mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Start <#start>
* Original Historical Documents*

	Part AA <sothic_star.html>
Part BB <sothic_star2.html>

	SOTHIC DATING EXAMINED 	

	* THE SOTHIC STAR THEORY OF THE EGYPTIAN CALENDAR
Image of the surface of Mars
*	

	OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK - Part C

PART THREE (B): POST-MENOPHRES ERA CITATIONS (i.e. Post-1320 BC)

Chapter Ten <#c10>: The Statement of Censorinus

PART FOUR: A CRITIQUE OF MEYER'S SOTHIC THEORY

Chapter Eleven <#c11>: Assessment of Meyer's Theory in General
Chapter Twelve <#c12>: Some Conclusions About Meyer's Theory

ADDENDA

Appendix A <#aa>: A Further Explanation of Astronomical Terms
Appendix B <#ab>: Correctly Identifying the Sothic Star
Appendix C <#ac>: The Illahun Lunar Documents

BIBLIOGRAPHY <#bib>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART THREE A: PRE-MENOPHRES ERA CITATIONS (i.e Pre-1320 BC)

	CHAPTER TEN: THE STATEMENT OF CENSORINUS

Introduction

Early in the third century AD Censorinus, a Roman author, wrote a
treatise entitled De Die Natali Liber (ad Q. Caerellium) - i.e. "The
Book about the Birthday (for Q. Caerellius)" - in whose later chapters
we discover detailed information about the calendars of several nations
and the relations between them. For reasons such as these, historians
generally have come to regard Censorinus's treatise as being one of the
most important and precious documents from antiquity on chronology. It
was Censorinus who, looking back at the Egyptian calendar from the point
of view of the Julian calendar of 365 1/4 days, had estimated that the
Egyptian New Year would wander backward through the seasons to the
extent that, in the fifth year, New Year's Day of the civil calendar
would be a whole day ahead of whatever event marked the commencement of
the astronomical year (1).

Censorinus also recorded the information that what he called the "Great
Year" of the Egyptians began at the rising of the Dog Star on the first
day of the month Thoth (2). Since, therefore, the span of four Egyptian
years was shorter than that of four Julian years by approximately one
day, correspondence between the two years would be re-established on the
1461st year.

Now, according to Meyer's interpretation of the data given by
Censorinus, a coincidence between the rising of Sothis and New Year's
Day had occurred in the 100th year before the Roman author wrote his
book De Die Natali Liber: thus in 139/140 AD (3). Meyer was further
assisted by the statement made by the Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy,
in his Almagest (4), that in the era 132-135 AD the 1st of Thoth fell on
the 21st of July. He was thus able to deduce from the combination of
this data, using astronomical tables of progressive changes of the
heliacal rising of Sirius (5), that New Year's Day must therefore have
fallen on the 19th of July during the era of 140-143 AD, and again on
the same day for the presumed Sothic period commencements in 1320 BC;
2780 BC and 4240 BC.

A third classical author (apart from Censorinus and Ptolemy) whom Meyer
believed to be useful in connection with the data of Censorinus, was
Theon of Alexandria. Whilst it is generally believed that Theon's
statement regarding a 1460-year period supports Censorinus, there are
some scholars who consider that what the Alexandrian had to say actually
contradicts him. Later, we shall briefly discuss the usefulness or
otherwise, from a chronological point of view, of Theon's statement.

A Description of the Statement of Censorinus

Since our way of expressing dates had not yet of course been introduced
in the time of Censorinus, the Roman author had to devise his own scheme
for calculating in retrograde fashion the periods of elapsed time to the
various historical events - or historical eras - that he had wanted to
record. He therefore calculated back from his own year of writing De Die
Natali Liber, which - as he inform us - was the year when V.C. Pius and
Pontianus were consuls. This year is now calculated at 238 AD.

Now, according to Censorinus's list of dates, his year of writing was
also the 100th year of what he called the "Great Year". The Sothic
theorists have presumed that this Great Year of Censorinus was none
other than the 1460-year cycle of Sirius, whose beginning must then have
occurred one hundred years prior to 238 AD, i.e. 139 AD. Such indeed was
Meyer's reasoning.

Complete translations of Censorinus's treatise appear to be extremely
rare (6). Fortunately, however, the passages with which we are concerned
in this chapter are only short and they have been translated into
English. These, which belong to chapters 18 and 21 respectively of
Censorinus's treatise, are given separately below, followed by their
respective translations (7):

[Contrary to the case of the other Great Years in the preceding part of
the Censorinus text] "The moon has nothing to do with the Great Year of
the Egyptians which we call in Greek kuvikov and in Latin canicularis
because its beginning is taken when on the first day of the month which
they call [Egyptian month of Thoth] the Dog Star rises. Their civil year
has 365 days only, without being intercalated not even by a single day.
Hence with them the quadriennium [= a cycle of 4 civil years] is
approximately one day less than the natural quadriennium. Consequently
it happens that in the 1461st [year] it has turned around to the same
beginning. This year is called by some heliacos [= 'related to the sun']
and by others [= 'the year of God']".

We follow with the excerpt from chapter 21. Here Censorinus, having
referred to the years which he described as being "of Nabonassar", went
on to explain that:

"... of those, however, the beginning is always from the first day of
the month which the Egyptians call Thouth [Thoth] which occurred this
year on the seventh day before the calends of July whereas 100 years
from the present [in the year] when imperator Antoninus Pius for the
second time and Bruttius Praesens were consuls of Rome this same day
occurred on the 13th day before the calends of August at which time the
Dog Star habitually rises in Egypt. Hence we may know that of this Great
Year - which, like said above, is named year of the Sun and year of the
Dog Star and year of God - the present year is the hundredth".

In these two excerpts we discover various elements that have since
become an integral part of the modern-day Sothic theory. For one, there
is a reference to the rising of the Dog Star, or Sirius. Then there is
mention of a cycle of 1461 years. And, finally, there occurs the word
"heliacal". Generally the Sothic theorists take Censorinus here as
meaning that the "Great Year" begins with the year when the heliacal
rising of Sirius is on the first of the month Thoth. After 1461 years of
the civil calendar, or 1460 years of the solar year, Sirius would rise
again, heliacally, on the first of Thoth. Such an interpretation by the
Sothic theorists is dependent of course on their belief that the
Egyptians computed calendrically according to this vast period that they
called "Sothic".

Censorinus wrote that in the 100th year before he compiled his treatise,
a new Great Year-period had begun. Now the Sothic theorists assume
accordingly that this reference to a Great Year should be taken also as
referring to a new Sothic period. Van Oosterhout thus summarises their
method of calculating from the data supplied by Censorinus (8):

"Counting backwards 100 years and taking as usual (the Romans count
inclusively) 238 AD-1 (9) leads to 139 AD. According to Censorinus in
139 AD on July 20 the Dog Star rose heliacally in the morning. The
Egyptian date was then 1 Thoth. This has been confirmed by many
calculations, including my own".

Meyer who, as we saw, had used modern astronomical tables in combination
with the chronological data as supplied by Censorinus to determine the
progressive heliacal risings of Sirius, also used those same
astronomical tables to correct part of Censorinus's statement. Thus
Meyer explained that (10):

"Censorinus says rightly that in the year 238 AD, when he wrote, the 1st
of Thoth fell on the 25th of June; but the following datum that it fell
on the 21st of July in the year 139 AD is false; it fell this year on
the 20th of July".

Weill, a one-time colleague of Meyer's, also examined the data of
Censorinus in the light of the added evidence from Ptolemy (11). Having
endeavoured to show with what precision Censorinus had defined the date
of his "Great Year", Weill - who incidentally placed it at 139 AD - then
pointed out what he believed to be the presumed confirmation of this in
Ptolemy's Canon of Kings. Apparently, however, Weill also picked up a
point of inconsistency in Censorinus (see following quote). The dating
of the Sothic year of 139 was confirmed by a note of Ptolemy in which
were dated, he wrote (12):

"... the 1st of Thoth Egyptian of two given years of the era of
Nabonassar, which are 132 and 135 AD. On these two occasions the 1st of
Thoth fell on the 21st of July Julian. From this it may be concluded
that 139 AD would not be the same apokatastasis, the first of four years
when the 1st of Thoth falls on the 19th of July (rising of Sothis), as
Censorinus says, but only the fourth of this tetraeteris".

The Statement of Theon

Theon of Alexandria has recorded when a certain 'apokatastasis' of the
Egyptian year came to its close. His statement on the matter, usually
considered by the Egyptologists in relation to the statement made by
Censorinus, runs as follows (11):

"But said period of 1460 years, begun since some instant, came to an end
[Greek: apokatastasis] in the fifth year of the emperor Augustus and,
from this last epoch, the Egyptians begin all over again to find
themselves every year one quarter of a day in advance".

Now "the fifth year of the emperor Augustus" occurred in 26 BC; the same
year in which, according to some authorities (12), the calendar reform
was enforced in Alexandria. Going by the statement of Censorinus,
however, the beginning of a new "Great Year" is - as we have already
learned - to be placed at 139 AD.

On a manuscript of Theon there was discovered that by now celebrated
annotation, written in what Martin (13) has described as "barbarian
Greek", that tells of 1605 years having elapsed since "Menophres" and
until the end of the era of Augustus, or the beginning of the era of
Diocletian.

Do these two classical authors contradict one another? The answer is of
the utmost importance when we consider that the established
chronological system depends so heavily upon the accuracy of the
statements by Censorinus and Theon, and upon the correctness of the
interpretation of these statements. Historians, learning presumably from
Theon the name of the king who inaugurated a major era, and placing this
king in the time indicated by Censorinus at the beginning of a Sothic
period, have been able to obtain for themselves a fixed point around
which to build Egyptian chronology and the history of the ancient world.

Whilst many scholars are prepared to accept fully the combined data of
these two classical authors as currently interpreted, there are some who
have pointed to flaws and inconsistencies in Theon's statement,
especially when taken in conjunction with Censorinus. Some have gone
even further and have spoken of what they consider to be a downright
contradiction between Theon's evidence and that of Censorinus.

Van Oosterhout (14) typifies the first group of scholars. Because, as he
believed, Theon had failed to connect the 1460-year period to any
specific astronomical event, he described Theon's statement as "the
cryptic remark of Theon of Alexandria". Van Oosterhout, however, was
apparently convinced that Theon was in fact referring to the same
astronomical event as the one Censorinus had recorded, and thus he
presumed to make the requisite connection on Theon's behalf: "It should
be stressed that the period of 1460 years mentioned here is the result
of the relation of the natural year and the Egyptian year like in the
Censorinus text".

Of special interest in the light of our present subject, however, is van
Oosterhout's final comment on the comparison between the data of Theon
and Censorinus. There we find him admitting that (15): "Neither Theon
nor Censorinus connect this period with Sirius!".

Long (16) typifies the second group of scholars who are far more
critical in regard to the reliability of Theon and Censorinus,
especially when combined. Because Theon had referred to the conclusion
of a 1460-year period as having occurred in the 5th year of Augustus, or
26 BC, as opposed to Censorinus's testimony that a Great Year of the
same duration had commenced in 139 AD, Long went so far as to say that
Theon's statement "contradicts Censorinus". (And because he thought in
terms of Theon's 1460 years as being necessarily Sothic, Long even
imagined that Theon had contradicted himself with regard to his Era of
Menophres). Not surprisingly, then, Long opted for what he called "the
greater precision of Censorinus" over the reliability of Theon with
regard to the rising of Sirius.

Albiruni's Contribution

Albiruni (17), an Arabian chronologist of a later era (viz. AD
973-1048), had spoken about five years still wanting until the end of a
'kabisa', in the days of Augustus. Ironically, in this case, Long (18)
seized upon Albiruni's statement, claiming that it "supported Theon, not
Censorinus", when Theon had "recorded that Augustus delayed his reform
of the Egyptian calendar for five years until the completion of a Sothic
cycle in 26 BC". To begin with, Theon, as we have just noted, had not
mentioned the phrase "Sothic cycle" or anything unequivocally like it.
To make matters worse, nor had Albiruni!

Van Oosterhout (19) was critical of Long for making such assumptions,
and especially for equating Albiruni's "kabisa erroneously", as he said,
"by Sothic period". He insisted instead that the Arabic word ought to be
translated as "great intercalation period".

It seems that van Oosterhout may be quite right about this (20).

Claudius Ptolemy

Some historians (21) have observed that, in relation to the data of
Censorinus, if one Great Year really had ended - and another had begun -
in 139 AD, why is there no mention of this in the writings of Claudius
Ptolemy? As currently explained, this astronomical event must have
occurred in the mid-period (i.e. c.127-151 AD) of Ptolemy's prolific
writing. Ptolemy, of course, was the best known astronomer of antiquity,
and was resident in Alexandria. But nowhere in his writings does he
mention what would seem to be so highly signficant an event.

But then there is Ptolemy's silence also as regards the presumed Sothic
computation of the Egyptian calendar. Ptolemy dealt in great detail with
matters astronomical and calendrical of his own age and of the preceding
centuries; even studying the Babylonian records of the eclipses eight
hundreds years before his time. Yet he appears to have been totally
oblivious to any form of Sothic computation by the Egyptians, as well as
to the advent of the Great Year - supposed to have occurred at about the
peak of his floruit.

Despite van Oosterhout's apparent confidence in certain aspects of the
Censorinus text, and the connection - as he saw it - between the Great
Year and the coincident rising of Sirius, he was prepared to admit that,
in relation to the crucial Great Year of Censorinus, the Roman author's
text "is slightly ambiguous and at one point even inconsistent" (22).
And so he explained this "textual problem", as he called it, in these words:

"The ambiguity consists in the term 'cum abhinc annos centum' ( =
"whereas 100 years from the present"). The expression is too loose to
give a date with certainty, due to the possibility of taking first and
last years into account".

Concluding Remark

In Chapter 12 we shall return to the statement of Censorinus in order to
arrive at some firm conclusions regarding the usefulness or otherwise of
this frequently quoted document. In particular, we shall be assessing
the statement of Censorinus in its relation to other chronological
documents (such as the statement of Theon).

NOTES:

(1) Censorinus, De Die Natali Liber ad Q. Caerellium, ed. F. Hultsch
(Leipzig, 1867).
(2) See Meyer's Aegyptische, 23ff. on Censorinus's theories.
(3) Ibid., 28.
(4) C. Ptolemy's Almagest; as referred to by Meyer, ibid., 24.
(5) In his Aegyptische, 26-27, Meyer refers to tables from Boeckh and
Usener.
(6) Oosterhout, van G., "The Heliacal Rising of Sirius", Studs. in
Astronomical Chronology 1 (Delft, 1989), 12. He claims to know of "none
in English". He refers to the French version by D. Nisard, Celse,
Vitruve, Censorin et Frontin (Paris, 1846) as being the "only complete
translation".
(7) Translation of Censorinus by Oosterhout, ibid.
(8) Oosterhout, van G., "Rehabilitation of Censorinus", in SIS
Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop 2 (1986), 13.
(9) Van Oosterhout has "=1", which I presume he meant to write as "-1".
Apparently he has added this slight mathematical adjustment to cover the
fact that, as he also noted in his quotation, "(the Romans count
inclusively)".
(10) Meyer, E., Chronologie egyptienne, trans. Moret (Paris, 1912), 28 &
29. My translation.
(11) Weill, R., Bases, Methodes et resultats de la Chronologie
Egyptienne (Paris, 1926), 9; q.v. his Complements (1928). Weill makes
reference to C. Ptolemy's Canon of Kings, Bk IV, ch.5.
(12) See I. Velikovsky's Peoples of the Sea (Abacus, 1977), 229.
(13) Martin, T., "Memoire sur la date historique d'un renouvellement de
la periode sothiaque", Memoires presentes par divers savants a
l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Series I, Vol.8, Pt., 1
(Paris, 1869).
(14) Oosterhout, "Heliacal", 28.
(15) Ibid., 26.
(16) Long, op. cit., ibid.
(17) Ibid; with reference to Albiruni.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Oosterhout, "Heliacal", 27.
(20) Professor Y. Ebied, of Dept. of Semitic Studies (University of
Sydney) informed the writer (on 15th September, 1993) that the Arabic
word 'kabisa' stood for 'Leap Year'.
(21) E.g. G. Heinsohn & C. Marx, Altmesopotamische Historiographie im
Chaos (Basel, 1985); also I. Velikovsky, in Peoples of the Sea (Abacus,
1977), 241.
(22) Oosterhout, "Heliacal", 13.
Top <#top>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART FOUR

A CRITIQUE OF MEYER'S SOTHIC THEORY

Contents:

Chapter Eleven: Assessment of Meyer's Theory in General
Chapter Twelve: Some Conclusions About Meyer's Theory

CHAPTER ELEVEN: ASSESSMENT OF MEYER'S THEORY IN GENERAL

Introduction

In our earlier presentation of Meyer's Sothic theory and its basic
implications for Egyptian chronology (in Part Two) we looked at some of
the initial reactions to it by noted Egyptologists who were roughly
contemporary with Meyer. Some of these supported Meyer and his "short"
chronology; others, to a greater or lesser extent, did not. Now, in this
chapter, we are going to update our critical analysis of the Sothic
theory by viewing it from a modern perspective.

