mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
TJ Archive </tj/archive/> > Volume 17 Issue 3 <index.asp> > Fall of the
Sothic theory: Egyptian chronology revisited

December 2003

Fall of the Sothic theory: Egyptian chronology revisited

by Damien F. Mackey <#author>

Summary

Current Egyptian chronology consists of 30 dynasties, as compiled by the
3^rd century BC Egyptian priest Manetho, chronologically bound by the
Sothic theory proposed by Eduard Meyer of the Berlin School of
Egyptology in 1904. But this Sothic theory, based on a 1,460 year cycle
for the star Sirius (Greek /Sothis/), contradicts the dates found by
Theon, an Alexandrian astronomer of the late 4th century AD; and the
3^rd century AD Roman author, Censorinus, never connected the 1,460-year
period with Sirius. The celebrated Claudius Ptolemy failed to mention
this link, and more recently, Egyptologists like Maspero, von Bissing,
Jéquier and the great Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie, also rejected
Meyer?s mathematical system. Of Meyer?s four Sothic dates, the oldest
has been abandoned and there is uncertainty about the second. As a
result, Sir Alan Gardiner referred to Egyptian history as ?merely a
collection of rags and tatters?. The doors are open for the
reconstruction of Egyptian chronology.

The ?Great Year?

The Egyptian priest Manetho (3^rd century BC), in his /Ægyptica/,^1
<#r1> has left us a collection of 30 dynasties of pre-Alexander Egyptian
history; dynasties badly in need of a cementing chronology. It was
Richard Lepsius^2 <#r2> who had first suggested that the references in
Egyptian documents to the ?rising of Sirius? (Greek /Sothis/, Egyptian
/Sopdet/) might offer some clues for the astronomical calculation. This
idea was taken up and developed by Eduard Meyer?with the support of
Mahler, Borchardt and Weill?who in 1904 crystallised his Sothic theory
in a classic text.^3 <#r3> Meyer had recognized the fact that the
Egyptian civil year of 365 days was entirely an artificial one (?/ein
absolut kunstliches Gebilde/?), since, as he said, neither month, nor
season, nor even year, corresponded to any natural period.^4 <#r4> He
referred to this vague year as ?/Wandeljahr/? (wandering year) in
relation to the Sothic (Julian^5 <#r5> ) year of 365 1/4 days; and he
rightly estimated that the Egyptian year was late by a day every four
years with regard to the Julian year, and by about three-quarters of an
hour less with regard to the Gregorian year.

The heliacal rising^6 <#r6> of the Dog Star, Sirius (its first visible
rising shortly before sunrise), mentioned in various Egyptian documents
(as /peret Sopdet/), would recur on the Egyptian New Year?s Day, at the
same observational site, every 1,460 years (365 x 4). This 1,460 year
span was known in the Classical era as the ?Great Year?.

Meyer?s *fictitious* long-range calendar

But Meyer?s belief that the ancient Egyptians had actually used this
Sothic period of 1,460 years as a kind of long-range calendar is pure
supposition, with no evidence in support of it. In fact Meyer had to go
to Classical texts to get some of his key information: to Theon, an
Alexandrian astronomer of the late 4^th century AD, and to the 3^rd
century AD Roman author, Censorinus. According to Meyer?s interpretation
of the Sothic data as provided by Censorinus, a coincidence had occurred
between the heliacal rising of Sirius and New Year?s Day in the 100^th
year before Censorinus wrote his book, /De Die Natali Liber/, c. AD
140.^7 <#r7> Meyer was therefore able to determine from there, using
multiples of 1,460, his Sothic series of AD 140, 1320 BC, 2780 BC and
4240 BC. However, Censorinus had not actually connected the 1,460-year
period with Sirius; his evidence contradicts that of Theon, according to
whom the conclusion of a 1,460-year period had occurred in the 5^th year
of the emperor Augustus?26 BC, as opposed to Censorinus? testimony that
a Great Year had commenced in c. AD 140.

