76 Rev. Edward Hincks on the true Date of the Rosetta Stone. 



nian year was solar ; and I find that, by supposing it to have been so, an exact 

 coincidence between the two dates occurred in the four years 200, 199, 198, and 

 197 B. C, but not in 196, or in any other year. 



That the Macedonian year was a solar one, subsequent to the Julian reforma- 

 tion of the Roman calendar, is unquestionable. What I contend for is, that it 

 was so at the time of the Rosetta Stone, more than 150 years before that refor- 

 mation ; and the double date of that monument appears to me to establish this 

 interesting fact in chronology. The mode of proceeding, in order to investigate 

 this matter, is a simple and obvious one. I will take those dates of the Macedo- 

 nian solar year, as it existed under the Romans, which are recorded as being co- 

 incident with dates of the Julian year, or of the fixed Alexandrian year, the cor- 

 respondence of which with the Julian is known. From these dates, and the 

 known lengths of the Macedonian and Julian months, it is easy to ascertain with 

 what day of the Julian year any given day of the Macedonian year, say the 4th 

 of Xanthicus, coincided in each of the four years of the Julian cycle ; and it is 

 obvious that this coincidence must remain unaltered, if we compare Macedonian 

 years, actual or proleptic, at any period, with proleptic Julian years. 



Now it has been shown by Archbishop Ussher, that the Macedonian year, as 

 used in Asia generally, differed in certain respects from the Macedonian year, as 

 used in Macedonia. The commencement of both years was at the autumnal 

 equinox ; but the first month of the Asiatics was Hyperberetaeus, while that of 

 the Macedonians proper was Dius. The same difference remained through the 

 other months, Xanthicus being the sixth in Macedonia, but the seventh in Asia. 

 It is natural to suppose that Egypt would follow the Asiatic system in preference 

 to that of the Europeans ; and this is confirmed by the Egyptian date, with which 

 one of these Asiatic dates which I am going to produce is stated to correspond. 

 These dates (which I take from the treatise of Archbishop Ussher, " de Macedo- 

 num et Asianorum anno solari ;" a valuable work, with which neither Dr. Young 

 nor M. Letronne could have been acquainted) are, first, that of the martyrdom 

 of the Apostle St. Paul ; which is stated by Euthalius to have occurred on the 

 29th June, A. D. 67, being the 5th Panemus. Xanthicus, Artemisius, and 

 Dffisius had the same number of days as March, April, and May. Therefore the 

 29th March in that year coincided with the 5th Xanthicus, and, of course, the 

 28th March with the 4th Xanthicus. 