In some cases, this will lead to a certain amount of repetition of what
has gone before.

Eduard Meyer and those who helped him to pioneer the Sothic theory
showed that they were willing to go beyond a scheme that relied too
uncritically upon Manetho and the impossibly high regnal years that he
had assigned to the various pharaohs, and to construct an entirely new
scheme of chronology based upon astronomical data. In this way the
Sothic theorists had hoped to add some mathematical precision to
Egyptian chronology. Subsequently, Meyer and his colleagues came to
believe that the Egyptians had used a long-range calendar based on the
Sothic period of 1460 years.

The tremendous respect accorded by Meyer and his colleagues to what they
considered to be the brilliant scientific ability of the Egyptian
astronomers was not shared by Neugebauer. Critical of both Meyer and
Lepsius, Neugebauer labelled as absurd the hypothesis of a sudden
introduction into Egypt of a 365-day calendar, without long-term
observations. We find, too, that Meyer never bothered to attempt any
sort of positive explanation of the rationale behind the defective
Egyptian calendar.

Why for instance, if the Egyptians really were the competent astronomers
that Meyer and company claimed them to be, did they persevere so long
with an extremely inaccurate calendar? Why didn't they adjust it?

The questions might also be asked: Why did the Egyptians call "Sothic" a
year that, according even to the most ardent Sothic theorists like
Parker, was not tied to Sirius and differed quite appreciably from the
astronomical year of Sirius?

It seems that Meyer never really allowed the last question to arise. He
had simply presumed that the institution of the civil year must have
occurred at the moment when the beginning of this year coincided with
the rising of Sirius, as this had been the case in 140-143 AD.

But, as his critics were quick to point out, such a suggestion was "pure
supposition"; there being not a shred of documentary evidence to back it
up. Parker, moreover, has since brought forward a compelling case in
support of the view that the civil calendar was independent of Sothis at
its introduction.

Basically, as we have already seen, Meyer's "short" chronology, set
within the framework of Manetho's dynasties, was spaced according to the
presumed, major Sothic cycle date sequence of: 140 AD; 1320 BC; 2780 BC;
4240 BC. Sub-spacing was determined by astronomical calculations based
upon various "Sothic" texts of either Egyptian, or Classical origin,
combined with the monumental data. Clearly, Meyer's historical structure
was dependent upon various assumptions. Courville (1) has listed eight
such assumptions upon which he believed Meyer's Sothic star theory to
have been built. These, which I list below, will serve as handy
reference points for us in our task of assessing the value of Meyer's
Sothic theory.

Courville had proposed that for the Sothic theory to be valid:

1. The date for the beginning of some Sothic period must be known with
certainty.
2. The identity of the star, Sothis, which the ancients used to mark the
Sothic period must be known with certainty.
3. The calculations must be valid.
4. It must be clear that the Egyptians used the Sothic cycle in the
manner presumed by the theory.
5. It must be known that the calendar of Egypt remained unchanged.
6. The references from the ancient records, used to support the theory,
and conclusions based upon this theory, must be sufficiently clear as to
permit but a single interpretation.
7. The application of the theory to the problems of historical dating
must not lead us into anomalous situations.
8. All of the data available relating events to the Sothic period should
fit satisfactorily into the theory.

Now, to assist the reader, we shall arrange the subject matter of this
chapter according to the following divisions: (a) Meyer's Major Dates;
(b) Meyer's "Short" Chronology; and (c) Reforming the Calendar.

(a) Meyer's Major Dates

(i) His Earliest Fixed Date

Following the reasoning of Lepsius, Meyer and Mahler, as discussed in
the foregoing chapters, it is obvious that the Egyptians could not have
acquired their presumed knowledge of the Sothic period by direct
observations over almost one and a half millennia. The duration of
Egyptian history during the Old Kingdom period was far too short for
that. Thus it seems most likely that Neugebauer erred in criticising
this aspect of Meyer's theory. The latter's view of a relatively sudden
introduction of the calendar, without long-term observations, seems most
reasonable. Moreover, it is right in line with the testimony of the
ancient Greeks and their story of Thoth.

Not so reasonable, as it turns out, was Meyer's estimation of 4240 BC as
the date for the sudden introduction of the calendar; or what O'Mara (2)
has designated "Year 1" of the great Sothic cycle. Today, in the light
of modifications that have led to an accepted date of approximately 3100
BC for the very beginning of Egyptian history - the unification of Egypt
under Menes - no one would take seriously any more Meyer's estimate (nor
indeed that of 4200 BC as proposed by Neugebauer).

But it is not so generally appreciated that there are considerable
difficulties too with Meyer's next in sequence, major Sothic date of
2780 BC; now considered to be the most likely candidate for "Year 1".
For, as O'Mara (3) has correctly stated, this figure of 2780 BC has been
re-worked frequently because of what he has called "numerous technical
complexities, with varying results ranging from 2781 BC to 2772 BC".
Another point that may not have been given sufficient consideration, but
that is often just taken for granted, is that "Year 1" of the presumed
Sothic cycle may not necessarily have coincided with the year in which
the Egyptian calendar was established (4).

Of far greater concern to Sothic theorists than the apparent problem of
refining Meyer's date of 2780 BC, however, must be the fact that some of
the most renowned Egyptologists have by no means been able to agree on
how to integrate this early, third millennium BC date into their
respective chronological assessments. O'Mara has described the ensuing
lack of agreement on behalf of several well-known Egyptologists in the
following words (5):

"There has never been established a consensus concerning the historical
milieu associated with this date [c.2770 BC]. Breasted and Petrie would
have set it in the Fourth Dynasty .... Parker placed it ... midway
through the Second Dynasty and Gardiner located it a few generations
later .... Winlock linked it to the reign of King Zoser ... Third Dynasty".

(ii) Meyer's Later Era of 1320 BC

Coming down the time-scale now to Meyer's third in sequence, major
Sothic date of 1320 BC, which is customarily designated as the "Era of
Menophres", we find that it too is heavily based on assumptions and is
not lacking in its share of difficulties. First of all let us consider
some of these assumptions, arising from Theon's "Era of Menophres" data,
combined with the information from Censorinus. From this collective data
Meyer and his colleagues from the Berlin School had assumed: (a) that
there had been an "Era of Menophres" (though no reference to such an era
has apparently been found in Egyptian sources); (b) that this era
coincided with a Sothic period; (c) that this Sothic period had begun in
1320 BC; (d) that "Menophres" was a king who lived at the beginning of
this period.

In relation to the above assumptions we recall that Lepsius had
concluded, from his comparison of Theon's statement with Manetho, that
the most likely candidate for "Menophres" in the dynastic list was
pharaoh Merneptah. But since Lepsius regarded Merneptah as being firmly
established in the era 1224-1214 BC, he was not prepared to accept the
validity of his own equation. This was clearly a case of circular
reasoning. Unfortunately Meyer would repeat Lepsius's technique of
'petitio principii' in his own Aegyptische Chronologie (6), regarding
this very same point.

Circular thinking to some degree again crops up in Long's assessment of
Theon's statement. According to Long, Theon has provided an
extraordinary verification of the Sothic cycle. What Long has apparently
failed to appreciate, however, is that Meyer and his colleagues, who
pioneered the Sothic theory, had used this information of Theon's
initially to establish their Sothic chronology of Egypt, and that is how
they first came to regard the era of 1320 BC as being a most important
one in Egyptian history. Naturally, then, Theon verifies a conclusion of
which his data was an important premise!

The view of Cerny and others, in support of Meyer, that Theon's
"Menophres" is meant to be taken as the name of a king, and does not
refer to a city as Rowton had insisted, seems to be more in keeping with
the facts. Theon, for instance, was quite definite that "Menophres" was
a ruler. Moreover, it was customary in ancient times to name eras after
monarchs. Theon would have known about the various well-known eras named
after kings: e.g. the eras of, Nabonassar; Alexander; Seleucus; Arsaces;
Augustus and Diocletian.

Eras were definitely not named after cities.

But we encounter a further, and very major difficulty with Meyer's
theory in regard to his own identification of "Menophres". Meyer had
eventually chosen Ramses I of the Nineteenth Dynasty as his candidate
for "Menophres", because the more plausible Merneptah could not be made
to fit according to the structure of his Sothic scheme. But as Struve
had already shown, and as Rowton had been quick to confirm (7), Ramses I
could not plausibly be identified as "Menophres" because it could be
shown from the Greek transcription (so Struve insisted) that Ramses's
throne name (Mn-phtj-R') was quite different from the name "Menophres".

In the light of the above it is interesting to note that, whilst Meyer
may never have actually lost faith in the importance of this era of 1320
BC, based upon the Sothic data, he did eventually drift away from his
original Menophres theory. According to Rowton (8), Meyer finally
abandoned this theory entirely. Thus Rowton was led to remark that we:
"... are justified in retaining a theory which involves a number of
assumptions only so long as it is in keeping with the known facts of
history".

(b) Meyer's "Short" Chronology

With his dates for the conclusion of the Twelfth Dynasty and the
commencement of the New Kingdom set "Sothically" at 1790 BC and 1580 BC,
respectively, Meyer was stuck with a Second Intermediate Period of
approximately two centuries' duration. This "short" period of time for
the intermediary period between Egypt's Classical and New Kingdom eras
was unacceptable to certain highly respected Egyptologists. Their acute
difficulties with so restricted a period no doubt go a long way towards
explaining why scholars like Maspero, von Bissing, Brugsch and Jequier
had rejected outright Meyer's system as being a legitimate means of
astronomical computation.

Petrie, as we saw, tried to resolve the dilemma by adding an additional
Sothic period of 1460 years to the Second Intermediate Period. Nowhere
was the apparent squeeze of the Second Intermediate Period dynasties
more evident, he had argued, than in the case of the Hyksos. Two
dynasties, consisting of at least ten important reigns, constituted -
according to Meyer's theory - the Hyksos era. Some of these reigns,
according to Petrie, were neither short nor were concurrent with others.

Petrie estimated that 280 years bare minimum must be allowed for the
reigns of prominent kings of the Second Intermediate Period already
known in his day, and he wisely suggested that more would come to light
in the future. He considered that the changes in art were sufficient to
suggest that more than two centuries should be assigned to this interim
period.

Whilst Hall, assessing the "short" chronology largely from an
art-historical perspective, could not fully agree with Petrie's view
that the art before and after the Second Intermediate Period was so
vastly different, neither could he be persuaded that the Second
Intermediate Period had spanned a mere two centuries, approximately.
Having agreed that Meyer's "short" chronology had a point insofar as
there was little difference between the art of the early Eighteenth
Dynasty and that of the Thirteenth, Hall nonetheless fully concurred
with Petrie in his opinion that it was impossible to force all the kings
of the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties into so small a period of
time as that proposed by Meyer.

As far as Hall was concerned, at least three and a half centuries would
be needed to fit in all of these intermediate dynasties. Had Meyer's
scheme allowed for this length of time - Hall's minimum figure - then
the latter probably would have had no qualms about accepting the entire
Sothic chronology.

However, we can appreciate that such a concession on Meyer's part would
have been impossible within the strictures of the Sothic scheme. To
concede an extra one and a half centuries for the Second Intermediate
Period would have thrown into chaos the precise Sothic computations,
thereby ruining the fine fabric of Meyer's scheme. However, the problem
kept re-emerging. Even certain supporters of Meyer could not disguise
their own discomfort with the tight-jacket of the "Sothically" arranged
Second Intermediate Period. Weigall, for one, resignedly spoke of the
fact that, within the context of this "astronomically fixed" period,
several dynasties "have got to be fitted into" a very small period. It
had become a case of mathematical necessity.

(c) Reforming the Calendar

Again Parker, on the question of calendrical reform, had argued strongly
in favour of Meyer's view that the Egyptian civil calendar did not
undergo any reform during Egypt's dynastic history. He was especially
critical of writers like Alliot whose arguments pro-reform appeared to
be based on the premise that, since the Egyptian civil calendar was
defective, the Egyptians must have reformed it. Parker's own argument
against reform was summed up by his saying, with reference to the
Canopus Decree, that the only time during eighteen centuries (which
includes more than a whole Sothic period) that an attempt was made to
reform the calendar, it was a complete failure.

Like Meyer, however, Parker did not seem willing to pay close attention
to the various indications that scholars claim to have found in support
of calendrical changes in Egypt. Those who argue pro-reform have pointed
to the fact that two versions of Manetho specifically refer to
calendrical reform during the Hyksos period. First of all there is the
annotation Manetho gives beside the name of pharaoh Aseth, one of the
late Hyksos kings, according to which this king added 5 intercalary days
to the 360-day year. Then, according to another version of Manetho, the
same calendrical reform is accredited to the Hyksos king, Saites. These
two records may not necessarily be contradictory, for, as Courville (9)
has pointed out, "the two kings may have introduced the change in
different parts of Egypt in the two cases".

Weigall was another who had argued for a calendrical reform close to,
and during, the Hyksos era; claiming to have found a change in calendar
from the Mesore year to the Thoth year during that period. In
particular, Weigall had referred to the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus in
support of his view.

The foreign rule over Egypt of the Hyksos kings is a more likely period
for calendrical reform to have been attempted than are any eras
consisting of native rule; especially given the reaction of the Egyptian
people at Canopus to the attempted imposition of calendrical reform by a
Macedonian pharaoh.

The Emergence of a New Chronology

Once again, as at its inception, the Sothic system of Meyer is being
challenged by those who cannot accept the validity of its assumptions.
In the last few decades there has arisen, throughout many countries of
the world, a revised chronology of the ancient world that is not at all
based on Sothic computations (10). Whilst this revised approach may vary
from school to school - in some cases quite considerably - it
nonetheless has some common elements right across the board in regard to
how it views the conventional, Sothic scheme. For instance, some of the
most controversial aspects of Meyer's scheme (which we have already
addressed, or will be looking at here in PART FOUR), are also those same
ones that bind together the new revisionists in their common
disagreement with Meyer's approach to chronology. Basically, all the
revisionist scholars would hold that, for example:

(1) The astronomical basis of Meyer's Sothic scheme is a modern
invention, imposed upon Egyptian chronology. The Egyptians, they say,
knew nothing of a 1460-year Sothic period, and certainly did not compute
by one. (Some revisionists have even devised their own astronomical
foundation for Egyptian chronology. We shall critically test this in
Appendix B).

(2) Despite the general impression given by Manetho, the monumental
evidence indicates that dynasties often ruled simultaneously, in
different parts of the country, rather than in single file. The revision
accepts a significantly greater degree of dynastic parallelism - even
for the Third Intermediate Period - than does the standard, Sothic system.

(3) Two centuries is an impossibly short period for the Second
Intermediate Period, and that the correct figure is nearer to the 511
years as recorded for the Hyksos period by Josephus (11).

(4) An overstretched Egyptian chronology has forced historians into the
necessity of inserting so-called "Dark Ages" in Greek and Hittite
history; these latter being entirely devoid of artefacts and, once
again, quite an artificial, modern device. Peter James's recent book,
Centuries of Darkness, is a systematic attempt to expose this apparent
weakness in the Sothic theory.