Scholars have rightly puzzled over the fact, in relation to the
Censorinus data, that if one Great Sothic Year of 1,460 years really had
ended, and another begun in c. AD 140, why did that most celebrated of
astronomers, Claudius Ptolemy, fail to mention it? As currently
explained, this astronomical event must have occurred in the very
mid-period (c. AD 127?151) of Ptolemy?s prolific writing.

Since, as Meyer presumed, the Egyptian civil calendar could have been
invented only on one of those occasions of coincidence between the civil
and Julian years, and further believing that the second earliest Sothic
period of 2780 BC fell in the 4^th dynasty when the civil calendar was
known already to have been in use,^8 <#r8>,9 <#r9> he concluded that the
calendar must have been introduced at the earlier Sothic period
beginning in 4240 BC;^9 <#r9>,10 <#r10> a date that could also
accommodate within it those Egyptian kingdoms pre-dating the 4^th
dynasty. Meyer therefore regarded 4240 BC as being a ?/total certainty/?
(?/volliger Sicherheit/?) for Egypt?s?and indeed the world?s?first
mathematically fixed date.^11 <#r11>

Temple at Luxor

Composite images of the Temple at Luxor showing the avenue of the
sphinxes, and an x-ray image of Sirius B (which is stronger in the x-ray
wavelengths than its companion star Sirius A?Sothis).

Additional Sothic dates

This absolute chronology of Meyer?s was in turn filled in with a
relative chronology based on the data provided by a handful of Sothic
documents combined with calculations of the reign lengths of the various
kings as given in the dynastic sequences and the monuments. For
instance, with respect to the 12^th dynasty, there was the Illahûn (or
Kahun) Papyrus, which mentioned a Sothic rising in year 7 of an un-named
king whom scholars identify, on purely epigraphical [the study of
ancient inscriptions] grounds, as Sesostris III of the 12^th dynasty.
With the end of the 12^th dynasty fixed at 1786 BC by a combination of
such Sothic dating and regnal calculation, and the beginning of the New
Kingdom (18^th dynasty) similarly fixed at 1580 BC, there remains a mere
two centuries for the intervening /Second Intermediate Period/ of
Egyptian history.

Of the various major Egyptian Sothic documents, such as the Illahûn
Papyrus, the Elephantine Stele, and the Ebers Papyrus, the latter?famous
for its information about medical practices in Egypt?also contains
reference to a Sothic rising in the 9^th year of another un-named king,
who has been identified as Amenhotep I of the 18^th dynasty.^12 <#r12>

Theon had also left a much-discussed statement informing us that 1,605
years had elapsed since the ?/Era of Menophres/? until the end of the
Era of Augustus, or the beginning of the Era of Diocletian?c. 285 BC, it
was not difficult for chronologists to determine when this supposed
?/Era of Menophres/? occurred. Thus R. Long wrote: ?From [Theon?s]
quotation we gather that the era of Menophres (/apo Menophreos/) lasted
from circa 1321?1316 BC to AD 285 or the duration of 1,605 years, i.e.
from Emperor Diocletian back to someone or something designated
?Menophreõs?.?^13 <#r13> Unfortunately Theon did not tell us who or what
?Menophres? was.

Meyer opted for ?who? rather than ?what?, and chose to identify him as
Rameses I /Menpehtire/.^14 <#r14> Rameses I /Menpehtire/, founder of the
19^th dynasty, conveniently reigned for only about a year. However, his
throne name, /Menpehtire/, is not a perfect linguistic equivalent of
/Menophres/.

Biot preferred the interpretation that ?/Menophres/? instead represented
the important city of Memphis, in its ancient pronunciation of
/Men-nofir/;^15 <#r15> a suggestion that would later impress M. Rowton,
who added his own refinement, following Olympiodorus, that the Sothic
cycle was based upon observations actually made at Memphis.^16 <#r16>

