Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology of the Second Millennium BC*

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Journal of Egyptian History

Abstract Egyptian dates are widely used for fixing the chronologies of surrounding countries in the Ancient Near East. But the astronomical basis of Egyptian chronology is shakier than generally assumed. The moon dates of the Middle and New Kingdom are here re-examined with the help of experiences gained from Babylonian astronomical observations. The astronomical basis of the chronology of the New Kingdom is at best ambiguous. The conventional date of Thutmose III’s year 1 in 1479 BC agrees with the raw moon dates, but it has been argued by several Egyptologists that those dates should be amended by one day, and then the unique match is 1504 BC. The widely accepted identification of a moon date in year 52 of Ramesses II, which leads to an accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC, is by no means certain. In my opinion that accession year remains nothing more than one of several possibilities. If one opts for a shortened Horemhab reign, dating Ramesses II to 1290 BC gives a better compromise chronology. But the most convincing astronomical chronology is a long one: Ramesses II in 1315 BC, Thutmose III in 1504 BC. It is favored by Amarna-Hittite synchronisms and a solar eclipse in the time of Muršili II. The main counter-argument is that this chronology is at least 10–15 years higher than what one calculates from the Assyrian King List and the Kassite synchronisms. For the Middle Kingdom on the other hand, among the disputed dates of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III one combination turns out to be reasonably secure: Sesostris III’s year 1 in 1873/72 BC and Amenemhet III’s 30 years later.

Affiliations: 1: Klosters peterj.huber@bluewin.ch

10.1163/187416611X618721
/content/journals/10.1163/187416611x618721
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187416611x618721
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/187416611x618721
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187416611x618721
2011-01-01
2016-12-11

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Journal of Egyptian History — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation