The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology

Author(s): William A. Ward

Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 288 (Nov., 1992), pp. 53-
66
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357231
Accessed: 20-06-2016 04:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology
WILLIAM A. WARD

Brown University
Providence, RI

The current debate on Egyptian chronology is characterized by divergent opinions

on the value of the Manethonian tradition, the lengths of reigns of individual Egyp-
tian kings, the existence of coregencies, and the astronomical evidence. In each of
these categories, there is little concensus and a wide range of possible solutions; a
precise Egyptian chronology is therefore not possible. The present survey of this evi-
dence and the theories derived therefrom emphasizes that modern scholarship
wrongly assumes a precision the Egyptians could not achieve, that it is incorrect to
speak of astronomical observations made for other than purely local purposes, and
that feast days, including the New Year, began on different days at different latitudes
along the Nile Valley.

THE PROBLEM of the Late Bronze Age, and the recently-

ince there are several recent studies dealing
with the endless details of Egyptian chronol-
ogy, yet another such effort seems unwar-
ranted. All the evidence is available in current
literature, and one more essay on Egyptian abso-
lute chronology would advance our knowledge
little further than it is now. I will comment instead
on the extensive debate on Egyptian chronology
that erupted a decade or two ago and still rages un-
abated. A special issue of BASOR on chronology
should certainly address this issue since the abso-
lute chronology of Egypt has been one of the ma-
jor time-frames for ancient chronology in general
and it is important that scholars in other disciplines
deciphererd Proto-Byblian texts give only a tanta-
lizing glimpse into local affairs at that city toward
the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Menden-
hall 1985). Thus an absolute chronology for the ar-
chaeological phases of Canaan and the historical
events they mark must depend on written sources
from outside that region. A primary source has
been Egypt with its copious written material, a
clear-cut succession of dynasties, and a supposedly
dependable chronological framework. With enough
archaeologically datable synchronisms to establish
a relative chronology between Egypt and Canaan, it
has been possible to assign reasonably accurate
dates to the archaeological phases of Canaan in the
second millennium B.C.E.

understand that absolute dates for Egypt are not as
clear and well-established as they are often thought
to be. While at the end of this essay I have opted
for the current "high" chronology for second mil-
lennium B.C.E. Egypt, it should be emphasized that
others prefer the "low" chronology or several al-
ternatives in between.
Absolute dates for the archaeological and politi-
cal history of the Levant during the Middle and
Late Bronze Ages can only be determined on the
evidence of written documents. With a few notable
exceptions, this genre of evidence is lacking in
Canaan. The Amarna archives cover only a short
period in the 14th century B.C.E., the historical
records from Ugarit deal with the last two centuries
This comfortable situation has now been chal-
lenged, although the extent of any change is still
under continuing debate. A thorough reassessment
of the accepted chronological structure of Egypt
during the second millennium B.C.E. is currently
underway and scholarship on the subject is in some
disarray. A few decades ago, the work of Parker
(1950) and others established what was then
thought to be a definitive reconstruction of Egyp-
tian chronology based on a wealth of astronomical
and historical data. The key dates of interest in the
present context are the beginning of the 12th Dy-
nasty, traditionally set at 1991 B.C.E., and the be-
ginning of the 18th Dynasty, set at around 1575
B.C.E. Since the Canaanite Middle Bronze Age is

53

This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 54 WILLIAM A.
considered to have been roughly contemporary
with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom and Second In-
termediate Period, and the Late Bronze Age with
the 18th and 19th Dynasties, the years 1991 and
1575 B.C.E. were important fixed points in the ar-
chaeological history of Canaan, marking the ap-
proximate beginnings of the Middle and Late
Bronze Ages. Through archaeological synchro-
nisms between the Near East and the Aegean
world, this basic chronological pattern could be ex-
tended to the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations.
In recent years, however, serious questions have
been raised about the traditional chronology of
Egypt within several categories of evidence. First,
there is growing doubt being expressed about the
use of the Manethonian tradition as a valid source
for Egyptian chronology. In spite of attempts to le-
gitimize this tradition as dependable (esp. Helck
1956), the increasing number of errors and inaccu-
racies being pointed out in Manetho and his copy-
ists (summarized in Redford 1986: 231-332) has
caused some to ignore this tradition altogether
(Wente and van Siclen 1976: 217-18; Ward 1984:
155-56) or to show that dependence on Manetho is
not necessary, at least for the chronology of the
New Kingdom and later (Hornung 1987).
Second, new information on the lengths of indi-
vidual reigns alters the factual basis on which the
accepted chronology of Egypt was established. For
example, for the 12th Dynasty, Sesostris III
reigned 19 years rather than 39 as previously
thought (Simpson 1972), Amenemhet IV for 13
rather than nine years (von Beckerath 1976: 50).
For the 19th Dynasty, Merneptah ruled no more
than ten years rather than Manetho's 19 (Bierbrier
1975: 118, n. 2) and there is some doubt that
Amenmesse of the later 19th Dynasty, usually as-
signed a three-year reign, should be allowed a sole
reign at all (Krauss 1976-1977). There are, in fact,
many such problems in Egyptian history of the
second millennium B.C.E., and each one that re-
mains unresolved introduces a possible variation
into any chronological scheme.
Third, the matter of coregencies remains a con-
tinuing problem at many points, which affects the
total number of years a given dynasty actually held
the throne. Two examples will illustrate this point.
A short coregency between Thutmosis III and
Amenhotep II is defended by many. Redford
(1966: 120) allows one and a third years, Wente
and van Siclen (1976: 227-28) allow two and a
third years, as does Murnane (1977: 44-57), who
insists that this coregency is "remarkably well at-
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
tested." Krauss (1978: 174-75) allows for no co-
regency at all between these two kings. For
Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, Wente and van
Siclen (1976: 230) suggest a maximum coregency
of two years, Murnane (1977: 231-33) feels this is
possible, and Kitchen (1977-1978: 71-72) sug-
gests we must allow a coregency of one to seven
years, or none at all. Redford (1966: 124), Krauss
(1978: 6-9), and Hornung (1979: 249-50) deny
that any coregency existed. All these scholars have
used more or less the same evidence, which shows
that the evidence itself is inconclusive and that its
interpretation is ultimately a matter of personal
judgment. As long as there is uncertainty as to
whether any given coregency of the New Kingdom
existed and, if so, how long it lasted, any system of
absolute dates must remain inexact.
Fourth, Egyptian chronology, especially of the
New Kingdom, is validated in part on the basis of
historical synchronisms with Western Asia. If ab-
solute dates for the latter are changed, there must
be an equivalent change in those of Egypt. Several
such synchronisms are certain for the New King-
dom, but the very few for Middle Kingdom times
are doubtful, for example, the universally accepted
synchronism between Hammurapi of Babylon,
Zimri-lim of Mari, *Yantin-hammu of Byblos, and
Neferhotep I of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty. While
this has been a chronological lynch-pin for some
decades, it is based on questionable reconstruc-
tions of damaged texts and the plausible but
unprovable assumption that *Yantin-hammu, a
Byblian ruler named at Mari, is indeed the 9Intn
named with Neferhotep I on a stone fragment from
Byblos (Ward 1987: 528-29, 531; cf. Dever 1992).
