THE SOTHIC CYCLE AND THE USE MADE OF IT.
Although it is necessary to enter somewhat into the domain of
chronology to really understand the astronomical observations on which
the Egyptian year depended and the uses made of the year, I shall limit
myself to the more purely astronomical part. To go over the already
vast literature is far from my intention, nor is it necessary to
attempt to settle all the differences of opinion which exist, and which
are so ably referred to by Krall in his masterly analysis,[73] to which
I own myself deeply indebted. The tremendously involved state of the
problem may be gathered from the fact that the authorities are not yet
decided whether many of the dates met with in the inscriptions really
belong to a fixed or a vague year!
Let us, rather, put ourselves in the place of the old Egyptians, and
inquire how, out of the materials they had at hand, a calendar could be
constructed in the simplest way.
They had the vague year and the Sirius year, so related, as we have
seen, that the successive coincidences of the 1st Thoth in both years
took place after an interval of 1460 years. Now, for calendar purposes,
they wanted not only to know the days of the years, but the years of
the cycle. This latter is the only point we need consider here. How
were they to do this? The _easiest_ way would be to conceive a great
year or _annus magnus_, consisting of 1460 years, each day of which
would represent four years in actual time; and further, to consider
everything that happened, which had to be thus chronicled, to take
place on the 1st of Thoth in each year. How would this system work?
During the first four years, at the beginning of a cycle, the 1st Thoth
vague would happen on the 1st Thoth of the cycle. During the next four
years the 1st Thoth of the vague year would fall on the fifth epact,
and so on; so, as the cycle swept onward, each group of four years
would be marked by a date in the cycle, which would allow the place of
the group of years in the cycle to be exactly defined. But as the cycle
swept onward, the date would sweep backward among the months of the
great sacred year until its end.
To make this clear, it will be well to construct another diagram
somewhat like the former one.
[Illustration: THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE 1ST OF THOTH (REPRESENTING THE
RISE OF SIRIUS) AMONG THE EGYPTIAN MONTHS IN THE 1460-YEAR SOTHIC
CYCLE.]
Let us map out the 1460 years which elapsed between two successive
coincidences between the 1st of Thoth in the vague year and the
heliacal rising of Sirius at the solstice, so that we can see at a
glance the actual number of years from any start-point (= 0) at which
the 1st of Thoth in the vague year occurred successively further and
further from the heliacal rising, until at length, after a period of
1460 years, it coincided again. As the Sirius-year is longer than the
vague one, the first vague year will be completed before the first
Sirius-year, hence the second vague year will commence just before the
end of the fixed year, and that is the reason I have reversed the order
of months in the diagram.
Now it is clear that, if the Egyptians really worked in this fashion,
the date of the heliacal rising of Sirius, given in this way, would
enable us to determine the number of years which had elapsed from the
beginning of the cycle.
This calendar system, it will be seen, is good only for groups of four
years. Now, a system which went no further than this would be a very
coarse one. We find, however, that special precautions were taken
to define which year of the four was in question, and the fact that
this was done goes some way to support the suggestion I have made.
Brugsch,[74] indeed, shows that a special sign was employed to mark the
first year of each series of four.
Next, as a matter of fact it is known (I have the high authority of
Dr. Krall for the statement) that each king was supposed to begin his
reign on the 1st Thoth (or 1st Pachons) of the particular year in which
that event took place, and the fact that this was so further supports
the suggestion we are considering. During the reign its length and the
smaller events might be recorded in vague years and days so long as the
date of its commencement had been referred to a cycle.
The diagram will show how readily the cycle year can be determined for
any vague year. If, for instance, the 1st Thoth in the vague year falls
on 1 Tybi of the cycle, we see that 980 years must have elapsed since
the beginning of the cycle, and so on.
Here, then, we have a true calendar system. If the Egyptians had not
this, what had they?
Dealing, then, with the matter so far as we have gone, we find that
the system suggested enabled the place of the beginning of each vague
year and of each king's reign to be dated in terms of the cycle of 1460
years; and further that, if they had not such a system as this, they
had no means of recording any lapse of time which exceeded a year. It
is not likely that any nation would put itself in such a position,
least of all the ancient Egyptians.