(5) The conventional chronology fails to produce a consistent sequence
of solid and unassailable synchronisms between Egypt and Mesopotamia
(and also Palestine) for the earlier eras of history.

And, whilst the revisionists may not all agree as to exactly how the
revised history of Egypt is to be achieved, they are unanimous about the
necessity for such a task to be undertaken.

Having explained Meyer's theory now in some detail, and having
critically assessed it in general fashion, we shall in the next chapter
proceed to reconsider the particular ancient documents upon which the
Sothic theory is primarily built.

NOTES:

(1) Courville, D., The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, Vol.II
(Loma Linda, 1971), 54-55.
(2) O'Mara, P., The Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons (La
Canada, 1980), 37.
(3) Ibid. O'Mara himself opts for 2774/3 BC for "Year 1".
(4) See O'Mara, ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Meyer, E., Aegyptische Chronologie, Abhandlungen der Koeniglich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1904), 29-30.
(7) Struve, W., "Die Ära 'apo Menophreos' und die XIX. Dynastie
Manethos", ZAS 63 (1967), 46. Rowton, M., "Mesopotamian Chronology and
the 'Era of Menophres'", IRAQ VIII (1946), 109.
(8) Rowton, "Mesopotamian", 110, n.1.
(9) Courville, op. cit., 60-61.
(10) Apart from the many individuals involved, the books and articles
written, there are the journals: Pensee; Kronos; Catastrophism & Ancient
History (USA); SIS Review; SIS Workshop (UK); Kataklysmos (Canada);
Diggings (Australia).
(11) Josephus, Flavius, Against Apion, I, 84; where he cites Manetho.
Top <#top>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER TWELVE: SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT MEYER'S THEORY

Introduction

Eduard Meyer, seeking to devise a more accurate system than the one
provided by Manetho, for organising Egyptian chronology, found that his
purposes were best served with the aid of astronomy. Building on the
basic notion of Lepsius, for instance, that Egyptian history might best
be arranged around 1460-year cycles, or great Sothic periods -
presumably alluded to by Classical authors such as Censorinus and Theon
- Meyer was thus able to develop his brilliant Sothic scheme of Egyptian
chronology. Originally consisting of four major Sothic beginnings, 4240
BC; 2780 BC; 1320 BC and 140 AD, this scheme, even in Meyer's day,
underwent some radical alteration, with Meyer eventually abandoning the
earliest of these dates. However, he never abandoned the Sothic system
itself; the system that still prevails today as the standard one.

The Sothic scheme thus conceived by Meyer has not lacked its fair share
of critics. Some of these were those who bitterly contested the
astronomically-based scheme at its very inception. Certain of Meyer's
older contemporaries, particularly, could never accept his methodology
as being a valid one. But whereas few of Meyer's critics happened to be
chronology conscious, Meyer himself - as we saw - had the support of
several well-known chronologists.

Petrie was a special case. Whilst he could accept a methodology
according to which Egyptian history was to be organised into 1460-year
cycles, he actually wanted to add an extra Sothic cycle to Meyer's
scheme, in order to allow a greater breathing space for the Second
Intermediate Period. For probably above all else, it was Meyer's
conclusion that this interim period must be squeezed into a space of not
much more than two centuries, that was deterring scholars from
wholeheartedly embracing Meyer's overall scheme.

Given the lack of evidence from Egypt, the question asked by some in
regard to the validity of Meyer's scheme - as to whether the Egyptian
astronomers really did compute by 1460 year cycles to the extent of
establishing long-range calendars to accord with those cycles - is
possibly a futile one. The very concept may have been entirely a product
of Classical era thinking (e.g. Censorinus); later taken up and
systematised by the modern Sothic theorists.

We are shortly going to suggest, in regard to calendrical reform, what
might possibly be a more pertinent consideration in relation to this
subject.

The great Sothic year may well therefore be an artificial device,
conceived - and imposed upon Egyptian dating - by modern historians.
There are more and more scholars today who believe this to be the case;
that the Sothic scheme thus devised is an artificial one, however
ingenious. This scheme, they say, has created so many inaccuracies and
anomalies in ancient history that much of it, especially pertaining to
the earlier ages, must now be seriously re-assessed if a workable
chronology is to be achieved.

Ironically, just as Eduard Meyer and his colleagues felt constrained to
escape from the tyranny of Manetho's system, so today there are scholars
who feel the same need in regard to Meyer's scheme itself. This is not
to suggest, however, that critics such as these want to reject all of
Meyer's painstaking research. On the contrary; it is only the system
itself, the methodology, that they believe to be creating the problems.

Meyer may well have been correct in his belief that the Egyptians were
quite astute in scientific matters; and even in his emphasising the
importance of the star Sirius in its role in the Egyptian calendar.
Without a doubt, as this thesis has indicated especially through its
references to the Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Sirius was important to
the Egyptians.

But perhaps Hall was correct, too, in his belief that the Egyptians may
never have used the Sothic cycle "as an era" (1). Certainly, as yet, no
specific reference to such usage has been discovered in the Egyptian
texts. Were this to be the case, in fact, it would mean that the
Egyptians might not have had any pressure upon themselves - at least
from an astronomical point of view - to maintain their civil calendar.

Meyer placed great reliance for his scheme on Egyptian texts that
referred to the rising of Sothis. The question now to be asked, in the
context of the first part of this chapter, is: Were the astronomical and
historical data supplied by these documents sufficient to lead to the
conclusions that Meyer and his colleagues drew from them, or were the
Sothic theorists drawing a 'latius hos' (too broad) conclusion?

In the first part of this chapter, then, we intend to return briefly to
the three major, Egyptian Sothic documents used by Meyer (with the added
assistance of information from certain Classical authors) to develop his
chronological scheme. We refer, of course, to the Illahun, Ebers and
Elephantine documents. From conclusions drawn from the information
supplied by these Egyptian documents, Egyptologists have been able to
establish the significant date of 1580 BC as that which is supposed to
divide New Kingdom history from what went before. Now we are primarily
interested here in trying to ascertain the quality of the information
provided by these Egyptian documents.

After that, in the second part of this chapter, we shall refresh our
memory in regard to the Classical documents ("Era of Menophres"
citation, Canopus and Censorinus), for the same purpose. From a
combination of the first and second of these documents particularly, the
Sothic theorists have been able to establish their most important date
of all: viz. 1320 BC.

The conclusions reached in this chapter will serve as a final conclusion
for this book.

Part One: The Egyptian Texts (1580 BC)

Introduction

Judging by what certain scholars that we have looked at have said about
the extent to which the present reconstructions of major historical
eras, and the Archaeological Ages, are dependent for their dating upon
one or another of these Sothic texts, one apparently cannot
over-estimate the importance attributed to these latter by the Sothic
theorists. To recapitulate, the Illahun document for instance is
"Sothically" crucial, not only as the key Sothic date for the Middle
Kingdom, but also, from this, as constituting a foundation for the
period prior to the New Kingdom (that of the Old Kingdom and First
Intermediate Period), as well as for the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in
Palestine, Greece and Mesopotamia.

It is the document's combination of a hard, historical date with a
rising of Sothis, that has apparently made it so attractive to the
Sothic theorists.

The Ebers document is just as crucial, if not more so, for anchoring the
next major phase of history: the important New Kingdom period and the
expulsion from Egypt of the Hyksos. Late Bronze Age dating is likewise
heavily dependent on the conclusions drawn from the Ebers Papyrus. The
all-important date of 1580 BC, that divides the more obscure, early
history of the ancient world from the far more verifiable later history,
is primarily a product of calculations based on this text.

The Ebers Papyrus, now regarded as being an early Eighteenth Dynasty
text, is supported by another Sothic text from the middle part of that
same dynasty, viz. the Elephantine Stele. This latter document is less
important in the absolute sense; being mainly of relative value in
helping, with Ebers, to fix the Eighteenth Dynasty. Being dated as it
now is to the time of Thutmose III, the Elephantine Stele enables for
events in the reign of this king to be fixed supposedly with pin-point
accuracy.

With all this in mind, one could be excused for expecting these three
documents to contain information of the most precise and unequivocal
kind; clear facts, assisting both astronomers and historians alike.

But is that what we find to be the case on close examination?

We are now once again going to run quickly through the most relevant
pieces of information contained in these documents, to determine if
these really are precise and unequivocal. A lot of history depends on it!

Critical Assessment of the Egyptian Texts

(i) Readability and Information Supplied

The first problem of interpretation, common to all three of these
Egyptian documents, concerns the identity of the current pharaoh in each
case. In the case of the Illahun Papyrus, no pharaoh is mentioned, nor
has there been preserved even a partial cartouche. The Ebers document
does provide a cartouche with a pharaonic name enclosed, and Ebers is
probably correct in his identification of this pharaoh as Amenhotep I.
Since, however, the Ebers document is inherently illegible, as many have
testified, the matter must always remain open to some doubt. We recall
that, because of this problem, there was a great deal of controversy in
the early days over the pharaoh's identity. The Elephantine Stele, for
its part, also lacks both a cartouche and a pharaonic reference, thus
leading Torr to speak of "the worthlessness of this inscription to prove
anything, since ... it may have been produced by any one of the
successors of Thutmose III" (2).

Concerning the all-important date of the Sothic star's rising in each
document, there is further uncertainty; particularly in the case of
Ebers and Elephantine. The latter, for example, supplies no regnal year
date at all; only the day of the month of the star's rising. The Ebers
document does supply the regnal year; but once again, because of the
document's illegibility, it has given rise to a variety of opinions as
to which year is meant; with Brugsch and Eisenlohr favouring year 3,
Lepsius year 6, and Goodwin and Ebers, year 9. The latter, which is
probably the correct one, is now also the widely accepted one.

It appears that Borchardt's radical re-interpretation of the Sothic data
in the Ebers Papyrus (upon which we touched in Chapter 6), leading him
to date Amenhotep I's ninth year about a quarter of a century later than
Meyer's estimate, cannot be sustained. Edgerton has shown up quite
satisfactorily the flaws in Borchardt's argument. Nevertheless Edgerton
had to admit a scribal error in the process; an indication that the
document lacks perfect clarity.

(ii) Subsequent Chronology

The fixed dates for the Twelfth and Eighteenth dynasties, achieved by
the current interpretation of the Illahun Papyrus, on the one hand, and
the Ebers and Elephantine texts on the other, have led to an interim
period of approximately two centuries that many have claimed to be
unrealistic. But it is a conclusion to which all those who accept
Meyer's Sothic framework are inescapably bound. Petrie had tried to
break out from this tightly knit scheme whilst retaining the basic
Sothic concept. The result was simply disastrous!

Even the more critical supporters of the Sothic theory realise that, in
the final analysis, they must conform to the fixed Sothic dates
established by Meyer. Thus Hall who, more than any other, had had great
difficulty in accepting two centuries for the Second Intermediate
Period, admitted that not to accept the Illahun date would mean that
(3): "... we have no really firm ground at all before the beginning of
the XVIIIth Dynasty".

Gardiner echoed these sentiments when, after speaking of the "formidable
difficulty" of limiting the Second Intermediate Period to two centuries,
he concluded that (4):

"To abandon 1786 BC as the year when Dynasty XII ended, would be to cast
adrift from our only firm anchor, a course that would have serious
consequences for the history, not of Egypt alone, but for the entire
Middle East".

In order to maintain the chronological "anchor", it seems, Egyptologists
must engage in a fair amount of historical compressing. It is not
uncommon to read, therefore, where Egyptologists talk about so many
dynasties "having to be squeezed" into a small period of time. Gardiner
(5) commented, with regard to the Second Intermediate Period, that
"there were over 100 kings to be squeezed into that short space". And
Long (6), speaking of the great amount of trial and error needed on the
part of "later Egyptologists" to make Thutmose III a part of the Sothic
scheme of things, claimed that adjustments had to be made "to
accommodate all the evidence" in order to fit this particular pharaoh
into the Sothic framework.

(iii) Methodology

Borchardt, of course, was quite entitled to attempt an identification of
the pharaoh to whose regnal year the Illahun Papyrus had referred. Such
is the historian's prerogative. But were the Sothic theorists then
entitled to take his identification that step further, by making it the
anchor point for their Middle Kingdom chronology?

We recall that it was only after some deliberation, and mainly on the
basis of palaeography, that Borchardt had narrowed down his choice to
two pharaohs of the mid-Twelfth Dynasty: viz. Sesostris III and
Amenemhet III; and that, on further palaeographical considerations, he
decided upon Sesostris III. What apparently had swung Borchardt in this
case was his belief that the handwriting in the Illahun Papyrus was
identical to that of certain fragmentary pieces of papyrii that are
assumed to refer to the death of pharaoh Sesostris II, the predecessor
of Sesostris III.

Again, despite the extremely flimsy evidence (even complete lack of it)
in regard to the pharaoh of the Elephantine Stele, the Sothic theorists
- as we saw in the example of Breasted - have had no qualms about
claiming so precise a reconstruction of the major dates in Thutmose
III's reign as to be able even to pin-point, in the fifteenth century
BC, two actual days highlighted in that pharaoh's annals as being of
significance during his Palestinian campaign.

So striking an example as this seems to reflect what appears to be a
definite tendency amongst the Sothic theorists boldly to erect
significant portions of history, or even to insist upon "astronomically
fixed" dates, on the basis of highly dubious or inadequate bits and
pieces of chronological information.

Obviously this is not good methodology.

Part Two: The Classical Texts (1320 BC).

Introduction

In regard to absolute, Sothic dating, the Era of Menophres citation
provided by Theon, and the chronological statement of Censorinus, would
obviously be regarded as having far more importance than would the
Decree of Canopus. For the former two have enabled Meyer to bind
together both the beginning of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty, and the
beginning of a new Sothic era, at the important historical anchor-point
of 1320 BC.

The Decree of Canopus provides no such major service to the Sothic
chronology. Nonetheless, Canopus is not without its own relative value
in the Sothic scheme of things; and the investigation of it, as we have
found, leads to the raising of some quite important points in regard to
the validity of the Sothic system. These we must again touch on briefly
in this section.

Critical Assessment of the Classical Texts

In the case of the three Classical texts under consideration, these -
when taken together - seem to provide us with more substantial
information of a chronological nature than do the Egyptian documents.
Here, for instance, we do not encounter to the same degree the problems
of illegibility, or lack of reference to rulers and dates of rule that
for the most part characterised the Egyptian texts. Nevertheless,
difficulties of these kinds are not entirely lacking.

In the case of Theon's statement, for example, there is the rather major
problem of correctly identifying "Menophres". Without this name being
properly identified, of course, the whole statement becomes useless from
a historical point of view. A different type of problem, however, is
associated with the Decree of Canopus: namely, the apparent doubt over
which of the three versions of the document is the original one. Still,
as we have already found, this does not seem to lead to any real
difficulties from the point of view of interpreting the Canopus text.
Finally, in the case of the statement of Censorinus, commentators have
pointed out what they regard as being a certain degree of ambiguity or
contradiction in the document's meaning.

With this preamble in mind, we shall now commence our final assessment
of these Classical texts, beginning with the matter of:

(i) Correct Interpretation

According to Meyer's interpretation of the data given by Censorinus,
there had been a coincidence between the rising of Sothis and the
Egyptian New Year's Day in 140 AD. Meyer had assumed that the "Great
Year" referred to by Censorinus was none other than the 1460-year cycle
of Sothis/Sirius. It was further argued by the Sothic theorists that the
testimonies of other Classical scholars, such as Theon and Ptolemy,
provided confirmation of Censorinus. Weill (7), in a somewhat vague
example, in which he also picked up a point of inconsistency in
Censorinus, claimed to have discovered in Ptolemy's Canon of Kings a
confirmation of Censorinus. In this he was following up information of a
similar kind that Meyer had gleaned from Ptolemy's Almagest.

But of far greater importance than Ptolemy in conjunction with
Censorinus, is Theon. Today the majority of scholars, following Meyer,
regard Theon's statement - separating the "Era of Menophres" from the
end of the Era of Augustus by 1605 years - as being an extraordinary
verification of a Sothic cycle of 1460 years (commencing in 1320 BC and
ending in 140 AD). That Theon actually referred to the Dog Star in the
same text, seemed to make the connection virtually unassailable.