Finally, the most serious challenge to the tradi-
tional chronology-at the same time, the one least
susceptible to definitive proof-concerns the inter-
pretation of astronomical data preserved in Egyp-
tian texts. This is a highly complex matter, subject
to many variables which allow a latitude of several
decades at points, depending on how one treats
these variables. On this point, modern scholarship
frequently imposes a precision on ancient science
that was never there. Throughout the literature, as-
sumptions are made either because one would like
to see on the part of the Egyptians a systematic ap-
proach to chronology akin to our own, or because
the Egyptians are silent about the processes and
techniques that they used in their determination of
time. We tend to assume, for example, that what
the Egyptians wanted from their system of keeping
time was what we want today, namely, precision
 1992 THE PRESENT STATUS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 55
down to the last minute. Furthermore, some schol-
ars base their interpretation of the astronomical
evidence on the untenable thesis that the methodol-
ogy of modern astronomical observation had its
equivalent in ancient Egypt, that is, they transfer
what we know to be true back to an age when we
can only suppose that it was also true.
Certainly, the Egyptians kept track of hours,
days, months, years, lengths of reigns and agricul-
tural seasons, the period from one inundation to
the next, and the like. Any society has a sense of
time, indeed requires it for setting feast-days, dat-
ing documents, keeping records of payments to
workmen, and all the other details of daily life that
need to be placed within a framework of time. The
Egyptians did possess such a framework of time
although they did not strive for absolute accuracy;
indeed, they were unable to do so. They needed
only a method of recording time which suited their
purposes and these were often somewhat different
from our own. For example, while they had a 24
hour day, they divided it into 12 daylight hours
and 12 nighttime hours. As the seasons changed,
these hours grew shorter or longer, since each hour
was 1/12 of the day or night in any given 24 hour
period. Such an attitude toward time, which served
their needs but not our own, must be taken into
consideration as we investigate the absolute chro-
nology of antiquity.
Collectively, these questions about Manetho,
the length of individual reigns and coregencies,
synchronisms with Western Asia, and the interpre-
tation of the astronomical evidence present a for-
midable array of obstacles to the establishment of
an absolute chronology for Egypt. While Egyptian
chronology is undergoing changes, however, the
flurry of scholarly discussion over the past several
years has not, as Hornung (1987: 32) aptly notes,
created a crisis. The precision once considered so
dependable is now gone, and it will be some time
before the new theories and ideas have been sorted
out. But even if adjustments must be made, they
will not, even at their maximum, require more than
a change of a few decades in the traditional chro-
nology, now probably gone for good.
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR THE SECOND
MILLENNIUM B.C.E.
The present state of Egyptian chronology for
the second millennium B.C.E. can be summarized in
terms of the two key dates noted at the beginning
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
of this article. The beginning of the 12th Dynasty,
the approximate advent of the Middle Bronze Age,
is currently placed anywhere from 1994 B.C.E.
(Barta 1979: 8) to 1938 B.C.E. (Krauss 1985: 207;
Franke 1988). The beginning of the 18th Dynasty,
roughly contemporary with the start of the Late
Bronze Age, is currently placed from 1570 B.C.E.
(Wente and van Siclen 1976: 218) to 1540/1539
B.C.E. (Krauss 1985: 207; Hornung 1987: 31).
Thus, there is a range of almost 60 years for the
beginning of the Middle Kingdom proper, and half
that for the beginning of the New Kingdom. But
the two problems are different and, as one should
expect, there is less dependable evidence for the
earlier period.
The chronology of the New Kingdom has the ad-
vantage of much more Egyptian documentation,
clear historical synchronisms with Western Asia,
and it can be attached almost directly to the better
established absolute chronology of the first millen-
nium B.C.E. The chronology of the Middle Kingdom,
on the other hand, has far less documentation and
no dependable historical synchronisms with West-
ern Asia, is obscured by the vagaries of the 13th and
Hyksos Dynasties, and depends far more on the in-
terpretation of uncertain astronomical evidence.
For the New Kingdom, chronologists usually
begin with the more verifiable dates of the late
period. Psammetichus I, founder of the 26th Dy-
nasty, began his reign in 664 B.C.E.; Taharqa, last
ruler of the 25th Dynasty, ruled from 690 to 664
B.C.E.; this dynasty began in 690 (or 710) B.C.E.
(Kitchen 1987: 37-38; Hornung 1987: 27; Bier-
brier 1975: 109). These dates are well nigh univer-
sally accepted and can all be ascertained by
synchronisms with Assyrian kings, as can the sack
of Jerusalem by Sheshonq I in the fifth year of Re-
hoboam of Judah, an event which places the begin-
ning of the 22nd Dynasty at ca. 945 B.C.E.
The chronology of the 19th Dynasty has a fixed
relative date with the accession of Ramses II, and,
according to many, the long debate over the date
of this event is now settled. It can be tied to the
succession of Kadashman-Enlil II to the throne of
Babylon; Ramses II became king of Egypt in
Kadashman-Enlil's 19th year. Under an older
Babylonian chronology, 1304 or 1290 B.C.E. were
the alternatives for the accession of Ramses II. A
somewhat lower dating for the Babylonian kings of
the period suggested by Brinkman (1970) has re-
ceived wide acceptance by Egyptologists (e.g.,
Wente and van Siclen 1976: 23; Hornung 1987:
29; Kitchen 1987: 39-40). As Bierbrier puts it
 56 WILLIAM A.
(1975: 110): "On Brinkman's minimum dating, the
succession of Kadashman-Enlil would have oc-
curred in 1261 B.c., and if that date was year 19 of
the Egyptian ruler, then Ramesses II would have
succeeded to the Egyptian throne in 1279 B.c. ex-
actly." What Bierbrier and others do not say is that
Brinkman also offers a maximum chronology, by
which Kadashman-Enlil II took the throne in 1283
B.C.E. which would place the accession of Ramses
II in 1302 B.C.E., thus invalidating the lower chro-
nology for this king. Indeed, Brinkman himself
warns: "It should also be clear that Babylonian
chronology, in its present state of uncertainty, is
not a reliable standard against which to measure
other chronologies of the late second millennium"
(1970: 307). While this new Babylonian chronol-
ogy is not as precise as one would like, 1279 B.C.E.
seems to be gaining support as the more accurate
date. Bierbrier, for example, arrived at about the
same year from a detailed study of genealogies and
generation counts of the period. If one accepts
1279 B.C.E. as the accession year of Ramses II and
945 B.C.E. as the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty,
the copious records of the period allow a fairly ac-
curate absolute chronology for the whole Rames-
side age.
The situation is less certain for the 18th Dy-
nasty. There has been a tendency of late to adopt a
200-year period from the accession of Ramses II
back to the accession of Thutmosis III (e.g.,
Kitchen 1987: 41; Krauss 1978: 173-89; Hornung
1987: 31; etc.). On the other hand, after their own
thorough investigation of the evidence, Wente and
van Siclen (1976) allow 225 years, hence 1504
B.C.E. for the accession of Thutmosis III, a date
which Kitchen asserts is "firmly excluded." The
difference here is caused by the problems noted
above, primarily those of the lengths of individual
reigns and the lengths or the existence of coregen-
cies. The matter of interpreting the astronomical
evidence also comes into play, although this is not
as critical as it is for earlier times (see below). As
Hornung (1987: 31-32) observes, New Kingdom
chronology can be fairly well-established on the
basis of the monuments and synchronisms without
recourse to the astronomical material, although his
own espousal of the "low" New Kingdom chronol-
ogy does depend to some degree on his acceptance
of one interpretation of this evidence (that of
Krauss) over others.
