‘ 
776 
NATURE 
[June 9, 1923 
Ancient Egyptian Chronology. 
By Dr. H. R. HALt. 
A EN one is told that Tutankhamen, the 
Egyptian king, the discovery of whose tomb, 
followed by the tragedy of Lord Carnaryon’s death, 
has aroused such widespread interest in ancient Egypt, 
reigned roughly between the years 1360 and 1350 B.c., 
it is naturally asked by many how this is known with 
such certainty ? The Egyptians had no regular era. 
They merely spoke of such-and-such a year of King X. 
The Assyrian, however, possessed a continuous era, of 
which each year was noted by the name of an 
eponymous official. The definite fixing of this Assyrian 
era has been due to the help of astronomy. In a 
certain eponymy of the eighth century B.c., an eclipse 
of the sun is recorded as having taken place in the 
month Sivan (May-June). This has been reckoned 
astronomically to have taken place in 763 B.c. All 
other evidence of the kind fits in with and confirms 
this : the eponym-dates are certain to the actual year 
so far back as 893 B.c., when the later Assyrian series 
began, and are also now certain to within a few years 
at a much earlier period. So far back as the ninth 
century, at least, then, we can fix Egyptian dates 
witb the aid of Assyrian synchronisms, and we find 
that Shishak I., the conqueror of Jerusalem, must have 
reigned about 930 B.c., which is not so different from 
the old traditional biblical date of 975 B.c. 
Besides having no era, the Egyptians took no notice 
of eclipses. They did, however, possess an “ epoch ” 
which was based on astronomical observation: the 
“‘Sothic cycle.” At an early period, apparently in 
the year 4241 or 4238 B.c., the Egyptian calendar was 
fixed to begin with the first day of the first month on 
the day of the heliacal rising of Sothis or Sirius. The 
year consisted of 360 ordinary days+5 epagomenal. 
The necessity of intercalating a day every fourth year 
was not noticed. Hence, as time went on, the months 
lost all relation to the seasons, and the heliacal rising 
of Sirius would not correspond again with the first day 
of the year until a whole cycle of 1460 years had been 
completed. This cycle was recorded, but only used 
for calendrical purposes, never for dating events. 
We know from classical sources that a new “ zon ” 
or cycle began in A.D. 139 or 143. The Alexandrian 
mathematician, Theon, called the beginning of the 
preceding cycle, which began in 1321 or 1317 B.C., the | 
“era of Menophres.” Now we know from syn- 
chronisms with Babylonian and Assyrian history, as 
well as from dead reckoning of the length of reigns, 
checked by the statements of Manetho (the Egyptian 
historiographer who lived in the third century B.c.), 
that roughly about 1321-1317 B.c. must have fallen 
the short period between the Egyptian kings Harmais 
(Harmhab) and Seti I., the end of the XVIIIth and the 
beginning of the XTXth Dynasty of Manetho; and 
between them reigned Rameses I., whose second 
name was Menpehre. Evidently he is Menophres, and 
the beginning of the era and the date of either 1321 
or 1317 B.c. must have fallen in his reign. With this 
conclusion all the other evidence agrees. 
Reckoning back from this date, we find that the 
dates of certain new-year festivals that are recorded 
on certain days of the month in certain years in the 
NO. 2797, VOL. 111 | 

reigns of Thutmases (Tethmosis or Thothmes) IIL., 
and Amenhatpe (Amenophis) I., predecessors of 
Menophres, can be fixed to the years 1474 or 1470, and 
1550 or 1546 B.c. The date for Thutmases III. is 
confirmed by the identification of two new-moon 
festivals recorded on certain days of the month in two 
stated years of his reign as those of May 15, 1479, and 
February 23, 1477 B.c. Our very full knowledge of 
the history of this time (the XVIIIth Dynasty) enables 
us to say definitely that these dates correspond to 
what a dead reckoning of the kings’ reigns back from 
Menophres would demand. Also they fit in absolutely 
with the dates, based ultimately on the eponym-lists, 
demanded for Babylonian and Assyrian history at this 
time, when synchronisms with Egypt were frequent. 
Computing further back from the reign of Amenhatpe I. 
we find that I‘ahmases (A‘ahmes or Amosis) I., his 
predecessor, and the founder of the dynasty, must 
have ascended the throne within a few years either 
way of 1580 B.C. 
So we know that Tutankhamen reigned about 1360- 
1350 B.c. He preceded Menophres by about thirty- 
five years, most of which was occupied by the reign of 
Harmais or Harmhab. The heretical king Akhnaten, 
the monotheistic worshipper of the god of the sun’s 
disk, of whom there has been so much talk lately, and 
his father the great Amenhatpe or Amenophis III 
(Nibmare, the Mimmuriya of the contemporary 
Babylonians and Memnon of later Greek legend) will 
have reigned circa 1410-1360 B.c., the date also de- 
manded by the synchronisms with ‘Babylonia. 
I have implied that no Egyptian dates earlier than 
1580 B.C. are so certain as these. Of course there are 
the exceptions of the era-dates of 2781 (2778) and 4241 
(4238) B.c. But we do not know what kings were 
reigning at these dates. Amosis, I imply, is the first 
king of whose date we can be certain; but this view 
is not universally held by Egyptologists. Some would 
go further back, to at least 2000 B.c. for certain dates, 
which are again deduced from the Sothic reckoning, 
on the following grounds. 
In a papyrus of the XIIth Dynasty it is stated that 
Sothis rose heliacally on a certain day ef a certain 
month in the seventh year of King Senusret III. 
German investigators have computed this date at 
1882 (1878) or 1876 (1872) B.c.; but from the same 
data a British computer, Mr. Nicklin, has arrived at 
the date 1945 B.c. There is, therefore, evidently some 
room for doubt in the matter. 
The German date is, however, generally received, 
and the XIIth Dynasty therefore currently ascribed 
to the period 2000-1788 B.c. But, apart from the 
fact of Mr. Nicklin’s varying computation this date 
has seemed to several, including myself, to be open to 
serious objection, because it does not allow sufficient 
time for the XIIIth Dynasty and the period of the 
Hyksos kings. We have an Egyptian record of the 
kings, the Turin Papyrus, which gives a long list of — 
the monarchs of this period, though without dates. 
Manetho, the Ptolemaic historiographer (or his com- 
mentators) assigns a lengthy period of time to this 
age. Yet the evidence from Crete is in favour of a 