The existence of periods of 365 years and of 120 years among the
Egyptians is easily explained when the existence of this great year is
recognised; the 365 years' period, marking approximately the intervals
from solstice to equinox and equinox to solstice, in the natural year.
Let us next try to get a little further by assuming the supposed method
of dating to have been actually employed, and finding the year of the
beginning of one or more of these cycles thus obtained. This should
eventually help us to determine whether or not the Egyptians acted on
this principle, or used one widely different. In such an investigation
as this, however, we are terribly hampered by the uncertainty of
Egyptian dates; while, as I have said before, there is great divergence
of opinion among Egyptologists as to whether, from very early times,
there was not a true fixed year.
But let us suppose that the vague year was in common use as a civil
year, and that the rising of Sirius started the year; then, if we can
get any accepted date to work with, and use the diagram to see how many
years had elapsed between that date and the start-point of the cycle,
we shall see if there be any cyclical relation; and if we find it, it
will be evidence, so far as it goes, of the existence not only of a
vague year, but of the mode of reckoning we are discussing.
Now it so happens that there are three references, with dates given,
to the rising of Sirius in widely different times; and, curiously
enough, the month references are nearly the same. I begin with the
most recent, as in this case the date can be fixed with the greater
certainty. It is an inscription at Philæ, described by Brugsch (p.
87), who states that, when it was written, the 1st of Thoth = 28th of
Epiphi. That is, according to the view we are considering, the heliacal
rising of Sirius--that is, the 1st Thoth of the vague year fell on the
28th Epiphi of our cycle. He fixes the date of the inscription between
127 and 117 B.C. Let us take it as 122. Next, referring to our diagram
to find how many years had elapsed since the beginning of the cycle, we
have--
Days.
5 Epacts.
30 Mesori.
2 Epiphi.
──
37 × 4 = 148 years elapsed.
The cycle, then, began in (118 + 122 =) 270 B.C.
We next find a much more ancient inscription recording the rising
of Sirius on the 28th of Epiphi. Obviously, if the Sothic cycle had
anything to do with the matter, this must have happened 1458 years
earlier, _i.e._, about (1458 + 122 =) 1580 B.C. Under which king?
Thothmes III., who reigned, according to Lepsius, 1603-1565 B.C.;
according to Brugsch, 1625-1577. Now, the inscription in question is
stated to have been inscribed by Thothmes III., and, it may be added,
on the temple (now destroyed) at Elephantine.
There is yet another inscription, also known to be of a still earlier
period, referring to the rising of Sirius on the 27th of Epiphi. We
may neglect the difference of one day in the cycle (representing four
years); and again, if the use of the Sothic cycle were the origin of
the identity of dates, we have this time, according to Oppolzer, a
period of 1460 years to add: this gives us (1580 + 1460 =) 3040 B.C.
Again under which king? Here we are face to face with one of the
difficulties of these inquiries, to which reference has already been
made. It may be stated, however, that the inscription is ascribed to
Pepi, and that, according to various authorities, that king reigned
some time between 3000 and 3700 B.C.
We come, then, to this: that one of the oldest dated inscriptions known
seems to belong to a system which continued in use at Philæ up to about
100 B.C., and it was essentially a system of a vague year, the 1st
Thoths of which were represented as days on a 1460-years' cycle.
Now, assuming that the approximate date of the earliest inscription is
3044 B.C., and that it represented the heliacal rising of Sirius on
the 27th of Epiphi, the year 3044 must have been the [(5 + 30 + 3) x 4
=] 152nd after the beginning of the cycle. The cycle, then, must have
commenced (3044 + 152 =) 3196 B.C.
If we assume that the real date of Pepi, who, it is stated, reigned
100 years, included the year 3044 B.C., it may be, then, that the
inscriptions to which I have directed attention give us three Sothic
cycles beginning--
122 + 148 = 270 B.C.
1580 + 148 = 1728 B.C.
3044 + 148 = 3192 B.C.