However, there are some rather important comments to be made in regard
to all of this. Long summed it up when he said that even the specialists
were uncertain as to whether this "Menophres" was a city or a pharaoh of
the Nineteenth Dynasty. We recall that the identifying of "Menophres"
with Ramses I was settled upon, not primarily on linguistic grounds, but
on a consideration that is a 'petitio principii'. Thus Merneptah, whose
name apparently transliterated quite well into "Menophres", had to be
rejected as the best choice because - according to the Sothic scheme of
things - his reign could not be fitted into the pre-established era of
1320 BC. Instead, Ramses I was chosen as "Menophres"; and this despite
the insistence of some scholars (e.g. Struve and Rowton) that his name
could not be thus transliterated.

On the other hand it is hardly likely that the interpretation of
"Menophres" provided by Rowton - following Biot - that the name
represented the city of Memphis, is the correct one. It was customary
for the ancients to name eras after kings, not cities. Rowton probably
pursued his unusual line of argument in order to set up a theory that
fitted in with his own chronological scheme. It is therefore still
really a question of who, rather than of what, Menophres is.

There is no doubt that the matter of interpreting Theon's "Menophres"
has become one of great controversy, evoking some lively debate. This is
because Theon provided insufficient data regarding "Menophres"; thereby
making it impossible for the name to be identified unequivocally.
Moreover, the Egyptian records are silent about any "Era of Menophres".

But possibly the most significant testimony of all regarding the
extremely controversial nature of Theon's statement - if Rowton is
correct in what he had to say - is the example of Meyer himself. For,
according to Rowton's interpretation of Meyer's final Nineteenth Dynasty
arrangement, Meyer must eventually have abandoned completely his
original theory about "Menophres".

Again, as far as the statement of Censorinus is concerned, it is a case
of evidence provided by a Classical author that finds no reflection in
any Egyptian documents. Thus, even were the Sothic theorists right in
their assumption that Censorinus's "Great Year" is also Sothic, the fact
is that there is no evidence of the Egyptians ever having used, or even
of having referred to, a Sothic duration of 1460 years. Added to this is
the significant difficulty, so tellingly summed up by van Oosterhout,
that - as far as the key Classical texts alone are concerned in regard
to their allusion to the 1460-year period: "Neither Theon nor Censorinus
connect this period with Sirius!"

There appear to be still further difficulties of a contradictory nature
between the statements of Theon and Censorinus. We recall that the
information provided by Censorinus had led scholars to conclude that the
"Great Year" of 1460 years had commenced around 139 AD. Now this
information seems to be clearly contradicted by Theon's own statement
that the period of 1460 years "came to an end in the fifth year of the
emperor Augustus", i.e. in 26 BC.

Seti I's Candidature

We recall that certain scholars had opted for Seti I as a likely
candidate for "Menophres"; mainly on the grounds that a new era was
supposed to have commenced early in his reign. In chapter 8, for
instance, we discussed the Speos Artemidos and Nauri inscriptions of
that pharaoh, which had led Sethe to the conclusion that some sort of
era - probably Sothic - had begun with the accession of Seti I. Poole
also thought that the new era inaugurated during the reign of Seti I
might be Sothic. Furthermore he suggested, with reference to Theon's
statement, that this new era went beyond being merely the renewal of
some continuous cycle (e.g. Sothic), even indicating perhaps a
completely new start in calendrical dating.

Poole, too, was emphatically of the opinion that the "Era of Menophres",
as spoken of by Theon, was the first of the Sothic cycles. He had drawn
this conclusion from what he called the "evidence of ancient writers",
which he said was "strongly against the opinion that there were Sothic
Cycles before the Era of Menophres".

However, whilst many scholars are quite prepared to admit that some sort
of new era had in fact commenced early during the reign of Seti I, it is
generally agreed that this pharaoh ruled too late to be a likely
candidate for "Menophres". Further confirming this conclusion is the
"astonishing fact", as pointed out by Rowton against those who would
assume that Seti's "era" does represent the new Sothic cycle, "that
Sirius is not mentioned" in either the Speos Artemidos or Nauri
inscriptions.

So, this being the case, what sort of new era was inaugurated during
Seti I's reign? Rowton, who claimed that the 'whm mswt' era of Seti I
was "of a religious and a semi-political nature [having] nothing to do
with the Sothic cycle", may have come up with the best explanation.
Akhnaton's successors prior to Seti I, he said, were all - to a greater
or lesser degree - tainted with the "heresy" of Akhnaton. Seti however,
probably being born after the reign of Akhnaton, was really - as
Albright (8) had already proposed - the first king since the accession
of the "heretic" pharaoh whose legitimacy could not be queried on the
grounds, either of having been connected with the Aton heresy, or of not
having been of royal descent.

Claudius Ptolemy

Some scholars have puzzled over the fact, in relation to the data of
Censorinus, that if one Great Year really had ended, and another had
begun, in 139 AD, why did the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy fail to
mention it? As currently explained, this astronomical event must have
occurred in the mid-period (i.e. 127-151 AD) of Ptolemy's prolific
writing career. Ptolemy was of course the best known astronomer of
antiquity. Moreover, he was resident at Alexandria, in northern Egypt.
Yet nowhere in his writings does he make mention of this renewal of a
Great Year. Ptolemy dealt in great detail with matters of a calendrical
and an astronomical nature, not only of his own era, but of the
preceding centuries as well. In fact Ptolemy was so thorough and
wide-ranging in his research that he actually studied the Babylonian
records of the eclipses that had occurred eight hundred years before his
time.

How, then, does one explain his apparent silence about the advent of the
Great Year? Van Oosterhout, as we recall, did not think the matter
needed much explanation. From the astronomical point of view, he
claimed, the event would be of no importance at all. However, as we have
just noted, Ptolemy was also vitally interested in calendrical matters.

(ii) Calendrical Reform

Since we have already covered the subject of calendrical reform in
detail in other parts of this thesis, especially in chapter 9 dealing
with the Decree of Canopus, we are simply going to make some brief
concluding remarks here.

Essential to the Sothic theory is the belief that the Egyptians did not
reform their civil calendar at any point in their history, i.e. from the
time of the calendar's inception in Old Kingdom times, right down until
the time when Christianity became established in Egypt. The Sothic
theorists insist that there is absolutely no reliable evidence to
suggest that the contrary was the case. These, moreover, point to the
determined resistance of the Egyptian people to the proposed reform of
Ptolemy "Euergetes" at Canopus as a clear example of what the Egyptians
though about the matter.

The suggestion that Sirius, or the "divine Sothis", had a special role
in Egyptian religion - being often identified with the pharaoh - and
that consequently the Egyptians were averse to calendrical reform
because of reasons of astrology, or superstition, may be a plausible
explanation as to why a nation so supposedly well versed in scientific
matters would for so long retain an inadequate calendar. Ptolemy
"Euergetes" backed down in the face of the unified opposition by the
Egyptian people.

However, it must be remembered that the Ptolemaic era was not the only
time during this long period of Egyptian history when the country was
ruled by foreign kings. The Hyksos era is a classic case in point; parts
of Egypt, at least, being for a long time under foreign rulership. And
there is the possibility that this rulership was even more dictatorial
than that of the Greeks. Now, we have seen that there are some
indications of possible calendrical change during the Hyksos era
especially. Admittedly the evidence for such is scant and, as in the
case of the Aseth note appended to Manetho, possibly unreliable. But,
considering how crucial the matter is to the authenticity of the Sothic
theory, there appear to be sufficient indications to warrant further
investigation. This the Sothic theorists have generally seemed reluctant
to do.

(iii) The Problem of Synchronisms

Though proponents of the standard chronology might believe themselves to
be in possession of solid synchronisms, say between Egypt and
Mesopotamia, down through the centuries, more and more scholars are
looking to expose the inadequacies of such a view. Rowton, for instance,
had concluded that a well-documented era of known synchronisms, viz. the
el-Amarna period of pharaoh Akhnaton, did not harmonise chronologically
with the Sothic dating. It is possible however that Rowton, being a
specialist in Mesopotamian history only, and not in Egyptian, may have
erred in his representation of the latter.

In more recent times, however, many scholars (9) have begun to conclude
that, because of the Sothic system, the duration of Egyptian history has
been grossly overextended (except for the Second Intermediate Period
which, they say, has been vastly understated). The effects of this
drastic stretching of real Egyptian chronology, the revisionists argue,
is that - for the earlier periods of history - many genuine synchronisms
between Egypt and the rest of the ancient world must inevitably be lost.

Moreover, to restore some sort of balance, these add, it has become
necessary for the Sothic theorists to interpose, in the history of those
nations whose chronology is tied to that of Egypt (e.g. the Hittites and
the Greeks), so-called "Dark Ages" of several centuries' duration.

In his most recent book on this very subject, Centuries of Darkness,
Peter James has systematically examined the broad history and
archaeology of all the major nations of the ancient world, with special
regard to Egypt and its chronology, to demonstrate what he believes to
be the anomalous nature of a historical construction based upon the
Sothic methodology.

Maspero, von Bissing, Brugsch, and other early Egyptologists may have
been prudent in reacting with great caution towards the Sothic scheme,
considering what they thought to be its manifold assumptions and failure
to provide any solid basis for a reliable dating system, especially as
far back as the Twelfth Dynasty. If they are right, then not only is
caution required, but perhaps eventually a radical re-assessment of the
whole Sothic theory.

In this book the writer has attempted to make a positive contribution
towards a sound re-evaluation of ancient history.

NOTES:

(1) Hall, H., The Ancient History of the Near East (Methuen, 1913), 19.
(2) As quoted by D. Courville in The Exodus Problem and Its
Ramifications, Vol.II (Loma Linda, 1971), 65.
(3) Hall, op. cit., 25.
(4) Gardiner, A., Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961), 148-149.
(5) Ibid., 66.
(6) Long, R., "A Re-examination of the Sothic Chronology of Egypt",
Orientalia 43 (1974), 269.
(7) Weill, R., Bases, Methodes et Resultats de la Chronologie Egyptienne
(Paris, 1926); q.v. his Complements (1928). Weill makes reference to C.
Ptolemy's Canon of Kings, Bk. IV, ch.5.
(8) Rowton, M., "Mesopotamian Chronology and the 'Era of Menpohres'",
IRAQ VIII (1946), 108; with reference to W. Albright, JNES, 21.
(9) E.g. I Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos series; D. Courville, op. cit; I.
Isaacson, "Applying the Revised Chronology", Pensee IXR IX (Fall, 1974),
5-33; L. Greenberg, "The Lion Gate at Mycenae", Pensee IVR III (1973),
26-30; J. Bimson, "Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised
Stratigraphy?", SIS Review VI, 1-3 (SIS, 1978), 16-26; P. James,
"Chronological Problems in the Archaeology of the Hittites", SISR VI,
1-3 (SIS, 1978), 34-50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDA: ASTRONOMICAL APPENDICES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A: A FURTHER EXPLANATION OF ASTRONOMICAL TERMS

Introduction

Although, as we have stressed, the supposition of an unchanged civil
calendar in Egypt is the most fundamental hypothesis of Sothic dating,
discussions of Sothic theory often tend to become bogged down with
various aspects of the heliacal rising of Sirius; especially those
pertaining to the 'arcus visionis'. What needs to be determined here is
just how relevant to the overall discussion such fine points of
astronomy really are. To achieve this, and since we have regularly
advised the reader to consult this Appendix for clarification of these
and other technical terms - such as the 'precession of the equinoxes' -
we shall introduce below a basic astronomy of the Celestial Sphere that
will incorporate all of these terms. We hope that from this explanation
the reader will learn to distinguish between what is essential, and what
is superfluous, to the subject at hand.

For the double reason, that heliacal phenomena played an important role
in Egyptian astronomy, and because the absolute chronology (1) of
ancient Egypt is largely based upon those few dates in Egyptian and
Classical texts believed to be referring to the first visible rising, or
heliacal rising, of Sirius, shortly before sunrise, it is necessary that
we first grasp clearly the factors that govern the so-called 'heliacal
rising' of a star. The following explanation of the Celestial Sphere,
illustrated by Figures A-C (2), is meant to assist the reader towards
understanding the mechanics behind this phenomenon. Due to the absence
of a theoretical astronomy in ancient Egypt, a relatively small number
of concepts from elementary spherical astronomy are required for the
discussion of this issue.

A Basic Astronomy of the Celestial Sphere

In Figure A we have the earth shown at the centre of a (hypothetical)
much larger sphere, upon which we may assume are located all the stars
and planets without regard to their actual distances from the earth.
This is commonly known as the celestial sphere. We seem to be at the
centre of such a sphere. It appears to us as if the heavens rotate, but
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the earth is rotating about an
axis. Because of this rotation of the earth, there is a corresponding
seeming rotation of the celestial sphere about a point called the North
Celestial Pole (and, correspondingly, there is a South Celestial Pole).

Figure A gives the celestial sphere for an observer in north latitude .
ATB is the path of a star from rising (A), to transit (T) and setting
(B). The great circle NPS is called "meridian". A star is said to
"culminate" when it is located in the meridian (3); at this moment
occurs its "transit", or crossing of the meridian from east to west.

Now, if we look at the eastern horizon, we find that stars appear to
rise there. E.g. at A a star rises; it climbs above the eastern horizon
and transits at T, then comes down again to set on the western horizon
at B. And this happens night after night: the same star will rise at the
same point, will climb up in the sky, and will set at the corresponding
compass point. If we look at the celestial sphere again, then of course
everything appears to rotate in this manner. According to Roy's
description (4): "Stars rotate as if they are blobs of paint on a sphere".

We can now draw on the sphere a special circle that we call the
'Ecliptic', or plane of the earth's orbit (see Figure B, on next page).
Precession, the term given to the conical motion of the earth's axis of
rotation around a direction perpendicular to the Ecliptic, causes the
equinoxes (or intersections between the celestial equator and the
ecliptic) to move along the Ecliptic. The earth's axis takes about
26,000 years to swing around once; this is called a cycle of precession.
It was the Greek astronomer Hipparchus who discovered this effect
approximately 2000 years ago.

In this figure the reader will find an illustration of the celestial
sphere showing the ecliptic, the yearly path of the sun against the
stellar background with dates when the sun reaches Aries ( ), Cancer (
), Libra ( ) and Capricornus ( ).

We have to remember that as the hypothetical sphere appears to rotate,
so the ecliptic - being, as it were painted on the sphere - will rotate
with it. This particular line is the path of the sun against the
background of stars. It takes one year to make one revolution of this
circle; and this is a movement independent from that of the rotation of
the earth on its axis. The sun appears to move round the earth, and it
takes one year to do so.

Now let us consider the situation with respect to a star that is right
in the same direction as the sun. Obviously that star will not be seen,
because of its direction. For when the sun comes into the neighbourhood
of a star on its yearly path, then the star rises and sets about the
same time as the sun, that is to say that the star is together with the
sun above and below the horizon. If the star and sun are together above
the horizon, the star is invisible because of the sun's glare. The sun
is so much brighter than any star that it simply swallows up the star's
light. If the star is below the horizon, it is also invisible. Thus in
such a situation the star is equally invisible at daytime and at night.

But we have seen that the sun moves along the ecliptic at one degree per
day. Thus very gradually, at about this rate, the sun will move away
from the star; eventually far enough away so that the star rises before
the sun does. Figure C illustrates this situation, with the star being
above the horizon while the sun is still below the horizon. (In this
Figure, the big arrow indicates the daily rotation, whilst the small
arrow near the sun shows the direction of its motion in the ecliptic).

In this situation the rising of a star is just visible before dawn. This
phenomenon is called the heliacal rising of a star. It is seen in the
early morning light just above the horizon in the eastern hemisphere
just before it gets light enough, with the sun rising, to blot it out.
This will occur once a year, because it takes the sun one year to move
round the ecliptic, and so the heliacal rising of a star will take place
once a year - but it will not be the calendar year; it will be the
seasonal year.

'Arcus Visionis'

The depression of the sun below the horizon, as shown in Figure C, is
called arcus visionis, that is, the negative altitude of the sun that is
required so that a star becomes visible again after a certain interval
of time during which the star was not to be seen. Rightly, therefore,
has Parker (5) stated that the factors that govern the heliacal rising
"are the arcus visionis ( ), that is, the height of the star above the
horizon which is necessary for visibility, and the latitude of the
observer ( )".

