CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 58. INTRODUCTION OF CALENDAR 4241 B. C. aAs reconstructed by Meyer from the Turin Papyrus, the Sakkara and Abydos lists, and Manetho. The years are from the papyrus. bLost in Turin Papyrus; Manetho's Ratoises. cLost in Turin Papyrus; Manetho's Bikheris. The years may be 28. dLost in Turin Papyrus; Manetho's Thamphthis. eAs restored by Meyer (op. cit., 145 ff.). f Same as Neferefre of the Abydos list. "Only in Sakkara list, but spacing shows room for him in the Turin Papyrus. hNumeral in Turin Papyrus is either 10, 20, or 30 (+ units ?), and, as Nuserre celebrated his thirty-years' jubilee, doubtless 30 is correct. aOnly in the Abydos list; Meyer suggests that he is the same as Ity of whom we have a quarry inscription at Hammamat (§ 386). bProbably 94, as given also by Manetho. cFrom the Abydos list, instead of Nitokris formerly assigned here on a misplaced fragment of the Turin Papyrus. (See Meyer, op. cit., 164.) dThe Seventh Dynasty of Manetho (70 Memphites ruling 70 days) cannot be found in the lists or on contemporary monuments. The ephemeral Eighth Dynasty is given 7 kings in the Turin Papyrus, of whom the reigns of 4 are preserved (2 years, 4 years, 2 years, 1 year). The Eighth Dynasty is passed over in the Sakkara list, but is given 17 kings in the Abydos list. *See reconstruction, §§ 415-18; also my essay, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie, 1904 (in Meyer's essay, Aegyptische Chronologie, 156–61); and also my remarks in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, XXI, April. fFrom Turin Papyrus; the units are lost. 8 From here on approximately accurate chronology. aA fuller statement of this dynasty, especially of the Sothic date and of the coregencies, will be found in §§ 460 ff. bThis total is given by the Turin Papyrus (§ 461) as exactly 213 years, 1 month, and 17 days. e Recueil, IX, 94. Accession is astronomically established (Meyer, op. cit., 46 ff.). fDetermined by the two limits: the accession of Amenhotep I in 1557 and that of Thutmose III in 1501, both these dates being astronomically fixed. 8He celebrated his thirty-years' jubilee, and, as he was never crown prince, he must have ruled at least 30 years. He reached old age (II, 64). hReally a little less (see II, 592). The date of this reign is astronomically established by means of a Sothic date and two calendar dates of the new moon in Thutmose III's Annals (II, 430). Mahler computes his accession as 1504 (Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 1888, 97); Lehmann noticed that such a calculation must be based on the actual appearance of the new moon, and not on a calculation of when it astronomically occurred. Lehmann thus dated the accession of Thutmose III in 1515 (Zwei Hauptprobleme, 154–58). Meyer accepted Lehmann's method, but showed a slight error in L.'s figures, thus finally placing the date of Thutmose III's accession in 1501 B. C. (Meyer, op. cit., 50). The exact limits are May 3, 1501, to March 17, 1447 B. C. a Petrie, Six Temples, Plate V; about one year coregent with Thutmose III (II, 184). bII, 825. cLepsius, Denkmäler, III, 71 c-d; and Amarna Letters, 20. dPetrie, Amarna, Plates XXII ff., pp. 32 ff. eIn the reign of Ramses II, in the records of a legal suit, reference is made to legal proceedings in year 59 of Harmhab. As it is evident that Harmhab was not a young man at his accession, it is exceedingly improbable that he reigned nearly 60 years. The highest known date on any monument of his reign is year 21. It is therefore probable that in the early Nineteenth Dynasty, when the chronology for the government files of the immediately preceding reigns was being made up, the series of Ikhnaton and his successors was added to the reign of Harmhab, and the names of the kings at any time implicated in the Aton heresy were swept from the records. We thus have at least 59 years from year 1 of Ikhnaton to the end of Harmhab's reign, of which at least 25 must be credited to Ikhnaton and his successors (Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 39, 10, l. 8). fII, 1043. gSee preceding note on Ikhnaton and successors. Estimating 25 years for Ikhnaton and successors, we have 34+ years for Harmhab. hTotal length; maximum of 2 years (III, 74). i See III, 131. aTotal length (IV, 471). The attempts to determine the accession of Ramses II astronomically have been unsuccessful. bPapyrus Sallier I, 3, 4; 8, 8; see Erman, Westcar, II, 37. I am unable to find any confirmation of Brugsch's remark (Reiseberichte, 194) that Merneptah's highest date was not less than 25 nor more than 33. In Lepsius, Denkmäler, Text, III, 2, plan of "Temple A" at a place marked h is the remark, “Datum des Merneptah," which perhaps refers to Brugsch's remark, but Lepsius has no reference to the date in his text. cSee III, 650. dChampollion, Notices descriptives, II, 258, and Griffith, Kahun Papyri, II, Plate 39, and p. 95. He built a temple at Karnak, and another at Eshmunên (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 24, 86). ePapyrus Harris, 75, 2-4 (IV, 398), States that the anarchy lasted "many years;" then followed the rule of the Syrian. Five years for all this is a minimum. fI accept in this reconstruction the results of Sethe (Untersuchungen, I, 59-63). Papyrus Sallier, I, 6. hExactly 31 years and 40 days (IV, 153). i Papyrus Turin; Pleyte and Rossi, Plates 51-60; Spiegelberg, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 1891, 73 ff., on Plate 54, ll. 12, 13; Maspero, Momies royales, 663. JOstracon in Turin, Maspero, Recueil, II, 116, 117. |