon had spoken of a new era, which he called the "Era of Menophres". Meyer, who estimated this era to have commenced on the 19th of July, 1321 BC, claimed that it could only be the Sothic period (22). He and his colleagues identified this "Menophres" with Ramses I, whom they believed to have reigned at about this time. Theon's information provided them not only with an apparent confirmation of the date for the commencement of a new Sothic era, but also with the date for the inauguration of the Nineteenth Dynasty under Ramses I. It is little wonder then that this presumed "Sothic" date of 1320/21 BC has since become one of the cardinal dates of ancient history. Meyer's Use of the Egyptian Texts Meyer, Borchardt, Weill and their associates also claimed to have found valuable Sothic information in several Egyptian documents, from which they thought themselves able to calculate relative dates within the overall Sothic scheme of Egyptian chronology (see Part Three). Here we shall simply provide the reader with a basic, practical example of the method of calculation used by the Berlin School for achieving those relative dates, using the example of the well-known Illahun Papyrus. From the record of the Illahun Papyrus, as interpreted by Borchardt, Meyer and Mahler, we learn that Sothis rose on the first of the month Pharmuthi in the seventh year of an unnamed king, presumed to be Sesostris III of the Twelfth Dynasty (23). With the month Pharmuthi conventionally being defined as the fourth month of the winter season, its displacement to the summer season, when the Dog Star rose heliacally, indicates to the proponents of the Sothic theory - with the aid of astronomical charts (24) - that the seventh year of Sesostris III was over 900 years after the beginning of a Sothic period, or 555 years before the end of that same period (four years being allowed for the retreat of the first day of Thoth from the night of the heliacal rising of Sirius). From this line of reasoning it is now calculated that the seventh year of Sesostris III was over 900 years after the presumed Sothic period beginning at 2780 BC (now situated by the Egyptologists mid-way through the Old Kingdom period), or 555 years before its conclusion in 1320 BC. In other words, the seventh year of Sesostris III can be "Sothically" computed to have occurred during the era of c.1876-1872 BC (25). From that mathematically precise point in time, the other Twelfth Dynasty monarchs before and after Sesostris III can then be assigned to their respective eras with the aid of regnal year information supplied by the king-lists and by the monumental evidence. On the strength of calculations such as these, Meyer believed that the Twelfth Dynasty had been inaugurated before 1940 BC (26). Then, by estimating the regnal years of Sesostris III's predecessors in that same dynasty, he arrived at the era of 1980-1939 BC for the reign of Sesostris I - considered to have been the second king of the Twelfth Dynasty (27). Next Meyer, still using the Twelfth Dynasty as his point of reference, went on to calculate the Second Intermediate Period, including the Hyksos dynasties, on the one hand (28), and the Eleventh Dynasty on the other (29). Despite his opinion that Manetho's figures were incredibly high, Meyer tended to retain Manetho's dynastic arrangement. Thus, for instance, he regarded the eleven dynasties preceding the Twelfth as ruling in single file. And since from his general estimation he believed that the date of 2781 BC was an impossibly late one for the commencement of this sequence of eleven dynasties, Meyer concluded that the Egyptian calendar must have been inaugurated in a presumed earlier Sothic period commencing at 4240 BC. This latter date he thought would also allow for the inclusion of those divine and semi-divine dynasties that were supposed to have preceded king Menes, Egypt's first historical king and unifier (30). Next, the Second Intermediate Period of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the various Hyksos dynasties, separating "Classical Egypt" of the Middle Kingdom from the beginning of the New Kingdom era, would now have to be fitted into Meyer's Sothic scheme in a period mathematically determined by the demands of the major Sothic cycle dates already thought to have been established. From a combination of these latter and of data from the Illahun Papyrus, primarily, Meyer had already set the Twelfth Dynasty firmly in the era of c.2000 BC-1788/85 BC; the latter date being his estimation for the conclusion of the Twelfth Dynasty (31). Thus 1790 BC became established as the approximate starting point of the Second Intermediate Period. It remained for Meyer to fix its date of termination. Although Meyer and his colleagues had already "Sothically" established the date for the commencement of the Nineteenth Dynasty at 1320 BC, they nonetheless still had to determine the precise length of the Eighteenth Dynasty in order to arrive at the beginning of the New Kingdom Era and the conclusion of the Second Intermediate Period. Once again they were able to call upon other appropriate "Sothic" texts