Disagreements over 'Arcus Visionis'

According to van Oosterhout (6), ever since the beginning of discussions
on the heliacal rising of Sirius, "there has been confusion about the
'arcus visionis'". This, he explains, is mainly due to the use of one
expression for two different concepts. Whereas Borchardt/Neugebauer and
van der Waerden, he says, define a quantity describing an actual
situation: viz. the depth of the sun below the true horizon on the day
of the first and last visibility, Baehr and Ingham, on the other hand,
do not describe an actual situation, but state a necessary (though not
sufficient) condition for the visibility: viz. the maximum depth of the
sun when the star is at the horizon, necessary for the star to be
visible on that day.

Van Oosterhout (17), however, insists that the "arcus visionis is not an
observed but a calculated quantity and only defined for the days of the
first and last visibility". Complicated expressions such as "lower (or
upper) bound of the arcus visionis" as used by van der Waerden (8) to
describe the quantity of the 'arcus visionis', he says, serve only to
hamper discussion of the subject. Van Oosterhout's own preference was
for the phrase, 'critical depth', about which he explained (9):

"In most writing, no distinction is made between the critical depth and
the arcus visionis. This has led to much confusion. The critical depth
depends on the difference: azimuth [i.e. angular distance extending from
the zenith to the horizon] of the star minus azimuth of the sun - at the
instant of the star's rising - which slowly changes over the centuries
and with geographic latitude. For instance: for Sirius the azimuth
distance changes from 58 degr. ... to 45 degr. ... for Heliopolis as the
place of observation. For Thebes these figures are: 55 and 43".

Apart from this variation "the critical depth", according to van
Oosterhout (10), "can be treated as a constant, even for different
places of observations, under constant atmospheric conditions"; a
problem being, however, that most probably the quality of the atmosphere
today is different from that of antiquity. The value of the critical
depth can be obtained only from observations. The 'arcus visionis' on
the other hand, he added, is not a constant; it being affected by
various things, e.g. by a change of geographic latitude.

Some Modern Estimates of 'Arcus Visionis'

Although the heliacal rising of Sirius has been discussed at least since
the seventeenth century (11), it was not before 1925 that actual
observations were made in Egypt, by Borchardt (12). For these
observations, P. Neugebauer calculated an 'arcus visionis' of 9.4
degrees. Afterwards Neugebauer, using the same observations again, but
averaging the 'arcus visionis' of the individual observations, then
settled on the new value of 9.0 degrees. However the authors of the
"Beobachtungen" go on to state - just a few lines after having given
their account of the averaging procedure - that this figure of 9.0
degrees was probably still too high (13).

It is important to note that such calculations of the 'arcus visionis'
as made by the likes of Borchardt/Neugebauer, and Sewell, who also -
according to Rowton (14) - based his calculations on an 'arcus visionis'
of 9.0 degrees, have been used for chronological purposes (particularly
for estimating the "Era of Menophres") in connection with Sothic theory
data. For, on this basis, Borchardt/Neugebauer dated the beginning of
the Sothic cycle at 1318 BC; whilst Sewell in similar fashion arrived at
the slightly later figure of 1314 BC for the presumed new cycle.

We recall from Chapter 8 (on the "Era of Menophres") that Rowton, when
making his comparison between the Mesopotamian and the Egyptian
chronological data, had commented in regard to Edgerton's 'arcus
visionis' estimate of 8.5 degrees that (15):

"If future observations show that the correct value of the arcus
visionis is about 8.5 degrees, the beginning of the Sothic cycle will
have to be lowered by 1 or 2 years [thus further jeopardising the Sothic
chronology]".

Van Oosterhout (16) believed that his computerised calculations (during
1989) had confirmed Borchardt/Neugebauer's suspicion that 9.0 degrees
was too high a figure for the arcus visionis of Sirius, and that
Edgerton's estimation of 8.5 degrees was closer to the mark. Van
Oosterhout's own calculations led him to what he called "a range for the
critical depth" from 8.47 to 8.61.

Commenting further on the heliacal rising of Sirius, this time with
regard to the meteorological conditions especially as discussed by
Borchardt/Neugebauer (17), van Oosterhout has claimed that practically
all modern observers mention the presence of clouds at the horizon, or
damp, impeding the observation of Sirius at low altitudes. The same, he
said, was remarked by Nouet (18), who had noticed that even during clear
nights stars of 2nd and 3rd magnitude - "Sirius has magnitude of 1.6"
(19) - are never observed at the horizon due to the constant presence of
a damp layer.

Van Oosterhout's conclusion from all this was to say that the heliacal
rising of Sirius is not a spectacular phenomenon at all (20). Indeed
Jameson (21) had claimed as much when he stated that it was "on the next
day [after the heliacal rising]" that the spectacular rising of Sirius
occurs. Sirius is known to be a most brilliant star when it is situated
more than 10 degrees above the horizon; for, according to van der
Waerden's calculation (22), the brilliance of the star changes 5 to 6
magnitudes during its rise from the horizon to an altitude of 10 degrees.

In other words, Sirius at the horizon is not really a spectacular sight;
having there an estimated magnitude of a mere 4.7 (23).

That covers our account of the typical explanations by chronology
conscious scientists in regard to the heliacal rising of Sirius, 'arcus
visionis', and related topics. We still intend, however, to make some
comments about the relevance for chronological studies of the results
yielded from these traditional methods of calculating, and fine tuning,
heliacal risings and the related 'arcus visionis'. But first let us
digress to consider what appears to be:

The Egyptian Attitude to the Rising of Sirius

It would seem highly likely that the Egyptians attached great importance
to the first visibility of Sirius, which for them must have been a very
spectacular phenomenon; otherwise the following inscription on the
ceiling of the Ramesseum (24): "Thou [Ramses II] risest like Isis-Sothis
in the sky on the morning of 'wp rnpt' [= New Year's Day]", would hardly
be any sort of eulogy to Ramses II!

The tendency amongst chronology conscious scientists (25) appears to
have been for them to make the mistake of depending entirely on
calculations, without attempting systematic observations, whilst at the
same time presuming that ancient practice could be conducted and was
indeed performed according to these purely conventional rulings.
Schaefer (26), for his part, considers that the "typical claim" in
regard to heliacal rising and setting dates "has no ethnographic
support, but merely invokes circumstantial evidence such as stone
alignments".

One must always be conscious of the fact that the Egyptian attitude to
astronomy was of necessity quite different from that of a modern
scientist. The Egyptians were not bothered about - nor were they capable
of achieving - the kind of precision over heliacal risings as sought
after, for instance, by the "archaeoastronomers". One can immediately
notice this different attitude on the part of the Egyptians when
perusing the first chapter of the Egyptian Astronomical Texts, on "The
Diagonal Star Clocks" (27) (see also our Appendix B).

It is worth repeating, in fact, that nowhere do the ancient Egyptian
texts (including those citations used as data for the Sothic theory)
refer to any "heliacal rising" of Sirius. Despite the fact that the
Egyptian phrase, 'prt spdt', or "going up of Sothis", is sometimes
translated as "heliacal rising of Sothis" (or Sirius), the notion of
heliacal rising in the precise terms that we understand it, could not
have been known to the Egyptians.

We have already noted above that it was on the day after the heliacal
rising that the spectacular rising of Sirius occurs; and that the
heliacal rising itself is not a spectacular phenomenon. But what must
also be taken into account is that, for the ancient Egyptians,
meteorological conditions would have come into play, having quite a
bearing on the accuracy of their observations.

From a chronological point of view, however, especially within the
context of the 1460-year Sothic cycle, it would appear to matter little
whether 'prt spdt' is meant to refer to the first, second, or even third
day of Sirius's visibility. A few days inevitably pass unnoticed over
the space of one and a half millennia! Such attempted fine tunings and
hagglings over one or two days, by the archaeoastronomers, would seem
therefore to be largely a waste of time. In fact the whole subject of
chronology-related astronomy may well stand in need of:

An Up-Dated Methodology

Whilst "heliacal phenomena" - using the term in a broad (not
scientifically rigorous) sense - appear to have been important to the
ancients, very few modern astronomers have shown much interest in the
subject. Any exceptions have invariably come from the ranks of those
also interested in chronology (i.e. the "archaeoastronomers").

In recent times, certain professional astronomers (28) have provided a
useful combination of systematic observations of heliacal risings with
their attendant meteorological conditions. As we indicated on the
previous page, the latter are a vital factor to be taken into account in
any discussion dealing with ancient observations.

Schaefer (29), moreover, has criticised those who have persisted in
using antiquated methods for calculating the heliacal risings and
acronychal settings of stars, saying he has: "... found that
archaeoastronomers are still calculating heliacal rise and set dates by
two rules of thumb proposed by Ptolemy some 1,800 years ago!"

He therefore decided, as he said, that a "modern look at the problem was
overdue".

Having set out to check Ptolemy's rules by observing such events
himself, Schaefer "amassed over 500 sightings". Meanwhile he developed a
corresponding computer program that, he said, "models the physiological
response of the eye to point sources viewed against a twilight sky".
This program, he went on to add, "calculates rise and set dates in good
agreement with my own observations" (30).

According to Schaefer, the program (31):

"... can be used for purposes other than just guiding your personal
observations of heliacal phenomena. With precessed star positions, you
could find in what year Sirius had its heliacal rising, as seen from
Egypt, or the date of the summer solstice".

For the future, anyone who wishes to engage in serious discussions
pertaining to the heliacal rising of Sirius, for chronological purposes,
would do well to consider adopting an up-dated methodology along the
lines of that just outlined, with its attendant calculations.

We now come to the concluding part of Appendix A, in which we shall
introduce into our discussion the important notion of time, from an
astronomical point of view, and the related matter of the precession of
the equinoxes.

Time Systems used in Astronomy

Whilst various time systems are used in astronomy, historical research
is primarily concerned with only solar and sidereal time. But, since our
particular, historical study is essentially about calendation, some
explanation of those artificial time systems known as the Julian and
Gregorian years, is also required. Below, we intend to provide the
reader with the requisite definitions, and durations, proper to each of
the above-mentioned types of year: natural and conventional.

Before we do that, however, it may be helpful from the reader's point of
view if we - especially for the purpose of putting into perspective the
whole notion of time - first say something about the irregularities of
the earth's motion causing the phenomenon known as:

The Precession of the Equinoxes (32)

Precession is the slow wobbling of the earth on its axis, like the
wobbling of a spinning top whose axis is not upright, but far slower.
The net effect is to change the part of the sky at which the earth's
axis points.

This phenomenon is caused by the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun
on the earth's slight equatorial bulge. This bulge arises because of the
earth's rotation; the planet's equatorial diameter is about 26 miles (42
km) greater than its polar diameter. The earth's equator, and hence also
the bulge, is inclined at about 23 1/2 to the plane of the earth's orbit
(the ecliptic); the sun and moon pull on the bulge, as if to tilt our
planet back to the vertical. But instead of tilting upright, the earth's
axis swings in a conical motion, still tilted to the vertical. Neither
this tilt of the earth's axis, nor the position of the poles on the
globe, is changed by precession. The earth's axis takes about 26,000
years to swing around once; this is called a cycle of precession.

During each cycle of precession the earth's poles trace out a circle on
the sky. Precession therefore slowly changes the position of the
celestial poles. Although Polaris is the pole star today, in 12,000
years the pole will have drifted to Vega. The changing orientation of
the earth with respect to the stars affects the positioning against the
star background of the equinoxes. The equinoxes slide once around the
sky every 26,000 years, in what is termed precession of the equinoxes;
the equinoxes move about 50 seconds of arc westward against the star
background each year.

Precession also shifts the star coordinates known as right ascension and
declination; that is why star positions are always given for a certain
epoch, or reference date (currently 1950 or 2000).

A winter constellation (for the Northern Hemisphere) such as Orion will
be seen in the summer skies after half a cycle of precession. The
seasons will not be affected, however, because our calendar is based on
the movement of the sun, and the first day of northern spring will
always fall around March 21 (the spring equinox). The spring equinox lay
in the constellation of Aries 2,000 years ago, and is still referred to
as the First Point of Aries. However, precession has now moved it into
the constellation of Pisces, and it will reach the constellation of
Aquarius in about 600 years.

In the case of attempting to calculate ancient celestial phenomena in
regard to Egypt, the difficulties casued by the secular irregularities
of the earth's rotation are further compounded by the fact that there
are no precise and unequivocal eclipse records available to secure any
such calculations. Unlike the astronomical records of some of the other
ancient peoples - most notably those of the Babylonians, that pin-point
eclipses - the Egyptian records are completely lacking in such
astronomical data.

The Various Types of Years

The tropical year is the time interval from vernal equinox to vernal
equinox (consecutive starts of astronomical spring in the Northern
hemisphere). It has a duration of: 365 days, 5 hours and 48 minutes.

The sidereal year is the time interval for one complete revolution of
the earth about the sun relative to the stars, viz: 365 days, 6 hours
and 9 minutes.

The Julian year (named after Julius Caesar) is a purely conventional
unit of 365.25 days; just as the Gregorian calendar year is a
conventional unit of 365.2425 days. Both, of course, were introduced for
calendric motivations and to be close to the tropical year.

The phenomenon of precession is the main factor that causes the sidereal
year to differ from the Sothic year; the year marked by two successive
heliacal risings oscillating about the sidereal year with a period equal
to the precession itself.

To conclude our discussion on the heliacal rising of Sirius, we provide
the reader, in the following Figure D (33), with an approximate estimate
of the star's heliacal rising from its position in the Egyptian
calendar. The first column lists the Egyptian months, the second and
third the years that roughly correspond to a rising of Sirius at the
beginning of each month:

FIGURE D

Egyptian Civil Calendar and Rising of Sothis

	I 3ht
II
III
IIII 	-2780
2660
2540
2420 	-1320
1200
1080
960 	Thoth
Phaophi
Athyr
Choiak 	

	I prt
II
III
IIII 	2300
2180
2060
1940 	840
720
600
480 	Tybi
Mechir
Phamenoth
Pharmuthi 	

	I smw
II
III
IIII 	1820
1700
1580
1460 	360
240
-120
0 	Pachons
Payni
Epiphi
Mesore 	

	epagom. 	-1340 	+120 	epagom. 	