Name-ring No. 29

A further /sighter/ for all these dates?though established well before
Meyer?was what had become, since François Champollion?s decipherment of
the hieroglyphs, an unshakable pillar of Egyptian chronology, seemingly
tied to the Bible. This was Champollion?s identification of pharaoh
Shoshenq I of the 22^nd (Libyan) dynasty as the biblical /Shishak/ who
despoiled the Temple of Yahweh in the 5^th year of Solomon?s son,
Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25
<http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1KINGS+14:25&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on>).
Champollion thought he had read in Shoshenq?s Palestinian conquests from
the Bubasite Portal inscription at Karnak of an actual conquest of
Jerusalem. He interpreted name-ring No. 29 as ?/Ioudahamelek/?, which he
took to be the name ?/Judah/? followed by ?/the kingdom/?, /yadhamelek/,
as ?/the kingdom of the Jews/?.^17 <#r17> Champollion?s reading of name
No. 29 was subsequently challenged by H. Brugsch, who made a new and
detailed study of the list. Brugsch identified names both before and
after No. 29 as belonging to Israel as well as to Judah, and therefore
felt that its position in the list contradicted Champollion?s
reading.^18 <#r18> The now generally accepted view is that proposed by
M. Muller: namely, that No. 29 stands for a place, /Yad-ha(m)melek/.^19
<#r19> Whilst this place has not been successfully identified, its
position in the list suggests that it refers to a location in the
northwest coastal plain of the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.

From the above one can see that Egyptian chronology and its associated
Sothic theory have been built upon a host of assumptions.

Earlier rejection of the Sothic system

Some of the early Egyptologists, like Maspero and von Bissing, rejected
Meyer?s mathematical system out of hand. So did Jéquier, who wrote as
early as 1913:

?The Sothic periods, far from simplifying the chronological
calculations for us, have no other effect than to introduce a new
element of uncertainty and perhaps a new opportunity for error.?^20
<#r20>

But most historians were not chronologists, and they demurred to the
Sothic calculations of the experts from the Berlin School. Mathematics
can however be a hard master. The great Egyptologist, Sir Flinders
Petrie, who was strongly attracted to the Sothic idea, nevertheless
thought that the mere 100 years assigned by this scheme to the Hyksos
occupation of Egypt was far too short to accord with the monumental
data. So he took the liberty of interspersing an extra Sothic period of
1,460 years. Eventually common sense prevailed and Petrie dropped this
wild idea altogether.^21 <#r21>

Perpetuation of Sothic error

But academia has stubbornly clung to the Sothic system. After Meyer?s
original enunciation of Sothic theory, its chief supporter appears to
have been the influential Rockefeller-funded Professor J. H. Breasted of
the University of Chicago, who, thanks to his enthusiastic promotion of
the theory really set it in academic rock. It was Breasted who, in a
classic textbook,^22 <#r22> included an annex, ?Chronological Table of
Kings?, in which he boldly proposed that all the Egyptian dates in the
table marked with an asterisk ?/are astronomically fixed/?; fixed that
is apparently by reference to Meyer?s Sothic calculations. Breasted?s
textbook, which incorporated Meyer?s figure of 4240 BC for Egypt?s
presumed unification under Menes, still forms the basis for most modern
historical syntheses. Breasted even went so far as to specify the
precise day for each of two events that occurred during pharaoh Thutmose
III?s first Asiatic campaign: namely, his crossing of the Egyptian
frontier ?about the 19^th of April, 1479 BC?, and his going ?into camp
on the plain of Megiddo on the 14^th of May? of that same year.^23 <#r23>

/Figure 1./ Typical textbook Egyptian dynastic history (dynasties
1?30).^29 <#r29>

Old Kingdom (Dynasties 1?6)			3150?2200 BC

First Intermediate period (Dynasties 7?11)	2200?2040 BC

Middle Kingdom (Dynasties 11?14)		2040?1674 BC

Second Intermediate period (Hyksos) 
(Dynasties 14?17)				1674?1553 BC

New Kingdom (Dynasties 18?20)			1552?1069 BC

Third Intermediate period (Dynasties 21?24)	1069?702 BC

Late Period (Dynasties 25?26)			747?525 BC

First Persian Period (Dynasty 27)		525?404 BC

(Dynasties 28?30)				404?343 BC

Current chronology

It should be noted that things chronological have not changed much to
this day, for N. Grimal gives that very same year of 1479 as the first
year of Thutmose III?s reign.^24 <#r24> Grimal?s date too, of 1785 BC
for the close of Egypt?s 12^th dynasty, is completely Sothic. ?Feelings
that border on panic seize scholars who trust the Sothic theory when
doubt is cast upon it? wrote David Down, adding that:

