Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Eisenlohr Egyptian Chronology PSBA 1895

    Uploaded by

    Mohamed Sabra
    32 views5 pages
    Eisenlohr Egyptian Chronology PSBA 1895

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Eisenlohr Egyptian Chronology PSBA 1895

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    32 views5 pages

    Eisenlohr Egyptian Chronology PSBA 1895

    Uploaded by

    Mohamed Sabra
    Eisenlohr Egyptian Chronology PSBA 1895

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    PSBA 89S, Hi (postal by fleet 280- 283 MP” vorgtigl ee Mochabt * dey Viger, Hellmut Brunner BAUNNER GOLLECTION [Fa wiahny Lapeer Anrnetes “eg! f MACQUARI UNIVERSITY, Liar, Mo522468 EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. WARNINGS. By Pror. Dr. AUG. Eisextour, Heidelberg. Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaology,” December, 1895. The last but one number of the Zeitschrift fiir Aegypt. Sprache, und Alterthums Kunde (Bd. XXXII, Zweites Heft, S. 99 ff.) contains an article from Dr. Eduard Mahler of Vienna, “ Materialien zur Chronologie der alten Aegypter (Chronologisché Bestimmung der Regierungszeit der Ramessiden),” wherein the author claims to have fixed chronologically (festgelegt, Zc. S. 105) by calculatory deduction the dates from Amosis to Ramses VI (1575-1198 B.c.). Although in a paper read at the Oriental Congress at Geneva, entitled: “ Die Festlegung historischer Daten durch die Hiilfe der Astronomie.” I have, while gratefully acknowledging the help of astronomers as Biot, Ideler, Oppolzer, Wisclicenus, and also of Dr. Mahler to fix chronological dates, expressively cautioned against the use of uncertain bases to build-chronological reckonings upon, and especially refuted the consequences drawn by Dr. Mahler from some dates for the reign of Tutmes III, and Ramses II, in the Aegyptische Zeitschrift, XXVUU, 2, p. 97 ff, and XXVIII, 1, p. 32 ff, still some time will elapse before the proceedings of the Geneva Congress are printed. To prevent people from being misled by statements they are unable to verify, as, for example, I already see Dr. Mahler's deductions have been accepted by Prof. Ebers (Beilage sur Adlg. Zeitung, 1891, No. 89), I may be allowed to give a short extract of what I explained more in detail in my Geneva paper. The time of Tutmes III is based by Dr. Mahler (deg. Zuttschrift, 1889, S. 103) on the commemoration of two new moons in two consecutive years, the 23rd and 24th of this king, the first men- tioned in the Karnak inscription (Deném., III, Pl. 32, 13) on the 21 Pachons of the 23rd year, the second (Mariette, Karnak, Pl. 12, 7) on the 30 Mechir of the 24th year of Tutmes III. The first of these two dates is in the text brought into connexion with the day of the king’s accession to the throne, which is reported as the 4th of the month of Pachons. The king’s death is known from the Hellmut - 202. “inseription in the tomb of Amenembeb (found and published by, 2 Egyptian Chronology. [281] Ebers, Deutsch Morgl. Gesellschaft, Bd. XXX, p. 391 ff.), as having happened on the last of the Phamenoth in the s4th year of his reign. Dr. Mahler, understanding all these dates in the fixed year {beginning with the heliac rising of the Dog Star on the 2oth July) finds on the sth April (= 21 Pachons), 1481 8.c., and on the rsth January (= 30 Mechir), 1479, B.c., the mentioned new moons in two consecutive years of Tutmes III, who therefore would ascend the throne zoth May, 1503 B.c., and die the 14th February, 1449 B.c. ‘As I am (contrary to Dr. Mahler's supposition) convinced that dates of historical events, and such we have undoubtedly in the annals of Tutmes III, as in the biography of Amenemheb, cannot be understood otherwise than in the vague year, I could not accept these two days of new moons, on which he bases his chronology. When I communicated this to the author, he answered me by letter, that understanding the given dates of 21 Pachons and 30 Mechir of the vague year, we should find in the list of new moons for the 16th May, 1482 B.c., and the 24th February, 1480 n.c., likewise two corresponding new moons, which afford for the beginning of Tutmes Lil's reign, 1504 B.C. instead of 1503, so that Tutmes III began his seign after the vague year 4 Pachons = 4th May jul. 1504, and died the goth Phamenoth = 18th May, 1450 8.c. While in this manner, with the necessary correction for the days of the fixed year with those of the vague year, I came to a similar result for the time of Tutmes III, fully acknowledging the value of Dr. Mahler’s new method of making use of the tablets of new moons for chronology, I cannot accept in the same way the other results of his paper. We are prohibited from drawing any chrono- logical conclusions from the Smith Calendar so long as the royal cartouche therein cannot be explained. That it cannot be that of Amenophis I, because the last sign is surely not 4a (see Praceedings, Vol. XIU, p. 598; Prof, Erman in Westear, p. 56, has proved nothing to the contrary; the sign [Sineha 203] is quite differently written from the last sign in the royal cartouche), 1 ought not to have to repeat. So every conclusion drawn from that cartouche is more than arbitrary. We come now to the weakest part of Dr. Mahler’s explanation, his fixing the time of Ramses II. First he asserts that the representation on the ceiling of the Ramesseum (Leps., Denkm., III, 170, 1703 Brugsch, Monuments, Pl. V, VI) reports the beginning of a Sothic period, which was celebrated in the goth year of [282] Egyptian Chronology. 3 Ramses II: Now we know for certain from the hall at Silsile, that a festival was celebrated in the 3oth year of the reign of Ramses II, the so-called Triakonteride (hierogl. ] <=

    You might also like