In any case, the 30 year difference separating
current opinions on the beginning of the 18th Dy-
nasty (1570 or 1540 B.C.E.) narrows to a scant three
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
or four years by the middle of that dynasty. The
present status of New Kingdom chronology re-
mains as Kitchen observed over a decade ago
(1977-1978: 67): "no agreed single New Kingdom
chronology can be confidently advocated for the
time being." But it no longer seems necessary to
go as far as Hari (1980: 321), who states: "I do not
believe it will ever be possible to establish.. . an
absolute chronology before the 26th Dynasty." If
one insists on absolute dates with little or no vari-
ability, then Hari is correct, since we do not now
have and probably never will have the unequivocal
proof that a precise and definitive absolute chro-
nology requires. But a difference of three or four
years back to the mid-18th Dynasty presents no
problems. The difference of three decades at the
beginning of the 18th Dynasty, of course, does
present a more substantial difficulty for dating con-
temporary archaeological levels in Canaan, for ex-
ample, but even this can be dealt with easily.
Turning now to the 12th Dynasty, the chrono-
logical problems are somewhat more acute. In
1950, Parker published what would become the
traditional chronology for the 12th Dynasty for the
next generation, based on the then accepted totals
of regnal years for each king and his calculation
that the heliacal rising of Sothis recorded for Year
7 of Sesostris III occurred in 1872 B.C.E. With the
latter as a fixed point, the 206 years he allowed for
this dynasty, including 17 years for coregencies,
could be established as 1991-1786 B.C.E. This was
easily brought into line with the 213 year total of
the Turin King List by assuming that this docu-
ment does not allow for coregencies and that the
total of 213 can be emended to 223, that is, 206 +
17 = 223. Parker's dating for the 12th Dynasty has
come to be called the "high" chronology, although
a slightly higher one has been proposed by Barta
(1979)-1994/93-1782/81 B.C.E.-based on his
analysis of the Turin King List (see also von Beck-
erath 1976).
Two developments have taken place in the past
few years. First, it is gradually being accepted that
the regnal year totals of the Turin King List do not
conform to the reality of the monuments. For ex-
ample, the Turin papyrus records 19 and 39(?)
years respectively for Sesostris II and III, whereas
their monuments record regnal years only as high
as 6 and 19 (Simpson 1972; 1984). The latter,
along with other less drastic changes, are now be-
ing adopted in chronological studies so that the
length of time this dynasty held the throne now
stands at ca. 180 years (Kitchen 1987; Franke
1992 THE PRESENT STATUS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 57
1988). Based on Parker's date for the heliacal ris-
ing of Sothis in the reign of Sesostris III, this new
factor alters the dates of the 12th Dynasty to
1979-1801 B.C.E.
The other development is a reassessment of the
astronomical evidence pertaining to the 12th Dy-
nasty by Krauss, whose methodology and conclu-
sions are currently being debated in the literature.
His research has led him to propose a "low" chro-
nology of 1937-1744 B.C.E. for the 12th Dynasty,
with the heliacal rising of Sothis in Year 7 of Se-
sostris III occurring in 1830 B.C.E. Since the astro-
nomical evidence is crucial to the present debate, it
is useful at this point to note what it entails and ul-
timately to suggest that it may not be as vital as is
usually supposed.
EGYPTIAN CALENDARS
The basic building blocks that made up the
Egyptian system of measuring time were the agri-
cultural, lunar, stellar, and civil years. Since they
were not in synchronism, there was never a unified
calendrical system; it is this which causes the diffi-
culties encountered in modern chronological stud-
ies. The more or less traditional view of the
development of the Egyptian calendaric system is
as follows.
The first Egyptian "calendar" must have been
the agricultural year, dating back to prehistoric
times. It originated in the simple observation of the
seasons created by the annual phases of the Nile
River which governed all existence in an essen-
tially rainless land. A period of inundation of the
valley was followed by a growing season, in turn
followed by a period when the Nile was low,
greatly limiting agricultural activity. But this "Nile
year" was not regular. A turn-of-the-century study
showed that the beginning of the inundation season
fluctuated from year to year so that the time span
from inundation to inundation could be anywhere
from 336 to 415 days (Neugebauer 1938: 185-87).
This time frame was sufficient for purely agricul-
tural purposes, but hardly anything else.
A somewhat more precise way of measuring
time was by observing the phases of the moon, the
most visible and regular sequence of changes oc-
curring in the sky. Also a very early development,
the lunar calendar must originally have been tied
to the agricultural, or "Nile" year, by observing
that each of the three agricultural seasons lasted
approximately four lunar months. Since a lunar
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
month consists of 29 or 30 days, the 12-month lu-
nar year was, on average, 354 days long. This, of
course, does not conform to the natural stellar year
of slightly more than 365.25 days so every three
years or so, a thirteenth month was added, which
increased one lunar year to 384 days and brought
the next lunar year back into approximate synchro-
nism with nature.
The beginning of the Egyptian lunar year was
tied to what since Hellenistic times has been called
the heliacal rising of. the star Sirius, Sothis to the
Greeks. Because of its southern declination of XV,
Sirius is invisible for a period of 70 days each year
at a northern latitude of Y'. The day when the star
can again be seen in the eastern horizon just before
sunrise was called the "coming forth of Sirius" by
the Egyptians and that day was termed the "open-
ing of the year," or New Year's Day. If the heliacal
rising is observed from Memphis or Heliopolis,
that event occurs on July 17-19 by our own calen-
dar. For every degree of latitude southward from
Memphis, however, the heliacal rising is observed
one day earlier. The significance of this fact will
be considered below.
It seems most likely that the reappearance of
Sirius was originally chosen as New Year's Day
since this event took place within the period of
several weeks during which the inundation of the
Nile began each year. This meant that the lunar
year, beginning with the first lunar month after the
heliacal rising of Sirius, could be kept in approxi-
mate synchronism with the agricultural seasons by
the periodic intercalation of a 13th lunar month.
Such methods of reckoning time were sufficient for
agricultural and religious purposes, but were too
flexible to afford the more precise methods of mea-
suring time that the government administration
seems to have preferred.
A civil calendar, described by Parker as a sche-
matic or averaged lunar year, was introduced to-
ward the beginning of the third millennium B.C.E.
(Parker, 1950: 53; Barta 1983: 17). This calendar
was fixed by the Egyptians at a standard length of
365 days, the average of a sequence of lunar years
that varied between 354 and 384 days, depending
on whether they contained twelve or thirteen
months. An alternative to this now widely held idea
is that the 365-day civil calendar was instead based
on the average length of a series of agricultural
years (Neugebauer 1938: 183-88; 1939: 259-60).1
Whatever the actual origin of the 365-day year, it
must be emphasized that the lunar and civil calen-
dars were not opposed or in competition with each
 58 WILLIAM A.
other but were used concurrently for entirely differ-
ent purposes. The civil calendar retained the three
seasons, each now considered to consist of four 30-
day months, plus five extra, or epagomenal, days to
make up the required total. This provided a "work-
ing" calendar that was perfectly regular and with-
out the fluctuations of the lunar calendar. The latter
was retained for religious purposes, but the new
civil calendar became the medium by which all
documents and events were dated. While this gave
the Egyptian administration a simple and standard
method for keeping records, it has created a schol-
arly headache for modern historians.
