DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12654#0086
58
INCORRECT HYPOTHESES.
[Part I.
favour of this duration, which is exactly the half of
the Three-year period of Royal Panegyries, to be noticed
in the next section. Thus we see that what I call the
Division of the Great Panegyrical Month was the
twentieth part of the Great Panegyrical Month, and
had a length of one Julian year and a half.
In this place it is necessary to remove some diffi-
culties, and to show the incorrectness of certain ex-
planations of the Panegyrical periods. It is to be
observed that the simplest characters denoting the
G. P. M. were sometimes used, perhaps as early as the
Nineteenth Dynasty, for an ordinary month; but, from
the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty downwards, we
find the more complete groups made use of, almost
invariably, to denote the G. P. M. and its Division,
to prevent mistake.
There are two ways in which it has been proposed to
explain the G. P. M. and the Division of the G. P. M.
The first hypothesis is, that the G. P. M. was a com-
mon month or a lunation, and that the Division of the
G. P. M. was a half-month or half-lunation. This is
disproved by our finding dates of the Fifteenth Divi-
sion of the Sixth G. P. M., and of the TwTelfth Division
of the Twelfth G. P. M., and by the Decan of the
Division of the G. P. M. If these be read sixth month,
fifteenth half-month, &c, the hypothesis is equally un-
tenable. The second hypothesis is, that the G. P. M.
was a common month or lunation, and the Division of
the G. P. M. a period of the same duration commencing
in the middle of the former. The dates just mentioned
equally disprove this.
The highest date which I have found of the G. P. M.'s
is of the Twelfth ; and this shows that the length of the
period which they composed could not be less than 360
INCORRECT HYPOTHESES.
[Part I.
favour of this duration, which is exactly the half of
the Three-year period of Royal Panegyries, to be noticed
in the next section. Thus we see that what I call the
Division of the Great Panegyrical Month was the
twentieth part of the Great Panegyrical Month, and
had a length of one Julian year and a half.
In this place it is necessary to remove some diffi-
culties, and to show the incorrectness of certain ex-
planations of the Panegyrical periods. It is to be
observed that the simplest characters denoting the
G. P. M. were sometimes used, perhaps as early as the
Nineteenth Dynasty, for an ordinary month; but, from
the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty downwards, we
find the more complete groups made use of, almost
invariably, to denote the G. P. M. and its Division,
to prevent mistake.
There are two ways in which it has been proposed to
explain the G. P. M. and the Division of the G. P. M.
The first hypothesis is, that the G. P. M. was a com-
mon month or a lunation, and that the Division of the
G. P. M. was a half-month or half-lunation. This is
disproved by our finding dates of the Fifteenth Divi-
sion of the Sixth G. P. M., and of the TwTelfth Division
of the Twelfth G. P. M., and by the Decan of the
Division of the G. P. M. If these be read sixth month,
fifteenth half-month, &c, the hypothesis is equally un-
tenable. The second hypothesis is, that the G. P. M.
was a common month or lunation, and the Division of
the G. P. M. a period of the same duration commencing
in the middle of the former. The dates just mentioned
equally disprove this.
The highest date which I have found of the G. P. M.'s
is of the Twelfth ; and this shows that the length of the
period which they composed could not be less than 360