recording the rising of Sirius. Conveniently, in this case, these were two Eighteenth Dynasty documents: namely, the Ebers Papyrus and the Elephantine Stele. The Ebers Papyrus, presumed to belong to the reign of Amenhotep I, recorded that Sirius rose on the ninth day of the (eleventh) month, Epiphi, during the 9th year of the king's reign (32). Meyer thus computed the 9th year of Amenhotep I as belonging to the era of 1550/49-1547/46 BC (33). The second document, the Elephantine Stele, presumably declared that a Sothic rising took place on the 28th day of the month of Epiphi also (34). While this inscription did not actually state the name of the king, nor the year of his reign, it was considered to have been a product of Thutmose III. From all this, therefore, Meyer calculated that the Eighteenth Dynasty had commenced in the approximate era of 1580/75 BC (35). This left the new Sothic arrangement with a period of approximately 210 years (i.e. 1790-1580 BC) for the entire Second Intermediate Period. Sothic Theory and Calendrical Reform A final Egyptian text that had important considerations for Meyer's Sothic star theory was the Decree of Canopus (36). Basically, Meyer interpreted this decree as recording that the festival day of the rising of the star of Isis had occurred on Payni 1, in the 9th year of pharaoh Ptolemy "Euergetes" I (37). Meyer dated Ptolemy's 9th year in the era of 22nd October 239 BC to 21st October 238 BC; and he dated the specific event of Isis's rising - according to this decree - to the 19th of July, 238 BC (38). Furthermore, he identified the Egyptian version of this star, whose hieroglyph in the tri-lingual Decree of Canopus was , as Sothis (39). In Part Three: B, we shall go into more detail about the Decree of Canopus and how Meyer used it for chronological purposes in conjunction with the data from Censorinus. But perhaps one of the most significant aspects of this pharaonic decree in regard to Meyer's theory in general is that it raises the all-important question of calendrical reform. Commentators, whether or not they wholeheartedly support the Sothic theory, are unanimous (40) in stating that the question of calendrical reform is crucial to the theory. A single proof that the Egyptians altered their 365-day calendar at any stage would be alone sufficient to ruin Meyer's theory. Van Oosterhout is therefore quite correct in his observation that "the whole [Sothic method] rests on the fundamental hypothesis that there have been no changes in the Egyptian calendar" (41). Now, whereas Meyer and his colleagues had argued that the Egyptians paid no heed to the discrepancy in their civil calendar, the Greek pharaohs of the Ptolemaic era apparently were not able to live so comfortably with it. Thus Ptolemy ordained at Canopus that, to rectify this discrepancy, a special day (our Leap Year) should be added to the calendar and celebrated as a feast in honour of the gods "Euergetai". Ptolemy "Euergetes" had, in effect, designed what later would become known as a "Julian" reform. But the native Egyptian people, it seems, rejected this reform, and it failed to become established. As Meyer observed, Egypt had to wait until the Roman era of Augustus before the Julian calendar of 365 1/4 days became the standard one in that country (42). The all-important issue of calendrical reform had already been raised before Meyer, by Lepsius (43). Early it had been thought that a particular pharaoh of the Hyksos era - sometimes given as Aseth, sometimes Saites, and sometimes Apophis (44) - had modified the 365-day Egyptian calendar by the suppression of a month (45). Since we are going to discuss this question of calendrical reform in detail in Part Three, it will be sufficient to note here that Meyer was aware of the alteration in the calendar as suggested by Lepsius, and that he referred to it as the "so-called calendrical reform of Saites" (46). Conclusion Meyer and his supporters, such as Weill and Breasted, apparently were well satisfied that the Sothic theory had been raised on firm principles. The system became known by the term, "short" chronology; referring chiefly to the fact that Meyer was prepared to ascribe a mere two centuries approximately to the Second Intermediate Period, based on his astronomical calculations. For the sake of maintaining his "short" scheme, Meyer was prepared to assign one hundred years to the Thirteenth Dynasty; whilst the other hundred, he believed, would suffice for the time of the Hyksos (47). Apart from Breasted, who never questioned the Sothic theory to any significant degree, Meyer's "short" chronology was stoutly defended by Weill prior to 1945 (48). And despite the fact that certain prominent Egyptologists rejected the basic hypotheses of Meyer and the Berlin School, it was Meyer's "one hundred years for the Hyksos" view that prevailed. It still to this day continues in its essential form to dominate the conventional structure of ancient chronology. NOTES: (1) Meyer, E., Aegyptische Chronologie, Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1904), 4. (2) Ibid., ff. Cf. R. Parker's "The Calendars of Ancient