246 P7^oceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



in which the dates run by the last year of the late king till the end of the 

 financial year, at which point the 2nd year of his successor begins. This also 

 gives an additional reason for rejecting the theory of a Thoth year, for 

 Papyrus B is dated on the 7th of Thoth, and would thus, on this hypothesis, 

 belong to the very beginning of the year. The years accordingly were Nisan 

 years, and B (2) is the proper reading of Papyrus B. But it is not yet 

 determined whether we should assign A to the 14th and B to the 20th year, 

 or A to the 15th and B to the 21st year. This point is of considerable 

 importance, for, if the 14th year of Xerxes began on the 21st of Msan, 471, 

 his first year would have begun on the 1st of Nisan, 484. According to the 

 Canon the first year of Xerxes was 23rd December, 486, to 22nd December, 

 485, which means that according to Baylonian counting it began on the 1st of 

 Msan, 485. Hence in these papyri the reign would have been post-dated, and 

 in the canon — contrary to its usual practice for Babylonian and Persian 

 kings — ante-dated. This is m agreement with the result obtained by 

 E. Meyer {op. cit.) for Babylonian documents ; for them it is possibly true, 

 though, I think, not proved. But in these Egyptian documents it has been 

 seen that the higher numbers are generally right, and so we should almost 

 certainly assign Papyrus A to the 15th, and Papyrus B to the 21st, year. 

 Since, then, the 15th year of Xerxes began on the 1st of Msan, 471, his first 

 year, according to these documents, began on the 1st of Nisan, 485, and his 

 21st year on the 1st of Nisan, 465. A few months later he was murdered, but 

 the remainder of this year was still denoted by the number 21, or was called 

 the accession year of Artaxerxes. The first year of Artaxerxes was counted 

 from the next 1st of Nisan (464) ; the date given by the Canon is consistent 

 with this, for it counts his reign from the 17th of December, 465. It is thus 

 evident that the reign of Artaxerxes was post-dated ; and that it was so is 

 also proved by a comparison of Papyri B and E, for according to E the 16 th 

 of November, 446, was in the 19th year ; hence the 19th year began on the 1st 

 of Nisan 446, and the first year must have been counted from the 1st of 

 Nisan, 464, but Papyrus B belongs to January, 464, and hence was written 

 before the beginning of the first year, though after the accession of Artaxerxes. 

 It is generally supposed that Artaxerxes died in the winter of 425/4, and 

 hence that he did not complete his 40th year. Documents, however — 

 cuneiform tablets — are said to exist bearing dates up to the 11th month of 

 his 41st year ; whence Meyer deduces that the first year of Artaxerxes was, 

 according to the documents, 465/4. This is not in accordance with these 

 Egyptian papyri, and I should prefer to doubt the interpretation of the 

 tablets. 



From Papyrus J we learn that the 16th December, 416, was in the 



