THE CALENDAR AND ITS REVISION.
In the last chapter the so-called Sothic cycle was discussed, and dates
of the commencement of the successive cycles were suggested.
These dates were arrived at by taking the very simplest way of writing
a calendar in pre-temple times, and using the calendar inscriptions in
the most natural way.
The dates for the coincidence of the heliacal rising of Sirius and the
1st Thoth of the vague year at, or near, the solstice, were--
270 B.C.
1728 B.C.
3192 B.C.
Here, _in limine_, we meet with a difficulty which, if it cannot be
explained, evidently proves that the Egyptians did not construct and
use their calendar in the way we have supposed.
We have it on the authority of Censorinus that a Sothic period was
completed in 139 A.D., and that there was then a vague year in partial
use. It is here that the work of Oppolzer is of such high value to us;
he discussed all the statements made by Censorinus, and comes to the
conclusion that his account is to be depended upon. It has followed
from the inquiries of chronologists that in this year the 1st of Thoth
took place on July 20 (Julian), the date originally of the heliacal
rising of Sirius, the beginning of the year.
This being so, then, in the year 23 A.D.--in which the Alexandrine
reform of the calendar, of which more presently, was introduced--the
1st of Thoth would take place on August 29, a very important date.
Censorinus also said that in his own time (A.D. 238) the 1st of Thoth
of the vague year fell on June 25. The diagram will show the connection
of these three dates in reference to the vague year. The relations
of the statements made as to the years 139 and 238 are very clearly
discussed by Prof. Oppolzer.
[Illustration: JULIAN DATES OF THE 1ST OF THOTH (VAGUE) FROM 23 A.D.
AND 240 A.D.]
Oppolzer, then, being satisfied as to the justice of taking the year
139 A.D. as a time of coincidence of the fixed and vague years--the
latter being determined alone by the heliacal rising of Sirius, and,
be it remembered, not by the solstices--calculated with great fulness,
using Leverrier's modern values, the years in which, in the various
Egyptian latitudes, chiefly taking Memphis (lat. 30°) and Thebes (lat.
25°), the coincidence between the two Thoths occurred in the previous
periods of Egyptian history. He finds these dates for latitude 30° as
follow:--
Julian year. Historical year.[76]
0 -4235 -4236
1 -2774 -2775
2 -1316 -1317
3 + 139 + 139
4 +1591 +1591
5 +3039 +3039
Now, the date which Oppolzer gives for the coincidence which is nearest
the date we had previously determined at 270 B.C. is 139 A.D. There is
a difference of 409 years.
The question is, Can this fundamental difference be explained? I think
it can.
In the first place, it is beyond doubt that, in the interval between
the Ramessids and the Ptolemies, the calendar, even supposing the
vague year to have been used and to have been retained, had been
fundamentally altered, and the meanings of the hieroglyphics of the
tetramenes had been changed--in other words, the designations of the
three seasons had been changed.
On this point I quote Krall[77]:--
"It is well known that the interpretation of the seasons and the
months given by Champollion was opposed by Brugsch, who propounded
another, which is now universally adopted by experts. Something has
happened here which is often repeated in the course of Egyptian
history--the signs have changed their meaning. Under the circumstance
that the vague year during 1461 years wanders through the seasons in
a great cycle, it is natural that the signs for the tetramenes should
have changed their significations in the course of millenniums.
"While Thoth was the first month of the inundation in the documents of
the Thutmosids and Ramessids, we have in the time of the Ptolemies the
month Pachons as the first month of the flood season. Whilst Brugsch's
explanation is valid for the time of the Ramessids, it is not so for
that of the Ptolemies, to which Champollion's view is applicable."
The signs used for the tetramenes are supposed to represent water,
a field with growing plants, and a barn; the natural order would be
that the first should represent the inundation, the second the sowing
which succeeds it, and the last harvest-time. If this be conceded, the
initial system would have had the month Thoth connected with the water
sign, as Thoth in early Egyptian times was the first inundation month.
But in the times of the Ramessids even this is not so. Thoth has the
sowing sign assigned to it. In the time of the Ptolemies the Hood is no
longer in Thoth, but in Pachons, and Pachons has the barn sign attached
to it, while the month Thoth is marked by the water sign, thereby
bringing back the hypothetical relation _between the name of the month
and the sign_, although, as we have seen, Thoth is no longer the flood
month.
Egyptologists declare that all, or at least part, of this change took
place between the periods named; they are undoubtedly justified as
regards a part.
At one point in this interval we are fortunately supplied with
some precise information. In the year 238 B.C. a famous decree was
published, variously called the decree of Canopus and the decree of
Tanis, since it was inscribed on a stone found there. It is perfectly
clear that one of the functions of this decree was to change, or to
approve an already made change in, the designation of the season or
tetramene in which the inundation commenced, from Thoth to Pachons.