The sidereal year-for the Egyptians, presided
over by the star Sirius-is slightly more than a
quarter-day longer than the civil calendar. This
means that every four years the civil calendar fell
approximately one more day behind the sidereal
year. Dubbed by modern scholars the "wandering
year," the civil year regularly progressed backward
so that the civil New Year's Day eventually fell on
every day of the sidereal year. The resulting period
of 1,460 years (365 x 4) is called the "Sothic Cy-
cle," that is, the length of time between coinci-
dences of New Year's Day in the civil and stellar
years. In reality, the Sothic Cycle is somewhat
shorter and scholars now generally use a figure of
1,456 years.2
HELIACAL RISINGS OF SIRIUS IN THE
12TH AND 18TH DYNASTIES
The Egyptians were aware of this discrepancy
between their calendars since, on occasion, they
recorded a heliacal rising of Sirius as occurring on
a specific day of the civil calendar in a specific
year of the reigning king. For the period of con-
cern here, there are two recorded observations:
1. For the 12th Dynasty, a heliacal rising of Sir-
ius was predicted for day 16, month 4 of the
second season, in Year 7 of Sesostris III;
Pap. Berlin 10012A Vs., from Illahun.
2. For the 18th Dynasty, a heliacal rising of Sir-
ius was observed on day 9, month 3 of the
third season, in Year 9 of Amenhotep I; Pap.
Ebers Rt., from Thebes.
There is now, however, a difference of opinion as
to whether this actually gives a date for a heliacal
rising relative to the civil calendar (von Beckerath
1987; Helck 1988).
Such synchronisms between the civil and lunar
calendars ought to provide reasonably accurate
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
dates for both kings. We know from classical
sources that a heliacal rising of Sirius coincided
with the civil New Year's Day in 139 C.E. This
absolute date is from modern computation (e.g.,
Borchardt 1935: 11, 15) and assumes facts that
Censorinus, the classical writer involved, does not
give. For example, he does not state where the ob-
servation in question was made, a factor of some
importance (see below) though it is now assumed it
was made at Alexandria. Nor do we know whether
an observation was made at all or if his date in the
Consulate of Antoninus Pius and Bruttius Praesens
was instead computed. Since Censorinus himself
lived a century later, he is at best a second-hand
source. At any rate, modern chronologers use 139
C.E. as a certain fixed date when perhaps a bit more
caution should be observed. Figuring backward on
the basis of a Sothic cycle of 1,456 years, similar
coincidences occurred in 1317 and 2773 B.C.E.
Using 1317 B.C.E. as the base, it works out that
Year 9 of Amenhotep I was 1541 B.C.E.3 Similar,
though somewhat more complicated, computations
indicate 1872 B.C.E. as Year 7 of Sesostris III.
Using these fixed dates plus the mass of contempo-
rary historical information available, in theory it
should be possible to establish an acceptable chro-
nology for both the 12th and 18th Dynasties.
In fact, it does not work that way. Several fac-
tors are involved in the observation of a heliacal
rising of Sirius which introduce some variability
(Hornung 1964: 16-22). In addition to the factors
discussed here, much emphasis is placed on the ar-
cus visionis and the tetraeteris. The arcus visionis
is the angle between Sirius and the sun when the
star is first observed. The point of observation is
not on the horizon, where observation is impossi-
ble. Modern calculations show that this angle is
7.5 degrees, with Sirius 2 degrees above the hori-
zon, the sun 5.5 degrees below it. Variations in this
angle will affect the time of observation, hence
also the chronological conclusions drawn from the
assumption that an ancient heliacal rising was
made with one of 7.5 degrees. The tetraeteris is
the four-year phase during which the heliacal ris-
ing was observed on the same day of the year.
Every four years, of course, this phase moved
backward one day because of the extra quarter-day
of the sidereal year not accounted for in the civil
calendar. It is not possible to determine in which
of the four years of the tetraeteris a given ancient
observation took place.
Chief among the variable factors is where in
Egypt such observances were made, and there is
1992 THE PRESENT STATUS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 59
considerable disagreement on this point. As noted
above, as one moves southward along the Nile
Valley, for every degree of latitude the heliacal ris-
ing is observed one day earlier. In terms of abso-
lute chronology, this means a reduction by four
years per day per degree of latitude, that is, the
difference between the wandering civil year and
the sidereal year to which heliacal risings are tied.
Hence, the heliacal rising of Sirius recorded in
Pap. Ebers occurred ca. 1541 B.C.E. if it was ob-
served at Memphis or Heliopolis, ca. 1523 B.C.E. if
the observation point was Thebes, and ca. 1519
B.C.E. if it was at Elephantine (Aswan). Scholars
have generally considered Memphis or Thebes to
be the place where this particular observation was
made, but a case has now been put forward for
Elephantine (Krauss 1985: 63-72).
The Heliacal Rising of Papyrus Ebers
The gist of Krauss's argument is as follows.
Thebes has generally been recognized as the point
of observation for the heliacal rising recorded in
Pap. Ebers in Year 9 of Amenhotep I. As long as
Year 1 of Ramses II of the 19th Dynasty was
thought to be 1290 B.C.E.-computed on the basis
of Thebes as the observation point-the chronol-
ogy of the New Kingdom could be worked out sat-
isfactorily. But Bierbrier (1975: 109-13) has now
proposed that Year 1 of Ramses II was actually
1279 B.C.E. Based on his own studies of New King-
dom chronology, Krauss (1978: 173-89) has tried
to show that 200 years separated the accession of
Ramses II from that of the earlier Thutmosis III.
Bierbrier's new date for the accession of Ramses II
(1279 B.C.E.) thus yields 1479 B.C.E. for the acces-
sion year of Thutmosis III. The chronology of the
18th Dynasty is thus thrown off by 11 years, that
is, the difference between 1290 and 1279 B.C.E., the
years proposed for the accession of Ramses II.
This 11 years can be accounted for if one assumes
that Elephantine was the observation point for the
heliacal rising recorded in Pap. Ebers.
While Elephantine has not previously been con-
sidered in the debate, there are arguments in its fa-
vor. It was the southern frontier of Egypt, hence
the first point within Egypt proper where a heliacal
rising could be observed. In Egyptian mythology,
the rising of Sirius causes the inundation of the
Nile from a source located at Elephantine. And it
was at Elephantine that the Egyptians measured
the Nile height which was of such importance to
the agricultural economy of the country. There-
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
fore, a case of sorts can be made for Elephantine as
the place where heliacal risings of Sirius were
officially observed.
The Egyptians themselves, however, never
stated where they made their observations of the
heliacal rising. The only hint comes from Olympi-
odorus (6 C.E.) who notes that a Sothic rising was
celebrated at Alexandria, after having been ob-
served at Memphis. But, as Krauss insists, one can
hardly use this as the basis for establishing where
such observations were made in pharaonic times.
Krauss's argument is not without pitfalls. As
Kitchen (1987: 42) observes: "Krauss has not pro-
duced one scrap of definitive evidence to prove his
assumption of Sothis-observations at Elephan-
tine-only clever speculations which are no substi-
tute for facts." His criticism is certainly borne out
when one considers individual details. First, Bier-
brier's dating of Year 1 of Ramses II to 1279 B.C.E.
depends on a whole series of variables and his per-
sonal choice between possible solutions within
each. The date 1279 B.C.E. is possible, but no more
possible than the previously-proposed 1290 B.C.E.
(see above).
Secondly, Krauss's 200 year period between Year
1 of Thutmosis III and Year 1 of Ramses II is subject
to the same errors of judgment as in any other
chronological study-how long individual kings
reigned, what coregencies existed and how long, etc.