Egypt", in Studs. in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No.26 (1950), 30, #147. (3) Cf. Meyer, op. cit., 1& his Histoire de I'Antiquite, trans. Moret, Vol.II (Paris, 1914), 27. "C'est une annee vague". (4) See Meyer's Aegyptische, where he distinguishes "das (julianische) Siriusjahr" from "das echte (gregorianische) Sonnenjahr". (5) See e.g. Meyer's Histoire, ibid. (6) Meyer, E., Histoire de l'Egypte ancienne (Paris, 1935), 10. My translation. (7) Lepsius, R., Chronologie, 180. My translation. (8) Mahler, "Etudes sur le calendrier egyptien" (in his Ann. of M. Guimet), XXIV, 53 & 78. (9) See section entitled "Die Zeit der Entstehung des aegyptischen Kalenders", in Meyer's Aegyptische, 38-44. (10) Ibid. (11) Meyer, E., Histoire de l'Egypte ancienne, 10. (12) Ibid. (13) Meyer, Aegyptische, 13; q.v. Meyer's Histoire de l'Egypte, 7. (14) Meyer, Aegyptische, 28. (15) Ibid. (16) Ibid., 43; q.v. Meyer's Nachtraege zur aegyptischen Chronologie, Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1907), 12. (17) Meyer, Aegyptische, 41; Nachtraege, ibid. (18) Meyer, Aegyptische, 44. (19) Ptolemy's Almagest; as referred to by Meyer in Aegyptische, 24. Meyer makes reference to astronomical Tables from Boeckh and Usener in Aegyptische, 26-27. (20) Meyer, ibid. (21) Weill, R., Bases, Methodes et Resultats de la Chronologie Egyptienne (Paris, 1926), 9; q.v. his Complements (1928). Weill's figure was actually 139 AD. (22) Meyer, Aegyptische, 28-29. (23) See e.g. ibid., 7,18 & 34. (24) See footnote (20). (25) This useful explanation of Meyer's method of calculating from the Sothic data is taken largely from I. Velikovsky's Peoples of the Sea (Abacus, 1977), 230. (26) Meyer, Nachtraege, 19. (27) Ibid. (28) Ibid., 21-23. (29) Ibid., 31-39. (30) Meyer, Aegyptische, 40. (31) Meyer, Nachtraege, 35. (32) Ibid., 1. (33) Ibid., 1 & 9. (34) Ibid. (35) Ibid., 8. (36) See Meyer's Aegyptische, 10, 23 & 26. (37) Ibid., 23. (38) Ibid. (39) Ibid. (40) See e.g. R. Parker's "Sothic Dates and Calendar 'Adjustment'", Rev. d'E 9 (1952), 101-108; q.v. G. van Oosterhout's "The Heliacal Rising of Sirius", Studs. in Astronomical Chronology, 1 (Delft, 1989), 31. (41) Oosterhout, op. cit. His emphasis. (42) Meyer, Nachtraege, 31. (43) See F. von Bissing's Geschichte Aegyptens (1904), 32f. (44) For Aseth, see Meyer's Nachtraege, 39: for Saites, see Crombette's Chronologie, 40; for Apophis, see Crombette, passim. (45) Crombette, op. cit., ibid. (46) Meyer, Histoire de 1'Antiquite, 28. "... pretendue reforme calenderique de Saites". (47) Meyer, Nachtraege 34ff; q.v. his Geschichte, esp. Section entitled, "Das Reich der Hyksos", 313-323. Actually, according to E. Danelius (in "The Identification of the Biblical 'Queen of Sheba'", Kronos 1 [1975], 4) it was Champollion who first devised this "short" chronological scheme. (48) Weill, Bases, 9. As will be explained in Chapter Eleven, Weill later (in 1945) changed his mind about this. Top <#top> Outline <#outl> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER FOUR: SOME BASIC IMPLICATIONS OF MEYER'S THEORY Introduction Here we intend to discuss certain ramifications of Meyer's Sothic star theory in regard to Egyptian chronology and the calendar; particularly in the context of the reactions - whether favourable or unfavourable - of some of the earlier commentators like Neugebauer, Weill and Petrie. We shall start with Neugebauer's strong criticism of Meyer's views concerning the nature and development of the Egyptian calendar. Then we shall counterbalance this criticism with Parker's defence of Meyer. After that, we shall touch on the all-important question of calendrical adjustment; again using Parker as a balance to criticism of Meyer. And finally, regarding the question of chronology, we shall examine some early reactions by noted Egyptologists to the Berlin School's "short" chronology for the Second Intermediate Period. The Egyptian Calendar 1. Criticism of Meyer's Interpretation Undoubtedly one of Meyer's most trenchant critics was Otto Neugebauer. He, in turn, was strongly supported by Capart and Scharff. Writing in 1938, some time after Meyer, Neugebauer published an important and provocative study of the Egyptian calendar (1), whose views he re-affirmed in 1942 (2). We recall that Meyer had shown great faith in the scientific ability of the Egyptians, even to the extent of hypothesising that they were able - as far back as 4240 BC - to reform their lunar year so as to create the new 365-day civil year, without long-term observations. Neugebauer, however, poured scorn on such an hypothesis. His own belief was that it would have taken the Egyptians a long period of time to notice the difference between the two years (solar and vague) that Meyer, following Lepsius, claimed they had used together since the Old Kingdom era. Neugebauer labelled Meyer's hypothesis of a relatively sudden introduction into Egypt of a 365-day calendar as "an absurdity" from a historical point of view (3). In the first part of his paper Neugebauer vigorously attacked the conception of the Sothic period as being an instrument for determining, as Meyer claimed