DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0096
70 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
by, is a thing different from either, and must stand on its
own merits. Into the validity of the Berlin astronomy
we cannot go at length, although we have tried in an
Appendix 1 to explain in untechnical language the theory
of the Egyptian calendar that it assumes. It may be
pointed out, however, that the three German scholars we
have quoted have gone independently into the details
of the calculation and differ slightly from each other
as to the exact year fixed by the Kahun Temple Book ;
Borchardt makes it six years later than Meyer, and
Mahler three years later. The very fact, however, that
these independent calculations show such a slight difference
makes it probable that the results are correct for the
purpose of our argument, so long as it is admitted that
the Egyptian calendar was never readjusted during
each or any " Sothic cycle " of 1460 years.2 This is
the one disturbing factor which would introduce a margin
of error sufficiently large to vitiate the whole argument.
We have, however, no hint of such a thing in the Egyptian
records ; and it must be remembered that the numerous
recorded eclipses of Greek and Roman times that are
dated by the Egyptian calendar year, all work out on
the hypothesis that no readjustment existed.
We turn, then, to our second test. How far does the
Berlin dating fit in with the facts of Egyptian history
so far as we know them ? Does it fit them better or worse
than the old traditional dating, or the counsel of despair
of Petrie's Sinai ? The differences, and they are sufficiently
huge, lie in the length of time allowed from the beginning
of the Xlllth to the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty,
which is 208 years on one dating, 985 on another,
1666 on the third. Do we really know so little about
1 See pp. 221-6.
1 As suggested by T. Nicklin in C.R. xiv. 1900, pp. 144-8.
See further Appendix A, which discusses the question as to
the latitude at which the observations of " Sothic Risings " were
taken. This difficulty, which is not as serious as it appears, was
raised by C. Torr in M.M. and C.R. 1897, pp. 78-80.
by, is a thing different from either, and must stand on its
own merits. Into the validity of the Berlin astronomy
we cannot go at length, although we have tried in an
Appendix 1 to explain in untechnical language the theory
of the Egyptian calendar that it assumes. It may be
pointed out, however, that the three German scholars we
have quoted have gone independently into the details
of the calculation and differ slightly from each other
as to the exact year fixed by the Kahun Temple Book ;
Borchardt makes it six years later than Meyer, and
Mahler three years later. The very fact, however, that
these independent calculations show such a slight difference
makes it probable that the results are correct for the
purpose of our argument, so long as it is admitted that
the Egyptian calendar was never readjusted during
each or any " Sothic cycle " of 1460 years.2 This is
the one disturbing factor which would introduce a margin
of error sufficiently large to vitiate the whole argument.
We have, however, no hint of such a thing in the Egyptian
records ; and it must be remembered that the numerous
recorded eclipses of Greek and Roman times that are
dated by the Egyptian calendar year, all work out on
the hypothesis that no readjustment existed.
We turn, then, to our second test. How far does the
Berlin dating fit in with the facts of Egyptian history
so far as we know them ? Does it fit them better or worse
than the old traditional dating, or the counsel of despair
of Petrie's Sinai ? The differences, and they are sufficiently
huge, lie in the length of time allowed from the beginning
of the Xlllth to the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty,
which is 208 years on one dating, 985 on another,
1666 on the third. Do we really know so little about
1 See pp. 221-6.
1 As suggested by T. Nicklin in C.R. xiv. 1900, pp. 144-8.
See further Appendix A, which discusses the question as to
the latitude at which the observations of " Sothic Risings " were
taken. This difficulty, which is not as serious as it appears, was
raised by C. Torr in M.M. and C.R. 1897, pp. 78-80.