	NOTES:

(1) See J. Read's "Early Eighteenth Dynasty Chronology" JNES 29 (1970),
1: "A chronology is 'absolute' only to the extent that all data are
integrated into its composition".
(2) The information contained in these figures has been obtained from a
combination of data in A Roy's "The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian
Chronology", SISR VI (1978), 53-55; O. Neugebauer & R. Parker's Egyptian
Astronomical Texts, Vol. I (1960), App. I, 122-126; & B. Schaefer's
"Predicting Heliacal Risings and Settings", Sky & Telescope (September,
1985), 261-263.
(3) See Neugebauer & Parker, op. cit., 124.
(4) Roy, op. cit., 53.
(5) See R. Parker's "The Calendars of Ancient Egypt", Studs. in Ancient
Oriental Civilization, No. 26 (1950), 7, #21.
(6) Oosterhout, van G., "The Heliacal Rising of Sirius", Studs. in
Astronomical Chronology, No.1 (Delft, 1989), 5.
(7) Ibid., 6.
(8) Ibid; with reference to B. van der Waerden's "Die Sichtbarkeit der
Sterne in der Nähe des Horizontes", Gesellschaft in Zurich 99 (1954),
20. Van Oosterhout's translation.
(9) Van Oosterhout, ibid.
(10) Ibid. Arcus visionis changes are threefold: "periodic"; "secular" &
"change with geographic latitude".
(11) E.g. J. Bainbridge's Canicularia (Oxford, 1648).
(12) See L. Borchardt & P. Neugebauer's "Beobachtungen des Fruehaufgangs
des Sirius in Aegypten im Jahre 1926", Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
30 (1927), 441. See also their "Beobachtungen" in Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 29 (1926), 309.
(13) Borchardt, Orientalistische 29, 309.
(14) Rowton, M., "Mesopotamian Chronology and the "Era of Menophres'",
IRAQ VIII (1946), 107.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Oosterhout, op. cit., 11.
(17) Cf. Oosterhout, ibid. & footnote (12).
(18) As referred to by Oosterhout, ibid. Nouet was a member of the
French expedition to Egypt in the nineteenth century.
(19) Cf. Borchardt, Orientalistische 29, ibid. & T. de Jong & w. van
Soldt's "The earliest known solar eclipse record redated", Nature 338
(1989), Table 2.
(20) Oosterhout, op. cit.
(21) As referred to by Oosterhout, ibid., 20.
(22) Van der Waerden, op. cit., 20.
(23) Oosterhout, op. cit., 21.
(24) Parker, "Calendars", 33, #169.
(25) Schaefer, op. cit., refers to such as "archaeoastronomers".
(26) Schaefer, ibid., 261.
(27) Neugebauer and Parker, op. cit., vol.I, 1ff.
(28) E.g. cf. Schaefer, op. cit. & R. Purrington's "Heliacal Rising and
Setting: Quantitative Aspects", Archaeoastronomy, No.12, JHA, xix
(1988), S72-85.
(29) Schaefer, ibid.
(30) Ibid., 261-262.
(31) Ibid., 263.
(32) Information for "The Precession of the Equinoxes" taken from a
combination of data in The Astronomy and Astrophysics Encyclopedia (Van
Nostrand, NY, 1992), 131; The Illustrated Encyclopedia of astronomy and
Space (Macmillan, 1979), 159; & Schaefer, op. cit.
(33) Figure D taken from list in Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Vol.I,
App. II, 127. "The reader must understand that this list represents only
an approximation to the actual facts because the heliacal rising of
Sothis does not have an exact period of 1460 Julian years".
Top <#top>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX B: CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING THE SOTHIC STAR

Introduction

According to the proponents of the Sothic theory discussed at some
length throughout the preceding chapters, the star named Spdt (Sothis)
by the ancients is to be positively identified with the bright star,
Sirius. This is the usual interpretation. However amongst those who
cannot accept all, or aspects, of the Sothic theory - believing that it
has not yielded a sound chronology - there have been some who have
looked for an alternative identification of the star in the hope of
arriving at a different astronomical basis for Egyptian chronology.

Another approach has been to depart from the traditional view that the
"star of Isis", as referred to in the Decree of Canopus, is the same as
Sothis (hence Sirius). According to this theory, when the decree
referred to the "star of Isis", and later to "the star Sothis", it was
indicating, not one, but two stars. This ingenious theory was introduced
by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1973 (1), and it provided him with the point
of departure that he needed to justify his own dramatic revision of the
ancient chronologies.

Nor has Velikovsky's theory been lacking in supporters since it first
appeared in print (2).

In the following section we intend to introduce the reader to some of
the more representative attempts to redefine Sothis, including
Velikovsky's variation. Our purpose in doing this will be to test the
validity of this approach as a means for arriving at a new astronomical
basis for Egyptian history (other than the traditional Sothic theory).
We shall also be taking a second look at the traditional view, viz. that
Sothis is to be equated with Sirius, and the reasons supporting this
identification.

Finally, we hope to be able to reach a firm conclusion as to which of
the above schools of thought, if any, has correctly identified both "the
star Sothis" and the "star of Isis": be they the same celestial object,
or not.

Alternative Identifications of Sothis

Considering the seemingly manifold problems relating to the conventional
Sothic theory, and the associated astronomical difficulties, it is
hardly surprising that alternative identifications other than Sirius
have been suggested for 'spd.t'. Nor is it surprising to discover that
one of these alternatives is:

1. Canopus

The reader will recall that we had, in our earlier discussion of the
Decree of Canopus (Chapter 9), alluded to the fact that the inevitable
question had been asked (3): Is it possible that by 'spdt' the star
Canopus was meant? Considering that the decree of Ptolemy "Euergetes" -
fixing the New Year of the annual rising of 'spd-t' - was proclaimed by
the conclave of priests at the town of Canopus, this seemed a not
unreasonable question to ask.

There appear to be two main reasons why Canopus has been suggested as an
alternative to Sirius: first of all because it is not far inferior to
Sirius in brilliance; and secondly, because of the reason that we have
just given, that Ptolemy's decree was proclaimed at Canopus. Thus, even
though the star Canopus has not really loomed as a popular choice
amongst those seeking an alternative to Sirius for the Sothic star,
anyone who might have inclined to this view could provide one or two
positive reasons for doing so.

On the other hand, there are compelling reasons of an astronomical
nature to suggest that Canopus is not to be identified with Sothis. One
of the most cogent is because the star was hardly visible from Egypt; it
being, even at its superior culmination in Old Kingdom times, just
barely above the horizon of Memphis.

2. Spica

It was his dissatisfaction with the Sothic methodology that prompted
MacNaughton to re-assess the astronomical basis of Egyptian history. He
had been highly critical, for example, of Weigall's favouring of the
"short" chronology, despite his being, as MacNaughton put it (4):

"... evidently conscious ... that the crushing of the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Dynasties into two or
three hundred years will appear somewhat ridiculous."

Likewise, as he added in the same place, MacNaughton was critical of
Breasted's tendency to minimalise reigns: "On reading Breasted's
chronology one is left with the impression that he regards a minimum
date as likely to be the correct probability".

MacNaughton's reaction to so defective a method, as he believed this to
be, was to seek a new identification for Sothis as a foundation for
Egyptian chronology. Thus he hoped to prepare the ground for a more
realistic framework for ancient history.

As we have seen, it is a path that other would-be revisionists have
since followed. The result for MacNaughton was that he, according to
Courville's description of it (5), "built ... up a complicated
astronomical basis for his chronology ... on the identification of
Sothis as Spica". It appears, however, that very little attention was
paid to MacNaughton's theory then; nor has anyone given it serious
consideration since.

3. Venus

A more significant identification of the star, inasmuch as it has
aroused a certain degree of later interest, was that proposed by Knapp
(6), who wrote about the same time as MacNaughton. Knapp began his
enquiry by asking a question that many had asked before him, viz: If the
length of the year were known accurately by the Egyptians in the second
and third millennia, why would they have perpetuated a known error - the
deliberate neglect of a quarter of a day each year, and the loss of
twenty-five days in a century, through centuries of millennia? This, he
suggested, would have been a deliberate disregard for the degree of
exactness attained by the Egyptian priests.

Knapp's proposed solution to what he regarded as a rather serious
problem, was to suggest that the Sothic period pertained, not to the
star Sirius, but to the planet Venus; a suggestion that has come to be
regarded by some as not completely lacking in merit (7). According to
Knapp's explanation (8) of the Egyptian method of calculating in regard
to this presumed Venusian calendar, the small difference between five
synodical years, or circlings, of Venus, and eight terrestrial years of
365 days, was "disregarded by the Egyptians for simplification" in their
Venusian calculations. As explained by the British astronomer Roy (who
had also noted that Venus at its brightest was "very much brighter than
Sirius") (9): "Eight terrestrial years approximate to five synodical
years - approximately 584 days of Venus; the difference being about one
day in four years".

Considering that this theory appears to perpetuate the one day in four
years irregularity, the very problem that Knapp had tried to resolve, it
is difficult to see how it might be regarded as being a solution.

By way of concluding this section on Knapp and his theory, we would like
to return briefly to a point of controversy, raised above, that was
alluded to in passing at an earlier stage in this thesis. It concerns
the Egyptians' perseverance with their defective civil calendar; and
what we have found to be the most plausible reason why they thus
persevered. It is a question that puzzled not only Knapp, but others as
well; including Meyer. The latter was unable however to provide an
answer to it, being content to say simply that the Egyptians did not
consider it to be a matter of much consequence.

Antoniadi (10), however, felt inclined to investigate the matter
further, in order to find whether the Egyptians had reasons for
favouring an astronomically defective calendar. He believed that he had
found such a reason in the writings of one Geminus, a Hellenistic
mathematician - admittedly a late source - from whose Isagoge he took
the following quote (11):

"The Egyptians did not wish that the sacrifices to the gods would occur
at the same time of the year, but wished rather that they would run
through the cycle for all seasons ... so that a summer feast would
become a winter one, an autumnal one, and one of spring .... In four
years, they were lacking one day in relation to the sun .... Thus in
1460 years, every feast would pass through all the seasons and would
return to the same period of the year".

Considering the importance in the Egyptian calendar of the "divine
Sothis", as we saw it described earlier, it is not hard to imagine how
an astrologically minded race such as the Egyptians apparently were,
might wish for all their feasts, one after the other, to pass under this
propitious star.

4. Venusian Calendar

Undoubtedly the most influential, post-War promoter of the idea that the
traditional identification of Sothis stands in need of re-evaluation,
has been Immanuel Velikovsky (12). Though not actually endorsing Knapp's
Sothis = Venus equation, Velikovsky took the latter's general hypothesis
a step further by proposing that the Egyptians had used a Venusian
calendar, and that this was the basis of true "Sothic" chronology. The
primary sources used by Velikovsky to help him arrive at this view were
the Decree of Canopus and the later Greek writings of Claudius Ptolemy
and Geminus.

Obviously Ptolemy, for instance, had already known about the
relationship between the synodical periods of Venus and the
quasi-terrestrial year, for he had noted that (13): "... eight Egyptian
years without a sensible error, equal five circlings of Venus".

Thus Velikovsky, taking his cue from a combination of the
above-mentioned data, thought himself able legitimately to develop this
particular theory of his. For instance, he turned to that passage in the
Isagoge of Geminus where it was "said expressly that the festival of
Isis goes around the seasons in 1460 years" (14). From this information,
Velikovsky concluded that Venus could be shown to have "played a
decisive role in the Egyptian calendar in the period following the
seventh century".

The first thing that Velikovsky had to do, however, was to identify the
"star of Isis". He believed that confusion had arisen on the part of
those who had interpreted the Decree of Canopus, and the Sothic period,
because both Isis and Sothis were presumed to have been one and the
same: both Sirius. But Velikovsky supported Pliny (15) who had stated
quite plainly, he said, that Isis was the planet Venus.

Now, in the Decree of Canopus, Velikovsky further noted (16) how it was
said that the feasts of the star of Isis and other feasts go around the
seasons and, in order that the calendar may correspond to the order of
nature, the year should follow the star Sothis. The Decree, he
suggested, "may speak of two different stars"; the difference between
whose calendars would be eliminated "if one day is added to every four
years of Isis, the calendar and the feasts becoming regulated by the
year of the fixed stars".

Budge (17) had said as much when, translating the Greek text of Canopus,
he realised - according to Velikovsky - that the reference must be to
"two heavenly bodies"; though he assumed that the sun was being referred
to here as well.

The Decree of Canopus was clearly intended, Velikovsky said (18), to be
such a reform as would prevent the popular festivals, "which ought to be
held in the winter [from coming] to be celebrated in the summer, [owing
to] the star [of Isis] ... changing one day in the course of four years
...". Now a little reflection, he claimed - contrary to the usual
interpretation - would show that:

"... the date of the heliacal rising of the fixed star, Sirius, would
move slowly around the calendar of 365 days, as he said, advancing on it
a day every four years but not around the seasons, occurring always at
the same time in summer".

Thus, he concluded, the decree's description of Isis did not fit Sirius,
but it was appropriate to the motions of Venus, for (19):

"The heliacal rising of the planet Venus moves around the seasons,
around the natural year of spring, summer, autumn, and winter, and
around a calendar of 365 1/4 days, being retarded by almost two days
every eight years or one day in four years".

So for Velikovsky the name of the star of Isis, explained by Pliny as
the planet Venus, and the Canopic statement that its (heliacal) rising
goes around the seasons, left "no room for doubt" in his mind that the
Decree of Canopus was referring to Venus in its relation to the star
Sothis (20). Essentially then, according to Velikovsky, the Egyptian
calendar was based, not on Sothis (Sirius), but rather on Venus; with
the fixed star, Sothis, serving as a steady point of reference.

The shifting of the heliacal rising of Venus after eight years by
approximately two days in relation to the seasons, Velikovsky went on to
explain (21), can be observed at simultaneous heliacal risings or
settings of the planet and of any southern, fixed star. In the light of
this Velikovsky added, with reference to Mueller (22):

"In order to compare the heliacal rising or setting of the fixed stars,
the brightest among them, Sirius, was chosen. There are symbolic
allusions in Egyptian drawings to their functioning as a team and the
Canopus Decree expressly refers to the relative motion of the star of
Isis with respect to the star Sothis".

Roy (23), in turn, considered the possibility that the Egyptians had
employed a Venusian calendar to be strengthened by the fact that the
Incas and Mayans had observed such a custom: "... the Maya reckoned the
Venus year in groups of five, making 2920 days - which, of course, are 8
years of 365 days". The important interval, he pointed out, was eight
years: "... that is when it will come around again and will rise
heliacally very much the same as before". Since, as he also noted, the
Greeks of the Classical period had employed a four-year Venusian period
(which was half of the eight years), Roy went on to add that "it seems
quite plausible to consider seriously that the Egyptian calendar of 365
days was tied to Venus and that every eighth year the heliacal rising of
Venus fell on the first day of the month Thoth" (24).

Velikovsky (25) had used reasoning similar to Roy's when he had noted,
"from various ancient sources", that for centuries the Mesopotamians had
recorded observations of the day of the heliacal rising of Venus (i.e.
Ishtar).

Having thus worked out what he believed to be a legitimate astronomical
basis for Egyptian chronology, other than the traditional, Sothic one,
Velikovsky considered that he had at last found a sound means of
answering the many criticisms levelled against him by the Sothic
historians and archaeoastronomers alike.

It is largely due to Velikovsky's Venusian calendar for Egypt theory
that other revisionists who had embraced his major synchronisms have
since been able to proceed with their work of reconstruction with
greater confidence, thinking that all the major obstacles have now been
cleared away. Danelius (26), for instance, confidently wrote that the
distinction between Venus and Sirius in the ancient texts, as proposed
by Velikovsky, has:

"... freed Egyptian chronology from the straightjacket of the 'Sothic
theory' and that of the 'astronomically fixed dates' [e.g. of Breasted]:
having thereby provided a firm base from which a critical investigation
of [the] 'revised chronology' and its application to Middle East history
may be started".

We now turn to the Egyptian records themselves to determine whether a
theory that claims "the star Sothis" and "the star of Isis" to be,
respectively, Sirius and Venus - rather than the usual view that both
expressions refer to Sirius - can be maintained. In other words, do the
Egyptian records support Velikovsky's unconventional view, hence opening
the door for a revision of Egyptian history based upon Velikovsky's
particular Weltanschauung; or is the evidence of these records firmly
against it?

In what follows, we shall be relying heavily on evidence supplied in the
Egyptian Astronomical Texts: especially Vol. I for the identification of
"the star Sothis", and Vol.III for that of the "star of Isis".

The Egyptian Evidence

The Egyptians constructed diagonal star clocks in relation to their
civil year of 365 days. The basis of these star clocks were the risings
of stars, referred to as "decans" (27) at twelve "hour"-intervals
through the night and in 10-day weeks through the year. The authors of
the Egyptian Astronomical Texts, limiting themselves to the "coffin
decans only" (28), have provided translations of the names of each of
the decans; though admitting that: "Very few names can be translated
with certainty". Their comment on names, nos. 30-31, under the heading
of "predecessor of Sothis, Sothis", is that:

"The earliest writings of the decanal name are spd. In the later coffins
a feminine ending t appears sporadically. In coffin 11 we consistently
have spdt. The Senmut ceiling and the later lists always have spdt,
frequently coupled with 3st "Isis". The compound "Isis-Sothis" is common
(Wb.IV,p.111,18) and we offer the suggestion that Spdt was in origin a
nisbe of spd referring to Isis as "the one of spd"".

The authors conclude this note by adding, with reference to Gundel (29):
"That spd and Spdt 'Sothis' are both identified with Sirius is one of
the rare certainties in Egyptian astronomy".