to have done, the oldest certain date in history. Unlike Meyer, Neugebauer thought that there could not have existed at that time any theoretical astronomy, as writing and mathematics had not been invented, and as the cultural level of the people was very low. In this context Neugebauer also attacked the claim of Borchardt (who shared Meyer's regard for the Sothic theory) that a body of Egyptian astronomers had been responsible at this time for the revolutionary installation of the 365-day year. Neugebauer bluntly stated that the reality of such a claim existed only in Borchardt's imagination (4). Neugebauer then emphatically pointed to what he regarded as being a contradiction between the revolutionary character of a 365-day year based on Sothis, and the failure of the proponents of this new calendar to adjust it to Sothis when after but eight years the year began two days before the rising of Sothis. He concluded this section with the claim that, while the Egyptians had two conceptions of the year: (a) a period of 365 days; and (b) the interval between two risings of Sothis, in the beginning these had nothing to do with each other (5). In the second part of his discussion, Neugebauer presented his own theory of the origins of the 365-day year, entirely apart from Sothis. He argued that an averaging of the intervals between inundations over a period that - as he estimated - need not be greater than fifty years, would inevitably result in an interval of 365 days. If then, this "Nile" (or "Nilotic") calendar were adopted in a year when the inundation was normal, it would take some centuries - because of the great variability of the inundation - before the calendrical seasons no longer coincided with the natural seasons. A new phenomenon, he claimed, would then be picked as expressing more clearly than the calendar the incipient inundation. This, he argued, was the rising of Sothis (6). When Neugebauer first announced his theory, he was inclined to place the introduction of the 365-day year in the centuries around 4200 BC; the very same era as Meyer's original date. But on the strength of conclusions from a later analysis of his own theory by Scharff (7), Neugebauer eventually switched this event to the centuries around 2800 BC (8). Denying Meyer's claim that the Egyptians had retained two definitions (viz. civil and solar) of the year side by side, Neugebauer used the opportunity to comment on the "inefficiency", as he called it, of the Egyptian civil year according to Meyer's interpretation of it (9). The general assessment by more recent commentators of Neugebauer's thesis tends to suggest that, whilst Neugebauer was definitely wrong in trying to assert that the two calendars did not exist in Egypt side by side, he was right when he claimed that the civil calendar had not been tied to Sothis at its introduction. Meyer, too, had been quite well aware of the retardation (or what Neugebauer calls "inefficiency") of the Egyptian civil year (10); but, following Lepsius, he was equally aware that the evidence pointed to the fact of the co-existence throughout the various phases of Egyptian history of the two types of year (11). Neugebauer on the other hand had, by claiming the 365-day year to be an illusion, completely ignored the evidence. For this he was criticised by Parker, who wrote: "Neugebauer's theory fails to take into account the already existing calendaric situation" (12). However, so forceful had been Neugebauer's attack on the Sothic theory, followed by that of Scharff, that it had impressed itself in part even on critics like Parker. The latter, whilst rejecting the un-scientific aspects of Neugebauer's theory, was absolutely convinced that Neugebauer had proved beyond doubt that the new civil calendar was independent of Sothis at its introduction; being tied instead to some variable astronomical phenomenon (13). Meyer's presuming that the institution of the civil year must have occurred at the moment when the beginning of this year coincided with the rising of Sothis - as this had been the case in 140-143 AD - was in fact pure supposition. Meyer could produce no specific evidence to show that such was the case. Neugebauer's Original 'Nilotic' Year Parker, however, was not so impressed with Neugebauer's further strong opinion that an averaging of the Nile flood, rather than the luni-stellar calendar accepted by most as being the earliest form of Egyptian year, was the original method of calendation in Egypt. Having stated that "weighty objections" could be brought against Neugebauer's theory (14), Parker brushed aside the latter's early calculation of 4200 BC for Egypt's original efforts to form a calendar. He then proceeded to question Neugebauer's point about averaging the Nile. Given Winlock's estimation that "one Nile year might be only 335 days long and another as much as 415" (15), he wrote, it was unlikely that the early Egyptians would have used such a method. Parker, in regard to Neugebauer's revised calculation of 2800 BC for the beginning of Egyptian civilisation, could agree that Egypt by then was unquestionably in possession of a well organised economic life, as well as writing and mathematics; these being Neugebauer's conditions 'sine qua non' for the creation of a schematic calendar (16). But Parker went on to add that (17): "... Egypt also possessed at this time, as has been shown [by himself] ..., a "Nile" lunar calendar based on Sothis". Obviously there would be no point to averaging the intervals between inundations, he said, in order to arrive at a Nilotic year, "when all the time there was present and in use a lunar Nile Year" (18). O'Mara likewise was critical of Neugebauer for having posited what he called a "fancy and utterly modern technique of averaging Nile highs or modified lunar years to calculate the [365-day] year" (19). 