Another function was to establish a fixed year, as we shall see
presently. We must assume, then, that a vague year was in vogue prior
to the decree. Now the decree tells us that at its date the heliacal
rising of Sirius took place on 1 Payni. Assuming that this date had any
relation to the system we have been considering, the cycle to which it
belonged must have begun
Days.
5 Epacts
30 Mesori
30 Epiphi
30 Payni
──
95 × 4 = 380 years previously--that is, in the year 618 B.C.
Here at first sight it would seem that the Sothic cycles we have
been considering have no relation to the one now in question; for,
according to my view, the last Sothic cycle began in 1728 B.C. A little
consideration, however, will lead to the contrary view, and show that
the time about 600 B.C. was very convenient for a revision of the
calendar.
In the first place, nearly a month now elapsed between the coming of
the flood and the heliacal rising; and in the second, by making the
year for the future _to begin with the flood_, a change might be made
involving tetramenes only.
Thus, commencement of cycle 1728 B.C.
Epacts 5
Two tetramenes 240
Month between flood and
rising of Sirius 30[78]
———
275 × 4 = 1100
————
628 B.C.
Nor is this all. A very simple diagrammatic statement will
1728
B.C.
Thoth ┐
Phaophi ├ [Hieroglyph]
Athyr │
Choiach ┘
Tybi ┐
Menchir ├ [Hieroglyph]
Phamenoth │
Pharmuti ┘
Pachons ┐
Payni ├ [Hieroglyph]
Epiphi │
Mesori ┘
show what might also have happened about 618 B.C. if a reformer
of the calendar (and one especially of conservative tendencies)
appeared upon the scene, who believed that the ancient sign for the
inundation-tetramene was the water sign, and that the ancient name was
Thoth. Finding the cycle beginning in 1728 B.C. with the signs as shown
above--
B.C.
618
Thoth ┐
Phaophi ├ [Hieroglyph]
Athyr │
Choiach ┘
Tybi ┐
Menchir ├ [Hieroglyph]
Phamenoth │
Pharmuti ┘
Pachons ┐
Payni ├ [Hieroglyph]
Epiphi │
Mesori ┘
when starting fresh, he would seize the opportunity of effecting a
change, not only by dealing with a tetramene, but he would change the
names of the tetramenes allocated to the signs; as Krall remarks, it
was almost merely a question of a change of the sign! It really was
more, because the new tetramene began with the flood.
Assuming this, we can see exactly what was done in 238 B.C., _i.e._,
about 380 years later. We have seen that the 380 years is made up of
5 Epacts
30 Mesori
30 Epiphi
30 Payni
──
95 × 4 = 380
--the heliacal rising of Sirius occurring on 1 Payni, having swept
backwards along the months in the manner already explained. We had, to
continue the diagrammatic treatment--
B.C.
238
Pachons ┐
Payni ├ [Hieroglyph]
Epiphi │
Mesori ┘
Thoth ┐
Phaophi ├ [Hieroglyph]
Athyr │
Choiach ┘
&c.
To sum up, so far as we have gone, we have the three inscriptions
at Philæ, Elephantine and the still more ancient one of Pepi (?),
indicating on the simple system we have suggested beginnings of Sothic
cycles on the 1st Thoth about the years
270 ┐
1728 ├ B.C.
3192 ┘
On the other hand, we have the decree of Canopus, giving us by exactly
the same system a local revision of the calendar about 600 B.C. I
say _about_ 600 B.C. because it must be remembered that a difference
of 2½ days in the phenomena observed will make a difference of 10
years in the date, and we do not know in what part of the valley the
revision took place, and therefore at what precise time in relation to
the heliacal rising the Nile-rise was observed.
Whenever presumably it took place, New Year's Day was reckoned by the
Flood, and the rising of Sirius followed nearly, if not quite, a month
afterwards. The equivalent of the old 1st Thoth was therefore 1 Payni.
In months, then, the old 1st Thoth was separated from the new one (= 1
Payni) by three months (Payni, Mesori, Epiphi) and the Epacts.
In this way, we can exactly account for the difference of 409 years
referred to above as the dates assigned by Censorinus and myself for
the beginning of the Sirius cycle.
Difference between 270 and 239 = 31 years.
3 months = 90 days × 4 = 360 "
5 epacts × 4 = 20 "
───
411 "
The difference of two years is equal only to half a day!
It seems, then, pretty clear from this that the suggestion I have
ventured to make on astronomical grounds may be worth consideration
on the part of Egyptologists. If our inquiries have really led us to
the true beginnings of the Sothic periods, it is obvious that those
who informed Censorinus that the year 139 A.D. was the end of a cycle
_omitted to tell him what we now can learn from the decree of Tanis_.