This immediately suggests that this 200 year period
may well have been longer or shorter and that it can-
not be considered settled. Wente and van Siclen
(1976), after an equally thorough investigation of
the same historical evidence, allow 225 years.
The Heliacal Rising in the Illahun Archives
Turning now to the Sothic rising recorded in the
Year 7 of Sesostris III, the absolute date for this
was established by Edgerton (1942) and Parker
(1950: 63-69) as 1872 B.C.E. with the 12th Dynasty
thus lasting from 1991 to 1786 B.C.E. This date has
been generally adopted and is still defended in the
current chronological debate (Parker 1976; von
Beckerath 1976; Barta 1979). However, the shorter
reigns of Sesostris II and III and the longer one of
Amenemhat IV (above) have not been figured in.
With the Year 7 of Sesostris III established at 1872
B.C.E., these new factors lower the beginning of the
12th Dynasty to 1979 B.C.E. and raise its end to
1802 B.C.E. (as Bietak 1984: 472-73). Until re-
cently, this general dating for the 12th Dynasty
seemed to have near universal acceptance.
 60 WILLIAM A.
It is again Krauss who has raised serious objec-
tions in his detailed reexamination of the pertinent
evidence. In his initial articles (1981; 1984), he
suggests 1861 or 1836 B.C.E. for the heliacal rising
of Sirius in Year 7 of Sesostris III, and 1785 or
1760 B.C.E. for the end of the 12th Dynasty. In his
latest survey of the rather complex evidence (1985:
73-103), he proposes 1830 B.C.E. for this heliacal
rising and 1938-1756 B.C.E. for the whole dynasty.
The difference between the dates of Parker and
Krauss is thus almost half a century! This gap re-
sults from different interpretations of where this
heliacal rising was observed, the evidence of the
lunar dates in the Illahun temple archives, and the
notations in these archives of when certain feasts
were held.4
Krauss insists that the heliacal rising recorded
in the Illahun archives was observed at Elephan-
tine. He notes that if this event had been observed
in northern Egypt, the time range during which it
occurred would be 1881-1870 B.C.E.; if observed
at Elephantine, the time range would be 1841-
1830 B.C.E.5 It is somewhere in that time span-the
half century from 1881 to 1830 B.C.E.-that the 20
lunar dates gleaned from the Illahun archives must
be placed. These dates are given in terms of a reg-
nal year, a date in the civil calendar, and a specific
day of the lunar month, for example, Year 30, day
26 of the summer season = day 1 of a given lunar
month. No names of reigning kings are given.
Krauss's very complex calculations lead him to
conclude that the lunar dates of the archive coin-
cide with the days of the civil calendar with which
each is equated only in the latter part of the pos-
sible time range, 1881-1830 B.C.E. This is added
proof that the heliacal rising must have been ob-
served at Elephantine; Krauss adopts 1830 B.C.E. as
the year in which this observation took place. For
reasons he never clearly states, Krauss prefers the
lowest possible dates wherever there is a choice.
One gets the impression that throughout his studies
Krauss has been unduly influenced by his unprov-
able theory that official heliacal risings were al-
ways observed at Elephantine, and only there.
Given this assumption as fact, a lowering of 12th
Dynasty chronology is inevitable.
Another recent analysis of Middle Kingdom
chronology by Franke (1988) favors the theories of
Krauss. Franke begins his study with the reason-
able hypothesis that since documents dated to the
individual reigns of the 12th Dynasty are so nu-
merous, it is safe to assume that the highest re-
corded regnal years for each ruler reflect the actual
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
lengths of their reigns. He further presents clear
proof for the several coregencies of this dynasty.
He concludes that, taking into account these core-
gencies, the 12th Dynasty held the throne for a to-
tal of 180 years which corresponds closely to both
the Turin King List and Manetho, once certain key
errors in these documents are recognized (Franke
1988: 126-29). Turning to the absolute chronology
of the period and its single most important factor,
the date of the Sothic sighting in the reign of Ses-
ostris III, he adopts the viewpoint of Krauss.
Sothic sightings, he insists, must have been
officially observed for the entire country at one lo-
cation only, and that location was Elephantine. He
then accepts Krauss's date of 1830 B.C.E. for the
Sothic sighting of the Illahun archives, concluding
that the low chronology for the 12th Dynasty advo-
cated by Krauss (1938-1759 B.C.E.) is the correct
one.
The debate on the location for Sothic sight-
ings-as well as the insistence that there was a
single location for all such observations-has now
been complicated in a new detailed review of the
problem by Leitz. He concludes (1989: 90) that:
"The datum point of the Egyptian calendar was at
all times the same; it lay in Lower Egypt, that is,
Memphis or Heliopolis." He then enumerates eight
astronomical arguments in support of his state-
ment, noting that they are independent of each
other, that to refute his conclusion all eight must
be shown to be incorrect, and that "there is found
no single hint of an Upper Egyptian observation
point." Leitz is therefore as unyielding as Krauss.
But while his monograph is a welcome summary
of the evidence, it suffers from the same pitfalls as
the work of Krauss. Each of Leitz' eight points, for
example, is subject to interpretation, and they col-
lectively support a national northern observatory
only through a selective choice of alternative ex-
planations. Like Krauss, Leitz is far too rigid in
applying current astronomical knowledge to an an-
cient system that, as far as we know, did not pos-
sess such knowledge, imposing a modern precision
on a society that did not need or care about it. On
the other hand, Leitz is willing to opt for ancient
imprecision where such an argument is necessary.
In his discussion of the arcus visionis, for ex-
ample, he observes that this angle is somewhat
larger when a star's ascension point is observed
through its orientation with a building (1989: 58).
This is due to the mechanisms by which such ob-
servations were made, the imprecision of which
caused a deviation from the norm. One immedi-
1992 THE PRESENT STATUS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 61
ately wonders at how many points such variability
was present in the ancient process of observing
and recording the movements of heavenly bodies.
SOTHIC SIGHTING: MEMPHIS,
ELEPHANTINE, OR ANYWHERE?
The research just described thus confronts us
with two very detailed analyses of the astronomi-
cal material which led to two rather dogmatic
assertions that there was a single national observa-
tory, but at opposite ends of the country. However,
the argument that Sothic sightings were observed
for all Egypt at a single location is not the "fact"
that Krauss, Franke, Leitz, and others, presume it
to be. The insistence on Elephantine, Memphis, or
anywhere else, for that matter, as the observation
point for the heliacal risings in both Papyrus Ebers
and the Illahun archives may be no more than a de-
sire to impose our own need for uniformity; in
other words, it is a modern scholarly illusion. As
Kitchen aptly states (1977-1978: 68): "Neither
lunar nor Sothic observations had any practical
bearing on the royal administration or most of
daily life; they belong to religion and (in Pap.
Ebers' case) to local medicine." The sighting re-
corded in the Illahun papyrus was for the purpose
of preparing for the lunar New Year's feast at I1-
lahun; the Pap. Ebers sighting was to establish
when certain medications should be taken. Both
sightings were thus recorded for purely local pur-
poses which means the sightings themselves must
have been made locally.
In a recent study, Wells (1986: 170) notes that
there is only circumstantial evidence for a single
observatory at any given time where observations
were made and then communicated to the rest of
the country. He suggests that particular feasts
timed by an astronomical event may not have been
celebrated at the same time in different parts of
Egypt. Elsewhere, Wells (1985) shows that while
heliacal risings of Sirius were observed at Ele-
phantine throughout Egyptian history, there were
other places where this event was recorded as well.