2. The Question of Calendrical reform Meyer and his colleagues would not admit positively to any calendrical changes during the entire period of the civil calendar (from its institution during the Old Kingdom right through until its demise during the Roman period of Augustus) (20). In this view, Meyer was strongly supported initially by Weill, and later by Parker. Parker explained that there were two different ways by which a calendar may be adjusted. These were simply, he said, either "to put in a day or days", or "to cut out a day or days" (21). Both types of reform, he believed, had been suggested by Egyptologists at one time or another as having been used by the Egyptians. Parker himself, though, was rather firmly opposed to any notion of calendrical reform during Egypt's long history. He included here the important distinction that must be made between what the Egyptians actually did and what modern scholars might think they ought to have done (22): "Now what we think the Egyptians might have done or should have done about adjusting their calendar carries little weight against the fact [sic] that for some eighteen centuries (ca. 1540 BC to AD 238), which includes more than a whole Sothic period, they almost certainly did not tamper with it, and the one time an attempt was made (decree of Canopus) it failed completely". Parker's argument enabled him to conclude in support of Meyer's opinion that the cyclical progress of the civil year "did obtain and was not interfered with"; this being a belief, he said, that "had been a cornerstone of Egyptian chronology since it was formulated by Meyer in 1904" (23). Manetho's Testimony Despite Meyer's disinterest regarding the question of calendrical reform, there are a number of apparent evidences from Manetho that indicate changes in the Egyptian calendar after the end of the Twelfth dynasty (24). One belongs to a note appended to the name of Aseth, presumed to be one of the late Hyksos kings whose name appears in the Sothis list. It reads (25): "This king added the 5 intercalary days to the year: in his reign, they say, the Egyptian year became a year of 365 days, being previously reckoned as 360 days only". Another version of Manetho (26) credits a calendrical alteration of the same type to a different Hyksos king, Saites, at an earlier date. This was the note that Meyer simply dismissed as "the so-called calendrical reform of Saites". Later however Weigall, in his discussion of the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties (27), returned to this question of calendrical reform close to, and during, the Hyksos era. He began by making reference to what he thought to be "the change in calendar from the Mesore year to the Thoth year"; the former, he said, being what was used during the era of the Twelfth Dynasty and the latter, as attested by the Elephantine Stele, being used at some point during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Weigall believed that his awareness of such a calendrical change would enable him, as he said, to "offer some new light" on the length of the Second Intermediate Period. He arrived at the conclusion that (28): "Therefore there was an adjustment of the calendar between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties. The dates of festivals collected by Gardiner (Zeitschrift, 1907, p.136) show that the festivals kept their place in spite of the adjustment". Weigall next attempted to locate this supposed reform more precisely. For this he used an Egyptian text, the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus - a document that some scholars have regarded as being untrustworthy (29) - which, he said, "is dated in the 33rd year of Apophis, the fourth Hyksos king". Of special interest to Weigall, however, was one of what he called "some jottings added afterwards", which he gave as follows (30): "Year 11, 1st month, day 3, Birth of Set. The majesty of this god caused his voice (to be heard). Birth of Isis. The heaven rained". He suggested that "Year 11" here might be assumed to be that of the pharaoh who had succeeded Apophis; probably, as he said, "Khian or Saites". The aspect of this statement that Weigall really wanted to emphasise was what he regarded to be the coincidence in it of two Egyptian feasts - namely, the birth of Set and the birth of Isis - which were traditionally celebrated, as he said, on successive days (the former on the third, and the latter on the fourth, of the epagomenal days), "... but here these two days are given as belonging to the first month of the year". For Weigall, this meant that the five epagomenal days must have been suspended by the Hyksos monarch for that year. Crombette (31) also supported the notion of a calendrical reform during the Hyksos era. He was critical of Meyer for having ignored, as he said, "the only known modification of the calendar ... towards 1700 BC" (which reform Crombette attributed to pharaoh Apophis). 