?[Professor] Lynn Rose quotes Sir Alan Gardiner as saying, ?To
abandon 1786 BC as the year when Dyn XII ended would be to cast
adrift from our only firm anchor, a course that would have serious
consequences for the history, not of Egypt alone, but of the entire
Middle East (JNES 94-4-237)?.?^25 <#r25>

But not only has Meyer?s ?/erste sichere Datum/? (first sure date) of
4240 BC long since been abandoned?with c. 3100 BC now favoured as the
beginning date for Egyptian dynastic history?even his second Sothic date
of 2780 is looking shaky. As P. O?Mara has correctly stated, this figure
of 2780 has been re-worked frequently because of what he calls ?numerous
technical complexities, with varying results ranging from 2781 BC to
2772 BC?.^26 <#r26>

What is quite firmly held to this day by historians is the third
?Sothic? date, c. 1320, for the ?Era of Menophres?. Grimal?s recent
figure of 1295?1294 BC, for instance, is not so very far removed from
1320.^26 <#r26> And this, despite the fact that as early as 1928 ? ? it
was obvious that Meyer had by then completely discarded the Menophres
theory?,^27 <#r27> by moving the 19^th dynasty forward somewhat from his
original date. That many Egyptologists have continued to be far from
comfortable with this received chronological structure is apparent from
the testimony of the renowned Sir Alan Gardiner:

?What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a
collection of rags and tatters.?^28 <#r28>

Nevertheless, it was also Gardiner who?as we saw above?had warned of the
consequences of abandoning the Sothic anchor dates.

Conclusion

The Sothic theory has absolutely bedevilled efforts to establish proper
synchronisms throughout antiquity, especially when it is considered that
the chronology of the other nations is usually assessed with reference
to Egypt. In reference to my thesis on the Sothic cycles (Ref. 5), Dr
Grognard remarked: ?It is important to show the weaknesses or errors in
our understanding of a theory in order to leave our minds free to think
of /a more acceptable alternative/? [emphasis added]. This should be
taken as an encouragement for the reconstruction of Egyptian chronology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Damien Mackey* has a Bachelor of Arts (majoring in ancient history and
Latin) from the University of Tasmania and a diploma in librarianship
from Hobart Tech. He then left librarianship to do missionary work in
Canada, USA and Britain. Afterwards, parish work in Sydney included 15
years as a public school Scripture teacher. He subsequently received a
/cum laude/ degree in philosophy and return to librarianship at
Premier?s Department of Hieroglyphs at Macquarie University which lead
to his MA (?Sothic Star Theory ??) at the University of Sydney. He
continues to work as a librarian (UTS, TAFE, Canterbury City Council)
and for the government in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Damien received the Bernard and Lotka Ferster prize in Hebrew as a
prelude to a current doctoral thesis based on the era of King Hezekiah.
Return to top <#top>.

Recommended Resources

The Puzzle of Ancient Man (Softcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-2-080>
The Puzzle of Ancient Man (Softcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-2-080>
Shows that man has always been highly intelligent.

Chronology of the Old Testament (Hardcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-097>
Chronology of the Old Testament (Hardcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-097>
A standard chronology of the Old Testament.

Streams of Civilization, Volume 1 (Hardcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-1-033>
Streams of Civilization, Volume 1 (Hardcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-1-033>

The Annals of the World (Hardcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-107>
The Annals of the World (Hardcover)
</onlinestore/gatewaytrack.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-107>
For the first time in 300 years?one of the most remarkable works of
history is available in English!