The next step in the argument is obvious-was
there indeed any use at all for a national observa-
tory. Such an institution would be practical only if
official Sothic observations were made there for
the whole country. In the first place, nothing forces
us to assume that given feast days or even the ad-
vent of the new year had to take place at the same
time throughout Egypt. While this raises the spec-
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ter of scores of local calendars and a host of poten-
tial problems for modern scholars, one must ask in
the present context if the Egyptians themselves
required such unanimity. Certainly, there were
official government civil and lunar calendars in the
capital, but it is unrealistic to suppose that pre-
cisely the same calendars were, or could be, used
elsewhere. To my knowledge, no pharaonic docu-
ment supports what appears to me to be a modern
assumption only.
Secondly, assuming a national observatory
whence the official announcement of the beginning
of a new lunar year was made and then communi-
cated to the rest of the country would create insur-
mountable problems. If Krauss is correct that
priests at Elephantine, and only Elephantine, an-
nounced a new lunar year, it would be several days
before that news reached Memphis. Memphite
priests could hardly keep their own schedule of
feast days in order if a new lunar year was already
several days old by the time they were informed it
had begun. The reverse would be true according to
the theory of Leitz, that official observations were
made at Memphis and then communicated south-
ward. It follows that stellar and lunar observations
must have been made at many points along the
Nile Valley and that these were for the purpose of
keeping the local lunar calendars in order. A na-
tional calendar was simply not possible because of
slow communication. This removes a basic foun-
dation stone in modern chronological studies, but
also does away with many of the key problems that
have always plagued them.
It seems pertinent to quote a modern parallel.
Islamic nations follow a lunar calendar for religious
purposes, although they have generally adopted the
Gregorian calendar for practical affairs. In these
days of instant communication, it is possible to es-
tablish for a whole region the day on which, for ex-
ample, New Year's Day occurs or when the feast of
Ramadan (the ninth month of the lunar year) be-
gins. Beirut knows instantly when the official astro-
nomical sightings have been made in Cairo. Until
fairly recently, however, lunar sightings were a lo-
cal matter. Obscure visibility caused by clouds or
other adverse atmospheric conditions often meant
that a new lunar month could begin in one part of a
country one or two days later than in another part
(Burnaby 1901: 380). Even with the radio and tele-
phone, this situation still exists (Freeman-Grenville
1963: 3). In other words, in a modern society with
an intensely religious orientation, absolute preci-
sion in the lunar calendar that determines religious
 62 WILLIAM A.
events is not always necessary. Indeed, precision is
impossible when the sightings of the lunar crescent,
for example, are individual interpretations of purely
sensory data. Again, I would note that the "preci-
sion" assumed by present-day scholarship is an
illusion.
It does not therefore seem reasonable to impose
modern concepts of time on the ancient Egyptians
and to insist that their lunar year began on the
same day throughout the country, a day determined
by a single observation at a single location. It is
much more likely that the Egyptian lunar year be-
gan a few days later at Memphis than at Elephan-
tine or Thebes. The Illahun and Ebers sightings
can thus be placed in a framework more in keeping
with what life was like in ancient Egypt, not what
modern scholarship wishes it were. The Illahun
sighting established the coming lunar New Year
for the Memphite region and nowhere else. The
Ebers sighting established the lunar New Year for
medical purposes only, not to announce that event
for the whole country. That Papyrus Ebers comes
from Thebes means only that the new lunar year
began on that date in the Theban area and nowhere
else. The primary purpose of a lunar calendar was,
after all, to fix the time for religious festivals. Con-
trary to what seems to be a near-universal modern
assumption, there is no reason to believe that a
given feast day or even the advent of a new lunar
year had to be celebrated at precisely the same
time throughout Egypt.
The Egyptians possessed in their civil calendar
a medium that afforded uniformity in their daily
life and for government administration. It was reg-
ular and inflexible and gave a sense of order to
both local and national affairs. That the lunar and
civil calendars were almost always unsynchronized
was not a problem since each calendar functioned
as it was supposed to function in different spheres
of human activity.
CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of recent literature on Egyptian
chronology given in the preceding pages shows
that much of the evidence bearing on the problem
is inconclusive and subject to interpretation. The
two key events of interest in the present context
are currently given a very wide range of dates. The
beginning of the 12th Dynasty is placed from 1994
B.C.E. (Barta 1978: 8) to 1938 B.C.E. (Krauss 1985:
207; Franke 1988), the beginning of the 18th
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
Dynasty from 1570 B.C.E. (Wente and van Siclen
1976: 218) to 1539 B.C.E. (Krauss 1985: 207). It is
evident that individual scholars must use personal
judgment at many points in considering the mass
of material bearing on each of the four categories
of evidence.
Such evidence falls into the four categories
given at the beginning of this article:
1. The use of Manetho as a chronological
guide. It has yet to be shown that Manetho and his
copyists are reliable beyond a general sequence of
dynasties, primarily because of his source material.
Redford (1986: 214-28) is undoubtedly correct in
his assessment of Manetho's sources, a (largely
Demotic) temple library rather than original monu-
ments: "Manetho was always at least one stage re-
moved from the monuments themselves." The use
of Manetho in chronological studies is of very lim-
ited value and, in my opinion, original monuments
should be used to explain Manetho, not vice-versa
as is often done.
2. The lengths of individual reigns. Until we
know exactly how long each king of Egypt ruled,
precise absolute chronology is impossible to
achieve. The discovery of a single new monument
recording a higher regnal year than known hereto-
fore for any given king immediately throws off the
absolute chronology of the dynasty to which that
king belongs. In fact, we will probably never have
a complete and accurate listing of regnal lengths so
any chronological system which leans heavily on
such evidence is inaccurate to begin with.
3. Coregencies. Absolute chronology is affected
by the numbers and lengths of coregencies and
there is at present no concensus on either the num-
ber of coregencies or the length of individual ones.
This is true more of the New Kingdom than the
Middle Kingdom.
4. The astronomical evidence. As expressed
above, my own view is that while the astronomical
evidence is important in any chronological study,
it can be, and often is, over-analyzed. We simply
do not know how accurate Egyptian astronomers
were in making and recording observations of
heavenly bodies; certainly they did not approach
the precision that some scholars assume. The
present debate over a single national observatory
for Sothic sightings, and hence the beginning of
the lunar year (the first visibility of the moon after
the heliacal rising of Sirius), has had far-reaching
influence on absolute chronology, although this de-
bate, in my opinion, is totally unnecessary. It has
never been established that the Egyptians required
1992 THE PRESENT STATUS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 63
a single New Year's Day for the whole country,
nor would such a goal have been possible due to
the time it would take to communicate "official"
observations from a national observatory to reli-
gious centers along the length of the Nile Valley.
Given these strictures on any attempt to create
an absolute chronology, it may safely be concluded
that a dependable, accurate, and acceptable abso-
lute chronology for Egypt during the Bronze Age
cannot be achieved with the evidence currently
available. The best that can be done is to produce
likely chronologies based on the present state of
modern scholarship. Kitchen's recent discussion
(1987) is perhaps the most neutral and sensible. He
concludes with two chronologies-a "high" and a
"low" gleaned from several alternatives-based on
where the Sothic sightings of the reigns of Sesostris
III and Amenhotep I were observed (1987: 49-52):
High Low
12th Dynasty 1979-1801 1937-1759
Second Intermediate Period 1801-1550 1759-1539
18th Dynasty 1550-1295 1539-1295
19th Dynasty 1295-1186 1295-1186
20th Dynasty 1186-1070 1186-1070
According to Kitchen, there is essential agreement
on absolute chronology from the reign of Thutmo-
sis III onward, although not all would agree.