Sothis as Sirius

Defining hours "by means of stars located on consecutive horizons which
intercept the ecliptic in 10 degree intervals", Neugebauer and Parker
(30) have found that stars marking the end of the 12th hour on the
diagonal clocks are located at, or generally near, their position of
heliacal rising. As to the matter of whether the rising of a star
indicates the beginning or the end of an hour, the authors thought "it
seems more likely" that (31):

"... the ends of hours were indicated since the first hour of night
would begin with darkness after sunset and no star's rising would be
necessary to bring it into being ...".

Applying this conclusion to what they called "the special case of
Sirius", Neugebauer and Parker then said that every text in which Sirius
is listed as decan of the 12th hour would provide us with "a correlation
between its heliacal rising and the corresponding date of the civil, or
wandering year, and thus, in turn, with a Julian date" (32). They
immediately added that, however:

"... one cannot assign to a schematic arrangement such as our star
clocks the same degree of correctness as to an explicit date for 'prt
Spdt' "the going forth of Sothis". Since we cannot, with certainty,
establish the relation of a star to its hour nor to the accurate date of
its heliacal rising in the strict sense, it will be wise to allow dates
derived from the position of Sothis in our clocks a margin of about half
a century earlier than heliacal rising at the end of the 12th hour would
suggest".

The next task for the authors was to decide "what process", as they put
it, "led historically to an arrangement by means of which stars were
used to subdivide the time of night in the fashion of the diagonal
clocks". They concluded that (33):

"... only the reappearance of stars after a period of invisibility, i.e.
their heliacal risings, in combination with the civil calendar could
have provided the natural basis for the selection of the decans and
their hours".

We are now going to see, from the Egyptian Astronomical Texts, that the
movements of the stars were calculated with a fair degree of accuracy by
the Egyptian astronomers. To verify this, all we need to know is the
basic cycle for the heliacal rising and setting of the star. The star in
which we are primarily interested is, of course, Sirius.

Sirius, as Neugebauer and Parker explain (34), was completely absent
from the night sky for a period of about 70 days. After it reappeared
before sunrise, its rising had receded so far into darkness that Sirius
was now to mark the end of the preceding hour, whereas a new star which
rose heliacally was chosen to indicate the last hour. "In principle many
stars would be available but in analogy to Sirius a star was chosen
which had been invisible the same length of time as its predecessor".

In other words, among all the stars rising heliacally at the same
moment, one was selected that was rather similar to Sirius. This
restricted the selection to a star located somewhere in the region that
Neugebauer and Parker describe as the decanal belt. (We refer the reader
here to the Figures provided on the following pages). Repetition of this
process leads by itself to stars which indicate "hours" by their rising
in a diagonal scheme.

Neugebauer and Parker went on to point out that their reconstruction of
the diagonal clocks "assumes the heliacal rising of stars as point of
departure for the creation of the decanal hours" (35). Sirius/Sothis,
they added, was the original example for the use of stars as indicators
of time; especially since the heliacal rising of Sirius/Sothis is
related to the return of the flood and thus the beginning of the
agricultural year. "As its re-appearance indicated the ideal beginning
of the year, so the heliacal risings of subsequent stars were associated
with the subsequent decades".

The important "Dramatic Text" (36) contains a description of the
heliacal rising and acronychal setting of the decanal stars, as they:

"... enter with this god (the Sun) and with him they go forth [and]
after in the western horizon his majesty sets, they (the stars) enter
into Nut's mouth in the place of her head in the west".

And again, with reference to Sothis:

"The one (star) which goes to earth dies and enters the Duat (Dw3.t).

... It stops in the House of Geb 7 decades.
It looses its impurity to the earth in 7 decades.

... It sheds its impurity to the earth.
It is pure and it comes into existence in the horizon like Sothis (Spd.t).

... take place like (those of) men".

A note below a similar text (37) refers to: "The stay of a star in the
Duat for 70 days during which it is purged of impurity in the
Embalming-House ...". Commenting on the frequent allusions in the
"Dramatic Text" to what they call "the ideal period" of 70 days (i.e. 7
decades), Neugebauer and Parker (38) believe it to be:

"... a reasonable assumption that it is the behaviour of Sirius, the
prototype of the decanal stars which suggested it. Sirius we know is
invisible - and hence in the Duat and the Embalming-House - for 70 days,
and its acronychal setting and subsequent heliacal rising are noticeable
astronomical events. The death or setting of a human being could be
conceived of as followed by his rising and revivification in the next
world after the same period in the Embalming-House".

The Decanal Belt

In order to represent graphically the celestial sphere, we take the
diagram of celestial coordinates (39) below from Neugebauer/Parker. One
axis shows the celestial equator, divided into 360 degrees of right
ascension. Perpendicularly to it are plotted the declinations that range
from 0 degrees to +90 degrees (North) and from 0 degrees to -90 degrees
(South). If we assume a geographical latitude of about 30 degrees N all
stars whose declination is greater than +60 degrees will be visible
every night.

Stars below -60 degrees will always be invisible. These two parallels of
declination plus or minus 60 degrees appear in our diagram as straight
lines.

The horizon =30 degrees touches these two parallels in points S and N
180 degrees apart. The rising of stars is visible on the eastern half
SEN of the horizon, the setting on the western half, NWS. The daily
rotation of the celestial sphere could be represented in our diagram by
keeping the horizon fixed and by moving the rest of the drawing from
left to right. The same result can be obtained by keeping the main part
of the diagram fixed while moving the curve of the horizon from right to
left.

Let us now assume that a certain fixed star is heliacally rising, that
is that is in the eastern horizon when the sun is still slightly below
the eastern horizon at A see Figure 2 (40).

Shortly afterwards the sun will be in the horizon and will disappear in
the bright daylight. A few days later, however, the sun has moved
farther away from the horizon which passes through and there will be a
longer interval of darkness between the rising of and sunrise. This
process can be continued until the sun has reached (almost a year later)
the point B in the ecliptic. In this situation we consider the western
part of the horizon at the moment when is just setting while the sun has
set just enough to guarantee sufficient darkness to make the setting of
observable. We are now well situated to construct a qualitative map of
the decanal belt. We know that BA should be 70 days, or, in our
simplified fashion, 70 degrees in the ecliptic. Both A and B must be
located below their respective horizons. Consequently, the points of
intersection of these horizons with the ecliptic are less than 70
degrees distant from one another. Only for very bright stars, like
Sirius, can this distance approach about 50 degrees. To make small stars
visible, however, the sun must be considerably more below the horizon.

We are on the safe side if we assume that minimum distance between the
two horizons on the ecliptic is about 10 degrees, the maximum about 50
degrees. If we now draw all pairs of horizons which have an ecliptic
distance of 50 degrees, we obtain as the locus of their intersection all
positions of very bright stars which are 70 days invisible.

If we repeat this construction with a 10 degrees interval we obtain the
locus of the weakest stars of 70 days invisibility. Thus all stars of 70
days invisibility must be located between the curve and the curve .
"This solves our problem: the decans whose labours are described in P.
Carlsberg I must be stars in a belt which lies slightly south of the
ecliptic, contains Sirius near its southern boundary ... and follows
roughly the shape of the ecliptic" (41). Thus:

In this Figure 3, Orion and Sirius are represented by dots near the
right end of the drawing. "In other words the decans form no great
circle on the sphere but are not far from a parallel circle to the
ecliptic" (42).

Under the Patronage of Isis

In the Egyptian Astronomical Texts (43), there is provided an abundance
of evidence from tomb ceilings and coffins to show who are the
protecting deities of the various heavenly bodies. In the case of
Sirius, it is quite clear from the majority of examples given that the
deity is the goddess, Isis. Thus, on p.164, no.68 in the list, we read
the following about 'Spd(t)':

"Rising and transit decan, in every group and family with the exception
of Tanis. It heads the list of transit decans (Seti I B) but is the last
decan in the others. Except in the Seti I B family this decan is
identified with the goddess Isis, whose name and figure usually
accompany it ...".

No.36 in the list reads as follows:

"spdt (always written together with , and accompanied by a standing
goddess and star as determinative, except Hermopolis B and Abu Yasin,
which also omits ). Deity: Isis, standing in a bark, with feather crown
and disk above, scepter and , with one hand raised to crown .... B. .
Deity: Isis, star on head, standing in bark, scepter in one hand, other
raised. Stars: One on head of Isis".

Conclusion

It therefore seems that the attempts by certain revisionist scholars to
identify Sothis with some celestial object other than Sirius, and
Velikovsky's own argument that the "star of Isis" is not meant to
identify Sothis, are groundless. Any revised history of Egypt basing
itself on such astronomical foundations that deny the identification
with Sirius of either Sothis, or the star of Isis, appears doomed to
failure right from the start.

Those who believe that the current Sothic star theory of Egyptian
chronology is in need of revision must inevitably search for some other
astronomical basis for any proposed reconstruction.

NOTES:

(1) Velikovsky, I., "Astronomy and Chronology", Pensee IV
(Spring/Summer, 1973), 38-49. The same article later appeared as a
supplement in Velikovsky's Peoples of the Sea (Abacus, 1977), 225-254.
(2) Most notably, E. Danelius. See her "The Identification of the
Biblical 'Queen of Sheba' with Hatshepsut, 'Queen of Egypt and
Ethiopia'". Kronos I, #3 (1975), 3-27.
(3) See Velikovsky, Peoples, 242.
(4) MacNaughton, D., A Scheme of Egyptian Chronology (1932), cf. 10 & 28.
(5) Courville, D., The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, Vol.II
(Loma Linda, 1971), 67.
(6) Knapp, M., Pentagramma Veneris (Basel, 1934), 22; as referred to by
Velikovsky, Peoples, 245, 246.
(7) See following discussion, 4. Venusian Calendar.
(8) See footnote (6).
(9) Roy, A., "The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology", SIS Review
6 (Hertfordshire, 1978), 54.
(10) Antoniadi, L'Astronomie Egyptienne (Paris, 1934), 106.
(11) Isagoge of Geminus; as referred to by Antoniadi, ibid. My translation.
(12) See footnote (1).
(13) Claudius Ptolemy, Almagest, Bk.10, ch.4.
(14) Geminus, Isagoge, ch.8. Geminus's source, according to Velikovsky
(in Peoples, 246), was Eratosthenes (3rd century BC) who was employed by
Ptolemy III "Euergetes" I, the ordainer of the Decree of Canopus, in his
library at Alexandria.
(15) Pliny's Natural History, II 37; as referred to by Velikovsky,
Peoples, 94.
(16) Velikovsky, Peoples, 246.
(17) Budge, The Decrees of Memphis and Canopus, Vol.III, "The Decree of
Canopus" (London, 1904); as referred to by Velikovsky, in Peoples, ibid.
(18) Velikovsky, Peoples, ibid.
(19) Ibid., 248. His emphasis.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid., 252.
(22) Ibid; with reference to W. Mueller's Egyptian Mythology (Boston,
1918), 56. Mueller wrote: "Sothis-Sirius was early identified with
Hathor or Isis ... A noteworthy representation also shows her in
association with (or rather in opposition to) Horus as the morning star,
and thus in a strange relation ... which we cannot yet explain from the
texts".
(23) Roy, op. cit., 55.
(24) Ibid.
(25) Velikovsky, Peoples, 250.
(26) Danelius, op. cit., 7.
(27) Neugebauer, O. & Parker, R., Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Vol.I, 1.
(28) Ibid., 25.
(29) Grundel in Pauly Wissowa III A 1, especially p.321.
Neugebauer and Parker claim that Sethe's objection (Zeitrechnung, 293,
n.2) that spd the decan cannot be Sirius (but is perhaps its
'paranatellon') because that star is south of the celestial equator "is
without foundation", as they show infra, 97-100.
(30) Neugebauer and Parker, op. cit., 106.
(31) Ibid. Their emphasis.
(32) Ibid.
(33) Ibid.
(34) Ibid., 107.
(35) Ibid.
(36) Ibid., 67-80.
(37) Ibid., 73, nn. 37-39.
(38) Ibid.
(39) Ibid., I, see their Fig.24.
(40) Ibid., Fig.25.
(41) Ibid., 100, Fig.27.
In n.1, on same page, we read in relation to Fig.27 that: "This
disproves all statements in the literature that the decans coincide with
the equator".
(42) Ibid.
(43) See Neugebauer and Parker, op. cit., Vol.III.
Top <#top>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX C: THE ILLAHUN LUNAR DOCUMENTS

Introduction

Whereas Edgerton (1) could not assign the presumed Sothic date from the
reign of Sesostris III to an exact Julian year, but simply estimated it
as "1870 B.C. plus or minus ca. 6 years", he did hold out the hope that
someone might be able to achieve real precision by looking at the lunar
documents from that period.

It was Parker (2) who eventually took up that challenge, declaring in
his Excursus C that: "It is the object of this excursus to assign such a
definite dating to the Sothic date and then by extension to the whole
12th dynasty". As a result of Parker's arguments, the year 1872 BC has
come to be generally recognised as the date for the supposed heliacal
rising of Sirius in Year 7 of Sesostris III. Thus Sir Alan Gardiner
could subsequently refer to "1872 BC" as being "the earliest relatively
certain fixed date in Egyptian history" (3).

Lately, the value of Parker's contribution to the combined use of
"Sothic" and lunar evidence from Illahun has been re-assessed by
Professor Rose (4), who has not however omitted to examine some of the
more recent efforts as well. Rose refers to the four documents A,B,C & D
from the Illahun archive (all of which had been studied by Borchardt) as
the "lettered" documents. Since, as he says, A,B,C, have never been
published in original form, Parker had had to rely on Borchardt's accounts.

Luft on the other hand, according to Rose (5), has more recently
examined "all of the El-Lahun lunar dates that he takes to be of
chronological significance". This includes many "unlettered" documents,
bringing the total data up to 39.

It is generally agreed that Document D is the most important of all of
these. Since this document is a photostat of Gardiner's photocopy and
collation of Neugebauer and Erichsen, Rose thinks that it "seems to have
been fairly well authenticated" (6).

The following is a tabulation of what Rose claims to be the "four
principal variants of the astronomical approach to the dating of the
Twelfth Dynasty", based on Document D (7):

Borchardt: -1851 and -1850
Parker: -1812 and -1811
Krauss: - 1787 and -1786
Luft: - 1823 and 1822 (and -1798 and -1797)

Of the above, it should be noted that Krauss is at the forefront of what
Rose calls "a growing tendency to favor Elephantine over Memphis as the
observation-post for the heliacal rising of Sirius" (8). This
preference, says Rose, "is closely associated with another recent
tendency: to limit the reign of Sesostris III to nineteen years, instead
of the 30+ x of the Turin Papyrus".

Luft, who has worked with both observational sites, "but seems to prefer
Memphis", also endorses this shorter reign for Sesostris III (9).

Naturally, as Rose explains, a change of altitude of the observation of
the heliacal rising of Sirius does permit one to change the expected
date of the heliacal rising of Sirius. He adds, however, that Christian
Lietz (10) has criticised Krauss on the basis that the Egyptian sources
consistently attribute to Sirius an invisibility of 70 days, which would
be "quite plausible for Memphis ... but not for Elephantine, where the
invisibility would be only about 55 days".

In regard to this 70-day period of invisibility for Sirius, the Egyptian
Astronomical Texts of Neugebauer and Parker (11) would seem to weigh
heavily in favour of Memphis as being the preferred place for observing
the heliacal rising of Sirius.

As Rose has correctly pointed out, the use of this Sothic/lunar approach
"does not require that any of the lunar documents be dated to Sesostris
III; dating one or more of them to some other monarch of the Twelfth
Dynasty could turn out to be just as instructive" (12). Today Document D
has in fact been positively identified as being Amenhemet III's sequence
of 12 dates from the beginning of lunar months for years 30 & 31
(conventionally dated on the basis of Parker's "Sothic" date, at
1813-1812 BC). In Parker's day, however, this identification was not so
obvious. Borchardt had favoured Sesostris III. Parker saw the
possibility of Amenemhet III as well; hence his Hypothesis I (for
Amenemhet III) & Hypothesis II (for Sesostris III).

Rose takes into account both hypotheses, as well as two possible options
given by Parker for the translation of the Days of D. The lines of
Document D in which the alternate months are specified have been
translated by Parker as follows:

II smw 26 down to III smw 25
IIII smw 25 down to regnal year 13, I 3ht 19
Regnal year 31, II 3ht 20 down to III 3ht 19
IIII 3ht '19 or 18' down to I prt 18
II prt 18 down to III prt 17
IIII prt 17 down to I smw 16.