According to Biot's calculation, the first heliacal rising of Sirius at
the solstice took place in the year 3285 B.C.; it is possible, then,
that the Egyptians utilised this heliacal rising within a hundred
years of the date on which it would have been first possible for them
to do so. This shows how keenly alive they were in these matters, and
also, I think, that they had been trained by watching some other star
previously.
It would also follow that the vague year was in common use. There is
ample evidence to show, however, that by this time the priests were
fully acquainted with the true year, which was called the sacred year,
and that every four years an additional epact was interpolated. Their
solar temples, then, at last had been utilised.
One argument which has been used to show that a vague year was not
in use during the time of the Ramessids has been derived from some
inscriptions at Silsilis which refer to the dates on which sacred
offerings were presented there to the Nile-god. As the dates 15th
of Thoth and 15th of Epiphi are the same in all three inscriptions,
although they cover the period from Rameses II. to Rameses III.--120
years--it has been argued by Brugsch that a fixed year is in question.
Brugsch points out that the two dates are separated by 65 days;
that this is the exact interval between the Coptic festivals of the
commencement of the flow and the marriage of the Nile--the time of
highest water; and that, therefore, in all probability these are the
two natural phenomena to commemorate which the offerings on the dates
in question were made.
But Brugsch does not give the whole of the inscription. A part of it,
translated by De Rougé,[75] runs thus:--
"I (the king) know what is said in the depôt of the writings which are
in the House of the Books. The Nile emerges from its fountains to give
the fulness of life-necessaries to the gods," etc.
De Rougé justly remarks:
"Le langage singulier que tient le Pharaon dédicateur pourrait même
faire soupçonner _qu'il ne s'agit pas de la venue effective de l'eau
sainte du Nil à l'une des deux dates précitées_."
Krall (_loc. cit._, p. 51) adds the following interesting remarks:--
"Consider, now, what these 'Scriptures of the House of Life' were
like. In a catalogue of books from the temple of Edfû we find,
besides a series of purely religious writings, 'The knowledge of the
periodical recurrence of the double stars (sun and moon),' and the
'Law of the periodical recurrence of the stars.'
" ... The knowledge embodied in these writings dated from the oldest
times of the Egyptian empire, in which the priests placed, rightly
or wrongly, the origin of all their sacred rolls" (_cf._ Manetho's
"History," p.130).
Now, to investigate this question we have to approach some
considerations which at first sight may seem to be foreign to our
subject. I shall be able to show, however, that this is not so.
_Imprimis_ we must remember that it is a question of Silsilis, where
we know, both from tradition and geological evidence, in ancient times
the first cataract was encountered. The phrase "the Nile emerges from
its fountains" would be much more applicable to Silsilis, the seat of
a cataract, than as it is at present. We do not know when the river
made its way through this impediment, but we do know that after it took
place and the Nile stream was cleared as far as the cataract that still
remains at Elephantine, a nilometer was erected there, and that during
the whole of later Egyptian history, at all events, the time of the
rise of the river has been carefully recorded both there and at Rôda.
From this it is fair to infer that in those more ancient times the same
thing took place at Silsilis; if this were so, the reason of the record
of the coming of the inundation at Silsilis is not far to seek, and
hence the suggestion lies on the surface that the records in question
may state the date of the arrival _in relation to Memphis time_.
It has been rendered, I hope, quite clear in Chapter XXIII. that there
is a difference of fifteen or sixteen days between the arrival of the
inundation at Elephantine and at Memphis. Hence, if in Pepi's time a
Nile rise were observed at Silsilis, there might easily be a difference
of fifteen days between the rise of the Nile at Silsilis and the
Memphic 1st of Thoth. If both at Silsilis and Memphis the Nile rise
marked 1st Thoth, the day of the rise at Memphis would correspond to
15th Thoth at Silsilis, so that a king reaching Silsilis with Memphis
local time would be struck with this difference, and anxious to record
it. May not this, then, have been the important datum recorded in the
sacred books? If so, it would not touch the question of the fixed or
vague year at all.
Let it, then, be for the present conceded that there was a vague year,
and that at least some of the inscriptions which suggest the use of
only a fixed year in these early times may be explained in another way.