One can accept Kitchen's analysis as a working
hypothesis, but I would go a step further. The key
element in the high-low debate is the matter of
where the pertinent Sothic sightings were observed.
NOTES
1Neugebauer's ideas on the Egyptian calendar gener-
ally have been ignored in the more recent Egyptological
literature on chronology, yet they have a certain appeal
because of their simplicity. Basically, he believed that the
Egyptians originally had two definitions of the year-the
time-interval of 365 days, and the interval between two
heliacal risings of Sirius-and these two concepts, in or-
igin, had nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, the
30-day month and 365-day year of the Egyptian civil cal-
endar could not result from the observation of any astro-
nomical phenomena, hence, the civil calendar cannot be
explained in terms of such phenomena. For example,
theories are meaningless that derive the origin of the civil
calendar from a moment when New Year's Day of that
calendar coincided with a heliacal rising of Sirius, that is,
the beginning of a Sothic cycle.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
As stated above, there is no evidence to support the
existence of a national observatory for "official"
sightings. Since the "low" chronology is based
solely on the assumption of a single national obser-
vatory at Elephantine, and no proof whatsoever has
been produced for this assumption, and considering
what evidence is now available, the "high" chro-
nology is the more probable. This gains added sup-
port if, as suggested here, the Sothic sightings
involved were for purely local religious purposes.
This is especially crucial for the 12th Dynasty.
The Sothic sighting of the Illahun archives is
really the prediction of such a sighting in a letter
dated 21 days before the heliacal rising in question
is to occur; the letter is written from one local
temple official to another.6 The Illahun sighting is
thus a purely local affair and, while no location is
given where it is to occur, it is unlikely that it
would be anywhere but Illahun itself and that the
purpose of the letter is to prepare a local priest-
hood to celebrate the reappearance of Sirius when
this event was to be later observed at that location.
If this is a reasonable hypothesis, then 1972 B.C.E.
for the seventh year of Sesostris III and 1979-
1801 B.C.E. for the 12th Dynasty remain the most
probable dates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my thanks to my colleagues
David Pingree and Leonard Lesko for suggestions,
though all opinions are my own.
The civil calendar of 365 days was a schematic render-
ing of the older agricultural calendar, the average number
of days between inundations over a series of years. As
noted above, the inundation was irregular and could begin
anywhere within a time latitude of several weeks. That
the civil calendar is directly related to the agricultural
year is obvious from its division into the three agricul-
tural seasons. The twelve 30-day months of this calendar
are a schematic rendering of the lunar months since more
precision was required in keeping records and determin-
ing future dates within the private and public economy.
Once the civil calendar was established, it was only af-
ter two or three centuries that New Year's Day of the civil
calendar-day 1, month 1 of inundation-fell outside the
long period during which the inundation began each year
and was thus no longer the harbinger of the inundation. It
 64 WILLIAM A.
was then that the heliacal rising of Sirius, which annually
occurred within the time latitude of the inundation, came
to be associated with the beginning of that event. Astron-
omy played no role in the civil calendar and was origi-
nally restricted to the lunar calendar. The civil and lunar
calendars were intended to measure time for two different
spheres of activity, existing side by side, yet independent
of each other (Neugebauer 1938; 1939; 1942).
While these ideas are easily expressed, they have an
impact far more important than their simplicity. Neuge-
bauer indeed had a practical approach to ancient science.
For example, he notes (1975: 561) the method by which
transits of stars were made: "the procedure was so incred-
ibly crude-observations of 'transits' with respect to the
head, the ears and the shoulders of a sitting man as the
reference system-that also this method had no scientific
consequences whatever." Couched in such unyielding
terms, the truth of the matter is obscured. In fact, it was a
crude method which could not possibly have produced
the accuracy modern scholars assume it did. We forget
that even in simple problems of addition the Egyptians
often recorded the wrong answer, that their cubit rods
were of significantly varying lengths, and that their wa-
terclocks were inaccurate. There is no reason to believe
they were any more concerned about precision as they
measured the stars.
2The shorter Sothic Cycle was proposed as early as
1884 (Hornung 1964: 18) but was not generally adopted.
A more recent study of this question (Ingham 1969)
shows that the Sothic Cycles have very gradually be-
come shorter. The length of the Sothic Cycle for the
period under consideration was 1,456 years.
3That is, day 9, month 3 of the summer season fell in
the 11th month of the civil calendar, or day 309 of that
year. Since the two calendars on that day were 56 days
out of synchronism and each day represents four years of
chronological time, 56 x 4 = 224 years are to be added to
the base date of 1317 B.C.E. Note that while the lunar cal-
endar was at day 1 of the inundation season, the civil
calendar was still expressing dates in the summer sea-
son. This was not a problem to the Egyptians.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barta, W.
1979 Die Chronologie der 12. Dynastie nach den
Angaben des Turiner Kbnigspapyrus. Studien
zur altdgyptischen Kultur 7: 1-9.
1979- Die igyptischen Sothisdaten und ihre Bezugs-
1980 orte. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux No. 26: 26-
34.
1983 Zur Entwicklung des igyptischen Kalendar-
wesens. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 110: 16-26.
von Beckerath, J.
1965 Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte der
Zweite Zwischenzeit in Agypten. Agyptologi-
sche Forschungen, 23. Gltickstadt: Augustin.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
4The temple archives from Illahun (wrongly also
called Kahun) are now in London and Berlin. The
former were published long ago by Griffith (1898). The
latter have never been fully published, although they
have been constantly referred to by those able to consult
the originals. A general description and transcription of
some of the Berlin material was given by Scharff (1924)
and the whole Berlin collection has now been described,
but only partially published, by Liiddeckens (1971).
Several important studies on these archives by Luft have
now appeared (1982; 1983; 1986; 1989). Unfortunately,
some of the chronological problems will not be solved
until all the Berlin material is available.
5No heliacal rising of Sirius can be pinned down to a
specific year due to the several variables involved in
such observations. Barta (1979-1980) has tabulated all
possible time ranges resulting from observations at sev-
eral places in Egypt.
6A second fragment of this text (Berlin P.
10.012A,B) is dated the day after the Sothic sighting in
question and shows that the Festival of the Coming
Forth of Sothis was then in progress; cf. Borchardt 1899:
99, and Liiddeckens 1971: 10, with references to other
publications of the text. That this event could be pre-
dicted three weeks beforehand and that the prediction
was correct indicates that some form of computation was
used, though how accurate it may have been cannot be
stated. The letter is dated year 7, month 3 of the planting
season, day 25; the heliacal rising is to occur in month 4
of the planting season, day 16; the bread and beer for the
actual festival were given on day 17 of that month. On
the face of it, the heliacal rising could have occurred on
day 17 or any of several days before. It is unlikely that a
prediction such as this could be correct to the precise
day, although we have no way at present of knowing for
sure. However, simply keeping track of the intervals be-
tween heliacal risings and computation of those intervals
on the civil calendar would allow such predictions to be
reasonably accurate. The one thing that probably could
not be predicted was the exact morning when Sirius
could again be seen after its long period of invisibility.
1976 Die Chronologie der XII. Dynastie und das
Problem der Behandlung gleichzeitiger Re-
gierung in der igyptischen tiberlieferung.
Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 4: 45-57.
1987 Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und das
Sothisdatum vom 9. Jahr Amenophis' I. Stu-
dien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 14: 27-33.