The dates to the left, as Rose explains, were considered by Parker to be
the first days of the lunar months. "But what about the dates to the
right?", asks Rose. "Are they the last days of those same lunar months?
Or are they the first days of the next lunar months?" (13). The question
is, as he goes on to point out, whether "down to" (nfryt r) in Document
D means "down to and including" or "down to and not including". Parker
calls the former "Possibility I" and the latter "Possibility II".

Apart from these alternatives, Rose will also make allowance for
meteorological conditions since, as he says, bad weather "might make a
29-29 sequence look like a 30-28 sequence".

Parker does not say how he obtained his Calculated Date results. Did he
use Schoch's tables, or some other authority, Rose queries? Since Parker
had used Schoch's tables elsewhere, Rose will analyse the quality of
Parker's fit based on Schoch.

From his subsequent analysis, Rose arrives at the following estimation
for Parker's heliacal rising of Sirius (14):

In the case of Hypothesis I, 4 out of 9 misses (one by two days).
For Hypothesis II, 5 misses.

In the case of Possibility I, 6 misses (one by two days).
For Possibility II, Parker scores 9 hits out of 12.

Despite the poor fits that he has generally found in Parker's data, Rose
recalls at this point that: "Parker's views have been widely accepted,
and his Hypothesis I (with Possibility II) has been called both a 'firm
anchor' and even 'a cornerstone in Egyptian chronology'".

Krauss and Luft (16)

Krauss claimed to have found some extra data with which to work. To
begin with, he thought that the "lettered" document C had two dates:
what he calles C1 & C2. He also used E and F documents; but the readings
of these are - according to Rose - "disputed". Finally, Krauss has G & H
documents petaining to the w3g feasts. But as Rose comments in regard to
these, the significance of the Egyptian w3g feast is unknown. Krauss has
8 misses on D, and an overall, 2 out of 14. Taking bad weather into
consideration, Rose gives him 12 out of 14; but only 5 out of 14 in
regard to all "lettered" documents.

Luft uses 39 data in all. Rose scores him only 4 out of 14 with his
"lettered" documents; and 14 out of 19 with his "unlettered". Rose finds
a further difficulty with Luft, from the point of view of the
conventional chronology, inasmuch as his "Sothic" date of 1865 BC is not
the standard one.

Criticism of Rose

What Rose himself has failed to do is to include an assessment of
Schoch, upon whose tables those he has analysed appear to have based
their research. As we have already seen in Appendix A, there may well be
a widespread tendency amongst the archaeoastronomers to presume that
ancient practice could be conducted, and was indeed performed, according
to purely conventional rulings.

A glance at the records presented in EAT makes it obvious that the
Egyptian attitude to celestial phenomena was far more relaxed than is
ours; so much so as to make the few records that they left virtually
unusable for any quantitative purpose!

In the case of both Schaefer (17) and Purrington (18) a reasonably
sophisticated model of the physical conditions at heliacal risings has
been confronted with systematic observations done by a professional
observer. The results that they have obtained, it must be said, are
simply disastrous for astronomers who have ever discussed heliacal
phenomena before them!

Whereas the average results obtained from the model and from actual
observations support quite well all the basic assumptions,
meteorological and other contingencies introduce a considerable
dispersion in the date of observation of heliacal phenomena. Therefore
many serious discussions found in earlier publications lose all
interest. Hence the absurdity, for instance, of 'arcus visionis'
controversies where differences of one day or two are seriously disputed.

In the light of the physical model and the empirical results of Schaefer
and Purrington, Schoch's discussion, for instance, may now appear to be
somewhat byzantine.

Conclusion

I find myself in basic agreement with Rose's major conclusions about the
conventional chronology. I believe that he is correct in concluding that
Parker's was an unsatisfactory effort to meet the Edgerton challenge,
and that no one has so far managed to establish an early 2nd millennium
BC date for the Twelfth Dynasty by Sothic-lunar calculations. I also
agree with Rose that one will need to look further for a suitable
"anchor" for Middle Kingdom chronology. However, my agreement with these
conclusions is based upon quite a different premise. In short, I do not
think that Egyptian lunar dating is precise enough to provide anyone
with a means of establishing any firm foundation for an absolute chronology.

Neugebauer may therefore have had good cause to dismiss the lunar dates
of Document D as not having any really ascertainable chronological value.

NOTES:

(1) Edgerton, W., "Chronology of the Twelfth Dynasty", JNES 1 (1942),
309, 310.
(2) Parker, R., The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1950), 63-69.
(3) Gardiner, A., Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961), 66.
(4) Rose, L., "The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the
Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt to the Early Second Millennium: A
Reassessment", JNES 53 (1994), 237-261.
(5) Ibid., 240; with reference to U. Luft's Die chronologische Fixierung
des Ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun
(Vienna, 1992).
(6) Rose, op. cit., 239.
(7) Ibid., 240.
(8) Ibid., 246; with reference to R. Krauss's Sothis- und Monddaten
(Hildesheim, 1985).
(9) For further discussion on the effects of latitude, see Parker, op.
cit., 66; E. Meyer's Ägyptische Chronologie (Berlin, 1904), 17-31;
Edgerton, op. cit., 308-9.
(10) Rose, op. cit., 246; with reference to C. Leitz's "Studien zur
Ägyptischen Astronomie", Ägyptische Abhandlungen 49 (Wiesbaden, 1989),
31, 51.
(11) Neugebauer, O. & Parker, R., Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Vols.
1-III (1960-69), Brown University Press, Providence, R.I.
(12) Rose, op. cit., 238.
(13) Ibid., 247.
(14) Ibid., 250-253.
(15) Ibid., 251.
(16) Ibid., 256-261.
(17) Schaefer, B., "Predicting Heliacal Risings and Settings", Sky &
Telescope, September (1985), 261-263.
(18) Purrington, R., "Heliacal Rising and Setting: Quantitative
Aspects", Archaeo- astronomy No.12, JHA, xix, 1988, S72-85.
Top <#top>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AL-BIRUNI, The Chronology of the Ancient Nations ('Athar-ul-Bakiya'),
trans. C.E. Sachau (London, 1879).
ALBRIGHT, W., From the Stone Age to Christianity; monotheism and the
historical process, 2nd ed., Baltimore (John Hopkins, 1962).
ANTONIADI, E., L'Astronomie egyptienne, Paris (Gauthier-Villars, 1934).
BORCHARDT, L. & NEUGEBAUER, P., "Beobachtungen des Fruehaufgangs des
Sirius in Aegypten", Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 29 (1926), col. 309f.
BORCHARDT, L. & NEUGEBAUER, P., "Beobachtungen des Fruehaufgangs des
Sirius in Aegypten im Jahre 1926", Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 30
(1927), col. 441-448.
BORCHARDT, L., Quellen und Forschungen zur Zeitbestimmung der
aegyptischen Geschichte, Band II (Cairo, 1935).
BORCHARDT, L., "Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche
Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der aegyptischen Geschichte,
Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 37 (1899), 89-103.
BREASTED, J., A History of Egypt, 2nd. ed., New York (Scribner, 1924).
BRETAGNON, P. & CHAPRONT, J., "Note sur les formules pour le calcul de
la precession", Astronomy and Astrophysics 103 (1981), 103-107.
BRUGSCH, H., "Ein neues Sothis-Datum", ZAS 8 (1870).
BRUGSCH, H., Histoire d'Egypte, 2nd ed., Leipzig (Hinrichs, 1875).
BRUGSCH, H., Materiaux pour servir a la reconstruction du calendrier des
anciens Egyptiens, Leipzig (Hinrichs, 1864).

CENSORINUS, De Die Natali Liber ad Q. Caerellium, trans. D. Nisard,
Paris (Hildesheim, 1965).
CERNY, J., "Notes on the supposed beginning of a Sothic period under
Sethos I", JEA 47 (1961), 150-152.
COURVILLE, D., The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, Vols. I & II,
Loma Linda (Challenge Books, 1971).
CRAWFORD, O., Man and His Past, London (Phoenix House, 1921).
CROMBETTE, F., Chronologie de l'Egypte Antique, Tournai, Belgium (Ceshe,
undated).

DANELIUS, E., "The Identification of the Biblical 'Queen of Sheba' with
Hatshepsut, 'Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia'", Kronos, Glassboro, NJ
(Kronos Press, 1975), 1-19.
DE JONG, T. & VAN SOLDT, W., "The earliest known solar eclipse record
redated", Nature 338 (1989), 238-240.

EBERS, G., "Die Märchen des Papyrus Westcar II", Mitteilungen aus den
Orientalischen Sammlungen 5 (1890), 56-57.
EBERS, G., "Nochmals der Calender auf der Rückseite des Leipziger
Papyros Ebers", ZAS 12 (1874), 3-6.
EBERS, G., "Papyrus Ebers", ZAS 11 (1873).
EDGERTON, W., "Chronology of the Twelfth Dynasty", Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 1 (1942), 307-314.
EDGERTON, W., "On the Chronology of the Early Eighteenth Dynasty",
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 53 (1936-1937),
188-197.
EHRICH, R. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago
(Chicago Uni. Press, 1965).
EISENLOHR, A., "Letter from Dr. Eisenlohr of Heidelberg", Proceedings of
the Society of Biblical Archaeology 13 (1890), 596-598.

FAULKNER, R., Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Aris and Phillips
(Warminster, 1969).
FAULKNER, R., Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford UP, 1962).

GARDINER, A., Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., Oxford (1976).
GARDINER, A., Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford (Clarendon, 1961).
GAUTHIER, H., Dictionnaire des Noms Geographiques contenus dans les
textes hieroglyphiques, 7 vols., Osnabrueck (Zeller Verlag, 1975).
GINZEL, F., Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie,
Band I, Leipzig (Hinrichs, 1906).
GOODWIN, C., "Notes on the calendar in Mr. Smith's papyrus", ZAS 11
(1873), 107 -166.

HALL, H., Ancient History of the Near East (Methuen, 1913).
HALL, H., "Egyptian Chronology", Cambridge Ancient History, 1st ed., I
(1928), 167 -170.

JAMES, P., Centuries of Darkness, London (Jonathan Cape, 1991).

KITCHEN, K., The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC)
(Warminster, 1986).

LEPSIUS, R., "Einige Bemerkungen ueber denselben Papyrus Smith", ZAS 8
(1870), 167-170.
LEPSIUS, R., Koenigsbuch der Alten Aegypter, Berlin (Besser, 1858), 2 Vols.
LONG, R., "A Re-examination of the Sothic Chronology of Egypt",
Orientalia 43, fasc. 3-4 (1974), 261-274.

MAHAFFY, J., The Empire of the Ptolemies, London (Macmillan, 1895).
MAHLER, E., "Koenig Thutmosis III", ZAS 27 (1899), 97-105.
MARAN, S. (ed.), The Astronomy and Astrophysics Encyclopedia, New York
(Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992).
MARTIN, T., "Memoire sur la date historique d'un renouvellement de la
periode sothiaque", Memoires presentes par divers savants a l'Academie
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Series I, Vol.8 (Paris, 1869), 275-282.
MEYER, E., Aegyptische Chronologie, Philosophische und historische
Abhandlungen der Koeniglich preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften,
Berlin (Akad. der Wiss., 1904).
MEYER, E., Chronologie egyptienne, trans. Moret (Paris, 1912).
MEYER, E., Geschichte des Altertums, 3rd ed. (Neudruck, 1913).
MEYER, E., Histoire de l'Antiquite, trans. Moret, Vol.II (Paris, 1914).
MEYER, E., Histoire de l'Egypte ancienne, trans. Moret (Paris, 1935).
MEYER, E., Nachtraege zur aegyptischen Chronologie, Philosophische und
hist. Abhandlungen der Koeniglich preussischen Akad. der Wiss., Berlin
(Akad. der Wiss., 1907).

NAVILLE, E., "Le Cartouche du papyrus Ebers", ZAS 14 (1876), 111-114.
NEUGEBAUER, O., "Die Bedeutungslosigkeit der 'Sothisperiode' für die
älteste Ägyptische Chronologie", Acta Orientalia 17 (1938), 169-195.
NEUGEBAUER, O., "Chronology of the Hammurabi Age", Journal of American
Oriental Studies 61 (1941), 58-61.
NEUGEBAUER, O., & PARKER, R., Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Vols. I-III
(1960- 1969), Brown University Press, Providence, R.I.
NEUGEBAUER, O., History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, Pts. I & II,
Springer- Verlag (Berlin, 1975).
NEUGEBAUER, O., "The Origin of the Egyptian Calendar", JNES 1 (1942),
396-403.

O'MARA, P., The Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons, Toronto (La
Canada, 1980).
O'MARA, P., The Palermo Stone and the Archaic Kings of Egypt, Toronto
(La Canada, 1979).
O'NEIL, W., Time and the Calendars, Sydney (University Press, 1975).
OOSTERHOUT, VAN G., Solar Eclipses and Sothic Dating, Oostsingel (Delft,
1989).
OOSTERHOUT, VAN G., "Tables for the Heliacal and Acronychal Rising of
Sirius at Heliopolis and Thebes", Studs. in Astronomical Chronology 2,
Oostsingel (Delft, 1989), 1-10.
OOSTERHOUT, VAN G., "The Heliacal Rising of Sirius", Studs. in
Astronomical Chronology 1, Oostsingel (Delft, 1989), 1-37.

PARKER, R., "The Calendars of Ancient Egypt", Studs. in Ancient Oriental
Civilization No.26 (1950), 7-51.
PARKER, R., "Sothic Dates and Calendar 'Adjustment'", Revue
d'Egyptologie 9 (1952), 100-108.
PETRIE, F., Historical Studies, London (Methuen, 1936).
PETRIE, F., A History of Egypt, London (Methuen), 6 Vols (1916-1936).
PLUTARCH, Moralia, Vol.5 (Harvard University Press, 1976).
POOLE, R., The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, London (J. Murray, 1851).
PTOLEMY, Claudius, Almagest, trans. & annot. G. Toomer (1984), Tenth Book.
PURRINGTON, R., "Heliacal Rising and Setting: Quantitative Aspects",
Archaeo- astronomy No.12, JHA, xix, 1988, S72-85.

READ, J., "Early Eighteenth Dynasty Chronology", JNES 29 (1970), 1-11.
RIDPATH, I. (ed.), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Space
(Macmillan, 1979).
ROSE, L., "The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle
Kingdom of Ancient Egypt to the Early Second Millennium: A
Reassessment", JNES 53 (1994), 237-261.
ROWTON, M., "Mesopotamian Chronology and the 'Era of Menophres'", IRAQ 8
(1946), 94-110.
ROY, A., "The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology", SIS Review
(Glasgow), 6, Nos. 1-3 (1978), 53-55.

SCHAEFER, B., "Predicting Heliacal Risings and Settings", Sky &
Telescope, September (1985), 261-263.
SETHE, K., "Sethos I. und die Erneuerung der Hundssternperiode", ZAS 66
(1931), 1-7.
SETHE, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Berlin (Akad. der Wiss.), (1961).
SPIEGELBERG, W., Das Verhältnis der griechischen und Ägyptischen Texte
in den zweisprachigen Dekreten von Rosette und Kanopus, Schrift 5,
Berlin und Leipzig (Heidelberg Inst., 1922).
STRUVE, W., "Die Aera 'Apo Menophreos' und die XIX. Dynastie Manethos",
ZAS 63 (1967), 45-50.

VELIKOVSKY, I., Peoples of the Sea (Abacus, 1977).

WEIGALL, A., A History of the Pharaohs, London (Thornton Butterworth),
Vol.I (1925).
WEIGALL, A., A Short History of Ancient Egypt, London (Chapman and Hall,
1935).
WEILL, R., Bases, Methodes et Resultats de la Chronologie Egyptienne
(Paris, 1926).
WINLOCK, H., "The Origin of the Ancient Egyptian Calendar", Proc. of the
American Philosophical Society 83 (1940), 447-464.
Top <#top> 	

Crawl out of this tomb <index.html> Submenu <submenu.html> 1