3. Early Evaluation of Meyer's "Short" Chronology Proponents of the "Short" Chronology Many historians contemporary with Meyer were not primarily concerned about chronology; but amongst the best known of those who were, the majority leaned towards Meyer's estimation of approximately 210 years for the Second Intermediate Period. Apart from Meyer himself, the chief advocates of the Sothic-based "short" chronology were e.g. Breasted, Weill and Weigall. And after the death of Petrie (see following section on the "long" chronology), their main opponent in matters chronological, the "short" scheme of Meyer and his associates really came into its own, and has remained the standard one to this day. It is hardly surprising that a scheme favoured by, say, three experts, rather than that favoured by one, would have drawn votes of acceptance from those who may not have had the time to study the chronological problem for themselves. With the passing of time, however, scholars have the better been able to ascertain just how well this standard chronological arrangement accommodates all the well-established historical facts and documentary evidence. We saw that according to Meyer's scheme, with the end of the Twelfth Dynasty astronomically fixed at 1790 BC, and the commencement of the Eighteenth Dynasty likewise fixed at 1580 BC, the Second Intermediate Period must be slotted in during the 210 years separating those two kingdoms. Breasted accepted this ineluctable conclusion somewhat uncritically, and made no significant contributions in this area. Weill, too, staunchly defended it prior to 1945, but then - in that year - changed his mind, now proposing that the Twelfth Dynasty had in reality been contemporary with the Hyksos Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties, and that the Second Intermediate Period should be reduced by a maximum of thirty years from Meyer's figure (32). Not surprisingly such a proposal, involving as it did the further shrinking of the "short" chronology, did not gain many supporters (33). Weigall, the other notable Egyptologist who then strongly supported the "short" chronology, had by no means succeeded in accounting for the problematical squeezing of several dynasties into the Second Intermediate Period. Nor was his case in favour of the Sothic scheme strengthened in any way by the kind of circular reasoning that he exhibited in the following statement (34): "... of course the most important argument in favour of the arrangement is that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Dynasties have got to be fitted into a period between the astronomically fixed date of the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty and the rise of the Seventeenth". Hall, on the other hand, was one who appeared to fluctuate between acceptance of "short" and "long" chronologies, perhaps trying to find some generally acceptable middle ground. Early, he was prepared to admit that the "short" chronology had some features in its favour from an art-historical perspective, with very little difference between the art of the early Eighteenth Dynasty and that of the Thirteenth; the "fact", as he said, being "very well shewn [shown] on a small scale in the evolution of the scarab-seal" (35). Added to this was the evidence from Crete, which indicated to Hall that: "... no very long period of time elapsed between the Second Middle Minoan Period of the Aegean culture, which was contemporary with the Twelfth Dynasty, and the First Late Minoan Period, which was contemporary with the beginning of the Eighteenth". Though Meyer's chronological assessment won the strong approval of some, it did not convince all the Egyptologists of the day. Some rejected outright the entire notion and methodology of the Sothic scheme. Flinders Petrie on the other hand, whilst not rejecting the validity - as he saw it - of the Sothic method of computation, could by no means accept that the Second Intermediate Period could be contained within a mere two centuries. Thus he developed his unique Sothic-based system known as the "long" chronology. Petrie's "Long" Chronology Sir Flinders Petrie, who believed that great chronological difficulties had arisen from Meyer's interpretation of the Sothic data, was seen by Hall as having (36): "... boldly cut the Gordion knot [by] assuming that the [Sothic] calculation is right, but that the date must be pushed back by a whole Sothic period of 1460 years earlier ...". And that is exactly what Petrie did. Unable to accept the "short" chronological arrangement for the Second Intermediate Period, Petrie - on the basis of