244 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



the number of the year would be the same in both calendars from the 1st 

 of Nisan to the 1st of Thoth. If, however, the accession took place between 

 the 1st of Nisan and the 1st of Thoth, the numbers of the years would never 

 be the same in both calendars, but would differ by one in the period between 

 the 1st of Nisan and the 1st of Thoth, and by two in the period between the 

 1st of Thoth and the 1st of Msan. It is thus obvious that unless we know 

 the system of dating employed in the calendar by which any particular 

 document is dated, we are liable to an error of one or possibly two years 

 in reducing the date to the Julian calendar. 



Now, there are three dates among these papyri belonging to the reign of 

 Darius II. The first, Papyrus H, is dated in Payni, that is in September ; it 

 thus falls in the period between the 1st of Nisan and the 1st of Thoth, 

 and the number of the year is given only once. The other two, Papyri J 

 and K, fall in the other period of the year, that between the 1st of Thoth 

 and the 1st of Nisan, and the number of the year in the Egyptian date is 

 greater by one than that in the Jewish date. The natural deductions are, 

 firstly, that the year connected with the Egyptian months was a Thoth year, 

 and that connected with the Jewish months was a Nisan year ; and secondly, 

 that Darius II. came to the throne between the 1st of Thoth and the 1st of 

 Nisan — a point to which I shall revert later. But we are not yet in a 

 position to say which year was employed when only one number is assigned 

 to the year. A comparison of the dates, first on the supposition that the 

 years were Thoth years, and then that they were Nisan years, indicates 

 clearly that in these cases the Nisan year was employed. The date of 

 Papyrus E is the 17th of November, 446 ; if the years were Thoth years, 

 E would have been in the year beginning 1st of Thoth, 447, and the 1st year 

 of Artaxerxes would have been counted from the 1st of Thoth, 465. 

 Comparing this with the two forms of the date of Papyrus B, namely, B (1), 

 7 Thoth, 23rd December, 464, and B (2), 17 Thoth, 2nd January, 464, we find 

 that B (1) would have been in the second year, and B (2) in the first year, 

 of Artaxerxes. Therefore, if the years were Thoth years, B (1) must be 

 rejected. 



The same result is obtained from a comparison of the dates of Papyri A 

 and B : they are — for A, 12th September, 471, in the fourteenth or fifteenth 

 year of Xerxes ; for B (1), 23rd December, 464 ; for B (2), 2nd January, 

 464, in the twentieth or twenty-first year of Xerxes. 



If A be compared with B (1), it is clear that the years cannot have been 

 Thoth years; for then A would fall in the year 19th Dec, 472, to 18th Dec, 

 471 ; and B (1) in the year 17th Dec, 464, to 16th Dec, 463. If, then, A 

 belonged to the fourteenth year, B (1) would have been in the twenty- 



