3 Rey. Epwarp Hinoxs on the Age of the Highteenth Dynasty of Manetho. 
took place in 1167 B.C.) was in the reign of Sesostris, or Rameses the Great ; 
and also with a tradition, if it do not deserve another name, which was current 
among the Egyptians in the reign of Antoninus, to the effect, that the canicular 
cycle, then ending, had its commencement in the reign of Thothmos III. ; which 
must, therefore, have included the year 1323 B.C. The existence of this tra- 
dition is evidenced by a number of scarabzxi, obviously of Roman workmanship, 
and referring to the canicular cycle, on which the royal legend of this monarch 
appears. If it could be proved that a single one of these scarabei was of the age 
of Thothmos, it would be decisive as to the point under consideration. I do 
not, however, think this likely. Indeed, I think it very doubtful, whether the 
canicular cycle existed at all before the time of the Alexandrian astronomers ; 
who may have fixed its origin proleptically, as Julius Scaliger did in the case of 
his cycle. Still it is to be presumed, that authentic historical data existed at 
that period, from which the name of the monarch who reigned in 1323 could be 
known ; and it is by no means likely that, in default of such data, the name of a 
much more ancient king should be assumed arbitrarily, and the origin of the cycle 
attributed to him. 
It will occur to some, that the celebrated astronomical sculptures on the ceiling 
of the Memnonium, as it is improperly called, at Thebes, are opposed to the 
opinions which I have advanced. ‘This, however, I by no means admit. It is 
clear, that im the principal part of these sculptures, there was no intention of 
describing the physical characters of the months in the time of Rameses, but 
their original characters in the old fixed year; or, as those would express it, who 
dissent from my conclusions on that subject, their normal characters. This will 
be acknowledged by all parties. The question is whether there be any subordi- 
nate part of the sculptures from which the date of the erection can be inferred; 
and, if so, what that part is? Mr. Cullimore says, that he has data, from which 
the year 1138 B. C. may be inferred to be that of the erection ; but I have not 
been able to learn what these data are. This, however, would be in perfect cor- 
respondence with my views. M. Biot has fixed upon 1500 B.C., as the probable 
time of the erection; but on grounds which appear to me very unsubstantial. 
He assumes that the position of the vernal equinox was intended to be pointed 
out by the position of a pair of royal cartouches which stand under the names of 
the months. It appears to me, that I would have an equal right to assume that 
—_— 
no 