Bierbrier, M. L.
1975 The Late New Kingdom in Egypt. Warmin-
ster: Aris and Phillips.
Bietak, M.
1984 Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology:
New Evidence from Egypt. American Journal
of Archaeology 88: 471-85.
1992 THE PRESENT STATUS OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 65
Borchardt, L.
1899 Die zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die
zeitliche Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der
agyptischen Geschichte. Zeitschrift fiir Agyp-
tische Sprache und Altertumskunde 37: 89-
103.
1935 Die Mittel zur zeitlichen Festlegung von
Punkten der dgyptischen Geschichte und ihre
Anwendung, Vienna: Adolph Holzhausens.
Brinkman, J. A.
1970 Notes on Mesopotamian History in the Thir-
teenth Century B.C. Bibliotheca Orientalis 27:
301-14.
Burnaby, S. B.
1901 Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan
Calendars. London: Bell Deve.
Dever, W. G.
1992 The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the
Second Millennium B.C.: A Review of Cur-
rent Issues. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 288: 1-26.
Edgerton, W. F.
1942 Chronology of the Twelfth Dynasty. Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 1: 307-14.
Franke, D.
1988 Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.-
18. Dynastie). Teil 1: Die 12. Dynastie. Ori-
entalia 57: 113-38.
Freeman-Grenville
1963 The Muslim and Christian Calendars. Lon-
don: Oxford.
Griffith, F. Ll.
1898 The Petrie Papyri: Hieratic Papyri from
Kahun and Gurob (Principally of the Middle
Kingdom). 2 vols. London: Quaritch.
Hari, R.
1980 Review of Krauss 1978. Bibliotheca Orienta-
lia 37: 319-21.
Helck, W.
1956 Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den iigypti-
schen Kinigslisten. Untersuchungen zur Ge-
schichte und Altertumskunde Agyptens, 18.
Berlin: Akademie.
1988 Erneut das angebliche Sothis-datum des Pap.
Ebers und die Chronologie der 18. Dynastie.
Studien zur altdgyptischen Kultur 15: 149-64.
Hornung, E.
1964 Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Ge-
schichte des Neuen Reiches. Agyptologische
Abhandlungen, 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1979 Chronology in Bewegung. Pp. 247-52, in
Festschrift Elmar Edel, 12 Miirz, 1979.
Aigypten und altes Testament, 1. Bamberg:
Gojrg.
1987 "Lang oder kurz?"-das Mittlere und Neue
Reich Agyptens als Prtifstein. Pp. 27-36 in
High, Middle or Low. Acts of an International
Colloquium in Absolute Chronology held at the
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Rothenburg 20th-22nd August
1987, ed. P. Astrom. Giteborg: Astroms.
Inghan, M. F.
1969 The Length of the Sothic Cycle. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 55: 36-40.
Kitchen, K. A.
1977- Review of Wente and van Siclen 1976. Serapis
1978 4: 65-80.
1987 The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Rela-
tion to the Bronze Age. Pp. 37-55 in High,
Middle or Low. Acts of an International Col-
loquium in Absolute Chronology Held at the
University of Gothenburg 20th-22nd August
1987, ed. P. Astrom. G6teborg: Astroms.
Krauss, R.
1976- Untersuchungen zu K6nig Amenmesse. Stu-
1977 dien zur altdgyptischen Kultur 4: 161-99; 5:
131-74.
1978 Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Beitraige zur Ge-
schichte und Chronologie des Neuen Reiches.
Hildesheimer Agyptologische Beitrige, 7.
Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.
1981 Sothis, Elephantine und die altfigyptische
Chronologie. Gottinger Miszellen 50: 71-80.
1984 Korrekturen und Erginzung zur Chronologie
des MR und NR, ein Zwischenbericht. Got-
tinger Miszellen 70: 37-43.
1985 Sothis und Monddaten. Studien zur astronomi-
schen und technischen Chronologie altdgyp-
tens. Hildesheimer Agyptologische BeitrAige,
20. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.
Leitz, Ch.
1989 Studien zur dgyptischen Astronomie. Agyp-
tologische Abhandlungen, 49. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Liiddeckens, E.
1971 Agyptische Handschriften. Verzeichnis der
orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland,
19.1. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Luft, U.
1982 Illahunstudien, I: Zu der Chronologie und den
Beamten in den Briefen aus Illahun. Oiku-
mene 3: 101-56.
1983 Illahunstudien, II: Ein Vertidigungsbrief aus
Illahun. Oikumene 4: 121-79.
1986 Illahunstudien, III: Zur sozialen Stellung des
Totenpriesters im Mittleren Reich. Oikumene
5:117-53.
1989 Illahunstudien, IV: Zur chronologischen Ver-
wertbarkeit des Sothisdatums. Studien zur al-
tiigyptischen Kultur 16: 217-33.
Mendenhall, G. E.
1985 The Syllabic Inscriptions from Byblos. Beirut:
American University of Beirut.
Murnane, W. J.
1977 Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. Studies in An-
cient Oriental Civilization, 40. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago.
 66 WILLIAM A.
Neugebauer, O.
1938 Die Bedeutungsloskeit der 'Sothisperiode' fuir
die ilteste 5igyptische Chronologie. Acts Ori-
entalia 17: 169-95.
1939 La periode sothique. Chronique d'Egypte No.
28: 258-60.
1942 The Origin of the Egyptian Calendar. Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 1: 396-403.
1975 A History of Ancient Mathematical Astron-
omy. Part 2. Berlin: Springer.
Parker, R. A.
1950 The Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization, 26. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
1976 The Sothic Dating of the Twelfth and Eigh-
teenth Dynasties. Pp. 177-89 in Studies in
Honor of George H. Hughes, eds. J. Johnson
and E. F. Wente. Studies in Ancient Orien-
tal Civilization, 34. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Redford, D. B.
1966 On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eigh-
teenth Dynasty. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 25: 113-24.
1986 Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-books. A
Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense
of History. Mississauga, Canada: Benben.
Scharff, A.
1924 Briefe aus Illahun. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 59: 20-51.
This content downloaded from 128.104.46.206 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 04:43:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WARD BASOR 288
Simpson, W. K.
1972 A Tomb Chapel Relief of the Reign of Amen-
emhet III and Some Observations on the
Length of the Reign of Sesostris III. Chro-
nique d'Egypte 47: 45-54.
1984 Sesostris II, Sesostris III. Cols. 899-906 in
Lexikon der Agyptologie 5, eds. W. Helck and
W. Westendorff. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Ward, W. A.
1984 Royal-name Scarabs. Pp. 151-92, in O. Tuf-
nell, Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to
History in the Early Second Millennium B.c.
Studies on Scarab Seals 2. Warminster: Aris
and Phillips.
1987 Scarab Typology and Archaeological Con-
text. American Journal of Archaeology 91:
507-32.
Wells, R. A.
1985 Sothis and the Satet Temple on Elephantine:
A Direct Connection. Studien zur Altiigypti-
schen Kultur 12: 255-302.
1986 Some Astronomical Reflections on Parker's
Contributions to Egyptian Chronology. Pp.
165-71, in Egyptological Studies in Honor of
Richard A. Parker, ed. L. H. Lesko. Hanover:
University Press of New England.
Wente, E. F., and C. van Siclen
1976 A Chronology of the New Kingdom. Pp.
217-61, in Studies in Honor of George H.
Hughes, eds. J. Johnson and E. F. Wente.
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 34.
Chicago: University of Chicago.