References

1. Gardiner, A., /Egypt of the Pharaohs/, Oxford University press,
Oxford, p. 46, 1961. Sir Alan Gardiner wrote that what we now have
of Manetho is ?only a garbled abridgement in the works of the
Christian chronographers (i.e. Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus)
? .? Return to text <#f1>.
2. Lepsius, R., /In Königsbuch der Alten Ägypter/, Besser, Berlin,
1858. Return to text <#f2>.
3. Meyer, E., /Ägyptische Chronologie/, Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Berlin, 1904. Return to text <#f3>.
4. Meyer, Ref. 3, p. 4. Return to text <#f4>.
5. Mackey, D.F., M.A. thesis: /Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian
Calendar, Appendix A/, 1994. Named after Julius Caesar: a purely
conventional unit of 365.25 days, introduced for calendric
motivations and to be close to the tropical year. Sidereal year:
time interval for one revolution of the earth about the sun
relative to the stars, viz. 365 days, 6 hours and 9 minutes.
Return to text <#f5>.
6. For part of the year, the brightness of the sun will prevent
visual observation of stars on the ecliptic plane. The first
appearance of the star during the year (just visible before dawn)
is called the heliacal rising. Return to text <#f6>.
7. Meyer, Ref. 3, p. 28. Return to text <#f7>.
8. Meyer, Ref. 3, p. 43. Return to text <#f8>.
9. Meyer, E., /Nachträge zur ägyptischen Chronologie/, Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Berlin, p. 12, 1907. Return to text <#f9>.
10. Meyer, Ref. 3, p. 41. Return to text <#f10>.
11. Meyer, Ref. 3, p. 44. Return to text <#f11>.
12. Mackey, Ref. 5, /Part Three A/, pp. 78?131. Return to text <#f12>.
13. Long, R., A re-examination of the Sothic Chronology of Egypt,
/Orientalia/ *43*:269, 1974. Return to text <#f13>.
14. Meyer, Ref. 3, pp. 29?30. Return to text <#f14>.
15. Biot, J., Sur la période sothiaque, p. 21. Return to text <#f15>.
16. Rowton, M., Mesopotamian chronology and the ?Era of Menophres?,
/IRAQ/ *VIII*: 94?110; 109, 1946; n.1 with reference to
Olympiodorus (Aristotle, Meteor, 25, 1). Return to text <#f16>.
17. Champollion, J., /Lettres écrites d?Égypte et de Nubie en 1828 et
1829/, 2^nd Edition, Didier, Paris, 1868; p. 80, Septième Lettre.
Return to text <#f17>.
18. Brugsch, E., /Geographischen Inschriften/ *II*:56ff, cited by
Poole, R.; in: Smith, W. (Ed.), /A Dictionary of the Bible/, 3
vols, John Murray, London, vol. 3, p. 1293, 1863. Return to text
<#f18>.
19. Muller, M., /Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology/
*10*:81, 1888. Return to text <#f19>.
20. Jequier, G., /Histoire de la Civilisation Egyptienne: Des origines
a la conquète d?Alexandre/, Nouvelle edition revue, Payot, Paris,
pp. 26?27, 1923 (my translation). Return to text <#f20>.
21. Petrie, F., /Researches in Sina/, E.P. Dutton, New York, ch. xii,
1906; Petrie, F., /A History of Egypt/, 7^th Ed., Vol. I, add.
xvii., xviii, 1912. Return to text <#f21>.
22. Breasted, J. H., /A History of Egypt/, 2^nd Ed., Scribner, New
York, 1924. Return to text <#f22>.
23. Breasted, Ref. 22, pp. 285, 287. Return to text <#f23>.
24. Grimal, N., /A History of Ancient Egypt/, Blackwell, Oxford, p.
392, 1994. Return to text <#f24>.
25. Down, D., University scholar attacks the Sothic Cycle,
/Archaeological Diggings/ *3*(2):23?24, April/May, 1996. Return to
text <#f25>.
26. O?Mara, P., /The Chronology of the Palermo and Turin Canons/, La
Canada, p. 37, 1980. Return to text <#f26>.
27. Rowton, M.B., /Mesopotamian Chronology/, p. 110, n.1, 1946. Return
to text <#f27>.
28. Gardiner, Ref. 1, p. 53. Return to text <#f28>.
29. Grimal, Ref. 24, Appendix: Chronology of Ancient Egypt, pp.
389?395. Return to text <#f29>.

Gospelcom.net: Alliance Member <http://www.gospelcom.net>
ECFA <http://www.ecfa.org>