the data available - arrived at what he considered to be the only rational conclusion, namely that an extra Sothic period be inserted into this interim (37). Thus, for example, the Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh Sesostris III, instead of having reigned during the early nineteenth century BC as Meyer and his school would have it, must have - according to Petrie's extended chronology - reigned as far back as c.3300 BC. Petrie's own comments on the chronological issues arising from the "short" chronology, prompting a scholar of his calibre to take such a drastic step, are of sufficient general relevance to reproduce here at some length (38): "The question in debate is in which cycle the XIIth Dynasty occurred; does it end at 1786 BC or 3246 BC? Or, as it is agreed the XVIIIth Dynasty began in 1580, were there 206 or 1666 years between the XIIth and XVIIIth dynasties? The advocates of the short period claim that there are not enough monuments known to fill more than two centuries. Yet we have remains of at least seventeen kings of the XIIIth dynasty, and every year adds to their number, which on an average of 7 years each is 120 years". Passing on from the Thirteenth Dynasty to the Hyksos era, Petrie continues his interesting comment: "The Hyksos age is now fairly defined, and requires us to recognize at least ten important reigns, besides the probability of a large number more, and 150 years would be a low estimate for what is already known. And at least 10 years must be allowed in the XVIIIth dynasty. Those 280 years are covered by reigns which are evident, while we ignore the probability that we only know yet the minor part of the rulers in this very dark and confusing period. To compress this into two centuries seems impossible. The advocates of the longer period consider that the evidence of changes in art, the language, and the burial customs show that much more than two centuries had passed, and that this fully balances the supposed scantiness of monuments as historical material". Of course no one today would accept Petrie's vastly exaggerated chronology. If modern commentators have unanimously rejected (as being far too early) Meyer's original date of 4240 BC, so 'a fortiori' must they dismiss Petrie's backward projection of an extra Sothic period. Even Petrie himself would eventually abandon this scheme, thereby enabling for the "short" chronology to become unrivalled. Nonetheless, the essential points raised by Petrie showing the need - as he saw it - for a Second Intermediate Period lasting longer than two centuries still have force today. Hall's 'Middle of the Road' Position Whilst Hall could agree with certain aspects of Meyer's "short" chronology, he too produced some facts that he thought could not be reconciled with it. According to Hall's estimate of the data, it seemed almost impossible "to force" - as he put it - all the kings of the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties into "so small a space as 250 [sic] years, cut down their reigns as we may" (39). Hall went on to say, in relation to the Illahun fragment's presumed Sothic date of the seventh year of Sesostris III, that: "The XIIIth Dynasty gives us the impression of having reigned for a considerable period; and the new kings, probably to be placed at the beginning of the XVIIth Dynasty, whose statues have lately been found at Karnak, cannot have been purely ephemeral monarchs if they reigned long enough for their colossi to be erected at Thebes. The difficulties in the way of the acceptance of this Sothis date are therefore great". Of even more relevance for the question under discussion was Hall's further comment on the length of the Hyksos era during the Second Intermediate Period. Whereas Meyer had estimated this at about one century, Hall was of the opinion that (40): "... it seems impossible to find room in two centuries for the two dynasties of the Hyksos ..., preceding the XVIIIth Dynasty, some of whom seem to have had very long reigns and to have ruled the whole land (so that they cannot have been contemporaneous with other kings ruling in the south whose names we know), as well as for the long XIIIth Dynasty that preceded them, some of whose kings also reigned long and ruled the whole country". But just as much as Hall found it "impossible" to accept Meyer's "slashing" (as he called it) of the Second intermediate Period to a mere two hundred years approximately, so did he consider Petrie's sixteen hundred years for the same interim period to be "far longer than our material demands". He was also critical of the corresponding view of Petrie's that the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties were vastly different from the point of view of their respective civilisations (41): "... the civilization and art of the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty hardly differs from that of the end of the XIIth: is in no way so different from it as that of the IVth". Hall's Conclusion Had Meyer and his colleagues allowed for "another century only", Hall said by way of conclusion, then his "allegiance" to Meyer's short chronology "might have been conceded willingly" (42). Finding himself stranded, as it were, between the "short" and "long" chronologies - being convinced that the changes in art between the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties were unlikely to have occupied so short an interval as 200 years (Meyer), or so long an interval as 1600 (Petrie), and with his own estimate being "three and a half centuries" - Hall ended up having to abandon entirely the notion of the Sothic period as being a clue to the period elapsed. NOTES: (1) Neugebauer, O., "Die Bedeutungslosigkeit der 'Sothis-periode' fuer die aelteste aegyptische Chronologie", Acta Orientalia, XVII (1938), 169-195. (2) Neugebauer, O., "The Origin of the Egyptian Calendar", JNES, 1 (1942), 396-403. (3) Ibid. (4) See R. Parker's "The Calendars of Ancient Egypt", Studs. in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No.26 (1950), 51 #256. (5) Ibid. (6) Ibid. (7) Scharff, "Die Bedeutungslosigkeit der sogennanten aeltesten Datums der Weltgeschichte", Historische Zeitschrift 161 (1939), 32. (8) Neugebauer, "Origin", 398. (9) Ibid. (10) Meyer, E., Aegyptische Chronologie, Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1904), 106. (11) Ibid. (12) Parker, "Calendars", #260. (13) Ibid. (14) Ibid., #259. (15) Winlock, H., "The origin of the Ancient Egyptian Calendar", Proc. of the APS, 83 (1940), 450. (16) Parker, op. cit; with reference to Neugebauer. (17) Ibid. (18) Ibid., #260. (19) O'Mara, P., The Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons (La Canada, 1980), 50. (20) Actually the Egyptians persevered unofficially with their calendar even then, and until the advent of Christianity. (21) Parker, R., "Sothic Dates and Calendar 'Adjustment'", in Rev. d'E 9 (1952), 102. (22) Ibid., 105. As an example of the former case, putting in day(s), Parker cited the view of Alliot, saying that: "Alliot ... treats the question of calendar adjustment almost as though it were now an accepted fact. Outside of the appeal to authority ('... beaucoup ... specialistes'), however, his evidence seems to consist only in a belief that since the Egyptians knew the civil year moved forward through the seasons, they must have tried to adjust it". The objective of this type of calendrical reform, Parker then explained, would be to keep the year in place by adding a day or days in either of two ways: viz. an extra day every four years (as proposed in the Decree of Canopus), or by a greater number of days at less frequent periods. Parker explained as follows how such a proposed type of reform would affect Sothic calculations: "Suppose various attempts at this, which were not long successful, had been made throughout Egyptian history. The only possible chronological result would be that the period between two Sothic dates might be greater than the normal period. It could never be smaller". The second method of calendrical adjustment proposed by Parker, of cutting out day(s), was illustrated - he said - by what Weill had done when he reduced the Second Intermediate Period by thirty years from Meyer's figure of 210 years. Whereas Weill apparently, according to Parker, had thought that such a reform, enacted after the time of Sesostris III, might have had something to do with the Theban restoration of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Parker himself claimed that in this dynasty the regnal years were counted from the day of the accession of the king, not from the Egyptian New Year's Day as Weill had indicated, and thus "it would hardly seem necessary to force regnal and civil year into concurrence". (23) Ibid., 105. His emphasis. (24) Manetho, Aegyptica, trans. Waddel (1956). (25) E.g. see note after name of Saites in Sothis list, ibid. (26) Manetho, op. cit., 99. (27) Weigall, A., A History of the Pharaohs, Vol.I (1925), esp. 33-39. (28) Ibid., 34. (29) See e.g. G. Robins & C. Shute, The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: An Ancient Egyptian Text (London, 1987). (30) Weigall, op. cit., ibid. (31) Crombette, Chronologie, 40. (32) See Parker, "Sothic", 102. (33) According to Parker, ibid., Weill maintained his position in several articles, and won at least one colleague, viz. Alliot, to his partial support. (34) Weigall as quoted in D. MacNaughton's A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology (1932), 10. (35) Hall, H., The Ancient History of the Near East (Methuen, 1913), 23. (36) Ibid; q.v. Hall's article in CAH I 1st ed. (1928), 169. (37) Petrie, F., Researches in Sinai (1906), ch. xii; q.v. his A History of Egypt, 7th ed. Vol.I (1912), add. xvii, xviii. (38) Ibid. (39) Hall, Ancient, 23. (40) Hall, CAH, 169. (41) Hall, Ancient, 24. Hall further qualified this statement, explaining that whilst the difference between the civilisation of the Twelfth Dynasty and that of the middle Eighteenth were very great, it was not the same for the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. (42) Ibid., 25. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Top <#top> Outline <#outl> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crawl out of this tomb Submenu 1